Uncategorized

Dr Mactar Seck

The African Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was initiated by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) in Nairobi over a decade ago. Since then, it has played a significant role in increasing internet access in Africa. In 2006, internet access in Africa was a mere 2.6 percent, compared to Europe’s 39 percent. However, by 2022, Africa’s internet access has significantly improved, reaching 40 percent. This progress is a testament to the importance of the African IGF and its efforts in bridging the digital divide.

Dr. Seck stresses the importance of ECA’s role in initiating the African IGF and the need to increase African representation in global internet governance. Currently, African participation in the Global IGF is relatively low. To address this issue, Dr. Seck believes there’s a need for better organization of the African Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) and the secretariat to involve more participants in the global IGF process. The ECA has set up a task force to propose ways to improve African participation in the African and global IGF.

Capacity-building programs are also advocated by Dr. Seck to improve the knowledge and skills of parliamentarians, government members, and the technical community in internet governance. The ECA is developing capacity-building programs for parliamentarians and planning programs for the technical community to discuss technical issues related to the IGF.

While the importance of the IGF is recognized, there is a need to improve governments’ understanding of its purpose and function. The IGF is not a decision-making platform, but rather a forum for exchange and discussion. Therefore, there is a need to provide more information to governments about the IGF to enhance their understanding and engagement.

The impact of digital technology on GDP is another area of concern. A study is being prepared to measure the impact of digital technology on GDP. However, there is a lack of appropriate tools to measure the impacts of digital services like FinTech, e-commerce platforms, and e-government services. Ministers of finance need a better understanding of the impact of digital technology on GDP.

Government participation in the IGF is also a challenge. Most of the participants in the IGF come from civil society, the private sector, and academia, with limited representation from the government side. Efforts should be made to address this imbalance and encourage greater government participation in the IGF.

The establishment of a unified network, known as “One Network,” is another topic of discussion. However, there are challenges around various laws and regulations between countries, as well as between Anglophone and Francophone countries. The African free trade area and the African digital single market could facilitate the establishment of one network, taking into account regional laws and regulations.

Lastly, regulation and political commitment have an impact on the cost of digital inclusion. While the necessary infrastructure is available, the cost of digital inclusion can be affected by regulation and political commitment. Operators define the costs, and therefore it is important to address regulation and ensure political commitment for affordable digital inclusion.

In conclusion, the African Internet Governance Forum has made significant strides in improving internet access in Africa. However, efforts must continue to enhance African representation and participation in global internet governance. Capacity-building programs, improved understanding among governments, measurement of the impact of digital technology on GDP, increased government participation, and addressing regional laws and regulations are all crucial steps in achieving these goals. Affordable and inclusive digital access can only be achieved through a comprehensive and collaborative approach.

Hurry Ali Madi

Africa’s young population and its rapid urbanization present a tremendous opportunity for digital transformation. Being the youngest and most rapidly urbanizing continent, there is significant potential for leveraging digital technologies to drive economic growth and development in Africa. This includes improving education, creating job opportunities, and addressing social and economic challenges through technology.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is a recognised platform for discussing the potential and challenges of the internet. It provides an avenue for stakeholders to come together and discuss various aspects of internet governance, including digital opportunities and challenges. Through inclusive discussions, the IGF facilitates knowledge exchange, allowing for the development of effective policies and strategies.

Leaders play a crucial role in driving digital transformation. They must demonstrate commitment, willingness to change, and a willingness to experiment. By leading by example, leaders can inspire others to embrace digital technologies and drive innovation. This transformative mindset is vital to adapt to the rapidly changing digital landscape and ensure that organisations and societies can thrive in the digital era.

Improving digital skills is essential for achieving digital transformation. By equipping individuals with the necessary knowledge and skills, they can fully participate in the digital economy and leverage technology to address social and economic challenges. Quality education plays a significant role in enhancing digital skills, and it should be prioritised to prepare individuals for the digital age.

Collaboration and coordination are crucial for progress in digital transformation. Stakeholders from various sectors need to work together, sharing resources, knowledge, and expertise to drive innovation and overcome challenges. By promoting partnerships, collaborations, and knowledge sharing, the collective impact of digital transformation efforts can be maximised.

Creating common digital infrastructure and developing local content and language are essential for ensuring affordability and accessibility of digital devices for diverse communities. By producing digital devices locally, affordability can be improved, making them more accessible to a wider range of people. Additionally, developing local content in indigenous languages makes digital content more understandable and relatable to local communities, further enhancing accessibility.

In conclusion, Africa’s young and rapidly urbanizing population presents a unique opportunity for digital transformation. Through initiatives like the Internet Governance Forum, leaders demonstrating commitment, improving digital skills, fostering collaboration, and creating common digital infrastructure and local content, Africa can harness the potential of technology to drive economic growth and development, address social and economic challenges, and create a more inclusive and sustainable future.

Onika Mwakatumbula

The analysis highlights several challenges and potential solutions for internet connectivity in Africa. It argues that Africa needs to go beyond basic internet connection and aim for meaningful connectivity because COVID-19 has exposed deep inequalities and gaps in basic connection standards. The vision for digital transformation in Africa requires more than just basic connectivity.

Government and private sector investments are deemed necessary for infrastructure development to improve internet connectivity. The Moonshot Report estimates that Africa needs $109 billion in infrastructure investment. It also points out that there are still many areas in Africa that lack any coverage, and infrastructure investment can address this issue.

The high cost and lack of affordability of smart devices are major barriers to internet connectivity. People in the low-income quintiles in Africa are spending 40% to 60% of their average household income to purchase one smart device. Additionally, high digital taxation is seen as a burden on the sector, further impacting affordability.

The current definition of a connected person is considered inadequate and needs revision. Currently, a connected person is defined as someone who accesses the internet once every three months. However, the analysis argues that daily access and unlimited data should be the goal.

The need for public access solutions to supplement individual internet access is highlighted. Affordability is a major issue affecting internet access, and public access can help bridge the gap for individuals who cannot afford their own connection.

The cost of internet connectivity is a significant challenge in the region, making it unaffordable for many. The analysis states that 1 gig of data at no more than 2% of the average monthly income is still unaffordable for many Africans. South Africa meets this standard only for the top 20% income earners, highlighting the economic inequality.

To make internet connectivity more affordable, market competition needs to be promoted. Currently, many African economies operate as duopolies, which hinders affordability. Increasing competition in the market can lead to lower prices and better availability of internet services.

Community networks and public access options are seen as potential solutions to close the economic digital divide. Existing community networks in Africa have a high meaningful activity score, indicating their effectiveness. Different digital technologies and financial models have been tested and proven successful in these networks.

The analysis identifies the need for proper implementation of policies promoting infrastructure sharing. Currently, infrastructure sharing across utilities, especially with roads and electricity, is not well-implemented. Examples of countries struggling with implementation include Mozambique, Ghana, and Nigeria.

Gender equality and the inclusion of women in the digital economy and revolution are highlighted. Women who were connected during COVID-19 were able to weather the loss of income and pivot to online opportunities. Excluding women from the digital economy has a significant economic impact, with government losses estimated at about a trillion dollars.

The analysis criticizes poor practices of adopting digital taxation from other jurisdictions, which negatively impact affordability. Digital taxation has mostly been consumer-facing, affecting the cost of internet use. For example, Nigeria has 27 unique taxes that contribute to the high cost of internet services.

Evidence-based research is deemed essential for effective policy-making. It is believed that evidence-based policy-making will lead to better results and effectiveness in improving internet connectivity.

Notably, Uganda’s use of Universal Service Funds to supply smart tablets to female-led households is seen as a positive step towards promoting gender equality and digital inclusion. Additionally, the country’s development of a curriculum to train policy-makers on centering gender in ICT policies is also viewed positively.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the need for Africa to go beyond basic internet connectivity and aim for meaningful connectivity. Government and private sector investments, affordable smart devices, revised definitions of a connected person, public access solutions, market competition, infrastructure sharing, gender equality, evidence-based research, and intentional inclusion of women in the digital revolution are crucial for improving internet connectivity in Africa.

Audience

The discussion on internet governance in Africa covered a wide range of topics and highlighted several key points. One crucial aspect was the need for youth empowerment and representation in national and regional Internet Governance Forums (IGFs). Emmanuel Vitus, the convener of the Togo IGF and the coordinator of the West African School of Internet Governance, played a significant role in this regard.

The importance of linguistic diversity and inclusive learning was also emphasized. It was argued that language should not be a barrier to the inclusion of African youth in internet governance discussions. Africa consists of 29 French-speaking countries and about six Portuguese-speaking countries. Efforts should be made to ensure that all African youth have equal access to these forums.

Another area of interest was measuring the impact of young fellows after their term at the national and regional level. The discussion revolved around evaluating the effectiveness of youth fellowship programs and finding better ways to assess their impact.

The role of youth advocacy and global communication in internet governance was also discussed. It emphasized the need to amplify the voices of young people on the global platform and convey their messages effectively.

The United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) was recognized for its efforts to expand inclusion through languages. However, it was highlighted that 58% of internet content is in English, indicating the need for more diversity and inclusion in internet governance discussions.

The increase in electrification in rural areas, specifically in Tanzania, was seen as a positive development. It was noted that over a span of 6-7 years, electrification reached 3000 villages in Tanzania. However, political will is needed to further increase electrification in rural areas.

The underrepresentation of Africa’s private sector was also discussed. The Global North was described as more advanced in this regard, while the Global South, particularly Africa, requires more organization and participation. Efforts from UNECA, specifically Dr. Mata’s sake and the late Makan Faye, were acknowledged, with a call for increased engagement and support from the private sector.

The potential of the internet to increase per capita GDP was explored through UNECA’s study. It concluded that the full deployment of the internet could significantly boost per capita GDP in Africa, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing internet infrastructure development.

The role of government engagement in understanding and valuing the importance of the internet for economic well-being was highlighted. Some governments were noted to have shut down the internet due to disagreements with social media posts, indicating the need for better government understanding and support.

The use of TV white spaces and solar panels for powering data centers was regarded as a way to enhance technological reach and sustainability. TV white spaces, which are dispersed areas that established telecom might not reach, could play a significant role in ensuring connectivity in remote areas. The use of solar panels to power data centers was seen as an environmentally friendly and sustainable energy solution.

The implementation of a unified network across Africa was desired, aiming to enhance connectivity and facilitate communication between countries in the region.

The importance of government involvement in internet governance forums was emphasized. It was noted that government representatives are fewer in these forums and often inclined towards the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The need for better government understanding and engagement in multi-stakeholder internet governance was highlighted.

It was suggested that the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA) and the African Union need to collaborate to ensure the participation of ministers in policy creation and understanding of internet governance. Ministers were regarded as the principal policymakers, and their involvement was seen as crucial for effective governance.

The need to strengthen internet governance globally was acknowledged. The perceived weakness of the global Secretariat was noted, suggesting that efforts should be made to strengthen internet governance worldwide.

Promoting greater youth involvement in internet governance activities was seen as critical, highlighting their role as the future generation for Africa. Their active participation should be encouraged and supported.

The issue of infrastructure sharing, particularly for new entrants facing affordability constraints, was discussed. New entrants were found to struggle with paying the rates enacted by existing infrastructure owners, highlighting the need for a solution to ensure affordable and accessible internet services for all.

Market saturation and the entry of newcomers, especially in areas with smaller populations like Namibia, were also discussed. Existing participants were reportedly struggling to survive, showcasing the need to manage market saturation and create opportunities for new entrants.

Gender inequality in internet usage was recognized as a significant challenge. Women in rural areas were found to lack access to the necessary resources to purchase new technologies, and the affordability of data was a major concern. The need for women leaders and parliamentarians to actively address this issue was emphasized, highlighting the importance of policies and actions to promote gender equality in internet usage.

African digital initiatives were found to receive more external financial support than support from within Africa itself. The need to increase financial support from within Africa for African initiatives was stressed, highlighting the importance of self-reliance and sustainability.

In conclusion, the discussions on internet governance in Africa covered a wide range of topics and brought forth several key insights and recommendations. The need for youth empowerment, linguistic diversity, government engagement, and infrastructure development were the main themes discussed. Promoting inclusivity, supporting gender equality in internet usage, and strengthening internet governance globally were also highlighted as important steps towards ensuring a more equitable and accessible internet for all in Africa.

Abraham

The speakers’ discussions revealed several significant points. Abraham, a technical support for the Global IGF, highlighted the need for more mentorship within the field of internet governance. He personally mentors 50 individuals in this field, recognizing the lack of mentorship opportunities. Abraham’s argument is supported by the fact that he actively mentors these individuals, providing them with guidance and support.

Abraham also advocates for increased participation in local IGFs and the youth IGF, not viewing them solely as opportunities to travel but also as chances to bring about beneficial changes on a local level. This highlights the importance of active involvement and contribution within internet governance processes, aligning with SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure and SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities. Abraham’s advocacy showcases his commitment to making a positive impact in internet governance.

Furthermore, addressing language barriers in internet governance is crucial to enhancing the accessibility of knowledge and training. Abraham’s training program provides instructions in five different languages, including English, French, Portuguese, Swahili, and Arabic. This demonstrates a proactive approach towards making internet governance knowledge more widely available, contributing to SDG 4: Quality Education and SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities.

Abraham’s mentoring efforts also extend to training over 50 individuals in Africa, empowering them and providing opportunities to contribute to the internet ecosystem. This aligns with SDG 4: Quality Education and SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure. Moreover, many of Abraham’s mentorees have joined various digital programs initiated by the Internet Society and African digital programs, signifying the effectiveness of the mentorship provided.

In an effort to promote gender equality and women’s empowerment, Abraham aims to involve more women in the programs they are associated with. This aligns with SDG 5: Gender Equality and showcases the commitment to ensuring inclusivity and diversity within the field of internet governance.

Finally, Abraham urges leaders to expand support and funding for individuals who have the potential to positively contribute to the internet ecosystem. This highlights the importance of recognizing and investing in talented individuals who can make a difference in internet governance. This aligns with SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure and emphasizes the need for continued support and resources to drive progress in this field.

In conclusion, Abraham’s passionate commitment to mentorship in internet governance, the need for local engagement and language inclusivity, the training and empowerment of individuals in Africa, involvement in digital programs, promotion of gender equality, and the importance of expanding support and funding contribute to various SDGs and inspire positive changes within the internet ecosystem.

Hala Jumbo

The role of parliamentarians in driving policy within an inclusive Internet ecosystem is vital. They collaborate with the executive to ensure the functionality and effectiveness of policies. Parliamentarians are actively involved in legislation, budgeting, and addressing issues related to the digital divide.

In Africa, parliamentarians are advocating for countries to sign conventions on cybersecurity and personal data protection. This strong support for African Union conventions aims to safeguard digital security and protect personal data. Countries like Gambia are already taking steps to develop cybersecurity bills and implement personal data protection systems in line with these conventions.

Africa urgently needs to protect and own its data. Data plays a critical role in the digital landscape and holds immense value. However, Africa currently lags behind in terms of protecting and controlling its data. Efforts must be made to address this issue and establish robust data protection mechanisms.

Identification and addressing issues present significant challenges in Africa. More than 400 million people on the continent do not have proper identification systems, which hampers their access to various services and opportunities. It is crucial to tackle these issues effectively to ensure inclusive and equitable access for all.

The cost of data is directly linked to the operational costs of GSM companies. These companies bear the burden of funding their own infrastructure, such as electricity and equipment, which significantly increases their expenses. It is important for policies to encourage collaboration among GSM companies to reduce costs. For example, in Gambia, the government has built a national broadband network to assist companies in reducing their operational costs.

Policy changes should support new entrants to the market. Currently, the market is often dominated by a few major players, making it difficult for new companies to enter and compete. Creating tax havens and implementing supportive policies can lower costs for new entrants, fostering competition and innovation.

Addressing the electricity problem is vital in reducing the cost of data and ending internet poverty. The lack of electricity is a major contributing factor to the high cost of data in many African countries. Initiatives, such as the government of Gambia supplying solar-powered electricity to schools and hospitals, can help alleviate this issue and ultimately reduce the cost of data.

Promoting community networks can also contribute to reducing the cost of data. Community networks are cost-effective and quick to deploy, and they do not require significant infrastructure investments. Emphasizing the development of such networks can make data more accessible and affordable for communities.

There is growing concern about the high taxation regimes imposed on the telecom sector in many countries. This can hinder growth and innovation within the sector. Efforts should be made to establish fair taxation policies that encourage growth and maintain a favorable business environment.

Involving the private sector is crucial in implementing digital transformation strategies. The private sector possesses the resources, expertise, and innovation necessary for effective implementation. Collaborating with the private sector can accelerate the adoption of technology and drive economic growth.

Digital literacy is essential in various sectors, including education, public service, judiciary, and parliament. It is important to equip individuals with the necessary skills and knowledge to navigate the digital world effectively and access opportunities for growth and development.

E-commerce has a positive impact on GDP. It provides opportunities for economic growth, job creation, and increased productivity. Embracing e-commerce can contribute to achieving sustainable economic development.

Effective digital implementation requires collaboration between government ministries. Different ministries must work together to ensure the successful implementation of digital policies and initiatives. This collaborative approach enables efficient use of resources and maximizes the impact of digital transformation.

In conclusion, parliamentarians play a vital role in driving policy within an inclusive Internet ecosystem. Efforts are being made to strengthen cybersecurity and data protection in Africa. It is imperative to protect and own data to promote digital sovereignty. Identification and addressing issues need to be effectively tackled to ensure inclusivity. Collaboration is needed to reduce the cost of data and encourage competition. Addressing the electricity problem, promoting community networks, and involving the private sector are key strategies for reducing the cost of data and driving digital transformation. Fair taxation policies, digital literacy, and e-commerce contribute to economic growth. Effective digital implementation requires collaboration among government ministries. By addressing these key areas, Africa can pave the way for a thriving and inclusive digital future.

Poncelet Ileleji

The expanded summary provides a detailed overview of the main points and arguments presented in the given information.

One of the arguments presented is the importance of the African Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which was highlighted by mentioning a project developed between the European Union and the African Union Commission. The project aimed to promote collaboration and effective governance of the internet in Africa. This highlights the recognition of the need for African countries to have a platform for discussing internet-related issues and ensuring that policies and strategies are aligned with the African context.

Another argument focuses on the need for meaningful connectivity in Africa for internet access. It is pointed out that during the COVID-19 pandemic, many African children faced challenges in accessing education due to a lack of internet connectivity. This highlights the importance of ensuring that all individuals, especially young students, have reliable and affordable internet access to bridge the digital divide and promote inclusive education.

The growth of the internet ecosystem and the creative potential of young people are also discussed. With appropriate connectivity, young people can leverage their digital native status to be more creative and innovative. This emphasizes the potential of the internet to accelerate economic growth and create job opportunities, particularly considering that over 60% of the African population consists of young people.

The cost of internet is identified as a major barrier to its proliferation across the continent. It is mentioned that the average cost for one gigabyte of data in Gambia is about $5, while other countries like Ghana and Tunisia have lower costs. This high cost of internet restricts access for many individuals and contributes to the digital divide present in Africa.

Investments in submarine cables by bilateral and international organizations were also highlighted, indicating efforts to expand internet infrastructure across the continent. However, it is noted that more actions and investments are needed to tackle the issue of internet proliferation in Africa. This suggests that while progress is being made, further initiatives and resources are required to improve internet access for all African countries.

In conclusion, the given information emphasizes the importance of the African Internet Governance Forum in promoting effective internet governance. It highlights the need for meaningful connectivity to bridge the digital divide and promote inclusive education and economic growth. The cost of the internet is identified as a significant barrier, and investments in infrastructure are acknowledged. Overall, more efforts and resources are needed to address the challenge of internet proliferation in Africa.

Sorene Assefa

The participation of African youth in Internet Governance Forum (IGF) processes is vital, considering their significant population. The Global IGF 2022 took steps to enhance their involvement by sponsoring 80 African youth to attend the conference. These participants also underwent an Internet Governance Training program, aiming to improve their skills in this field. The goal was to equip them to support national or regional IGF processes beyond the conference.

Ethiopia took action after participating in the Global IGF by establishing a youth IGF within the country. This initiative involved the active participation of youth volunteers in organizing the IGF process, highlighting the commitment to involve young individuals longitudinally in the Internet Governance Forum, rather than just during the final conference.

Inclusion and equal distribution of opportunities among African youth in youth-led initiatives for Internet governance are crucial. While African participation in these initiatives is positive, there is a need to ensure that opportunities reach all regions of the continent. A thousand applications were received for the initiative, emphasizing the interest and potential among African youth. Balancing the involvement of experienced internet governance ambassadors and newcomers in the field is also necessary to provide a diverse and inclusive platform.

Language has been identified as a critical factor in meaningful engagement for Internet governance. The introduction of Swahili, the most popular African language, during the Global IGF is evidence of the emphasis placed on understanding concepts in native languages for better comprehension. This approach aims to bridge the language barrier and ensure that internet governance concepts are accessible to all participants, regardless of their linguistic background.

The impact of youth initiatives in internet governance is being measured to observe progress and sustain networking opportunities. Youth participants are carrying forward their learnings and network benefits by taking up roles as facilitators or volunteers in other organizations such as ISOC and ICANN. The success of these initiatives can also be seen in the establishment of youth forums in countries like Ethiopia, where the impact of the Global IGF is evident.

Moreover, the focus on culturally resonant modes of understanding, such as using mother tongue languages, is crucial in developing strategies for internet governance. Building concepts in mother tongue languages can bring them closer to communities and ensure inclusivity. The introduction of Swahili as the first African language during the Global IGF is a step towards fostering cultural relevance in internet governance discussions.

In summary, the involvement of African youth in Internet Governance Forum processes has been recognized as crucial. The Global IGF 2022 took steps to enhance youth participation and provided training opportunities. Ethiopia’s establishment of a youth IGF and the involvement of youth volunteers reflect the long-term commitment to youth involvement. Inclusion, language, impact measurement, and cultural relevance are key considerations in fostering youth-led initiatives for internet governance.

Poncelet Ileleji:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this morning session on open forum on the role of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa in the internet ecosystem in Africa. I’m Ponsley Tlilogyi from the Gambia NRI, Joko Labs, and I’ll be moderating this session. And before we get started, I will just want all my speakers to introduce themselves and we’ll get started. I’ll start with my Honourable MP from the Gambia, Hala Jumbo.

Hala Jumbo:
Thank you very much, Pons. My name is Honourable Hala Jumbo, Member of Parliament from the Gambia and also the Co-Founder and Vice-Chair of African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance.

Sorene Assefa:
My name is Sorina Safar and I’m Internet Governance and Cyber Security Expert for UNECA.

Dr Mactar Seck:
Good morning. My name is Dr. Maktar Seck. I’m the Chief of Technology and Innovation at UNECA. I’m also the Coordinator of the Centre of Excellence on Digital ID, Digital Threat and Digital Economy.

Onika Mwakatumbula:
Good morning. My name is Stephanie Kamakwakwa, Executive Director of the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership.

Poncelet Ileleji:
Thank you very much. As you can see, all my panellists are very African-centric and I will start with our parliamentarian. Thank you very much. So, I would like to start by saying thank you to all of you for being here, and I would like to thank all of you for participating with in starting this discussion, I mean, since the African NRIs developed from around 2009, we then had the UN ECA coming up, working with the African Union to set up the African Internet Governance Forum. So, this is a project that was done between the European Union and the African Union Commission. The parliamentarian network in Africa has been growing since Addis Ababa, and it will be great to hear what Halaji has to say about within the Internet ecosystem, what parliamentarians can do. And this is very important, because we still have less than 20 countries that have signed up to the Malabo Convention, Gambia being the first country to sign up to the Malabo Convention, and the other countries that have signed up to the Malabo Convention, there’s about 2% that was done at the sidelines of the global IGF in Addis Ababa.

Hala Jumbo:
So, Halaji, let’s hear your perspective on the role of parliamentarians, how you people can drive policy within a very inclusive Internet ecosystem in the continent using the platform of the IGF. Thank you. So, I’m very happy to be here, and I would like to thank the IGF, and the IGF has been supporting a lot of member states to ensure that they bridge the digital gap that we have in terms of helping in the formulating of the digital transformation, and also capacity building, et cetera. Now, the members of parliament, actually, have started also to be engaged in the IGF since Addis, and right now, in fact, is starting to be a shared Inc Cos In. It really doesn’t matter where where you are, but we look at really where parliamentarians come in. in terms of helping in some of the policies, because parliamentarians normally don’t actually do the policies, but they work with the executive to ensure those policies work in terms of legislation, in terms of budgeting, et cetera, et cetera. So now we are working very closely. Now in terms of also looking at the African Union, various conventions relating to the Internet, particularly on cybersecurity and personal data protection, we are also pushing our own countries to ensure that they signed, because a lot of countries still now have some laws that are really very vague and really not very clear, and some actually, they’re handling most of these things using the Communication Act of their countries, like in Gambia we have the Information and Communication Act of 2009, which is not really very conducive to also fight cybercrimes. So members of parliament actually are pushing to ensure their countries actually sign those protocols of the African Union, and right now I think in the Gambia was among the last countries actually to sign, and we’re going to get the ratification most likely this year in parliament. So what we are trying to do actually is to actually align some of those protocols to the international standards, and already various parliaments actually have done that, like the Gambia for example right now, they’ve already developed the cybersecurity bill, they’ve also developed the personal data protection, which is actually crucial. If you look at the Malabar Protocol that we call the African Union Convention on Cybersecurity and Personal Data Protection, it has given certain criteria that countries must abide by in terms of setting up those institutions that’s going to handle cyber issues and also to protect data, because data actually is everything on the Internet right now. And again, if you look at the African continent, we are a little bit behind in terms of protecting our own data and also owning our own data, which is very, very important, because data is actually money. So members of parliament, we are working together with our executives to ensure that we support their transformation agenda. That is actually bridging the gap in terms of the digital divide. in terms of capacity building, also in terms of legislation, the laws, and also one of the most important thing also in identification, because again the ecosystem we must be able to identify people, we must also be able to identify their addresses, which is actually one of the biggest issues we have in the continent here. I think over 400 million people in on the continent now you can cannot be you know cannot have proper ID system, so members of Parliament we are working very closely with the assistance from the ECA and our governments to ensure that we get this you know on track and from there we move on to you know to other areas. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji:
Thank you very much for that very useful information. Meaningful connectivity has been crucial for driving internet access and developing the internet ecosystem in Africa. We saw what a lot of African countries went through during the COVID. A lot of our children were basically at home for a long time. I think in Uganda had the record over one year, Ugandan children couldn’t go to school. In talking about meaningful connectivity, we are very lucky here we have Onika, whose organization the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership really focuses on meaningful connectivity and especially in the Global South and if we have to move from the point we are now whereby we still have not up to 50% of the continent online, even though we have 80% that are on voice mobile, connectivity is very important. So Onika, it would be very good to hear your perspective how you see meaningful connectivity can accelerate the growth of our ecosystem within the internet and especially driving our young people to be more creative because they are the digital natives of our continent. and they make up over 60% of the population.

Onika Mwakatumbula:
Great, thank you. Thanks, Pontelet. So, given the vision that Africa has set for itself in terms of the digital transformation strategy for Africa, it’s really important that we look beyond basic connection, basic access, and really take this as an opportunity for us to, others have said we are going to leapfrog or moonshot ourselves to the meaningful stage. But I think one of the things that has happened is that COVID-19 actually exposed our very deep inequalities, that we have imagined gaps, including amongst those who are already connected, thus making a basic connection no longer a good standard for us to follow. So what actually needs to happen? The first thing we need to address is the issue of infrastructure. I know that the mobile operator sector is telling us a lot about a usage gap that is developing and growing in the region, meaning that there’s more people who are living within a broadband connection, but are not necessarily using it. But we still have a lot of areas that don’t have any coverage at all. And so, addressing the infrastructure investment, creating an environment for private sector investment, but also understanding that it’s going to take more than just private sector. The Moonshot Report estimated that we need $109 billion in infrastructure investment for Africa. Government has to also come to invest and provide some resources into this, as well as our development partners and other private-public partnerships that we need to look at. So continue to invest in infrastructure. Really important to make sure we are connecting everyone. But as we do so, let us use the meaningful connectivity. I think one of the things that has been disappointing is that we continuously talk about meaningful connectivity, but we have divorced it from what is that standard of meaningful connectivity. We’re talking about having an adequate speed for people to do the things that are envisioned in this digital transformation strategy where we are going to have a digital economy, e-learning that is continuous. It requires a speed of at least four gig speed, right? So looking at making sure that we are investing in that. It requires people having smartphones or at least a minimum device that is a smart device. At the moment in Africa, our biggest challenge with smart devices is the cost. Affordability is really an issue. We are spending, at least people in the low-income quantiles are spending 40% to 60% of average household income to purchase one smart device in a household. So we need to address devices, and there’s various areas where we need to strengthen. One of those is digital taxation. Removing or reducing some of the taxation that burdens the sector, especially taxes that are consumer-facing, with the understanding that we will increase uptake of digital technologies that then will benefit the economy, and, you know, that loss in taxes for now will actually be a gain in the digital financial activity in the future. We need to make sure that people have daily access. At the moment, we are still defining a connected person. In most of the research and in our global standards, we are defining a connected person as someone who accesses the Internet once every three months. That is unacceptable. We need to work towards daily access and unlimited data. Affordability is a big issue, and so, you know, we need to also be open to public access. in order to supplement the access that people are having to purchase on their own. But hopefully we’ll have a chance to talk a little bit more about what has worked in driving affordability in the region. A few countries have actually reached the 1 for 2 affordability standard, while many, many, many more still have not. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji:
Thank you very much. As you rightly said, we’re going to do a deep dive into it. Youth has been very important in our work within our national IGF processes. Surin has been doing a lot of work in empowering African youth. It will be good to hear from you how you see our youth, what they play, the role they play in driving the national IGF processes, and what more can be done with them. Right now, presently in this particular 18th Global IGF, most of the young people that came from the African continent came through support from GIZ. We still need to get more of our youth here. Most of them are really involved within our Internet societies and our national processes. As you focus on youth within the IGF process, how do you think we can improve on it and get their voices more heard?

Sorene Assefa:
Thank you, Ponce, for the question. I think the youth issue in Africa, we can look at it from a bigger angle. If I need to speak on the youth, I want to refer back to the Global IGF that we did in 2022. I was the coordinator of the youth during that forum under the ECA, the leadership of MACTA. What we tried to do during that time is, the first issue was African representation in this kind of either global or even continental. discussions. So we say that if we want to grow the African participation the starting point would have been the youth. So you mentioned now we have around maybe 10 or to 20 youth represented here, but Africa majority of the population is youth and how do we expand the youth participations instead of having the same youth being represented all over the place. So what we decided to do is having a distributed representation of youth from the five regions. Africa has five regions, the north, the south, the east, the west in Central Africa. So under ECA we sponsored 80 youth during the global IGF. We didn’t just sponsor them for them to be in the global IGF discussion but for them to be embedded on the IGF process. In order for us to do that they had to go through Internet Governance Training Program which we collaborated with the African Union and in pre the initiative they had one week Internet Governance Training Program on the founding principle, economic, legal, policy or even activism in Internet Governance because what we wanted to do is the conversation to continue. Internet Governance Forum is not just a forum, it’s just a process. So it’s not something ends as soon as the forum concludes. So how do we in I think broaden the African Internet Governance ecosystem without giving them the necessary tool. That’s why the training program was part of the youth initiative not just sponsoring them to the global IGF. After the training the youth was divided based on the skills they had. Some of them they were volunteering in a rapporteur service, some of them in webcasting, some of them on technical infrastructure which we had to collaborate with the global IGF secretariat and they went through the training program and I think some of them also being involved in the IGF process and how to organize it. So we had a lot of questions in the conferencing services, how to organize, because what we wanted to do is as soon as the volunteer went through this process, can they go back, support at the national or regional IGF processes, wherever they are? So that’s what the whole aim was. ECA didn’t do it alone. We asked on the IGF diplomatic capacity, as just one of these countries, because there is a number of countries which have been involved in the IGF process, and the IGF is a global initiative, and it really reflects our continent. So, all in all, if I go back, what we have achieved, the 80 volunteers, 30 of them were from Ethiopia. Ethiopia never held a national IGF, but now, if you go back and check, Ethiopia even set up a youth IGF, which even the person who participated in the youth IGF, and the youth IGF is a global initiative. So, we have a lot of young people, and even the members used to be the ECA volunteers. That was the success item that we can identify. It’s not just being part of the conference services, but how do we really carry them along the way? We have also new initiative in the continent, for example, the youth IGF, which is a global initiative that ECA has done. So, what we are saying is, how do you see the vision? The vision is, try to integrate the youth. So I would like to say that we are working with the youth along the way of the Internet governance process, not just the final conference, either at the continental or regional level. We’ve started it, but our goal is to expand this initiative as we go along. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji:
» Thank you very much, Sorin, for that detailed explanation of what the youth did and especially the importance of the Internet Governance Forum. I would like to say that we had a meeting in Addis Ababa last year. This round of questions, I will end with Dr. Mataaksek, ECA initiated the first African Internet Governance Forum over a decade ago, if I remember very well, in Nairobi. It was a very small number, less than 20% of the countries were there. So we had a very, very small number of countries represented in the African Internet Governance Forum. We still had less than 30 countries represented. If you look at the whole dynamics, we need to get our 54 member states to be having national processes, and ECA is very important in this role as you initiated it. So how do you see the ECA re-governizing the IGF? So how do you see the ECA re-governing the IGF? How do you see the ECA getting more countries to be involved in the continent? Not only about it, but also using the African IGF to drive our policy process. I just want to welcome our Minister of States from Ethiopia for Digital Economy, Honorable Uri Ali, thank you for coming to attend

Dr Mactar Seck:
our conference at Camp Wangatro. Uri. Thank you chair, and welcome to the minister. to this important session, but let’s go back maybe 20 years ago. In 2006, it is a year where IGF, Internet Governance Forum was created. Why it was created? At this time, African country or middle or low-income country doesn’t have the same equal voice to discuss the issue of Internet or digital technology across the world. All discussion were led by Western or North country to decide what we need, what African country needs, and the solution proposals are not adequate with African need. And why the WSIS, one key outcome of the WSIS 2005 was the creation of Internet Governance Forum where everybody can have equal exchange to discuss on their concern, make a proposal, is why IGF, it is a new stakeholder forum. And the first IGF was held in Athens in 2006 and today we are at the 18th Global IGF Forum and the IGF will be end by 2025, maybe the General Assembly will renew for 2030. And for this, ECA play an important role to set up an African IGF because we can discuss at the global level, but we need to start the discussion at the continental level because when you remember in 2000 In 2006, the access Internet in the continent was very, very low. It was 2.6 percent. At this time, in Europe, it was 39 percent. And we need to have an inclusive information society to bring the idea of all stakeholders, government, private sector, civil society, academia, to discuss the way we can build African information society more inclusive in order to take benefits of this digital sector. And YECA in 2011, you reminded, initiated the African Internet Governance Forum in Kenya. And since, I think, we have seen this African Internet Governance growing, following the discussion of several stakeholders, now our Internet access is increased. We go from 2.6 in 2005 to 40 percent in 2022. We have a lot of progress that we even have to do better. And YECA also continue to support this African Internet Governance Forum. We set up a secretariat. And to make all stakeholders in the continent and the organization, we shared the secretariat with African Union Commission. And since we work together to organize this African Internet Governance Forum, and we organize open requests in member’s country each year. And we have seen a lot of progress since 2011. And the last one you highlight very well, it was one organized in Abuja in September, I think. and where we have very good attendance, more 3,500 people, and around 20 sessions discuss all the issue of Internet Governance Forum. We’ll continue also this momentum to support this initiative, because we discuss a lot with all stakeholders to see how we can make better this African Internet Governance Forum, but we have seen there are some gaps we have to sort it out. When you look at the African participation in the Global Internet Governance Forum, it’s very low, compared to last year in Ethiopia, and I would like to thank the government of Ethiopia also for the well-organization of the Internet Governance Forum last year, because it was a big challenge for Africa. It’s a fight not with the UN organization to get this 17 IGF in Africa, and it was the third time we organized the Global IGF in the continent, and I think it was well-organized, and the attendance was very well and also very relevant in terms of content and discussion, and we had a lot of participation from African countries. The issue is we have to maintain this, but unfortunately we are few here in Japan, and at the ministerial level also, I think we have two ministers from the continent here, and we need to change this paradigm. How we change it to better organize our MAG and also our secretariat in order to involve more participants in the global IGF process. We are going to have a meeting next year and we are going to have a meeting in the African IGF and we have set up a task force yesterday to discuss and to propose a way to improve African participation in the African IGF, also in the global IGF. We need also, we are going also to support African stakeholder, not just to attend IGF as a stakeholder, but also as a stakeholder in the IGF. We need to have more African participation, drive by African participants. Also, we need to have more African in the several sessions to discuss about issues regarding Africa. We can’t talk about digital public infrastructure. You have several sessions, they talk about digital infrastructure. We need to have African country, African representative in this session. We need to have African representative in the session. We need to have African representative in the session. We need to have African country representative in the session. When you talk about emerging technologies, it is African, it is a future for the world. We have 70% of youth in 2015. And we need to have our voice to say what our perspective. When you talk about the global digital compact, it’s a future we want. We need African voice. We need to have African voice in the global digital compact, we need to have African voice in the global digital compact. We need to propose a program to support African country. When you talk about cyber security also, it is important to talk about the issue of the concern of Africa because we are losing 10% of our GDP. It’s not only 10% of our GDP, because we have a lot of security problems around the continent. So, we need to have African voice in this area where we need to improve our participation. and also to be involved in all this session to be organised in the next two Internet Governance Forum 2024 in Saudi Arabia and I think 2025 the country is not yet decided. Third point, we need also, we have also a capacity building programme. We acknowledge the participation of our parliamentarians in the IGF process with the creation of African Parliament Network for Internet Governance, APNIC, and we are going to propose a capacity building programme for the parliamentarians to improve their knowledge and skill on the issue of Internet Governance or in the digital technology also. Even this capacity building programme will be open to all political making decision, all the government member, and I think after that the government will be more aware, African government will be more aware on the interest of the Internet Governance Forum and I’m sure next year we’ll get more ministers to attend the African Internet Governance Forum as well as the Global Governance Forum in Saudi Arabia. Also, we don’t forget the community, the technical community. We have also a capacity building programme for the technical community to support them to discuss on the technical issue related to Internet Governance Forum, the issue of DNS, of CCLT, the Internet fragmentation, we have all this programme to be open as 2020. to all African community. Also the youth participation is very important. Last year we did well. We bring around 80 youth, I think Sorin already highlighted the youth participation last year, but this year we didn’t do well and we make sure next year we’ll bring more youth in the global IGF. And also if there is any idea, any proposal, are welcome at ECA, we can discuss at ECA and AUC to see how we are going to improve our participation. The chair of the task force is Honorable Elijah Mbow to improve the African participation on IGF. If you have any idea, please share with him and AUC and ECA will sit together to see how the best way to handle this African IGF process. Before I conclude, I would like to thank all, we have a lot of people here who work hard since the beginning of IGF. I would like to thank Mary, she’s there since long time supporting this process. We have also the second generation, Jimson, you, the first generation is Mary, supporting. And we have also the young generation, Dr. Kosi, all these people coming now, and Michelle, you are here to support the process since long time, voluntary. And we’ll thank you again for all the support you provide, not to ECA, but to the African community, and I think we have to say thank you for that. Thank you very much.

Poncelet Ileleji:
Thank you very much, Macta, for that great intervention about the role of ECA and how we can galvanize our community. So, thank you very much for coming. I know we have a lot of questions coming in from the community, especially getting our Ministers very involved. That’s why, personally, I know our Honorable Minister of State for Digital Economy in Ethiopia has a busy schedule, but she took time to come for this session, so, Honorable Hurriya Ali, we appreciate you coming. And I’ll move to the second question now, and I will start with the topic of internet predestination, what are the steps has been taken to understand, what should we do to help conversation. And if I could start with you, Mr. Khalil, internationally, it’s important that we must consider how to act in the context of internet predestination. We are talking about 1% internet predestination in the continent. Cost has been a factor in that. I can give an example, the average, in Gambia, the average cost for one gigabyte of data is about $5. The best average around the continent is about $2. And Ghana, Tunisia, having one of the lowest cost of internet. So, the cost of internet predestination in Ghana is about $3. And the cost of internet predestination in other countries now are now true bilateral and international organizations are now investing more in submarine cables, but is that enough?

Onika Mwakatumbula:
» Yes, absolutely. So, cost has been a huge challenge in the region. And I’m sure you all agree with me that the cost of internet predestination in Africa is still the same, 1. 2, meaning one gig of data at no more than 2% average monthly income. But I’m sure you all agree with me that even that is still, in fact, many countries in Africa still do not meet that standard. that average standard. Not only is the average standard that we have right now also inadequate, it’s just not meeting a lot of our people. And that’s largely because of two things. One is that one gig of data per month is not sufficient for us to do the kinds of things that we are talking about when we talk about meaningful connectivity. But two, the 2% average monthly income is actually, even for those countries that do meet this, I’ll give South Africa as a good example, they are only meeting it for the top 20% income earners because of the inequalities that exist within the country. Those who are at the bottom 40%, and that’s true for Ghana as well, the bottom 40% are still paying more than 2% of average monthly income. So there’s several things that we’ve done working with different countries on affordability, especially on the policy and regulatory framework side. One is promoting market competition, which is one of the things in the digital transformation strategy for Africa. Really working on market competition, a lot of our economies tend to be duopolies right now. So we need to really work on bringing more actors into the space and enabling regulation to actually allow them to be able to enter. At some point we have to recognize that there are people who might never even afford the 2%. And this is where public access options come in, but also where community networks come in. We’ve reached a point in Africa where we’ve tested many community networks and the model is working. It’s testing at different digital technologies as well as a different financial model. Communities that actually are operating community networks also have a much higher meaningful connection. activity score which includes digital skills used for things that help people improve their lives. So perhaps it is time for us on the regulatory side to talk about how do we promote regulations that actually enable community networks to close the gaps in a way that is affordable in those other communities. The other policy that is also in the strategy is infrastructure sharing. So one of the great things about this continent is that we are very enthusiastic about adopting policies that are going to lead to the kind of change that we want. Where the challenge has been has been on implementation. So for the longest time we’ve talked about infrastructure sharing within the sector and across utilities. We’ve actually worked with Mozambique as a good example where we’ve actually developed a policy and they’ve had regulations adopted. But four years later they are still in the process of harmonizing the policies in order for them to implement. Same with Ghana. Policy exists, implementation not quite. Nigeria policy exists, implementation needs a little bit of review. I think we have to differentiate between co-locating and true infrastructure sharing. What we are not seeing is real infrastructure sharing across utilities especially with roads, with electricity, especially electricity. Because we all know where there’s no electricity, connectivity is a non-starter. I mean we can’t even get connectivity. And lastly we have to use our universal service funds in a way that enables us to close the gaps. One example, I like to challenge us but also to show examples of where we are making a little bit of progress. One example is West Africa. ECOWAS actually went through the process of reviewing universal service policies, regulations and legislation and actually adopted a sub-regional legislation for the Universal Service Act at the end of 2019 which was unanimously adopted by the member states. of ECOWAS. Unfortunately, because of COVID happening immediately the next year, it delayed the process for the member states to actually begin to now review their own policies and laws to make sure that they are compliant. But universal service funds are an opportunity for us in Africa to close the digital divides, not only on rural and urban, but also begin to address the gender divide. I really like that Dr. Mokhtar keeps reminding us about what we are losing in the economy. We did a study on the cost of exclusion, looking at what is costing governments to exclude women from digital development. And we looked at lower and middle income countries. And we came up with an economic model that actually estimates that governments have lost about a trillion dollars from excluding women in the digital economy. We then did a deep dive in West Africa and looked at several countries in West Africa to look at the economic impact of this exclusion by being able to tell a story of what women are able to accomplish when they are enabled to be online. You know, they are able to run their businesses during lockdown. In particular, we took a look at COVID-19 to look at women who were connected during that time and how they were affected in terms of loss of income. And research is evident. It tells us that those women who had access to connectivity were able to weather the loss of income and be able to move and pivot to be able to produce online, to take a course online, to apply for a job online, things that they are not able to do. So I think I will conclude by saying for us now what we really need to also marry is the fact that we need evidence-based, we need to do research so that our policymaking is based on research and evidence learnings that we have. And I say this because we also have seen some poor practices of adopting digital taxation from other jurisdictions by only simply looking at this country introduced this new tax and they gained so much money during this period but what we don’t actually look at is what effect did that digital taxation do on affordability and our goal to actually meet affordability. Digital taxation for the most part has been predominantly consumer facing and we need to really review it. We looked at Nigeria and actually we developed an infographic on Nigeria and at the time there were 27 unique taxes in you know from SIM registration, electronic transaction, there’s now a pending communication service tax of 9%. All of those things actually forestall our growth in terms of achieving this goal of affordability. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji:
Thank you very much Onika and I like the way you dived into the policy aspects whereby some are there, some are not there, they either have been fully baked but still not implemented. So I’ll go back to Halajumbo, especially in relating to policy and we look at our energy solutions. During the first inaugural African climate summit in early September, President William Ruto of Kenya who said that the continent has abundant sun, we have wind and we have green minerals so we can be a solution for providing energy to the world. That’s what he said and we are heading into the COP 28 in the United Arab Emirates in December and we have to look at first before we start providing energy to the world we have to provide energy to ourselves with these abundant resources we have. So I would like to hear from you looking at the policy aspects. Members of Parliament, you pass all these bills of what do you think as parliamentarians you can do better. in terms of, because you address energy issues, you automatically address, in a way, cost of connectivity, because some years back you will see countries were having 8,000 generators, just mobile companies, just to power their cell towers. So imagine if you don’t have any generators and all those were powered by solar energy, what that can do to bring down costs. So Halaji, over to you on this policy aspect.

Hala Jumbo:
Thank you very much, Ponce. I think generally there is a direct correlation between the cost of data and the cost of operation by these GSM companies, because they are there to make money, so all the infrastructure they need in terms of electricity, in terms of the equipment they need, the cost of that actually also has a direct correlation with the cost of the data. Now when you look at, like I quite agree with Onika, when you say that things need to be done, for example, to help reduce co-location, and also sharing infrastructure, which are two fundamental things actually to help. Because when you look at it in general, and this also has to go with policy change. Now, for example, right now in Gambia what we are doing, we are working with the regulator actually to try to work with the companies to see how best they can help to reduce the cost. Now as members of parliament, because I also happen to be the chair of the committee responsible for education and ICT, in the next few days we’ll be calling, we’ll be visiting the GSM companies, all of them in the country, together with the ministry and also as well as the regulator to see exactly what we can do together. Now what is clear actually is that the lack of electricity actually across the continent, also in Gambia, is also impacting on the provision of the services, because of, again like you said, they would have to use solar to be able to, or generators to be able to power their infrastructure, and that makes it actually more expensive, because you have the total generated almost 12 hours in a day, because during the day you can use this one to power some of your equipment. Now there are additional things that we need to look at as far as policy is concerned. What can we do in terms of using policies to encourage or to ask them to work together? You know, in Gambia for example, I give another example, like what the government did is they built the national broadband network, that’s actually owned by the government. Then they would allow the private sector to be able to connect on that network instead of them building their own. Because if they build their own, which means totally their operational cost also is going to go up. So now the government make it a deliberate strategy to build the national broadband network, then this private sector can come and connect. But it’s not fully operational because we’re still dealing with the last mile to be able to connect. Now the other area also that as far as policy is concerned, is we got to make it easy for the new entrants in the market. Because if you go to across the continent also, most of the continent when you go, there’s a dominance about two or three companies that dominate the entire market. Now what can government do to ensure that we make it easy for the new entrants? Now to do that I think there should be a deliberate strategy to create some kind of tax haven for them to be able to come in. Because they cannot just come immediately and then start to compete. Because these are people that are established almost 5, 10 or 20 years ago. So you cannot come now and then you want to compete with them. So their policies must be geared towards making it easy for them to enter the market in terms of tax breaks, and also in terms of making it easy in terms of providing electricity also. Now the other one, the last one is also about the electricity, I’ll come back to that one again. That is, we need to be, if you want to end internet poverty, we also need to look at our electricity supply across the continent. Because that’s also a very big factor. Now in the Gambia example, I always give example, also the government came out with also another project that would connect electricity, solar, to all schools. to all hospitals across the country and you know when that actually happens we means now the GSM company will be able to also operate in those areas. So lastly like Onika actually said, it’s about the need to also promote you know community networks. They are very cheap to deploy and they are also very quick also to deploy. It doesn’t really need huge infrastructure investment, it doesn’t need that. So our policies as members of Parliament we need to actually help the executive in those policies where we can actually help them to make the policies where it’s going to make it easy for new entrants to come into the market and also to ensure we have enough electricity supply across the country and also to ensure that the tax breaks actually are given to the new entrants so they can compete with the bigger boys in the market. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji:
Thank you very much Elijah. Before I round up this session with Surin and Makta, I will open it up now to the floor for questions and if we have someone online please our technical folks if there’s someone online please let us know for him to ask questions. So please the floor is opened and after all the questions before I round up I will allow our Honorable Minister present to just say a brief comment before Surin and Makta close it. So please the mic is there and we’ll take some questions now. Okay. Please introduce yourself and the constituency you represent. Okay. Good

Audience:
morning everyone. My name is Emmanuel Vitus. I’m the convener of the Togo IGF and the coordinator of the West African School of Internet Governance. So first of all congratulations to the EUC and the ECA for the commendable work. I think since at this we have observed the involvement of the youth in the community. So my question is directed to Sorin. My first question is how the national IGFs are involved in the recruitment of those young individuals and what mechanism has put in place to measure their impact after the fellowship at the national and regional level. The second question is could you elaborate on the collaboration between the national and regional school in the recruitment engagement of those young people? And my last question is what is the message that is being conveyed to this global stage by those young people? Because we have observed that other countries that actually sponsored their youth to participate in this meeting, they make sure that they attend all the meetings or have a representative in all those meetings with one message. So they always convey the message of their country or their region to all those sessions. So is there any mechanism like that for the African youth to make sure that they participate in all the sessions here and bring our message to the global stage so that this meeting is not just a meeting between them? So my last question is about inclusion. We noticed that we have 29 French-speaking countries and about six Portuguese-speaking countries and among those youth, do you take that into consideration to make sure that language is not a barrier in the participation of the French-speaking and the Portuguese or Arabic-speaking young

Poncelet Ileleji:
participants? Thank you. You really bundled up a lot of questions, but I’ll go over to the next question. So after the three questions on this side, I’ll allow the audience, my panelists, to respond and then we’ll take the questions on this side. So okay, I will take all. Okay, next please. Okay. Thank you

Audience:
very much. Thank you very much. I would like to thank you, UNECA, for what you are doing. I know you have been doing the ‑‑ Please introduce yourself. Okay. Sorry. My name is Nicholas Kirama. I currently serve as the president of Internet Society of Tanzania chapter and also the national IGF coordinator. I’m also a member of the UNECA. I would like to thank you, UNECA, for the support you have given on the language front. I know Soreen has been very instrumental in terms of making sure we expand the inclusion in terms of languages. As you know, 58% of the content on the internet is English. So, I would like to thank you for that. Number two, I really want to give an example of what is happening in Tanzania. I know United Nations economic commission for Africa, we are talking about the economy. And now we are talking about a modern economy that is driven by a digital economy. And without electricity, without electricity, we would not be able to do what we are doing. So, I would like to share an example of what is happening in Tanzania. If we are talking about a digital city in the rural areas, if we are talking about the digital Africa, I think somehow it will be a mission impossible. So, I want to share an example that has been done in Tanzania for the last seven or six years. In the last seven or six years, it was very easy for a gentleman to brand himself as energy bachelor. But in the last seven or eight years he is more aware of an energy install, put up electricity in 3,000 villages. So what does this say? This means that if we really have a political will and we decide it can be done, that means even other countries can be able to do that, to ensure that we have electricity in the rural areas so we can secure the future of digital Africa. So that is what I wanted to share, to say that it is possible and it can be done if everybody plays his or her part. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji:
Thank you. Yeah. Please, try to make your comments brief. We have a few minutes more so we can get everybody to speak.

Audience:
Okay. My name is Jimson Olufoye, Africa, private sector, Africa. Also to join others to say thank you to UNECA for what they’ve been doing, especially through Dr. Mata’s sake. The private sector in the global south, especially Africa, is really underrepresented compared to the global north. Global north is matured, okay? Of course we know, we understand that. So in the south, we try to organize ourselves, but it’s really challenging so we want to call for more engagement, more participation, more support from UNECA. We recognize the critical role of UNECA, especially through the effort of our late brother, Makan Faye, blessed memory, and of course with Mata’s sake, as I mentioned, and the team. UNECA has a strong instrument now in terms of a study that shows clearly that when we deploy internet fully, we can really have per capita GDP increase very clearly. So, my appeal is that we should engage our government more, let them see that this add value to the economy well-being of their people, because I still see some government they don’t get it. I was discussing with a colleague, and I was surprised that some government would deliberately shut down the Internet just because they didn’t agree with some social media posts. And then, I need to mention that the use of TV white spaces is very important, because in Africa we have dispersed areas, so the established telco might not be able to reach those places, because of obvious reasons, but with a spectrum for TV white spaces freely given, that will really help a lot. Solar panel is being used to power data centers around, we have demonstrated it, so let’s go solar. And lastly, one network, how can we achieve that? We want to encourage UNECA to really help push this, so that we can have one network across Africa. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji:
Thank you. Please, I appeal to you to raise your question. Mama Mary, please, over to you.

Audience:
Thank you very much. My name is Mary Uduma. I coordinate the West Africa Internet Governance Forum. I’m part of the National Nigeria Internet Governance Forum, and I just handed over the chairpersonship of Africa Internet Governance Forum to Lillian. So I’ve seen the good, the bad, and the ugly of the Internet governance in Africa. I know when we started, very small, and now we have grown. Abuja was like a boom for us, so thank you for your support, ECA, and what you have been doing. What I want us to see is that our government, I’m not sure, I don’t know the government that is really, has really caught the… So, I would like to ask you, what is the strategy that you would like to see in the future, particularly in the future of Internet governance, understand what multi-stakeholder approach is. There are a few here in the program, I mean, the IGF today, I mean, 2023 IGF, I don’t know how many Ministers, apart from a Minister that is seated in the front, I don’t know how many Ministers. So, what is the strategy that you would like to see in the future? I would like to see the ECA deployed to make sure that, well, in coordination with the African Union, because the African Union has the privilege of getting the Ministers or getting the heads of states come to their meeting. What strategy will be put in place to make sure that the ECA is not only going to go to the African Union, but also to the African Union, because those are the people that do the policy. Those are the people that, they prefer to go to ITU. How would the, what role will ECA play to make sure that these Ministers get to understand what the Internet, Internet governance will portend for us in Africa. That’s one. Second one, sorry, if I’m getting it too long. The second strategy will be to strengthen the Internet governance. So, what would be our strategy in the global level. Can we define it from our own level? What it means to strengthen the Internet governance. At the global level, you might say the Secretariat is not strong, and, you know, there are people that are still excluded in Internet governance. So, what would be our own strategy to make sure that we strengthen the Internet governance in the global level? Thank you very much, and good morning to everybody. I would also try to be very short. My name is Modesto Samtse. from the Republic of Namibia and a member of APNIC as well as member of Parliament. Number one is youth involvement into activities like this one. I really want to appreciate the previous speakers who have highlighted the importance of youth participation into Internet governance activities, because these are the future generation for Africa, and I just think that as we go back and plan further, we should really try to get them on board as much as we can, so that we can drive the wagon together. I believe the aspect is also much higher, and if we can capacitate them to take over, I think for tomorrow, that would be a good journey. The other one is sharing of infrastructure. Sharing of infrastructure is really a problem which I don’t know how we should legislate, because you have an institution that owns this infrastructure, and they determine their rendering cost, if one is to render space on their towers, for instance, and for new entrants, it becomes an issue, because the new entrants are unable either to afford the price determined by the owner of the infrastructure that already exists, and now as a legislator, I don’t know how best we can approach this so that we can give a direction. So the last one is market saturation. With smaller populations like the one of Namibia, that’s also an issue. I don’t know how we can manage that one to allow new entrants in, because those who are already there are saying they are struggling to survive. So those were my short intervention. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji:
Thank you. Next.

Audience:
Thank you so much for the opportunity. I’m Honorable Lydia Alamisi-Akanvalvan, a parliamentarian from Ghana and a member of APNIC. I just want to find out, in my sister’s presentation, she made mention of women who are at a disadvantage when it comes to the use of data and other internet services. It’s true. In Africa, it’s true. It’s an open secret that it has been difficult for women, especially in the rural areas, to have that ability to use the internet. One, the provision of technology. The reason being that people at the rural areas don’t have the needed resources to afford new technologies. Then, two, the affordability of data in the rural areas. No matter how little it is, but it is still expensive to the rural woman. We, as African parliamentarians and as women, women in leadership, what is or what are we doing as women to help our fellow women in the rural areas who are at a disadvantage? That is one of my questions. Then, two, I want to find out what we, as African parliamentarians or women in general, We need to make sure that our women are not taken as our take-home from this Internet Governance Forum, home, to make sure that our fellow women in our various countries also benefit. It is not a talk show that we come here and talk as women, we come here and talk and walk away. We need something to carry home, to tell our fellow women that this is what we have learned, and this is what we want them to be, or this is what we want them to hear from what we have taken home. So, we need to make sure that our women are not taken as our take-home from this Internet Governance Forum, home, to make sure that our fellow women are not taken as our take-home, to share with them. Thank you very much. Thank you. We have two more questions, then we’ll have our people speak. Okay. Thank you. My name is Atanas Baizire from the IGF-DRC. First, allow me to thank the UCA. I’m a member of the African women’s organization, and I’m also a member of the NRI, and that has been instrumental in my career and entering this ecosystem. I have come to realize that African initiatives, whether NRIs or digital initiatives, are easily getting financial support ex-Africa, like external Africa than within Africa. So, I want to know what are the measures that we want to take to ensure that we have more African women in our organization, and also in our African women’s organization, to be able to finance within Africa than out of Africa. Thank you. Okay, Dr. Kosi, and then we have one speaker online, one question online. Please, technical crew, be ready. Thank you, Chairman. I’m Kosi Amesinu from Benin, I’m from Ministry of Economy and Finance. I’m a member of the African women’s organization, and I’m also a member of the NRI. What is the plan to help them? Some countries have made it, but since two or three years, we don’t see anything again. What is your plan to help also those countries? That is my question. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji:
Thank you. The speaker online, please.

Abraham:
All right, thank you very much, Ponson, Mekta, and all the panel members here. My name is Abraham Fifi Saobi. I’m a Ghanaian. I’m currently speaking from London, the United Kingdom. I have been volunteering for the Global IGF as a technical support and the IGF Secretariat since 2020. And I also last year got an opportunity to join the UNECE as a volunteer, where I helped so much in terms of mobilizing all the volunteers from different African countries. And it was a very good journey because looking at the concept behind it, bringing people from Africa to work together, not only that, but UNECE also created an environment for us to also work together with the staff at UNECE, which was the very best of exposure for all these youths in Africa. Not only the aspect of creating an environment for the internet governance, because there are some questions people have asked that I want to clarify based on that. People, we try to let people understand that most people didn’t even know about internet governance, but they were selected. We gave them opportunity. Then we started training them to get involved. They understood the system. Now we also got a chance to leverage internet governance processes to their various countries. So we have to pick people, especially creating the gender equality among them. We started picking people to train them. What we realized is that people lack mentorship within the internet governance space. So if people who are already versed in the internet governance space are not trained, they are not going to be able to get involved. internet governance space, we try to tell them that the internet governance forum process is not about getting a travel support to travel, but also trying to create something within the space which can be beneficial to your country, to everywhere that you stand. And me, through this all processes, I’ve been able to get an opportunity out there very much. I also led with other facilitators from the UNECE to benefit it, and we started training people on internet governance under the Pan-African Youth Ambassador for Internet Governance. We received over 2,000 applications from different countries, over 52 countries in Africa. We realized the language barrier, so we tried to work together to make sure that we have five languages, which is English, French, Portuguese, Swahili, and Arabic. How can we tailor this kind of languages in terms of internet governance to the local level for them to understand? And we’ve got to train about 1,100 people. Over the last three days, we’ve issued over 1,000 certificates to people who completed the task. We assess them, we also create an impact. Most of the youth that they were new to the system, we try to engage them to their various local IGFs and the youth IGF. I’m very happy that Atanasie talked about the concept that he was part. He’s been able to set up the youth IGF in this country, not only to travel, but also to create an impact. So within PAYAG, within the youth processes under the UNEC, we are trying to combine the people who don’t have experience. But what I also suggest, based on the leadership, people who are into internet governance, is that it’s not always about providing funding for people to travel. Let us pick the people that they are coming within the internet governance, because we cannot go down to do much of the work. We might bring all these people to join hands, mentor them. Currently, I have about 50 people that I am mentoring.

Poncelet Ileleji:
Please round up, please.

Abraham:
Yes, so I have over 50 people that I’m mentoring in Africa, whereby I’m training them, giving them an opportunity, how they can also contribute to the Internet ecosystem. And at Anase Spark, most of them have joined various Internet Society programs and African digital programs. And what we are trying to do is that, we also want to create more women into it. So this is what we have been doing as a PAIAC and as an African youth. We’ve been very, we’ve had a privilege to get much from the UNEC and we thank all the leadership that they should continue to expand support, travel support and fund people who can contribute positively to the Internet ecosystem. Thank you very much.

Poncelet Ileleji:
Thank you. So, Sorene, you have some interventions, then Oneka, Halaji, then Maktar, then we allow our Minister to close this session for us. Thank you.

Sorene Assefa:
Okay, thank you, Ponce. I want to start the question from Emmanuel. He bundled down so many questions. Those questions are critical questions. When we wanted to embark on the youth initiative for Internet governance, we wanted to critically think. There are so many youth-led initiatives. As I think Ponce mentioned, most of the initiatives are supported by GIZ. But what we said is, yes, African participation is good, youth participation is good, but the participation cannot be the few handful 20 people who always get exposure over and over. So what we said is inclusion is important. That means we have to distribute. Whoever that we’re going to invite, it has to be the five corners of Africa. That means the north, the south, the east, the west, and central Africa. That means you have to consider the language. and the other thing is even the maturity level of Internet governance. If you look at the West Africa it is a very matured NRI compared to the SADC region, the southern regions, even the Portuguese-speaking countries. So we received an application, the advert was for two weeks, we received a thousand applications. So we had to come up with a strategy, how do we balance, meaning there are matured Internet governance ambassadors who have been in the system, but also we have to hold the hand of the people who came from Lesotho who have never heard of Internet governance. But if we are always focused on let’s go back to NRI coordinator and they should nominate, then we keep on opening opportunity to the same kind of people which is failing us. That’s why we are not even growing the NRI community in Africa. Atanasie was a volunteer from DRC for example, they hold the first Internet governance youth forum in DRC this year. Those are the success we want to see. It’s not about traveling, as you say traveling, but mentorship in holding each other in the network need to be east to west or north to south, how do they become together and create a network. So if anybody wanted to create a youth forum or even at a school level, IGF community, how are they going to build? Language is very, very critical. The Pan-African youth ambassador for example, Fifi was talking about it was born out of the youth volunteer of the AT. We said if we want to truly empower the youth, you have to go back to the language issue. Most of the concept is far from what the African used to understand, so language is the key. The first African language we introduced was Swahili. because that’s the most popular one. If we truly, we are serious about meaningful engagement, we need to go back to our mother tongue and start building our concept in our tongue that is close to our community. NRI participation on selection process, as I said, we had two selection criteria. The one is people are already active from NRI, so they had to create attestation from wherever they represent, but also we created a forum to say even if you are very new from the forum, like people from Lesotho, covered, who never even have IGF, it is their first time. Ethiopia, we had 50 representation. Ethiopia never had even national internet governance forum, so just to balance and for them to bring together. The result is now they have the youth forum in Ethiopia, so we had to create those kind of balance. How do you measure impact? The major impact is most of the fellows or the volunteer who have been in the ECA system, now either they are facilitators or they are volunteers and I see them, they are integrated to the ECA system, so I think it is very important for us to make sure that we are not only integrating them to the ECA system, but we are integrating them to ISOC ambassadorship, ICANN, because we still have the network keeping them together. What we wanted is not volunteer, you go your way, we keep on integrating them to the ongoing conversation. That’s why they are

Onika Mwakatumbula:
not integrated to the ECA system. So, I think it is really important for us to look at mainstreaming gender in ICT policy, so there are several things we are doing with that. We have actually developed a curriculum where we have gone to different regions and different countries to train policy makers on how do you center gender and mainstream gender in ICT policies. initiatives that are happening in the continent right now that are interesting to watch. For example, Uganda actually used their universal service funds to provide smart tablets to female-led households in 26 villages. We’re in the process of doing an impact evaluation of how impactful that was and what, you know, how did it change the lives of those communities and is this something that could be sustainable in other areas as well. So we have to keep trying to do some of this. And lastly, I will say that we are actually in the process also of doing another course of exclusion study that looks at it from a meaningful connectivity angle and we will be doing a deep dive on Ghana, Uganda, Mozambique and South Africa. So I would encourage you to look at those reports because those are the experiences that women share with us that can help inform how we improve our policies and how we become intentional about including women. Remember, they are offline because they are excluded from society in general. We are not going to win when more than 50% of our population, meaning women, because they are usually majority in most countries, we are not going to win in this digital revolution, leaving half of our population behind. Thank you.

Hala Jumbo:
Thank you very much. I think in general, there’s one question I would like to respond about the private sector. That is the new entrance coming into the market. You know, most of our countries actually, the taxation regime on the telecom sector is really very high. So maybe perhaps that’s one of the areas that we need to look at in terms of our policies, just to ensure that the taxation must not be a prohibition to start a business in our countries. Now the last part I just want to talk about with the members of parliament is just to ensure that let’s have a lot of interest in the digital transformation strategy of our countries. Because the digital transformation strategy actually is going to really We have to make sure that we have the digital literacy of our own countries so that they can give us the footprint on which our country actually can move to the next stage in terms of involve, and they must involve the private sector in the strategy. They cannot leave them behind. Another one is about the digital literacy from our schools, from the public service, members of Parliament, from the judiciary. They all must be captured in the digital literacy of our own countries and as well as also be able to identify our citizens and where they are in the digital literacy of our own countries. And the third one is about the digital literacy of our e-commerce. We have started to see a lot of development in our GDP in e-commerce. And lastly, also, we must also encourage our government also to work together. Because when you look at the ministries, some ministries will be handling finance, one will be handling information, one will be handling, so they must be able to work together. If they don’t work together, they will not be able to do anything.

Dr Mactar Seck:
Thank you very much. Dr. Seck? Thank you. Let me start by answering some questions. For the government participation, we need to do more to make sure the understanding of the government on this Internet Governance Forum. As you know, IGF is not a platform for decision. It is not a platform for exchange. It is not a platform for exchange, it is just a platform for exchange and at the end, you don’t have a communication, you just have a summary, not on the discussion. And why we have to work closely with our government to give them more information about Internet Governance Forum. Some know now the importance of this IGF, but we have to do more. We have to initiate the conference that UCI is going to do through Government Meteorology and we have the Conference of Ministers of Finance, we have also a briefing of Ambassador Trying to So we have the ICT, we have the ICT, we have the outcome, we have the conference of minister of environment, we have several platform where we can use to inform them. We can also work with AUC, because AUC is member of the secretariat, to use the STC, the ICT STC to inform better the minister on the importance of IGF. We work also with smart Africa, the ICT sector, to give them more information about the internet governance forum. And also, the issue also, our minister of finance doesn’t know exactly the contribution of the digital technology on the GDP. And there is a request last year, ECA, to prepare a study to measure the impact of digital technology on the GDP, because when you talk about digital technology, for them, it is a telecommunication sector. They can measure the telecommunication sector because the telecommunication has revenue. But for all this FinTech, this mobile e-commerce platform, this e-government service, they don’t have any tools to measure the impact or the contribution on the GDP. I think when we are working on the study, when the study will be done, I think they will get a better understanding of this contribution of ICT on the GDP, plus the study done under the leadership of a team led by Jimson on the cyber security and the contribution of cyber security and ICT on the GDP. The next participation, I think, they already answered the question. I think also was the chair of the task force. We can provide some effort. Private sector. Yes, for you, we find a way now to involve their participation. We have the term of reference. the criteria of selection. For private sector, we have to look at it under the task force. I leave the question to the task force for IGF to discuss how we can better evolve private sector in the African IGF. But we have some private sector, but the big issue is the government. Now, look at, when you look at the room, I think Kofi is only representative of the government. All other people are from civil society, private sector, academia. It is a problem, yeah. Yeah, we need, there is a lot of work, I think, drafting in your working group. National IGF. National IGF, frankly, we don’t have, we can’t support all the national IGF at ECA level. It’s not possible. You have the regional IGF. I think the regional IGF can work with the country to develop their national IGF, and we have also the five regional IGF. One network, we need to look at the regulation. We can have it, because you have one network in some region on the telecom sector. But the issue is, you know, there are several law and regulation between the country, also, and between Anglophone and Francophone country. We need to work together at the EU level with all these countries to come up with one network. It will be possible, because now, with the implementation of the African free trade area, we can do it. Now, we have one single market. We are going to adopt, in January, the African digital single market, and one of the key recommendations is to have one network. And we are going to step by step, maybe not next year. By 2030, maybe we can have one network. Coming also to the digital inclusion, the cost. The problem is not the infrastructure, the problem is the regulation and the political commitment. We have all the infrastructure, but when we talk about sharing infrastructure, when you go to the law and the regulation side, we have all rules how to regulate this sharing infrastructure, but people didn’t implement. We have committed our government to implement the regulation, it is a big problem now. If we come up with a good regulation and good implementation, all the costs will go down. Because when you look at it, there is no competition in the operator. You can have one country, you have five operators, but there is no competition. One has one cent more, one cent less, it is just a discussion between the operators, and the regulation doesn’t do the real work, how the operators should implement their network, what are the regular costs for the service of telecommunication. The cost is defined by the operator of service, not by the regulator, or the regulator should have the power and the competency to define the cost of the service. We have a lot of things to do on the regulation, and I think our regulation also, we can do the better to support them also, because for the infrastructure, you have the satellite constellation we can use in the continent. I’m going to stop there. I think we have another session, and I will leave the floor to the chair, and I think all your questions are relevant, and we’ll continue the bilateral discussion. Thank you.

Poncelet Ileleji:
So we’ll just close this session now with our Honorable Minister for State for Digital Economy of Ethiopia, and Honorable Hurriy Ali Madi, to just say a few words to close this session. Over to you, Honorable.

Hurry Ali Madi:
I would like to thank and appreciate all the panelists that I have talked about all about Africa. It was really interesting. Well, it’s my honor to be here also to hear about what we can do with Internet Governance Forum as an African country, what is really our role in implementing proper implementation is the most important thing. So here, as you all know, Internet Governance Forum is a very great platform to discuss about the opportunities of Internet, new opportunities and the challenges, how we can address and the new developments. As we all know, the world is very dynamic and very flexible, especially the digital is changing from time to time. So we need to get ready as a continent. That’s the most important thing. So how we can do it, how we can do it is a critical thing. So Africa is, as we know, youngest and most rapid urbanizing continent with its young and dynamic population. So we all talk about our young people, our future, our power, the future of Africa. So when we say this, we have to get ready to work and we should consider beyond the digital development. and it’s a digital development and digital transformation as a more advanced stage of the development. So we have to think of, we need to understand what do we mean digital transformation? What do we mean say? So there is a need of willingness to experiment and to change. So there is a need of commitment for the leadership. So we have to get ready to lead and to be committed the digital transformation. It’s not only an investment. We are talking about the improving of life of our community, our society. How we can improve, how we can improve their lives. That’s all what we can talking about. So we need to provide meaningful access for digital transformation services. We need to have a digital skills in training the most African countries. So we need to develop and deploy solutions to address our social and economic challenges as a continent. So we have to address through technology, through digital transformation. So we have to, it needs cooperation as a continent. As an African continent, we need to cooperate and coordinate. To do that, IGF is a very great platform. We can talk about national IGF, we can talk about African IGF. So how we can make it meaningful, meaningful for us to use in our policies, in our legal frameworks, how we can use it, especially in building the common infrastructure as a. We all say there is always a need of affordability. So if we are going to talk about affordability, we have to produce in our country. That’s the basic solution. And if we can produce, we can use it in our content, in our own language. So it is easy to understand for our society. And we can improve their lives because they can understand it. It’s in their own language. And they can afford it to access the devices and the other tools of technology. So this is one thing that we need to do at African countries to have a solution for the affordability. So that’s what we have.

Poncelet Ileleji:
Wonderful. Minister, please, I have to make you round up. It’s time. A session is coming.

Hurry Ali Madi:
Oh, okay. Is it next? Okay. Thank you so much.

Poncelet Ileleji:
Thank you, everybody, for coming. We’ll just take a brief picture and then we’re done. Thank you. Thank you. God bless you all.

Rodney Taylor

The analysis examines a series of discussions on various aspects of the postal sector and its collaboration with the digital realm. The speakers highlight several key points that shed light on the important role played by the postal sector in the digital age.

One of the main points discussed is the potential revenue opportunities that arise from the collaboration between the digital and postal sectors. The success of the Barbados Postal Service in earning significant revenue by embracing digital transformation exemplifies this point. By turning digital, the postal service was able to offer delivery services at a nominal cost, which proved to be more desirable for many people compared to the expenses of public transportation or driving.

Another significant aspect highlighted in the analysis is the importance of partnerships between postal services and governments, particularly the Ministries of Digital Transformation. This collaboration can contribute to national transformation initiatives, as demonstrated by the successful joint effort in Barbados between the Ministry of Digital Transformation and the Ministry of Home Affairs to deliver essential credentials such as passports and driver’s licenses.

The speakers also emphasize the role of the postal sector in promoting digital inclusion, particularly in underserved regions. Post offices serve as accessible points of interaction with government services for individuals who may lack digital skills. This highlights the crucial role played by the postal sector in bridging the digital divide and ensuring that all citizens have access to important online services.

Additionally, the analysis points out the significance of initiatives that focus on digitising indigenous artifacts and tracing ancestry. Countries in the Caribbean, such as Dominica, Trinidad, and Jamaica, house indigenous populations, and UNESCO has launched a program to digitally preserve their cultural heritage. This demonstrates the potential for leveraging the postal sector to protect and promote indigenous cultures.

The analysis also highlights the need for policymakers to better understand the connection between the digital and postal sectors. While some policymakers may not fully grasp the importance of combining online services with offline, it is essential for successful implementation and ensuring that all individuals benefit from technological advancements.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the significant role of the postal sector in the digital era. It highlights the potential for revenue generation through collaboration with the digital sector, the importance of partnerships with governments, the role of the postal sector in promoting digital inclusion, and the preservation of cultural heritage. The analysis also underscores the need for policymakers to be fully aware of the importance of combining online and offline services to ensure comprehensive and inclusive digital advancements.

Audience

The Caribbean Network Operators group has expressed their admiration for Tracy’s initiatives and their desire to collaborate with her to support and accelerate the deployment of these initiatives at both the national and regional levels. This demonstrates a positive sentiment towards Tracy’s work and highlights the potential for collaboration between organizations to achieve common goals in the Caribbean region.

Conversely, Christine Mujimba’s perspective raises concerns about the challenges faced by postal services in leveraging opportunities offered by digitisation and competition. She highlights the hindrances that the postal services in Uganda face and emphasises the need to reposition the traditional postal service system to overcome these hurdles.

Mujimba’s viewpoint suggests a negative sentiment towards the current state of affairs in the postal services sector. She questions the readiness of national post operators to take advantage of digitisation and competition and stresses the importance of policy factors that enable postal networks to leverage these opportunities. This implies that strategic and regulatory changes are needed to ensure the future viability and success of the postal services industry in the face of evolving market dynamics.

Another important observation is the urgency emphasized in repositioning the traditional postal service system. Increased competition from courier companies and new players like Uber has disrupted the traditional business model of postal services. As a result, there has been a trend of post offices closing down, and sustainability has become a pressing issue. This further underscores the need for proactive measures to adapt to the changing landscape and strike a balance between universal postal service obligations and market competition.

Overall, this summary highlights the contrasting sentiments and perspectives presented in the discussions. While the Caribbean Network Operators group shows a positive sentiment and willingness to collaborate, Christine Mujimba’s concerns shed light on the challenges faced by the postal services sector and emphasize the need for policy changes and urgent action. These insights provide a deeper understanding of the issues at hand and the potential paths forward for the concerned parties involved.

Tracey Hackshaw

The discussions revolved around various topics such as the .post initiative, digital inclusion, and the role of post offices in facilitating digital transformation. Tracey Hackshaw, who is part of the Universal Postal Union (UPU), is responsible for the .post initiative. The .post initiative aims to provide a secure and trusted top-level domain for the postal sector.

A key point of emphasis was the need for secure and trusted top-level domains in the postal sector. This highlights the importance of maintaining a secure environment for delivering services in the digital age. The UPU cybersecurity policy framework was discussed as an example of such a secure environment. Complying with this framework allows services to be delivered securely on a basic level and ensures security at the DNS level, particularly securing email communications. The .post environment also includes a dashboard that offers compliance tracking.

Connectivity was identified as a critical factor for effectively using post offices as service bureaus. The discussions highlighted that for post offices to fulfill their potential in facilitating digital transformation, they must have sufficient connectivity, especially in rural and remote areas. It was noted that connectivity goes beyond having PCs or internet connections at home; it includes the broader framework of using existing facilities like post offices to strengthen digital connectivity.

Digital inclusion was also a significant focus during the discussions. Talan Sultanov emphasised the importance of increasing digital literacy and skills in rural areas. The aim is to train local entrepreneurs on how to market their products online and prioritize underserved communities, such as girls, rural areas, and those with limited resources. Addressing the digital divide and ensuring equal access to digital resources and opportunities were seen as crucial for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The discussions also explored the potential of post offices in facilitating e-commerce and supporting small and medium enterprises (SMEs). It was recognised that building capacity in e-commerce within the postal sector is challenging due to limitations on IT skillsets and resources. However, the .post registration platform was highlighted as a solution to offer secure services, including DNS, email, web hosting, and e-commerce. This platform enables posts to obtain services and deploy rapidly, connecting traditional payment services. The cooperation agreement between the UPU and the Caribbean Telecommunications Union (CTU) was seen as instrumental in providing these capabilities to the Caribbean postal services.

Furthermore, the discussions highlighted the role of post offices in achieving digital inclusion and economic growth. The postal network was perceived as pivotal in providing digital inclusion and economic opportunities in various countries. Examples such as ZimbabweMall and Rwanda Mall demonstrated how post offices offer national marketplaces where SMEs can sell their products online. Additionally, the post office network was viewed as an important resource for providing digital inclusion in Barbados.

It was also emphasised that implementing the initiative of using public infrastructure for digital inclusion should be done securely. Hackshaw stressed the importance of implementing the initiative while ensuring the safety and security of public infrastructure. Assistance and advice on securely implementing the initiative were offered during the discussions.

A noteworthy observation from the discussions was Hackshaw expressing gratitude for receiving free chocolate, which symbolised appreciation and recognition. It was also highlighted that treats like chocolate should be distributed equally, reinforcing the importance of treating everyone with fairness and inclusivity.

In conclusion, the discussions centred around the .post initiative, digital inclusion, and the role of post offices in facilitating digital transformation. The need for secure and trusted top-level domains, connectivity, and digital literacy were emphasized. The potential of post offices in e-commerce and supporting SMEs was highlighted, as well as the role of post offices in achieving digital inclusion and economic growth. The secure implementation of using public infrastructure for digital inclusion was underscored, and the importance of treating everyone equally was emphasised.

Paul Donohoe

Upon analysis of the statements, several important points regarding the role of the postal sector in fostering digital inclusion and bridging the digital divide have been identified. Here is a more detailed summary:

1. An interactive session will explore the transformative potential of the postal sector in promoting digital inclusion, with a particular focus on underserved communities. Juan will monitor the chat to ensure participants can interact effectively. The panel will bring forth examples of solutions that have successfully assisted disadvantaged communities in becoming part of the digital economy, emphasizing the interactive nature of the session.

2. Despite nearly 20 years of discussions on the Information Society, a significant digital divide still exists in many communities. Paul Donohoe highlights this divide and emphasizes the need to bridge the gap to achieve reduced inequalities and promote industry, innovation, and infrastructure.

3. Paul Donohoe believes in the concept of meaningful connectivity, especially for underserved communities. Ongoing discussions within the Global Connect Initiative (GDC) and World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) revolve around the exploration of meaningful connectivity, underscoring Paul’s stance and positive sentiment on the matter.

4. The postal network is a pivotal asset for digital inclusion, with over 650,000 postal locations worldwide and millions of workers in daily contact with people. This extensive reach and connectivity make the postal network an essential tool in ensuring digital access for underserved communities. The positive sentiment surrounding this argument aligns with the fundamental role the postal network plays in providing digital inclusion.

5. The postal network holds a crucial position in the digital society and serves as a driving force for progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The UN Secretary-General’s message on World Post Day emphasizes the importance of the postal network in the digital world, and the new UPU connect.post initiative aims to connect every post office to the internet by 2030. These efforts signify the significant role the postal network plays in shaping a digital society and driving sustainable development.

6. The COVID-19 pandemic showcased the vital role played by the postal network. It was instrumental in delivering government aid and medical supplies, supporting SMEs by enabling them to trade online, and providing digital government and financial services to communities. The positive sentiment towards the postal network’s contribution during the pandemic underscores its ability to adapt and assist in times of crisis.

7. The postal network’s criticality for digital inclusion can be seen in its provision of services in local languages, aiding digital literacy and connectivity. Additionally, governments across the globe have utilized the postal network as a means of promoting digital inclusion. Examples such as the community access centers provided by Zimpost in Zimbabwe highlight the postal service’s significance in fostering digital inclusion, particularly in underserved communities.

8. The transformation brought about by e-commerce necessitates a more digitally capable postal network. People’s expectations from delivery services have increased due to e-commerce, and the postal services are evolving to meet these demands. Global examples highlight how postal delivery is adapting to modern needs, further supporting the argument of a digitally capable postal network.

9. Investing in postal networks can contribute to the sustainability of local communities by enabling local businesses to engage in e-commerce and providing digital literacy. The positive sentiment surrounding this argument reflects the understanding that strong postal networks can play a vital role in community sustainability and economic growth.

10. Collaborating with policymakers and integrating the postal network into digital inclusion initiatives can result in greater access and affordability. Post offices operating as Wi-Fi hubs, delivering affordable mobile devices, and connecting SMEs to e-commerce platforms can facilitate online business and narrowing the digital divide.

Other noteworthy observations include the Universal Postal Union (UPU)’s cybersecurity policy framework, which ensures secure service delivery to the posts. This framework is being deployed to strengthen the postal sector’s security. Furthermore, the UPU’s plan to provide secure services on the .post registration platform reflects their commitment to providing secure digital platforms for postal services globally.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the vital role played by the postal sector in achieving digital inclusion, bridging the digital divide, and supporting sustainable development goals. The postal network’s ability to adapt and provide essential services during the COVID-19 pandemic further emphasizes its significance. It is evident that the postal network’s extensive reach, connectivity, and evolving capabilities contribute significantly to promoting digital inclusion, connecting communities, and empowering underserved populations.

Talan Sultanov

The analysis of postal services and digital connectivity in Kyrgyzstan highlights several important points regarding the challenges and opportunities faced by the country. Firstly, it mentions that small landlocked and mountainous countries, like Kyrgyzstan, have unique challenges in terms of digital connectivity. Factors such as long distances, deserts, and mountains present obstacles to establishing efficient digital infrastructure.

The importance of digital literacy and skills is also emphasised in the analysis. It is stated that increased digital literacy and skills are vital for maximising the benefits of digitalisation. Digital skills training is specifically mentioned as a means to enable rural communities to effectively utilise e-government services, e-commerce, and FinTech services.

Reclaiming Central Asia’s status as an economic hub is another key argument put forward in the analysis. It is mentioned that Central Asia was once the centre of economic activity for many centuries due to the Silk Road and the efficient postal system. The analysis suggests that by embracing digitalisation and leveraging their unique geographical position, Central Asian countries, including Kyrgyzstan, have the potential to reclaim their prominent economic status.

The potential benefits of digitalisation for postal services are also highlighted. It is argued that the digitalisation of postal services could greatly increase their efficiency. Proposals have been made to connect every postal office to the internet by 2030, which aligns with a similar initiative to connect every school to the internet.

The analysis also touches upon the need for more diverse internet content. It suggests that the current lack of representation of Central Asia and its history in digital platforms suggests a bias towards Western content. The argument is made that there is a need for greater diversity in internet content to reflect and value the cultural heritage and history of Central Asia.

Internet connectivity is seen as a significant factor in benefitting remote areas. The analysis cites positive examples from Kyrgyzstan, where internet connectivity has allowed postal officers in remote villages to check for mail without physically travelling to nearby towns. Improved internet connectivity has also aided in maintaining operations during harsh winter conditions.

Addressing the issue of foreign language content accessibility, the analysis mentions that providing internet to villages in Kyrgyzstan led to the challenge of foreign language content being inaccessible for locals. Efforts have been made to create digital content in the Kyrgyz language to bridge this gap and ensure that digital literacy can spur more information exchange.

However, the lack of resources in local languages is identified as a limiting factor that can restrict access to information. Despite efforts to bring internet to villages, the analysis notes that locals struggled to derive value from it due to the dominance of foreign language content. An initiative was launched to deliver books for children in the Kyrgyz language to address this issue.

The analysis also highlights opportunities for Kyrgyzstan’s postal services. It mentions that exploring opportunities with digitalisation, including e-commerce and providing banking services, could be beneficial. Examples from Japan are provided to support this argument, where the postal service plays a significant role in providing financial services.

Moreover, the critical role of postal services in facilitating government activities is discussed. The analysis states that postal services can play a crucial role in activities such as elections and data collection. The Kyrgyzstan Postal Service has been instrumental in collecting biometric data for elections, creating a trustworthy system that led to peaceful elections.

However, there are concerns about the security of biometric data collected through postal services. This aspect is mentioned as a negative sentiment and highlights the need to address data security issues in the collection and storage of such sensitive information.

The analysis identifies the potential for postal services to contribute significantly to the deployment of community networks. In Kyrgyzstan, postal offices actively participate in providing digital skills training. It is argued that postal officers can be at the forefront of providing these trainings and contribute to communal digital empowerment in their local communities.

Conclusively, the analysis underscores the challenges and opportunities faced by postal services and digital connectivity in Kyrgyzstan. It emphasises the importance of digital literacy and skills, reclaiming Central Asia’s economic prominence, the potential benefits of digitalisation for postal services, the need for diverse internet content, the positive impact of internet connectivity in remote areas, and the role of postal services in community networks and digital empowerment. The analysis also highlights concerns regarding foreign language content accessibility, the lack of resources in local languages, and data security. Overall, the observations and insights gained from the analysis shed light on potential strategies and areas of focus that could contribute to the development of postal services and digital connectivity in Kyrgyzstan.

Paul Donohoe:
on digital divides and digital inclusion. My name is Paul Donohoe, I’m from the Universal Postal Union from the UPU and I have the pleasure of introducing this discussion today. We are joined by a distinguished group of speakers from a variety of regions and backgrounds from around the world who will all share with us some valuable insights on this critical topic for digital inclusion and the digital divide. I’m also joined today in co-moderating this with my colleague Tracey Hackshaw, so Tracey introduce yourself please.

Tracey Hackshaw:
Thank you Paul and welcome and good morning, good evening, good night wherever you are in the world. As Paul said, my name is Tracey Hackshaw, I’m also with the Universal Postal Union, the UPU and I’m responsible for the .post initiative which is a secure, trusted, top level domain for the postal sector and we are looking to give you some great information about what we do and what we plan to do and hear from you as well about what you’d like us to do for you, so welcome and let’s have some good discussion this morning, thank you.

Paul Donohoe:
Thanks Tracey and yes, together we aim to ensure that this session is interactive, engaging and informative for both our online and offline participants, the people in the room here today. We’re joined by a number of people online from around the world as well which is great to see. We also have an online moderator who’s joining us from Switzerland, he has got up early this morning, Juan Moroni who is a digital inclusion, digital transformation expert. from the UPU in Switzerland as well, so good morning, Juan.

Tracey Hackshaw:
I see Juan is chatting. Aha, okay. He’s in the chat, yes.

Paul Donohoe:
Super. Which is great because that is a good way to highlight the interactive nature of this session. Juan will be monitoring the online chat and ensuring that all participants have the opportunity to ask questions and share their thoughts. And so Juan will be taking that focus and we will come back to you, Juan, during the session to see how the online discussion is going. So before we dive into the discussion today, I’d like to introduce our esteemed panel of speakers. Each of them brings a unique perspective to the table. First of all, on my right, Mr. Rodney Taylor, who is the Secretary-General of the Caribbean Telecommunications Union. Rodney will be well known to many of you with his activities in the IGF. So welcome, Rodney. And we’re also joined by Mr. Talan Sultanov, the co-founder and board member of the Internet Society in the Kyrgyz chapter. So welcome, Talan. And we’re honoured to have your participation in the discussion today. What we really want to do is have this to be an interactive and informative session, as Tracey mentioned. So our discussion today revolves around the transformative potential of the postal sector in fostering digital inclusion, particularly looking at the digital divide that still exists in many communities and in the underserved communities where there are citizens and small businesses that are still disconnected, missing out on this fabulous opportunity that the digital economy is bringing. We have been almost 20 years since the initial discussions on the Information Society began in Tunis. And today, still, there is this significant divide, particularly in rural and remote communities, and underserved parts of the population are still missing out on these benefits that we all take for granted, particularly in major capital cities and in developed countries around the world. So, with our panellists today, we want to explore this topic, share experiences, understand some of the challenges and where there can be solutions and examples of solutions that have helped bring these disadvantaged and underserved communities into the digital economy. And particularly considering that there is this new ongoing discussion within the GDC and within the WSIS around meaningful connectivity and what does meaningful connectivity really mean in this area, particularly serving underserved communities. Then we hope to explore a number of different possibilities and a number of different examples in that area today. So, before we get into the first session, I’ll just give a bit of a highlight of the role that the postal sector plays in the digital economy. So, I’ll pull up some slides, if I can use the technology, Tracey.

Tracey Hackshaw:
Yes, and we can see it’s online.

Paul Donohoe:
Yes, perfect. Thank you. So, yeah, the title of this session today is the Postal Network as a Vehicle for Digital Inclusion. And as I mentioned, the postal network is a network that exists in over 650,000 locations around the world. And most communities in the world have access to postal, post office and postal services. There are millions of employees within the postal network as well that have daily contact with people. And I think that this is an important element about ensuring digital inclusion. It’s not just about the technology. It’s not just about the connectivity. It’s also about the human touch, particularly in underserved communities and in the underprivileged parts of society. And this week, actually, on Monday of this week, was World Post Day. And we celebrated that around the world. And the UN Secretary General’s message on World Post Day, I think is very telling and very relevant for our discussions this week, where he says that the postal system has long served as a cornerstone of connectivity across the globe. And that has been for thousands of years. And in today’s digital world, that fundamental role remains key. The postal network is immense and extends to many of the remotest communities. And we can maximise its reach to help boost digital inclusion and drive progress on the sustainable development goals, particularly. The theme of this year’s World Post Day, Together for Trust, calls on governments, the private sector and development partners to do exactly that. And we were very honoured to have the UN Secretary General also recognise the UPU for its leadership in. the new connect.post initiative, which aims to ensure that every post office has sufficient access to the internet by 2030. The concept of this project is connect a post, connect a community, and connect the people in that community and connect the businesses in that community to benefit from the digital society. Now this comes from all the way back, as I mentioned, in WSIS. The WSIS outcome documents, the Declaration of Principles, the Geneva Plan of Action, the Tunis Agenda, recognise that the postal network has an important role to play and is an important infrastructure for the information economy. And there was a number of references in those outcome documents to encourage governments and other stakeholders to establish sustainable community access centres in post offices, to design specific training programs in the use of ICTs, to educate the postal workers and help postal workers educate the communities that they serve in ICTs. And then also to affirm the commitment to build ICT capacities to improve access and use of postal networks and services. So these are all extract references from the WSIS Declaration, Plan of Action, and the Tunis Agenda. So this discussion has been a long discussion over the last 20 years, but still today we see that of the 650,000 post offices that are located in communities around the world, there are still a significant number of post offices that are not connected. And so that’s a strong message that we want to bring out of this panel session, is the call to action to governments to continue to integrate the post into their digital plans and consider the important role that the post plays in facilitating the connection between the people and businesses. and the digital economy, and so we hope in this session today to explore a number of ideas and options around that, and to see where this can go for the coming decade of action towards 2030. Before I hand over to our panel, I also just want to reflect on some strong learnings that we’ve had in the last few years due to the pandemic. The pandemic has really accelerated a number of initiatives, and no more than also in the postal network. The postal network was binding societies during the pandemic. It was servicing the citizens and the small businesses. It was one of the public infrastructures that was strengthened during the pandemic to deliver a variety of services to the people who were locked away or isolated due to the restrictions of the pandemic. Post offices were delivering government aid to communities through financial aid. There was also a postal network was used to deliver physical medical supplies to communities so that they could be protected against this terrible pandemic. Postal workers continued to service the communities during the pandemic as they do during war and conflict areas as well, and so this was reinforced during the pandemic as the post was delivering services and distributing government aid, and taking part in digital transformation initiatives, including working with other government agencies to deliver government services, digital government services, digital financial services to the communities. And again, we’re talking about really the reach out into the underserved communities as well, which is where the real value of these services can exist. And also supporting small and medium enterprises, who were very much affected by the pandemic in terms of their ability to trade. People were locked down, so they weren’t having access through traditional physical markets. And so many SMEs transitioned to digital companies. And the Post was there to facilitate that transition to digital companies, and acted as a hub for exchange of goods and financial services for SMEs so that they could continue to trade online. And I think we’ll hear about some of those opportunities in today’s panel as well. So I will now hand over to Tracey, my co-moderator, who can help facilitate the discussion during the panel as we go through the variety of experts that we have. Thanks Tracey.

Tracey Hackshaw:
Thank you, Paul. And thanks for that wonderful introduction and that historical background that gives us good context for today’s session. So as we move through the open forum, and as Paul indicated, we’d like to address stakeholders directly on the opportunities that are available through the postal sector. But by giving practical examples and some case studies, which is why we have assembled this particular group of experts. So I’d like to start with SG Rodney Taylor, who, as we indicated, is the Caribbean Telecoms Union leader. He’s had a lot of experience doing work in the Caribbean, and in particular in his home country in Barbados, especially with the Post. So that’s very helpful for our discussion. So I’d like to ask Rodney. What do you think, based on your experience, could be a great opportunity for the postal sector, especially in countries like the Caribbean, the Pacific, other underserved regions, for digital inclusion? And have you seen opportunities there? Have you experienced any particular references that we could use? And maybe give us an idea of what we can do to, based on those experiences, probably improve on or advise others moving forward in that regard. Rodney, probably over to you.

Rodney Taylor:
Thank you very much, Tracy. Good day, everyone. Happy to be a part of this discussion this morning and to share my experience from a small state in Barbados, but also from where I sit at the regional level within CARICOM, the Caribbean community. So the internet was supposed to be the death of postal services, right? Nobody was sending mail anymore. Everything was electronic mail, and therefore, post offices would be banished from the face of the earth. It is far from what has happened. There’s been, of course, the growth of e-commerce, the need to get goods into people’s hands, and that is only, I mean, Paul laid the good groundwork in terms of the pandemic and what happened and how posts were able to facilitate the continuation of public service delivery. In Barbados, in particular, there was an initiative where the Ministry of Digital Transformation, Ministry of Innovation, Science, and Technology worked with the Ministry of Home Affairs. I think post falls under Home Affairs, but with the Barbados Postal Service to deliver credentials, in particular, the driver’s license, where you could apply to have your driver’s license renewed, and then, within 24 hours, that’s delivered to your. home or your office. That was one of the big success stories because that, you compare that with having to take time off from work to go to a government office to spend an hour or two in the line, pay cash and then return another day to collect that license or wait, or wait, in some cases they, you had to wait. So all of that, the productivity gains from simply that simple implementation and collaboration with the Postal Service and then that was expanded to the delivery of the passport as well, all right, and of course that has now cascaded into other services. But for me it’s a no-brainer, but that specific aspect of partnering with government to, especially the Ministries of Digital Transformation, to support the initiatives, the National Transformation Initiatives at the national level and to make life easier for citizens. I remember once an Estonian told me, you know, we don’t know where the government offices are, we just, we don’t go. So I can’t tell you where to find the Ministry of, you know, the Licensing Authority, I don’t know. So, and that’s what we want, we want to keep people out of government offices. It is simply inefficient, it is a waste of time. I’ve seen where, you know, there have been lines even before the government office opens, you know, at 5 in the morning people just want to be first in the queue so they can get their license or whatever and head to work. This is really not how we do things in a digital economy. With respect to the service bureaus, and again this is something, a discussion that goes back maybe 25 years or more, where we talked about service bureaus, a one-stop shop for government. This is an opportunity to, because the post offices are in communities, that I should be able to put on my short pants, walk down the street and interact if, you know, if I don’t have the necessary, the skills, the digital skills. to interact that I can go to my friendly neighborhood post office and have someone help me. In Barbados already the post office helps persons with the application for U.S. Visas, those persons who don’t have a computer, don’t have a credit card or who simply don’t have the skills to do it. And if you’ve ever had to apply for a U.S. Visa online, you know, it requires a degree in itself. It requires you to submit so much information. It takes at least an hour, maybe more, two hours sometimes. And so you can understand it may be daunting for some people. So if you can have that hand holding for those citizens that need that help, and that goes across the board. And ultimately you want also that citizens don’t have to, like I said, find this department and then find that other department and find a third department to simply access government services. If they can go to one convenient location and interact, then it makes all the sense in the world. So for me it’s a no-brainer. And the thing is to be able to get that message across and build awareness at the level of the policymakers so they understand that these are not two separate and distinct discussions that we’re having. We’re talking about how can we work together to support the implementation of the national digital transformation, and working along with POST to make life easier for our citizens. Thank you.

Tracey Hackshaw:
Thank you very much, Ashley Taylor. And what you’ve said I think brings to the fore the possibilities that we can look at utilizing the facilities that the POST offices already have, the people that are already there so we can tap into resources that are there, to think bigger in terms of how we see the POST office in our own jurisdictions, our own countries. There are opportunities there, I believe, for new ways of doing things, doing business, new ways of connecting people. and new ways of actually ensuring that those who are not currently in the digital economy can get that first touch, that first feel by having a PC at home or connectivity at home. Maybe there’s an opportunity to use something like the post office to do that. I touched on connectivity, which is my segue now into my other colleague to my left, talent from the Kyrgyz chapter of the, Internet Society. Talent has a lot of experience in community networks, actually. And this is something that I believe is another aspect of the connectivity challenge we need to look at. Connectivity meaning the broader perspective of connectivity. So when you look at the post offices, especially in rural, far-flung areas, there could be challenges in terms of connectivity, in terms of infrastructure as a whole, electricity, et cetera. So we talk about using these post offices as a vehicle, but if they’re not connected, then this argument falls flat on its face. So talent is here to help us understand what’s actually possible, given the limited resources that many countries have to extend connectivity and what can be done given his experience in doing such a thing in a small state, in a landlocked state, but in a state that I think has done it successfully. And Talan, over to you.

Talan Sultanov:
Thanks so much, Tracy, for the very good segue into the presentation. I’ll try to share my screen. And I prepared a couple of slides. But I don’t see.

Tracey Hackshaw:
You have to just, you see the share screen?

Talan Sultanov:
I don’t see it. Maybe I’m not my host, yeah?

Tracey Hackshaw:
The green one, the green one.

Talan Sultanov:
Ah, yes, yes. Yes, yes. See, although I work in the IT, I still struggle every time. Yeah, the PowerPoint or the PDF.

Tracey Hackshaw:
Any video?

Talan Sultanov:
No, no video. Can we see it? Aha, excellent. And Paul mentioned that this is going to be an interactive session, so I try to do it interactive as well. This is just a picture that shows what is Kyrgyzstan. We just heard the perspective of a small island developing nations, and in this presentation, I would like to show you the small landlocked mountainous countries. I think we have probably similar challenges, and also other kinds of challenges that we deal, and I’m very glad. I’ve always wanted to meet colleagues in small developing island nations to learn how to promote our countries and maybe work together to demonstrate the situation. And when I talk about the interactivity, I prepared just a very small quiz, and soon there will be Christmas. If you don’t celebrate Christmas, the new year, like in Kyrgyzstan, and this is a question I would like to ask you, and if you respond correctly, I have chocolate from Central Asia. And if somebody responds from online, we will send it by post, and we will see how long it will take the chocolate to get. So any guesses? I’ll give you a hint if you’d like. North Pole? North Pole? One option? Any other ideas? Lapland? Good. So one hint. Because I come from Central Asia, it’s related to Central Asia. I think we are all correct that Santa should be living in every part of the world to be able to deliver. And actually there were scientists in I think Norway or in Sweden where Lapland is close. So it’s not us saying that and they calculated that for Santa to be able to deliver all this mail to all the children around the world, he should be living in Kyrgyzstan. Can you imagine? And that would allow him to get everywhere at the same time. And it’s actually kind of also in reality, the next slide also shows that Central Asia, and this is a map of Eurasia, was actually the center of economic gravity in the world for many centuries. And of course then with the Industrial Revolution, the Information Revolution, it shifted towards Europe to the West. And now the economists are predicting maybe it will shift back. And I was thinking why Central Asia was able to become the center of economic gravity in the world. And probably because we had the Silk Road, the ancient Silk Road. And along the Silk Road there was a very effective postal system running, the ancient pony express. So you could get from Mongolia to Europe in a very, very short time. And this pony express was considered to be one of the fastest and the most extensive postal networks in the world. in the world at the time, and I think it inspired the modern postal services, too. So when I was looking Wikipedia today, Pony Express, it doesn’t talk about the ancient Pony Express, it talks about Pony Express in the US. So very little mention of the ancient one, so I think it also shows how Internet is still geared towards more Western content, and we need to work on that as well to bring more kind of information there. And there is a book, if you have a chance, maybe you would read it, by Dr. Fred Starr, he lives in Washington, DC, big Central Asia scholar, and he titled his book The Lost Enlightenment. He says, so Central Asia was the center of cultural, scientific, postal, you know, experience, but at some point it all went away, and what happened? And can we bring it back? And that’s one of my, I guess, small goals, is to make Central Asia again part of the global economy, and I think, as Rodney mentioned, with the Internet, e-commerce, all this becomes possible thanks to the new technologies, but of course in Central Asia we have major challenges. We are landlocked. One of the experts who is actually in the IGF today, he also coined the sanctions locked, and I added we are also brain drained. So this makes it really very difficult to bring Internet connectivity and to improve the postal connectivity too, because as you can see in this map, very long distances, deserts, mountains, so I wouldn’t envy the people who work in the postal service to be delivering goods to and from our region, and I think that digitalization could actually make lives easier. And the goal of our session and of this initiative is to connect every postal office to the Internet by 2030. And this resonated very much with the activity that’s already happening at the moment, is to connect every school in the world to the Internet by 2030. It’s an initiative by ITU and UNICEF called GIGA. And I think here we could actually join forces because the schools and post offices are the hubs in many of the villages. So whatever happens in the village, people gather either in the schools, like if it’s elections or provision of the government services or in the postal office. So we need to together work to connect all these villages to the Internet. And that’s what we’ve been doing. And of course the realities on the ground are very difficult. So sometimes you have to go through very difficult mountainous terrain, or there is no electricity if you want to bring Internet to the village, or cables break and you have to put some local inventions like plastic bottle of a broken cable so it doesn’t break again. Or there is no transport so you still use horses to deliver goods back and forth. So we’ve been working a lot on connecting villages to the Internet. And what we realized later, and speakers earlier mentioned that, and Paul said that it’s not only about infrastructure, it’s about actually people’s human kind of aspects and skills. And we’ve been working a lot on increasing digital literacy and skills of communities in rural areas, so they would be able to take advantage of opportunities that digitalization brings. So training them how to use e-government services. actually training their government officials in local areas on e-government services, so that then they can become trainers for the local communities. E-commerce, so we have entrepreneurs in villages who produce local goods, but they don’t know how to market them on the Internet, and they don’t know how to use the existing systems, the logistics supply chains to deliver their products, and FinTech services too. So this was kind of just a brief introduction to what we do and how we could collaborate together, and probably during the discussion I could share more of the information. Thank you. Back to you.

Tracey Hackshaw:
Thank you very much, Talan. This slide that you’re on, don’t move it. I like that. That’s a really interesting way to end this. Girls first, rural first, mobile first, local language first, and green first. And I think that’s really important for our discussion so that we recognize here that there are quite a slew of underserved communities in this space that we need to serve. And again, this is something about inclusion. Digital inclusion is about including those who are not included. Simple as that. And to a large extent, the list you have here summarizes that quite nicely. We could add to this, of course, persons with disabilities. We could add to this any number of groups. Let’s not target any one group or the other. So one of the questions we need to get to now, I think, and I think Paul is going to jump in here, how do we really drive this forward? Now that we’ve talked about some of these cases, how do you think we can drive this forward? What can countries do specifically to ensure that we improve connectivity in these communities? What can the post do? How can we utilize the post to enable this? You mentioned that the schools are doing it. There’s a project that I think I’m going to toss to Paul now that’s called Connect.post, Paul mentioned earlier, that looks at this. There’s some work going on right now, I believe, in the Caribbean regarding these areas, and I’ll be spreading to other regions soon. So maybe Paul, perhaps you could give us some insights on what the UPU is doing to make this happen.

Paul Donohoe:
Yeah, thanks, Tracey. And I want to pick up on some of the points that have just been made by both Rodney and Talant, because I think they’re very relevant for the discussion around digital inclusion, and just thinking about the asset that exists in the postal network and how it has been used in a number of countries. We have seen, particularly the issue of local language that you mentioned, Talant, is a critical issue in these communities where we have this predominance of English on the internet in a way that that excludes a lot of the people in the underserved communities. And this is where governments have seen the benefit of the postal network. As I mentioned, there’s 650,000 post offices, they are staffed by people. Those people are in contact with the local population and the local citizens and the local businesses every day in their local language. And we have examples in all regions where the postal service has been a critical human hand to these communities. In the area of e-commerce that you mentioned, e-commerce is almost like the new Santa Claus. Yeah, e-commerce is the 21st century Santa Claus, because when people are online, they expect to have things delivered to them. And they expect those things to be delivered relatively quickly. We have a lot of great examples in postal delivery where a postcard or a letter arrives one year later addressed to Paul in Bern, Switzerland. You know, there’s these great stories around how the post has been able to deliver mail in that way. But now in this world of e-commerce, that’s not enough. There needs to be a much more intelligent, digitally capable network that can support e-commerce deliveries as people expect them. Just like the children expect Santa Claus to deliver off their Christmas list, we now expect to have those e-commerce deliveries come to us. And also businesses would like to participate from these communities, they are producing local artefacts, for example, which can be very popular and can generate a lot of income which will bring sustainability to these communities. We talk about meaningful connectivity, we need to also bring sustainability into the meaningful connectivity discussion. Sustainability of the resource which is providing the connectivity and how that brings sustainability of communities. And post offices have developed solutions in this area. Community access centres in Zimbabwe are a good example where Zimpost, the Zimbabwe Postal Service, is providing community access centres. They are providing digital connectivity, they are providing digital literacy services to these communities so people can come to the post office and other partners of the post who provide digital literacy training, who provide digital capability training are using the post office facility as a location for training the local community. So, this complements the delivery of the connectivity to bring capacity building to these communities. Posts are obviously delivery partners, so they can deliver the mobile phones to these communities. They can work with governments to deliver affordable mobile phones, which is a critical policy issue in a number of countries, where we heard yesterday in the main hall the issue of affordability of mobile devices or of devices to connect to the internet. Again, the integration of post into policy makers’ discussions and into policies for digital inclusion can bring affordable delivery of these devices to those communities. It can also bring affordable delivery of connection points. Post offices can be Wi-Fi hubs, connectivity hubs in these communities. And again, in the case of Zimbabwe, we have examples there of Zimpost as a community access centre providing local network connectivity in that area. And also for SMEs, SMEs who want to be able to sell online, as Talant mentioned. This digital world provides them with that opportunity, but they lack the understanding, they lack the skills on how to sell online. So, we have seen examples in Asia, where the post has partnered with eBay, for example. And the post office has provided eBay training to local entrepreneurs who are making these artefacts and making these goods that are interesting to sell online. So, on a Thursday afternoon at four o’clock, eBay comes to the post office. They organise a community education and train local entrepreneurs on how to be able to sell online. The post office is the hub for this information access, but it is also the gateway. to exchange the goods and also a lot of financial services. Financial services in the post is a strong line of business and that’s obviously important for e-commerce as well. So, I think some of these issues of access and local language services from the post are an important part of helping the digital inclusion through the postal network.

Tracey Hackshaw:
Thank you very much, Paul. I just want to remind everyone this is an open forum. So, once you are able to gather your thoughts and perhaps pose any comments, feedback or questions, feel free to step to the mic, both online and on site in this room and we will recognize you and take your feedback in. So, I’m going to wait while we wait for any of that to come in. I’m going to now continue with our chat. So, one of the things that, Paul, you just ended on this issue with local language. In terms of indigenous groups and so, I’m going to see if that works with both of you. There has been a discussion around inclusion regarding their heritage, e-heritage is something called e-heritage, digital heritage. There has been discussion in the past about whether or not these access centers, these tele-centers can play a role there. Because in many cases, they are separate villages, separate communes in some cases, depending on how the state deals with the indigenous peoples. Some cases, they’re integrated. But there are very few case studies of where that has been able to be placed online, curated by the communities themselves. And sustained over a period of time. There seems to be an opportunity here to utilize. the GDC as one of these vehicles for this, the posts coming in and saying let’s play a role, some additional connectivity, let’s look at this as one of those potential inclusion topics. So I’m gonna ask perhaps Talant first, and then maybe Rodney, given his knowledge of the Caribbean and the indigenous people’s issues, but what do you think about that and how that can work? So Talan, perhaps you can go first.

Talan Sultanov:
Thanks so much, Tracy. Actually, this reminds me of two interesting stories I wanted to share, one following up Paul’s intervention. When we connected the first community network in Kyrgyzstan, it’s a village in a mountainous area of Susamur, the very first beneficiary of the internet was a local post office officer. Because before the internet connectivity, what he had to do is every week, at least once a week, he had to go to a nearby town, which was over the mountains, to check if there was mail for the villagers. He didn’t have, there is no mobile connectivity, no internet, so he didn’t know if there was any letters or packages or not, maybe passports for the local villagers. But in the winter, the road would be so treacherous that it would take him maybe like, one day just to get to the town, and then he would spend the night, and the next day he would come back. And once the internet appeared, he could at least find out, is there anything for me in the town that makes me, that I have to go and pick up? And actually, this is similar to the interesting cartoon that we watched when we were all locked down during COVID with kids about Santa Claus, and there is this young post officer who gets sent to Laplandia, very far away, and he has to go cross the seas and mountains and forests just to find out if there is any message for him to deliver. And another aspect of what he engaged in is. to get more letters to run through the post office, so that he can keep his job, he helped increase digital literacy of people in the village. So if we increase the e-commerce literacy of people, if we provide the digital content in local languages, that would mean that there will be much more information exchange happening. What we found out when we brought internet to the villages, the local community would say, thank you, but there is nothing for me in there, because I speak my language, and all the content in there is foreign. So that’s why we started as a second big effort was to create digital content, online content in Kyrgyz language. Plus, we found out that in these villages, there were no books for kids in Kyrgyz language. So one of the activities that we just recently did is to collect 1,000 books for kids, and we wanted to deliver them to many of the villages, but we couldn’t do it physically. And of course, we turned to the post office to help us deliver these Christmas gifts, almost. Thank you.

Tracey Hackshaw:
Thank you.

Rodney Taylor:
Yeah, thank you. There are indigenous populations in the Caribbean. I can think of Dominica, Trinidad, Jamaica, and so on. And I believe it’s UNESCO that has an initiative for digitizing some of these indigenous artifacts. There is a market globally for this kind of information, in particular, these businesses that offer the tracing of your heritage, right? I think Ancestry.com and others like it. And I saw there’s a move where, especially when you look at the historical, say for example, the transatlantic slave trade, where there’s still a lot of information. And where there’s a diaspora in the United States and in the UK, people want to be able to trace their lineage. And I think, so that’s an opportunity, I think, where it’s an opportunity for developing countries, those that have a rich history, those that have indigenous populations, to monetize that content. Now, I would say that not enough is being done, and we run the risk of providing connectivity to people who are not connected now, and then there isn’t the content that is relevant to them, or there isn’t the values that are also relevant to them. There are a few initiatives in Barbados that don’t come to mind right now, but I’m happy to share them at another time, where, again, the focus is on tracing ancestry and so on, and documenting, say, the transatlantic slave trade and other, you know, the history of colonialism and so on, so that people are aware of the cultural heritage and those sorts of historical artifacts that are of relevance today. Thanks.

Tracey Hackshaw:
Thanks. And as I go to Paul, I want to add something to Paul’s response to that question. So Paul, we spoke about government services and allowing the post offices to be, you know, a one-stop shop in some way. What in your experience have you seen at the UPU with the post becoming that vehicle for including – that’s another version of inclusion now – including citizens who have been, you know, not reached by the government service footprint, in terms of trying to get them to help them, not just with delivering the service itself, so delivering a passport and so on, but maybe even helping them actually apply for a service? Because again, as services go online, some people just don’t know how. don’t have a device, as we spoke about. Maybe there’s an opportunity there for that to happen as well. So, if you have any response to the first part about indigenous, but we’re now gonna switch that as well to the assistive aspect of inclusion. Paul?

Paul Donohoe:
Yeah, Tracey, I think you bring up an important new point around people’s access to the digital world, because a lot of people still find it difficult to complete government forms online, to be able to complete procedures for importing and exporting. And this is where the post office has provided services. So, we know in Lebanon, for example, Lebanon, the government has utilized the post in Lebanon to support completion of online documents with offline verification. So, you initiate the government transaction online through a portal, which is hosted by Liban Post, which is the Lebanese postal service. And then once you get to the submission of the document, you need to provide some physical proof of who you are and the validity of the information provided. So, you then come to the post office. You can schedule an appointment online so that you don’t have to waste your time queuing for or traveling for a long period of time and then having to queue. So, you can schedule an appointment. You can come and visit the post office, verify the online information that you have provided, and then that completes the transaction. And so, that’s also available for people who are not digitally literate. They can basically just initiate an appointment at the post office to say, I want to complete this government process. And then the postman, a woman in the post office will actually assist in completing that process. And that’s a very important part. That’s not just in Lebanon with Liban Post. In Kenya, with the Huduma project, which is a delivery of government services project throughout the country, then Huduma centres are established in post offices again. There are, in Kenya, there are 55 government services that you can have access to through the post office in a variety of hybrid or online services, and again, that supports the local language, the local communities, and the digital literacy issues in there. When we talk about going online, Tracey, I might actually give a bit of a segue into you introducing some ideas into the conversation. Then we talk about how the post can be a facilitator of businesses getting online. But to do that, we need to also empower the post with this capability, and this is something at the UPU that we are working very strongly on. Within the Connect.post project, we are advocating with policymakers for them to be included into the digital plans. We’re advocating for the connectivity of these post offices, but as Rodney just mentioned, connectivity is not enough. There needs to be also this capability within the post office. Also, when businesses go online, there needs to be this assurance of security. When you’re on the digital world, then there’s a whole new set of skills that you need to make sure that you can survive in this digital world as well. So, in the UPU, we are developing programs to support post offices in this capability build, and this is maybe something, Tracey, that you can talk to in terms of the dot post initiative and its context within Connect.post.

Tracey Hackshaw:
Thank you for that segue, Paul. I will share my screen, just as you have allowed me to. to do so, and I’ll show the audience what’s exactly what you’re talking about in terms of the cybersecurity framework that the UPU has looked to build out. Let me just find a way to do this full screen and get this done. Hang on a sec.

Paul Donohoe:
I guess we don’t need to instruct you, so it’s just a matter of finding the right button.

Tracey Hackshaw:
Right. There we are. So I’m hoping you’re seeing my screen now. No? Because it’s sharing. It’s loading. It’s loading. It’s loading slowly. Is it loading? All right. Well, what you should be seeing is a slide that refers to the cybersecurity framework. Let me just try again. Let me try again. Oh, that’s okay. Maybe I’ll leave it there just to avoid any challenges and try and give you a view. What are you seeing? The screen? All right. Great. Okay. Great. So I think I could use this. Let’s get a little bigger maybe. It’s fine? Okay. Let’s use this. So to a large extent, this screen attempts to show the overall UPU cybersecurity policy framework, which is based around what Paul mentioned as the dot post environment. We have a platform, which I’m currently in charge of, that looks to roll out for the posts a secure, trusted environment where you can deliver services utilizing a secure top level domain, the dot post TLD, but also a series of accompanying policy frameworks, services and wrappers around that. So we start with a security framework, as you can see here. I don’t want to get too technical, but rest assured, complying to this framework allows posts and anyone actually, for that matter, to deliver services. that are reasonably secure in terms of getting it at a basic level. We’re not securing it at a network level, we’re doing it at the DNS level here, and looking to secure email as well. So we’re utilizing standards that are well known to the IT folks in the organization, SPF, DKIM, DMARC, and also .POST’s DNSSEC compliance, we secure it at the root. And not only that, we have a framework where we can allow you to track your compliance using something called Cybertrack .POST. So once you are part of the .POST environment, you are able to track your compliance on a dashboard that we are able to offer to you. You’ll get alerts, you’ll be able to ensure that on a rolling basis, daily, otherwise, whether you’re compliant with all of our policy frameworks and how we approach that. And as we move forward in terms of what we’re going to do next, we have a learning platform where you can build capacity, as we talked about that earlier, one of the aspects of this inclusion is building capacity around cybersecurity, digital, e-commerce, and so on. So we have built out a learning platform for that to happen. And we are also about to launch a secure .POST portal. What that is going to do is allow the .POST to come in and access partner material from a series of international partners, provides material already. You can put it in one location so that the postal network can get in and access material that is already available in terms of training, infographics, best practices, policies, and so on. And that’s coming soon. We should have that up and running in Q4 of 2023, and that will be available, it will be open to all, but really designed for the postal sector. Not only that, at the UPU we’ve built out a cert for the postal sector that is currently being deployed, and that cert will allow us to respond to incidents within the postal sector that can be then shared as a best practice, depending on what’s happening there, with other members of the sector, and that will eventually lead to something called an ISAC, which we are currently implementing, an information sharing and analysis centre for the entire global postal sector, the regulated sector. So that’s coming soon from .post, and not only that, just to share with you what’s really coming, and you visit our booth in the IGF to learn more, we are going to be offering secure services on our new platform, our .post registration platform. On this platform, you’ll be able to get secure DNS services, secure websites, secure hosting. This is important, because as we mentioned earlier, posts are looking to move forward with e-commerce, marketplaces, and so on. But the skill sets and the capacities that they have within the post are very limited. I’ve been to a few posts, and I’ve seen that sometimes there’s one IT person working there, covering everything, from the PCs on the desk of the workers, to the network, to trying to get just stuff done on a day-to-day basis. So having something as esoteric as an e-commerce platform, and building it out, and doing all the work required, is very challenging. So we plan to offer, at the very least, the infrastructure to allow it to happen at a reasonable price, utilizing our secure platform, so that they can obtain these services. and deploy them very rapidly, so very quick to deploy. And to do that, we are going to offer them, as you said, secure DNS certificates, secure email, secure web hosting. And eventually, once they get all of that right, secure e-commerce, payment platforms and connections to tools like Stripe and the traditional payment services that you may have in your country, whether it be wallets or otherwise. So, Paul, I think that’s a… Thank you for that segue and allowing me to do this. Sorry if I’m not able to do full screen, but certainly you can contact us afterwards to get a demonstration of what we can offer, or you can visit us at our booth in the IGA Village today. Thanks, Paul.

Paul Donohoe:
Yeah, well done, Tracey. And these important new services are really going to help empower the postal network to deliver the types of services that we’ve been discussing. But just to reinforce that actually these services are actually being used already in a number of countries, so in Zimbabwe, I think Tracey, ZimbabweMall.post is a national marketplace that Zimbabwe Post is hosting for the SMEs in Zimbabwe. There are, I believe, over 300 SMEs that have registered on ZimbabweMall, and they are selling their goods online using the platform that Zimbabwe Post, or Zimpost as they’re called, are providing. And this is an example of how posts are supporting the SMEs inclusion in the digital economy with e-commerce support services. They are also providing payment support services. So, this is one of the critical issues in e-commerce, the availability of payment support in many countries for e-commerce is a challenge. Credit cards are not readily available. So, from a financial inclusion perspective. The Post is an important partner in helping businesses to get online and get access to sustainable services. This is a sustainability issue, utilising this public infrastructure to support sustainability of digital inclusion. We also have another example in Rwanda with Rwanda Mall. Rwanda Mall is a national marketplace. Again, there are over 500 SMEs that are registered in Rwanda Mall as a national marketplace to be able to sell online. But the government found that the majority of those SMEs are located in the capital city that are registered. And so there is a push now through the postal network to reach out to the rural areas where many SMEs do exist and to encourage those SMEs to come online with the support of the post office network. And this national marketplace is a very important concept for the policy makers because it encourages exports. It encourages economic development in these communities. The Post is the support service with excellent technical solutions that Tracey is talking about. It gives the security and trust for these marketplaces to exist in the national environment and to encourage SMEs to be able to participate online and also provide them with the necessary training and support. I know with Rodney, we’re working closely between the UPU and the CTU on bringing this capability to the small island developing states in the Caribbean. We’ve recently signed a cooperation agreement. So we’re very proud to be working with the CTU and bringing this capability to the Caribbean postal services and also collaborating with the integration of this within government policy. across the Caribbean, and I think this is going to be very important for the development of the economies in the Caribbean, Rodney.

Tracey Hackshaw:
Yeah, certainly. So I think, Rodney, what we could segue into there is using the MOU that we signed with the CTU as a jumping-off point. And having seen what the first – we’ve actually done one project under that in Barbados already. Having seen what’s happened there, what do you think are the real opportunities that exist now for POST to really offer this digital inclusion vehicle? Digital services as an opportunity for maybe collective action, working together as a region, revenue opportunities, new revenue opportunities in this area, as well as potentially, from where you sit, trying to truly bring the postal network into national digital policy and ensure that they can almost provide the digital inclusion solution, if not all of it, part of it. What are your thoughts on that?

Rodney Taylor:
Yes, there are definitely opportunities for revenue. The examples I mentioned before brought significant revenues to the Barbados Postal Service. So each delivery was the cost. The nominal cost, mind you, it was like $10, which is $5 US for delivery. But compare that to, like I said, the cost of getting public transportation or even driving your car to time off from work and that kind of thing. And so the majority of persons opted to choose that delivery service. There’s still some awareness that has to happen at the level of policymakers who aren’t really yet of that mindset, who don’t fully understand the nexus between digital and postal. So there’s still the notion that everything can be done online. But the reality is that online has to connect at some point with the offline and therefore that collaboration is critical. So there’s need for awareness. The collaboration we have, I mean, Paul is participating in our upcoming ICT week and has an opportunity to present this at the regional level so that we’re on the same page. But the regional, notwithstanding, we will work, as it were, from door to door. So we will work with the Coalition of the Willing. We’ve had expressions of interest from the likes of Belize, even though it’s not an island, but it is classified as one of our CARICOM states. And I think actually you enlisted as a SIDS for some reason, but Belize, the dynamic in Belize is very different. Belize is the same population as Barbados, but it’s spread through a much, much bigger land mass. And therefore, this is something that they’re very, very keen on. Imagine, you know, I talk about taking time off from Barbados, but the truth is you can get from one end of Barbados to the next in about half an hour, 45 minutes, depends how fast you’re driving. But with Belize, you can travel for four hours, you know, from one town to the next. So therefore, it becomes even more important when you have that sort of geographic spread of towns and villages to be able to connect with the post. So there’s some awareness that has to be done. I’ve seen where there are revenue opportunities for the post. I’ve seen where the postal workers themselves get excited about being included in this new digital transformation. And the citizens who interact with them, because again, they’re friendly faces, they’re pleased to see the people that they know helping and in terms of delivering those public service. So I don’t remember the figure, but there was significant revenue that was earned by the post, I think. But I would say that we talked about fulfillment centers and so on and so on. From an infrastructure point of view, there’s a need to ensure that they have positioned themselves. In other words, that whatever renovations they need to do, that the facility is there. If they have to go to the post, there’s a space for it. And Jamaica has done this successfully. Jamaica, one of the largest post offices in the heart of Kingston, has been transformed. It’s been fully modernized. And it’s actually the place where you go to apply. If you don’t apply online, you can go there and apply for your digital identity and have it delivered there to you. I know Jamaica has had some challenges with it. But the fact is they’re working with the post office on that particular initiative. And they have completely renovated the post office and have made it sort of e-commerce ready. And it’s a fulfillment center. Thanks.

Tracey Hackshaw:
And Talan. Thanks, Rodney. The nexus now between the business side of the post. And let’s get perhaps what your thoughts are on whether or not inclusion at a community level from the business side can also extend into the community side. When I say that, when you are talking about content generation, we broached that topic earlier. And having that as a potential revenue opportunity. So there’s very little content from the Central Asian region online. And having your stakeholders learn, consume, and perhaps even earn revenue, write books, sell books online, sell research articles, do research. Do you see that as being something that can happen with the post? And if so, how can community networks assist in that regard? And getting community networks as a… to be a catalyst to make something like that happen.

Talan Sultanov:
Thanks so much, Tracy, for a very good question. Actually, I’m learning a lot from today’s discussion. And certainly, when I’m back home, I’ll share with my colleagues in the postal service. And at the same time, I know that Kyrgyz Postal Service has been looking into different opportunities that digitalization is bringing, including in terms of e-commerce. It also reminded me that in Kyrgyzstan, we are still, postal service is still looking into providing banking services. And I think, if I’m not mistaken, Japan is one of the successful cases here where postal service provides or one of the biggest financial services institutions. And there is one, maybe, story that for Paul’s collection of stories about Kyrgyzstan, how postal service was instrumental in involving people providing government services. So Kyrgyzstan is considered one of the more democratic countries in the region of Central Asia. And our previous president decided that we should have elections based on e-biometrical data and using electronic polling machines. But of course, not everybody had biometric data in the system and not everybody had digital IDs. And the postal offices became the hubs to help people get all that data. And it had to be done within just, I think, maybe a couple of months. Everybody, if you wanted to participate in the elections, you needed to register through the system. And grandmas, grandparents, young people, everybody would go to the post office and get services in local languages or step-by-step guidance in doing this. As a result, in Kyrgyzstan we had elections which were unprecedented. I mean, for the past 20 years, every election we would have protests the following day. Because there were so many opposition parties contesting. When we did this new approach, the following day it was so quiet. For Kyrgyzstan it’s unusual to have a quiet day after the election. Because everybody trusted the system. And maybe not everybody knew about the cyber security threats. So this is coming back to your presentation. And those who are more into digitalization, they were concerned. Now I’ve submitted my biometric data to the government through the postal service. But is it safe? We don’t know. I hope it’s safe. But for sure we need to follow up on your presentation to ensure and double ensure that all the data is actually secure and safe.

Paul Donohoe:
Maybe if I can just follow up on that, Talent. Those issues are faced in many countries. And even in the advanced countries where we think that everything is well established, even the role of the post in supporting advanced countries in this area is still evident. I’m thinking of Switzerland. So this year Switzerland will hold electronic voting. And Swiss Post is actually one of the providing agencies to support the electronic voting system in Switzerland for elections. So in Switzerland they’ve taken that one step further as actually the post is supporting the e-voting system itself within the country. But Talent, I think I want to take another angle with you as well in terms of the ISOC’s activities. And I know that you’re active in community networks and the deployment of community networks. And I wonder if you see, out of this discussion today, if you see a role that the post could play in the deployment of community networks, even maybe to the extent of co-location of infrastructure in postal facilities, the logistics to get equipment distributed into community centers. I wonder if you’ve got some ideas or some feedback on that sort of concept.

Talan Sultanov:
Thanks so much. For sure, there are already several thoughts that I have that could be done together with the post office, starting with the physical infrastructure and network of postal services across the country. And Rodney mentioned about the fulfillment centers. I think the postal offices in Kyrgyzstan are already trying to become kind of, if not leaders, but active participants of this system, providing digital skills trainings. For example, when we go to remote locations, oftentimes there are no official or government buildings or kind of suitable offices where you can have a training. And if you have a place, oftentimes you don’t have workers who could provide these kind of trainings, because villagers are usually, you know, they’re tending their animals or are in the fields, and usually postal workers and municipal workers are the kind of front lines of people who local communities actually expect. When nationally there is a new service, they would come and ask the postal service officers and municipal service officers, like, teach us what’s going on in the center. And I think the postal officers could be, like, in the avant-garde in terms of providing these trainings. And for us, when we work on these kinds of activities, We feel very short-handed because we don’t have the network of facilities and network of people like the Postal Service does, so I think there could be a lot of collaboration in that.

Tracey Hackshaw:
Thanks, Talan.. I think we have some intervention’s from the floor.

Audience:
Beville Wadding is, in this case, will be representing the Caribbean Network Operators group, a volunteer-based group of computer and network engineers who have been looking at ways to offer and support digital solutions throughout the Caribbean. I’m listening to the presentation that Tracy gave, and I’m very impressed with the initiatives that are coming out, and just wondered if there was a way for us to support that within the context of the Caribbean. We have been working very closely with the Caribbean Telecommunications Union. We have everything from digital training and literacy type programs that I think would do very well if they were aligned to initiatives like this, which will help with postal improvement, which is tied to the digital economy. So is there opportunity for collaboration, support, working alongside, where those volunteers that we have will be very keen to help support at the national and regional level, would be able to join something like this and help accelerate the deployment?

Tracey Hackshaw:
Thank you, Beville. So I’ll address that question after I see that’s another. Do you have a question, ma’am? Yes. Maybe take this one as well.

Audience:
Thank you very much for the presentations, which are very exciting and enlightening. I’m Christine Mujimba. I work with the regulator in Uganda, who also oversees the postal sector. And so hearing all this, I was actually pleasantly surprised of the opportunities in comparison to what is happening on ground in terms of the readiness of our national post operator to actually leverage these opportunities. So my question is, from your experience, what are the key critical success factors, especially from a policy perspective, to position the postal network to actually take on those opportunities? Because the current status is more on some post offices closing, issues of sustainability, the balance between the obligations for universal service vis-a-vis also competition from other courier companies that have come in and gone into the logistic market. So we have, for example, how you’d have Uber here going into deliveries and things like that. So I’m interested in knowing the experience of, especially from a policy perspective, what can be done to reposition what is seemingly like dying, to the point of that gentleman from Caribbean, like something that got stuck in, couldn’t compete with email, and has been overtaken. And yet there’s so much opportunity from what I’m hearing. Thank you.

Tracey Hackshaw:
Thank you so much for your question, as well. So I think we’ll start with answering the Revel Woodings question. So we’ll toss to Rodney, and maybe, Paul, you could take the, it’s above my pay grade, so you can take the other one.

Rodney Taylor:
Yeah, I just wanted to, just while we have an example, and yes, we do work with CaribNog, but just to draw the example of the support we provided to the Caribbean Postal Union, where the website was down, is a very resource-constrained organization. And we, noticing that the website was down, reached out to them and helped them register a post domain, using Richard from my office. Just that basic level of support. And I suspect, as they struggle, a lot of the other territories will struggle. You mentioned there’s one IT guy who’s doing everything. So even by way of, first of all, bringing together the technical community to work with Tracy to understand what the dot post initiative is all about, what are the technical requirements, and then supporting, you know, there are a lot of young people in Carib Nog as well and maybe we can leverage them. We wouldn’t be able to afford, say, someone of Niall’s caliber, you know, he’s an international resource. But you can use some of the young people to help, just sort of basic support, help the post offices get off the ground. And so if you go to cpu.post, you’ll see how we were able to support the postal union. I see the need for that kind of support going forward. But of course, I think it would be useful for the next Carib Nog to have a presentation from you and work with the engineers, if it hasn’t been done yet, to get a better understanding of what is required.

Tracey Hackshaw:
Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor. So I think that’s a very good, that’s sold. Let’s make that happen. To answer the question from the Uganda regulator, Paul, maybe you could take that. As I said, I think it’s above my pay grade. So maybe you could.

Paul Donohoe:
Yeah, happy. Excuse me. Happy to, Tracy. But also, I’d just like to respond to Neville’s question as well, because I think that the post is there to support the national skills that are available in a variety of different sectors. And so if there can also be this partnership with the post office, it can help support technical expertise that’s available in the young, also with universities. with local associations, these resources are there to work with the post office. So, the post office would love to reach out into these communities, gain access to these skills and use those to share with, first of all, postal employees. As I mentioned at the beginning of this, one of the things that has to happen is actually education of postal employees around the digital capability, what is possible and how it is possible, which is the second most important thing. So, working with these local associations, I think, is an excellent idea and is something that we have seen being done in other parts of the world. So, I would very much support that within the Caribbean and we can continue that discussion, Rodney, under our collaboration. Let me come to the second question from Christine. Thank you very much for what is a very interesting question and the key challenges that we see in this are to do with awareness and to do with, Rodney mentioned this before, about the change in mindset about what this public infrastructure is possibly able to deliver in terms of the government’s goals. And that’s where we are working very closely together. The UPU has this program, Connect.Post, which is discussing the new use of the postal network as a means for governments to achieve sustainable development goals, economic development and digital development. And so, our role is to advocate for this change to happen. And as Rodney mentioned, policy makers in some ways are not aware. They’re thinking of, as you mentioned, Christine, the old role of the post in delivering letters. And letters are not a significant part of the economy, particularly in your region, for example. E-commerce is where the activity is and the competition that you mentioned is happening. And so, as a regulator, you are seeing the development of the e-commerce logistics space in effectively in competition with the post office, but the post office is really about universal service for letters. Now, there needs to be a change in mindset about what is universal service. What does the community need in this new age of e-commerce? The community needs quality, reliable logistics delivery services, coming back to the Santa Claus analogy at the beginning of this from talent. People expect now quality delivery. And many of these competitors that you refer to in your market are mainly focused on the urban areas because that’s where the issue is. So, universal access to e-commerce is a point across the whole of Uganda. So, the rural communities in Uganda should have the same right to e-commerce access as the people who are living in the urban areas. And so, this is a new dialogue that we are encouraging. Now, it’s a two-way dialogue. The governments are not really aware of this new value that the public network, the public postal network can bring, but also it’s a responsibility of the post to advocate for this new role with the policy makers as well. So, it’s a two-way discussion. We’ve seen very good examples. I’ve mentioned Zimbabwe. It’s been a discussion between the government and the postal operator with the regulator involved as well about how the public postal infrastructure can deliver on government’s goals and be an implementation arm for government policy, particularly e-commerce strategy, digital transformation strategy. We’ve seen in Ghana where Ghana has been recognised in the new digital strategy for Ghana. the post office in Ghana has been recognised as an implementation partner to bring the inclusion elements that we’ve discussed on this panel today. It requires a new thought process. And we see with now the next generation coming into the policymaking environment, the next generation coming into the leadership of the post, then they are educated in the possibilities of the digital economy. And they are as more excited than we are about the opportunities for true inclusion across the whole country. And this is the really important issue that the Public Postal Network provides. It is an inclusion vehicle for social inclusion, for digital inclusion, for financial inclusion. And Talat mentioned the example of Japan Post, the Japan Postal Savings Bank was one of the largest banks in the world, in fact. And that’s a traditional role for postal savings. That’s a traditional role as children, you were given access to a postal savings account and it was your pocket money that you were saving in a postal savings bank account. And that’s a traditional role in many, many countries. But there have been posts that have recently entered the banking services. And it’s a trend that we see in a number of posts. India Post has 155,000 post offices across every community in India. And they are banking the unbanked. They are providing postal savings banks, they are providing financial services to all in India, in all 155,000 post offices. The Indian government has seen the benefit of connecting these post offices. So they have connected, all of the Indian post offices are connected with available connectivity to support banking services, postal services, e-commerce services. So, yeah, the critical success factors, you asked, from a policy perspective are, first of all, to be aware of the new role that this public infrastructure can play in achieving government goals. We advocate for it to be integrated, the postal network, to be integrated into digital strategies, into e-commerce strategies, so we’re working with UNCTAD, for example, as part of the E-Trade for All initiative, where we are doing assessments across the world with the government, with the ministry, on e-commerce development, and we’re integrating the post in e-commerce strategies and e-commerce policies, and action plans for the development of e-commerce. We’re working with the CTU in the Caribbean, along the same lines as well, of integrating the post into digital capability development with policy makers and regulators. The sustainability of this public infrastructure is a critical issue for the policy makers. As you mentioned, the letters revenue is dying, so diversification of services to help the sustainability of this public infrastructure is a vital thing, and the diversification of services is not about exclusivity. It’s about partnering with banks. It’s about partnering with e-commerce companies. It’s about a public-private partnership between this public infrastructure and the private sector services capability, and to use the postal network as a vehicle to reach all of the population. The private sector has the solutions, but they don’t have access to the market. The post office has access to the market, but doesn’t have solutions, so the partnership between the public sector and the private sector is an important policy issue that post offices, regulators and policy makers should be considering in terms of sustainability and economic development. and diversification, so it was a very long answer, I’m sorry, but hopefully it addresses the points that you asked, Christine.

Tracey Hackshaw:
Yeah, thanks, I think it’s a very comprehensive answer. It’s also your last word, because we have just less than two minutes left, so I’m gonna ask my colleagues on the panel to wrap up in about a minute. So here’s the wrap-up. This also helps with our reporting. Give me one key takeaway and one call to action that you would like to make in regards to the Postal Network being a vehicle for digital inclusion, given your experiences.

Rodney Taylor:
So I would say the call to action at the level of policymakers is to push for greater awareness across CARICOM, so we are working with one or two, and we should continue to push so that we have proof of concept, but we should also embark on a very heavily on an awareness campaign so that we have more collective action within the Caribbean.

Tracey Hackshaw:
Thank you very much. Talent, one takeaway, one call to action.

Talan Sultanov:
Well, I think clearly there are so many opportunities that postal services, especially in Kyrgyzstan, could take advantage of, and of course it will depend a lot on learning from the global experience and being agile and nimble on the national level.

Tracey Hackshaw:
All right, and since you’re so short and brief, I could ask Paul maybe to give us one takeaway and one call to action.

Paul Donohoe:
Yeah, thanks, Tracy. So I think the key takeaway that I bring is that there is an interest in exploring the use of this public infrastructure for digital inclusion. That’s clear from our discussions today. There is a call to action to the governments to reflect on their commitments that they made 20 years ago at WSIS about ensuring that post offices, libraries, and schools, as you mentioned before, were key implementation agents for connectivity and digital inclusion. That’s still as relevant today as it was 20 years ago. And the call to action is for governments and policymakers to make their commitments that were made 20 years ago.

Tracey Hackshaw:
Thank you very much. And I would like to give my own final call to action. Do it, but do it safely and do it securely. Come to us for advice on that and we can help you with that. With that, I’d like to end this discussion. Thank you so much for your participation, for your engagement, for the great knowledge shared. This recording will be available online on the Internet Governance Forum YouTube channel. So if you missed anything, feel free to review it. Thank you once again. Do enjoy the rest of your day. Enjoy the rest of the IGF. Enjoy Kyoto. Konnichiwa. And before leaving, arigato.

Talan Sultanov:
Taste the chocolate, please. Everybody deserved a little bit of it.

Tracey Hackshaw:
Chocolate for free. Thank you all.

Michael L. Bąk

Michael L. Bąk suggests that democratic governments need to better equip themselves to handle the technology-based challenges to their institutions and values. He highlights the shrinking public space for dialogue due to technological disruptions and argues that self-regulation by tech companies has proven inadequate.

Bąk emphasises the necessity for a common understanding of the impact that technology has on institutions and values. The Forum on Information and Democracy plays a significant role in this regard. It has an observatory that provides policymakers with a systematic understanding of the situation, aiding their decision-making process.

In the upcoming year, the Forum on Information and Democracy will focus on artificial intelligence, media in the digital age, and data governance. Misinformation and disinformation will be cross-cutting themes. The organization plans to conduct working groups, research, and analysis to address these issues.

Bąk believes that the Forum’s structures, specifically its connection with the government while being led by civil society, can effectively address the challenges posed by technology. It operates through multi-stakeholder engagements and develops policy recommendations. While directly engaged with the government, the organization maintains its independence as it is led by civil society.

In summary, Michael L. Bąk argues for democratic governments to enhance their capabilities in handling technology-related challenges to institutions and values. The Forum on Information and Democracy plays a vital role in promoting a common understanding of technology’s impact and addressing key issues. Its unique structures position it effectively to navigate these challenges through multi-stakeholder engagements and policy recommendations.

Jeanette Hofmann

The discussion highlights the need for further research on the impact of disinformation on individuals, particularly in the context of government intervention and regulation. Currently, the focus primarily revolves around the production and circulation of disinformation, with little known about its actual influence on people. Therefore, there is a call for more extensive studies to better understand how disinformation affects individuals.

High-quality journalism is considered an important defence against misinformation. It is noted that countries with a healthy media environment tend to have less disinformation. However, traditional business models for journalism are struggling, partly due to changing attitudes towards news consumption. Nevertheless, there is a strong correlation between the prevalence of disinformation and the state of the media landscape in a region.

Furthermore, high-quality journalism plays a crucial role in democracy. It is regarded as a pillar of democracy and not just a means to combat disinformation, but also to maintain democratic societies. This underscores the significance of supporting and strengthening journalism for the overall health of a democracy.

In addition to examining the production and circulation of disinformation, there is a need to focus on understanding its impact on people’s minds and voting behaviors. The current focus largely neglects this aspect, highlighting the importance of conducting research in this area. Insights into how disinformation affects individuals can provide guidance for designing effective strategies to mitigate harm and protect democratic processes.

An observatory’s work is regarded as valuable in providing context and understanding manipulation and propaganda on social networks and platforms. This work can help fill existing knowledge gaps and shed light on the dynamics of disinformation in online spaces.

The discussion also emphasizes the importance of acknowledging prior research on topics such as manipulation and propaganda, building upon existing knowledge. By doing so, a more comprehensive understanding of these issues can be achieved, incorporating insights gained from research conducted as early as the 1970s.

Additionally, there is a call for comparative digital research, encouraging studies that compare different regions and contexts. This approach can provide valuable insights into the similarities and differences in the impact and spread of disinformation across various regions. However, a concern is raised regarding the lack of data from countries in Asia, Latin America, and Africa, indicating a gap in our understanding of the global dynamics of disinformation.

In conclusion, the discussion emphasizes the need for expanded research on the impact of disinformation, the importance of high-quality journalism as a defense against misinformation, the significance of understanding the impact of disinformation on individuals, the role of observatories in examining manipulation and propaganda in online spaces, and the need for comparative digital research. By addressing these areas, a more comprehensive and informed understanding of disinformation can be achieved, facilitating improved strategies to address its consequences and safeguard democratic principles.

Jhala Kakkar

In this analysis, the speakers delve into the intricacies of technology policy and internet regulation, highlighting the need for different approaches tailored to the cultural and governance contexts of different regions. They express concern that much of the technological policy thinking and academic research originates from the West and does not directly translate to the context of the global majority, including countries like India.

One of the main arguments put forward is the necessity of exploring new and innovative approaches to social media platforms. The speakers identify a false dichotomy that exists, whereby social media platforms are either accepted as they currently exist or completely rejected. They advocate for a more nuanced consideration, emphasizing the potential for alternative strategies that better align with societal needs and values.

The importance of collaborative reports from diverse bodies is emphasized in the context of re-evaluating the current approach to internet regulation. The speakers mention that India is in the process of drafting new legislation to replace a 22-year-old piece of internet regulation. They argue that a collaborative report representing global expertise, including governments, civil society, and academic organizations, is crucial for a comprehensive and well-informed approach.

The analysis also addresses the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on societies and political campaigns. Specifically, the advent of generative AI, deep fakes, and cheap fakes is a cause for concern, as these technologies have the potential to heighten disinformation and misinformation. The speakers highlight the implications of AI for societal discourse, particularly in the context of political campaigns, where these technologies can be used to manipulate information and deceive the public.

Another critical issue raised in the analysis is the collection of personal and anonymized data by platforms. The concept of surveillance capitalism, where platforms amass extensive amounts of data and utilise it for various purposes, is deemed detrimental. The speakers express concerns about the ability of data to be used to manipulate societies and impact democratic processes. They stress the significance of addressing data governance as a pressing matter in the context of platforms collecting vast amounts of personal information.

In concluding the analysis, the speakers provide valuable insights into the complexities surrounding technology policy and internet regulation. They highlight the need for approaches that consider cultural and governance contexts, rather than basing strategies solely on Western thinking. The exploration of new approaches to social media platforms, the importance of collaborative reports, and the implications of AI and data collection by platforms are all crucial considerations. Ultimately, the analysis sheds light on the challenges and opportunities awaiting policymakers as technology continues to shape societies worldwide.

Ansgar Koene

Ansgar Koene, EY’s Global AI Ethics and Regulatory Leader, focuses on the ethical use of online data and the impact of recommender systems. He emphasises the need to understand online data from the user’s perspective and acknowledges the influential role of recommender systems in shaping the online space. He advocates for responsible and ethical use of these technologies.

Koene holds positions as a trustee at the Five Rights Foundation and as a Data and AI Ethics Advisor at Afro Leadership. He works on examining different sources of online data to guide policymakers and companies in differentiating anecdotes from well-supported evidence. This guidance will enable informed decision-making processes. Koene proposes the establishment of an observatory to collect and analyse global data on online interactions, providing valuable insights for policymaking and corporate governance.

In addition, Koene stresses the importance of amplifying the voices of young people and those outside the core economies of the US and Europe to create a fairer information ecosystem. He collaborates with the Five Rights Foundation on the “Internet in Their Own Voice” project, aiming to understand the views and needs of young people in shaping the online space. Koene believes that these groups are often overlooked, leading to decisions being made without their input. By amplifying their voices, a more equitable and inclusive information ecosystem can be achieved.

Koene highlights the significance of evidence-based policymaking and the need for clear methodologies to track progress. The observatory’s meta-studies will establish a baseline understanding of different methodologies, facilitating evidence-based policy making.

The analysis also addresses challenges posed by emerging technologies and disinformation campaigns. Generative AI presents new challenges, while social media platforms continue to be a concern. Disinformation campaigns driven by particular interest groups remain an ongoing issue. Proactive measures are necessary to mitigate these negative impacts and promote a safe and trustworthy online environment.

In summary, Ansgar Koene’s work encompasses the ethical use of online data, the impact of recommender systems, amplifying marginalized voices, evidence-based policymaking, and addressing challenges from emerging technologies and disinformation campaigns. Koene’s insights serve as a call to action for regulators, policymakers, and industry leaders to actively shape a responsible and inclusive digital landscape.

Courtney Radsch

The analysis explores the need for a comprehensive understanding of global evidence, discussing various aspects related to this topic. Firstly, it highlights the presence of information in sources such as NGO reports, books, and international organizations’ reports. However, it points out that the majority of published research comes from the Global North, potentially resulting in a lack of representation from under-represented regions and causing disparities in regional, cultural, and language understanding.

Furthermore, the analysis acknowledges the influence of funding bodies on research, shaping and limiting its scope. It emphasizes the importance of globally inclusive research, advocating for more attention to be given to under-represented regions and taking into account different languages, cultures, and political environments.

Regarding research methodology, the analysis notes a tendency to prioritize big data. While acknowledging its usefulness, it cautions against potential blind spots that may arise as a result. It argues for an approach that incorporates both qualitative and quantitative methods to gain a more comprehensive understanding.

In addition, the analysis emphasizes the need for structural considerations when examining information and media ecosystems. It suggests that historical and structural conditions and biases are often replicated, necessitating further studies on the political economy and infrastructural aspects of information flow.

A significant concern raised in the analysis is the dominance of big tech monopolies in discussions and policies. The majority of studies focus on entities such as Facebook, Google, Twitter, and WhatsApp. These monopolistic entities not only have economic dominance but also impact policies. The influence of big tech firms in shaping the research agenda through funding, access to data, and lobbying is scrutinized, raising questions about research objectivity and independence.

The analysis also advocates for the inclusion of private sector data and research findings, as they contribute to a wider scope of evidence. Private firms hold many domestic reports on data and AI, making their insights valuable in achieving a more comprehensive understanding.

Another important point emphasized is the significance of studying information flow in its entirety, including media ecosystems. While there is a predominant focus on social media in current studies, neglecting broader media ecosystems can lead to an incomplete picture. The analysis highlights the need to examine mainstream and alternative media alongside social media to gain a comprehensive understanding. It also underscores the importance of studying state-dominated or captured systems and the role of conservative talk radio in shaping information flow.

In the context of AI, large language models, and data, the analysis acknowledges the complexity of the issue, which is constantly evolving. It suggests that studying or affecting one aspect will have implications elsewhere. Additionally, access to data affects our understanding, which subsequently impacts other aspects.

To sum up, the analysis provides valuable insights into the need for a comprehensive understanding of global evidence. It emphasizes globally inclusive research, the incorporation of qualitative and quantitative methods, and structural considerations in examining information and media ecosystems. It raises concerns about big tech monopolies and advocates for the inclusion of private sector data and research findings. The analysis also highlights the significance of studying information flow holistically and addresses the complexity surrounding AI, large language models, and data.

Deborah Allen Rogers

In a recent discussion on research funding, one of the speakers presented a compelling argument challenging traditional funding models. They highlighted the undeniable inflexibility of these models, asserting that they often restrict researchers from diverting their research path mid-project. The speaker emphasised the need for a flexibility clause to be included in research funding, which would enable researchers to better adapt to new discoveries and overcome challenges that may arise during their projects. This argument shed light on the limitations of traditional funding models and ignited a broader conversation about the necessity for research funding to evolve and become more adaptable.

In another aspect of the discussion, a different speaker focused on the importance of redefining expertise in the digital age. They expressed frustration over the fact that policymakers lacking digital expertise often shape policies in the digital realm. The speaker highlighted that younger individuals, who have grown up in the digital age, may possess more digital expertise than policymakers who may be less familiar with rapidly evolving technological advancements. This observation underscored the crucial need for policymaking to be informed by individuals with relevant digital expertise, in order to ensure that policies are effective and well-suited to the digital landscape. The argument put forth by this speaker sparked a thoughtful reflection on the role of expertise and the significance of incorporating it into policymaking processes.

Lastly, a speaker raised a critique of the traditional research paradigm, specifically noting the excessive focus on past studies and minor variations in research outcomes. Drawing from their personal experience, the speaker expressed dissatisfaction with an educational system that predominantly emphasises historical research and fails to encourage a forward-thinking and design-oriented approach. This critique invited a larger conversation about the need to move away from a historical focus in research and explore new avenues that prioritize innovation and problem-solving.

Overall, this discussion highlighted several noteworthy points in relation to research funding, expertise in the digital age, and the direction of research. It shed light on the limitations of traditional funding models, compelling the consideration of a more flexible approach. Furthermore, it underscored the importance of digital expertise in shaping effective policies and the necessity of shifting away from a historical research focus towards a more forward-thinking and design-driven approach. These insights provide valuable perspectives for further exploration and potential improvements in the field of research.

Nnenna Nwakanma

Upon analysing the provided information, several key points and arguments become apparent. Firstly, it is acknowledged that information consumption is widespread and occurs in various forms across different cultures. This is likened to the consumption of bread, which varies in shape, size, and form across different societies. The positive sentiment towards this notion suggests that information is fundamental to human existence.

Democracy is the next topic explored, with an emphasis on its diverse nature. The analysis highlights that democracy can take on different characteristics depending on an individual’s circumstances, similar to how cotton can be heavy, cold, or colourful. The positive sentiment expressed towards this comparison implies that democracy can be customised and adopted in different ways to suit different needs and contexts.

Furthermore, the importance of recognising the cultural nuances and varying approaches to information and democracy is underscored. It is argued that a one-size-fits-all approach is inadequate, and understanding the complexities across continents, countries, and socio-political-economic circumstances is crucial for a comprehensive analysis. This positive stance suggests that nuanced perspectives should be considered to address inequalities and foster peace, justice, and strong institutions.

The analysis also highlights the significance of responding to the needs of governments and promoting dialogue. It is posited that catering to the requirements of governments is vital for the value and relevance of initiatives. This sentiment emphasises the importance of aligning development policies with the needs of various stakeholders, especially governments, to drive effective change.

Another key point raised is the notion that information about individuals never truly disappears, even after death. This neutral sentiment reflects the enduring impact that personal information can have and reinforces the need for data privacy and management.

The importance of understanding before regulating is expressed in the analysis. Rushing into regulation without a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter is cautioned against, as it can lead to adverse outcomes. The negative sentiment towards premature regulation highlights the potential dangers of making decisions based on panic or hype. It is argued that evidence-based decision-making is essential to ensure effective and well-informed regulation.

Additionally, Nnenna Nwakanma’s perspective on regulation is explored further. She emphasises the significance of regulating based on principles rather than specific products or companies. This positive sentiment suggests the need for a broader regulatory framework that focuses on underlying principles and values. Furthermore, Nnenna Nwakanma advocates for promoting dialogue and fostering collaboration to inform regulatory discussions, as evidenced by her experiences with software regulation and her endorsement of platforms like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).

The analysis also highlights Nnenna Nwakanma’s positive view of the shift of power from governments and global northern media to private platforms. She appreciates the democratization of media through these platforms and gains insights into power dynamics during her visit to the Meta Campus in Menlo Park. This viewpoint implies a belief that a more balanced distribution of power benefits society and reduces inequalities.

Moreover, Nnenna Nwakanma’s philosophy of raising new leaders and prioritising humility in leadership is underscored. Her commitment to training individuals and enabling them to take the lead is highlighted as a positive sentiment. This aligns with the goal of achieving peace, justice, and strong institutions as outlined by SDG 16.

In conclusion, the extended summary provides a detailed analysis of the main points highlighted in the given data. The arguments made by various speakers shed light on the universal nature of information consumption, the diverse forms of democracy, the need for nuanced approaches, the importance of responding to government needs, the persistence of personal information, the significance of understanding before regulation, and the perspectives of Nnenna Nwakanma on regulating based on principles, the shift of power in media, and leadership development. The nuanced analysis offers valuable insights into these topics and serves as a foundation for further exploration and dialogue.

Michael L. Bąk:
Yes, you should. You guys, please come join the table. So we’re sitting next to each other before. Yes. Nice to see you again. All right. So we do have a town hall scenario. We have the hall. We’re a very tight-knit community. So please feel free to sit as close as you’d like. I think we’ll start, since we’re at 3 or 4 and some people need to leave, to get some trains. Welcome to everyone who’s here and those who are online joining us. The weather is beautiful in Kyoto. And we have all held out to the very end, one of the last sessions on the last day, of a very interesting week. Let me just, again, say thank you for sticking it out until the end. My name is Michael. I’m the new executive director for the Forum on Information and Democracy. I came into this role after a 25-year career in international development, working on democracy promotion, peace building, human rights, and then five years working in policy for a tech company. So I’ve really been able to see which one. I’ll tell you secretly. No. I worked for Meda for five years. It may not seem, looking at me, but my career has been one from the periphery looking in. My work has largely been in Southeast Asia. It’s where I’ve spent most of my life. It’s also been fascinating to see the development of technology and its applications for areas that are important to me, like democracy and human rights, evolve over that time period. And so now I’m really happy to join the forum. It’s a Paris-based organization. I’m in Bangkok still for the time being. But it’s enough about me. I’ll share a few words for those who don’t know much about the forum. I’ll share some thoughts about that. And the announcements that we’re going to make today about the work that some of the members of our steering committee for our observatory will be embarking on. As I mentioned, when I worked in democracy promotion early on, I really embraced the use of new technologies. Social media, for example, seemed to be the holy grail of democratizing people’s access to information and their ability to use that to improve their lives. And I think in the interim, in the years that have passed, we’ve seen that our democratic governments aren’t always as equipped as they need to be to address the harms that have arisen and the impacts that are being had on our institutions and our shared values. We’ve seen public space for real dialogue shrinking rather than expanding due to disruptions that technology is creating in our lives. It’s not enough to rely on companies to regulate themselves. We tried that. We were promised that that’s the best way not to stifle innovation, and it didn’t work. And so that’s why many of us have spent the last few days here in Kyoto, because we don’t want to accept the false choices that have been presented to us, or the argument somehow that working at scale. is an excuse to not always have to do the right thing. And democracies have noticed, too. In 2019, a dozen or so democratic governments came together under the International Partnership on Information and Democracy. It’s an international process outlining some principles that democratic governments strive to implement to ensure that technology serves democracy and information integrity and not solely private interests. That’s now grown to 51 states who have signed onto the partnership. Brazil was the last country to join in August, so just a few weeks ago. The partnership mandated the creation of an entity called the Forum on Information and Democracy. And so as an organization, we stand kind of in between states who give us a mandate, yet as a civil society-led entity, we are independent of states. So our board members, all 11, represent civil society organizations. Thank you. The work that we accomplish is done through multi-stakeholder engagements with experts around the world, an ever-expanding group of researchers, academics, and practitioners, some of whom we have today who I’ll introduce. And I think that the governance structure that we have is quite innovative. You know, to have a direct relationship with government where we can engage and act on recommendations around policy that we have. while working with multiple stakeholders. Our organization is focused on three key areas around evidence, policy, and collaboration. On the policy work, we conduct research and develop policy recommendations that can be acted upon by states and by civil society and by companies. That is done through working with regional and national experts from around the world. The collaboration element is our emphasis on developing value creation within our network of civic partners, academic partners, research institutes around the world to contribute from the bottom up, from the sides up, into the outputs that we’re creating so that these are not just generated by northern thinkers, but it’s informed by thinkers and practitioners from all over the world. And the last area is evidence. That’s the first one that I said, but I skipped, and that’s because that’s what today is about. Evidence is about collecting and pulling together our common understanding of what we’re facing. Our evidence work is embodied by the observatory, for which some of our steering committee members have joined us in person. We’ve all found that an element that’s much lacking in this space is a common understanding and appreciation of the impact that this technology is having on our institutions and our values in a way that’s systematic and that policymakers and others who are making important decisions can turn to and look to to inform the decisions that they have to make. The observatory is working on a regular process. of meta-analyses bringing this information together. The observatory’s architecture was developed by Professor Shoshana Zuboff, who we all know from her book and her work, as well as Angel Gurria, former Secretary General of the OECD. They spent about a year working out a governance structure and a process to make this a reality. So it’s a real honor to be able to meet our steering committee members in person. It was part of a global call for people who are experts in their field, who bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to apply it to this idea of creating this common understanding. And so after looking at more than 100 submissions of candidates, we settled on 19 people, of which we have three in person with us today and two online. And their work over this coming cycle is to oversee the production of the first output from the observatory, the first meta-analysis. Now there’s a lot to cover. There are a lot of topics and issues, and we can’t do it all at once. And so the team met recently to talk about prioritization and where the group should focus their efforts over the coming year. And those have been narrowed down to a very popular topic at this conference this week, artificial intelligence, but also about media in the digital age and data governance, as well as a cross-cutting theme of misinformation and disinformation, which is quite important. And then just lastly, going forward, this group of 19 people supported by a scientific director and rapporteurs will be soliciting information, inputs, research, conducting working group discussions and so forth to gather information to fold into this meta-analysis. So with that, I would like to introduce each of our steering committee members that we have and maybe in just two minutes share what your ambition is for the observatory, how it relates to your region of where you’re at before we go into some other questions and discussion. And I’m going to pick on Courtney first. Courtney Ratch is the director of the Center for Journalism and Liberty at the Open Market Institutes. And I think you may have other affiliations. Feel free to mention those too. And I’ll give you a couple of minutes to share.

Courtney Radsch:
Great. Thank you so much, Michael. And I’m excited to meet the other steering committee members as well. So my name is Courtney Ratch. As you said, I’m the director of the Center for Journalism and Liberty, but I have a background for the past 20 years as a journalist, a scholar, and a human rights advocate. And so I bring a wealth of experience that has really focused on the global majority or the global south and understanding how technology and policies that are often developed in the U.S. or the EU increasingly have an impact in shaping the viability of information ecosystems, human rights, and the political economy around the world. My interest in being part of this initiative is actually because I’m also involved with the International Panel on the Information Environment. And I see these as very complementary efforts to understand what evidence exists to help inform policymaking, as well as, and I think as a… importantly what evidence does not exist and how that should shape our approach to policy. And so what I would hope for this this initiative is that as we seek to harness the evidence is what do we mean by evidence? And I spent the past couple of years as a fellow at the UCLA Institute for Technology Law and Policy doing a lot of research about healthy information ecosystems again like technology policy etc and one of the things that stood out is there is a lot of information embedded in NGO reports in books that are not peer-reviewed and therefore you know not part of the domain of the IPIE that are published in reports in by international organizations etc that include empirical research on the ground qualitative and quantitative research and yet they all exist in their silos there’s so little I think conversation between them and so we actually I think we know more than we think we do but it is embedded in all these you know kind of individualized efforts and so my ambition here is to help us figure out how do we learn from the evidence that has been collected that has been developed especially through the on-the-ground experience around the world and particularly how that differs by region by country by language you know by different stakeholders etc because the vast majority of published research especially in peer-reviewed journals is from Global North and especially when you get into information environment issues like the new you know new issues of disinformation misinformation which actually have a long history in propaganda and media studies and information science how, you know, so much of that is English focused. It’s global north. It’s, a lot of it is either US or Europe. And so we don’t know what the evidence actually tells us about what is happening globally if we think about, you know, the hundreds of languages, cultures, politics, etc. So I’m really hoping that this initiative, together with the IPIE, will create a comprehensive understanding of what we know about these topics and where are the holes. And so I see you nodding, so I’m gonna also wrap up here. But I think, you know, as we get into the discussion, thinking about where there is an over-emphasis of research, maybe where we need more, you know, more attention because there has been an under-emphasis, and that we have to consider, as well, how research is funded and who funds it. So if you think, you know, for example, tech companies, when they’re funding research, they’re funding certain types of research. And so we also need to think about how what we know is shaped by who is funding us to ask certain questions and what questions are not being asked.

Michael L. Bąk:
And I’m also nodding because I agree with everything that you’re saying, too. So thank you very much, Courtney. I think we also have online Jala Kakkar, who’s the Executive Director at the Center for Communication Governance at the National Law University of Delhi in India. Jalak, are you with us online?

Jhala Kakkar:
Hi, this is Michael. Welcome. Wish you were here in Kyoto, but it’s wonderful to have you online. Yes, I wish I was there, too. It would have been really amazing. So, Michael, over the last decade, I’ve been working closely on technology policy issues within the Indian context. And sort of the lens I really come from is how the information environment is developing within the global majority. And it’s something that we actively explore at the Center for Communication Governance, which is an academic research institution at the National Law University in Delhi in India. And I think Courtney alluded to this, but if I can just take it further, is that a lot of the policy thinking and academic research that is being relied on is emanating from the West. And much of that does not necessarily directly translate or cannot be transposed into a global majority context, which in themselves are very heterogeneous and different contexts. And you cannot homogenize them to, you know, be one sort of monolith of an environment. So I think my aspiration for the work we’re going to do as part of this marvelous project is to be able to bring out the fact that we need a difference in approaches, perhaps in different contexts. And that may not be a one size fits all approach. There’ll be different cultural, governance, regulatory capacity contexts, and we need to take that into account. I think the second thing, and perhaps there’s drawing on what you alluded to earlier, is the fact that there’s this palpable sense of a false dichotomy. Like the only options we have is take social media platforms as they are. And the challenges we have today with them, maybe at the most we can bandaid and try to tackle some of the harms that we see or don’t have them at all. And my aspiration for the time that we spend together over the next year working on coming out with the first report is really to understand, perhaps there are many shades. in between, perhaps there are new and novel approaches. And many of those have already been sort of talked about in literature, but perhaps it’s about spotlighting those particular approaches. And then the last idea I want to leave the audience with as part of opening remarks is, for instance, in India, we are in the process of drafting a new legislation to replace a 20, 22 year old piece of legislation that regulates the internet and online platforms. And of course, tech companies have a lot of money power, a lot of access to relationships, and they have tremendous opportunity to shape the thinking that’s sort of emerging. At the same time, there’s a lot of tension between these companies and the government. And sometimes, the governments across the globe, we are seeing are experimenting with many different approaches. I think we have a unique opportunity as countries around the world are rethinking their approaches to internet regulation, platform regulation, to come out with a report that has legitimacy based on the fact that it arises from something that governments are also associated with, that has the backing and the work and the minds of many civil society and academic organizations across the globe really coming together, where it’s not a one-off report of one institution, but really a global overarching coming together of individuals with expertise working on these issues. And I think it will create a resource that we can take to many governments around the world, and which will have the sort of heft to make them sit up and take notice. So I think we have a very, very important task ahead of us. in the year ahead to live up to those aspirations because we can really impact the way this information environment globally moves forward. Thank you.

Michael L. Bąk:
Thank you. I absolutely agree with you that it’s an important resource. I think a living resource, much like the IPCC has been for climate change. And also your note about spotlighting research. I think on the one hand spotlighting and then shining light on who’s funding research and where that research is coming from. So perhaps next I could ask Jeanette Hoffman, who is the research director at the Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society in Germany to add any additional thoughts on yourself and what is your ambition for being part of the steering committee?

Jeanette Hofmann:
Yeah, thank you very much, Michael. My background is in political science and I’ve done research on internet governance since the early 1990s. And my recent research focus was on democracy and digitalization. And what sort of motivates me to contribute to this body are two things. First, a focus on disinformation. I’ve noticed that most of the attention right now is on production and circulation of disinformation, but we know very, very little about its impact on people. But at the same time, governments really use this growing worries and concern about disinformation as a legitimization for intervening in the public sphere and starting to regulate. So on the one hand, I think we really need more data, we need more research. on disinformation and how it works, whether it in fact affects people’s minds and voting behavior. But there’s a second reason, and that has to do with high-quality journalism. As we all know, this is an essential pillar of democracy. I think it’s also one of the most essential means against disinformation. We can see already now that disinformation is less of a problem in countries with a healthy media environment. We had yesterday a workshop where a woman from Switzerland said, not an issue. I talked to a woman from the Irish government and she said, not an issue in our country. I would say the same about Germany. So really there is a tight link between the media landscape and disinformation. But at the same time, we can see that the sort of traditional business models of high-quality journalism is crumbling, not only because of platforms, but also because the young generation of users is developing new attitudes towards news consumption. So we need to really think hard about what that means for the future, not only for combating disinformation, but also as a sort of condition for democracy.

Michael L. Bąk:
Absolutely agree. And just listening to the news this morning, I think it was the Washington Post is reducing, trying to buy out 250 staff, another example of the impacts we’re seeing every day. I think the other day I heard someone was saying that newspapers are folding up in Canada at a really rapid pace. Let’s shift consonants to Côte d’Ivoire. where we have Nnene Nwakanma, who works on digital policy and is with the Advocacy and Cooperation, is it? She is a Digital Policy, Advocacy, and Cooperation Specialist, and she’s in Cote d’Ivoire. Are you with us online?

Nnenna Nwakanma:
No, I’m not. Hello, everyone, great to join you online. My name is Nnene, I come from the internet. I think that’s all the introduction I do of myself. I think I’ve worked with a lot of you on different issues, open data, open source, open government, open web over the past 25 years. And even before IGF, we’ve been around through the pre-WCIS days, we used to call them. I have been working from the advocacy point of view and mostly within civil society and for the past 10 years as the Chief Web Advocate of the World Wide Web Foundation. And two things, on one hand is information and on the other hand is democracy. I like to use visualizations, I like to use illustrations. Information is like bread. Everywhere you go in the world, there’s a sort of bread that is eaten. It could be flat, it could be long, it could be with sugar, I mean, it comes in different shapes, sizes and flavors, but every people have a kind of bread they eat. So it’s information is consumed everywhere in different shapes, sizes. these forms. We may not even have the basic ingredients. I mean, we know it’s flour, basically, that you used to make bread, but flour can be made from so many different types of cereal. And that, I think, is the same with information. Granted, we all feed on it, one way or the other. You cannot not be informed unless you are dead. Even when you are dead, information about you is still going to go out there. So, that is the nature of information. Democracy, in Africa, we say it’s like cotton, yeah? The white fiber that you use to make clothing. Now, you make clothing according to your circumstances, according to your weather. Sometimes you have heavy clothing. Sometimes you have lighter clothing. Some others are better for cold. Some others are better for the heat. Some are very colorful. Some are not. So, with those two illustrations, I would like to bring our mind to the work of the Forum and especially to the report that is coming. And that brings me to my interest. My interest is in nuances. I think Jalak has mentioned a bit about it. There is no one-size-fits-all. And my desire, my vision will be that the report and, of course, the Forum will be a real observatory, go beyond the major headlines and look at the nuances that exist across continents, across countries, across social, political, and economic circumstances, and tease out those. So, in one word, it will be nuance for me. And I’m going to be having a close look as we go along. to ensure that we are bringing out the nuances across countries. The other thing might be the needs, because it’s not just enough. You don’t build bridges in the desert because they don’t have water. They don’t have a water problem. I think Janet was saying that we need to respond to needs. You can’t come to me in the middle of the desert and tell me you have a program for bridges. No, unless you build a river first. Let’s respond to the needs of our people. Governments have needs, and once those needs are catered for, then our existence makes itself valuable. Once again, yes, we are feeding our information in different sizes, forms, and flavors. Democracy, yes, we are all constructing our view of it according to our circumstances, whether it could be heavy, it could be cold, it could be colorful, but everyone builds their democracy in their way. There is no one-size-fits-all, even in clothing. That’s why we have different sizes, in colors, in shades. Of course, needs are different, and we need to respond to this. Once again, thank you for having me, and thanks to all who have kept on. I mean, we’ve been waking up every day at 1 a.m. to be here in Kyoto. I’m in West Africa today, where it’s summer all around. Please come see us. Thank you.

Michael L. Bąk:
Thank you, Nana. I do hope to see you in Cote d’Ivoire. Thank you very much for that, and I’m always going to remember the analogy of building bridges in the desert. I will use that and credit you. Thank you. And lastly, of our 19 steering committee members for the observatory, we have with us EY’s global AI ethics and regulatory leader, Angsar Khun, who is based in Brussels. Please share more.

Ansgar Koene:
Thank you very much. Yes, indeed. So yes, I’m the Global AI Ethics and Regulatory Leader at EY. But I am also a trustee at the Five Rights Foundation, which is a foundation that works towards the rights of young people online. And I’m a Data and AI Ethics Advisor at Afro Leadership, a Cameroon-based pan-African NGO. Actually, about eight years ago is when my journey from being an academic doing research on computational neuroscience moved into the space of questions around data, data ethics, and the internet, recommender systems, and such. And it was really by initially thinking about computational social science. There’s all this great data online, and we’re trying to use that to understand human behavior. But pretty much before we even started that project, the research translated into, what is the ethics of using online data for means that are different from what the person was thinking about when they published that data online? And it was pretty quickly then through that project that we started looking into also the role of recommender systems, how they are shaping the space online for people, what it is that they’re actually even seeing in this space. And that was then also a project together with Five Rights Foundation, because when it comes especially to people like young people, but also, obviously, also to many outside of the core economies of the US and Europe, we have a lot that people are speaking about them without actually having spoken to them and understood from their voice. So we were working with Five Rights Foundation on a report called Internet in Their Own Voice, listening to young people, what it is that they actually want to hear about this. space. So it’s really from that kind of point of view that I think what the observatory is going to be doing is going to be very important to look at the various sources of data that are being collected, the various research that is happening in the world around how data is flowing, what people are seeing online, how people are engaging with that, questions around misinformation and disinformation, in order to be able to, especially for policymakers but also for companies that are setting up their governance frameworks around the information ecosystem, to make sure that they understand where is it anecdote versus where is it strongly supported evidence, which of these sources of evidence are the ones that they really need to be acting on and how should they be acting in order to achieve true outcomes that will be beneficial. Thank you.

Michael L. Bąk:
Thanks for that, and appreciate the youth angle, which is often not as present as it should be, considering how we make up our panels and the time it takes to develop expertise and so forth. So thank you for that. Now, as we think about this ambitious agenda we have for the observatory to serve this IPCC-like function, to ensure that policymakers, as Aung San mentioned, have access to the latest understanding, the state of art research that exists, and that they understand the sources of this knowledge, because people or companies may have interests in producing certain kinds of research. So the next few questions I want to ask are… kind of around to what extent the work of the observatory can move the policy needle in a way that protects our democracies, our shared values, and the integrity of our, you know, information ecosystem. And perhaps, maybe I start with Courtney, who may have to leave to catch a train. In your view, you know, what are the most important cross-cutting issues and methodological considerations that the observatory and this team should be keeping in mind and pursuing during this first cycle?

Courtney Radsch:
Thanks for that. So, I think we need to make sure that we’re looking at qualitative and quantitative and mixed methods research. I found I’m a qualitative researcher also in political science, international relations with focus on communications. And there is a tendency to privilege big data. You know, people really like to use big data, which can give us some useful insights, but also can leave gaping blind holes, especially if we think about issues of data sovereignty, of inclusion and access, and how that ends up replicating historical and structural conditions and biases, as well as, again, like the data access and connectivity issues. So, I think we need to make sure that we’re thinking multi-methodologically within the same questions. So, how do we know what we think we know, and what is the evidence base for that? Then, I think we also need to think about the different methodological paradigm or the epistemological paradigm that it’s based in. Because, again, when I did this analysis of what makes up a healthy information ecosystem, which was done for a group of. donors called the Transparency and Accountability Initiative, which I think the OECD is using to analyze its disinformation and misinformation programming against. There’s a tendency to focus on issues like media and information literacy or psychological effects. How do individuals respond to disinformation, for example, to the exclusion of structural analyses or structural investigations? And especially, there’s a lack of research into how those things are linked. And so I think we have to also interrogate where we do have a lot of evidence, but also what that means for what we don’t have evidence about. And I say that because if you look at, for example, a lot of the funding, as well as just simply the access to data and the type of platforms that are studied, I mean, so in the meta-analysis that the IPIE did of some of the disinformation peer-reviewed literature, there’s just this preponderance of investigations into a handful of platforms, specifically those that have open APIs, which links right to data, right? So you study things that you have access to. It’s a lot easier to study what’s happening on Twitter than it is what’s happening on Telegram, because it has an open API. It’s also easier to study that than going into a community to understand qualitatively how people are responding or the links, again, between kind of the political economy and the individualized responses, because that’s labor-intensive. It requires linguistic expertise. It requires money. And so I think we just want to be very careful about that, because, again, when I was doing this analysis, there’s a lot of studies in this kind of psychological realm, media effects paradigm. And part of that is because it’s also to the benefit of the big tech monopolies, which do get the vast majority of studies are about, you know, Facebook, Google, Twitter, WhatsApp to a lesser extent, lesser extent telegram, but there are many other factors and we don’t have very many studies looking at, again, like the infrastructural and political economy of the Internet and now as we go into the AI era. So I really think we have to use a cross-disciplinary, multi-methodology perspective to interrogate these issues. What my concern is, for example, is that we can study all day how people respond to disinformation on social media, but it doesn’t matter if those social media companies remain monopolistic entities with the power to dominate economically, which translates into political domination, which translates into policy, and that we’re going to see this replicated in the AI era that we’re in now. And you can see that, for example, here at the IGF, which companies are up on stage at the AI high-level panels or at the AI main sessions, you can see that who’s in the room with policymakers. For example, the United States, the Congress is holding a bunch of closed-door sessions and it’s a handful of large tech, big tech monopolies who are dominating those conversations. So we really need to pull in evidence from a much wider array and I would love to also see this group look at what has the private sector developed. I mean, there are all these consulting firms, there are lots of domestic private sector reports into these various issues around data, around AI. So what can we learn from a much wider scope of research that we’re looking into. And I think, you know, as Jeanette kind of alluded to, is not… disinformation is not just a… it’s not just the effects of disinformation, it’s not just the production, it’s also you have to look at the entire kind of life cycle and the supply of quality information, which has to do with journalism absolutely, but also with how information flows through ecosystems. Again, there’s a dominance of studies into social media without considering the broader media ecosystem, the political economy of mainstream media or powerful alternative media. Again, in the U.S., the role of conservative talk radio, or in Turkey, the role of state-dominated media, or Egypt, which is where I did my doctoral research, you know, the role of state-affiliated media, and then how is that going to impact data and access information, the production of disinformation and reception in countries where you have a state-dominated media system or a captured media system. So, you know, the challenge is that these are all incredibly complex issues, and so I think the challenge for us is to get beyond where groups have already focused and take a new and fresh lens to that and really try to get outside of the boundaries, particularly outside of the boundaries that are set by tech firms that are helping shape the research agenda through funding, through access to data, through, you know, consultations and lobbying in Brussels and Washington and make sure that we are also hearing from people on the ground in countries around the world and in Englishes other than English.

Michael L. Bąk:
Thanks. You know, Courtney, as you were speaking, it made me think of both a competing analogy to the bridge in the desert, of the complexity of the issue. And I’ve spent much of my life in Thailand, and we have this analogy of an elephant. They’re very big. And if you’re blindfolded and you were to touch the elephant’s tail, you would have a very specific impression of what an elephant is. You might think it’s this tiny creature. If you were touching the elephant’s nose, you would maybe think more of a reptile kind of thing. If you were only touching its body, you get this, well, massive beast. So I think the idea is that through the work of the observatory, we can get to a place where policymakers can see the whole animal of all the elements that go into it, and also it’s missing.

Courtney Radsch:
And I think the added complexity of this issue is that it is constantly in motion. This is not a static elephant. This is a dynamic system. So when you study one thing or when you affect one thing, it will have implications elsewhere. So again, as I said, the access to data will affect what you think you know about things, and then that will affect other aspects. And the AI, I think if you look at AI and you break that down again, the large language models work way better in some languages than others because of data. So it’s like multidimensionally complex, which is another challenge, I think, for us.

Michael L. Bąk:
Absolutely. So given that complexity and all of the issues, and Cordae’s mentioned many, many, many of them and other speakers already, I want to turn to Jalok, and maybe you can reflect a little on the priority themes of AI, media in the digital age, and data governance, and why those are important priorities to start with in this first cycle, and maybe why it’s important to you. to you, particularly from the perspective of South Asia and the global South.

Jhala Kakkar:
Thanks, Michael. I think, you know, we did have a lot of discussion as the steering group in terms of what the priority areas for the next one year should be. And given that, you know, the really the key theme that drives the work that we’re doing over here is impact of, you know, platforms on our democratic societies. And if we look at the way platforms impact our societies, it’s very much, you know, I’m probably preaching to the choir over here in terms of saying that, you know, platforms are our new public squares. They’ve privatized public discussion spaces. You know, they have serious implications for the media environment in our societies and hence it becomes very, very important to look at, you know, the media aspect as one theme. You know, AI has such significant implications and especially over the last few months, I think there’s broader appreciation of the way AI can impact our societies with generative AI really getting the spotlight over the last few months. You know, during the last US election, we saw cheap fakes and deep fakes. You know, we have several key elections coming up globally, you know, India, the UK, you know, many other countries across the global North and the global majority. And this is really going to be a playground for political parties and supporters to, you know, unlock the power of AI for political campaigns and some of it. can be good and bring more voters into the fray and reach the marginalized and vulnerable, but there are ways that these systems and technologies can be weaponized in a way that’s detrimental to democratic interests. And then really the third theme that the group has chosen to focus on is that of data governance and really what platforms are able to do and the whole idea of surveillance capitalism is based on the notion that large masses of data are being collected on individuals. They’re being used both in personal data as well as anonymized, de-identified data forms in ways that really can manipulate and have very real-world implications on the way our societies function and the way our democratic processes play out. And of course, the cross-cutting theme in all of this is disinformation, misinformation, which is flowing through these public-private squares, which is heightened by the use of AI technologies. And yeah, I think in the context of so many key general elections around the globe, I think these are great themes to be picking up and analyzing for our first report.

Michael L. Bąk:
Thank you very much, Jalek, for that. And your point about elections next year is a really good example of many democracies are preparing for the threats against democracy and there could be the temptation to rush into regulations very quickly. And in that vein, I wanna turn to Nenad in Côte d’Ivoire and sharing your perspective on. you know, this idea of regulations of the online space in the context of evidence scarcity or the lack of real sound evidence and the risks of kind of moving towards quick regulation and how the work of this group could help policy makers and advocates working in this space. Nina?

Nnenna Nwakanma:
Yeah, so maybe I think you’re being diplomatically correct in saying quick regulation. You are in Kyoto, I’m sitting in my house. It’s panic regulation, it’s panic regulation. That’s the correct word. I’m sitting in my house. Anybody can come and fight me here. Nothing’s gonna happen to me. But here is it, it’s hype most often, right? Over the past two years, look at what has happened on the AI landscape. Even my personal self, I’ve had to go back to school to read AI law because it’s like everywhere, everywhere. Everybody’s crazy and hyping about AI. And that for me, it’s actually a red flag. It’s a red flag because as you know, the UN is going to set up an independent AI agency. It’s setting up a high level advisory board to work on it. In the past one year, I think I’ve read about 50 AI regulatory frameworks. And I’ve co-written one for Africa myself, the Africa AI Blueprint. Everywhere, it’s coming up, it’s coming up. My yesterday’s session was on data governance as well. And I’m helping, I still advise governments on regulating digital rights and media. So here is what I think. Understand before we regulate, how does this thing work? What are the implications? And that is where evidence comes. to be, that is where the work we do comes to be, you cannot regulate what you do not understand. Unfortunately, we do this hype, we are moved on hype, we are moved on electoral deadline, by electoral deadlines, we are moved by panic and we want to do something quickly. As someone in Africa, I smile, I listen very closely to Kutni, so now you are afraid. On the media landscape, there have been big western media that has been dominating the space for so long and everybody felt it was okay for these big platforms, media platforms then to be the bearers of a discourse and send us on a bias towards democracy in a certain way. The only reason we are now being afraid is that platforms are the new media and there’s a new kid on the block and your own power is being threatened. So I think it’s a power play here and being someone in Africa, I am smiling about it because governments are no longer the biggest stakeholders in the media, global northern media, the biggest media. Now we have media in the hands of private platforms. My last trip was to the Meta Campus in Menlo Park in California and so what, it’s still panic, it’s still panic. We want to regulate because we want to keep our spares of influence, we are regulating because we are afraid, we are regulating because of hype, we are regulating because of electoral deadlines and I think that all of that does not all go well and I think that the work that we’re doing needs to like calm everybody down. What is the evidence seeing? What is he not saying? What should we be afraid of? What should we not be afraid of? So for me, it’s important to understand. Evidence is key. I’ve lived long enough, Michael, and I think you’ve been around, to know that most often we regulate products. We are rushing into, no, this is fake news. Shut down this platform. Then we’ll all be OK. That is wrong. I think that we should be building on principles, and we should be building on fair processes. And that is really very important. We’ve seen big companies. I mean, 20, 25 years ago, it was software. Software was the big deal. Everybody wanted to use open software and proprietary software. And we’re like, no. Don’t stop attacking Microsoft. Let us look at principles of openness and accountability. Let us look at inclusivity. Let us look at these key principles. So let’s not regulate products and companies. Let’s regulate processes. Let’s regulate principles. And let’s be forward-looking. So in dialogue, let me close with that. Dialogue is also very important, and that’s what brings us to the value of IGF and the forum, by the way. That’s where we have this dialogue between private, public, and civil society sectors. Dialogue, I think, is very important. We should learn that. And finally, let’s breathe. Let’s just breathe. Let’s just breathe. Panic regulation, we’ve seen that. It takes us nowhere. And let’s breathe. Let’s take a breath, and let’s look at what the evidence is. And that’s why the work we do is here. Thank you.

Michael L. Bąk:
Thank you very much, Nina, in the spirit of calming down and finding out what we don’t know. and filling in those gaps, maybe, and in the spirit of multi-stakeholder-ness, Angsar being a representative from the private sector, maybe you can share some of your thoughts on, you know, the importance of gathering evidence to create better, ultimately better policies that will benefit us all.

Ansgar Koene:
Sure, so I mean what Nina was alluding to, that we are in in a moment in which there is a huge rush to try to come up with the right kinds of regulations, commitments, guidelines, we’re not even sure yet whether things should be mandatory or not. Different cultures approach this from a different point of view, but one thing that is clear is it doesn’t really matter which of these approaches we decide to choose, and different countries will choose different ones, we also need to be having the tools in order to check whether or not they are being implemented correctly, and that means we need to have methodologies. We need to understand which methodology is actually going to work in order to assess compliance with, be it compliance with the regulations, say Digital Service Act, be it compliance with commitments and guidelines. For all of these we need clarity on what are the good methodologies for tracking the ability to implement these kinds of commitments and obligations, and so that’s one of the things that a kind of meta-study approach to the research that exists out there is really going to help us to understand by looking at the various different methodologies that the research community, including academia, including journalists, including also work that has been done within companies, what are the various different methodologies that are been attempted, that have been used, which of these is producing the kind of evidence that is most reproducible, most applicable for this kind of an assurance process to assess are we achieving the desired outcomes of these new policies that are being developed in the space to deal with the new challenges from generative AI, the existing challenges from social media platforms, the old challenges around disinformation that may be driven by particular interest groups, which can be governments, it can be companies, it can be other groups as well. But really, we need an understanding about what is the way in which to assess where do things stand so that we can also provide the appropriate kind of recommendations. And so the kind of meta-study that the observatory is going to be doing is going to be key to be able to achieve that kind of a baseline. Thank you.

Michael L. Bąk:
And I realize that we’re already a minute over, although I don’t think there’s any session after ours because I think we’re one of the last. But I’d like to just give Jeanette a moment to share a thought or two, and then if anyone has any quick questions. But perhaps, Jeanette, if you wanted to share thoughts on how you think the work of the observatory in a year from now, the kind of impact or gap that it’ll fill, and as a tool for moving us further into the future from this long perspective you have of work in the field. Yeah.

Jeanette Hofmann:
Thank you, Michael. I think there is not so much to add after what has been said. Perhaps two things I’d like to emphasize. One is that this focus on… platforms and social networks cut us off from research that has been done on very similar questions in the 70s, 80s, 90s. It’s not a new topic to discuss manipulation and propaganda, right? We were discussing these issues also in the 70s, also the question of how easy is it to manipulate people? Do they actually believe what they listen to or read? That translates into the question nowadays when you forward disinformation, do you necessarily believe in what you see or are you rather signaling belonging? Say you forward a message about that the US election has been stolen. Do you do this out of loyalty for Trump or do you believe in your message? These questions are very old and by focusing on platforms, on the one hand we develop new skills, say computational social sciences and stuff like that, but at the same time we sort of forget all the work that has been done on these questions before. So that’s one issue. We should not, as Nena pointed out, chase a new pig through the village every year, but really also ground our work on previous research and contentious outcomes. And the second thing is what is really lacking in digital research is comparative work. And I hope that this meta-study will be able to look more systematically or also encourage comparative work so that we also get data of the many countries in Asia and Latin America and Africa where not much has been done. has been done to gather data. Thank you.

Michael L. Bąk:
Thanks for that. And I also have just learned that there’s a question from someone who’s watching us also online. So maybe I take that one and then one more. Yeah. Because this is actually the first time I’ve seen a question online during the conference. So please let us know who you are and ask the question. Put my glasses on. I can see a hand, but. Yeah, it’s Deborah. Would you like to ask your question? We need to unmute Deborah. Yeah.

Deborah Allen Rogers:
Thank you. Thank you very much. Oh my god. This has been one of my favorite, favorite panels. And Nnenna, I was thinking so hard to try to come up with a story about the idea of expertise, the bread, the clothes, et cetera. So let me just say who I am real quick, and then I’m going to go to a question on funding. So I’m, you can see my name, Deborah Allen Rogers. I have a nonprofit in the Hague called Find Out Why. And I think some of you might know who we are now. One of the things, and I’m also from New York City. I was a clothing designer in the 80s and 90s. So when you brought up cotton and you thought and you made the analysis for clothing, and it’s not a one size fits all, that made my heart sing. Also, because we do know that. Any of us in the, I don’t know everybody’s age here, but I can tell you I’m in the above 55 crowd. OK, so here’s the reason. I’m going to go hard on the funding models. One of the things that I do, besides my nonprofit on an advisory side, is to really kind of challenge the way we fund research. Why? I got a degree in 2019 in International Studies at Fordham in New York. and the thing that amazed me was how much time we spend in a curriculum studying the past. So I wanted to acknowledge the, I’m sorry I can’t remember your name now, but the woman from Germany that I agree with you, we have to look in the past, etc. in the archive. I would look at my notes but I want to try to get this point and not take too much time. We would sit in class, me with a lot of the very young, and then me as not very young at all, and we would be reading the old reports and we celebrate these minuscule differences. And so this idea of in political science, reading this research and celebrating a 0.003 difference in something, is something that I find very problematic from a design standpoint. So I want to ask this question about, we all know, all of us here who’ve had to deal in the world of funding, know that it’s a political system. And once we get the funding, it is highly political. And if we make some changes in the middle of the funding, we risk losing the funding, right? If we’re on our research path and we’re like this isn’t working, we just hit a wall and we need to change it. But the funds are allocated for this one particular path. So my question to everybody here is, and I would love for everyone to join in this idea of redesigning the funding models to put in a flexibility clause that if when I’m doing my research, I find out I’m hitting a brick wall, I don’t have to proceed on that research path. And I get to keep the funding so that I can go on the new path that I’ve just discovered must be taken. So that’s that. And then Michael, you made a point about taking time to develop expertise. And then this was the thing I was trying to figure out, what could we, how could we quantify or frame expertise? Because I work with 15 year olds that have a lot more expertise in the digital realm than I ever could. And I’m sitting with members of European Parliament and U.S. Congress, listening to people that do not have expertise in the digital realm, set policy or tell us how the world works, et cetera. And for any of us who are a little bit counterculture, We’ve been had the world explained to us many times over the decades, and I think being a New Yorker, this is something I find very frustrating when I’ve lived already through, you know, 9-11, AIDS pandemic, global transition and manufacturing and supply chains. It’s, there’s expertise in the room, even if I come from design. I mean, if I humbly could say that myself and sometimes I do try to get a seat. So I think the redefinition of expertise, I want to hear, Nana, I hope you can come up with a fabulous illustration, because five-year-olds have more digital expertise than we do now. It’s phenomenal. We all know it, who’s seen it. They don’t have business model expertise, my last comment, but do we? Because a lot of us are, have grown up in and fed the models that are ruining many, many industries. And we celebrate minuscule differences and we archive really fabulous studies because they didn’t make the one tiny little difference to get the funding. Okay, so let’s, let’s redesign the funding models together. That’s what I really wanted to say. Thank you very much.

Michael L. Bąk:
Thank you, Debra. We do have to wrap up. So I think it was, Nneda was set up to answer this very quickly within a minute. And then the organizers are typing. We have to, we have to stop.

Nnenna Nwakanma:
Oh, my. So Debra, refreshing hearing from you. Here is what I’ll say. One of the reasons I chose not to go to Kyoto is that there is a time to come and a time to go. And it is only intellectual property to bow before new expertise. I think that my space in the digital IGF space can be taken by those I’ve trained. I’ve been training people for the past 15 years. And I think that the highest level of leadership is when we raise awareness. other leaders to take over from us. It is perfectly okay for other people that have trained to lead IGF processes in my place. It is perfectly okay to tell a 15-year-old, I think you know this better than myself, and let them lead. Great leaders are those who first of all raise other leaders and are humble enough to bow before new leaders. Thank you.

Michael L. Bąk:
Thank you, Nana. That is a perfect note to end on. Thank you so much, and thank you, Debra, for the question. I apologize that we don’t have time, but feel free to come up after. Thank you, everybody. I appreciate you joining us at the end of a great conference week. Bye-bye. Thank you.

Moderator 2

The second session of the roundtable discussion began with Mr. Fang Yu, Director of the Internet Law Research Centre of China Academy of Information and Communications Technology. He provided valuable insights into the field and emphasized the importance of Internet law in the rapidly evolving digital landscape. Following Mr. Fang Yu, Mr. Lee Makiyama from Brussels shared his perspectives, contributing interesting ideas to the discussion.

Next, Ms. Wang Rong, a senior expert from Tencent Research Institute, offered her valuable insights on the topic. She shed light on the significance of research and development in the context of internet technology and its implications for legal regulation.

Continuing the discussion, Mr. Zhu Ran, Vice President of Alibaba Cloud Intelligence Group, shared his profound insights into the advancements of cloud computing in relation to internet law. His perspectives highlighted the need for effective legal frameworks to address the challenges and opportunities presented by cloud computing technologies.

The final speaker, Professor Zhao Jingwu from Beihang University’s Law School, delivered a thought-provoking presentation. He explored various legal aspects of internet governance and emphasized the need for comprehensive legal frameworks to address emerging digital issues.

Despite the time limitation, the forum concluded on an optimistic note, expressing the desire for more in-depth exchanges and discussions in the future. The participants and speakers were sincerely thanked for their wisdom and efforts in contributing to the open forum.

Moreover, the UNIGF was acknowledged for its vital role in providing a relevant dialogue platform for global stakeholders to engage in meaningful discussions on internet law and governance.

In summary, the second session of the roundtable discussion featured a diverse range of speakers who presented their perspectives on various aspects of internet law. The insights and arguments shared highlighted the need for robust legal frameworks to navigate the complexities of the digital era. The forum concluded with a shared commitment to further exploration and collaboration in this important field.

Fang Yu

The digitisation of our world is a key trend in the 21st century, with the digital economy and the internet becoming indispensable global goods. This has resulted in the need for new laws and regulations to effectively govern the cyberspace.

The digital economy is rapidly developing, and the internet plays a crucial role in its growth. It is now an integral part of our lives, facilitating communication, commerce, and innovation on a global scale. The significance of the digital economy is further emphasised by its relation to SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure.

Data legislation plays a fundamental role in enabling the effective use of data in the digital economy. It is divided into three key areas: data security, personal information protection, and data value. Data security focuses on ensuring that data is used effectively without compromising national security and stability. Personal information protection is vital as it ensures individuals have control over their private data and prevents unauthorised access or misuse. Realising the value of data is essential for the digital economy, as it drives innovation, creates new opportunities, and contributes to economic growth. The importance of data legislation aligns with SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions.

Furthermore, the issue of data governance is a long-term concern in the face of the growing digital economy. It is recognised that effective data governance is crucial to address the challenges and risks associated with handling vast amounts of data. Data governance offers the potential to enhance the level of data governance and ensure the benefits of the digital economy are shared among all stakeholders. This aligns with SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals.

In conclusion, the digitisation of our world and the growth of the digital economy have necessitated the development of new laws and regulations to govern the cyberspace. Data legislation, including data security, personal information protection, and data value, is imperative for the digital economy to thrive. Moreover, data governance is a long-term issue that requires attention to improve the level of data governance and maximise the benefits of the digital economy for all.

Moderator 1

The expanded summary provides a detailed analysis of the importance of fair and effective data governance for public benefits and sustainable development. It emphasizes the role of data in driving economic innovation and social development, highlighting its significance in today’s society where it has become a key driver of innovation and development.

The analysis recognizes that data application and governance present both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, data has the potential to bring about significant positive impact by informing decision-making processes, driving economic growth, and fostering social progress. However, it also raises concerns about privacy, security, and ethical considerations. Therefore, it is crucial to have effective data governance to maximize the benefits of data while mitigating potential risks and negative consequences.

To address the complex nature of data governance, the analysis suggests the need for multi-stakeholder forums that facilitate the exchange of insights on data-related applications and governance. These forums aim to bring together representatives from government, civil society, the technology community, and the private sector on a global scale. By fostering collaboration and knowledge-sharing, these forums can contribute to the development of fair and effective data governance frameworks that address the concerns and interests of all stakeholders.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the critical role of data in driving economic innovation and social development. It underscores the importance of fair and effective data governance to maximize the benefits of data while addressing the challenges and concerns associated with its use. The suggestion to hold multi-stakeholder forums reflects the need for a collaborative approach to data governance, where different perspectives are considered to develop comprehensive and inclusive frameworks. The expanded summary provides valuable insights into the significance of data governance for public benefits and sustainable development.

Wang Rong

The Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) in China is gaining recognition for its alignment with international standards. The law covers all sectors, including private and public, ensuring comprehensive protection of personal information.

Platform companies like Tencent stand to benefit from the strict provisions of the PIPL. Tencent has developed systematic tools for data privacy compliance and is committed to protecting user privacy and data compliance. They have also been at the forefront of developing privacy technologies such as the Linxi privacy platform, Federated learning, Trusted computing, and Secure multi-party computing.

In addition to technical solutions, Tencent focuses on giving users more control and transparency in their products. They aim to empower users with informed choices regarding their personal information.

The PIPL in China is seen as a positive development in personal information protection and data compliance. It sets a high standard for businesses, particularly platform companies like Tencent, who demonstrate their dedication to safeguarding user privacy and complying with the law.

Overall, the PIPL and Tencent’s initiatives contribute to the broader goal of data privacy. They encourage companies to prioritize user privacy and comply with regulations, positioning Tencent as an early adopter and industry leader in personal information protection.

Zhu Ran

The Chinese government has consistently upheld the principle of governing the Internet in accordance with the law, recognizing the rule of law on the Internet as vital for digital governance and the advancement of digital civilization. This commitment to legal governance of the Internet reflects a positive sentiment towards ensuring a secure and regulated online environment.

Alibaba Cloud Intelligence Group has played a significant role in cloud-based data governance, offering a range of cloud services to clients from over 200 countries and regions worldwide. Their services include computing, storage, networking, data processing, and security protection, all aimed at effective data management and governance. This demonstrates Alibaba’s strong commitment to data governance and their contributions towards advancing the goal of industry, innovation, and infrastructure.

To strengthen their data compliance governance further, Alibaba Cloud has obtained important certifications, such as ISO 27001 and CSA Star certification. Having also earned PCI DSS certification in the financial field, Alibaba Cloud’s dedication to data compliance is evident. These certifications not only validate their commitment to industry standards but also assure clients of their compliance and security measures.

Alibaba Cloud continues to prioritize data governance by implementing technical guarantees for data security on their cloud platform. They have developed a system that classifies various types of data on the cloud, ensuring secure usage, entry, and exit of data. This commitment to technical guarantees fosters confidence among their clients and ensures that data security remains a top priority.

The release of Alibaba Cloud’s Data Security and Privacy Protection White Paper further emphasizes their focus on safeguarding data. This document highlights the best practices of applying cloud computing to protect data security. Such transparency and information sharing contribute to increasing awareness and understanding of data privacy and security.

Alibaba Cloud takes a proactive stance in supporting data privacy and security. They have launched a data security initiative that emphasizes the importance of cloud computing platforms being solely used for protecting customer data. They believe that platforms have an obligation to help protect the privacy, integrity, and availability of client data. This demonstrates their commitment to ethical data practices and their support for a secure online environment.

In conclusion, the Chinese government’s commitment to governing the Internet in accordance with the law, along with Alibaba Cloud’s significant contributions to cloud-based data governance and commitment to data compliance and security, reflects a positive sentiment towards ensuring secure and regulated online environments. Alibaba Cloud’s technical guarantees, white paper, and proactive stance further reinforce their dedication to data privacy and security. These efforts serve as an example for other organizations and emphasize the importance of upholding data governance standards for the advancement of the industry, innovation, and infrastructure goal.

Hosuk Lee-Makiyama

The analysis reveals significant aspects of cross-border data flow and its legal implications. It suggests that jurisdictional issues have largely been addressed, as many jurisdictions have expanded their reach and established a legal basis for cross-border data regulation. This expansion reflects the recognition of the importance of regulating data flows beyond national borders.

Additionally, the analysis underscores the importance of harmonizing and aligning laws to facilitate cross-border data flow. It argues that built-in transfer mechanisms within privacy laws and expedited data sharing processes can enhance efficiency and collaboration among agencies. This highlights the necessity of a cohesive legal framework for seamless data exchange.

The analysis also highlights the progressive evolution of the rule of law on the internet. By codifying rules and regulations, there is greater legal clarity compared to relying solely on executive orders. This signifies a positive step toward establishing a solid legal foundation to govern online activities and ensure accountability.

Furthermore, the analysis challenges the notion of a fictitious debate around ‘trust’ in data governance. Despite varying societal backgrounds, agencies worldwide are working toward similar data governance goals. This implies the potential for common ground and shared objectives, fostering trust through collaborative efforts.

Overall, the analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the progress made in addressing cross-border data flow challenges. It emphasizes the importance of jurisdictional expansion, harmonization of laws, clear regulations, and collaborative data governance. These insights shed light on the complexities associated with cross-border data flow and the ongoing efforts to navigate them while promoting trust and accountability.

Tang Lei

China has been dedicated to promoting law-based cyberspace governance ever since it became fully connected to the Internet in 1994. The country has taken significant steps to establish a comprehensive legal framework by enacting more than 140 laws pertaining to cyberspace. This legislation serves as the basis for governing and regulating the online environment in China.

One of China’s key arguments is that it champions the interests of all countries in promoting law-based cyberspace governance. The country believes that all nations should adhere to legal principles and frameworks to ensure a safe and secure online space for everyone. China’s commitment to this ideal is evident in the number of laws it has enacted and the efforts it has made to create a robust legal framework for cyberspace governance.

Furthermore, China emphasises the importance of equal participation in global cyberspace governance. It supports the involvement of all nations on an equal footing and actively engages in international exchanges and cooperation in the field of law-based cyberspace governance. By promoting inclusivity and collaboration, China seeks to foster a global community that works together to address the challenges and opportunities in cyberspace.

China also recognises the need for constant innovation and adaptation to keep up with the evolving technological landscape. It acknowledges the challenges posed by new Internet technologies and responds to them in a forward-looking manner. By promoting innovation in the concept, content, approach, and methods of law-based cyberspace governance, China ensures that its legal frameworks remain relevant and effective in addressing emerging issues.

In conclusion, China’s efforts in promoting law-based cyberspace governance are commendable. The country has enacted numerous laws and established a comprehensive legal framework to govern the online environment. China advocates for the interests of all countries and supports equal participation in global cyberspace governance. Additionally, it emphasises innovation in adapting to the challenges brought by new Internet technologies. Overall, China’s commitment to law-based cyberspace governance contributes to a safer and more secure online space for people worldwide.

Zhao Jingwu

In today’s digital society, data security and cross-border data flow have emerged as crucial issues. Data has become a vital element in the national innovative development of countries. The ability to securely transfer data across borders is not only important for domestic data security regulation and commercial utilization but also essential for promoting the global digital economy.

China, for instance, has taken steps to address the governance of cross-border data flow through its domestic law. The country has implemented clear rules that classify cross-border data flow into four categories. However, its governance model is seen as lacking openness and cooperation. While China acknowledges the importance of data security, there is also a need to balance it with utilization. The coexistence of security and utilization is considered essential in the China data governance system.

On the other hand, there are arguments against unrestricted cross-border data flow without proper attention to data security. Pursuing data flow without considering data security risks compromises the exchange value of data and can lead to security vulnerabilities such as data linkage and theft. It is important to strike a balance between the free flow of data and the necessary security measures to safeguard sensitive information.

Another concern is the politicization of data security, particularly in relation to China. There is an international perception that China follows a path of data controlism, essentially politicizing the issue of data security. This perception raises questions and highlights the importance of ensuring data security without unnecessary politicization.

In conclusion, ensuring the security of data flow is critical in today’s digital society. While China has defined rules for cross-border data flow, its governance model is viewed as lacking openness and cooperation. Striking a balance between security and utilization is key to effective governance. Additionally, pursuing unrestricted data flow without considering data security risks compromising the exchange value of data. The observation that the issue of data security can be politicized, particularly with China’s perceived approach, raises further concerns.

Wang Yi

The analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the personal information protection laws and data governance in China. It highlights some unique characteristics of China’s personal information protection laws and their approach to balancing the protection and utilization of personal information. Specifically, China’s civil code distinguishes between the right to privacy and the right to personal information protection. This distinction allows for a nuanced understanding of personal information and ensures that individuals’ rights are safeguarded while also promoting the responsible use of personal data.

In terms of data governance, the analysis reveals that in China, there is a consensus that data carries a wide range of interests beyond personal and property interests. This understanding indicates a broader perspective on data and its potential for various applications. The analysis suggests that data is non-exhaustible and can be used by multiple entities simultaneously. This recognition underscores the importance of developing comprehensive data governance frameworks that account for the diverse interests associated with data.

Notably, the analysis explores two main perspectives on data governance in China. The first perspective advocates for establishing property rights over data. This approach requires defining the boundaries of rights for different entities, ensuring that ownership and control over data are clearly defined. The second perspective focuses on access to data through lawful behaviours. This view prioritises the establishment of regulations and guidelines that govern the appropriate uses and accessibility of data. Both perspectives demonstrate the need to navigate the complex challenges surrounding data governance and strike a balance between individual rights and collective interests.

The analysis also acknowledges that China’s governance practices in this field could offer valuable insights for other jurisdictions facing similar concerns. It highlights the potential for China’s experience to serve as a reference for state governments worldwide grappling with data regulation and governance issues. By examining China’s approach, other jurisdictions may gain useful knowledge and strategies for developing effective policies and frameworks to protect personal information and regulate data usage.

In conclusion, the analysis sheds light on the distinctive features of personal information protection laws and data governance in China. It underscores the importance of balancing the protection of personal information with the need for responsible utilization. Furthermore, it emphasises the recognition of data as carrying a wide range of interests and the necessity of establishing comprehensive data governance frameworks. Overall, the analysis contributes valuable insights and recommendations for the ongoing global conversation on data governance and personal information protection.

Zheng Junfang

Alibaba, a prominent player in the digital economy, has been instrumental in connecting merchants and consumers through the use of data. This connection has revolutionized commercial operations, making them smarter, more transparent, and highly efficient. By harnessing the vast amount of data at their disposal, Alibaba has created a platform that facilitates seamless transactions between merchants and consumers, driving growth and prosperity in the digital ecosystem.

With a global reach that serves nearly 10 million merchants and 1.3 billion consumers worldwide, Alibaba continues to create greater value for customers and society as a whole. Their positive impact on the digital economy is evident through their ability to leverage internet technology to foster innovation and develop industries.

However, Alibaba acknowledges the challenges presented by data governance in the rapidly advancing digital economy. They are advocates for a law-based approach to data governance, recognizing the importance of protecting personal information, intellectual property rights, and ensuring network and data security. By acknowledging the risks associated with extensive data usage, Alibaba emphasizes the need for a robust legal framework to support a thriving digital economy.

In alignment with their commitment to responsible data management, Alibaba emphasizes the importance of AI technology serving humanity’s interests while safeguarding personal privacy and data security. Their efforts in this regard are exemplified by their launch of large-language model R&D in 2019 and the recent introduction of their ethical risk review management system. By proactively adhering to AI regulations, Alibaba ensures the advancement and stability of AI technology while prioritizing personal privacy and data security.

In conclusion, Alibaba’s significant impact on the digital economy is indisputable. Their role in connecting merchants and consumers through intelligent data usage has revolutionized commercial operations, promoting efficiency and transparency. Moreover, Alibaba’s dedication to law-based data governance and ethical AI practices underpin their commitment to responsible data management. Overall, Alibaba’s positive contributions to the digital economy firmly establish them as a global leader in the industry.

Jesus Lau

Mexico is currently facing challenges in data handling, specifically regarding data literacy and data protection. A significant concern is the lack of necessary skills amongst many citizens to understand and effectively utilize data. To address this issue, there is a need to raise awareness and promote the importance of data literacy and its benefits for personal and professional development.

Mexico has taken steps to ensure data protection by including it in Article 16 of its Constitution. The country has a solid rule of law regarding data governance, which encompasses principles and practices that ensure fair, transparent, and consistent management and governance of data within organizations and society. This provides a strong foundation for data protection.

However, Mexico still faces difficulties in data handling. Data breaches, with hackers targeting both private and government repositories, pose significant threats. This highlights the need for robust cybersecurity measures to safeguard sensitive information.

Legislative lag is also a concern. Data protection legislation often falls behind technological advancements and emerging threats, making it difficult to effectively address data security issues. It is essential to update and strengthen legislation to keep up with the evolving landscape of data handling.

Government ethics in data handling is another aspect that needs attention. Ensuring transparency, accountability, and ethical practices in the collection, storage, and use of data by government entities is vital to foster trust and protect citizens’ privacy.

Additionally, the widespread use of social media and the tracking of individuals’ data present further challenges in data handling. Stricter regulations and better controls are required to manage the risks associated with the use of personal data on social media platforms.

To overcome these challenges, Mexico should prioritize data and information literacy education and training. This could involve offering courses on data and algorithmic literacy and providing access to data analysis tools and resources. By prioritizing data literacy education at both individual and organizational levels, Mexico can empower its citizens to understand and make informed choices about their digital presence in cyberspace.

In conclusion, Mexico faces various challenges in data handling, including limited data literacy, data breaches, legislative lag, government ethics, and social media tracking. It is essential for the country to promote data literacy, strengthen data protection measures, update legislation, ensure government ethics, and regulate social media data handling. By prioritizing data and information literacy education and training, Mexico can empower its citizens to engage with data effectively and confidently navigate the digital world.

Xu Zhiyuan

China has implemented a comprehensive legal framework to effectively manage the flow of data across borders. This framework consists of three key laws: cybersecurity laws, data security law, and personal information protection law. These laws serve as a solid foundation for regulating and safeguarding the transfer of data.

To support these laws, the Chinese government has implemented additional measures. These include data export security assessments, which require the export or import of data or a certain amount of personal information to undergo a thorough security evaluation. This assessment ensures that data leaving or entering the country meets the necessary security standards.

Furthermore, standard contracts are signed between personal information processors and overseas recipients. These contracts outline the rights and obligations of both parties, providing a legal framework for the safe and responsible transfer of personal information. Additionally, China has established detailed rules for personal information protection certification. These certifications are conducted by professional institutions approved by the China Administration of Cybersecurity (CAC). They evaluate the measures taken by personal information processors to protect and manage personal information in accordance with regulations set by the China Information and Communication Administration (CIC).

China’s commitment to the safe and orderly flow of data across borders is evident in its efforts to create a supportive environment for data exchange. The State Council of China has issued a special document that establishes a streamlined process, known as the “green channel,” for qualified foreign investment enterprises. This green channel enables these enterprises to effectively conduct outbound security assessments of important data and personal information.

Additionally, the CIC has drafted special regulations on cross-border data flow and is seeking public opinions to further promote the orderly and free flow of data. These proactive measures demonstrate China’s determination to facilitate secure data exchange and support the growth of the digital economy.

China also emphasizes the importance of international cooperation and open engagement to promote the development of the digital economy. The establishment of a comprehensive legal system for managing transborder data flow, along with China’s proposal to explore convenient security management mechanisms for cross-border data flow, reflects its commitment to collaboration and partnerships.

In conclusion, China has taken significant steps to establish a robust legal system for managing the flow of data across its borders. The introduction of cybersecurity laws, data security law, and personal information protection law, along with the implementation of data export security assessments, standard contracts, and personal information protection certifications, demonstrates China’s dedication to the safe and orderly flow of data. With a strong focus on international cooperation and support for the digital economy, China is positioning itself as a key player in facilitating secure and efficient data exchange on a global scale.

Neil Walsh

The importance of data governance in personal, national, and international security is emphasised in the provided information. With data driving our thought processes and daily activities, its governance becomes critical. This highlights the need for effective management and protection of data to ensure security at various levels.

Another key point highlighted is the need for good legislative and governance mechanisms for managing data. It is mentioned that the governance of raw and segmented data often lacks clarity, indicating the importance of establishing clear frameworks and guidelines for data management.

Furthermore, there is an urgent call for a comprehensive law and policy framework to assess threats and prosecute offenders in the cyber realm. This is prompted by a recent devastating cyber attack in Eastern Africa that had significant impacts on the economy and security of the affected country. The lack of involvement from countries in Eastern Africa in convention work is noted, which is discouraging considering the need for collective efforts in addressing cybercrime.

In the context of the Cybercrime Convention, it is advocated that all factions, including NGOs, civil society, and academia, should be involved in the debate. This inclusivity is seen as essential despite the diplomatic difficulty arising from the divergent views of countries involved. It is important to consider different perspectives and input from various stakeholders to ensure a well-rounded and effective approach to tackling cybercrime.

Additionally, the significance of active listening and open communication for preventive diplomacy is highlighted. It is acknowledged that active listening and dialogue among individuals and nations are essential tools in the pursuit of preventive diplomacy. This process enables understanding, cooperation, and the building of partnerships to address conflicts and maintain peace.

In conclusion, the provided information underscores the importance of data governance in personal, national, and international security. It highlights the need for legislative and governance mechanisms to effectively manage data. Furthermore, the urgency for a comprehensive law and policy framework to address cyber threats and prosecute offenders is emphasised. The importance of inclusivity in the debate surrounding the Cybercrime Convention, involving various factions and stakeholders, is also stressed. Finally, the significance of active listening and open communication for preventive diplomacy is acknowledged.

Moderator 1:
Beijing Normal University, welcome to the open forum on the role of law for data governance hosted by the Bureau of Internet Laws and Regulations of the Cyberspace Administration of China. With the deepening of globalization and digitalization, data has become one of the core drivers of economic innovation and social development. Data application and governance face both opportunities and challenges. At the same time, fair and effective data governance is essential for public benefits and sustainable development. This forum aims to gather different stakeholders from government, civil society, and the technology community, as well as private sectors in Asia, Africa, Europe, and America to exchange insights and ideas on the current status and evolution trend of global data-related applications and data governance, to examine and assess important concerns and challenges in global data governance, and to explore the role of law approach for data governance that is beneficial to the common values of humanity. Now let’s start the forum with the first session of keynote speech. Please remind you that each speaker can have eight minutes. First of all, let’s welcome Mr. Tang Lei, Deputy Director General of the Bureau of Internet Laws and Regulations of the Cyberspace Administration of China.

Tang Lei:
Please. Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Today we are gathering here in the Internet Governance Forum. to exchange our thoughts on the future of digital governance for humankind. I find it very meaningful and look forward to a constructive outcome of the forum. Since China was fully connected to the Internet in 1994, it has committed itself to law-based cyberspace governance, enhancing continuously the level of law-based cyberspace governance. China is the world’s largest developing country and has the largest number of Internet users. We always uphold people-centered development and we always uphold further development of the Internet, with a keen understanding of the extreme difficulties and complications in cyberspace governance. China has been forward-looking in responding to the challenges brought by new Internet technologies, applications and business forms and models, and promoted innovation in the concept, content, approach and methods of law-based cyberspace governance. Meanwhile, China has played an active part in international exchanges and cooperation in law-based cyberspace governance, is committed to build a multilateral, democratic and transparent global Internet governance system together with other countries. Distinguished guests, friends, China set out from its realities to explore its approach to cyberspace regulation and governance, consolidating the legal system for cyberspace governance. Until March 2023, China has enacted more than 140 laws on cyberspace, forming a cyber legislation framework endorsed by traditional legislation and underpinned by specialized cyber laws governing online content and management, cybersecurity, information technology, and other elements. Keeping order in a rule-based cyberspace, China has taken rigorous measures to ensure fair and rule-based law enforcement in cyberspace, strengthening enforcement in key areas of immediate concern to the people, promoting a healthy cyber environment, promoting public awareness and competence in law-based cyberspace governance. China makes every effort to break new ground in the content, form, and means of spreading legal knowledge via the Internet. The Chinese netizens’ awareness and understanding of the rule of law have generally increased. Respecting, learning, abiding by, and using the law is a shared understanding and basic principle. Increasing international exchanges and cooperation in law-based cyberspace governance, China is fully engaged in international exchanges and cooperation in the field of law-based governance of cyberspace. It plays an active role in rule-making and it resolutely safeguards the international system with the United Nations at its core, supports the participation of all countries. in global cyberspace governance on an equal footing, engage in bilateral and multilateral dialogues and exchanges in law-based cyberspace governance, increase international law enforcement and judicial cooperation on cybersecurity. Distinguished guests, friends, the internet benefits the whole world. China champions the interests of the people of all countries in promoting law-based cyberspace governance. We stand ready to partner with colleagues from all over the world to enhance the level of law-based cyberspace governance. China will further improve legislation on digital governance and endeavor to establish a legal system for the protection of people’s rights and interests in cyberspace, data security, and platform regulation, deepen the implementation of laws and regulations in the digital field. China will also put the role of the United Nations as a main channel into foreplay and has strengthened international exchanges and cooperation in making rules for digital governance through platforms like the BRICS Cooperation Mechanism, Shanghai Corporation Organization, and the World Internet Conference. Distinguished guests, friends, facing the opportunities and the challenges brought by digitalization, China will follow the global governance principle of achieving shared growth through convolution and collaboration and work together with the international community. to ensure global digital governance is law-based, and that digital progress will deliver greater benefit to the people and a better world. In the end, I’d like to conclude by wishing today’s Open Forum a great success. Thank you all.

Moderator 1:
Thank you, Mr. Tang, for the relevant experience of China. Now, I give the floor to Neil Walsh, Head of UNODC Mission and Regional Representative for East Africa.

Neil Walsh:
Good morning, everybody. Can I check that you can hear me okay? Yes, you can. Thank you. Okay, a very good morning to you all from Vienna in Austria, where it’s approaching three o’clock in the morning, and I’m in a very small hotel room. So it is a great pleasure to be with you all. My name is Neil Walsh, and it’s my honor to be the Head of Mission and Regional Representative of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime in Eastern Africa, where I’m normally based in Kenya. My 200 staff and I cover 13 countries in East Africa and the Indian Ocean, and we deliver UNODC’s effects to counter organized crime, terrorism, and corruption. I wish to express at the outset my deep thanks to the Internet Governance Forum, the Bureau of Internet Laws and Regulations of the Cyberspace Administration of China, and to my dear friend and mentor, Professor Wu Shenguo of Beijing Normal University, who I saw on camera a few moments ago. I only wish that I could be with you all in Kyoto, but unfortunately the dates clashed with UNODC’s annual Heads of Mission meeting, and I have to be here in Vienna. The topic of today’s event is the rule of law for data governance and subjects that both the CAC and BNU are world experts in. But these are topics of criticality, not just for the institutions I’ve named, not just for the People’s Republic of China and the IGF, but for every nation, every business and every person on our planet. And in Eastern Africa, I see on a daily basis the absolute need for all of these aspects to come together. Data governance is a broad term, and I suspect that all of us could explain it and define it in different ways, based upon our experience, our education and our culture. And as we all know, definitions in all things cyber are often very politically challenging and academically diverse. But friends, I think we can all agree that we have a broad collective understanding of the importance of data governance in personal, national and international security. Data, be it personally identifiable or more anonymized, drives our world, whether we’re conscious of it or not. Data also drives our thought processes, our desires and our biology. Whether it’s the serotonin boost from a social media like or a revulsion when we see, experience or think about organized crime, data is at the core of everything that we do. And thinking about the adverts that we see every day, the data mining that drives targeted advertising and the surprise that we all feel, followed by a slightly uncomfortable sense when we realize that the new product we’ve been discussing with friends is suddenly across all of our social media feeds without asking or without searching consciously for it can be quite unpleasant. Data is the product of choice for exploitation and profit. And the region of the globe that I lead for UNODC, there is a daily clash between the desire for more data and our ability or not to analyze and exploit it at pace. The legislation and governance mechanisms of the raw and segmented data, whether within one’s own country of residence or nationality or beyond that is often unclear. And from my experience, conversations and guidance from Professor Wu and the CAC over the years, it’s clear to me that there is much more always to be done. And so data is at the heart of the United Nations. It must be at the core of our decision-making on topics as diverse as economic growth, sustainable development, encountering cyber crime. And I was able to listen to the last 15 minutes of the previous session and to see some old friends like Deputy Assistant Secretary Alison Peters on stage where we are discussing these matters together. Data when mined proportionately, lawfully, accountably and necessarily can make the difference between an emotional response and an objective decision. And in my role leading the UN’s work in Eastern Africa, I’ve placed the need for routine, accurate, strategic intelligence data at the core of our business. We can’t give good country level and regional policy advice if we don’t have good data. And good data sourcing without the ability to assess, analyze and exploit it is at best wasted or at worst dangerous. And some years ago, I led the UN’s policy response to cyber crime and my colleague Nayeli Loya led our operational programming globally. And I can remember so many meetings and conversations when we met ministers around the world who saw cyber crime as a future threat. None of us consider cyber crime to be a future threat now. It is the here and now everywhere. And just recently, a country in my region in Eastern Africa suffered a devastating cyber attack. It only lasted for a few hours, but the impact was significant. Electricity failed in some regions, payment systems in shops failed, the economy stalled. This was without doubt a national security incident and an international security incident. And so we need good law. We need good policy nationally and internationally to create the means to assess the threat and to prosecute offenders and to hold to account those who seek to undermine development and cause harm. And we need it now. I’m deeply encouraged by the work being done by UN member states under UNODC’s stewardship to craft the new Cybercrime Convention and the interventions of non-governmental organizations and civil society and academia are absolutely critical in this debate as well. This is diplomatically hard and many countries have divergent views. But most worryingly for me is the lack of involvement of countries in my region in Eastern Africa. The convention work is as important for Africa as it is for Asia, Europe and the Americas. So it is incumbent for all of us to create a supportive, nurturing, challenging environment for those who should engage and get the best out of this debate but are currently absent. We need to use our collective skills to bring them and their insights, their experience and guidance to support and mentor those who are yet to step in to these areas in necessary depth. Because we all know that if we don’t fill this space, others will. Others who don’t have our good, peaceful intent at heart. Others who will seek to harm and to exploit. And that’s why it’s so important to talk together about the rule of law for data governance. We need to talk to one another and most importantly, friends, we need to actively listen to each other too. That’s what the public, the people we serve, expect from us and need from us. This is preventive diplomacy in action. And that is why today’s event right now is so important. So friends, I want to thank you once again to the IGF, to the Cyberspace Administration of China and Beijing Normal University for inviting me to speak with you. I really wish I could be sitting with you right now. But most importantly, I want to say an enormous thanks to all of you who care about the topic, its seriousness and the consequences if we get it wrong. So from the middle of the night in Vienna, thank you for listening. And I hand it back to you in Kyoto. Thank you.

Moderator 1:
Thank you, Mr. Walsh, for your wonderful sharing. Now let’s turn to Professor Wang Yi, Vice President of Renmin University of China, for his speech. Professor Wang.

Wang Yi:
Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your kind introduction. Mr. Speaker, my fellow panelists and our distinguished audience, it is quite an honor to have this opportunity to share some of my thoughts on state governments today. I would like to provide a brief overview from the dual perspective of a participant in the legislative drafting process and a legal scholar in civil law in China. I will introduce some of the consensus reached by the academic community on state governance and the latest progress in this field. They are divided into the following two sections. personal information protection, and corporate data governance. In terms of personal information protection in China, the civil code of the People’s Republic of China has taken the lead in providing rules and standards for personal information protection in both its general provisions and the right to personality section. Since information technology has posed new challenges to the protection of personal information after the enactment of the civil code, the personal information protection law of the People’s Republic of China has overall continued the provisions of the civil code’s relevant articles, but with more specific rules within the existing framework. China’s legislative model of dual protection for personal information through the civil code and the personal information protection law exhibits several unique characteristics. Firstly, the civil code distinguish between the right to privacy and the right to personal information protection, making the boundaries between the two clear. Traditional privacy rights primarily address one-to-one infringement, while personal information protection primarily deals with large-scale macro-level infringements. Secondly, the civil code provides a balance between the protection and the utilization of personal information. The personal information protection framework initially originated from the… handling of personal information by government agencies. However, today, technology companies, especially online platforms, have become the primary actors in information processing. Therefore, personal information protection should be subject to adjustments within civil legal systems. Moreover, China’s civil code also places emphasis on safeguarding personality rights. It complements the personal information protection law, together forming a legal framework with Chinese characteristics in legal practice. The second topic I’d like to discuss is the civil code and corporate data governance in China. In today’s world, where the value of big data is widely recognized, how should we approach the legal framework of this big data? Should big data be exclusively discussed in the context of intellectual property? An emergent and important consensus in China is that there are many types of interests that can be associated with data, not limited to the personal and the property interests typically associated with intellectual property. Based on this consideration, the civil code has included multiple provisions for data within civil law as the object of legal relationships. The Chinese academic community shares the following three points of consensus of the key and the most important. differences between data and others, such as tangible and real property. The first and foremost is that data is non-exhaustible and able to be repeatedly utilized. The second characteristic is that when it comes to collection and utilization, data can be collected and used in parallel among multiple actors. The third characteristic is the complexity of the types of interests that data can carry. It can potentially carry both personal and property interests. Building on such shared notions, the biggest dispute in academia and practice is how the law allocates property interests above data. A typical example is disputes caused by web crawlers. In China, there are mainly two divergent viewpoints. One is to establish property rights over data and resolve disputes through property rights. The other is to access and resolve disputes through the legality of the relevant behaviors. However, given these two models differ, they still lead to similar outcomes. Even when data is subject to general property rights, such rights are often restricted and access is granted to other parties, especially ordinary users. Similarly, establishing legal rules for relevant actions also requires defining the boundaries of rights for different entities. In my personal opinion, it is inevitable to establish property rights. over the monetary interests carried by debt, but the content of debt rights that corporations enjoy may vary in different contexts. As far as I am concerned, governments around the world share similar concerns. I believe that China’s debt governance practice will provide valuable reference for other jurisdictions. This is all I have for today’s forum. Thank you very much.

Moderator 1:
Thanks for Professor Wang’s sharing, which provided us with a new perspective. Next speaker, let’s invite Mr. Xu Zhiyuan, Deputy Chief Engineer from China Academy of Information and Communications Technology. Please.

Xu Zhiyuan:
Hi. Good morning, everyone. I’m here today to talk about China’s framework of transborder data flow management. At present, data has become a key strategic resource. Major countries and regions in the world have implemented different degrees of restrictions on the cross-border data flow, and have constructed their own cross-border data flow management system. However, the international community has not yet formed a general consensus on the specific regulatory rules of cross-border data flow. And there are mainly three models. The United States, the European Union, and the emerging countries. China has always promoted cross-border data flow in accordance with the law. and has basically established a framework based on the rule of law. Since 2016, China has established the three plus three legal system with cyber security laws, data security law, and the personal information protection law as a top level design. And the data export security assessment measures, personal information export standards contract measures, and detailed rules for the implementation of personal information protection certification as supporting rules. In accordance with the three plus three legal system, China has promoted supervision and control of cross-border data flow in an orderly manner. In particularly, a number of demonstration cases have been formed in the security assessment of outbound data. At the same time, China’s local level has actively explored the innovation pilot of data outbound, promoting the safe and orderly cross-border data flow, and has accumulated the value of data elements. Next, I would like to introduce three ways of Chinese data export. First is safety assessment. The three plus three legal system establishes a basic requirement that the data export of import data or certain amount of personal information must pass a security assessment. Second is a standard contract, which is formulated by the Cyberspace Administration of China. China and signed by the information by the personal information processor and the overseas recipient Stimulating the rights and obligations of both parties third is protection certification Protection certification is an activity In which professional institution approved by CAC conducts a comprehensive evaluation of the personal information protection and management measures of personal information processors in accordance with CIC regulations if the merits meet the requirements the institution will issue a certification mark to the processor On the basis of the 3 plus 3 legal system China has further explored and innovated to promote the orderly cross-border data flow Recently the State Council of China issues a special document on foreign investment the title is opinions on further optimizing the environment for foreign investment and increasing the efforts to attract foreign investment. The document proposed to explore a convenient security management mechanism for cross-border data flow we will implement the requirements of the cybersecurity law the data security law and the personal information protection law establish a green channel for qualified foreign investment enterprise effectively carry out outbound security assessment of important data and personal information and promotes a safe orderly and free flow of data. On September 28th, the CIC drafted special regulations on the cross-border data flow to solicit public opinions aiming to further promote the orderly and the free flow of data in accordance with the law. Distinguished guests, China has always opened its door to the development of the digital economy and actively engaged in international cooperation. In the face of the development as a global digital economy, China will continue to regulate the cross-border data flow in accordance with the law, adhere to the vision of building a community with a shared future for mankind and share the dividends of digital development with other countries. Thank you.

Moderator 1:
Thank you, Mr. Xu. Now let’s welcome Professor Jesus Law, co-chair of the International Steering Committee of UNESCO Media and Information Literacy Alliance and the Vice President of University of Veracruz, Zena.

Jesus Lau:
Hello, good evening here. I’m in the southern part of Mexico. And I would like to say thanks to Professor Wu of Virginia Norman University and to CAC for the invitation to be part of this panel. My paper is called, Naked Address, Law for Data, Challenges and Opportunities in Mexico. Citizens in Mexico and in Latin America in general have legal and de facto options to be data naked or dress. In our contemporary data-driven modern society. In other words, they have the right to allow. or restrict the compilation and tracking of the digital footsteps in cyberspace. Mexico has a sound legal framework to protect individuals’ privacy. Data protection is ensured in Article 16 of the Mexican Constitution, as well as in the federal law for the protection of personal data held in private parties published in July 2010 and its regulations published in December 2011. The Mexican rule of law for data governance refers to a set of principles and practices that ensure that data within an organization or society is managed and governed in a fair, transparent, and consistent manner in accordance with established laws, regulations, and ethical standards. The authority responsible for data protection is the National Institute of Transparency, Access to Information, and Personal Data Protection. The acronym or the abbreviation is INAI. INAI oversees compliance with the law and has a primary focus on disclosing governmental activities, budgets, and public information, as well as protecting personal data and individuals’ right to privacy. INAI has the authority to conduct investigations, review and sanction data protection controllers, and authorize, oversee, and revoke certifying entities. The Ministry of Economy is responsible for informing and educating national and international corporations with commercial activities in the Mexican territory about their obligations regarding the protection of personal data. Among other responsibilities, it must issue relevant guidelines for the content and scope of the privacy notice in cooperation with E9. However, there are many challenges in Mexico, such as data breaches, hackers targeting private and government data, repositories pose a significant threat. Number two, legislative lag. Data protection legislation often lags behind technological advancement and emerging threats. Number three, government ethics, ensuring ethical data handling and decision making within the government is essential. Social media tracking. Social media platforms are major data trackers for marketing purposes, and sometimes this can be annoying. Number five, limited data literacy. Many citizens lack the necessary skills to understand, interpret, and effectively use data. The last challenge, in other words, limited data literacy, in the bold list, is certainly the most important because it can help address the rest of the challenges. Mexico needs to foster data literacy among its citizens, empowering them to understand, interpret, and effectively use data in today’s artificial intelligence driven world. To address these challenges, the country should, number one, raise awareness, promote the importance of data literacy and its benefits for personal and professional development. Number two, simplify complex data. Develop strategies and tools to make complex data more accessible and understandable. Number three, manage data overload. Provide guidance on how to navigate and extract meaningful insights from large data sets. Number four, overcome technological barriers. Ensure the technology and offer training on data analysis tools. Number five, address data quality. Promote data quality practices and techniques for cleaning and reprocessing data. Number six, teach a statistical and mathematical concepts. Offer education on a statistical and mathematical concepts relevant to data analysis. Number seven, emphasize data privacy. Educate individuals and organizations on responsible data handling and privacy compliance. Number eight, expand data access and enhance availability and access for all citizens. Number eight, promote change. Encourage organizations to adopt data-driven decision-making and foster a culture that values data. Number 10, address cultural and organizational barriers. Provide support, resources, and a conducive algorithmic culture for data literacy. Number 11, and last, allocate time and resources. Invest in training and development of data literacy skills, considering time and budget constraints. Conclusion, prioritizing data and information literacy education and training at both individual and organizational levels is essential. This may involve offering courses on data and algorithmic literacy, providing access to data analysis tools and resources. Enforcing a culture that values data-driven decision-making. Additionally, continuous efforts to raise awareness about the importance of data literacy can motivate individuals. to acquire these skills and make informed choices about the digital presence in cyber space. As a summary, according to the main message is that we need to offer data literacy training to our citizens. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak at this session. I wish you success in the following sessions.

Moderator 1:
Thank you, Professor Law, for your wonderful words. I give the floor to the next speaker, Ms. Zheng Junfang, CRO and CFO of Alibaba Cloud Intelligence Group, please.

Jesus Lau:
Thank you.

Zheng Junfang:
Respected Mr. Tang Lei and the other speakers, ladies and gentlemen, friends, good morning. It is a great pleasure to participate this workshop and exchange ideas with you all on this topic. Today, our lives and work are intertwined with digital technology like never before. Indeed, data as a factor of production has emerged as a strategic resources for economic development. Chinese President Xi Jinping stated, we need to build a digital economy with data as a key factor, boost the integrated development of the real and the digital economies, and further integrate the internet, big data, and artificial intelligence with a real economy. As one of the earliest internet companies in China, Alibaba has benefited from the development of internet technology and from opportunities offered by the times. It is from this standpoint that we wish to share our thoughts and experience in the field of data governance. Data is a key factor of the digital economy. Alibaba, a sci-tech enterprise starting with e-commerce, has empowered the digitalization of numerous merchants and products to meet the huge market demand in China. Since its establishment, Alibaba has played an integral part in establishing connections between merchants and consumers throughout data. These data have made commercial operations smarter, information more transparent, and adjustment of supply and demand structure more efficient. It is also through data that we have built a trust system in transactions. Today, Alibaba serves nearly 10 million merchants and 1.3 billion consumers worldwide, and we work to continuously create greater value for customers and the society. In 2009, the first line of code was written for Alibaba Cloud’s self-developed cloud operation system. After 14 years of tireless efforts, our data-centric cloud computing platform has grown into a front-runner worldwide. In the era of cloud computing, both individuals and start-ups can enjoy the benefits of the digital economy. Mihai You is a video game development and publishing company that took shape in a dormitory at the Shanghai Jiao Tong University in 2011. Mihai You began to utilize Alibaba Cloud Computing Service when there were only eight staffers in the company. As of June 2023, the net profit of this young company reached nearly $2.27 billion. It is fair to say that Mihayo is a true cloud-native digital enterprise. Its success is a microcosm of this era, in which numerous innovative enterprises and Alibaba Cloud are mutually reinforcing. The value of data is unlimited, not only for business, but also for public services. During the Asian Games in Hangzhou, they just closed earlier this week. For example, cloud computing supported three core systems, the games management systems, results distribution systems, and game support systems. Alibaba Cloud also enabled the seamless integration of these core systems and provided intelligent applications, such as broadcasting and event communications. With the technical support of Alibaba Cloud, we can say that the event became the first Asian Games on the cloud. Only through law-based data governance can we give full play to the value of data. As an ancient Chinese saying has it, nothing can be accomplished without norms or standards. With the rapid development of the digital economy, data has played a vital role in promoting economic and social development. However, it has also posed challenges to the protection of personal information, intellectual property rights, and network and data security. In the cyberspace, therefore, promoting law-based data governance has become a global consensus. We believe that effective data governance will better facilitate data flow. Likewise, the free and secure flow of data within the framework of the rule of law will give full play to the strength of data as a factor of production. On the one hand, as a unique factor of production, data can be utilized repeatedly by different parties thanks to their inclusiveness. On the other hand, data can generate different values in different scenarios as their generation and utilization involve various stakeholders, thus creating a bucket effect. For this reason, Alibaba Cloud has advocated the whole process management of data throughout their lifecycle. Looking ahead, we would like to continue to participate in efforts to advance the rule of law in regard to data governance together with all clients and partners in this digital ecosystem. We face both opportunities and challenges in the area of AI. AI is one of the most innovative cutting-edge digital technologies in the world. As a high-tech Internet enterprise, Alibaba Cloud launched R&D on our large-language model in 2019, and the latest iteration, Tongyi Qianwen, was made available to the public recently. In the future, we will launch different partnership programs and endeavor to create more enterprise-specific models to ensure that every industry can better share the fruits of intelligent development. In the new era of intelligent development, we are the benefactors of the advance in AI while facing many uncertain risks and confusion. In response, the Cyberspace Administration of China, together with six other authorities, jointly issued in July the Intricate Measures for Administration of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services. the first of its kind globally. It provides a definitive legal environment and basis for the sound development of AI in China. In line with this regulation, Alibaba then released the management system for Scientech ethical risk review, introducing three principles of responsible AI, namely availability, reliability, and credibility. We hold that AI technology should serve the interests of humanity, be advanced and stable, and protect personal privacy and data security. Here, we would like to make three proposals. First, establishing high-quality university public corporate. Second, developing the standard system and the precaution system of data security for opposing racial discrimination, safeguarding the rights and interests of women and children. And third, actively carrying out international exchanges and cooperation in the field of data governance to promote global norms and consensus in this regard. Thank you.

Moderator 1:
Thank you, Ms. Zheng. Thanks again for all speakers of the first session. Next is the second session of round table, the moderator is my colleague, Wu Shengkuo.

Moderator 2:
Thank you. Thank you very much, Professor Liang. Now let’s move on to the second session of the roundtable discussion. Please remind you that each speaker can have seven minutes. Firstly, let’s welcome Mr. Fang Yu, Director of the Internet Law Research Center of China Academy of Information and Communications Technology, please.

Fang Yu:
Thank you, Mr. Wu. Distinguished guests, friends, good morning. Firstly, please allow me to say hello by Japanese. Ohayou gozaimasu, watashi wa Fang Yu desu. This is the first time for me to be here in Kyoto. This is a nice city and a beautiful place. More importantly, it is my great honor to speak at this forum. I am Fang Yu from China Academy of Information and Communications Technology, which refers to CAICT. The CAICT is a think tank in China engaged in research related to the field of network. Now I’m in charge of the Internet Law Research Center. My center mainly studies issues related to network legislation and has participated in several important legislations in China. As a think tank, we carry out some basic research, especially on cutting-edge legal issues. As we all know, the growing digitalization of our world is one of the key trends of the 21st century, and it is fundamentally changing the way we live and work. Digital economy is developing rapidly. The Internet is now an indispensable global public good. We need new laws and regulations to govern the cyberspace. Mr. Tang Lei has given an overview of China’s cyber law system, which is very impressive. Meanwhile, digital economy is driven by data. So I think data law is absolutely an important part in this system. The issue of data legislation is widely concerned by all countries in the world. In China, we generally divide it into three aspects – data security, personal information protection, and data value. First, data security means to use legal measures to ensure the effective use of data without affecting national security and social stability. To reach this goal, we need to make data classification and protect different types of data by different means. It covers many factors, but in which the issue of cross-border data flows is very critical. Mr. Xu Zhiyuan has already explained this topic in great detail, so I will not repeat it. Second, personal information protection can be said to be the fundamental rule in the development of the digital economy. And most countries are faced with the contradiction between personal information protection and personal information utilization. The European Union wants to balance them by the famous GDPR, and many countries have developed their own personal information protection laws with reference to the EU approach. China has a long history of personal information protection practices and in 2021 adopted China’s personal information protection law, which provides a Chinese plan for the protection and usage of personal information. The last is the issue of data value. This is quite essential for the digital economy, but there is no proper solution to this problem, and China is actively starting and exploring it. China has taken the lead in recognizing that data plays a fundamental role in the development of the digital economy, and encourages it to give full play to its essential role. However, many people are still deeply discussing the issue of data rights, hoping to determine the ownership of data through a legal framework to further realize the value of data. Distinguished guests, friends, I believe that data governance will be an issue which needs to be studied for a long time in the background of the digital economy.I hope that countries around the world can work together to make progress, especially through discussions under the framework of the United Nations. and other international mechanisms, so as to jointly improve the level of data governance and share the benefits of the digital economy development. Thank you for listening.

Moderator 1:
Thank you very much, Mr. Fang, for your wonderful point of view. Now I give the floor to Hosaka Lee Makiyama, Director of European Center for International Political Economy, please.

Hosuk Lee-Makiyama :
And once again, I would like to repeat my deepest gratitude to IGF, Benjindorma University and CSE for this invitation to make this very brief intervention. And as a simple legal and economic scholar that has studied global governance of data economy for the last 15 years, I’m very honored to offer my observation on this very difficult topic on the rule of law, because despite all the self-evident societal and developmental benefits that we have heard today in this panel, as well as in the other forums of IGF, it is well understood that the cross-border data flows has raised many important questions regarding rule of law, and especially in the context of international law. And when the internet and the data economy emerged two decades ago, the primary question used to be, and it’s to some degree still is, whether we can avoid internet becoming a legal void, jurisdictional terra nullius, if you like. And to date, I think that these concern has been pretty much addressed, and the issue has been less about determination of jurisdiction or legal forum, as it was believed, as very often the legal questions around new innovation tend to be very, very different than we imagined them at the onset. And many jurisdictions have actually expanded their reach and the legal basis with some form of extraterritoriality. Many speakers already commended the EU GDPR as a model or a template for many laws that have followed. I think EU GDPR is also a good example of the extraterritoriality since it is applied extraterritorially based on the citizenship or residency of the data subject rather than the object, which is the case in many other laws. And it has also established a practice of jurisdiction based on the citizenship or the passport or the fiscal placement of the data subject. And the ecosystem turned out to be much more insulated perhaps than what it was believed. We have seen that due to cultural and linguistical reasons, Internet has actually much more local flavor than we expect them to have. And due to the delivery of the data economy, which is so contingent on a fiscal continuum. So, for example, like local payment systems, banking and or a fiscal delivery of the transaction. We can also see that there is a natural tendency where these jurisdictional questions have been resolved. And despite the use of extraterritoriality issue associated with cross-border compliance and enforcement have been actually quite moderate. And to some extent, it is thanks to the legislative harmonization we have seen, for example, under the COE Budapest Convention on Cybercrime. But first and foremost, it is notable how basic liability principles or contract law or criminal law have actually applied equally online. as well as offline in Europe and many other jurisdictions. And increasingly online services are also subject to various type of licensing and notification requirements, meaning that actually the jurisdictional question has been resolved and also the rule of law has been territorialized at onset. And if that is the development we have seen in the past to first two decades of digital economy and where we have seen the evolution of legal doctrine, which is based on personal information on data management that we know today. We can also see that the current evolution in terms of rule of law on the internet is quite progressive where we have seen codification of in many instances of previous soft laws and executive decision. And the codification has also led to more legal clarity as more and more rules are actually transparent and actually written down rather than executed as executive orders or soft law. We see that there is an improvement of rule of law. However, not all foreign economic actors may not necessarily share the desirability of this clarity or these outcomes that the rules have enabled. So for example, if I just would take an example from Europe once again, Europe has introduced the Digital Services Act, Digital Markets Act and Data Act or EU Cloud Services Scheme which all have shifted the investigative ex post legislation like for example, an antitrust enforcement to an ex ante approach through universal obligations and through regulations rather than investigations. And in other elsewhere, we see cybersecurity laws that have provided more legal clarity with clearer legal basis, distinguishing different cases and practices. And once again, better clarity is always desirable, but some may simply just disagree with the rules. We still see issues with national treatment. So critics say that the EU law set very arbitrary thresholds of what high risk practices entail, and therefore it is very selective in its legal scope. And in fact, many thresholds are naturally ambiguous or subjective. I think there was a disruption in my connection, but I’ll try again. As I was saying, many thresholds that are naturally ambiguous or subjective, and that’s basically the nature of the internet law itself. And it is foreseen that case law will provide the further clarity on these issues. And, but given the dynamism of the legal systems of internet law as a subject, the question is whether we will be required to change the legal framework and update them before any case law actually evolves. This is the risks of governing fast paced technology which we all have to live with. And this basically leads to a final point here that there is a universal problem where enforcement agencies have a natural disadvantage in understanding the current practices, but not necessarily enforcing their rules. Transparency is of course, synonymous with accountability. And I think that the current trend shows that we are regulating to understand commercial practices, user patterns, rather than mitigating actual potential risks associated with data flow or inadequate enforcement. And I think that IGF hosts of this year, Japan has taken significant step here for the global community by taking the initiative for the institutional arrangement under the G7 on the FFT, and which will enable governments to study issues and causality and best practices for better data governance. And to basically to wrap up history and the future of cross-border governance of data flows has been characterized by friction of obligations rather than perceived conflict of laws or values. Different legal system are founded on different societal values. And despite these differences, it is evident that the regulators seek surprisingly similar outcomes in their digital economy and try to address similar issues. And however, these outcomes may have very different commercial consequences if you look at the individual companies. A foreign disruptor in one country is actually an incumbent and a national champion in another country. Some objectives of policy create very different winners and losers. This is not necessarily a product of diverging values or diverging objectives. And extraterritoriality can only be resolved through mutual cooperation and such as mutual legal assistance treaties. And many of the privacy laws have built-in transfer mechanisms. MCC has been mentioned several times under this course of this panel, but also adequacy decision. And these mechanisms for expedited data sharing process can enhance efficiency and collaboration amongst agencies. However, enforcement can only be guaranteed by governments, not by private actors. And this is an understanding which is the basis of the European model and many other legal models we see across Asia. So impetus comes from harmonisation, alignment of laws and especially on data protection, privacy and security, rather than establishing a common international standard or voluntary or trusted global frameworks. And I think we see that the equivalence decisions and other fundamental mechanisms for cross-border data flows are actually 100% legal in their nature. Trust is a matter of question between governments and people, but it does not necessarily relate to the data. It’s a function of equivalence rather than between two jurisdictions, rather than a function of trust. And here’s where many open data advocates tend to talk, prefer to talk about trust rather than equivalence between laws. So it may be a fictionary conflict that we see around trust, where we see, as once again, that many agencies around the world are actually working towards similar goals, despite having very different societal backgrounds. Thank you so much. And I’ll pass the word back to the panel.

Moderator 2:
OK. Thank you very much, Mr. Lee Makiyama from Brussels, for the interesting sharing. Next, we have Ms. Wang Rong, senior expert from Tencent Research Institute.

Wang Rong :
Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I’m Wang Rong from Tencent Research Institute, which is a research platform focusing on public policies in digital economy. I’m very honored to participate in the RGF Data Governance Forum. I guess that everyone must be impressed by the extraordinary accomplishments that China has achieved. just as Tang Lei, Deputy Director, introduced to us. Now, I would like to share the China’s personal information protection from the perspective of corporate compliance practices. First, I would like to share some interesting findings. So for the purpose of corporate compliance, Tencent Research Institute compared the provisions of China’s personal information protection law referred as PIPL, promoted in 2021 with the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, as you know, that’s GDPR. Through comparing these two laws, we found some interesting findings. The first, China’s PIPL is fully integrated with the international general principles of personal information protection represented by GDPR. In terms of legislative model, China’s PIPL adopted a globally mainstream model, which is very comprehensive and universal legislative model that is applicable to all sectors, not only to private sector, but also in public sector. And third, in terms of the laws content, the specific rules, the PIPL introduces the basic rules, including the legal basis of data processing, the rights of data subjects, the obligations of data controllers and data processors. Finally, in terms of strictness of rules, China’s PIPL is basically matches the EU GDPR standard. In some aspects, China’s PIPL is even more stringent than GDPR. So as we concluded. Although there are still some subtle differences between the PIPL and GDPR, but in general speaking, China’s PIPL is highly compatible with international legislation standards. The strict PIPL in line with international standards will bring full benefits to the healthy development of platform companies such as Tencent. Companies will fully embrace the implementation of law with a positive attitude. It is constructive to help the digital industry to build consumer trust through legal system protection. As you know, rebuilding consumers’ confidence and security trust is one of the core issues in the digital society. We believe the legal system itself undoubtedly plays an important role in now. As data processing scenarios become more complex, data flows between different institutions increase dramatically. Through the legal system, Clary finds the legal responsibilities of different market players in different aspects of data processing is very constructive to establish a data protection ecosystem. So based on our business, Tencent relies on systematic tools to implement data privacy compliance work. Tencent is one of the earliest internet companies in China to explore personal information protection and data compliance. We emphasize technology itself to empower privacy protection. We have developed the Linxi privacy platform to establish comprehensive technical capabilities to facilitate our service to fully comply with the privacy protection requirements. In addition, Tencent continues to develop privacy technologies such as federated learning, trusted computing, and secure multi-party computing to explore more technical solutions for personal information protection in the whole life cycle of digital service. In the practice of implementation of the PIPL, Tencent continues to improve product transparency, giving our users more choice and control, and provide one-stop privacy solutions for our users. Besides that, we have established an integrated rights response and processing mechanism to ensure that users’ personal information rights requests are responded in a timely and effective way. So, in a conclusion, just as we advocated of technology for good, we hope that our products and services themselves try to take advantage of technology to do good and build up the consumer’s trust. That’s all. Thank you for listening.

Moderator 2:
Thank you, Mr. Wang, for your relevant sharing. Now, let’s welcome Mr. Zhu Ran, Vice President of Alibaba Cloud Intelligence Group, please.

Zhu Ran:
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, friends, good morning, everyone. It’s my honor to participate in the workshop on the role of law for data governance of 18th Internet Governance Forum and share my ideas on this topic with all of you. The Chinese government has always adhered to the principle of of governing the Internet in accordance with law in its efforts to promote the healthy and orderly development of the Internet. The rule of law on the Internet is not only an important way of digital governance, but also an important outcome of digital civilization advancement. Alibaba has done a lot of work in data governance in line with national laws and regulations as well as international initiatives. Practice of Alibaba Cloud in Data Governance Alibaba Cloud Intelligent Group has been committed to the cloud-based data governance for years, relying on a self-developed AppSara system which prides clients from more than 200 countries and regions worldwide with cloud services such as computing, storage, networking, data processing, and security protection. The group has explored a complete set of methods for data governance. In terms of compliance governance, as a company that provides cloud computing services for the public, Alibaba Cloud has worked to improve data compliance governance and has become a cloud service provider with the best qualification in Azure as well as an industry leader in protecting data security and privacy of cloud computing. As early as 2013, Alibaba Cloud passed ISO 27 sound and CSA star certification and later passed PCI DSS certification in the financial field. In terms of technical guarantees, Alibaba Cloud continues to strengthen technical guarantees for data governance of the cloud platform. First, Alibaba Cloud has classified various types of data on the cloud and ensured data security in their usage, entry and exit, and other situations by taking advantage of technologies and stepping up operations and maintenance systems. Second, Alibaba Cloud has established well-functioning disaster recovery systems and redundant systems for cloud computing, networking, storage of data. Several disaster recovery systems have been built such as dual active in the same city, backup data in other cities in case of disaster, multi-active in multiple cities, scheme of two places and three centers, and so on. Third, in terms of infrastructure, Alibaba Cloud has established security controls over data with regard to its storage encryption. transmission, encryption, and across-control, ensuring data security of multi-tenancy in cloud computing. As for the policy support, Alibaba Cloud took the lead in launching a data security initiative in 2015, stating that since data are customers’ assets, cloud computing platforms cannot be used for other purposes. Rather, platforms have the obligation to help protect the privacy, integrity, and availability of client data. The initiative also held that cloud computing platforms should provide a privacy and data protection framework and scheme for cloud users. In 2021, Alibaba Cloud released the Data Security and Privacy Protection White Paper, which introduces the best practice of Alibaba applying cloud computing to safeguarding data security. Efforts in security protection involve physical security, data storage, network transmission, computing security, as well as backup and disaster recovery. Recently, Alibaba Cloud officially launched our LLM. This is a next-generation model for LLM. It can understand complex instructions, engage in multi-round dialogue, write copy, perform loggage rezoning, understand multi-modal inputs and support multiple languages. So it can be applied in, for example, planning, office administration, shopping, recommendation, and home design to help customers raise efficiency of their work and services. What’s more, enterprises can build their own LLM models by Tongyi Qianwen to develop more enterprise level applications. We believe that data guidance for LLM determines the scope and depth of LLM’s application. Therefore, R&D and application of AI have always been pursued under the guidance of principles of availability, reliability, credibility, and controllability in Alibaba Cloud. That’s all. Thank you.

Moderator 2:
Thank you, Mr. Zhu, for your profound insight. Now I would like to give the floor to Mr. Zhao Jingwu, Associate Professor of Law School of Beihang University. Please.

Zhao Jingwu:
Thank you, Professor Wu. Good morning, everyone. It’s my honor to have an opportunity to share my thoughts, speech here. I’m Zhao Jingwu from Beihang University. What I would like to talk today is simple issues, is how to ensuring the security of corresponding data flow. through the legal instruments. Well, in modern society, the economic and strategy value of data has become a crucial element of the national innovative development of digital economy. Well, the combination of traditional and digital business has changed the operating model of the real economy, as well as the basic condition of international digital economy development. So cross-border data flow is not just a matter of domestic data security regulation and the commercial utilization, but also a complex issue that affect the promoting of global digital economy. Well, in recent years, we can see that more and more countries, regions, and international organizations, by including China, has tried to explore safe and trustworthy model for cross-border data flow through domestic legislation, bilateral agreements, and international treaties. However, at the same time, there are also many controversy needs to be solved urgently. Well, in this context, we can see that China has actively promoting the governance path of cross-border data flow. However, here is a misleading in the international governance activities, which is to encourage the cross-border data flow without restrictions. Well, perhaps their original intention was to achieve a border and more efficiency data flow effects, but the key is they fail to understand the relationship between the data security and data flow. Well, it’s worth mentioning that in the Article 1 of the data security law in China, the governance idea of data is to ensure data security and to promote data development and utilization. Well, in summary, it means pay equal attention to safety and utilization. So we agree that blindly pursue cross-border data flow without paying attention to data security. is not only fail to realize the exchange value of data, but also breeds security risk, such as data linkage and theft, which would lead in the reduction of the economy value of data resources. So in the international community, there is a view of China follow the data controlism path, which is essentially politicalized the issue of data security. That is because we don’t have a unified standard for the international cross-border data flow around the world. While multilateral cooperation always have to comply with different domestic laws and the international agreement. So there’s no denying that the national data security and the citizen personal privacy are generally recognized primers for cross-border data flow. Furthermore, across the global, there’s no country allowed cross-border data flow without any condition. And the more country, domestic law put data security and the national security as a first place. So what I want to emphasize is China isn’t an open and cooperative governance model for cross-border data flow. It’s not an empty words. China’s domestic law has clearly defined four categories of rules for cross-border data flow, which including security assignments of outboarding data transfer, standard contract for the cross-border transfer of personal information, and third party security certification and special rules for special areas. So all above these rules are supported by the corresponding laws and regulations. So moreover, a few days ago, China’s regulator authorities just released the regulation on regulating and facilitating the cross-border data flow. There is a draft for comments. which further refined China’s governance framework for cross-border data flow and the response practical issues with social general concern. For example, the draft clarified that the outbounding data transfer does not require security assignment, standard contract or security certifications when the non-important data generated in the activities, such as international trades, academic corporations, corresponding manufacturing and the market influence activities. So Chinese supervisation system for corresponding data flow is not simply to restrict data export, but to better protect and promoting data export. So Chinese legislation has established diverse channel for cross-border data flows, which not only catering to the market demands for various industrial and enterprise, but also align with international rules on the cross-border data flows. So all of these help multinational enterprise to solve practical problems for repeating the compliance, multiple compliance, even conflict compliance during the processing of outbounding data transfer. Finally, I hope we can reach a consensus that the governance of data, which especially is a cross-border data flow, cannot ignore data security, nor can it set too many restrictions for security. The concept of security and the utilization coexistence in China data governance system, offering China a wisdom and approaching to solve the problem of cross-border data flow. That is all what I want to say. Thank you. Thank you, Professor Wu.

Moderator 2:
Thank you, Professor Zhao, for your wonderful words. Due to time limitation, we have to conclude this forum. We hope to have more in-depth exchanges and discussions in the future. Once again, we would like to thank all guests and friends for your wisdom and efforts to contribute to this open forum. We also would like to thank UNIGF for providing us with a more than relevant dialogue platform. This open forum is concluded here. We invite all of you to have a photo group here. Thank you.

Wout de Natris

The Internet Standards, Security and Safety dynamic coalition is dedicated to enhancing the security and safety of the internet. They have formed three working groups to address specific areas: Security by design on the Internet of Things, Education and skills, and Procurement and Supply Chain Management and the Business Case. These groups aim to tackle various challenges and contribute to a more secure and safer online environment.

The coalition is actively engaged in several projects, including the deployment of DNSSEC (Domain Name System Security Extensions) and RPKI (Resource Public Key Infrastructure), as well as exploring emerging technologies and addressing data governance and privacy issues. These initiatives reflect the coalition’s commitment to promoting best practices and robust security measures in the digital landscape.

One of the key objectives of the coalition is to convince decision makers to invest in secure design and deployment of internet standards. To achieve this, they are developing a persuasive narrative that utilises political, economic, social, and security arguments. By providing compelling reasons, they aim to encourage decision-makers to prioritise and allocate resources towards implementing robust security measures.

The Procurement and Supply Chain Management and the Business Case working group have released their first report, which focuses on comparing global procurement policies. This report sheds light on the current landscape and provides insights into various approaches and practices in procurement. Consequently, this information can be utilised to identify areas for improvement and to advocate for more secure and transparent procurement processes.

An important observation highlighted by the coalition is the lack of recognition of open internet standards by government policies. This finding underscores the need for greater alignment and integration of these standards into policy frameworks. Universal recognition and adoption of standards for data protection, network and infrastructure security, website and application security, and communications security are seen as crucial steps toward a safer digital environment.

In addition, the coalition aims to provide a practical tool for decision makers and procurement officers. This tool, which includes a list of urgent internet standards, will help guide decision-making and procurement processes, ensuring that security considerations are effectively integrated into ICT procurement.

The coalition also seeks to improve procurement policies and the validation process for open internet standards in public procurement. They recognise the importance of streamlining and expediting these processes to ensure efficient and effective adoption of open standards. By doing so, procurement policies can be enhanced, leading to more secure and reliable digital infrastructure.

Overall, the Internet Standards, Security and Safety dynamic coalition is making significant efforts to enhance internet security and safety. Their work spans various areas, from promoting secure design and deployment of internet standards to advocating for the recognition and adoption of open internet standards in government policies. By collaborating and addressing key challenges, they aim to create a safer online landscape for individuals, organisations, and governments.

Audience

The speakers discussed the importance of promoting the international use of testing websites to uphold standards such as accessibility and sustainability. They highlighted the effectiveness of a Dutch testing website and advocated for its adoption globally. The positive sentiment was reinforced by the speaker’s personal experience of receiving a T-shirt after testing a website that scored 100%.

Shifting focus to India’s digital transformation, the discussion revealed concerns about the poor compliance status. Although India has made progress in digital public infrastructure, including the development of a vaccine website during the COVID-19 pandemic, there is a need for scaling up existing applications to meet the demands of the country’s population. The lack of multilingual applications and universal acceptance in India’s digital transformation was also brought to attention, with a specific mention of the problem of non-Latin scripts in domain names. The speakers highlighted ICANN’s efforts to resolve this issue and suggested incorporating testing for these aspects in the code of internet.nl.

The importance of digital standards was emphasized, but it was noted that India does not have a law mandating compliance with the latest standards. Instead, the speakers proposed nudging stakeholders through volunteer work and the periodic dissemination of test results.

Overall, the analysis provided a comprehensive overview of the discussions, including key points, arguments, and evidence presented. The speakers’ positive sentiments, concerns, and suggestions offer valuable insights for further exploration in the field of digital transformation and compliance.

Annemiek Toersen

Open standards play a crucial role in enhancing the interoperability, security, accessibility, and vendor neutrality of IT systems within the Dutch government. The Netherlands Standardization Forum, which advises the Dutch government on open standards, has identified about 40 open standards on the “comply or explain” list that are mandated for use in new IT systems or services.

To promote open standards adoption, the Dutch government has implemented a comprehensive strategy that includes mandating specific open standards, investing in community building, and closely monitoring their adoption. The Netherlands Standardization Forum has successfully secured agreements for implementing standards like HTTPS and DNSSEC. They also use internet.nl to regularly measure the usage of open standards across approximately 2,500 government domains.

To achieve wider acceptance, the Dutch government actively cooperates with vendors and international counterparts. For example, the Netherlands Standardization Forum has collaborated with Microsoft to ensure support for the DANE security standard by spring 2022. They are also sharing the code base of internet.nl with countries like Denmark, Australia, and Brazil to encourage broader adoption of open standards.

Despite these efforts, there is still work to be done, as many government tenders do not fully comply with open standards requirements. The Netherlands Standardization Forum regularly reports insufficient compliance to the Dutch cabinet.

Collaboration between internet.nl and other dashboards focusing on website accessibility can strengthen testing standards, including elements like accessibility and sustainability.

Convergence of different internet standards is necessary to avoid duplicating efforts, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Infrastructure is working towards a single dashboard to combine various standards.

Validating standards is crucial, and the Netherlands Standardization Forum emphasizes the need for scrutiny to ensure effectiveness and relevance.

The adaptation of standards is supported, but it requires common agreement among multiple organizations in the Netherlands. Overall, open standards are foundational to the Dutch government’s IT systems, and the Netherlands Standardization Forum continues to drive adoption. However, challenges such as compliance and convergence need to be addressed through ongoing cooperation, validation, and adaptation.

Mallory Knodel

The analysis emphasizes the significance of implementing global internet security standards in procurement and supply chain management policies. It highlights that while some countries, like The Netherlands, already incorporate references to standards in their procurement policies, there is a noticeable lack of standardisation across regions and countries. This lack of a unified and syndicated approach poses challenges in ensuring consistent and effective internet security measures throughout supply chains.

To address this issue, the promotion of multi-stakeholderism in procurement and supply chain management is advocated. The suggestion is to utilize platforms such as the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a means to advance this initiative. By involving various stakeholders, including governments, private sectors, and civil society, it is believed that a more comprehensive and collaborative approach towards internet security can be achieved.

Moreover, the analysis calls for greater transparency in procurement policies worldwide. Specifically, it points out the need for more countries to openly publish their procurement policies. This transparency not only enhances accountability but also allows for better knowledge-sharing among nations, fostering the adoption of best practices in internet security.

Another key argument made is that cybersecurity standards should be treated as reference points in international treaties. These standards can also be transformed into compliance mechanisms, ensuring that nations adhere to established protocols in internet security. Additionally, there are opportunities to utilize open cybersecurity standards, which provide a basis for common guidelines and practices that can be widely implemented.

In terms of potential future investigations, the relevance of standardisation in the EU procurement process is acknowledged. While not the main focus of the research, the impact of standardisation on EU procurement is considered an area worth exploring further. This suggests that standardisation has the potential to play a significant role in shaping procurement practices within the European market.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the importance of market entry as a driving factor for companies to pursue standardisation. In some cases, US companies may opt to get their technology standardised at platforms like Etsy in order to meet the requirements of European governments or tender bids. This emphasizes the role of standardisation in facilitating market access and competitiveness in the European market.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the need for global internet security standards in procurement and supply chain management policies. It calls for a more standardized and syndicated approach across nations, promoting multi-stakeholderism and transparency. By treating cybersecurity standards as reference points and compliance mechanisms, and utilizing open standards, greater consistency and effectiveness in internet security can be achieved. The relevance of standardisation in the EU procurement process and its impact on market entry are also recognized. Overall, this analysis provides valuable insights and recommendations for advancing internet security standards in the procurement and supply chain management domain.

Alisa Heaver

The Dutch government strongly supports the Platform Internet Standards and Forum Standardisation, recognizing the crucial role that standards play in various sectors. They view the adoption of standards as essential for driving innovation and fostering a strong digital infrastructure. The government actively forms public-private partnerships to further promote the adoption of these standards.

These partnerships have been instrumental in advancing the use of standards by the Dutch government. Collaborating with private entities allows them to leverage expertise and resources to implement and develop internet and other types of standards. This collaborative approach strengthens the government’s ability to adopt standards and encourages collective responsibility in their development and implementation.

The Dutch government’s support for internet standards extends beyond its borders. They actively encourage other governments to embrace these standards for procurement and promote global collaboration. Alyssa Iver, a representative of the Dutch government, emphasizes the importance of working with experts in respective countries on internet and other types of standards. This collaborative emphasis ensures that standards are tailored to meet the unique needs and contexts of different countries, contributing to the global adoption and implementation of standards.

In conclusion, the Dutch government’s strong support for the Platform Internet Standards and Forum Standardisation reflects their understanding of the vital role of standards in driving innovation and creating a robust digital infrastructure. Through public-private partnerships and global collaboration, they actively promote the adoption of standards both domestically and internationally. This commitment not only advances their own digital agenda but also contributes to the global framework for standards and collaboration.

Olaf Kolkman

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) meeting focused on the importance of internet security for the common good. Olaf Kolkman, an advocate for protecting infrastructure, emphasized the need to safeguard the internet to benefit everyone, rather than just individual organizations. This highlights the collective responsibility to ensure the security and stability of the internet.

One of the challenges discussed at the meeting was the slow adoption processes for open internet standards. The adoption of these standards often takes several years before they are widely implemented. However, the meeting recognized that public-private partnerships can play a crucial role in promoting and accelerating the adoption of modern internet standards. By collaborating with various stakeholders, including governments and private organizations, the widespread adoption of these standards can be facilitated.

To further support the implementation of modern internet standards, effective tools were highlighted. The internet.nl test tool, for example, helps organizations and individuals assess if their websites, emails, and local connections are functioning in line with these standards. It is projected that over 1 million tests will be conducted using this tool by 2023. This demonstrates the practical impact and usefulness of such tools in facilitating the adoption of modern internet standards.

Knowledge sharing across countries was also emphasized as a means to promote the adoption of open internet standards. Countries like Brazil, Denmark, and Singapore have already initiated the adoption of these standards and tooling, setting an example for others to follow. The Platform Internet Standards, which was initiated as a public-private initiative, is open to learning from global experiments. This collaborative approach allows for the exchange of knowledge and best practices, enabling more countries to adopt these standards effectively.

Olaf Kolkman strongly supports the use of open internet standards as they enhance user safety, security, and online connectivity. He calls upon organizations to adopt these standards to ensure that the internet functions correctly and benefits everyone. These standards not only safeguard individual users and organizations but also contribute to the overall well-being of society.

Aside from discussions on internet security, the importance of accessibility and captioning in reducing inequalities was also acknowledged. The work done by Rochelle and her team in captioning was appreciated. Accessibility measures play a critical role in ensuring equal access to information and services for all individuals, regardless of abilities.

The Dutch Internet Standards Forum highlighted the need for wider use of testing and procurement methodologies to ensure the proliferation and adoption of internet standards. Olaf Kolkman pointed out the effectiveness of procurement methodologies and tools like internet.nl. He emphasized the practical impact of such initiatives, both in terms of financial considerations and wider deployment. It is imperative that regions and countries beyond the Dutch Internet Standards Forum begin utilizing similar tools to increase their usage and effectiveness.

In conclusion, the IGF meeting emphasized the importance of internet security, the challenges in adopting open internet standards, the role of public-private partnerships, the need for effective tools, and the significance of knowledge sharing and accessibility. It underscored the collective responsibility to protect infrastructure for the common good and to ensure that the internet functions in a safe, secure, and accessible manner for all. The discussions and insights gained from the meeting contribute to advancing the adoption and implementation of modern internet standards globally.

Gerben Klein Baltink

The adoption of modern internet standards is essential for ensuring safety, security, and efficient connectivity in today’s interconnected world. However, the process of accepting and implementing these standards can be slow and challenging. It requires the cooperation and agreement of both IT technicians and board members within an organization.

The Platform Internet Standards and internet.nl play a vital role in making modern internet standards more accessible. Internet.nl, for example, has experienced significant growth, with over one million tests conducted in 2023. It provides a platform that allows users to determine whether their website, email, or local connection is functioning correctly with modern standards. This enables organizations to identify and address any issues that may arise during the implementation process, facilitating the correct adoption of standards.

International cooperation and sharing of resources and strategies are crucial for the global success of modern internet standards. Several countries, such as Brazil, Denmark, and Singapore, have established similar initiatives and platforms to promote the adoption of these standards. The Platform Internet Standards is open to sharing its learnings and experiences with other countries and organizations interested in establishing similar initiatives. This collaborative approach promotes knowledge exchange and fosters a more unified and effective implementation of internet standards worldwide.

The Dutch Internet Standards Forum plays a significant role in implementing new internet standards. The process of adding new standards to internet.nl is based on a consensual agreement within the forum. This ensures that all stakeholders have a say in determining which standards should be included and how they should be implemented.

When integrating new standards, the team at internet.nl investigates existing open-source tests that comply with the desired standard. If suitable tests are not available or do not integrate well with the current test environment, they consider creating their own code. This flexible approach allows for the seamless integration of new standards, ensuring that the testing process aligns with the specific requirements of each organization.

In cases where certain standards, such as accessibility standards, do not integrate well with the current test environment, proactive promotion is recommended. Instead of disregarding or delaying the adoption of these standards, they should be promoted as future inclusions. This approach encourages continuous improvement and ensures that all aspects of internet standards are addressed in due course.

In conclusion, the adoption of modern internet standards is crucial for ensuring safety, security, and efficient connectivity. The Platform Internet Standards and internet.nl play a vital role in making these standards more accessible through testing tools and solutions. International cooperation and the sharing of resources are essential for global success. The Dutch Internet Standards Forum facilitates the implementation of new standards, and the integration process involves investigating existing tests or creating new code. Proactive promotion of standards that cannot be immediately integrated ensures a comprehensive approach to internet standards.

Flavio Kenji Yana

NIC-BR is a non-profit civil entity in Brazil that is responsible for the administrative and operational functions related to the .br domain. Their main focus is on improving the internet infrastructure in Brazil, and their projects and actions aim to benefit various sectors of Brazilian society. One significant project is the Test Padrões (Test Standards) project, which utilizes open source code provided by Dutch implementation. This project promotes the best security practices for websites, email services, and user connections to the internet. It was implemented in December 2021, and its effectiveness can be assessed on top.nic.br. By adopting these security standards, NIC-BR aims to enhance internet security in Brazil.

The Test Padrões project is part of Brazil’s Safer Internet program, which collaborates with ISPs (Internet Service Providers) and internet service providers, including operators. NIC-BR defines Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to monitor the effectiveness of their actions. By working with ISPs and service providers, NIC-BR ensures widespread adoption of these security recommendations, creating a safer internet environment.

NIC-BR is actively involved in the Manners initiative, which encourages good online behavior. Brazil has the largest number of participants in this initiative, and there has been a significant annual increase in participation. This demonstrates Brazil’s commitment to creating a positive online environment and fostering partnerships for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Brazil has a robust internet landscape with over 10,000 ISPs, including small and medium-sized operators nationwide. These ISPs account for approximately 50% of the internet traffic in Brazil. Many ISPs and Internet Service Provider Associations in Brazil actively support NIC-BR’s programs and initiatives, emphasizing their dedication to improving the internet ecosystem.

In summary, NIC-BR plays a crucial role in Brazil’s internet governance and infrastructure. Their projects, such as Test Padrões, and collaborations with ISPs contribute to a safer internet environment. Brazil’s active participation in initiatives like Manners showcases their commitment to responsible online behavior and partnerships for sustainable development. With the support of ISPs and service providers, NIC-BR is working towards enhancing internet security and improving the overall internet experience for users in Brazil.

Olaf Kolkman:
Okay, dear friends, last session at least for me and I think also for most of you, here we are in a meeting of the IS3C or the Internet Standards Security and Safety Coalition, which is actually the name of one of the dynamic coalitions here at the IEGF. The topic of this workshop is, the title of this workshop is Procuring Modern Security Standards by Governance and Industry and that’s part of the interest of this dynamic coalition. In general, when you look at security being deployed in organizations, then there is always an informed self-interest to protect yourself. The problem with securing the internet is that that is security for the common good and usually you’re securing something within your infrastructure to protect yourself partly, but also others. So there are all kinds of economic incentive problems that make the introduction of internet security standards and common practices might be difficult. And this dynamic coalition sets out to both study and stimulate the deployment of those modern internet standards. I’m looking at Voud, seeing if I’m summarizing this well. And we’re here to discuss a number of the work items that the coalition has been working on. Can I have the next slide? Ah, can I have the next slide? Yes. So we’re here with a bunch of speakers and panel members. My name is Olaf Kollekman, I’m from the Internet Society. We have Satish Babu. We have Flavio Kenji-Janai. Liz Orembo will join us later. Wouter Natris is here at the end of the table. Satish and Flavio are also at this table, of course. Gerben Klein-Bolting is online, if everything is well. Annemieke is to my left, to the right for the watchers. And Gilberta Zorrella is in Brazil and online. The layout of the session, you can skip this slide. Everybody knows by now that I’m that person. I’m giving the introduction at this moment. Then Gerben Klein-Bolting and Annemieke Toersen will talk a little bit about the role of open standards, particularly in procurement experience in the Netherlands, a nice presentation. Then, oh wait, wait, wait, then Wouter Natris will talk a little bit with Liz, who will be there. Then we have an opportunity for questions from the audience, both online and here in the room. Next slide. Satish Babu will then present some perspectives. At that time, we’re close to 2.30 already. And then we’ll have a panel discussion. Oh no, we will have Gilberta Zorrella and Flavio giving some perspective from Brazil. And after that, we have only a couple of minutes for a panel discussion and further questions. If everybody is still awake and not fallen asleep from sleep. a long, long week. So let’s go. Without further ado, the session on the platform internet standards in the Netherlands.

Alisa Heaver:
But before we go there, Alyssa Iver from the Dutch government, Ministry of Economic Affairs, is here. And she would like to say a couple of words. Camera swing to the microphone about this initiative. Yes, so my name is Alyssa Iver. I’m from the Dutch government, from the Ministry of Economic Affairs. And the Dutch government has been fully supportive of this platform internet standards and of the forum standardization where Anamika is from. And these two standard public-private partnerships have been really crucial in the Netherlands to, at least for the Dutch government, to further adopt standards that are deemed of importance. And I think it’s good that we’re having this session here. And I would also really like to encourage other governments to work together with experts in their countries on internet standards and on other types of standards to see which standards should be adopted by government and used for procurement. You’ll hear a lot more about that. And yeah, I really think that we should, well, I’m really pleased that we have this good relationship in the Netherlands. And I hope to see this spread across the world. So have a good session here. I guess that’s back to me.

Olaf Kolkman:
Yes, without further ado, I think we are going to listen to Gerben. So if the Zoom room can be opened. so that Gerben can speak, that would be great. Gerben, are you with us? I am with you, but can you hear me? And now we can hear you. Hello, Gerben.

Gerben Klein Baltink:
Good morning. Well, as mentioned by Olaf, talking about standards is not relevant just for the individual user of the internet, but for the common good. And it has been some, I think, 10 years ago that amongst other people, Olaf and I met at a meeting at the Ministry of Economic Affairs in the Netherlands, where we sat together with organizations across the board from, let’s say, the Internet Society in the Netherlands, as well as Dutch government. And all of us were involved in some way in trying to bring open modern standards forward. But we all realized that this was not an easy thing to do. The adoption process is sometimes very slow. It can take many years before the actual take-up of a new standard is realized. And we, discussing this topic, we realized that we could do something, perhaps, in close cooperation in a public-private initiative that then was called the Platform Internet Standards. Our first meeting was around nine years ago of this new body, of this new platform. And we soon realized that we really had to stick together, government, public organizations, private organizations, to make this work. And one of the things that we soon realized is that if we would like to make modern internet standards more acceptable for everybody, it would help if there would be some kind of test tool to make sure that everybody could see if their own website and email or local connection could actually use these modern standards and if they use them, whether these standards are set up in the right way. And of course, this is not something that many individuals will do themselves. So we initially focused at organizations hoping to attract both the technical people in such an organization, as well as the board members, because it’s not something that can be done by IT technicians alone, it has to be accepted by the board of an organization as well. This test tool, and some of you may know it or even use it, it can be found at the website internet.nl. And there we dive into many of these modern open standards, but we do not only explain the standard and test the standard, we also point out how you can go, and this is the procurement part, to your supplier if something is not set up correctly or if a standard is simply not used. So one of the things that we offer is insight in does your website, does your email, does your local connection function correctly with these modern standards? And if not, what would be the kind of solution that you can apply? At this website, you will also find the hall of fame of those websites that are already 100% up to speed with these modern standards, but also a hall of fame of hosting organizations that can help you if you want to have their support. to have your own website and email set up in a correct way. And we have seen that the use of internet.nl by many organizations and many individuals is growing and growing. I think we will pass over one million tests this year in the year 2023 itself. And we come from, let’s say, 650,000 tests last year. And we do also see tests in a more technical environment. Our API and our dashboard, where you can run multiple domains, multiple email servers at once, and see if these are all set up correctly. So these modern standards, we think, will benefit everybody because your safety and security and connectivity online will be enhanced greatly. So what we try to achieve is that as many people have, and organizations have, these modern standards so that we can all benefit from an internet that is functioning correctly. And the good news is, as Alisa mentioned in the beginning, it would be great if other countries would have the same idea about these modern open standards and applying them. And we are more than happy to help other organizations, other countries, to set up something similar. And some countries already have, like Brazil, like Denmark, like Singapore. So we see initiatives around the globe in the adoption of these standards and tooling. And we are open to learn from other experiments as well. And you can’t do without explanation. And the explanation can be found at the website itself, but also in the help and the help team that we have to provide. organizations with support. And we have also made some tooling available and not only from our platform internet standards, but also from international and national organizations that have the same kind of idea. So for now, I would like to hand over to Annemiek and let her explain what the Dutch government does with the forum standardization.

Olaf Kolkman:
And you’re more than welcome to visit internet.nl and make use of our test tools. Thank you.

Annemiek Toersen:
Thank you very much, Germen, for your introduction. And thank you for attending our session, all of you in the here and abroad. And my name is Annemiek Toersen from the Netherlands Standardization. And I like to tell more about how Holland and the Netherlands do something about adoption of open standards. Why, actually, open standards? Sorry. I am from the forum, Netherlands Standardization. And the standardization is a think tank and aims for more interoperability of the Dutch government. Open standards are key to this goal. And therefore, the standards from the forum actively promotes and advises the Dutch government about the usage of open standards. So the forum has about 25 members with various backgrounds, from government, business and science. And the main topic of the forum is the organization of the so-called comply or explain list of open standards. And this list should be applied by the complete public sector organizations, central as well as the central. So why open standards? All open standards we promote regards information exchange between governments and citizens and also between governments. themselves. So with open, we mean that the specifications of the standards is publicly available and that interested parties can participate in the standardization process. So there should be no single party that controls the standard. So open standards are more important because of the interoperability as mentioned here and the security which influences trust, of course, accessibility as government is obliged to inform the whole society, of the society as a whole, and vendor neutrality. When it comes to internet standards, the Dutch government has a threefold strategy shown here in the picture. I will go briefly through it. First, the standardization form can mandate specific open standards. We can do so by including standards on this list, the so-called comply or explain list. This is done after careful research in which we also consult technical experts. Standards on this list should be required when governments are investing in new IT systems or services. As we survey on some bigger IT organizations within the Dutch government, we have seen quite some progress using open standards. However, it also became clear that some organizations hadn’t moved yet. So therefore, in addition to the comply or explain list, standardization form can also make agreements, agreements with ultimate implementation dates. That might be handy because we have already done so for several modern internet standards like, you might know, HTTPS and DNSSEC. We have initial plans to make such an agreement for RPEG-EI as well. Sorry, I go back, because I wasn’t finished yet on that number two. I just finished the number one, the mandatory. If we go to corporations, we work together. Let me show a little bit more. We mandate also, apart from number two, we abide specific open standards law. For instance, the open standard HTTPS is now, since July the 1st in Holland, in the Netherlands, obliged by the law, the WDO, the digital government law. If we go to the second block on the left side, the corporation, we invest in community building. So we try to bridge the gap between technical experts and government officials. So therefore we are already happy with the internet standard platform Gerwin just mentioned, and are actively participating in this platform. This corporation enables us to be more effectively helpful to governments with their technical questions, and also with their questions regarding how to request the modern internet standards from their vendors. And the third block on your right side, we monitor the adoption of standards. So how do we do that? We review tenders and procurement documents, and for modern internet standards we happily use, of course, the internet.nl, Gerwin mentioned already, to frequently measure over about 2,500 government domains. A small note I can mention here is that since internet.nl now also has a test for RPKI, we will perform a large scale measurement for RPKI. The results of this measurement will be used in the decision process to set on ultimate implementation date for RPKI. All right, we go indeed to the next slide. In order to benefit the use of open standards, it’s very important to have a certain critical mass because if only one or two organizations use the standards, the public society has no advantage at all actually. So we need more and more participants using open standards and by creating more transparency, we create also more openness. We refer to an analysis of the Bureau of Economic Policy here in the note under these two downwards in the sheet. You can have a link if you like from us. Furthermore, I go to the mandatory, number one, specifically. As I told you, we have a complier explained list and on that list we have about 40 open standards. These standards are evaluated through four criteria, openness, added value, market support and proportionality, therefore the critical mass as mentioned before. The standards should be actually proven in practice, that’s very important. Open standards vary in different categories like, well, of course, the internet and security standards, document standards and web standards, but also, for instance, for administration like e-invoicing, but there are many more. And when the government invests, they should request for those relevant standards. Government should use these standards. In case they don’t use it, then they should report it and with a specific reason. For instance… If it costs extremely much money, then they can report it in their annual financial report why they didn’t use the open standards. Okay. We go to the next slide, please. I already mentioned 40 open standards of which about 15 are related to the Internet security. These standards prevent, for instance, from spoofing, eavesdropping, and, well, you might know better already, but those are some of those Internet standards. RPKI we already mentioned, but, well, especially DNSSEC and IPv4 6. In addition, security.txt is just a new one on our list. It’s very handy. Next sheet, please. We go, as you recognize it, to number two, the cooperation. So to get further in promoting the use of these open standards, we don’t only mandate, but also, indeed, cooperate, as I mentioned before. We do that in a couple of ways, nationally, internationally. Nationally, we already mentioned platform Internet standards, but also with the Secure Mail Coalition. Last week, my colleagues were together with a lot of European countries talking about international possibilities, and we reuse Internet.nl codes as much as possible, and Denmark, Australia, Brazil already started with it, but we invite you, as well, if you are interested, please take contact with us, because we can help you. The code is in English available, and, well, we can assist whenever you want. In order to create that critical mass again, because more people, then it works more efficient, and we have more knowledge gathering together, and get it better every day. Besides that, we contact vendors and hosters. So think about Cisco, Microsoft, of course, Open Exchange, Google, Akamai, well, we can mention much more. And as an example, Microsoft, we contacted them in order to implement Dane, support Dane security standards. And this inspired Denmark as well to write a letter. And the results are with success, because coming spring 2022, 2024, they will fully support the Dane security standards. So that is very, we look forward to see that next year. Microsoft will work together. Finally the monitoring where I was talking about, we evaluate the tendencies I mentioned on the relevant open standards and we research whether those open standards are included. So apart from that, we take also contact with governments in order to check whether they requested open standards and are included in the offers of suppliers. If they didn’t, then we call them and get in touch and ask why, because some of them don’t explain unfortunately in the reports. We also would like to know why they didn’t ask it. And a lot of procurement departments don’t even know how to start with it. So we support them with the text, special text for tenders. And we support them with a decision tree, which makes it handy for people who are not so technically, don’t have a technical background, but a procurement background, can support them to ask for those specific standards. Unfortunately, we conclude that these tenders still not fully complete with open standards. That’s a pity. And we report this once a year to the cabinet in the Netherlands. The internet.nl mentioned already a couple of times, you see also this nice t-shirt. If you score as a Dutch organization 100%, then you have a very special t-shirt, apart from the Hall of Fame, of course, as Gerwin mentioned. The actual usage of the open standards is measured twice a year. So twice a year we offer this also to the cabinet. And the tooling, we can do that en masse, but also if some organizations like to have their own measurement, that’s also possible. So please contact us. And we conclude that there is quite some growth in using the open standards due to the cooperation. So we mentioned already the cooperation with Microsoft, but also other vendors. And that might, yeah, well, that have results. That’s good to hear. So it works. That’s what it says. Good to know for you is that we sometimes dig deeper. So for instance, vendors who lag behind, we contact. And if there is room, we advise about the standards and so to use, so the use improves. And the last final, well, actually it says already, if you don’t ask it, you don’t get it. So that’s for sure. So there are some lessons learned. Please make sure whenever your government tender, ask for open standards. And check it with the tool, the toolinginternet.nl. Just like Denmark, Australia and Brazil did, who did reuse the code. So I invite you, if you have questions about that, but also hesitate, like, is it something for our country or our government, please feel free to question.

Olaf Kolkman:
Thank you very much. I hand it over to Ola. Thank you. And I just typed in my personal domain, xalx.nl. in internet.nl, and yes, 100%, that t-shirt is mine. Now, I also, just as a remark, I also have to smile a little bit when you talk about modern internet standards, because some of the standards that you refer to as modern are indeed a quarter of the age of the internet itself. However, the security.txt standard has been published as RFC 9116 in April 2022. So that is a really interesting, fresh standard. And just to give you a little bit of a feeling why that standard is so important, the security.txt standard is very simple. It says, publish contact information of the person who is responsible for the security of your website in a specific location of your website, so that somebody who finds a bug, a vulnerability, in your website knows where to find that contact information. It’s a very simple standard about, if you want to know something, look there. And by doing so, you help people that do security research being able to contact the people responsible for the problems. And that makes a great difference in the security of the internet. Again, this is not about your own infrastructure, although this one helps, but it’s also about collaborating in the greater good. And I think that security.txt is an easy, explainable example of this. A quick logistical question, Wout. Will you take your session now, or shall we first move on to a? You’ll take over, okay. Then Wout, you have something to report. I have. Thank you, Olaf.

Wout de Natris:
My name is Wout Ten Atries and I am a consultant based in the Netherlands. And within the IGF community, I’m the coordinator of a dynamic coalition called Internet Standards, Security and Safety, as you can see on this slide. And our strap line is making the internet more secure and safer. And that’s, of course, something that everybody tells you and everybody says. But we actually came up with an action plan to do that. Next slide, please. Next slide, please. And we started at the virtual IGF of 2020 with a concept of a dynamic coalition. In 2021, we were able to present three working groups. And that is number one, two, and three you see on this list. And the first one is security by design on the Internet of Things. And that working group released its report this Tuesday here at the IGF. The second one is education and skills. And that already released its first report last year in Addis. And we’ll come to number three very soon. And number five as well. Number four is internal but also does analysis of our relevance compared to the global digital compact and the sustainable development goals. And that last report was also presented here at the IGF. Number six is data governance and privacy. That was supposed to be released, but that was done together with UNDESA. And they decided not to release so that we could not share that information here. Number seven is a skeleton that never came true. But I had a meeting today that may actually reveal that. revive it very soon. So that is encouraging news. Number eight is on DNSSEC and RPKI deployment, two standards that have been mentioned many times at this table already. But this is not about talking about the technique of deployment, we are going to try and produce a narrative that convinces people in decision-taking positions to actually procure, secure by design. And it may be that they are always asked from a technical point of view, but these people probably need political, or economical, or social, or security arguments to be convinced to invest or demand these levels of security. Number nine we announced is on emerging technologies, and also there we had several talks here at the IGF. These are quite encouraging that we will be able to start this global comparison on policies that are being developed on AI, quantum, and perhaps in the future metaverses. Number 10 you see is a dot, number 11 is a dot, anyone who has an idea that would fit this dynamic coalition can step up and contact me or Mark Revell, who is not here but who is our senior policy advisor, and share your idea and then perhaps we will see what we can do together. So let me proceed to number three and number five, that is what we are presenting on here today. Next slide please. So the working group number three is called Procurement and Supply Chain Management and the Business Case. The person who should be presenting here is Lisa Rambo, but apparently her session took a lot longer than planned, and hopefully she still comes in, and if not I will do the presentation completely, but I have done it before, it is not really an issue. This working group produced its first report here at the IGF, so we released it on Tuesday and what we did, next slide please, is a global comparison of procurement policies of governments. Next slide please. That what this group did was try and see how many procurement documents are available on the internet, but also to see if they are from the government. or from the private sector. What we found are only public documents. So we found 11. Oh, Mallory, you can take over right away. There’s a chair for you. So I’ve only had the first slides. You can sit and present if you like.

Olaf Kolkman:
Yeah. Okay.

Wout de Natris:
Yeah. It’s a great timing because I’m at the first slide. So I’m explaining what we were trying to achieve. So thank you. This is Mallory Nodal and Mallory actually did the whole planning and part of the research that she was responsible together with Lisa Rambo for the report. So Mallory, great to have you here and please take over from me. Yeah.

Olaf Kolkman:
How much time do I have? I don’t want to go on and on. About 10? Okay. Good. Right.

Mallory Knodel:
Sorry to interrupt this whole flow, but I was at a different session and it just ended. So I’m glad to be here. I’m glad the timing’s worked out. So yes, this is then the first slide where we’re really explaining what the goal of this work has been defined as. When we look at the procurement and supply chain management in the business case, that of course is in addition to other tactics where we can further the security standards throughout the internet. But at this very particular point, we also wanted to consider what is then the internet governance’s role in this work. How could the IGF from where it sits and all the stakeholders that participate in it benefit from this sort of research and perspective and guidance when talking at a high level about norm setting around the recommendations for procurement and for supply chain management. So we will go to the next slide, please. Do I have to do that myself? Okay. Great. Great. wanted to then in the plan you know figure out where we’re headed and how we’re actually going to get there and it primarily to me seems as to be a research project assuming that there are in fact many procurement guidances out there already and the question really is do they include and consider security standards and if our guy if we are creating new guidance at the more global level we want it to of course be impactful and to be taken up so part of the research of figuring out what already exists in this space is an exercise in finding out who our main stakeholders would be and ensuring that the work product that comes out of it is any good so that’s what this slide really tells you the the text is of course too small for you to read here but we identify the outcome as meeting global internet security standards is a is a ubiquitous baseline requirement in any public or private sector procurement and supply chain management policy now the different objectives speak to some of the different strategies I’ve just mentioned we want to fully scope and map the variety of procurement policies that already exist to determine what are the what are the current challenges and opportunities for people setting those policies the second objective is to make sure that we can distill that into very actionable guidance for anyone who is writing these policies either or refining them for that matter or even implementing them and then the last thing is of course we want to create a group and a community a dynamic coalition if you will around this work so that it continues and it’s strengthened by iteration by continued research so those are the three different objectives there are different activities under each one that I’m not going to go ahead and elaborate but just suffice to say we’re really just in the first bucket we’re really only looking at this very early stage at the research itself and the scope of what we’re actually up to so that’s what we’ve been able to accomplish with this first research paper the next subsequent where we’re distilling it into real guidance where we’re building a community of practice around this that comes in the years to come so next slide please so yes so this is what our survey achieved. We really just had to, of course, create a research question, create sub-questions, actually go out and find source material to question, to, you know, be curious about. So we were asking what has been done by others on procurement and supply chain management guidance? What is already out there? There’s a really uneven spread. You know, we sort of assumed at some point that we would hit on a goldmine, maybe like a regional document had been created and then all of the countries in that region had followed the document, but that never really actually happened. In fact, it’s really patchy. You do have some European countries who have done something, but then you have, and you have some like Latin American countries, but, you know, it’s not even and it’s actually not clear where this sort of norm-setting could happen, which indicates that there’s a gap and that this is something we can actually do. So the next slide, please. I’m not going to go through the terminology, but for the purposes of the paper, we do try to define what these concepts mean. Next slide, please. So the methods was really quite straightforward. It was desk research. We didn’t get to a stage where we would do actually interviews with people. I feel like that might be next phases where we’re actually looking at, you know, what kind of guidance would be helpful and actionable. You actually talk to people who’ve done this before and try to understand from them what they’ve done in a qualitative kind of way, but this is very just let’s find all the documents we can that seem to fit the brief and read them and break them down. So we created sub questions when we’re asking. We were curious about only procurement that talks about cybersecurity, not all procurement. We don’t care where people’s pencils come from. We then distilled it into are they talking about, well obviously they had to be published, that was the second one, and then we were looking for clues that security standards would actually be present in those documents. Next slide, please. Yep, I think this is really straightforward. I just want to say that we did take care and making sure that we had representative samples we were hoping to have a Spread on language, but that was a challenge because the main researchers were English-speaking We wanted to make sure that we had not just global North countries, but also global South countries. We were looking of course for Places where there was synergy between different procurement policies and then obviously where there are also gaps Next slide, please We in order to present the findings we did actually track the findings We were we were looking as through looking through all of these We struggled to figure out at first how to present all the different findings because it was such a patchwork Sampling and not there was not the synergy that we expected So we went ahead and adopted an existing framework that comes from NIST That at least takes cyber security functions and breaks them out So this just allowed us to be a little bit more incisive as we were Distilling some of the advice that we found in the different documents So I’m not going to go through this but in the report it helps It helps orient the reader a bit to this NIST framework so that you can see why we rationalized Presenting the findings in the way that we did next slide, please There the conclusions I think are the most important part so I won’t rush through them so much of it I’ll let you read them. I will Just point out a few so Actually, I’ll just point out two I’m gonna focus on the Netherlands for both of them So, you know and we can all be proud of how well the Netherlands is done in this area It’s not it’s something that we knew to expect going into it, but specifically the two that we thought were worth mentioning was that one of the very few procurement policies that even mentions standards at all was The coming out of the Dutch ministry and I’m not going to be able to pronounce to pronounce the name of the? Postul of Leghuislijst and we just had a presentation about both of these. Wonderful, so you all know already how terrific they were but they turned up in our research as examples of things that we would like to see others potentially will make it into our guidance to follow. So next slide please. The other sort of real conclusions here that I think are worth mentioning is then where this research points to future work because it was our intention all along to not really do anything new with this research but actually point the way towards what could be done. And so I think we’ve done a good job of identifying and making a case for why we need to take future action and this is for others who really wanna take up this work and want to use the IGF as a platform to move some of this significant work forward. So the open standards, open cybersecurity standards should be points of reference and there’s an opportunity to make use of that. There are some international treaties that also could be translated into compliance mechanisms that could implicate procurement and supply chain. There are many places that do not even have standalone documents and it might be a good opportunity or that haven’t published them openly. I guess we could maybe give that caveat but that’s an opportunity to do that and to encourage it. So if you have procurement policies, please publish them. If you don’t yet have them, maybe you ought to consider it because it’s quite important. The fourth future work area is that we could also develop these frameworks. So this I would imagine would be in the larger work within the dynamic coalition where you connect this strategy, remembering it’s one of many, to the larger work that other people are doing within a framework. There is also a need to do proper documentation not in the sense of norm setting but just in the sense of learning, monitoring and evaluation of how this works when there is an incident. We’re folding that in and trying to learn from it in the context of procurement. And then the very last thing is just it would be really great in the IGF again to leverage the multi-stakeholderism of this and to encourage more coordination. We often feel like this might be a conflict of interest to have industry and governments, especially. when those industry are going after, you know, those contracts, those procurement contracts. But in fact, that ability to collaborate and work more closely, I think, could have good effects. So that should be the last slide. But maybe we’ll go one more. Let’s see. Yeah. So of course, you can contact us. This is all information that’s also in the report itself, so you don’t need to worry about this slide. And I think that’s it then. So thanks. I hope that was on time. I didn’t. Thank you, Marilyn. That was perfect. Wout? No, I’m going on with the next slide. Ah, good. Then it’s not perfect, but we’ll manage.

Wout de Natris:
It’s definitely perfect what Malorie said, as you could, she voices it much, much better than I ever could. So thank you, Malorie, for joining us. But I think, and this is not on the slide, but from the other research that we’ve done, for example, on IoT security, what we see is the same what comes out here, is that this open internet standards that we’re talking about are almost not recognized by government. They’re not in policy papers, let alone in legislation, which we’re not advocating here. But the fact that governments don’t recognize the existence of exactly that what makes the internet work is worrying. Because does it mean that they don’t know it exists? Do they don’t understand what the implications are? If you don’t protect that inner core of the internet. So that is a question that comes up in all our research. As you can see that we went through procurement study and global comparison study with the recommendations and the conclusions that you just saw. We also have a working group that is called Prioritizing and Listing Existing Security-Related Internet Standards and ICT Best Practices. What this working group has done and also just like the procurement, thanks to the RIPE Community Fund that graciously funded all this work, is that if governments are to start procuring, there are probably 10,000 standards that need to be procured at some point in time and it will probably be very overwhelming to explain to somebody who doesn’t even know the first one exists. So we got together a team of experts and we asked them to list the most urgent existing open security standards out there. And it won’t be a surprise that we asked the project manager of forum standardization to step in to help. But with people from India, from Latin America, from Singapore and a few other countries, they got together and started talking. And through the past months, they came up with a list which has been on consultation since last Tuesday. But what we try to do is to provide decision takers and procurement officers involved in ICT procurement with a list containing these most urgent internet standards so that they can actually have a tool to start working with and start understanding why this is so important. And then comes the working group I mentioned on the narrative that is going to be another little component of this whole thing the IS3C is trying to produce. Next slide please. So and well as I said that there is a consultation going on since the 10th and you are happy to join it. The link can be provided at any moment. It closes on Sunday the 5th of November. But what is it exactly that we are consulting? Next slide please. So what did our advisory panel do? First they started to grasp what the meaning is. After that they decided it needs scoping. And that scoping came down to four parts and you can see that three of the four are the same as was presented just now by Annemieke. So the first one the standards have to be interoperable. So that means that you do not only protect yourself but you also protect somebody else but somebody else also has to protect you. So it’s about two sides that need protection to have an effect. The second one is they are all security related. So that leaves out a lot of other sort of standards. All these standards have to have an open process. So available for everybody. You don’t have to pay for them. You can access them. You can start using them without having to become a member of an organization or without nothing. You can just find it on the internet and deploy them. And finally they have to be proven as a success. So others must have deployed them as well and successfully. And that’s number four is different than from the forum standardization. So you can see that this is an influence coming from other parties as well. When we decided on the scoping we came to categories. And after a lot, lot, lot of discussions we came to four categories. The first is data protection and privacy. The second network and infrastructure security. The third website and applications, web application security. And finally communications security. And what was debated the most, should there be a fifth one on cloud security? Because that is one of the biggest topics out there at this moment. But most of the experts said no, because these four categories go for the cloud, so we don’t need a separate cloud component. They all function within the cloud, so cloud should adhere to these four. So the next step was when we had that, we could start thinking about which standards are actually going to be in that list. And that proves a lot easier than the scoping and the categories, because that was done in a few days, and everybody more or less agreed except the ones that I want that one and that one. But we want about 40, so that’s manageable. And we have a concept list at this point in time. Next slide, please. So I’m not going to mention which are in there, but a lot have been mentioned by Anamika, because the most urgent one will be in her list, but there are differences. So people, other people from other places in the world stressed another standard. And that is what we’re going to do next. In this consultation document, we explain what we try to do. We motivate with arguments why we made the decisions that we make, but we want the wider community in the world to come in as well. Tell us if we scoped right, or give us very good arguments to change it. Make good arguments why we need another category, and suggest other standards. So if that happens, then in the second half of November, we come together as an expert team, and I am the coordinator. I’m not an expert. I’ll tell a historian doing a lot of work in this field, but not at hardcore techniques. It’s decision time. So we’re going to decide, the experts are going to decide whether a standard will be in there or not, or that the categories are changed based on the arguments made. So hopefully, by the half of December, we are able to present this tool, and have another tangible outcome of this IGF process. And that then needs to be proliferated, and that’s exactly what Mallory says. It is something that will go immediately under her report. that as much as possible and share it with governments and from there hopefully we’ll get the traction to improve procurement policies in the near future. So that will be a second project and with that I conclude. Thank you, Olaf.

Olaf Kolkman:
Perfect. Thank you. I promised that there would be some question time and I will allow for questions but I hope there are none because then we are exactly in the planned time scale again. I do have a question but I’ll leave it till after the session so that, yeah.

Audience:
I have a question about the testing website for, at least in the Netherlands, for websites which is really working very well. I just tested my own website that was 100% so I won a T-shirt and I think it would be a really good idea to, and that’s what you are doing here as well, to promote the use of these kind of testing websites internationally. There may also be some interesting advancements of the Dutch website. For instance, I’m thinking of a few more soft standards such as accessibility or maybe in the future testing the sustainability elements of your website. So I would love to make a strong case for including those kind of standards on that website as well. I think that the people responsible are in the room. It doesn’t work, yeah.

Annemiek Toersen:
Well we are not responsible for that but people can apply those standards. And accessibility, of course, is already on it, because it’s obliged in the Netherlands, WCHG. And I know that there is developing in the Netherlands, also at the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Infrastructure also, are combining internet.nl with other dashboards like accessibility. So people are thinking about it, but now it’s a thing to get all the ideas together, because everyone is inventing the wheel again. And that’s not good, of course. So it’s a good issue you point out, Valerie. So there must be more experts to get it, to combine that, and one dashboard. So we’re pushing that as well. Good suggestion. Thank you. Person at the mic was Valerie Frissen, just for the record. Good.

Olaf Kolkman:
The next part of the session, but I just noticed something. And we often forget that these sessions are made possible and accessible, actually, on that point of accessibility, by people doing real work. And I just saw a name in the Zoom room. Rochelle is doing the captioning. And I would like to thank Rochelle and her team for her hard work here, because it really makes a difference in these type of environments. Let’s see. Yeah, I think that’s appropriate. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Satish, you have perspectives from India. Thanks very much, Olaf.

Audience:
My name is Satish, and I’m from India. And I’m going to share two slides on what, or three slides on what we’re getting a good picture of. current status of compliance and it is pretty bad. So we are trying to kind of monitor this bunch every six months and we will then see the kind of transition what happens, you know, over the period of time. So in India, the whole digital thing is very, very important for us. India is betting heavily on digital technologies for its growth. It has made several strides in digital transformation. For example, the digital public infrastructure called IndiaStack and multiple digital public goods including the, when the COVID was there, we had this huge, you know, website for vaccines. Now, India is one of the most populous country in the world, if not the most populous. And the IndiaStack, so whatever application we build, it has got to be scalable to that citizen scale, which is 1 billion plus. So these are really large applications and these include, you know, financial, health, logistics, even the smallest villages, we see people using mobile phones to transact money, I mean, move money. Now, some of us are very nervous when you see this growth. It is good in a way, but when you look at the underlying, the core internet itself, we find that they’re not kind of complying to the latest standards. So this is actually worrying and that is why we kind of created, thought about this initiative. This is completely based on volunteer work and currently we’re trying to raise some seed funding for recreating internet.nl kind of a thing for India. Now, India, as was mentioned about accessibility, we have some additional requirements and one important thing is the multilingual part of it. And we also have something called the universal acceptance, which is a challenge. Now, this is when you create a domain name in a script other than Latin, say in Hindi, the Devanagari script, and you create an email out of it and then we find that that email does not work. It does not work in many websites. So the reason is that the programmers who created that software have not programmed for this kind of email IDs. So this is a huge problem. It doesn’t even work in the big tech companies like Google. So the ICANN is trying to now resolve that problem, but for India, when you want to test for these things, we have to test. test on these angles as well. So we’re trying to add to the code, of course, while making it open source itself, so that other people can also use it. So we’re trying to recreate the internet.nl with some more features that are specific to Indian requirements. And we plan to periodically run this test and disseminate the results to all stakeholders in the country. And we hope to be nudging or pushing them to adopt these standards. As was mentioned earlier, India has, like many other countries, India has no law that says you have to comply with all this. So we’re trying to work from bottom up through the community effort to kind of get these institutions to start implementing these standards. I’ll stop here.

Olaf Kolkman:
Thank you very much. That was very fast. Well, we have more discussion time at the end now. Oh, yeah, I need to use the microphone. That’s true. Yeah, thank you for that. That was very clear, very concise, and even comprehensive. Thank you. The Brazilian situation, Gilberto and Flavio, let’s see if Gilberto is audible. So Gilberto on Zoom, can you speak something? Yes. Perfect. We hear you. So I now hand over the microphone to you and to Flavio.

Flavio Kenji Yana:
OK, I’m sharing my presentation. OK, can you see my presentation? Yes, we can. OK, good. Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in this event. I am Gilberto Zorrello. I am a product manager from Brazilian Network Information Center, NIC.br, that implements the decisions and projects by Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, CGIBI, which is responsible for. the coordination and integration of all internet service initiatives in the country. Presentation is about the top test padrões in Portuguese or test standards in English, based on the internet.nl tool in the security recommendations that must be adopted on networks on Brazil. NIC-BR is proposing these standards to Brazil. That’s the idea. That’s our agenda for this presentation. Of NIC-BR, the Brazilian Network Information Center. NIC-BR is a non-profit civil entity that since 2005 has been assigned with an administrative and operational functions related to the .br domain in Brazil. In addition to providing and maintaining the domain names registration activity, NIC-BR goes beyond similar entities in other countries. We invest in actions and projects that bring a series of benefits to improve the internet infrastructure in Brazil. With a revenue collected exclusively through the provision of the domain registration. Some of our efforts are focused on many sectors of Brazilian society, disseminating knowledge about best practice to be adopted in new networks and related areas. In some cases, we threaten relationships with private governmental and non-profit entities to encourage the adoption of best practice to be adopted in. and internet services. The top project here in Brazil. The project was developed by NICPR to disseminate the best secret press in Brazil for websites, email service and user connection to internet. It uses the open source code provided by Dutch implementation. The project is part of the program of Safer Internet in Brazil, which works with ISPs, internet service providers and including the operators to disseminate the best security practices that they should implement on their respective networks. Then, top BR in Brazil, we are using in this program, as a part of this program, okay? The operation was started in December of 2021 and can be assessed by top.nic.br in this domain. A little about the program, okay? The program is acts in support of internet technical community in reduction of denial of service attacks. A set PR team inside the NICPR says notification to the technical community in Brazil about these problems. Improvement of the network routing security according MANRS recommendations. MANRS is a internet society initiative. We, the program spreads, then execute best practices according top recommendations. Disseminate the best practices to configuring websites and email services according top recommendations. recommendations to encourage the implementation of IPv6 in final users and internet services using top as a testing tool. The plans of action performed by NIC-BR. We have several teams inside the NIC-BR. SEP-BR is a security, SEP-TRO, internet products, registry of domains, ix.br and systems. That these groups creates technical teaching materials and some good practices, raising awareness in the technical community by lectures, course and training, having direct interaction with network operators by bilateral meetings to explain how to implement the best practice and recommended in each situation. Defining KPIs to monitor the effectiveness of actions. That’s the ideas of the plan. Some results of the plan now. We have some statistics. This statistics shows the quantity of IP addresses notified with misconfigured service. Note the reduction of the, since the beginning of the program. And now the reduction is about 70% of this kind of problems. The other issue that we work in inside the program is implementation of manners in Brazil. Manners, this statistic shows the distribution by country of internet providers participating of manners initiative. that Brazil has the largest number of participants in as increasing every year. 20, 25% of the manners participants comes from Brazil. And now we have some statistics for the top implementation. We started at the end of 2021st and we have some, we are increasing the tests. This shows the number of connection tests performing, the percentage of recursive DNS server and users with IPv6 implemented, the percentage of DNS services validating the protocol DNSSEC. Now we have some statistics about the website tests, the number of unique domains tested, the number of percent and percentage of tests that passed by some tests and the number of sites that get tested 100%, the hall of fame in our case. It is similar statistic for email tests. Many associations, ISPs, Internet Service Provider Association support the program here in Brazil, including, of course, TOP and Academia too. Academia is an RNP and the other, the Connexus is Incumbent Operators Association and other association here are Association of Internet Service Providers. Brazil has more than 10,000 Internet Service Providers, small, and medium operators around the country. That’s a specific situation of Brazil, okay? We have, of course, incumbents responsible for about 50% of the internet traffic in Brazil and the rest of the traffic, these small and medium operators are responsible for the rest of the traffic in Brazil. Some remarks of the implementation. TOP was delivered in end of the 21st, greatly running version 1.4 of internet.nl. Today, we don’t have a securitization state yet and RPKI, okay? But the version 1.7 is implemented in test server. We are now validated the implementation. We intend to deliver the end of this year. The best practice recommended by the two are recommended from NIC.br to technical community in Brazil. Then the idea is this best practice NIC proposed for the technical community in Brazil together with best practices of manners and the best practice proposed by SERT.br. The two is being the same net together with the program in the country and the technical events for specific sectors, such government, academia, internet operators. The accounting area of Brazil’s region. legislature carried out many tests some months ago. They said that the government started using the tool to test their sites, but this is in the beginning. That’s the point here in Brazil. The top tool provides important indications of the implementation status of recommended best practice and provides a baseline for operators to implement them in their networks. That’s a main point of the talk. They created this baseline in order these operators under this line, they work to get this baseline. This is a very important tool for our country. Brazil has continental dimensions, and it’s a challenge to keep up with the evolution of the use of these standards here in Brazil. That’s my short presentation. We are ready for any questions if you have.

Olaf Kolkman:
Thank you very much. Flavio, were you adding something or just for the questions? No, no, yes. Yeah. OK. OK. Thank you for this, Gioberto. Very good to have you with us. We are exactly on the dot on time. It’s quarter to 3. Are there any questions? I’m looking around. I’m looking online. There was a question earlier whether these sessions are being recorded, and they are recorded and will be made available on the IGF website later. I do have a substantive question, though. I’m not quite sure who on the panel could answer that. Maybe somebody in the audience. Takes a little bit of introduction. In Europe, we have a regulation, it’s quite involved, regulation number 1025-2012. So this is a regulation from 2012 which allows the identification of technical specifications that are eligible for public procurement. There is a whole procurement law in Europe which I’m not a specialist on. But the idea was that specifications that were not made by formal standards organizations such as, you know, like ETSI, ISO, ITU, and national standards bodies would need to be whitelisted, identified in order to be used in European procurement and perhaps even in the member states. I do not know exactly. The standards from fora and consortia are not by default on those lists. And the fora and consortia that we’re talking about are IEEE, ITF, W3C, and all those type of things. When the forum was set up, we went through a quite extensive process to whitelist a number of standards. And DNSSEC is in there, DKIM is on there, IPv6 is on there. So there are a couple of them. But that standard, that process sort of halted. And so this is not to comment on that process but more on the question if you do procurement, do you run into the situation that the public authorities can only refer to standards made by formal standards bodies? That was a long-winded question but I think that that final question said it all. Yeah. Valtanatris, that the only thing I can share with you here is that when we started the dynamic coalition, the commission pointed us to a person in the commission who was involved in this process with the measure.

Wout de Natris:
And when I talked to them, basically it came down to we’re not doing very much anymore because it took more than one and a half year to even start talking about an open standard, let alone deciding that it was validated by this commission. And this is the last news I have from two years ago, so I don’t know what it is now, but they never came back online to me since. So maybe you know more, Alisa, but it was not an encouraging answer I got from these people. So that’s what I know. The question is, of course, how did the Netherlands come up with the comply and complain list? Did they compel, whatever, I’m tired, sorry. But explain this, that were they validated or just decided it just makes common sense to have this on, do you know? Thank you.

Annemiek Toersen:
I don’t know whether it’s on, that list. No, I don’t know. The European, because you said… The DNSSEC is on your list. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, the DNSSEC is on our list. Have they been whitelisted by the Dutch government first, or we just decided we have to have them on the list?

Wout de Natris:
Because in Europe, they are not validated in the European Commission. Well, those standards are supplied by a maintenance, other people.

Annemiek Toersen:
They offer the standard, like this is very important. So I’m not sure if it is IETF or who’s doing it, yeah, IETF, but a lot of organizations like NCSC says this is a very important standard, we adjust it, and if more organizations in Holland says that, then it’s proven experience that it is practiced. So that is one of the criteria in order to come to the comply or explain list. So, I think we have a research question here.

Mallory Knodel:
Looking at Mallory. Well, so, I mean, just to say, this doesn’t come up in our research because we weren’t looking for it. It could be maybe a separate question that could be done. I actually think the source material for this would be different as well because maybe you’re actually asking, in practice, how does this work? It could also be qualitatively done. I will just say, anecdotally, I know there are some US companies that when they’re considering going for a contract with a government in Europe, or tendering, or so on, they will then often initiate the standardization then. So, it may be just a consideration of workflow, right? If I’ve got a technology and I’d like procurement in the EU, then I need to demonstrate that the standards I’m using in this are either in existing bodies that have been listed, or that you can initiate the whitelisting at that point, or you’ve got technology that hasn’t yet been standardized at all, and you might as well start doing it in Etsy because that will be the quickest track. So, I know that the companies have that calculus in their heads about how to go after contracts. So, maybe that’s another answer to the question is it’s not always a predetermined, oh, I know that this standard is going to be important in the European market. It might come only when the market entrance actually happens.

Olaf Kolkman:
Are there other questions from the audience or from the panel? Oh, go ahead. Thanks, Olaf. Walter Nathus, is Gerwin still online? Yes, he is. Yes, hi, Gerwin. Who is it? How are you? I’m fine, here.

Wout de Natris:
I’ve got a question for you because the internet.nl, the standards that are there are often, something is added to it. What would be the next that you are thinking of and how do you come to the decision

Olaf Kolkman:
to add specifically that standard?

Gerben Klein Baltink:
So what is the next phase for internet.nl? Well, it is more or less the same as explained by Annemieke. Participants in the Dutch Internet Standards Forum can contribute by asking if the others agree that, for example, universal acceptance as one of the standards that we have considered should be added to our test environment. And then the process is simple. If everybody agrees that it is a good standard to dive into, the next step will be that we look into available tests already from the international community, open source. And if they are available, how well they would combine with internet.nl. Can we actually implement them in the test tool? And if not available, we look into the possibility to create our own code. Sometimes that works just as well as finding stuff already open source online. But sometimes you also have to conclude, for example, in relation to the accessibility standards, that they do not integrate too well in our current test environment. So then we decide to promote them. So have a news item featuring universal acceptance or the accessibility standards. And we will keep them more or less as spares for the future whenever we have the resources or the technology available to include them. That’s more or less the process.

Olaf Kolkman:
And as we learned from the other session, sometimes there was another session on internet.nl this week. Sometimes it’s just. impossible to measure something, like route validation. We were talking about routing security in that session. Looking around once more, going, going, gone. That ends this panel. I think what we learned here is that there are tools to increase the visibility of the standards that are needed to secure our global environment. Name and shame in the form of internet NL, more name than shame, granted. But also procurement methodologies, making sure that the initiative is felt where it’s felt most, namely in the wallet. And I think these are great initiatives. I think that the next thing that needs to happen is that more countries or environments or regions start using tools like this. So we have another deployment issue that we need to tackle. And with that, I leave that in the good hands of the Dynamic Coalition and would like to all thank you for being here. Have safe travels home. And have a good sleep. The consultation, yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The consultation, maybe that slide can be reprojected quickly. Let me just tell it. We have a website, www.is3, the number three, coalition.org. The reports that I mentioned can be found there. And the consultation is announced there. It has a link to a Google Doc where everything is included. And everybody is allowed to, has that link, is allowed to make remarks. And we close it on the 5th of November. Thank you for the opportunity again, Olaf. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Audience

The analysis highlights a negative sentiment towards cooperation between authorities, suggesting that it may result in longer response times and decisions that lean towards soft laws rather than hard laws. This indicates that when multiple authorities are involved in decision-making processes, the cooperation required may slow down the overall process, potentially delaying the timely resolution of issues. Additionally, the preference for soft laws over hard laws implies a level of flexibility and compromise that may not always be in the best interest of regulation and enforcement.

On the other hand, the analysis identifies a positive sentiment towards the diverse approaches taken by different countries in addressing global issues. This variation in responses can be attributed to the regional context in which these issues arise. It showcases the importance of considering local factors and tailoring solutions accordingly. By acknowledging and respecting the different approaches taken by various countries, a more comprehensive and effective response to global issues can be achieved.

Despite the challenges associated with cooperation, there is support for the need to collaborate and work together. It is emphasized that finding ways to harmonise responses and regulations is crucial. This highlights the importance of striking a balance between allowing for diverse approaches rooted in regional context while also ensuring alignment and consistency in addressing global challenges. By doing so, synergies can be formed, facilitating more efficient and effective decision-making processes.

It is worth noting that the analysis does not provide specific evidence or supporting facts for the arguments presented. However, it sheds light on the different perspectives and sentiments related to cooperation between authorities, the impact of regional context on addressing global issues, and the necessity of finding mechanisms to harmonise responses and regulations.

In conclusion, the analysis indicates a negative sentiment towards cooperation between authorities, pointing out the potential drawbacks such as slower response times and favoring soft laws. However, it also recognises the positive aspect of diverse approaches taken by different countries in addressing global issues. The need for cooperation is acknowledged, with an emphasis on finding ways to strike a balance between regional context and harmonising responses and regulations. This expanded analysis provides insight into the complexities and challenges faced in achieving effective international cooperation while highlighting the importance of adaptation and collaboration.

Joanne Cunhe

The analysis draws attention to several challenges related to global platform governance and stakeholder participation, particularly focusing on India and the Global South. One major obstacle is the lack of capacity in terms of both financial resources and personnel. This can make it difficult for these regions to actively engage in global discussions and shape decision-making processes.

Another highlighted challenge is the absence of diverse voices in these global discussions. It is crucial to involve groups that are directly affected by or study platform harms in order to ensure comprehensive and inclusive governance. However, these voices are often underrepresented or not fully involved in decision-making processes, limiting their influence.

The sentiment surrounding these challenges is predominantly negative, reflecting the difficulties faced by India and the Global South in effectively participating in global platform governance. These challenges call for greater attention and support to address disparities and provide equal opportunities for participation.

Regarding stakeholder participation in decision-making processes, a significant challenge is achieving meaningful involvement. Different approaches to stakeholder participation in India’s rulemaking have been observed, but stakeholders are often limited in their involvement at the initial stage, especially when operating at the draft bill level. This limitation prevents stakeholders from having a substantial impact on decision-making processes, raising concerns about inclusivity and transparency.

Power dynamics between various stakeholders also play a crucial role in shaping the type of participation observed. The dynamics between civil society and the state, or between the state and platforms, vary greatly across jurisdictions. Understanding these power dynamics and tailoring approaches based on the context becomes essential to ensure fair and equitable participation.

Another important aspect highlighted is the need for tailored approaches to platform regulation in the global majority. Considering specific contexts in different regions is crucial for effectively addressing challenges and nuances associated with platform governance.

While greater collaboration among different stakeholders within civil society is seen as a necessity, there is existing fragmentation that hinders support at global forums. Efforts should be made to address this fragmentation and foster collaborative approaches that can lead to impactful decision-making and partnerships for sustainable development.

In conclusion, the analysis demonstrates the challenges faced by India and the Global South in terms of global platform governance and stakeholder participation. It emphasizes the need for capacity building, diverse voices, and inclusive decision-making processes. Additionally, power dynamics and tailored approaches to specific contexts are crucial factors to consider. Efforts to address these challenges and promote collaboration among stakeholders will be essential for effective governance and achieving sustainable development goals.

Online Moderator

The first question raises the issue of developing national regulations for digital platforms, considering their cross-sector impact. The term “platformization” refers to the widespread presence of platforms across various industries, requiring regulations that can cover a wide range of issues. The question emphasizes the complexity of this task, as it involves addressing the extensive regulatory agenda associated with platform regulation. It is crucial to develop effective national regulations that strike a balance between the benefits of digital platforms and concerns related to competition, privacy, data protection, and user rights.

The second question explores different governance models for regulating digital platforms. It examines the advantages and disadvantages of a centralized model, where the state plays a dominant role, compared to a polycentric model that involves both the state and civil society. The centralized model offers the advantage of clear hierarchical structure and potential efficiency in decision-making. However, it may also lead to concentration of power, reduced inclusivity, and a risk of regulatory capture. On the other hand, the polycentric model promotes multi-stakeholder involvement, diverse perspectives, and potentially reduces the risk of regulatory capture. However, reaching consensus and making decisions efficiently may be more challenging.

Both questions highlight the complexity and importance of addressing these issues comprehensively and inclusively. Considering the cross-sector impact of platforms and adopting governance models that balance state involvement and civil society participation are crucial in shaping effective regulations for digital platforms. Ongoing discussions, research, and collaboration among policymakers, industry leaders, civil society organizations, and other stakeholders are needed to develop regulatory frameworks that encourage innovation, protect user rights, promote fair competition, and ensure a sustainable and inclusive digital ecosystem.

Miriam Wimmer

Platform regulation encompasses a wide range of laws aimed at promoting competition and combating misinformation. The business models of digital platforms present unique challenges in protecting fundamental rights. Data protection authorities naturally play a role in discussions surrounding platform regulation, as digital platforms involve the large-scale processing of data. Furthermore, traditional data protection principles and rights touch upon issues concerning digital platforms.

Brazil supports the concept of multi-stakeholder participation in digital regulation and has implemented a model of multi-stakeholder internet governance. There is an expectation that regulatory bodies dealing with digital issues should have formal consultation mechanisms in place. This supports the idea that involving multiple stakeholders in the regulatory process can lead to more comprehensive and effective outcomes.

However, challenges exist in coordinating and cooperating between public bodies involved in platform regulation, particularly due to budgetary and resource constraints. The creation of new governmental bodies may be limited, which can hinder effective coordination and cooperation. These challenges highlight the need for efficient and effective cooperation between regulatory bodies involved in platform regulation.

Dealing with digital platforms requires the understanding and enforcement of multiple legislations, which necessitates the involvement of different regulators. The institutional setup to address the complexities of digital platforms is very cross-cutting and transversal, thus requiring the collaboration of various regulatory bodies. This highlights the need for a comprehensive and coordinated approach to platform regulation, involving various stakeholders and regulatory authorities.

A centralized model for platform regulation is deemed unfeasible due to the diverse fields that platforms touch upon, such as labor relations, misinformation, human rights protection, and competition aspects. The complexities of these issues make it impractical to discuss a centralized regulator for the entire digital ecosystem. Instead, a multifaceted approach involving different agencies and stakeholders is required to effectively regulate and address the challenges posed by digital platforms.

Cooperation between different agencies, as well as the involvement of various stakeholders, is necessary for successful platform regulation. However, cooperation does not arise spontaneously; it must be crafted into legislation to ensure its effectiveness and legitimacy. Additionally, public participation is crucial in ensuring the legitimacy and effectiveness of regulatory decisions. While cooperation and public participation may be time-consuming, they are integral to shaping regulations that address the diverse concerns surrounding digital platforms.

In conclusion, platform regulation involves addressing various legal challenges, promoting competition, and addressing concerns such as misinformation and fundamental rights. The business models and data processing involved in digital platforms necessitate the involvement of data protection authorities. Brazil supports multi-stakeholder participation in digital regulation. However, challenges in coordinating and cooperating between public bodies exist, and the decentralized nature of digital platforms requires multiple regulators. A centralized model is impractical, and cooperation, legislation crafting, and public participation are essential for effective and legitimate platform regulation.

Sunil Abraham

The analysis explores a range of topics, including regulation, open-source projects, emerging technologies, discrimination, 5G standards, AI fairness benchmarks, disability rights, compliance engineering, global compliance, and user empowerment. The discussions provide valuable insights into these subjects, highlighting important considerations and challenges.

One key point discussed is the three layers of the regulatory ecosystem: classical regulation, co-regulation, and self-regulation. The example of the Information Technology Act in India is mentioned, which demonstrates reflexive regulation and provides regulated entities with immunity from liability when complying with state-mandated or self-regulatory standards such as ISO 27001.

The analysis discusses META’s active involvement in open-source projects, AI models, and open datasets. META is shown to have over 1,200 open-source projects and has released 650 open-source AI models and 350 open datasets. This showcases their commitment to open collaboration and innovative solutions.

The need for legislation with multi-stakeholder engagement to regulate emerging technologies is another important argument presented. It is emphasized that good laws are necessary to ensure that regulations remain future-proof and effectively address potential harms caused by emerging technologies. The importance of bottoms-up knowledge building and norm setting in the legislative process is also highlighted.

The role of open-source tools in preventing discrimination is emphasized. META’s Massively Multilingual Speech tool, capable of identifying and processing thousands of languages, is mentioned as a means to ensure inclusivity. The release of the open data set Casual Conversations is also noted, enabling the benchmarking of software to prevent discrimination. This highlights the significance of utilising open-source solutions to promote fairness and reduce inequalities.

Regarding 5G standards, the analysis mentions that the Indian proposal for rural and remote connectivity was not included in the main 5G standard due to a lack of structured resources for participation. This underscores the need for structured resources to facilitate regular participation in relevant international platforms.

The potential consequences of adopting alternative indigenous standards for 5G are discussed. It is argued that such adoption could result in the loss of network effects in hardware manufacturing, highlighting the complexities involved in standardisation decisions.

The analysis emphasizes the importance of multiple benchmarks before implementing mandates for AI fairness. It is mentioned that multiple benchmarks are evolving in this area, encompassing both open and proprietary models. This underscores the need for a comprehensive understanding of the technology and its implications before implementing mandates.

The mandate of mature standards for protecting the rights of the marginalized is described as an important argument. Specifically, the need for state-mandated standards such as WCAG to ensure the protection of disabled individuals’ rights is highlighted.

The analysis discusses META’s regulation readiness approach, noting that policy and legal teams within META monitor enacted and proposed laws in different jurisdictions. The aim is to create compliance artifacts that can be applied globally, showcasing the company’s commitment to regulatory compliance.

The challenges posed by conflicting legal obligations in different jurisdictions are highlighted. Such conflicts can hinder global rollouts of certain user rights or features, illustrating the complexities of navigating legal obligations across multiple jurisdictions.

The discussion on new laws requiring corporations to have explicit contact points addresses the potential benefits and challenges associated with these laws. It is mentioned that while these laws can empower users, they can also present challenges in terms of personal criminal liabilities and additional complexities. The Indian IT law is referenced, which requires global corporations to have three individuals stationed in the office who are available to users and government stakeholders. This commitment entails personal criminal liability and presents additional complexity.

In conclusion, the analysis provides valuable insights into various aspects of regulation, open-source projects, emerging technologies, discrimination, 5G standards, AI fairness benchmarks, disability rights, compliance engineering, global compliance, and user empowerment. The discussions underscore the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement, the use of open-source tools to promote inclusivity and fairness, the complexities of standardisation decisions, the need for comprehensive understanding before implementing mandates, the mandate of mature standards for protecting the rights of marginalized individuals, and the challenges and benefits associated with laws requiring corporations to have contact points. Overall, the analysis highlights the complexity and importance of regulatory issues and the need for informed and collaborative approaches to address them.

Marielza Oliveira

The analysis explores various aspects of internet governance and capacity building. One key point highlighted is the significance of multistakeholder engagement in achieving consensus and shared goals. The multistakeholder approach, which involves involving various stakeholders, is deemed the most effective way to build consensus around common goals and values. Multistakeholder initiatives aim to meet expectations by being inclusive, diverse, collaborative, and legitimate.

However, it is acknowledged that the multistakeholder approach needs to adapt to the evolving nature of the internet. Different stakeholders have become dominant in internet governance, and it is argued that the approach should identify which stakeholders should be involved in addressing the diverse challenges faced by the internet today. This necessitates constant evaluation and adjustment to effectively address the complexities of internet governance.

The rise of big tech platforms is also a significant factor in the changing landscape of internet governance. The fast-paced ethos and immense power of these platforms are not always aligned with the pace and authority of other actors, particularly governments. This poses a challenge to the role of governments in internet governance. It is essential to address power imbalances between the private sector and governments to ensure fair and equitable governance of the internet.

Another crucial aspect is the need for capacity building among government and civil society actors. It is noted that many judicial actors have limited understanding of the limitations of technologies like artificial intelligence (AI). In response, UNESCO has initiated training programs for these actors on AI. Additionally, a competency framework for civil servants has been developed to enhance their knowledge and understanding of relevant issues. This capacity building is considered vital to bridge knowledge gaps and empower government and civil society actors to actively participate in internet governance.

Regarding addressing power imbalances in the digital space, the analysis discusses the potential of the Global Digital Compact and emerging internet regulations. The Global Digital Compact presents an opportunity to reimagine the approach to internet governance and establish a fair and inclusive framework. UNESCO’s Internet for Trust guidelines are highlighted as a contribution to this process. These efforts aim to create a more balanced digital space where power imbalances are addressed, and the interests of all stakeholders are considered.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the importance of multistakeholder engagement, adaptability to the changing nature of the internet, addressing power imbalances, and capacity building for effective internet governance. The Global Digital Compact and emerging internet regulations offer avenues to address these challenges and create a more balanced and inclusive digital space.

Renata Ávila

The analysis explores the topic of multi-stakeholder governance and democratic deficits in the internet governance model. Renata Ávila highlights Brazil’s multi-stakeholder model as an exemplary approach to democratic governance of the internet. This model is considered essential for ensuring transparency and inclusivity in decision-making processes related to the internet.

However, it is noted that the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder governance depends on its structure. If not appropriately designed, these governance models can inadvertently validate the opinions of the most powerful actor at the table, potentially undermining the democratic nature of the process.

Another important argument presented is that companies should refrain from exploiting democratic deficits. The analysis suggests that companies should instead adopt a more transparent and open approach, actively sharing information and being proactive in their commitment to multi-stakeholder governance. This would help address concerns related to potential double standards and unfair practices that arise when legislation is lacking or insufficient.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the need to address inequalities and exclusions within the multi-stakeholder model. Two specific areas that need attention are the rural-urban divide and gender divides. The analysis advocates for meaningful civil society participation and emphasizes the importance of internal processes within civil society to reach broader consensus.

The analysis also argues for a bottom-up approach and civil society’s active participation in the design and problem-solving processes. The NetMundial process in Brazil is cited as an example where civil society had a significant role in designing and triggering the problem-solving process, making it a successful model to follow.

It is also suggested that civil society should have access to mechanisms that enable them to activate processes when needed. This would allow civil society to effectively address concerns and ensure that their voices are heard in the decision-making processes.

Collaboration between different actors, including civil society, is seen as a valuable asset for effective policy-making and implementing changes. The analysis gives an example of how civil society facilitated the exchange of practices and cases between antitrust and consumer protection authorities through WhatsApp. By engaging various stakeholders, new insights can be gained, and solutions can be developed collectively.

Transparency is considered the best antidote for addressing concerns related to multi-stakeholder governance. Increased transparency can help build trust among stakeholders and promote accountability. It is noted that South-South cooperation plays a vital role in balancing power dynamics and improving multi-stakeholder models.

The analysis also emphasizes the importance of sharing good practices, learning from each other, and holding platforms accountable. By studying platforms and documenting both successful and unsuccessful attempts, improvements can be made, and repetition of errors can be avoided.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the importance of democratic governance in the internet space through multi-stakeholder models. It emphasizes the need for transparency, inclusivity, and meaningful participation from civil society. The analysis also underscores the significance of addressing inequalities and promoting collaboration between various stakeholders. Through these efforts, a more balanced and effective multi-stakeholder governance model can be achieved, ensuring democratic decision-making processes in the internet governance landscape.

Moderator

The speakers in the discussion highlighted the importance of multistakeholderism in the context of internet governance and platform regulation. They emphasized that digital platforms are crucial tools for global communication, but their regulation can be challenging, especially for developing countries. It was noted that regulation models from Europe, which have been successful in their own context, may not be easily adaptable for countries in the Global South due to different states of institutional development.

The speakers also discussed the different approaches that countries take in governing and regulating digital platforms. They noted that diverse government agencies are often involved in the process, such as ENPD, Senacon, and CADI in Brazil. This demonstrates the complexity and multifaceted nature of platform regulation, which requires the involvement of various stakeholders and government departments.

The concept of multistakeholderism was seen as a valuable approach for regulating platforms and promoting internet governance. It was mentioned that multistakeholderism has played a role in strengthening civil society’s participation in platform regulation in Brazil through the engagement of various stakeholders, as evidenced by the participation of CGIBI and the consultation it conducted. The speakers argued that multistakeholderism allows for a broad range of actors to be considered in decision-making, helping to build consensus around shared goals and values.

The speakers acknowledged that implementing successful multistakeholder approaches is not always guaranteed. They pointed out challenges such as power asymmetries and the potential for participants to not be legitimately chosen. However, they also highlighted the potential improvements that could be made, including building awareness and reducing knowledge imbalances.

The discussion also touched upon thechallenges posed by dominant stakeholders, particularly big tech platforms. The speakers noted that the ethos of big tech does not always align with the pace of other actors, and their accountability can be challenged. This highlights the need for effective regulation and governance of these platforms to ensure fairness and protect fundamental rights.

The speakers stated that the adaptation of the multistakeholder approach is necessary to fit the rapidly transforming digital landscape. They emphasized the need to raise awareness around the benefits of multistakeholder approaches and reduce knowledge imbalances among actors involved in platform regulation.

In conclusion, the speakers agreed that inclusive and transparent governance of digital platforms, through the adoption of multistakeholder models, is essential. They recognized the challenges faced by developing countries in adapting existing regulation models and stressed the importance of sharing and adopting successful practices between countries. Additionally, they emphasized the need for cooperation, collaboration, and active involvement of civil society in decision-making processes. Overall, the discussion provided valuable insights into the complexities and dynamics of platform regulation and the importance of multistakeholderism in achieving effective governance.

Moderator:
Welcome, everyone, to our town hall session, Multistakeholder Platform Regulation and the Global South. My name is Henrique Faulhaber. I’m one of the board members of Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, CGIBR. I represent the private sector there. I will be the moderator of this session, and Juliano will make the online moderation. First, I would like to thank the IGF organization for this space and everyone that’s present here and online. Special thanks to our speakers. You have six speakers. One speaker is here, Ms. Joanne Cunha. She’s a program officer in the Center for Communication Governance and National Law, University of Delhi. And the others are in their respective countries. So you have people from Brazil, Brasilia, Paris, Nigeria. So you have very much those people that are in the late night, late, early morning together with us today. So the first speaker will be Marielle Oliveira. She’s Director of the UNESCO Communication Information Sector Division for Digital Inclusion Policy and Transformation. After her, you have Sunil Abraham. He’s Public Policy Director from Facebook India. And after him, Kadira Elusman. He’s a Senior Program Officer for Paradigm Institute. No, she, in fact, she’s Officer for Paradigm Institute. After you have Miriam Wimmer. She’s Director for the Brazilian Authority on Privacy and Data Security. After you have Joanne. And at the end, you have Renata Afla, who is CEO from Open Knowledge Foundation. We will give eight minutes for each speaker. And after that, we will open for questions for the audience here and also online. As you know, digital platforms have gained significant traction within the internet governance debates as they have become essential tools for global landscape public and private communications. However, a great part of the discussions resolves around the models followed by Europe that, as many point out, are then exported to global south countries. We mean global south countries as developing economies, OK? The name global south may sometimes lead to other questions. So you can understand global south countries as developing countries on this area. But we see that the strong influence of Europe on regulations all over the world, and so-called Brussels effect, affect how regulations are adapted to local regional contents. But countries in the developing economies are in different states, different states of institutional development considering government bureaucracy, civil society organizations, or regional international organizations. So governance arrangements that may work in the global north can fail in Latin America countries, for instance. Therefore, it’s relevant to foster that exchange of experience between global south countries to formulate appropriate regulations to regional reality involving different stakeholders. In this sense, CGIBI, Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, carried out a consultation on platform regulation this year. We received more than 1,000 contributions from individuals and organizations of different sectors. You are in the moment of preparing a summary to present to society the main contributions about the theme that could guide CGIBI as to make the recommendations and guidelines for future work on that field. A relevant part of the consultation was precisely on the arrangements necessary for regulating platforms and about the role of multistakeholderism could play on those arrangements. Countries could have different approaches on how to govern and regulate digital platforms. Normally, several government agents are tackling with sub-themes of platform regulation. In Brazil, for instance, we have ENPD, the data protection agents, dealing with data privacy and data protection. We have Senacon from Justice Department dealing with consumer rights. You have CADI, our antitrust agency, dealing with competitive issues, et cetera. So you have, even in government in several countries, in Brazil, for instance, that have distributed a role on the task of regulating the digital platforms. So to put in place the multistakeholder approach to platform governments, our sector should interact with government, with various parts of the government in order to adjust and implement proper process to deal with this no trivial task that is to regulate digital platforms. Even through expectations over multistakeholderism in the global internet government’s realm have been questioned in several policy arenas. In Brazil, multistakeholderism has played a fundamental role in strengthening civil cyber society participation through the means of Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. CGIBA will play a relevant role in the local government’s internet government’s model through multistakeholder participation and has given substantial contribution and active participation in political debates, such as the construction of the Brazilian Internet Bill of Rights, known as MARC-CIVIL, and the Brazilian General Data Privacy Law, GDPR. Possible due to the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee reputation, multistakeholderism was frequently mentioned in the consultation that we carried this year as a value of platform regulation. In this sense, CGIBA, multistakeholder experiencing, even with the difficulties and possible improvements, can serve as an inspiration for institutional arrangements in platform regulations. Beyond that, national and regional approach aiming to establish a sustainable platform regulation model should also consider the challenge to align then with ongoing international process, such as the UNESCO Guidelines for Regulating Digital Platforms and other task force. This workshop aims to delve into different digital platforms regulations, government’s models, through the exchange of global south and developing economies, practice, and discuss the role of state and non-state stakeholders vis-a-vis the value of internet government multistakeholder model. I hope you have a great conversation, and that each experience presented here might serve as inspiration and improvement for others. Now, I would like to pass the word to our fifth speaker, Ms. Mariela Oliveira from UNESCO. She’s online. Please. Mariela, are you there?

Marielza Oliveira:
Yes, I’m trying to unmute myself. Hello. Hello, everyone. Hello. Thank you very much for inviting me to join this session. It’s really interesting. But let me start by apologizing, because I’ll have to leave before the end of it, because I have another commitment. I have to replace somebody who wasn’t able to participate. So anyways, well, thank you very much again. And you had asked me about the issues of multistakeholderism and how what’s accomplishments are increasing over the last decade, and how the model can adapt to the present situations of the internet, and so on. So let me just start by saying that multistakeholderism is kind of a governance approach that helps policymakers to harness the collective intelligence of communities and a type of participatory democracy that emerged very much because of the increasing complexity of policymaking and the difficulties governance systems were facing in finding sustainable solutions to the various problems that they were facing. Multistakeholder engagement was and continues to be, in our view, the best way to build consensus around a shared set of goals and values, while ensuring that the result is created by taking into account the needs and concerns of a broad range of actors, including government, private sector, and civil society, and even grassroots organizations like women’s groups or youth organizations, technical community, and so on. Most complex policymaking happens at the global level. Global multistakeholder approaches have emerged very much as a complement to multilateral cooperation, since it helps to fill some of the gaps in knowledge and legitimacy that are left when global decisions are taken by a single actor. And digital development is one of the most complex processes because it affects most economic, social, and environmental aspects of our life. And this is why the World Summit on the Information Society created the Internet Governance Forum, specifically as a multistakeholder process to co-develop the principles and norms that shape internet evolution. And beyond the WSIS, various organizations have endorsed the multistakeholder model, including UNESCO, of course, OECD, the Council of Europe, the ITU, the G8, African Union, even the UN General Assembly. And at UNESCO, we advanced this multistakeholder concept by embedding it into UNESCO’s Internet Universality Rome Framework, which proposed four principles on how the internet can support the construction of global knowledge societies, that the internet should be human rights-based, open to all, accessible by all, and multistakeholder-led. And that has already been taken up by over 40 countries, this particular framework. But let me say that one would expect that adding greater expertise, more diversity into decision processes, and encouraging consensus building would always lead to better decisions. But that doesn’t really happen always because multistakeholder initiatives, they don’t necessarily meet expectations every time. An effective multistakeholder approach needs to be inclusive, diverse, collaborative, legitimate, and that doesn’t necessarily happen. You know, for example, the parties involved may not have been legitimately chosen to represent all the interests around a given issue. The time and the resources needed for coordination may be just too much for the actual benefit. Power asymmetries may exist, they exist that prevent the parties from contributing equally, or multistakeholder process is not really linked to a final decision-making process, so that there’s no clarity what’s going to happen once the multistakeholder group arrives at their consensus. And the internet today is very different than when it was created. As it became more and more central to how societies and economies operate, different stakeholders, they started kind of jostling for greater power over its governance. And in addition, the reality of multistakeholder participation is actually challenged by the nature of the internet itself, including the issues of jurisdiction and enforcement, scale, and the pace at which, you know, the digital transformation is taking. So, some stakeholders actually have become too dominant and powerful, particularly big tech platforms, and they have a moving fast ethos that doesn’t really work with the pace of other actors. The relationship between multistakeholder and multilateral governance mechanisms, one at global level and the other at national or regional level, is not very clear yet. And the role of governments is actually challenged by the power of private sector, and they face difficulties in enforcing accountability when harms happen. And so, we need to adapt the multistakeholder approach to today’s internet that really is a platform internet. And for that, I think that there are some things that need to be done. First, the global community needs to really build greater awareness and buy-in on the benefits of multistakeholder approaches. It needs to clearly identify who should be around the table to meet the different internet governance challenges, because they are not the same, and you don’t need everybody around every issue. Cybersecurity issues, for example, may be discussed by a particular group, while digital inclusion may be discussed by a different group, but always multistakeholder and representing different actors that have a stake on the issue. We need to reduce knowledge imbalances by raising capacities of government and civil society actors on frontier technologies. For example, we are training judicial actors on artificial intelligence because we realize that many of them do not understand what the capabilities and the limitations of these technologies are, and have developed a competency framework for civil servants on AI and digital transformation exactly for that. It’s hard for them to sit around the table and argue for certain types of approaches with private sector if they don’t really understand what these technologies are capable of. And the other thing is that we really need to identify relevant and legitimate stakeholders to represent each of the groups and working methods that need to be more transparent and inclusive with participants collaborating on equal footing. And that means better resourcing civil society, academia, etc., to participate. At the global level, for example, we see the difficulties that the IGF itself faces on resourcing. It entirely depends on donations, you know, with a tiny little budget for the secretariat. Global governance on the internet, depending on that, is really insane. And we also need to mostly, you know, the big thing is that we need to clarify how much stakeholderism works with multilateralism, and then what their different roles and mutual accountabilities are. The IGF, for example, is evolving in that direction, has created a leadership panel to engage with the UN Secretary General so that you can build and create a bridge between those two processes. But we still need to account for the power imbalances that have arisen, both within multilateral and multistakeholder processes, with the powerful internet platforms located in a handful of countries. And I’m very hopeful that the Global Digital Compact will offer us a chance to reboot the approach and that the emerging global regulation of internet platforms, such as UNESCO’s Internet for Trust guidelines, will contribute to this process. So, thank you very much for the chance to participate.

Moderator:
Thank you, Mariosa, for your truths. Now, I will invite Mr. Samir Abraham to make his speech. He’s from META. In fact, I would like very much to understand the Indian scenario on this issue of platform regulation. And please, Sunil, the floor is yours.

Sunil Abraham:
Thank you so much for that. And a special thanks to all my friends and colleagues at CGI.br I’m very grateful that they have given me another opportunity to work with them. Also, it’s indeed a privilege to be on the same panel as personal heroes, such as Renata. So, thank you again for that. I’m someone that has been involved in the IGF conversations since 2005. And when I came to Tunis for the second WSIS meeting, I was there as part of civil society. And I was trying to make a documentary film with BBC. At that point, I was also working for the International Open Source Network. And one of the people that I interviewed was Gilberto Gil, who was the Minister of Culture of Brazil at that point on this question of open source. So, very quickly, as Maria Elsa has mentioned, there are three clear layers to the regulatory ecosystem. Classical regulation that emerges from the state. Coregulation, which is when self-regulation meets state regulation. State regulation. And then pure self-regulation, which is called the pure multi-stakeholder model, which we see in organizations like the IETF and so on. Especially the standards-setting organizations. And all of these forms of regulation play a close role with each other. And I’m going to take the example of India to show how this is the case. In our existing IT law, the Information Technology Act, the section for protecting sensitive personal data called 43A is a good example of reflexive regulation. If regulated entities do not comply with the state-mandated standard ISO 27001, then they get the same immunity from liability if they’re able to propose a self-regulatory standard and then comply to it. So, that happened in 2008 with the amendment and in 2012 or 11 with the rules. And then the government lost trust, I think, to some degree in self-regulation. And for quite a period since then, for almost 15 years, there wasn’t very… much new self-regulatory and co-regulatory proposals made. But clearly the Indian government has decided to try again, and when it came to regulating the gaming industry earlier this year and last year, they introduced the very same architecture where the regulated entities were meant to come together, form self-regulatory bodies, introduce norms, then comply with those norms in order to be considered compliant with the law. So how does that old theme of free software and open standards and open data connect to all of this? Here is where I would like to take an example from my current employer. So after spending 25 years in civil society, I’ve spent the last three in the private sector with Meta. So how does that all connect to the work that I’m now doing at Meta? It’s because Meta is not like all the other platforms, and I wouldn’t want to paint all platforms with the very same brush. Meta has more than 1,200 open source projects. Just on AI, we have released 650 open source AI models and another 350 open data sets. So let’s now look at a particular anxiety, and this is the anxiety around algorithmic bias. And let’s take the case study of text-to-speech and speech-to-text technologies. Meta has a tool called Massively Multilingual Speech. It’s an open source tool, and this tool can ID 4,000 languages and do speech-to-text and text-to-speech for 1,100 languages. So how can we be sure that this tool does not discriminate when it comes to gender, when it comes to age, when it comes to sexual orientation, or maybe disability? The way this has been done is Meta has also released an open data set called Casual Conversations, which contains 27,000 hours of people of different identities and with different traits speaking these languages so that the open source software that has been released by Meta, Massively Multilingual Speech, can be benchmarked against the open data set. So what I’m trying to argue is that while there is indeed a requirement for states to legislate and to legislate after doing multi-stakeholder engagement and consultation, there is also this equally important role of bottoms-up knowledge building and norm-setting, and ideally good laws, especially laws in the global south, will have space for all of this. And that is the only way in which we can ensure that regulations remain future-proof and constantly and in a very agile fashion, address the harms that are caused by emerging technologies. Once again, thank you for giving me this opportunity to share my thoughts with all of you.

Moderator:
Thanks, Sunil. You have next Miriam Vime, she is Director from Brazilian DPA. Miriam, are you there?

Miriam Wimmer:
I’m here, yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Good night. It’s very late here in Brazil, it’s 11.30pm, but I’d like to say thank you very much for inviting me and for making it possible for me to participate online. I’m truly delighted to join this panel and I’m really sorry not to be able to be with you in Kyoto. I hope you’re having a great time, lots of fun and very productive discussions. Thank you.

Moderator:
I’m curious about your inputs about digital platform regulation interface with data privacy and protection. I would like very much to receive your feedback on how much take-a-headers should apply on this space. And of course, you’re free to talk about the audiences you want.

Miriam Wimmer:
Okay, so thank you very much for the question, Henrique. And I’d like to begin by mentioning that I speak from the perspective of a government stakeholder. I’m currently one of the commissioners at the Brazilian National Data Protection Authority and I’ve been following the debate on internet governance for quite some time now and currently working with data protection. So there’s a very interesting intersection when we discuss platform regulation. And I’d like to begin by highlighting that one of the most important challenges we face when discussing platform regulation is in fact defining the scope of regulation and consequently identifying the institutional actors, be they governmental or non-governmental, that should be put in charge of such regulation. And I think an important point to start off our discussion is to mention that platform regulation may in fact mean many different things, ranging from ex-ante regulation to promote competition in digital markets, to laws aimed at combating disinformation, to rules on labor relations through online platforms, many other things in between. And the term digital platform itself is also very broad, encompassing, just to give a few examples, marketplaces, platforms for renting rooms or calling cars, social media platforms. And of course, these different business models also have different characteristics and maybe raise different challenges in terms of protecting fundamental rights. Another point I think is quite relevant, mentioned by Sunil just now, is that the term regulation is in itself open to many different interpretations. So it includes not only state-centered regulation, which is perhaps the most traditional form of regulation, when you have a governmental agency that may apply administrative sanctions if a formal rule is not complied with, but also many other regulatory arrangements, which include co-regulation and self-regulatory mechanisms, as well as different levels of multi-stakeholder participation and supervision. And here, I think a point that I’d like to make is that Brazil has historically sustained that multi-stakeholderism and multilateralism are not in themselves antagonic. They’re not mutually excluded necessarily. And in the same way, when we discuss regulation of digital platforms, it seems to me that it is possible to conceive models where you have traditional state regulation coexisting with co-regulation or self-regulation at certain levels. So I touch on these preliminary points to call attention to the fact that when we discuss platform regulation in general and the role of data protection authorities in particular, we are potentially discussing many different things, many different approaches, and many different institutional actors that may be involved with this discussion. And regarding data protection authorities in particular, it’s important to note that all these different business models that relate to digital platforms are essentially based on the large-scale processing of data, including and especially personal data. And therefore, to some extent, data protection authorities are already naturally involved or attracted to this discussion. And here, I think it’s valid also to mention that many traditional data protection principles, such as purpose limitation, transparency, data minimization, for instance, as well as several data protection rights, the traditional article rights, access, rectification, cancellation, opposition, already touch upon many of the issues that are raising concerns when you discuss digital platforms nowadays. Also, the approach that many data protection laws bring in terms of the need to carry out risk assessments and have governance programs and transparency requirements already exist in many data protection laws, as is the case in Brazil, although not specifically geared towards digital platforms. So the feeling I had is that while many of our concerns are already somehow related to the field of data protection, of course, other concerns in other fields may be called to act. And in this sense, data protection legislation may not be in itself sufficient, and other existing regulators may come into play. And I think Mariausa or Henrique mentioned antitrust, consumer protection, as well as several other formal governmental bodies. And in fact, there is also discussion of the need to or not to create new regulators. So the issue, I think, at the end of the day is that there is a huge challenge of coordination and cooperation between public bodies, and also the need to assess how multi-stakeholderism can build into this process in order to make it more transparent and more legitimate. Here in Brazil, specifically, this debate on platform regulation, I think, is currently very, very hot. It’s very high in the public agenda. And I would argue that here in our country, it’s been shaped by some factors that are quite specific to our own reality. So the first aspect is that we have a quite complex institutional setup. We are a continental country with over 5,500 municipalities. We have a federal government that is very large, very complex, many ministries, many different agencies, and complex and existing bodies with regulatory competencies that in some sense will touch upon the issue of digital platforms. And here in Brazil, the fact is that it’s not easy to create new governmental bodies. Usually, there are not enough financial resources. There are not enough human resources. And in fact, and this may be a common theme in the countries of the Global South, it’s very difficult to prioritize these issues in countries where often very basic needs of the population are still not properly met. So it happens sometimes that new legislation comes up, but it appears often with insufficient enforcement mechanisms, creating a real challenge in terms of effectiveness. As an example, our Data Protection Authority, ANPD, was created in 2020, while the legislation was already in force for some months, and we had no staff members, no financial resources, and only very recently have we been able to take some important steps in terms of creating a more robust institutional structure. But a second aspect that I think is very particular to Brazil is that we have a very well-known and very consolidated model of multi-stakeholder internet governance based on the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, CGI.BR, who is in fact organizing this panel. And over the last decade, considering the experience we had with the CGI, with the Marcos Civil do Internat, which is our civil rights-based framework for the internet, and also with the general data protection legislation, we have almost an implicit requirement that regulation aimed at the digital environment in Brazil should include a very high level of multi-stakeholder participation. This, I think, is very interesting. It’s almost a common expectation that when we discuss regulating the digital environment, all stakeholders should somehow become involved in the discussion. I think it’s a very interesting and very important aspect of our domestic setup here, and this has in fact been true not only for the process leading up to the approval of the Marcos Civil, but also for the process that led to the approval of the general data protection legislation, where we had lots of public consultations, public hearings, and intense negotiations until the very last minute, until the legislation could finally be agreed upon and approved formally by National Congress. Another aspect is that because we have this, I think, this psychological framework where we think that multi-stakeholderism is in fact important when we discuss digital regulation, is that there is also an expectation that regulatory bodies that deal with digital issues should also have formal consultation mechanisms in place. So in the case of the DPA, for instance, we have a legal requirement to carry out regulatory impact assessments, but also public consultations, public hearings. And in fact, we have an advisory board, a consultative committee that is multi-stakeholder, that involves governmental members and different members of society, academia, private sector, and so on, who is responsible for supervising and issuing advice to our DPA in terms of what our priorities should be, what our national policies should look like. So this, I think, is an interesting example, and I feel that one of the lessons we could maybe learn from the Brazilian experience is that when discussing platform regulation, multi-stakeholder participation is practically a de facto requirement to ensure that the legislation, when approved, is considered legitimate and also that it becomes, in fact, effective because of the consensus that is created around the terms that end up being approved. And in this sense, I think Mariela spoke a lot about how the multi-stakeholder model has been evolving, and I fully agree this is a concept that is still a work in progress in many senses. But I do think that what we have learned from the multi-stakeholder governance model to the internet, which also involves understanding the roles and responsibilities of different actors, right? This is certainly a model that could be taken into consideration when discussing platform regulation in general, taking into account also the contribution that existing legislation and existing public organizations can give to facing the challenges that digital platforms raise in our society nowadays. So thank you very much, Henrique. I look forward to the second round.

Moderator:
Thank you, Miriam. So, João, thanks for staying with us today. And maybe you can talk about your research on digital platform, especially in India. Thank you. The floor is yours. Thank you.

Joanne Cunhe:
Hi, I’m João. I’m from the Center for Communication Governance. We’re an academic center that’s out of a national law university in New Delhi, India. Henrique was just referring to some of the recent platform regulation work that we’re trying to do, given a lot of the work that’s happening in India on platform regulation, where we’re looking at seeing a new regulation that’s going to look at platforms, but also emerging technologies. And some of the things that I wanted to focus also in light of the larger discussion here is the challenges that India and some global south countries generally have when it comes to participating in regulation on platform governance. And a lot of these challenges stem from our challenges with just generally more global processes of coming together in forums and participating at those larger discussions. And I think that that would hold true for a lot of other global majority countries as well. Some of these discussions we’ve been having over the course of the last couple of days, and one of the first things that comes to mind more naturally is the issue of resources in general. To be able to participate in any global discussion or even within our national discussions, the capacity is a huge factor. And I think that that capacity, whether it’s financially being able to access these conversations or even just through personnel, there are a lot of challenges that do not allow a lot of voices from the global majority to be present. And then, of course, as a result, you have a lot of perspectives that are missing out in the conversation. And that’s especially when we’re thinking about the involvement of groups that either represent folks directly impacted from platform harms or even people that are studying the impact of some of these harms. So definitely resources is a huge consideration. And just in terms of personal capacity, I would think that when it comes to actually being in terms of meaningful participation at some of these conversations, at the larger levels especially, there are limits to how much civil society can come in on to be representative and even to engage in meaningful dialogue if you don’t have a lot of the other stakeholders like the technical community, the state representatives. And that kind of burden on civil society sometimes is really hard, especially if that’s not collaborative. And just the point on collaboration is what I wanted to talk next. But just before we get to that, when we think about the representatives from state and from industry or technical communities being involved in participation, something that has come from our research, not related to platform regulation, but an indication of one of the same challenges is that in a project that we’re working on with emerging technologies, specifically blockchain, we’re trying to explore standards development in the blockchain ecosystem. And what has come out quite often in terms of some of these representatives from industry and even government representatives being able to participate at the various standards bodies, forums, is quite difficult for them to do given the financial constraints that it sort of places on them to be able to attend these discussions. So not only is it expensive, but it’s also, it takes a lot of time and you have to have that kind of personnel. But coming back to my point on collaboration, I think that something that in the Indian context is slowly developing, but still at, I would say, not a stage to be able to make that much of a difference is that a civil society is slowly building up collaborations within. We have worked with each other over a very long period of time, but to be able to have that kind of collaboration that we’ve had in specific instances to be able to effectuate movement on regulation is somewhat slower, especially, I would say, and this is a challenge that can be there in some parts of the global south, but having that fragmentation can often make it difficult to have support at general forums that we are having these discussions in. But in India, we’ve seen a couple of instances where this has worked really well when we had our data protection bill being contemplated and it’s been going on for years now. I think we just had the bill come into law and some of the initial responses to the data protection bill had a lot of civil society gathering together to offer joint comments, to push the needle on conversations. Similarly, when we had issues with net neutrality in India, I think around 2014-15, there was huge collaboration within not only civil society, but other stakeholder groups. We had the technical community also come together and collaborate to make that change in saying that we needed net neutrality and then the proposal at that point was not okay. But just that this, because our stakeholder system is still developing and how we collaborate. with each other, we’re still in the process of being multi-stakeholder within this context itself. And to bring that even into global forums is in the process of happening. And something from the way that we work at the organization is that we’re, and this is also true for other organizations in this space, is that we’re trying to be more interdisciplinary, have that multi-stakeholder approach to the way that we even have conversations at a national level, trying to get in, being from a space that’s largely academic and legal oriented to ensure that you have social scientists, you have the technologists in the room when you’re trying to think about how policymaking should happen. Just having those voices, I would say, is something that is slowly, there’s a conscious effort towards it. I think that another linked challenge has been that when it comes to decision-making within the Indian context, there are different approaches to stakeholder participation in policy, in policymaking. For example, when I was talking about net neutrality in India, that was something that we saw, we saw proposals in a different manner, it come out in a different manner. For example, our telecom regulation authority offers the point of participation before an entire bill has sort of come into the public forum, so you have the opportunity to comment on a proposal, you have the opportunity to participate in how the idea is being developed. And there’s also a different approach that sometimes happens where with, say, our Data Protection Act that came out and possibly with the new Digital India Act, is that your point of participation starts at a draft bill, and so the involvement that you have at those beginning stages as stakeholders is somewhat limited, and so that also plays a role in how much you can have that level of stakeholder participation. And just one last thing before I close, is that I think that, and this once again holds true, I think for most contexts in the global majority, is that when you’re thinking about participation in terms of having all of your stakeholders together, it makes a huge difference if the kind of dynamics that are involved, if it’s asymmetric, if it’s between civil society and the state, or the state and platforms, the way that it plays out in each jurisdiction has a huge bearing on how you have that kind of participation in your own context, and having to tailor your approach depending on what works best for your context is extremely important, and I think that’s one of the things we can take away even when we’re thinking about multistakeholder participation at the global, in global processes and discussions, is that ensuring that that diversity and representation is not just, it’s not dominated by certain groups, you have actual representation that is properly diverse, to ensure that those kind of asymmetries, those kind of power dynamics no longer are present, and I think that it takes a lot of, it takes conscious effort to try and create those mechanisms that allow for this, but yes, I wanted to end on the point on power dynamics, because I think that that is something that we can take and learn from our own context, even when we approach more global forums and how the Global South participates at some of these global forums. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you, Joan. Unfortunately, Ms. Khadija is not online, maybe she has a problem, so our next speaker will be Renata Ivler, she’s CEO from Open Knowledge Foundation. Please, Renata, give your opinions and comments on those issues that we are talking here. The floor is yours.

Renata Ávila:
Thank you so much, I hope that you can hear me well. It is such an honor to be invited to this panel. CGI is an organization that I admire, I consider it a home away from home. It is a place where you feel that, you feel and you sense what can be a democratic governance of the Internet. And now that Brazil is back, as we say outside, we can say from the outside in a more easy way, now that Brazil is back in the multilateral and multilateral arena, I’m coming here with a great hope of what we can achieve with this interaction, multilateral, with the multistakeholder model that Brazil has developed in the processes that Brazil is going to lead in the very near future, including G20. I will tell you a little bit more about those dreams in a minute. But what I want to talk when talking about multistakeholder governance is, I want to talk from the perspective of the place I come from. I want to talk from the perspective of countries with a huge democratic deficit, with brutal inequalities within society, and with a very, very, very weak government hit by austerity measures constantly. And in such context, just to give you an example, we in Guatemala do not even have a privacy and data protection law. It’s 2023 and we don’t even have that law. In such context, something that becomes very, very, very important in this multistakeholder model is for companies to understand the relevance of not taking advantage of the, you know, like taking advantage of democratic deficits, of lack of legislation, just to, you know, go forum shopping and doing whatever they want in some jurisdictions while upholding the very high rights standards, just because the legislation, for example, in the European Union is more sophisticated than the legislation in Guatemala. Something that often is observed from the outside, is observed from civil society in countries like mine is that precisely that makes people using a platform in a different jurisdiction feel very, like, you know, like mistreated and somehow abandoned by a company that applies double standards, higher protection to some users than to others and higher mechanisms of, you know, more efficient mechanisms, just because the legislation in some countries forces companies to do so. And that, I want to highlight it because we have suffered in very complex settings, such as elections in the region, when we see, for example, dedicated offices for the big countries that represent an interesting share of the market for some electoral processes, and a fluid cooperation and dialogue between civil society and the companies. And in other countries, some companies will have like a closed doors meeting with powerful, not necessarily, you know, the most ethical actors, and civil society will have like, you know, a door slammed in the face. And we like, you know, try to like, try to find someone who might know someone inside of the company, and try to go through back channels to make the company aware of a very serious problem. We also have a problem when the government is not the most ethical government in the world. And there’s enough suspicions from the outside that the government is colluding with certain companies to either like, you know, get away with labor, you know, labor violations, or even even more concerning, you know, like with with deals, internal deals to favor, favor, like, the position of the government and enforce it without an adequate law framework. Then I want to also highlight here, the importance when you have a weak government that doesn’t have a dedicated office for or a mechanism for facilitating this multi stakeholder engagement, often what happens is it goes, it goes to the, the organism in charge is often the Ministry of Communications. It’s often like, you know, I don’t know, it’s the automatic default, that it goes to the Ministry of Communications. And it usually, while it might, it might look to the outside that through multi stakeholder processes taking place, what happens is a lot of participation washing, a nice couple of tables, what you would like, you know, invite someone from industry, someone like, you know, like a NOS ARC approach, two from here, two from there, two from there, and a couple of pictures are taken. And then a decision that is affecting a lot of communities not not present at the table is taken without notice. Often missing from table, missing even from the government side is the office of the human rights organism and National Human Rights Office. The ombudsman is not present. They have authorities are not present. Nobody representing the interest of children is present. Nobody is representing the interest of indigenous peoples is present in the case of my country, for example, is very relevant. The the problem when when there’s a not an adequate multi stakeholder model is that this leads to a completely unbalanced while looking from from the outside as participation what it is often the validation of the most powerful actor at the table point of view. I want to refer like very quickly to specific things that different actors in such context could take to to to achieve better multi stakeholder governance. In the in the case of companies, when you are like dealing with a small country, having explicit contact points is incredibly useful as a shortcut of establishing communication between different actors. Personally, I have I have to have had to do it with three countries, finding even the contact person when the company doesn’t have an office in the country, even in moments of emergency when there’s death threats or there’s like very serious situation going on is impossible. So having a specific point of contact in a place that’s accessible to all actors is extremely important. The second is do not do not do the double standard thing. I know that that’s very challenging because I know that the companies have one objective that is profit and that’s it. And sometimes it’s easier not to comply with the highest standard of regulation. But for users, it means a lot. The other thing is try to adopt this approach that you will have to adopt now with the DSA in Europe or have policies, procedures, measures and tools available for people to understand how you are operating in the you are operating your companies. We understand that many of the trade laws protect companies and enable them to be as opaque as possible. But in this context, if you have a commitment to multistakeholderism, you have to be more proactively transparent. And that leads me to academia. You have to open your doors to academics as well to understand really what is going on inside. Access to that data and openness to understand what is going on will provide us with enough information to come at the table and have meaningful participation rather than just performative participation. And the nice picture at the end. For governments, I think that the interagency approach is urgent. It can no longer belong, you know, like to just one unit. It can no longer be an issue of the Ministry of Telecommunications of a technical office somewhere dealing with science and technology. It has to be is an issue that now is central to public law and to the most at the highest level of the institutions that make the government operative for civil society. I think that looking inside, it is also necessary not only have the Internet experts at the table, again, being intergenerational, being intercultural and being aware of the tremendously complex rural-urban divide. And of course, the gender divides is necessary. And having the internal process within civil society to reach broader consensus is also very, very, very, very important. And not to replicate societal exclusions. And then we need to understand that there’s another process that we are seeing as a reaction in many countries of the lack of multistakeholder approaches that are really meaningful. And that is we are seeing more like not only nationally but transnationally the organization of users from different sectors around a platform protesting against the platform. We have seen it with Make Amazon Pay, for example. That’s a very interesting example on when you have a deficit in the governance and participation of people, people will organize and protest against what they see unjust. That said, for countries that are doing it well, the only thing that I can hope is that the model is shared broadly with other countries that need a similar approach. And having a model, a multistakeholder participation, a general frame will be extremely useful for countries, for example, in Latin America and in Africa to replicate. And having a South-South cooperation will become key to be stronger, not only as isolated countries but as regions, to have a better leverage with the legislation that we want and the frames that we want from the companies, but also to increase cooperation and collaboration across academia and across civil society that is meaningful. Yeah, that’s it. I would say the most important part of what I said is being aware that not everything is the EU and not everything is a country as sophisticated as Brazil or India. Let’s look outside and see how we can help.

Moderator:
Thank you, Renata. So, we have time for the debate here. If you have questions here at the audience, please go to the mic, and we also have a couple of questions online. I believe you first respond to our speakers a question that comes online, and after, please go to the mic and make your considerations also in questions. Juliano, do you have something from online?

Online Moderator:
Thank you, Henrique. We have received two questions. I may read them through here. First question is, platform regulation may present a broad regulatory agenda. How to cope with the transversality of the phenomenon of platformization in developing national regulation for digital platform? Second question is, considering the challenges of digital platform regulation governance, what are the pros and cons of a centralized model with more state protagonism in a polycentric model with a more balanced protagonism between state and civil society?

Moderator:
So, all the speakers are free to respond to one of those questions. One of you could exercise on that, please.

Miriam Wimmer:
I could perhaps offer some initial comments, Henrique. So, I think both questions are really interesting, and they discuss the question of the institutional setup to deal with the phenomenon that is very cross-cutting, very transversal, and reflects, in fact, I think in a broader sense, the idea of platformization of everything, government platformization, private business models platformization. And I think both questions are very relevant because they touch upon the idea that multiple regulators may at some point in time be called to act when dealing with digital platforms. And as I mentioned earlier, I think the huge challenge we have is firstly making sure that these different pieces of legislation fit well together in a jigsaw puzzle that creates a coherent picture. And I think this is a challenge not only for the Global South, but also for Europe, for instance, who is discussing DSA, DMA, AIAC, GDPR, and the pieces seem to not be yet quite fully interoperable. And the second issue, then, is how to make sure that in the day-to-day enforcement of legislation, the different regulators are actually speaking to each other and making sure that their approaches are coherent and they are acting under a systematic understanding of the whole legislation applying to the digital scenario, which is huge and cross-cutting, as mentioned. I think the second question raises also an interesting point, when it compares centralized models versus polycentric models involving state and civil society. I would argue that the models, a centralized model for platformization, is actually a very good model. I think the second question raises also an interesting point, when it compares centralized models versus polycentric models involving state and civil society. I would argue that the models, a centralized model for platform regulation does not really seem feasible simply because platforms raise so many questions in so many different fields, such as labor relations, misinformation, human rights protection, competition aspects. So it does seem to me that we, it doesn’t really make sense to discuss a centralized regulator for the entire digital ecosystem. So we would necessarily be discussing the need for multi-agency cooperation and government, which is the point I think Hinata made in her speech previously. And my feeling is that in the same way that we can discuss the compatibility between multi-stakeholder and multilateral approaches, we can also discuss models and frameworks that involve both traditional governmental regulation, but also… associated with multi-stakeholder participation. And I think there are many different models we could debate. I think there is a model in place in Brazil, which could certainly be perfected, which involves agencies with advisory boards, with mandatory participation procedures. And here again, I would like to echo what Hemata said. We cannot simply have this, you know, just for show we need meaningful participation. This is in fact a challenge. But I would say that a polycentric model involving different state organizations, but also civil society, seems to me to be more appropriate considering the complexity of the digital environment and the many different aspects that we are aiming to regulate when we discuss platform regulation. Thank you.

Moderator:
Sunil raised his hand and also Hemata. Please, Sunil, make your comments.

Sunil Abraham:
Yeah, thank you so much. I also wanted to connect what both these questions are interrogating with the point that Joanne made earlier. I’d like to recall the case study of the conflict between 5G and 5GI, indigenous standard proposed by both academics and also Indian government entities. As Joanne argued, the lack of structured resources in order to ensure that there is regular participation at fora such as 3GPP, resulted in the Indian proposal that covered rural connectivity and remote connectivity low mobility, large cell. That proposal was not part of the main 5G standard. And then the Indian community decided to fork the standard and have an alternative indigenous standard that would have come with big consequences, especially losing out on the network effects of hardware manufacturing. But fortunately, that story ended well. And the 5G committee accepted the LMLC extension to the standard. The second thing I’d like to say is when I hear questions, as you have read out, I’m always tempted to answer both and. It is almost that we always need everything that is being proposed. And I’ll use two examples. Let’s look at open standards such as WCAG for disability. Ideally, a mature standard like that should be mandated by the state. That is the way we will protect the rights of the disabled. But another inquiry space, as I had just covered in my first intervention, fairness benchmarks for AI models. That is somewhere where multiple benchmarks are evolving. And perhaps we don’t want a mandate at this point because there are some companies pursuing an open model, other companies pursuing a proprietary model. We need fairness benchmarks that work for everybody. And therefore, a mandate at this stage is premature. And therefore, the polycentric vision of governance is much more appropriate. I’ll end my comments there.

Renata Ávila:
Yeah, and I wanted to also respond to the second question. And I also agree with Sunil that it’s both and. And the and, my and is civil society needs access to the problematization and need mechanisms to trigger the multi-stakeholder mechanism. It is usually top down and does not bottom up. And that’s a problem. Like it is only when we need to launch campaigns and we need to make a lot of noise from the side of civil society to finally trigger the mechanism often or wait for the next meeting or so on. And I think that if civil society is enabled to design the process, if some room is given for civil society to design and trigger this process to be activated when discussing a problem or discussing something urgent, discussing something relevant, the multi-stakeholder will be, this polycentric approach will be like more agile, but also the centralized approach will be more agile. I, again, you know, like I remember the robust case of Marco Civil and then the NetMundial process that took place in Brazil. And how did, I remember that I was dividing my day between two spaces. It was the NetMundial, the arena NetMundial when youth was participating, when it was actually something arena NetMundial was a process that was bottom up. It was a process that, okay, if all the countries are like gathering dirt and there’s a lot of noise, very technical, let’s create a space for expression with our own rules showing instead of just telling people how we are making the internet work. And it was quite wonderful to have this coexistence of more creative and open spaces showing how the technology is lived by different parts of the society. And not only the, you know, like the invitation on the meeting with just one spot for one member of the society. So access to problematization, access to the design of the process and a possibility to activate the processes when needed.

Moderator:
Thank you, Renata. We have a question for the audience, Camila.

Audience:
Thank you. Hi, good afternoon. I’m Camila Leite. I’m from the Brazilian Institute of Consumer Defense, IDEC. And we’re talking lots about how the challenges are transversal to lots of issues and how it’s important to cooperate. You were talking about cooperation in terms of different stakeholders. So multi-sectorialism between authorities, between different laws and also between different countries. But beyond of this important role of cooperation, we also have some challenges related to cooperation. I’m very supportive of that, but we have to face these challenges. And I know that we have lots of challenges when we’re talking about dynamic markets, when we’re talking about new regulations. But for example, in terms of cooperation between authorities, we can take longer to answer. We might have a decision that might be a soft law than a hard law when needed. And it might be necessary, but it might postpone some important actions. And the regulation might solve that, but the time can be longer. And also between countries, we have these global issues, but sometimes we have different answers in different countries, which might be also a response to the national and to the regional context. But we are talking about global problems. We are talking about a national context. So how can we harmonize that? I know that we don’t have a silver bullet to all of that, but how can we face these challenges related to cooperation? Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you for the question, Camila. Someone from the speakers could respond or comment.

Miriam Wimmer:
I don’t really feel entitled to respond, but I can certainly comment. And I think Camila has a very important point when she states the practical difficulties of cooperation. And I speak in the position of a civil servant who has been working in government for 17 years now almost. And in fact, the truth is that cooperation does not arise spontaneously because people wish to cooperate. It has to be crafted into legislation. There have to be procedures for cooperation to take place. And even when this exists, it’s not always easy. It’s usually hill up. As a regulator, I say we take twice as much time when we have to convince other governmental agencies to reach consensus in a certain position. So it’s not easy, but it is necessary, I think. And I think it’s a bit the same position we have with regard to multistakeholderism and public participation. It takes time. It gives lots of work for regulators to analyze contributions in a substantive manner, not only for show. It makes procedures take longer than they would if we decided in a top-down manner. But it is important to make the end result more legitimate and more effective, in my point of view. So I don’t really have the answer for that, Camila. I think you have an important point, but I don’t see any way around cooperation.

Renata Ávila:
Yeah, very quickly. That sometimes, you know, civil society can be like the secret weapon for that cooperation to happen. Well, it happened with a case on WhatsApp, actually, when WhatsApp wanted, a couple of years ago, to change their policies and, you know, to get lots of people in the Global South to simply accept and update on terms and conditions. It was amazing cooperation among the antitrust and consumer protection authorities behind, you know, behind, it was not very public, but it was happening. And civil society facilitated exchange of practices and exchange of cases that there were, a couple of cases were launched in the EU and in Turkey. And then these authorities shared how the reasoning behind a case of antitrust case in this change of conditions because of dominant position and so on. It was quite amazing to see when we connect, like civil society was like the facilitator for the connection of authorities, of consumer protection and antitrust. And the magic happened because, you know, like they could talk to their peers on a specific case. And that’s also a very important aspect of multi-stakeholder cooperation. Not all the stakeholders need to be invited at the table at the same time, all the times. It can happen, collaboration can happen between actors, not necessarily always involving the same actors in the government and always involving the private sector. We need our time and our space to share without some of the actors and it enables good things to happen.

Moderator:
Thank you, Renata. I have a question. I would like to send you, Abraham, as a person from META. As soon as we have those new regulations on platform on Europe, how you think, how you happen with the META platforms global? Because somehow when we implement some features on the system to comply with European regulation, maybe it will be worthwhile to, that those features should be applied to other geographies. So can you respond about how you think it will happen after the approval in Europe of DSA and DMA? Please, Abraham, if you can answer.

Sunil Abraham:
Thank you so much for that question. So I can shed a little light on how the regulation readiness teams within META operate. What basically happens is there are policy teams and legal teams that keep track of a variety of enacted law and also proposed law across many, many jurisdictions. And when the engineers are analyzing this corpus of laws and obligations, both current and future, their compliance engineering approach is to build for artifacts that can be deployed in multiple jurisdictions. So you’re absolutely right that if a particular user right is enabled, for example, in the GDPR, then that user right is also rolled out in other jurisdictions where that legal obligation may not exist at all. But there are also instances where the legal obligations are conflicting. So for example, there are legal obligations in the Indian context that conflict with legal obligations from other jurisdictions. And then the task before the engineers is to build compliance to both obligations. And in those cases, it is not always possible to roll out something that is specifically there in Europe, across the world. I’ll go back to the point Renato made about having an explicit contact point. This is something that is quite mature within the context of European regulations. In Indian law, especially the IT law, there is a requirement to have three people employed by the global corporation and stationed in the India office. And these three people have to be available both to users, at least one of them has to be, and then the others have to be available to government stakeholders. And this is something, as Renato pointed out, is a obligation that is user empowering. That is definitely the case. But unfortunately, the obligation also comes with personal criminal liability. And the additional complexity in the Indian law makes it much harder for us to automatically sort of homogenize our compliance approach. And therefore, compliance in one jurisdiction often will look different from compliance in another jurisdiction.

Moderator:
Thank you. So we are short in time. So I will ask for our speakers from his final remarks, starting from Maria Elza. Maria Elza, please. Maria Elza is left. We have to leave already. It’s true, of course. So Joanne, you can start with your final comments.

Joanne Cunhe:
Thank you. I think that we’ve covered a lot of different things, a lot of different topics within how we should approach platform regulation in the global majority. Our approaches, of course, have to be extremely tailored to our specific context. And the questions that we had just now, like the speakers have said, there aren’t any clear answers. But I would just say that I think that as we’re currently trying to understand how to regulate for our own context and to see what those nuances are that need to reflect, even in global conversations, I think that it will definitely give us a better sense of what we should expect and what we should rally for when we’re thinking about just platform regulation and general governance in larger conversations. Thank you.

Miriam Wimmer:
Okay, next meeting. One minute for your final comments because we’re short of time. Thank you. I’d just like to thank you for the opportunity to take part in this debate. It was really illuminating. I really enjoyed the comments and I look forward to other opportunities. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Zanjou, please, your final comments. Yeah, again, a very quick intervention to say that I agreed with another point that Renato made on transparency being the best antidote for a variety of concerns. And I’d like to point to upgrades to our election ads, to our ads library, which I think is important for civil society and academics to hold us to account.

Renata Ávila:
Thank you. Renato. And last words, South-South cooperation. We have a big imbalance of power here and imperfect multi-stakeholder models in many, many countries. So let’s share the good multi-stakeholder practices regarding platforms and let’s learn from each other and connect not only across different multi-stakeholder bodies in different countries, but as communities of people studying the platforms and people holding the platforms accountable. And let’s share the good results, but also let’s share when we are not successful, the results that that led, like when there’s democratic deficit and a problem is caused locally, we need to document this well. So it’s not repeated elsewhere. And so the big platforms that are like serving many users in many countries can correct promptly with the pressure of more than one jurisdiction.

Moderator:
Thank you, Renato. So thank you for everybody that participate in this fruitful debate. I hope that the debate is, you continue inside IGF and other areas. And I will need to say that CGI-BR is working very hard on that issue, mainly in Brazil with our consultation and next recommendations. And I will keep it informed about the results of our consultation in Brazil. Thank you very much. So we’ll close this session. Thank you.

Juan Carlos Lara

The discussions revolve around the challenges posed by online violence, discrimination, and disinformation in the digital public debate. These harmful effects have far-reaching impacts, particularly against marginalised and vulnerable communities and groups. The failure of both private tech companies and states to fully comply with their human rights obligations has worsened these challenges.

Regulatory proposals have emerged globally in response to these issues in the digital public sphere. These proposals aim to address concerns such as competition, data protection, interoperability, transparency, and due diligence. Efforts by international organisations to provide guidelines and regional blocs reacting with their own concerns have contributed to this regulatory landscape.

While regulation is necessary, it is crucial that it does not infringe upon the principles of freedom of expression and privacy. The question of how to strike a balance between regulation and these fundamental rights remains a point of debate. It is important to consider the potential fragmentation of the internet and the lack of regulatory debates in many regions of the majority world.

Soft law principles, as well as the application of international human rights laws, play a crucial role in guiding the behaviour of companies in the digital sphere. They have provided valuable guidance for alternative frameworks. However, the effectiveness of these principles and laws is a matter of discussion.

In conclusion, the discussions highlight the urgent need to address the challenges posed by online violence, discrimination, and disinformation. While regulatory proposals have emerged globally, it is essential to ensure that the regulation strikes a balance between protecting human rights, such as freedom of expression and privacy, and addressing the harmful effects of the digital public sphere. Soft law principles and international human rights laws provide valuable guidance for company behaviour, but ongoing discussions are needed to determine their effectiveness. Overall, collaborative efforts between governments, tech companies, and civil society are essential to achieve a digital space that upholds human rights and promotes a more inclusive and equitable society.

Chantal Duris

Chantal Duris stressed the importance of adopting both regulatory and non-regulatory approaches to address challenges related to social media platforms. She expressed concern about legislations that primarily hold platforms accountable for user speech, rather than addressing the underlying business models. Duris highlighted the potential dangers of such approaches, as they can impact freedom of expression. She advocated for platforms to operate based on the UN Guiding Principles, regardless of regulatory status, emphasizing the need to respect human rights. Duris also emphasized the importance of addressing the root causes of issues like disinformation and hate speech, both through regulating business models and exploring solutions outside the digital space. She supported the decentralization of social media platforms to empower users and enhance freedom of expression. Duris expressed concern about the limitations of automated content moderation tools and suggested the need for more human reviewers with language expertise. She discussed the trend of strategic litigation against platforms, highlighting that it could hold them accountable for failures to respect human rights. Duris recognized the challenge of keeping pace with evolving technology and regulatory initiatives, but argued that both platforms and regulators should take responsibility for upholding human rights. She also noted the growing recognition of civil society’s role in the digital space and the increasing consultations and engagements sought by platforms and regulators. Overall, Duris highlighted the need for a multi-faceted approach, incorporating regulatory measures, adherence to UN Guiding Principles, addressing root causes, decentralization, improving content moderation, and recognizing the role of civil society, with platforms and regulators sharing responsibility for upholding human rights.

Ana Cristina Ruelas

Summary:

Addressing harmful content online requires a multidimensional approach that takes into account linguistic nuances, cultural context, and the protection of freedom of expression. This is highlighted by the need to consider the complexities of different languages and crisis situations when moderating content. Companies must align their actions with the UN guiding principles to ensure their policies prioritise transparency, accountability, and human rights.

Education and community engagement play integral roles in tackling harmful content. Media and information literacy programmes empower users to navigate online spaces responsibly, while fostering a sense of shared responsibility in maintaining a safer online environment. Furthermore, a synergistic effort is necessary, combining policy advice, regulation, and the involvement of multiple stakeholders. This involves a multi-stakeholder process that includes the development, implementation, and evaluation of regulations.

Collaboration between regulators and civil society is vital to effective enforcement. Creating conversations between these groups can help reduce tensions and enhance the efficacy of regulations. Regulators should not feel abandoned after legislation is passed; ongoing enforcement and operation of laws must be a key focus.

To achieve a balanced and collective approach in dealing with companies, stakeholders from different regions are coming together. For example, the African Union is taking steps to address companies with a united front. This collective approach allows for better negotiation and more equitable outcomes.

It is important to emphasise a balanced, human rights-based approach when dealing with companies. Among the 40 countries analysed, some believe that this approach is the correct path forward. By prioritising the principles of human rights, such as freedom of expression and inclusive stakeholder participation, governments can create a regulatory framework that safeguards individuals while promoting peace, justice, and strong institutions.

In conclusion, tackling harmful content online requires a comprehensive and nuanced strategy. Such an approach considers linguistic nuances, cultural context, and the protection of freedom of expression. It involves aligning company actions with UN guiding principles, prioritising education and community engagement, and establishing effective regulatory processes that involve collaboration between regulators and civil society. With these measures in place, a safer online environment can be achieved without compromising individual rights and the pursuit of global goals.

Pedro Vaca

The current dynamics of freedom of expression on the internet are concerning, as there is a deterioration of public debate. This raises the need to ensure that processes, criteria, and mechanisms for internet content governance are compatible with democratic and human rights standards. Moreover, limited access to the internet, including connectivity and digital literacy, poses a challenge in enhancing civic skills online.

Recognising the importance of addressing these issues, digital media and information literacy programmes should be integrated into education efforts. By equipping individuals with the necessary skills to navigate the digital landscape, they can critically evaluate information, participate in online discussions, and make informed decisions.

State actors have a responsibility to avoid using public resources to finance content that spreads illicit and violent materials. They should instead promote human rights, fostering a safer and more inclusive online environment. In addition, internet intermediaries bear the responsibility of respecting the human rights of users. This entails ensuring the protection of user privacy, freedom of expression, and access to information.

Managing the challenges in digital public debate requires a multidimensional approach. Critical digital literacy is vital in empowering individuals to engage in meaningful discourse, while the promotion of journalism supports a free and informed press. Internet intermediaries must also play a role in upholding human rights standards and fostering a healthy online debate.

Upon further analysis, it is evident that there is a lack of capacity and knowledge among member states regarding internet regulation. This poses a significant challenge in effectively addressing issues related to content governance and user rights. Efforts should be made to enhance understanding and collaboration among countries to develop effective and inclusive policies.

Shifting the focus towards the role of public servants and political leaders presents an opportunity to reduce discrimination and inequality. By implementing stronger regulation, especially for political leaders, their limited freedom of expression compared to ordinary citizens can be addressed. Adhering to inter-American and international standards can serve as a guideline for ensuring accountability and promoting a fair and inclusive public sphere.

Overall, this extended summary highlights the importance of protecting freedom of expression online, promoting digital literacy, and holding both state actors and internet intermediaries accountable. It also emphasizes the need for increased collaboration and knowledge-sharing among member states to effectively address the challenges in the digital realm.

Ramiro Alvarez Ugarte

The global discussion on the regulation of online platforms is gaining momentum, with diverse viewpoints and arguments emerging. The Digital Services Act (DSA) implemented in Europe is being viewed as a potential model for global regulation. Bills resembling the DSA have been presented in Latin American congresses. Additionally, several states in the US have passed legislation imposing obligations on platforms.

Legal challenges concerning companies’ compliance with human rights standards and the First Amendment are being debated. These challenges can have both positive and negative implications for holding companies accountable. For instance, companies have faced litigation in the US for alleged violations of the First Amendment.

In addition to regulatory measures, there is recognition of the potential of non-regulatory initiatives, such as counter-speech and literacy programs, in addressing the challenges posed by online platforms. These initiatives aim to empower individuals to discern between fake and real information and combat disinformation. Successful implementation of counter-speech initiatives has been observed during Latin American elections.

Nevertheless, concerns exist about the potential negative consequences of well-intentioned legislation on online platforms. It is argued that legislation, even if well-designed, may have unintended harmful effects in countries with insufficient institutional infrastructure.

The tension between decentralization and the need for regulatory controls is another point of contention. A fully decentralized internet, while offering freedom of choice, may facilitate the spread of discriminatory content. Balancing the desire for increased controls to prevent harmful speech with the concept of decentralization is a challenge.

Polarization further complicates the discussion on online platform regulation. Deep polarization hampers progress in implementing regulatory or non-regulatory measures. However, it also presents an opportunity to rebuild the public sphere and promote civic discourse, which is essential for overcoming polarization.

In conclusion, the global conversation on regulating online platforms is complex and multifaceted. The potential of the DSA as a global regulatory model, legal challenges against companies, non-regulatory measures like counter-speech and literacy programs, concerns about the unintended consequences of legislation, the tension between decentralization and regulatory controls, and the challenge of polarization all contribute to this ongoing discourse. Rebuilding the public sphere and fostering civic discourse are seen as positive steps towards addressing these challenges.

Juan Carlos Lara:
The mic is open, guys. What? The mic is open. It’s a hot mic. I think it is time to start. So it is now the moment in which we begin this panel, this session right here. Welcome everyone who is attending this in the final day of the IGF 2023. This is open forum number 139, non-regulatory approaches to the digital public debates. Are we going to speak Spanish? OK, cool. So welcome to this session. This is the final day of this year’s IGF. It is a pleasure to be with you all. First of all, I want to thank the organizers of this here event, representing the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States. Thanks also to the representatives of Sweden and the European Court of Human Rights that have supported the proposal for this session. And also to the Foundation for the Freedom of the Press in Colombia and the Center for Freedom of Expression and Access to Information at the University of Palermo in Argentina. Second of all, I will introduce myself. My name is Juan Carlos Lara. I work for Derechos Digitales, a civil society organization working on the intersection of human rights and digital technologies in Latin America. I am coming from the city of Santiago in Chile, and my colleagues are scattered throughout the Latin American region. Our concern as an organization is how digital technologies can be used for the exercise of human rights, as well as they can be a threat to human rights when they are regulated or misused by actors both private and public. Finally, I’m going to briefly introduce the panelists. Just by name, they will be introducing themselves when it’s time for their own interventions. We are accompanied at this hour online by Mr. Pedro Vaca, the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights in the Organization of American States. Here on site, we have Ana Cristina Reyes, Senior Program Specialist at the Freedom of Expression and Safety of Journalists section in UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. By Chantal Duris, Legal Officer at Article 19, the International Human Rights Organization working to protect and promote the rights of freedom of expression. And by Ramiro Alvarez-Ugarte, Deputy Director at the Center for Studies on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information at the University of Palermo, Argentina. Thank you all once again for attending this, and thank you to the panelists who will be speaking in turn in a few minutes. The rules of this panel are as follows. We will begin with a brief overview of the situation which has motivated this discussion here on what the digital public debate landscape and the challenges to human rights are with regards to online expression. After that, each speaker will have 10 minutes for their interventions. After that, if time allows, we will have a second round of reactions and participation, hopefully, for audience interventions mediated by the moderators here on site and also online. The guiding question that will open this discussion is on the possibilities of non-regulatory approaches, whether they can succeed and the challenges they present. But to introduce the subject, a few words from the moderator here, because we understand that in the intricate terrain of the digital public debates, we have faced for a long time a series of challenges to human rights that have been compounded, that have been reinforced, that have been worsened. In some cases, by events around the world. And the failure of both private tech companies and states to fully comply with their human rights obligations has had profound consequences affecting democratic institutions, human rights, and the rule of law. And with the backgrounds of global and local crises in terms of war, disease, authoritarian rule, and human rights abuses that happen both offline and online, we are faced with challenges to human rights that oftentimes are addressed or attempted to be addressed through regulatory response, but because of the presence and the importance of private actors. This always entails also an interaction with companies that often have more power or more resources than many states. Over time, we have witnessed the far-reaching impact of online violence, discrimination, and disinformation in the digital public debate, issues that have cast shadows over the virtual landscape, leading to harm, especially against marginalized and vulnerable communities and groups. What was once a platform promising diverse voices and perspective has seen troubling developments, hostile communicative environments, particularly for traditionally discriminated groups. Furthermore, the discourse has become polarized, distorting the conversations around essential matters and eroding trust in authoritative sources, such as academia, traditional media sometimes, and also public health authorities. To address these challenges, some regulatory proposals have come to the forefront at a global scale. We have seen that there are efforts by international organizations to provide guidelines, to provide guidance for regulatory response. We have seen that regional blocs have also reacted with their own concerns, but many of these intricate systems have aimed to tackle various diverse, different, but interconnected issues, including competition, data protection, interoperability, transparency, and due diligence in the digital public sphere. And while these efforts are critical for responsible behavior online and for protecting human rights, they also introduce complex questions and concerns that demand careful consideration about the balance of rights, about the roles of states, about jurisdictional issues, and the enforceability of the provisions that are created. One of the pivotal questions that emerges is related to the fragmentation of the internet. And while regulation is essential for safeguarding human rights, it is vital that these regulations do not inadvertently infringe upon the principles of freedom of expression, of privacy, and the rest of the human rights. So striking a delicate balance in the digital world is a formidable challenge. Notably, in many regions, regulatory debates have been in their infancy or have been completely absent, especially in many regions in the majority world. And in this context, soft law principles, the application of international human rights laws, have played a crucial role in guiding the behavior of companies that mediate online communications. These principles have provided valuable guidance for alternative frameworks, but their effectiveness is a matter of discussion and debate. So in response to this debate, we are going to speak this morning here about what these challenges are. Since we have seen the advance of a global trend to regulate platforms and the internet in general as a path to address the growing threats of human rights, what are the limitations of these proposals? If they have limited effects, in some cases can present these tensions with the balance of human rights. What other policies, what other institutional and legal frameworks have been implemented globally or can be implemented globally or regionally to propel freedom of expression online and its diverse, equal, fair, non-discriminatory, and democratic online public debates? The first word is going to be to Mr. Pedro Vaca, the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights. So please, Pedro, go ahead. Thank you.

Pedro Vaca:
Good morning there. I hope you’re having a great IGF this year. Thank you very much. Firstly, I would like to highlight that in the Americas, we identified that the current dynamics of freedom of expression on the internet are characterized by at least three aspects. The first one is the deterioration of the public debate. The second is the need to make processes, criterias, and mechanisms for internet content governance compatible with democratic and human rights standards. And third, the lack of access, including connectivity and digital literacy to enhance civic skills online. And this is closely related to dynamics of violence, disinformation, inequalities, and the opportunities of participation in the public debate, and the viralization of extremist content. We understand at the rapporteurship that diverse and reliable information and free, independent, and diverse media are affecting disinformation, violence, and human rights violations, and that this requires multidimensional and multistakeholder responses that are well-grounded in the full range of human rights. As people worldwide increasingly rely on the internet to connect, learn, and consume news, it is imperative to develop connectivity, and access to the internet is an indispensable enabler of a broad range of human rights, including access to information. Interoperable, reliable, and secure internet for all, facilitated individuals’ enjoyment of their rights, including freedom of expression, opinion, and peaceful assembly is only possible if we have more people accessing and sharing information online. Additionally, in the informational scenario of media and digital communication, citizens and consumers should be given new tools to help them assess the origin and likely veracity of news stories they read online. Since the potential to access and spread information in this environment is relatively easy, and malicious actors benefit from it to manipulate the public debate. In this sense, critical digital literacy aims to empower users to consume content critically, as a prerequisite for online engagement by identifying issues of bias, prejudice, misrepresentation. Critical digital literacy, however, should also be about understanding the position of digital media technologies in society. This goes beyond understanding digital media content to include knowledge of the wider socioeconomic structures within which digital technologies are embedded. So here we have a few questions. How are social media platforms funded? Or for instance, what is the role of advertisement? To what extent is content free or regulated? Given the importance for the exercise of rights in the digital age, digital media and information literacy programs should be considered an integral part of education efforts. The promotion of digital media and information literacy must form part of a broader commitment by states to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights and by business entities. Likewise, initiatives to promote journalism are key in facing informational manipulation and distortion which requires states and private actors to promote the diversity of digital and non-digital media. On the other hand, the role of public officials in the public debate is highlighted. It is recalled that state actors must preserve the balance and conditions of the exercise of the right of access to information and freedom of expression. Therefore, such actors should not use public resources to finance content on sites, applications, or platforms that spread illicit and violent content and should not promote or encourage stigmatization and must observe obligations to promote human rights which includes promoting the protection of users against online violence. The state has a positive role in creating and enabling environment for freedom of expression and equality while recognizing that this brings potential for abuse. In this sense, in the Americas, we have a recent example in Colombia of a decision by the Constitutional Court that urged political parties to adopt guidelines in their code of ethics to sanction acts or incitement to online violence. In this paradigmatic decision, the court recalled the obligation of the state to educate about the seriousness of online violence and gender online violence and to implement measures to prevent, investigate, punish, and repel it. And also, the court insisted that the political actors, parties, and movements, due to their importance in the democratic regime, are obliged to promote, respect, and defend human rights as a duty that must be reflected in their actions and in their attitudes. Additionally, the court ruled that the state should adopt the necessary measures to establish a training plan for members and affiliates of political parties and movements on gender perspective and online violence against women in response. Considering that unloveful and violent narratives are propelled by state actors on the internet through paid actors should follow specific criteria in the ad market. Any paid contracting for content by state actors or candidates must report through active transparency on the government or political party portals the data regarding the value of the contract, the contracted company, and the form of contracting, the content resource distribution mechanisms, the audience segmentation criteria, and the number of exhibition. On the other hand, to make business activity compatible with human rights possible, the office of the special rapporteur reiterates that internet intermediaries are responsible of respecting the human rights of users. In this sense, they should first refrain from infringing human rights and address negative consequences on such rights in which they have some participation, which implies taking appropriate measures to prevent, mitigate, and where appropriate, remedy them. Second, try to prevent or mitigate negative consequences on human rights directly related to operations, products, or services provided by their business relationship, even when they have not contributed to generating them. Third, to adopt a public commitment at the highest level regarding respect for human rights of users, and that is duly reflected in operational policies and procedures. And fourth, carry out due diligence activities that identify and explain the actual and potential impacts of their activities on human rights, which is called also impact assessments. In particular, by periodically carrying out analysis of the risk and effects of their operations. In conclusion, to wrap up, the challenges facing the digital public debate require a multidimensional approach. Soft law, as was stated before, education, self-regulation, and legal mechanisms can together create a framework to mitigate harms we face online. Let us strive for a digital space where freedom of expression and the protection of human rights are promoted, fostering a society that values inclusivity, diversity, and respect for all.

Juan Carlos Lara:
Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Mr. Pedrovaca. Thank you for those remarks. And thank you for also starting this conversation addressing the need for a multidimensional approach. This is not necessarily a discussion of regulatory or non-regulatory measures, but apparently of different types of measures at the same time. And we will now listen to the rest of our panelists, beginning, of course, with our second onsite participant here, Mrs. Ana Cristina Ruelas, Senior Program Specialist at the Freedom of Expression and Safety of Journalists section in UNESCO. Please, Ana Cristina, you have 10 minutes. Thank you.

Ana Cristina Ruelas:
Thank you very much. It’s an honor to share this panel with you, Pedro. Good to see you. So as Pedro said, from UNESCO, we have a holistic approach to try to deal and understand with this phenomenon. UNESCO tries to foster public debate through education measures that I will not speak quite a lot about, because this is not my area of expertise. But there’s a lot of work done with teachers, with educators, to target potential harmful content and harmful content online. There’s a specific work that is being done to develop resilience in different communities, primarily in four countries, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Indonesia, Colombia, and Kenya, through the Social Media for Peace Project, which is founded by the European Union, and aims to create media and information literacy measures, but also to develop a way of understanding how content moderation is happening in these different countries, and what are the different issues and context-related matters that allow this harmful content to be spread. There’s another action that is happening that relates to capacity building on different stakeholders, duty barriers, such as judges, parliamentarians, regulators, in order to understand that when dealing with potential harmful content, there’s a name to safeguard freedom of expression, access to information, and diverse cultural content. And there’s work done, also, through the cultural sector, in order to understand the impacts of harmful content in artistic freedoms and cultural expressions, such as indigenous expressions. And the last thing, which I think is also important, is that we also have another action that is related to policy advice and guiding member states in the process of acknowledging that governance of digital platforms requires, as Pedro has mentioned, to safeguard freedom. of expression, access to information, and diverse cultural content, while balancing and while addressing the phenomenon of disinformation, hate speech, conspiracy, charity, and propaganda. So in this session, I will focus in two main and specific projects that UNESCO is being putting forward lately. And I will start with the Social Media for Peace Project, which is one of the projects that, as I said, started in four different countries and allow us to understand what is happening with content moderation and how is it affecting different communities, and also how a non-regulatory approach can be successful while it’s holistic with other different type of solutions. So the first thing that we learn within the Social Media for Peace Project is that context matters. This means that when it comes to content moderation, language cannot be just left aside. There’s specific languages in different regions that are important to understand in order to address content moderation issues. And this is not happening in many countries, or mainly in the countries that we’re working on. That specifically are also countries that are in crisis, or that come from crisis. The second thing that it is important that we found is that despite acknowledging the crisis, despite of the lack of knowledge and context and nuances that the platforms should understand, and that the problems that hateful content can create in an offline world, there’s a problem of not considering these countries as a priority, and then not providing enough funding for the development of content moderation measures. So companies have specific priorities to those countries that have a global impact, or that represent a market share that are important. And in those countries that this is not happening, they are not putting sufficient budget to them. And then this is increasing and creating more problems. The Social Media for Peace project also understood that when dealing with these problems, the most important thing to bear in mind is to have the capacity to dialogue between the different stakeholders. Acknowledging that in conflict zones, there are many issues that should be, like that in the offline world are happening, that have to be considered in the online world. So that’s why due diligence from the platforms is very important. Understanding the context, having the possibility to develop risk assessment and identify the specific mitigation measures that they have to put in place in order to reduce the specific risk based on the context is very, very important. But while doing this work, and I want to say there was two main approaches. The first one is the fate on the companies to turn their economic interest on how content moderation was doing through the public interest of making people know and reducing the impact of this content that many times it’s also a harvest through advertising as it’s already been mentioned. So that’s the first question. Are we keeping the fate on changing or shifting the economic interest to the public interest from the companies? Many people still believe in these countries that this can be one of the approaches to push for companies to increase their budgets in order to do better content moderation and then have a safer space. Then there’s other approach, which mainly come from the states that Pedro has already comment, which is try to reduce this phenomenon with bad regulation, with regulation that does not safeguard freedom of expression that criminalizes the user and does not touch the companies that considers that the only and solely responsible for harmful content is specifically the user. And that is another approach. And then UNESCO, after the work that is being done through the social media piece, they started saying, okay, as we are not acknowledging that these are the two different approaches, what we need to also is to start a debate that allow us to understand if it’s possible to balance freedom of expression, access to information and the access to diverse cultural content with while dealing with potential harmful content such as disinformation, hate speech and conspiracy theories. And while doing this debate, UNESCO started a consultation that led to more than 10,000 comment that came from the engagement of people from around 134 countries. And what we learned is that when governance systems are transparent, have check and balances put in place, they align content moderation and creation to the UN guiding principles of human rights. When they are accessible and inclusive to that diverse expertise and what they actually take bearing in mind the promotion of cultural content, then it can be a game changer. So that’s why UNESCO started developing these guidelines for the governance of digital platforms that on the one hand, recognize the state responsibilities on enabling a freedom of expression environment that such as Pedro has mentioned had a specific requirements for the governments to commit not only to freedom of expression online, but also to all of their duties in respecting and promoting freedom of expression offline. And the second thing is that UNESCO acknowledged that creating a governance system requires the acknowledgement that any regulatory measures that has to be coherent and comprehensive with the different kinds of regulatory arrangements should be through a multi-stakeholder approach. This means that there’s no only statutory regulation that depends on state and companies, but there should be a participation, an active participation of other stakeholders in the whole of the regulatory process, meaning the development of the regulation, the implementation and the evaluation of the regulation. Then the third thing that the guidelines state is that companies have to comply with five key principles. One, due diligence, which specifically state that companies have to develop different human rights risk assessments when they are developing new operations, when they are enhancing new operations, create new ownerships, develop new products. They have to do it prior an electoral cycle. This is very important considering, for instance, that 2024 is a super electoral year and at least three, four parts of the population that is able to vote will come to vote on 2024. The third is that a company should develop a human rights assessment when it comes to crisis, emergencies, and armed conflicts. And the fourth is that they have to understand the different risks that the companies or the content that poses within the company’s post to a specific communities, such as journalists, such as environmental defenders, such as artists, or other vulnerable and marginalized communities. The second principle is transparency. I don’t have to go through very deep into it. The third is accountability. The fourth is user empowerment, which means that within the governance system, there should be specific programs that are developed for media and information literacy. And the fifth is the alignment of all the actions to the UN guiding principles. So this is a work that so far has been done. We definitely believe, as Pedro said, and we state that this is an holistic approach and that non-action should be only and one only because if they don’t come together with many other actions that relate to, yes, education, to yes, creation of communities, yes, policy advice and regulation, then these different phenomenons will not be targeted. Thank you.

Juan Carlos Lara:
Thank you very much, Ana Cristina, for that extremely informative intervention with all of the initiatives that UNESCO is carrying out, including trying to provide guidance for regulation for governments in a manner that has included many rounds of consultations and a broad discussion, as you mentioned, with thousands of comments from the world over, which, of course, as you have been mentioning, also enriches the learning inside organizations like UNESCO itself in how to address many of these issues from the perspective of freedom of expression, access to information, and access to diverse cultural contents, which I think is a key factor in all of this and sometimes not necessarily addressed explicitly. So thank you very much for that. Now, Chantal, can you please tell us about your own view about these subjects? Can you hear me? Okay. Thank you very much.

Chantal Duris:
I will try not to be repeating too many points that have been made by the first two interveners, which are obviously excellent and all extremely relevant. For example, that we need to look at both, at the whole toolbox, right? We need regulatory and non-regulatory approaches. Perhaps just very briefly, I think this discussion is very important because we do agree that many of the proposals that we’ve seen or legislation that has been adopted recently that was seeking to regulate platforms has indeed, there is indeed a danger that these will do more harm than good because they talk a lot about holding platforms accountable, but at the same time, very often what they do is not necessarily focus on the business model of the platforms, on the data tracking, on the advertising model, but almost they ask the platforms to exert more control over, in fact, user speech. So the focus goes from the platforms on systems to the speech of users. And it is critical that any regulatory framework that has this strong impact on freedom of expression, that it is seriously grounded in it, that it is evidence-based and of course, grounded in the principle of legality, legitimacy, necessity and proportionality as Article 19 of the ICCPR requires. And this is also why working more or less globally, it depends also on the jurisdiction, what sort of solutions we think will be appropriate. With many governments, we would not advocate although in principle, we think sound regulatory frameworks should be in place. With many governments, we won’t start to advocate for passing legislation that will control platforms because we do fear, of course, that it will be not a regulatory proposal that will be respectful of freedom of expression, but give the government more options to control online speech. And also Article 19 has long advocated that it is extremely important to take this competition law angle as well because there are very few dominant players in this field. They are gatekeepers of these markets and they are also really gatekeepers of our freedom of expression online. And we do strongly believe that decentralization can per se have a positive effect on freedom of expression, more healthy competition, more empowerment for users. For example, if a user thinks, I do not want to be on a certain platform because I do not think that they respect privacy enough. This is important for me. They should be able to leave that platform and still be, for example, connected to the contacts and families that wish to remain on the platform. As has been mentioned, the UN Guiding Principles can be a very important tool, of course are an essential tool that we advocate for platforms to take into considerations all over the world, really. So whether we have a good regulation in place, a bad regulation in place, or no regulation in place at all, that should always be the basic benchmark against which they should operate. And a lot has been said about them, so I won’t go into detail. Also, because we’re also talking about risks of the different approaches, we think if we take the approach that enabling responses are also at the center of this discussion, then we think that the risks to freedom of expression are much more limited. And this is also linked to another observation we make. Often we find that the discussions seem to say that the social media platforms are the cause of the problems, and we do not deny that they have exacerbated certain societal tensions and increased polarization. There is no question about it, and there is enough evidence that this is happening. At the same time, we do think that this is essential to look at the root causes, for example, of disinformation, of hate speech, of online gender-based violence. And this may, again, include certain regulation of the platform’s business model, but it also needs to look at very different areas outside the specific digital space. So, for example, Article 19 has published now, a couple of years ago, a toolkit when it comes to hate speech, where we detail really what those different approaches need to look like, where we also, again, need to look at regulatory and non-regulatory responses, such as anti-discrimination legislation. Public officials, as Pedro mentioned, should not themselves engage in stigmatizing discourse or counter such discourse when they encounter it. There needs to be, they need to receive, public officials should receive equality training, independent and diverse media environment. All these aspects are obviously key to ensure that we have, say, offline, so to speak, an environment that is also inclusive, that is not gonna translate into then even more extreme speech online. And, of course, civic space, a strong civic space, strong civil society initiatives are also a key component of that. And also to mention, to follow up on what Ana Cristina said, so Article 19 is a partner of UNESCO when it comes to the Social Media for Peace project, and there have been a number of research report, as Ana Cristina alluded to, that have really found also the failings of the platforms, again, taking into account sufficiently the contextual elements. It starts from human rights teams that are not in place for many countries, so civil society in many countries, they don’t have anyone to call at META, for example, if they say there’s a video that needs to be taken down, or we see there’s an election coming, we see that there’s a crisis developing offline and online, there’s not really anyone who they might necessarily be able to talk to who will be responsive. Obviously, a very important additional problematic element is the use of automated content moderation tools as well, because they exacerbate why we recognize that obviously content moderation cannot happen only through human reviewers. It’s also true that many of these tools, they are not sophisticated enough and might never be to really make a proper assessment of some very complex categories of speech. Even for a court, it can be very complex to make a judgment on, you know, was there really hate speech? Was there the intention to incite hatred? Was there disinformation? Was there an intent to publish false information and disseminate it? Was there an intent to cause harm? So, obviously, doing this moderation at scale can present very serious challenges and we always call for more human reviewers that are native in the languages that they moderate. More local civil society organizations need to have direct access, meaningful access to the platforms because we also know that there have been these trusty partner programs which have not always been very satisfactory, to say mildly, and civil society has often found that it’s a bit of a waste of time and the waste of their resources and the impact is limited. Perhaps because I know we are far advanced in time, I wanna make a final reflection. I think an interesting trend we are seeing now is also, which is a non-regulatory trend, but also based on regulation, is a strategic litigation that we see increasingly brought against online platforms. So very prominent examples have recently been the US Supreme Court cases where victims, where families of victims of terrorist attacks in Turkey and in France have filed suits against Twitter and Google, for example, saying that their systems have failed in a way where they have enabled terrorist content to spread online and have also sort of aided and abetted these terrorist organizations. We’ve also had other litigations happening in Kenya over the violence, the violent content that was spread in Ethiopia that was moderated from Kenya and also over the failings in Myanmar, strategic litigation has been brought. That in itself, from our perspective, has some challenges because from a freedom of expression perspective, organizations have always said it is essential that platforms do remain largely immune from liability for the content that they host. But at the same time, of course, there needs to be platform accountability and there needs to be remedies if they infringe on the human rights of the actors in the respective countries or affected communities in the respective countries. So here as well, it will depend on how this litigation is brought. We do not wanna see a court saying, after all, you need to be held liable for hosting terrorist content because it has led to a terrorist attack. At the same time, it can be very interesting if we start seeing more litigation that focuses on remedies for failures to conduct these human rights impact assessments to take human rights to diligence measures and to do the mitigation measures properly. So I do think that is a trend that we see that has a lot of publicity. So there’s a lot of bad reputational aspects linked for the platforms and that could be also a good pressure tool for them to essentially get their act together as well.

Juan Carlos Lara:
Thank you. Thank you very much, Chantal, also for offering so many different pathways towards what we expect to see, but they’re so difficult to achieve, which is accountability from the platforms that speaks to the role that they have in exacerbating social problems even though they might not be creating them according to some discussion and some views. So now, Ramiro, your turn. So tell us what policies, institutional, legal. frameworks have been implemented or can be implemented beyond just the regulatory ones to address the problems that we have with online speech.

Ramiro Alvarez Ugarte:
Thank you very much. Should I introduce myself? Yeah. I’m Ramiro Alvarez-Hugarte. I’m the Deputy Director of CELE, a research center based in Buenos Aires. I don’t want to be too repetitive of things that have already been said. So let me just offer you, I think, a diagnosis that we have at CELE in terms of where we are and also to highlight a few tensions that I think underlie our discussion and have not yet been resolved. It seems like we’re in an interregnum. The old doesn’t die yet and the new is not born yet. So we are at that moment in which we are sort of in between the old and the new. And that’s always interesting times to be and it’s also challenging. I think we are clearly moving towards a regulatory moment. So in a way, the question that has been posed in this panel, I think it’s more or less intention with the trend of where the world is going. I agree with everything you just said and I agree that regulatory and non-regulatory measures are important and they should take place at the same time. But I think we are moving towards a regulatory moment. Of course, the DSA in Europe is obviously what will most likely be a model that will expand across the globe. We have already seen bills presented in congresses in Latin America. They haven’t been adopted yet but legislators in other countries look at the DSA and they copy language and they copy some of their provisions and that is a process in and of itself full of challenges. We have also seen calls to revisit Section 230 in the United States because of congress and its gridlock. It’s difficult to imagine that a comprehensive review of Section 230 will happen anytime soon. But we have seen state-level legislation that has been passed imposing on platforms obligations. We have already seen strategic litigation against companies but not in the direction that you mentioned, in the opposite direction. Like, for instance, the Joe Boning cases in which they basically say that the kind of relationship that the federal government has established with companies in the US violates the First Amendment. So in a way, litigation cuts both ways. So it could be a litigation that questions companies for failing to stand up to their human rights standards but it could be also litigation against companies for violating the First Amendment in the case of the United States. So I think that’s where we’re going. It will be interesting to see how we get there. Now in terms of alternatives, of course, the Inter-American Commission has supported alternatives for a long time, non-regulatory approaches. I was part of the 2019 process of discussing the guidelines to combat disinformation in the electoral context. And the main outcome of that was just to support non-regulatory measures. So I’m not going to repeat what you guys just said, but literacy, of course, it’s incredibly important. I would like to highlight, though, that literacy initiatives are, in a way, a bet on an old principle that it was very cherished in the human rights and freedom of expression field, which is that, to an extent, it is our responsibility as democratic citizens to figure out what’s fake from what’s not. So the internet, of course, makes it more difficult to exercise that responsibility. But in a way, I would highlight and underscore that those kinds of initiatives are a bet on that old principle. We haven’t yet renounced it. And, of course, all kinds of measures to promote counter-speech are obviously very easy. They’re not threatening from a human rights point of view, and they’re fairly easy to implement and, apparently, they’re quite successful, especially what I’ve seen most successfully deployed is counter-speech to combat disinformation in the context of elections in Latin America. But again, calls for regulation has been happening. Observacom in Latin America has been very strongly supporting the kind of regulation that on paper looks very good and looks respectful of human rights standards. The same with the UNESCO guidelines. Of course, the risk that is involved in these initiatives is something that Chantal already mentioned, the risk that even good legislation on paper could do more harm than good. And I think this has to do with, in many countries, sort of a lack of an institutional infrastructure necessary to adopt these kinds of regulations. That obviously is a concern for activists, but as I said before, I think we’re moving in that direction, and we’ll have to deal with that as the time comes. But I’m pretty sure that in the next couple of years, we will see legislation being passed outside of the European Union, and we will have challenges in that sense. Now I would like to highlight a couple of underlying tensions in order to close my remarks. So for instance, we have been discussing the importance of decentralization. I also would agree with Chantal about the importance of antitrust legislation, which for practical reasons, of course, will happen where corporations are incorporated or in places where they have important marketplace presence, and where they have the kind of institutional infrastructure necessary to move forward with this process. There is ongoing litigation in the United States against Google. There is, at the same time, investigations in the European Union. It is hard to imagine that, for instance, a Latin American country could move in that direction, but I think that’s important. Now it seems to me that this is in tension with the, I would say, framing of the DSA, or the framing of the regulations that are being proposed, because to an extent, those kinds of regulations depend on a few powerful intermediaries. So if we would, let’s say, break them all apart and have an Internet that is extremely decentralized as it was towards the end of the 1990s and beginning of the 2000s, I don’t know how that would be compatible with increasing control, even in a way that is respectful of human rights. Because if we have a truly decentralized web in which people get to choose, a lot of people will choose hateful content. A lot of people will choose and engage in discriminatory content. If it is truly decentralized, there will be no way of controlling that. So I think that’s an underlying tension that, to an extent, speaks about, I think, a really deep and profound disagreement in the field of human rights, in terms of what kind of future are we imagining as desirable. And I mean, this is something that I think is there, that it’s underlying. And I think we don’t discuss it as openly as we should. Are we willing to support freedom of expression in the form that we have affirmed it through the 20th century, where we informally relied on gatekeepers to sort of keep check on that? Are we embracing the decentralized promise of the Internet of late 1990s? And that means a lot of speech that is really problematic. I don’t know if it’s harmful. I think there is still a lot to figure out in terms of evidence. A lot of speech that is called harmful, we just don’t have enough evidence to support that it is actually that harmful. But I think that underlying tension is there, and that we should keep it in mind, and that we should discuss it more openly. Thank you. Thank you, Ramiro, for your sobering remarks, and also for highlighting what’s one of the trends that we see towards regulation, even though we can discuss other forms of addressing

Juan Carlos Lara:
some of these challenges. So I want to first check whether we have hands in the room that would like to pose any questions. So otherwise, we would start to be closing this panel, since time is about to run out. But before we do that, I would like to pose the question myself. So if I see no hands, it would be to the panel itself, beginning with Pedro. I don’t know if you are there, but it will be a rapid round of one challenge and one opportunity we have if there is a future in which we will see regulation that will come. One challenge and one opportunity that we may find in non-regulatory approaches that can be taken today as soon as possible among non-governmental actors in order to provide for the internet that we all want, and for the platform responsibility with human rights that we would expect. We will go in the same sense that this panel began, with up to two minutes. Please, Pedro, you go first. Thank you, Juan Carlos.

Pedro Vaca:
And let me just thank the whole panel for this amazing conversation, a lot of questions. The challenge that we have faced is the lack of capacity in a lot of member states. We cover the Americas, we monitor 30 countries, and at this moment, October 2023, we do not have enough capacities, even knowledge, among member states to be part of the conversation. So, I think we have to develop contact points at the foreign affairs ministers in as many countries as possible, because we only have powerful countries with the capacity, then we do not have enough representation to deal with the challenges. And then the opportunity, I think, and that’s why I highlighted the Constitutional Court of Colombia. I think the opportunity is we can put all our efforts in the user and the consequences for the user, or we can also prioritize the role of public servants and political leaders. I mean, if you have xenophobia or racism in a society, you have a problem, but if you have political leaders that incentivize xenophobia and discrimination, you have a bigger problem. And that’s why I think that if we consider public servants as points of reference of society, probably they should, and democracies should and could frame in a better way what is allowed and what is not allowed at that level of representation. I mean, the frame of freedom of expression of people that wants to become, wants to govern, wants to participate in the political sphere is limited if you compare it with ordinary citizens. And in that specific opportunity, we have a lot of inter-American and international standards. So, it’s something that is not even soft law. You have ruling at the inter-American court to support that.

Juan Carlos Lara:
Thank you, Pedro. I’ll ask also to the rest of the panelists, first Cristina and then Justina, please. One challenge, one opportunity.

Ana Cristina Ruelas:
That the discussions focus a lot on how legislation will look like and not how the second stage of the process would feel. So, I’ve been saying this in the different panels that I have participated in the IEF. It’s like, many regulators have said, you know, once legislation is passed, no one cares about it and they leave us alone. And as Ramiro mentioned, there’s many regulatory authorities that do not know how to deal with this issue and that are not used to talk with civil society. So, we need to break that tension and to be able to create conversation among them. So, that will be another opportunity. And an opportunity also is that since companies are based in the same country, what we see is that countries, stakeholders in different countries, in different regions, for instance in Africa and the African Union are coming together because they say, okay, companies don’t care about one of our countries per se. You know, they don’t have a specific interest in X country. But what they do care is of us together. So, they are getting together with civil society, with electoral management bodies, with the African Union. They are coming together with the different stakeholders to go before the companies and say, this is what we need and this is how we want it. That said, that creates a great opportunity because between 40 countries, you have countries that actually believe that a human rights-based approach is the way to go through and there are other countries that do not believe so. But there’s a balancing process and that is, for me, a great opportunity. Thank you very much. Chantal?

Juan Carlos Lara:
Thank you.

Chantal Duris:
I think in terms of challenges, I will mention this is a challenge, generally speaking. I mean, society tends to move slow, regulators tend to move slowly, technology doesn’t. And we are seeing this trend now again where they are trying to catch up. There are a lot of initiatives. There are a lot in the European Union itself, for example. There are a lot. There’s the AI Act, the Digital Markets Act, the Digital Service Act, the Political Advertising Regulation. And there is a challenge also for civil society active in this field already to be able to catch up with everything and cover everything. And not to mention, also, there are a lot of civil society actors that are very much impacted by what’s happening in the digital space but are not necessarily experts in it. They’re not experts in content moderation, they’re experts in, for example, women’s rights. And those are quite technical subjects, so it requires a lot of expertise. So I think this is one of the main challenges, the expertise that it requires and the capacity that it requires. I think the opportunities, we do feel that there is more recognition from, say, some of the platforms, some of the regulators that many of the issues they are dealing with, civil society are experts in it as well. They seek more, there are more consultation processes. To what extent the opinions of civil society are taken into account is another point. But we do feel there is more, again, appetite from platforms and regulators to have us engaged. But at the same time, we don’t want this in a way where they just outsource their own responsibility and say, we don’t need to deal with the human rights aspect, civil society do the work for us. Perfect.

Juan Carlos Lara:
Thank you very much, Chantal. Ramiro, you have the last word. Very quickly.

Ramiro Alvarez Ugarte:
I would say the following. I think one of the biggest challenges is that to move forward in regulation or non-regulatory measures, we have to do it generally in a context of deep polarization, and that is always very difficult. But at the same time, I think that context offers an opportunity, because I think that in most democracies around the world, there is a need to rebuild the public sphere and civic discourse. There is a need to start talking to each other in a way that is respectful. And even though that is difficult precisely because of polarization, that underlying need is still an opportunity, and we should take advantage of it. Thank you very much.

Juan Carlos Lara:
And with that, our time is up. Thank you very much to my fantastic panelists and everyone who has attended this session, and have a nice rest of your IGF. Take care, everyone. Bye-bye. Thank you.

Yoshiki YAMAGATA

Professor Yamagata is at the forefront of designing urban systems to enhance resilience in the face of climate change. His team harnesses the power of the Internet of Things (IoT), big data, and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to achieve this goal. They have focused their research on studying the Tokyo city center and its surrounding areas.

Using IoT, big data, and AI technologies, Professor Yamagata’s team aims to comprehensively understand urban emissions and develop sustainable strategies for policymakers and building owners. They employ machine learning techniques to estimate dynamic carbon mapping and portray emissions resulting from various urban activities. This approach utilizes abundant sources of data such as occupancy information, people’s mobility patterns within buildings, sensor data, and transport measurements.

Professor Yamagata emphasizes the significance of being prepared and implementing preventive measures to mitigate the risks posed by heatwaves. By combining hazard maps with precise location information of workers, the team can accurately assess exposure levels to heatwave risks. In areas identified as high-risk, they can deploy sufficient ambulances in advance to potentially save lives of those vulnerable to heat-related illnesses.

Another crucial aspect of Professor Yamagata’s work is his belief in enhancing walkability in cities to promote the health and well-being of citizens. By utilizing big data and AI, his team can analyze walking behavior in cities, identifying ways to improve the flow of people and enhance the overall health and well-being of urban residents.

The team also recognizes the importance of visualizations as a tool to aid in understanding sustainable urban systems. These visualizations are being developed collaboratively, involving stakeholders such as policymakers. Policymakers are particularly keen to see policy options directly in these visualizations, requiring granular details regarding different options such as energy management, urban planning, and digitalization. Therefore, involving policymakers in the application of AI technologies is crucial to address their specific needs.

Additionally, involving policymakers in the use of AI is a key research question for Professor Yamagata’s team. Understanding the benefits that systems can provide to users is another important consideration. If users cannot perceive the advantages, privacy concerns may arise. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure that users clearly see and appreciate the benefits of these systems.

In summary, Professor Yamagata’s work focuses on designing urban systems that are resilient to climate change. Utilizing IoT, big data, and AI technologies, his team conducts research on understanding urban emissions, developing strategies for policymakers and building owners, addressing heatwave risks, promoting walkability, and visualizing sustainable urban systems. The involvement of stakeholders, including policymakers, is necessary for successful implementation, and it is important to ensure that users perceive the benefits of these systems without privacy concerns.

Audience

During the discussion, participants noted issues with the plug unexpectedly turning off, causing confusion. This raised concerns as the device should not turn off without the plug, creating uncertainty about its status and available positions.

Importantly, the value of having a teacher physically present in the classroom was discussed. The presence of a teacher enhances the learning experience and promotes better interaction with students, emphasizing the importance of in-person teaching alongside online platforms.

Previous online meetings and events, including a webinar on blockchain, were also mentioned. Participants recalled attending various events organized by the Council but noted their absence from a specific event. These events provide opportunities for knowledge exchange and networking.

Additionally, it was noted that one of the panelists was removed from the discussion. The inclusion of a video sent by a participant indicated the sharing of multimedia content during the conversation.

In conclusion, the discussion focused on technical issues with the plug, the significance of face-to-face teaching, previous online events, and the incorporation of multimedia content. Gratitude and appreciation were expressed at the conclusion of the discussion.

Peter CLUTTON BROCK

AI and data science have demonstrated their potential to be key enablers in the global transition to achieving net zero emissions. Several notable examples highlight the positive impact of AI in various areas related to climate action.

One such example is DeepMind’s collaboration with Google, where AI was employed to significantly increase the energy efficiency of Google’s data centres. Through AI techniques, DeepMind managed to enhance the energy efficiency of these facilities by an impressive 30-40%. This advancement is significant as data centres are known to consume vast amounts of energy, and optimizing their efficiency can lead to substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Another remarkable application of AI can be seen through the efforts of the Climate Trace Coalition. By utilising AI and satellite imagery, they were able to enhance the accuracy of global emissions inventories. This improvement is crucial in our collective efforts to effectively monitor and manage greenhouse gas emissions, enabling better decision-making and targeted interventions.

Furthermore, Unisat’s Flood AI tool has contributed to improving disaster response in Asia and Africa. By leveraging AI, this tool has enhanced the ability to predict and respond to floods, ultimately aiding in mitigating the devastating impacts of such natural disasters. This application of AI demonstrates its potential to assist in building resilience and safeguarding vulnerable communities against the effects of climate change.

Despite the promising opportunities AI and data science offer, there are challenges that need to be addressed for their wider application. The two main frustrations hindering progress are data discovery and data access. The process of discovering relevant data and accessing it efficiently can be cumbersome and time-consuming, impeding the adoption and effectiveness of AI and data science solutions.

To overcome these frustrations, several strategies are proposed. Firstly, the development of improved data discovery tools is crucial for facilitating easier access to relevant datasets. Additionally, better regulation is needed to ensure that data is appropriately shared, while still protecting privacy and maintaining security. Furthermore, the establishment of commercial data markets, coupled with financial incentives, can encourage companies to share their data, unleashing its potential for AI-driven solutions.

The Centre for AI and Climate is actively working towards developing an intelligent data catalogue specifically tailored for climate action. Their efforts align with the need for a more organised approach to data discovery and accessibility, providing a consolidated platform for researchers, policymakers, and organisations to access and utilise relevant climate data.

In addition to supporting climate action, AI is expected to play a significant role in digitally managed energy systems. It has the potential to optimise investment decisions for asset developers, ensuring efficient allocation of resources towards sustainable energy infrastructure. Moreover, electricity networks can leverage AI to make informed decisions regarding which energy sources can connect to the grid and what upgrades are necessary, thus improving the overall efficiency and reliability of energy systems.

However, it is essential to maintain a balance between automation and democratic input in these digitally managed systems. While the increased use of AI may lead to a more automated electricity system, human control and democratic participation remain crucial for accountability and fairness. By involving stakeholders and ensuring democratic input, it becomes feasible to limit the level of automation and prevent potential negative consequences.

In summary, AI and data science have demonstrated the potential to significantly advance efforts towards achieving net zero emissions. Various examples showcase the positive impact of AI, from enhancing energy efficiency in data centres to improving disaster response and enhancing the accuracy of emissions inventories. However, addressing challenges related to data discovery and data access is crucial to unlocking the full potential of AI. With improved regulation, commercial data markets, and the development of intelligent data catalog solutions, AI can be effectively utilised in climate action and digitally managed energy systems.

Jerry SHEEHAN

AI systems have the potential to enable sustainability and transform climate modeling, according to one of the speakers. They argue that tools like carbon-aware computing can shift compute tasks to data centres with higher availability of carbon-free energy. Additionally, they highlight the Climate Trace project, which harnesses AI to track greenhouse gas emissions. These examples demonstrate how AI can contribute to addressing environmental issues and promoting sustainability.

However, another speaker raises concerns about the increasing computing needs of AI systems and their potential environmental impacts. They explain that direct environmental impacts result from AI compute, along with the resource’s life cycle. Furthermore, they point out that indirect impacts may arise from AI applications, which can lead to unsustainable consumption patterns. This argument suggests that as AI becomes more prevalent, it could exacerbate environmental challenges.

In response to the potential environmental impacts of AI, another speaker emphasises the need for common measurement standards and expanded data collection. They argue that without comprehensive data and consistent measurement frameworks, it is difficult to track and analyse the environmental impact of AI effectively. This highlights the importance of developing robust methods to assess the environmental implications of AI technologies.

The role of international organisations, such as the OECD, is highlighted by one speaker in facilitating cooperation on AI and climate change. They argue that these organisations serve as the connective tissue that brings countries together to tackle complex issues that transcend borders. By fostering collaboration and knowledge-sharing, international organisations can play a critical role in addressing the global challenges posed by AI and climate change.

AI’s potential contributions to various sectors, including the environment, agriculture, and healthcare, are recognised by one of the speakers. They explain that AI is a general-purpose technology with broad applications, and its diffusion is increasing across different countries in various sectors. This highlights the versatility and potential positive impact of AI on multiple industries.

The concerns regarding the negative impacts and risks of AI are acknowledged, but there is a belief that breakthroughs enabled by AI can help save the planet. Despite the potential drawbacks, the positive practical applications of AI are highlighted by one speaker. They suggest that while it is important to address the environmental impacts and risks of AI, it should not overshadow the potential benefits it can offer in addressing global challenges.

To address the challenges associated with measuring and understanding the environmental impacts of AI, one speaker proposes the establishment of measurement frameworks. They argue that as AI scales up and is applied on a larger scale, it becomes crucial to have standardised methods to assess and evaluate its effects accurately. This suggests a proactive approach to addressing potential negative impacts through robust measurement practices.

Adhering to the principles-based approach of the OECD is advocated by one of the speakers as a way to responsibly implement AI. They emphasize principles such as transparency, engagement, and a human-centred approach to ensure that AI technologies are developed and deployed ethically and in alignment with societal values. This underscores the importance of ensuring the responsible and accountable use of AI.

Finally, the importance of public involvement and understanding of the benefits and risks of AI is highlighted in the policy-making and system development process. One speaker advocates for the integration of public input and transparent parameters into AI-related decisions. This suggests that inclusive and participatory approaches can help address concerns and build trust in AI technologies.

In conclusion, the different perspectives presented in the summary demonstrate the complex relationship between AI and the environment. While AI systems have the potential to enable sustainability and contribute to various sectors, concerns about their environmental impacts and risks should be addressed. Common measurement standards, international cooperation, and responsible implementation are crucial in harnessing the potential of AI to address global challenges such as climate change. Public involvement and understanding are also important in shaping AI policies and systems.

Patrick

The workshop focused on the relationship between artificial intelligence (AI) and the environment, with speakers highlighting various aspects and potential benefits. One key point discussed was the use of AI in preserving healthy ecosystems. Efficient energy management was identified as an area where AI-based systems have been successfully implemented, citing the example of Switzerland using AI to manage the capacity of public transport and discourage overloading. Real-time data on energy production and consumption was also mentioned as a crucial tool for dealing with the effects of climate change and managing energy resources more efficiently. This application of AI in energy management was seen as a way to improve environments.

Another important aspect was the responsible use of AI to serve its purpose in preserving the environment. The speakers emphasized the need to ensure that AI tools are used in line with their intended purpose and argued that AI should be applied responsibly to help preserve healthy ecosystems. This sentiment was supported by the idea that every human right ultimately depends on a healthy biosphere, and AI could be a helpful tool in achieving this goal.

The workshop also emphasized the significance of international cooperation and the sharing of best practices for achieving environmental sustainability. The speakers stressed the importance of collaboration and the need to share knowledge and expertise on AI’s impact on the environment. For instance, the Council of Europe was mentioned as working with international organizations like the OECD to study the impact of AI in sustainable urban systems. The speakers highlighted the importance of data analysis to track and analyze the environmental impact of AI, as well as the need for common measurement standards to ensure comparability.

Furthermore, the speakers acknowledged the potential benefits of AI in supporting the green transition and addressing climate change. They mentioned that AI can be applied to research across numerous disciplines, aiding the transition to a greener world. Examples were given of AI being used in fields like environmental impact, transportation, and material science. The positive sentiment towards AI’s potential in supporting the green transition was evident throughout the discussion.

In conclusion, the workshop provided valuable insights into the connection between AI and the environment. The responsible use of AI to preserve healthy ecosystems, the importance of international cooperation, and the potential benefits of AI in supporting the green transition were all key takeaways. The speakers expressed a positive sentiment towards the potential of AI in addressing climate change and achieving environmental sustainability.

David ERAY

Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies have the potential to significantly contribute to creating greener cities and regions by optimizing energy usage, handling power fluctuations, improving energy storage, and predicting energy demand. By analyzing complex and multifaceted datasets, including real-time data on energy consumption, water use, and weather, AI systems can make energy consumption more efficient and reduce unnecessary wastage. This can lead to substantial energy savings and a reduction in carbon footprint.

Local and regional elected representatives play a crucial role in environmental governance. Recognizing the link between the fundamental right to the environment and good governance at the local and regional levels, the Congress emphasized the importance of considering the environmental issue in their decision-making processes. The Congress is working on raising awareness among elected representatives by sharing good practices regarding the environment and AI through handbooks and guidance for smart cities and regions. This highlights the vital role that local and regional governance plays in addressing environmental concerns.

In the realm of public transportation, incentive-based systems can prove effective in managing capacity and reducing the need for extra transport capacity and investments. Such systems often offer different prices for train or bus tickets depending on the transport capacity, thereby encouraging people to choose less crowded public transport options. The implementation of AI-based systems has been observed to increase the modal shift from road to public transport, promoting more sustainable and efficient transportation practices.

The Swiss Energy Park is a unique initiative that encompasses three types of energy production: hydraulic power, solar panels, and wind crafts. By analyzing the consumption and production of energy in the region, the Swiss Energy Park allows for a comprehensive understanding of energy needs and facilitates targeted efforts in energy conservation. It is noteworthy that climate change can significantly impact energy production, as seen in instances where insufficient water for hydraulic power resulted from a lack of rainfall. This demonstrates the interplay between environmental factors and energy production, highlighting the importance of sustainable energy solutions.

Furthermore, AI has the potential to contribute significantly to combating environmental issues and reducing carbon footprint. It plays a vital role in managing public transport, leading to a decrease in carbon emissions. Additionally, AI technologies assist in managing resources in energy parks, allowing for better mitigation of the effects of climate change. These AI-driven solutions have the potential to revolutionize environmental conservation efforts and promote sustainable development.

However, the implementation of AI in policymaking comes with challenges, particularly in terms of privacy protection and data security. Deploying smart grid systems that manage energy consumption requires access to personal routines, raising concerns about the transparency of personal information if the system is hacked. Protecting privacy and preventing data breaches are essential considerations when integrating AI technologies into policymaking processes.

Overall, AI technologies present tremendous opportunities for creating greener and more sustainable cities and regions. By optimizing energy usage, managing public transport, and analyzing environmental data, AI has the potential to significantly reduce carbon footprint, enhance energy efficiency, and promote sustainable development. However, it is crucial to balance the use of AI with care, ensuring responsible energy consumption and safeguarding privacy. The involvement of local and regional elected representatives is pivotal for effective environmental governance and the successful integration of AI solutions in addressing environmental challenges.

Patrick:
It appears that we have a little technical difficulty, but we’ll solve that very soon so we can get started. We will also be showing some slides, at least some of the speakers, otherwise, Fadim, we can maybe change the order of speakers if they are not available right now. So this workshop is about AI and environment and the connection between the two. So it’s my great pleasure here to be in Kyoto, first of all, I also have some colleagues here and some friends from different parts, we also have a number of people that are following online even though right now we’ve combined everything, we are in presence, we are online, nice to see familiar faces and less familiar faces in the room, nice and friendly faces, I’m sure that we also have nice and friendly faces online. So thank you for coming to this workshop, the Council of Europe obviously has had a very special interest in both artificial intelligence and environment for a number of years, and we’ve developed a number of both treaties, but also partial agreements around environment, we’re currently working on a new treaty on artificial intelligence. Both these things were put to the forefront in our Summit of Heads of State and Government in Reykjavik, where the Heads of State and Government also requested that we pay particular attention to that and devise new tools. in this field. Council of Europe works in that, not only with a specific committee on artificial intelligence, but has a number of services that are looking directly into artificial intelligence. As we also know, every human right ultimately depends on a healthy biosphere. Without healthy functioning ecosystems, there would be no clean air to breathe, no safe water to drink, or nutritious food to eat. We need to create that and preserve that. Of course, the artificial intelligence may be a helpful tool in this respect, but we also have to ensure that this helpful tool serves its purpose. That’s why we’ve put together a panel of people that are on the one side scientists and researchers, but also decision makers that have to take on a daily basis the decision to whether or not imply and apply certain methodologies or not. Our very special keynote speaker today is someone who has been involved in the work of what we call the CAHI, the Ad-Hoc Committee on Artificial Intelligence, but also on the Committee of Artificial Intelligence on the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence for some time. He’s a minister, a minister for the environment of the Canton of Jura in Switzerland, and he’s also the spokesperson on digitalization and artificial intelligence of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe. So I’d like to welcome Mr. David Herré. He is uniquely placed in this respect to share his experience as both an active policymaker domestically at the canton of Jura and at the European level and someone who has first-hand experience of actually working with those topics daily and locally as a minister for the environment. Without any further ado, I would like to give the floor to Mr. Aire, who will speak from Switzerland. He had some urgent business, unfortunately, in his government today, otherwise he would have preferred to be with us here in Kyoto, I’m quite sure. Mr. Aire, if you’re there, the floor is yours.

David ERAY:
Yes, I’m there. Thank you so much. I’m here in Switzerland. It’s still the end of the night, so I should say good morning from here and I’m sure you are already in the afternoon. So it’s a pleasure for me to address this session and I’m really grateful in the name of the Congress to be able to share our thoughts. So as you said, I’m Speaker of the Congress for Artificial Intelligence and Numerization. The Congress has a number of 46 state members and this is really a huge organization and we try to have a focus on these thematics that are really important at the moment. As you said, in my country, I am Minister of Environment in the canton of Jura. Switzerland has 26 states and Jura is one of the 26 states. You may know some of the states which are well known, like Zurich, Geneva, Bern, etc. As a politician, a grassroots player in my country, and as a representative of the Congress, I want to share my vision. on this very relevant connection between AI and environment. In October, 2022, so one year ago, the Congress highlighted that the fundamental rights to environment is intrinsically linked to local and regional good governance. Indeed, there cannot be good governance exercised by local and regional authorities without taking into account the environmental issue. So the Congress explored how we can move toward a greener reading of the European Charter of Local Self-Government. We adopted a recommendation, and this is a proposition to have additional protocol to the Charter on this matter. We have several other proposals of international standards on environmental matters within the Council of Europe, including a possible protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. Whatever option is eventually chosen by the Committee of Ministers, the role of local and regional elected representatives in environmental matters is key. Both the environment and artificial intelligence are high on the agenda of the Congress. The Congress works on raising awareness of elected representative by sharing good practices with respect to the environment and artificial intelligence through practical handbooks and guidance for smart cities and regions. Our communities can become better, can become better places to live if we maximize the use. of AI for the public good. Indeed, AI technologies can be game changers, optimizing the use of energy, handling power fluctuations, improving energy storage, and forecasting energy demand can all help to make energy consumption more sober. AI enables us to analyze complex, multi-faceted data sets, inclusive real-time data on energy consumption, water use, and weather. I want maybe, I want to share my experience in the continent of Jura in Switzerland. We do have several examples. So I want to share a PowerPoint. I don’t know if you can show it on the screen for the participants, if you have it available. This is just two, three slides. I can illustrate my, I’m sure we do.

Patrick:
We’ll immediately try to put that on screen.

David ERAY:
So, because it’s also, it’s always good to talk, but it’s also good if I can show you some examples. So in my country, we do have several examples on energy use, energy management, and also public transportation management. And in that topic, I don’t see anything on the screen, but I think it should come.

Patrick:
As long as there’s nothing on the screen, I would invite you to continue for the time being. We’re trying to resolve this technically, but please go ahead.

David ERAY:
Okay, so in the public transportation, we have… We have implemented something to be able to manage the capacity of transportation and the need to be transported by the people. And how do we do that? We do have something that we could call an incentive. So whenever you need to buy a train ticket or a bus ticket in Switzerland, the system will propose you several different prices, depending on the capacity available in the public transport that is foreseen. So I wanted to show you an example. If I want to go to Zurich next week, and let’s say I have a meeting at 12 noon in Zurich, and the system will propose me several possibilities, including one with a discounted price at 12 francs instead of 22 francs. And this is a way to move the people, not in the train and bus that are already supposed to be full, but the one that has capacity. And this brings three effects. First of all, we have a better use of public transport. So we use the capacity and we don’t overload when it’s already full. Second effect, this can reduce the need of extra transport capacity. So this can reduce the investment that we, the states like Jura, like Bern, like Zurich, need to invest in our transport material. And the third effect. is also important. This has increased the modal shift from road to public transport. So three effects with a system based on AI and also based on the tools that we have online. The second example I wanted to share is what we have in my region called the Swiss Energy Park. So in my region, we have an energy park that includes three kinds of production, hydraulic power on the river, solar panels in a big solar plant, and wind crafts on the mountain. And in this park, we can analyze online the consumption of the region and the production of the region. And we see immediately that whenever we have wind, water, and sun, this is quite cool because we have enough energy. And during the period like now in Switzerland where we have sun, no wind, not enough water in the river, then we need to import energy from outside the region. And this is something that I wanted to show you on the slide that are not coming, but this is okay. I’m sure you can share the slide later. And on the analysis, okay, this is coming. So we go directly to the seventh slide. Okay, this is the next one, because I don’t want to repeat what I said. Okay, this one. On this slide, we can see on a yearly basis, the black line is the need, the consumption of the region. The green one is the wind crafts production. so we can see that like in December 2022 or February we had quite a lot of wind, enough wind to our consumption. The blue is the water production, so we see that the period from August to now we are having not enough rain in the region, so not enough water in the river, so almost no production. And the sun is also an energy that we have especially in summer and that is not present in winter. So this is interesting to see first of all the management of the energy in the region, also the effect of climate change because we see that when we have not enough water like now due to the climate change we are in trouble and we can also see that the wind is a really high energy possibility or potential, but this is not predictable so we cannot be sure. So this is just two examples that I wanted to show and maybe you can come back to the third slide just to show quickly, okay I come back to this public transportation. On the left you can see that this application you can just select, oh I want to go to Zurich on Friday November 10th for a meeting at 12 noon. In the middle you can see the possibilities offered, so the one that is arriving at 12 is 14 Swiss francs and if you want to be like in the previous proposition it’s 19 Swiss francs and if you want to be at Zurich at 11.26 you pay the full price 22. So this system is a way to as I said to use with the best efficient way the public transport capacity that we have in Switzerland. So this is what I wanted to show you, and I think this is good to make the link between AI and environment, energy and carbon footprint. We see that we have potential, and I think there are a lot, still a lot to do in this topic. Thank you.

Patrick:
Thank you so much, Mr. Aré. I think energy management, the use of real-time data, it’s incredibly important, and sometimes it may be better to go to Zurich a little bit earlier or a little bit later and have a free lunch in Zurich to have it compensated by your train ticket, basically. So thank you very much for this very local experience and how AI can really help in making sure that our environment is also getting better of it. Now let me introduce you to the work of our first panellist, because Mr. Aré was our keynote speaker. Our first panellist is Professor Yamagata from the Ayo University, who is all about developing a new urban system design framework that integrates architecture, transportation and human behaviour in cities. Professor, if you don’t mind telling us about your work on AI and sustainable urban systems, that would be very interesting for this audience, I’m quite sure. What are the main challenges and how did you deal with them? Could you tell us more about this? Thank you.

Yoshiki YAMAGATA:
Thank you very much, Chairman. It is my great pleasure to be able to talk at this session about our recent studies. I’m Yoshiki Yamagata, I’m talking from Teio University, Yokohama. So at my laboratory, we are studying urban systems design for achieving climate resilience. cities. So climate resiliency is two meanings. One is the response to the climate change, because we are experiencing a lot of climate change impacts already, like heat waves and floodings. Another climate change measure is, of course, the carbon neutral, the carbonization of the cities. This is also urgent to meet the target of the Paris Agreement. So for that purpose, we are introducing a lot of IoT, big data, and AI techniques to achieve this goal. So let me explain one example of my studies at the city center, Tokyo. Maybe you have seen this sky tree at the city center, Tokyo. This is a tourist tower in Japan, and we are analyzing this area using big data. So one big data we are analyzing is the occupancy of the offices and shops and restaurants, et cetera, using big data. And the second big data case is this mobile phone mobility information. We are deleting all the privacy information and using the trajectory of the people moving inside the city. So we are using the machine learning technique, which is an AI technology, to detect the transport mode. So by looking at the trajectory, AI can judge. if this is a car, or a train, or walking behavior, transport mode. We’re still working, still studying to improve the accuracy of the classification, but the walking behavior is really challenging for us. So, by combining these building and transport information using GIS information, like total floor area height, and load release node, and big data like occupancy information, and people’s mobility information in the buildings and in the load networks, in combination with the sensor data like smart meter measurement data and statistics, and also the actual transport measurements at the load network, we could estimate the dynamic carbon mapping, which visualizes carbon emissions from the urban activities. This red color means that emissions from the building energy use. Blue color means indicating the emission from the load car traffic, from the engine car. So, from this diagram, we can easily, intuitively understand where the carbon dioxide is emitting, and who is responsible for these emissions. So, it is really important to understand visually, intuitively, for the policy maker, as well as citizens, and in many cases, building owners. other business people in the cities understand what is the goal of carbon emission deductions. So this kind of information can also be used for detecting the heat wave risks by combining heat hazard maps. Remote sensing data can be available for this purpose and we can use this worker’s location information as a heat exposure to the risks of a heat hazard. For instance, if an older person suffering some diseases is walking in the street in a very high temperature location more than one hour, so there is a huge chance that this person gets heat stroke. So if these kind of people are staying in the same place for say 1,000 people, then maybe there is a high chance the ambulance will be called soon. So in advance we can prepare ambulance and send enough number of ambulance to the high risk area to save the lives of people who are suffering the heat strokes. So at the same time we can also do analyze the comfort of people. Actually walking behavior inside the cities is really important health improving well-being experience inside the cities. So by knowing how to improve people’s walkability inside the city is really important indicators for their people’s health and improving the well-being of the citizens. So there are some new technologies available for this purpose. And the big data and AI for using this people’s flow there is really a huge potential. This is ongoing studies I’m conducting with researchers of ETH, Zurich, Switzerland. And so we have a exchange program between KU University and ETH. So I’m very much looking forward to collaborate with policy makers and the researchers in Switzerland in the near future. Thank you for your attention.

Patrick:
Thank you very much, Professor Yamagata. I think that’s really exciting to look at this information, how climate resilient cities and decarbonization can impact or hopefully not impact further climate change. I think I would only give you one suggestion before you prepare the ambulances to prepare for heat strokes. Maybe more importantly that we foresee some other activity that prevents heat strokes to take place. Our next panelist is Peter Clottenbrock from the UK Center for AI and Climate. He works in in-depth on issues of creating data marketplace in relation to transition to net zero, and more specifically changing requirements for data for improved grid management. This may sound strange to you, so we will let Mr. Peter Clottenbrock explain what is meant by all of this. Peter, floor is yours. Peter, are you there? because we see your slide, but we can’t hear you.

Peter CLUTTON BROCK:
Okay. Is that working now? Can you hear me?

Patrick:
That’s perfect, Peter. Thank you.

Peter CLUTTON BROCK:
Great. Thank you very much for the chance to speak today. It’s great to be here, if not in person, then in spirit. I’m going to talk for about nine minutes today about what some of the opportunities are to apply AI and data science to support the transition to net zero, as well as what we can do to help free up some of the data required to do so. I have to move the screen along. Excuse me. There we go. A little bit about us before I dive in. The Center for AI and Climate is one of the leading organizations focused on advancing the application of data science and AI to accelerate action on climate change. We do this in two main ways. The first is thought leadership. We look to inform the debate about what the main opportunities are to apply data science and AI to accelerate the transition to net zero, as well as what some of the bottlenecks and barriers are that are holding back that adoption. Secondly, we look to dive into some of those bottlenecks and barriers and help develop the digital architecture and infrastructure necessary to do so. Perhaps it’s useful to start with a little bit of a framework to think about what kinds of problem AI is good for helping to address. Because there are obviously many challenges in the transition to net zero, some of them AI can potentially help with, others, it’s not the best tool to be used. We need to make sure it’s being used in the right ways for the right kinds of problem. Here, I’ve just summarized four of the types of problem where AI is particularly good at supporting the addressing of challenges. The first is system optimization. This often uses a tool called reinforcement learning, where you effectively inform the AI agent about a particular system that you’re looking to optimize. You give it data on the controls that can use to change that system and the environment that affects the system. And then it will effectively optimize using those controls the optimal outcome for that system. And this could apply for a whole system. So for example, the energy system, but also parts of that system. So a particular battery asset within that system could be optimized using reinforcement learning, for example. A particular subset of this is around accelerated experimentation. So we can deploy AI to support faster accelerated experimentation for new battery designs and new battery chemistries, for example, but also potentially for new ways of making steel, which we need new forms of experimentation for. Thirdly, prediction and forecasting. So a lot of the data that we need that we use in sectors relevant to climate change uses something called time series data, which tracks different variables over time. And here, if we’ve got enough historical data on that particular variable, we can find the patterns using AI in that data and predict forward much more accurately using AI than we could with previous techniques. And fourthly, classification. So this is useful if, for example, we have map image imagery or satellite imagery, and we want to be able to classify areas on rooftops that we could deploy solar panels on, or grid infrastructure, or whatever it is. We can deploy AI to help classify different data within that image. AI is not something that’s theoretical at this stage. It’s already being deployed, as David set out in his examples in Switzerland. But there are many others that we’re seeing bubble up throughout the community that are really exciting. So I’ve pulled out three that we think are interesting here. So the Climate Trace Coalition uses AI and satellite imagery to improve the accuracy and transparency of global emissions inventories. Secondly, Unisat’s Flood AI tool enables high-frequency flood reports that have improved. disaster response already in Asia and Africa. And thirdly, DeepMind have used their AI to increase the energy efficiency of Google’s data centers by between 30 to 40 percent, and that’s focused on improving the efficiency of their cooling systems. So that’s just using software they’re able to achieve really significant increases in energy efficiency. It’s worth saying that despite the fact that there are a lot of examples already deployed applying AI to climate action, we still think the potential for further applications is huge. And we think actually it’s probably some of the most important ones that we’re likely to see have yet to be developed. So it’s still a wide open field, and we’re just seeing the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the potential application. So what do we need to do to enable further application adoption of this technology? Well, probably the main barrier and bottleneck that comes up when you talk to the data scientists working in this field is around data. And in particular, two types of data frustration come up in conversations with data scientists, and these are data discovery and data access. So just to be clear on what I mean by data discovery, I’m talking about the process of locating and identifying already open data sets. So for example, an innovator might be searching for solar irradiance patterns in Africa. It might just take them a long time to find this data, despite it being already openly available. And by data access, I’m talking about the process of gaining access to commercial data that is currently not available openly on the internet. So for example, this might be accessing data on EV charging assets from a commercial charging asset operator where they’re not currently opening up their data. So then the question comes of what can we actually do to enable, to address these two challenges that I’ve focused on. And here we see three key opportunities. So the first is better data discovery tools. So ultimately what we think is needed here is better ways of organizing and helping signpost people to data that already exists. So here we think there’s a need for a well-organized and intelligent data catalog focused on climate action. This is actually something that the Center for AI and Climate is already working on developing to really help users and signpost users to where there is data for a particular type. And the organization of that is really key. If there are any country representatives who want to get in touch about that and find out how that could help support data cataloging in your country, please do let me know. Secondly, we see an increasing need for better regulation to open up data, especially in monopolistic sectors. So when it comes to climate action, a lot of the sectors that we care about most often have natural monopolies, whether it’s the electricity sector or the transport sector. We’re often dealing with areas where you have sectors that companies that have a monopoly over particular areas, whether it’s electricity networks, such as distribution and transmission networks or transport networks. And we see a real need to focus on requiring some of these monopolies to open up their data and in particular for commercial licensing. And that last piece is really key. So we want to be able to enable innovators to build products and services on top of data that’s opened up by these types of companies. So making sure it’s available on a commercial license is actually really important. And thirdly, commercial data markets. So to complement the open data piece, we actually see there being a real need to create the financial incentives for commercial companies to share more of their data, in particular in the sectors that we care about, again, when it comes to climate change. And the way you create those kinds of financial incentives is to effectively create a market. for that data. And again, this is something that we’re working on directly. So what I’ve talked through hopefully is a combination of things. So I’ve highlighted a framework by which we can think about the opportunities and the problem types that AI is good for addressing. I’ve talked about some of the case studies about how it’s already being applied and deployed in the world. I’ve highlighted some of the key bottlenecks in particular around data that we need to address if we want to see further and faster adoption of these technologies. And I’ve set out what we think is some of the key ways of addressing those bottlenecks to address these challenges. So with that, I’ll close and say thank you very much again for the opportunity to speak today. And I’ll look forward to addressing any questions. Thank you very much.

Patrick:
Thank you so much, Peter. Very, very interesting also how you highlighted the central role actually that data play in artificial intelligence, the system optimization, if you have access to those data. But you also pointed at high energy costs for storing those data and also deploying artificial intelligence on them. So our last speaker is going to be, we’re extremely lucky to have the new director of the Directorate of Science, Technology and Innovation of the OECD, Mr. Jerry Sheehan, who will present the OECD’s work and activities in the field of AI and environment. And in particular, the excellent report on measuring the environmental effects of AI computing and applications published at the end of last year. So clearly, Jerry, OECD has a key role to play. Over to you to tell us about your work.

Jerry SHEEHAN:
All right, thank you very much, Patrick. I’m delighted to be able to join you, even though it can only be virtually today, as much as I’d prefer to be there in person with you. Let me just say, I do have some slides. I don’t know if they can be presented here. I don’t seem to be able to pull them up and share my screen myself. But let me go ahead just to keep us on time and tell you a little bit about the work that we’ve been doing. Very good, thank you. So just to say that accelerating the green transition has been a major theme, continues to be a major theme of our work here in OECD’s Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation. Among other areas, we have focused on issues of decarbonization of industrial activity, including in some more traditional fields like shipbuilding and steel. We recently released a report as well on AI and science that I’d call to your attention as it highlights a number of ways in which AI can be applied to research across a broad range of disciplines, many of which can inform and accelerate our green transition, including through a number of areas that were just described, through improved modeling, through improved data access and ability, and in fields ranging from environmental impact to transportation to material science. All of which can help us make our world a bit greener. We have been doing work on AI since at least 2017 and including in that have looked specifically at the relationship between AI and the environment. So as noted last year at the COP 27 last November, we launched a report that was asking about the environmental footprint of artificial intelligence. We heard a word about this in terms of some of the large data sets that we’ve been working on. So we have a number of data sets that must be used to inform AI. And I’m happy to share with you today some findings of this work. And actually the slide we have here is just the right one. So for us, we’ve been focused on the notion of the twin transitions, the green transition and the digital transition and looking at ways that digital technologies can be better leveraged for environmental sustainability in the future. As you’ve heard from other panelists already, this is happening in many ways. AI applications can enable sustainability. For example, AI is transforming climate modeling by creating digital twins. The destination earth, for example, is creating a digital twin planet of the earth powered by Europe’s high-performance computing centers and its AI capacity. The climate trace project is harnessing AI to track human-related greenhouse gas emissions with unprecedented detail and speed. DeepMind are using AI to make data centers more efficient by applying reinforcement learning algorithms to reduce their energy use. One example is carbon-aware computing where AI shifts compute tasks to data centers and areas with more availability of carbon-free energy. Let’s go to the next slide, please, just to say that we know compute is on the rise. And as we see computational needs of AI systems going, there are climate impacts as well. We often perceive AI as some sort of an abstract, non-tangible technical system, right, that we interact with through our screens. As noted, it’s enabled by physical infrastructure and hardware together with software that are collectively known as AI compute. And in the last decade or more, as you can see on this slide here, the computing needs of AI systems have grown dramatically, entering what some call the large-scale era of compute. This is no doubt motivated by the increasing capabilities of large and more compute-intensive AI systems, and of course, the rise of deep learning and large language models. Tools like Chatbot. are becoming more widely used, and the computing needs for inferencing of AI systems, contrast to the training of AI systems, is also becoming more relevant. Let’s go to the next slide, please. So why is this problematic? Well, simply put, as AI systems get bigger, not only can they help us address AI challenges, but they need and use more computing resources, which in turn consumes more energy, natural resources, and they produce increasing CO2 emissions. Although some researchers have produced numbers for AI’s environmental impacts at an AI model level, I think an example being for Bloom and for GPT-3, we don’t really know how severe this problem is at a national, let alone at a global level, especially then in comparison to other sectors that contribute to CO2 emissions. That’s because AI-specific measures are still scarce, and those that we do have tend to overestimate AI’s negative impact. So to help fill this measurement gap, we’ve conducted a stock taking report and developed a framework to help better quantify AI’s environmental impacts. Let’s go to the next slide. I’ll tell you a little bit about the analytical framework that we’ve used. The framework builds on work that has been done already by researchers on the direct and indirect environmental impacts of AI. The direct environmental impacts are defined as those that result from AI compute along with the resource’s life cycle, which includes the production, the transport, and operations of this compute, as well as its end of life. There are various environmental impacts, as you can imagine, along this life cycle, everything from critical minerals extraction to transportation, water consumption, carbon emissions, recycling, and waste disposal. For direct impacts, it’s important to note that operations, that is the actual running and operating of servers in a data center being used to train an AI model, for example, are a major source of environmental impact. The majority of resources and existing indicators are in just this area. We should also note though, that direct impacts can also be positive. For example, the heat from data centers is being repurposed, but these cases are still probably too rare. When it comes to some of the indirect impacts, that is from the applications of AI, we found many, many positive examples as well as some that were more negative. So on the positive side, we know that there are sectoral applications. We’ve heard some of those today already, such as AI for energy grid efficiency. There’s climate mitigation and adaption approaches, such as AI for flood prediction and AI for environmental modeling, such as the example of creating a digital twin of the earth. On the negative side, these AI applications also increase consumption patterns in ways that may or may not be sustainable. So let me go to the next slide, please. And I can share with you some of the key findings of our work here. So using this, we identified really five key findings that I wanna share with you just briefly this morning or this afternoon for an evening, for those of you who are joining from other parts of the world. So the first is that common measurement standards are needed to track and analyze environmental impact. And this should allow for greater data comparability between and among countries. Second, we find that data collection on environmental impacts of AI compute could be expanded, should be expanded in a number of ways. Third, AI specific measurements are sometimes difficult to differentiate from general purpose compute. We see this, for instance, in data center usage, where estimates of the percentage of data centers for use as AI compute. is not clear across countries. Maybe not even always as clear within individual data centers. Fourth, we need more data collection on different types of environmental impacts, such as carbon use, water and other natural resource use, and supply chain impacts. All of these are needed. Fifth and finally, we think international efforts, including sharing best practices on AI compute towards environmental equity and transparency, are vital. Let me go to the next slide, please. So just to note that the framework that we developed over the past few years coincides with the emergence of generative AI. Of course, the big question now is whether the arrival and the proliferation of generative AI would change our analysis. We’ve already seen exciting new applications of generative AI for climate action, such as chat climate. We also see considerable interest from countries. In a recent OECD stock taking that we did for the G7, for example, five out of the seven G countries responded that climate action is among their top five opportunities for generative AI. On the other hand, there are questions about the direct environmental impacts of the large scale use of generative AI. For example, on water, it was already reported that Microsoft’s water usage has significantly increased last year, largely due to investments in their operations of generative AI. Of course, I tried asking chat GPT if it knew how much energy it took to run this particular question. But as you see here, coming up with specific numbers is challenging and there’s considerable work still to be done. So organizations like mine here at the OECD, through our OECD compute expert group, for example, are continuing this important analysis, engaged with experts and partners from various stakeholder groups and from around the world. And we hope to be able to come back to you in the future with even more refined results of our analysis. So for now, I’m going to go to the last slide. And thank you for your attention. This is where you can find our report. And again, we’ll have more findings coming out of our OECD Compute Expert Group in coming months and years that we look forward to sharing with you. Thank you very much for your attention today. And I look forward to joining in the panel discussion.

Patrick:
Thank you so much, Jerry. It’s really a question of checks and balances, knowing how much energy is needed to generate the artificial intelligence on the one side, and how much is it going to help us to diminish the, let’s say, the carbon footprint on our development. I already have a number of questions here that come from the online. And one question, Jerry, is actually directed to you. We know that everyone looks at OECD with regards to defining AI as such. I’m not going to ask you that now. But the question here is, what do you see as the role of international organizations, such as the OECD, in working with artificial intelligence?

Jerry SHEEHAN:
Yeah, thank you for that question. I think the international organizations like OECD have a critical role to play here in simple terms. We’re the connective tissue that helps bring countries together to solve collective problems, including around the green transition and digital transitions and relationships between them. I think this is especially critical when the stakes are high and when it involves complex issues that cross borders. And this is particularly relevant for climate change and AI, given that it’s a general purpose technology that can be applied to many different sectors. We’ve been focusing on environment here today, but we know that AI diffusion is ramping up in almost every sector of our economies, from agriculture to health care. and again in all countries at different speeds. Applications like ChatGPT have made AI tangible and usable to the average person. So I think we at OECD and others remain hopeful that the breakthroughs that can be enabled by AI can help us save the planet, right? So these are the benefits and we’ve seen a lot of those in the panel today. We’ve also been attentive to some of the negative impacts, environmental impacts and some of the risks among those, including effects on labor markets and so forth. As noted, these aren’t well enough understood yet. They’re difficult to measure, especially as AI gets scaled up and is applied on a bigger scale. And that’s where I think OECD and other international organizations have a critical role to play because we can help put in place measurement frameworks that can apply across all of these countries.

Patrick:
Thank you.

Jerry SHEEHAN:
And just on a final note as I see you’re getting the microphone going, just to say of course now-

Patrick:
Yes, I’m trying to get it going. Thank you so much for your input. I think indeed, and as Council of Europe, obviously we work very closely also with the OECD and other international organizations around artificial intelligence and the impact of artificial intelligence. I already have a question. I have another question for Professor Yamagata because he showed us quite a number of visualization research, the use of AI in the sphere of sustainable urban systems. But Professor Yamagata, the question is also how can these systems be used in policymaking and do policymakers make use of them? I’m sure that Mr. Ere will be very interested in your response on that.

Yoshiki YAMAGATA:
Thank you very much for- There are interesting questions and that is very vitally important questions. At the moment, we are studying these visualizations using big data and AI for the stakeholders of the area. Of course, this includes the policy makers, but usually the policy makers need to see directly the policy options in this visualization, rather than the low carbon emissions. Of course, carbon emission is a final parameter to reduce, but perhaps the policy makers need to understand more closely the details of the different policy options, like energy management options, or urban planning options, or digitalization options, which also could have a positive and negative impact. This is a really important research question, how to involve policy makers into the use of AI.

Patrick:
Thank you. Let’s ask the policy maker, Mr. Herre, what would be, for implementing artificial intelligence in local and regional authorities, what do you see as the biggest challenge in implementation of artificial intelligence in day-to-day policy making?

David ERAY:
Thank you for the question. I think the biggest challenge is linked to the privacy, the protection of the privacy. What I showed before regarding this energy production and consumption, we try to implement what we call the smart grid, and that needs to implement in every house, in every apartment, a system that can manage. the need of energy. Let’s say you come back home at night, you want to load your electric car, so the system, like the big brother, should know that you are home, that the next day it’s like 7 a.m. you want to leave to go to Geneva, so you need the full load and then the system should manage in the best way to load your car linked to the production capacity and production perspective that we have during the night. So if you imagine that the system would be hacked, then that means that the entire life of the people could be transparent and given to the hackers. And this is maybe a big issue that we would have in terms of data protection and privacy respect.

Patrick:
We don’t hear you. Microphones are AI steered, so that basically means my simple intelligence doesn’t manage to get it going at the right time. Now, Peter, I have, if you’re still there because I don’t see you on the screen, but Peter, there’s a bit of a stargazing question for you. That is, what do you think a digitally managed energy system will look like in 20 years time? Give us a bit of glass ball staring.

Peter CLUTTON BROCK:
It’s a really good question and I’m not sure I’m going to be able to do the question justice, but I think effectively what we see is that AI will flow into a lot of the decision-making processes throughout the energy system. So just starting at the bottom, when you’re looking at when an asset developer might be looking to develop a solar farm or battery asset. AI will flow into optimizing those investment decisions. And then for the networks themselves, the electricity networks, they’re making decisions around what can connect to the networks, as well as what upgrades they’ll need to make to the networks. Again, all of those decisions will be optimized using AI. And so increasingly, increasingly, I think we’ll move to a system where electricity systems are effectively automated and the human capacity in them is more to check, to make sure that the AIs are working in the right way and the way that we want. But increasingly, we’ll see those humans in the loop starting to come out of the loop as the trust from the AI system is built. So ultimately, I think we will be heading towards a pretty much completely automated electricity system, albeit one where there is good democratic input, which may be perhaps the limiting factor on some of these automation features.

Patrick:
Thank you. I did put you a little bit on the spot there, but I will alleviate a little bit the burden of you and ask the same question because we have two minutes left. So I’ll ask the same questions. How do we see those checks and balances between the use of artificial intelligence? How do we make sure that the benefits outweigh the risks in the use of artificial intelligence in the coming years? And since we have four speakers, you have 30 seconds to reply to that. Shall I start with David?

David ERAY:
Yes, exactly. I think the check and balance, we need to be careful with the energy consumption of the AI hardware and the balance of the data. The benefit in terms of environment and energy saving, thanks to AI. So this is where I see a big challenge for us. 20 seconds.

Patrick:
Hello, thank you. Professor Yamagata, 30 seconds to check some balances for the future.

Yoshiki YAMAGATA:
Yeah, thank you very much. Actually, it is very important to see the benefit, understand the benefit of the users of the system. If the user enjoys the benefit, I think they understand why this system is actually useful for the community. If they don’t understand this is just a scary privacy problem, that’s my point.

Patrick:
Thank you. Jerry?

Jerry SHEEHAN:
So yeah, I would say that the way to do this is to ensure we’ve got a principle-based approach to AI, whether it’s applied in energy grid, whether it’s applied in transportation or others, that adheres to what I would say are the OECD principles around AI, which include issues of transparency, engagement. It’s a human-centered approach, which I think is what we were just hearing about engagement of the public and understanding the benefits, the risks, and having the opportunity for transparency into the policymaking process and the system development. I will just note that we at OECD are in the process of reviewing the 2019 AI recommendation with a view toward its revision, and this is happening at the time when generative AI is raising a number of new questions. So we hope to have something more to report on that in 2024.

Patrick:
Thank you so much. Thank you. With this, we are right in time to have finalized the discussion. Sorry, Peter, I haven’t given you back the floor a second time on this very difficult question. Thank you for the audience online and here in the room to have followed this session with so much interest. Thank you for the many questions that we received and thank you for your active participation. Thank you so much. Bye.

Audience:
Normally, it should not turn off if you do not have the plug, but here it is on. It turns off and then you have to turn it on and then there are several positions that are not clear. OK, because already last night, exactly. And so you turn it on, but you do not know if it is on. But it was perfect. Alone on a panel. Alone on a panel, it was perfect. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Normally, it is on. Normally, it is on. Hello. Hello, nice to meet you. How are you? The teacher should normally be in person. Hello. Hello. Hello. Hello. We met online. I wrote about the blockchain. We had the launch in the webinar. You were there. I will just introduce myself. I attended many events of the Council. I haven’t been there. No worries, go ahead. No worries, go ahead. No worries, go ahead. I removed one of the panelists. You sent a video. Yes. You sent a video. No, no. No, no. Yes. That’s what I did. You sent a video. Yes. That would be complete. . . . . . . . . th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th Thank you.

Audience

The multi-stakeholder model of ICANN has successfully built trust among users, as demonstrated by Varun Dhanapala from the government of Sri Lanka who shared his positive experience after attending an orientation session in Kathmandu. This highlights the effectiveness of the model in fostering user confidence.

Furthermore, the collaboration between the International Governance Forum (IGF) and ICANN is not competitive but complementary. This was evident during an event hosted by the Sri Lanka Mission in New York, which shed light on ICANN’s mission and work. The partnership between IGF and ICANN is crucial for effective internet governance.

ICANN places significant importance on active participation, even during the pandemic. They have supported and promoted participation in their meetings, demonstrating their commitment to inclusivity and ensuring all stakeholders have a voice in shaping internet policies.

Diversity within ICANN is also emphasised, with a need for representation from various age groups, languages, and backgrounds. This diversity brings different perspectives to the decision-making process and ensures policies cater to the needs of a wide range of users.

ICANN’s role in coordinating the technical aspects of the internet, specifically the domain name system (DNS), is crucial for maintaining stability and security. The reliable nature of ICANN is highlighted by VeriSign’s 26 years of uninterrupted uptime for ComNet and root servers. This underscores the significance of ICANN’s multi-stakeholder community in supporting technical coordination.

The internet’s expansive outreach and untapped potential should be fully harnessed to achieve SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure. The internet has immense capabilities that can drive innovation and create opportunities for social and economic development.

ICANN recognises the influence of different stakeholders, such as governments, civil society, and the business community. Each stakeholder group has unique contributions to make, and their influence is acknowledged within the ICANN framework. This balanced and inclusive approach ensures comprehensive policy development.

However, ICANN faces several challenges that need to be addressed. The role and influence of ICANN will be assessed by the General Assembly in less than two years, emphasising the need for periodic evaluation and reassessment of its effectiveness. Additionally, ICANN needs to streamline decision-making processes to respond effectively to evolving internet governance issues.

While ICANN is acknowledged as being effective, there is an emphasis on the need for continuous improvement. This highlights ICANN’s ability to adapt and embrace change. Experts with specific areas of expertise are considered valuable contributors to ICANN’s work, even without full-time commitment.

Consensus building within the multi-stakeholder community is viewed as crucial for ICANN’s mission. However, it needs to be carefully approached to ensure predictability and the secure, stable, and resilient operation of networks. This will safeguard the unity of the internet and prevent fragmentation.

Critically, ICANN’s governance has faced scrutiny for its limited interaction with other significant processes, such as the CA browser forum, the Financial Stability Board, and the Decentralised Identity Foundation. There is a call for ICANN to broaden in-house consultation and recognise stakeholders beyond just domain holders, for a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to governance.

In conclusion, ICANN plays a critical role in internet governance and coordination, ensuring the stability and security of the DNS. The multi-stakeholder model of ICANN has successfully built trust among users, and collaboration with organisations like the IGF is seen as essential. Active participation, diversity, and consensus building are key, while continuous improvements and addressing gaps are necessary. Overall, ICANN has the potential to evolve, adapt to change, and effectively shape internet policies through the involvement of various stakeholders.

Veni Markovski

The analysis highlights several key points. Firstly, it emphasises the importance of multistakeholder participation in technology development. It underscores that technologies are not created in isolation but are intended to serve a purpose and engage multiple stakeholders. The analysis suggests that no party works in isolation and the implementation of technology should be in line with prevailing laws and policies. It also highlights that technology stimulates the economy. These supporting facts indicate the positive impact of technology on society.

The second point raised in the analysis is the need for ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) to improve its engagement with governments. The analysis argues that commitments made by governments to participate in ICANN should be followed by action. This signifies the importance of effective government involvement in shaping internet governance policies. The analysis includes evidence such as Rwanda hosting a high-level governmental meeting and increased government commitment to participate more actively in ICANN. The sentiment towards this point is positive, suggesting a belief in the potential benefits of closer collaboration between ICANN and governments.

The third point highlighted in the analysis is the potential impact of upcoming international processes on ICANN’s work. It mentions that international processes related to ICANN’s mission are taking place at the United Nations (UN), International Telecommunication Union (ITU), and potentially at the European Union (EU) level. It implies that these processes may influence ICANN’s role in maintaining and allocating internet resources. While it states a neutral sentiment, it underscores the need for ICANN’s active involvement in these global processes.

Furthermore, the analysis discusses the untapped potential of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to provide recommendations on new technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI). It suggests that the IGF, as established by the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Tunis agenda, could play a more significant role in shaping discussions and offering recommendations on emerging technologies. It recommends using the WSIS plus 20 to improve the IGF and increase its contributions. The analysis presents a positive sentiment towards this point.

Overall, the analysis highlights the importance of multistakeholder participation in technology development, the need for ICANN to engage more with governments, the potential impact of international processes on ICANN, and the untapped potential of the IGF. These points reinforce the significance of collaboration, effective governance, and active involvement in shaping technology policies and the future of the internet.

Edmon Chung

ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is widely recognised as a successful multi-stakeholder model for internet governance. It has demonstrated resilience and adaptability through three updates in the past two decades, signifying its commitment to evolving with the changing landscape of the internet. Furthermore, ICANN has incorporated safeguards to protect the system from attempts to extinguish it, highlighting its dedication to ensuring the continuity and stability of the internet.

One of the key strengths of the multi-stakeholder model employed by ICANN is its bottom-up agenda setting approach and consensus-based decision-making. By involving a diverse range of stakeholders, including governments, civil society, and the private sector, ICANN fosters an inclusive dialogue that allows for the consideration of various perspectives and interests. This approach is crucial as it helps to generate broad consensus and ensures that decisions reflect the needs and aspirations of different stakeholders.

The importance of rough consensus is also stressed in the multi-stakeholder model. While achieving full agreement on every aspect may not always be possible, the concept of rough consensus allows for agreement on enough points to continue working together towards a common goal. This principle helps to maintain a single, unfragmented internet and promotes the collective efforts of stakeholders in addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by the digital landscape.

The multi-stakeholder model of internet governance goes beyond addressing technical aspects; it also encompasses broader issues such as sustainability, the environment, and digital inclusion. The model provides a platform for discussions on these topics, enabling stakeholders to work together towards achieving goals such as reduced inequality and industry innovation, as outlined in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is another entity that can benefit from the multi-stakeholder model. By embracing this approach, the IGF can facilitate discussions on internet governance within the context of sustainability and the environment. This not only increases awareness and understanding of these critical issues but also ensures that their consideration becomes an integral part of national and regional IGF discussions.

In conclusion, the multi-stakeholder model adopted by ICANN has proven to be successful in governing the internet. Its bottom-up agenda setting, consensus-based decision-making, and commitment to evolution and adaptability make it a resilient and inclusive approach. The model not only addresses technical aspects but also allows for conversations around sustainability, the environment, and digital inclusion. Both ICANN and the IGF can continue to improve and develop protection mechanisms while emphasising the importance of rough consensus and maintaining a single, unfragmented internet.

Leon Sanchez

The multi-stakeholder model plays a crucial role not only in Internet governance but also in other realms of society. It ensures that all stakeholders have a seat at the table and a say in decision-making processes. This model operates in a horizontal structure where every stakeholder’s voice is heard and considered. The positive sentiment towards the multi-stakeholder model reflects its effectiveness and importance in achieving SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

While the multi-stakeholder model is widely endorsed, it is acknowledged that it is not perfect and has room for improvement. This neutral sentiment suggests that there are areas where the model could be enhanced. However, the overall consensus is that the multi-stakeholder model should be upheld and fostered for future generations. Its positive impact on various aspects, such as making the Internet work and ensuring connectivity during the pandemic, further solidifies the argument for its continued support.

During the pandemic, the multi-stakeholder model proved successful in facilitating online education for students who had connectivity. It also led to the implementation of electronic filing and litigation, ensuring the continuity of the justice system. These examples highlight the adaptability and effectiveness of the multi-stakeholder model, particularly in times of crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. This positive sentiment towards the model demonstrates its capacity to address challenges and find innovative solutions.

Contrary to the positive sentiment towards the multi-stakeholder model, there is a negative sentiment towards the idea of legislating the internet. It is argued that existing regulations and conduct in the physical world are sufficient to govern the digital world. This sentiment suggests a preference for self-regulation within the multi-stakeholder model rather than imposing stricter legislative measures.

Furthermore, the importance of connecting the next set of users and expanding access to the internet is highlighted as an argument in support of the multi-stakeholder model. SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) emphasises the need to bridge the digital divide and ensure equal access to information and resources. The multi-stakeholder model can play a vital role in addressing this issue and promoting inclusivity.

One noteworthy observation is the potential for the multi-stakeholder model to transform representative democracy into a participative one. Utilising this model could enable greater citizen engagement and involvement in decision-making processes, aligning with SDG 16.

In conclusion, the multi-stakeholder model is essential for Internet governance and various aspects of society. While it has room for improvement, its positive impact during the pandemic and the need to address connectivity and digital inequality make a strong case for upholding and fostering this model. The negative sentiment towards legislating the internet highlights the preference for self-regulation within the multi-stakeholder model. By turning representative democracy into a participative one, the multi-stakeholder model has the potential to create a more inclusive and equitable society.

Danko Jevtovic

The success of the internet can be attributed to its foundation on open standards and a user-centred approach. The technical community plays a crucial role in this success through their open, liberal, and voluntary approach. This means that the internet’s technical layer is based on standards that are open and accessible to everyone. The acceptance of voluntarily defined addresses of the root server system has also contributed to the success of the internet. Additionally, the power of the network itself, which attracts users, has played a significant role.

The multi-stakeholder model, which involves various stakeholders such as governments, academia, civil society, and businesses, has proven to be an effective framework for governing the internet. Each stakeholder group has an important role to play, contributing to the development and advancement of the internet.

Celebrating its 25th anniversary, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has played a pivotal role in the success of the internet. ICANN’s contributions are recognized, and their role in the internet’s evolution is celebrated. Furthermore, ICANN has actively engaged in ensuring that the technical consequences of potential legislation are thoroughly explained to all stakeholders.

It is important to understand the consequences of potential legislative processes and initiatives related to the internet. There are ongoing discussions and initiatives happening in various fora, and it is crucial to assess and comprehend the implications of these actions.

The desire for the internet to continue evolving is emphasized in order to meet the changing needs of both individuals and businesses. This reflects the dynamic nature of the internet and the importance of keeping up with advancements in technology, innovation, and infrastructure.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) meetings, according to Danko Jevtovic, have been successful and continue to improve each year. Jevtovic, who has been a member of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG), has participated in various IGF meetings. He praises the current IGF meeting hosted by Japan and believes that the IGF serves as leverage to create a better internet and work towards achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Notably, Jevtovic does not see the need to change or create something parallel to the IGF. He emphasizes the importance of utilizing the IGF platform to improve the internet and address the SDGs effectively.

In conclusion, the success of the internet lies in its foundation of open standards and a user-centred approach. The technical community’s open and voluntary approach, the multi-stakeholder model, and ICANN’s contributions have been instrumental in the internet’s success. Understanding the consequences of legislative processes and initiatives related to the internet is important. The desire for the evolution of the internet to meet the needs of individuals and businesses is crucial. The IGF meetings have been viewed as successful and improving each year, providing a platform to work towards a better internet and achieve the SDGs.

Vera Major

The analysis reveals several noteworthy points about ICANN. Firstly, ICANN is commended for its commitment to gender diversity within its organisation. Notably, there are two women in prominent leadership positions – the board chair and the interim CEO. This showcases ICANN’s dedication to promoting gender equality and increasing the representation of women in key decision-making roles. It is an encouraging sign of progress and a step towards creating a more inclusive and diverse environment within the field of internet governance.

Secondly, ICANN demonstrates a commendable level of transparency by making the letters it receives available to the public. This includes letters from governments, the military, and intelligence agencies, providing insights into internet traffic and policy choices. By publishing these letters and providing a link for access, ICANN promotes openness and enables stakeholders to have a deeper understanding of the considerations and decisions shaping internet governance.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the recognition of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 9.1 within the context of internet infrastructure. SDG 9.1 focuses on developing quality, reliable, sustainable, and resilient infrastructure, with an emphasis on regional and transborder infrastructure that supports economic development and human well-being. This demonstrates that ICANN acknowledges the importance of internet infrastructure as a crucial component of achieving sustainable development goals. By aligning with SDG 9.1, ICANN contributes to the global effort to provide affordable and equitable access to the internet for all individuals, regardless of their geographical location or socio-economic background.

Overall, the analysis underscores ICANN’s positive strides in gender diversity, applauds its transparency through the publication of received letters, and acknowledges its alignment with SDG 9.1. These findings showcase ICANN’s commitment to inclusivity, accountability, and sustainable development. It is encouraging to see such initiatives within the realm of internet governance, as they contribute to a more equitable and accessible digital landscape for the benefit of all individuals and communities worldwide.

Tripti Sinha

ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is a non-profit organization that coordinates the Internet’s unique identifier systems. These systems, which include domain names, IP addresses, and protocol parameters, are crucial for the proper functioning of the Internet. ICANN ensures that these identifiers are managed effectively.

At the heart of ICANN’s work lies the multi-stakeholder model, which shapes policies and manages unique identifiers. This model involves the participation of various stakeholders, such as governments, businesses, civil society, and technical experts. The multi-stakeholder approach ensures inclusive and democratic decision-making, which is essential for the continued success of the global Internet.

The Internet operates on a set of protocols and standards that enable connectivity. Thousands of people from around the world collaborate to maintain and improve these systems. ICANN’s governmental advisory committee, with its member governments and observer organizations, exemplifies the global collaboration required for Internet governance.

Discussions on the multi-stakeholder model explore ways to align it with sustainable development goals (SDGs). The model promotes inclusivity, innovation, and engagement to support the digital economy. It has proven effective in ensuring the Internet’s stability over the years, despite the increasing number of users and traffic.

Participants in these discussions highlight the importance of looking beyond existing systems for solutions and proactively driving change. They emphasize the need to involve a wider range of stakeholders and promote diverse perspectives in Internet governance.

While the multi-stakeholder model is widely appreciated, it is cautioned that deviating from democratic principles toward multilateralism could have negative consequences. Upholding democratic decision-making is key to preserving the openness and transparency of Internet governance.

In summary, ICANN plays a vital role in coordinating the Internet’s unique identifier systems. The multi-stakeholder model ensures inclusive and democratic decision-making, which is crucial for the successful functioning of the Internet. Collaboration and engagement from stakeholders worldwide are necessary for effective Internet governance. Discussions focus on aligning the model with SDGs, seeking innovative solutions, and promoting stakeholder inclusion.

Sally Costerton

Upon analysis of the provided information, several key points emerge regarding ICANN and its efforts to shape a more inclusive and multilingual internet. Firstly, ICANN is actively working on expanding the Domain Name System (DNS) to accommodate a wider range of languages and scripts. This initiative arises from recognizing that the next billion users coming online belong to communities with languages and scripts divergent from English and ASCII. By supporting more languages and scripts in the DNS, ICANN aspires to foster a more inclusive digital environment.

Secondly, the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance has played a crucial role in allowing the internet and the digital economy to flourish. This model has facilitated a smooth and stable transition from US government oversight to a global community oversight, ensuring the security and stability of the internet. This observation highlights the importance of the collaborative efforts of various stakeholders in shaping the internet’s governance framework.

Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic showcased the internet’s pivotal role in supporting remote work, education, healthcare, and connectivity. Governments, internet service providers, technology companies, and civil society organizations collaborated to ensure the internet’s smooth functioning during this crisis. The ability of the internet to handle the surge in usage during the pandemic attests to the effectiveness of the multi-stakeholder model in maintaining the internet’s resilience and reliability.

Trust is identified as a critical factor for the functionality of the internet. Trust is built between individuals, structures, organizations, and governments, and it is essential for the secure and reliable operation of the internet. The multi-stakeholder approach, with its emphasis on inclusivity and representation, aims to foster trust among different stakeholders in the internet ecosystem.

The stability, security, and resiliency of the DNS are central to ICANN’s mission. ICANN recognizes that every online interaction is connected to the DNS and is committed to delivering a stable, secure, resilient, and open DNS for the global public interest. This emphasis on DNS underscores the crucial role played by the multi-stakeholder model in maintaining the internet’s resiliency.

The internet is increasingly pivotal in driving and shaping societal change. Its power stems from being a single interoperable system accessible globally. This recognition further highlights the significance of the internet as a catalyst for innovation, infrastructure development, and economic growth.

Meaningful participation in policy creation requires empowered stakeholders armed with the appropriate skills, knowledge, and confidence. ICANN acknowledges the importance of individual skills and domain-specific knowledge to effectively contribute to sustainable policy creation. This observation emphasizes the need for capacity building efforts to equip stakeholders with the necessary tools to participate actively in shaping internet policies.

Additionally, sustainable policy creation should take into account the voices of many to reduce inequalities. ICANN supports the idea that policies should be influenced through the diverse perspectives and experiences of a wide range of stakeholders. Inclusivity in policy development is seen as a means to promote justice, peace, and strong institutions.

The multi-stakeholder approach advocated by ICANN needs to be inclusive and representative. ICANN has carried out extensive work to bring newcomers from diverse backgrounds into the internet ecosystem and has emphasized the importance of raising awareness about the functioning of the internet within the broader community. This drive towards inclusivity recognizes the necessity of ensuring representation and participation from all stakeholders for a fair and equitable internet governance framework.

Capacity building is highlighted as a vital aspect of ICANN’s efforts to empower individuals within the internet ecosystem. These capacity building efforts involve providing personal and professional skills to individuals, involving different languages and groups worldwide. The training covers various aspects, ranging from personal skills and time management to technical areas like infrastructure implementation. Such efforts aim to enhance the knowledge and capabilities of stakeholders, ultimately contributing to a more resilient and inclusive internet.

Expanding internet understanding and increasing participation in policy-making processes are identified as key priorities. ICANN recognizes the necessity of generating interest among individuals to comprehend the workings of the internet and the impact of internet policies on their lives. Capacity building is viewed as a crucial step towards enhancing understanding and involvement in shaping these policies.

The analysis also acknowledges the importance of international and multilateral processes that have relevance to ICANN’s mission. These processes occur at various levels, including the UN, ITU, and the European Union, and their significance is emphasized in the context of the upcoming WSIS plus 20 process. This observation highlights the broader global context in which ICANN operates and the need to engage actively in these processes.

Regarding ICANN’s role in internet governance, Sally Costerton expresses her belief in upholding the multi-stakeholder model that has contributed significantly to the internet’s success. The upcoming ICANN AGM in Hamburg is expected to extensively discuss this model, emphasizing its critical importance. Sally Costerton also recognizes the vital role played by the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) in facilitating understanding and fostering dialogue between members and their respective governments.

The analysis concludes by extending appreciation for participants’ commitment and passion during ICANN meetings, which indicates a collective determination to address critical issues within the internet ecosystem. Furthermore, ICANN’s emphasis on continuous discussion, communication, and issue-raising reflects its commitment to engaging with stakeholders and maintaining transparency in its processes.

Overall, this comprehensive analysis highlights ICANN’s dedication to an inclusive and multilingual internet, the significance of the multi-stakeholder model in internet governance, and the resilience of the internet during the COVID-19 pandemic. It underscores the importance of trust, capacity building, and broad participation in policy creation to ensure a sustainable and equitable internet ecosystem. The analysis also acknowledges the global context in which ICANN operates and the importance of international and multilateral processes.

Veni Markovski:
If we start on time, we might be the first session starting on time, so I wonder whether we should give a couple of minutes to the people. But we have somebody who is waiting online to speak, actually, Sally Costerton. So it’s a little bit, I think it’s 1.45 where she is, which is a little bit cool. So I think without a further delay, thank you, everyone, for coming to the ICANN Open Forum, the multi-stakeholder model driver for global services and sustainable development goals. My name is Veni Markowski. I’m head of government engagement for ICANN. And we have several speakers with us, but the room is, as you can see, we are very open and close to each other. So if you have any questions, also online moderation is provided by my colleague, Vera. If there is any questions, you can just bring me Vera, and we will introduce the questions. So we will give the floor to Tripti Sinha, our chair of the board. We have also later on Danko, Leon, and Edmond speaking, and we have Sally Costerton, our president and CEO, who will be joining us online. So Tripti, I think with that, we can take the floor for your welcoming remarks.

Tripti Sinha:
Thank you, Veni. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to ICANN’s Open Forum. It is a privilege to join you today to explore the role of the multi-stakeholder governance model in shaping the Internet ecosystem over the last 25 years. The Internet, as you know, is a dynamic and ever-evolving landscape, has woven itself into the fabric of our lives, it connects people, transcending borders and cultures, and bestows us with a wealth of knowledge and communication. But what is often hidden behind this seamless connectivity is the participation of thousands of stakeholders who work together to maintain a stable and reliable Internet. So in today’s discussion, we will delve into the multi-stakeholder model of governance and Internet governance and how it has played a pivotal role in creating our digital economy while contributing to the realization of the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the SDGs. So this model lies at the heart of everything ICANN does, shaping policy, implementing changes, and managing the unique identifiers that maintain the Internet’s stability and interoperability. ICANN, or the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is a non-profit organization that coordinates these identifiers. Every time you go online, regardless of the device you are using, the network you are connected to, or where you are in the world, you interact with the Internet’s unique identifier systems that are coordinated and managed by ICANN. For example, when you type a domain name such as ICANN.org into your browser, ICANN ensures, in coordination with many others, that you end up at the correct website. We make that happen at a technical level. ICANN also coordinates policy development around the technical aspects of the Internet. These policies are developed by a multi-stakeholder community, a rich tapestry of representatives from the private sector, governments, the technical community, civil society, and even individual Internet users. Together, this community is committed to serving the best interests of the public, not only the billions of users online currently, but those who are waiting to connect. Today, nearly every device that’s connected to the Internet runs on the same set of protocols and standards and uses the same identifier systems. By using this shared voluntary system, they are all able to communicate with each other, creating a vast interconnected network. At ICANN, we take seriously our responsibility to inform and collaborate with policymakers to ensure that their efforts to protect their communities do not unintentionally damage the Internet’s functionality. Furthermore, governments and intergovernmental organizations are encouraged to participate in ICANN’s multi-stakeholder policy development process. Our governmental advisory committee, which advises the ICANN board on public policy issues, currently has 182 member governments and 38 observer organizations. The Internet, as you know, knows no political or geographic boundaries. Keeping the Internet running is a worldwide effort involving thousands of people with a shared goal, to connect. As we delve into the workings of this multi-stakeholder model of intergovernance, it is essential to recognize that this approach is one of the most inclusive and democratic forms of decision-making ever devised. This approach produces strong results because everyone has a stake in the outcome. The multi-stakeholder model has allowed the Internet and the digital economy to flourish. It has allowed the Internet to function without fail for nearly 40 years, even as the number of users and traffic has exploded. This bottom-up inclusive model is not just an idea, it’s a reality. So thank you for being part of this important conversation. Let us work together to further understand, appreciate, and contribute to the continued success of the multi-stakeholder model in ensuring a stable, reliable, and unified global Internet that benefits everyone. Now I will turn it over to Sally Costerton, ICANN’s interim president and CEO, to share how the multi-stakeholder model and ICANN community is creating a more inclusive Internet. Sally, over to you.

Sally Costerton:
Thank you, Tripti. Can you hear me? Yes. Good start. Thank you very much. Thank you, and once again, welcome everyone to ICANN’s open forum. And whether you are participating here in person or online, I look forward to engaging in this discussion with you. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, ICANN has worked hard to ensure equitable participation in our meetings for both in-person and remote attendees. We continue to apply those lessons learned to ensure effective engagement with all our stakeholders on this hybrid model. Building on what Tripti said, I’d like to take a few minutes to delve a bit deeper into a couple of examples that demonstrate the power of the multi-stakeholder model that Tripti described in shaping our digital world. A pivotal moment that showcased the model’s effectiveness took place seven years ago this month. In October 2016, oversight of the coordination and management of the Domain Name System, or DNS, was handed from the US government to the global Internet community. It was a profound exercise in trust, collaboration, and consensus-driven decision-making. Through countless hours of dialogue and negotiation, stakeholders from all corners of the globe came together to ensure that the transition would be smooth and that the Internet’s stability and security would remain uncompromised. This transition established ICANN as an independent, global organization accountable to the world that exemplifies how collective efforts and shared responsibility drive positive change. In the seven years since, the global community has demonstrated that the IANA stewardship transition was a resounding success, a testament to the multi-stakeholder model’s ability to work in the best interests of the global Internet community. It showed that when diverse voices collaborate with a common goal, we can achieve remarkable outcomes. More recently, the world was struck by the COVID-19 pandemic. The unprecedented crisis tested the Internet in ways we could never have imagined. Overnight, the world turned to the Internet for everything, for remote work, education, healthcare, and staying connected with loved ones. The Internet’s ability to scale up and provide essential connectivity during this crisis in a sustainable way was nothing short of remarkable. But what’s even more noteworthy is how the multi-stakeholder model played a crucial role in ensuring that the Internet continued to function seamlessly. Governments, Internet service providers, technology companies, and civil society organizations joined forces to keep the digital infrastructure running smoothly. They worked together to address challenges such as increased bandwidth and ever-changing cybersecurity threats. Now, the multi-stakeholder ICANN community has turned its focus to creating a more multilingual, inclusive Internet. Everyone, regardless of their background, culture, language, or location, should be able to make full use of the Internet, and ICANN is working to expand the DNS to support more languages and scripts. Many of the current users and most of the next billion users coming online are already part of communities that speak and write in languages other than English, and scripts other than ASCII. True, local, and global meaningful access to the Internet can only be accomplished when all Internet-enabled applications, devices, and systems work with and accept all valid domain names and email addresses. As we work towards true digital inclusivity, let us remember that all the multi-stakeholder community, let us remember all that the multi-stakeholder community has achieved so far. Let us continue to embrace the multi-stakeholder model as a guiding principle in Internet governance, ensuring that the Internet remains a powerful force for good in the world. Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on these important topics.

Leon Sanchez:
Thank you, Sally, and thanks for being with us given the late, or early, rather, time. But feel free, by the way, if you have any comments when we start the conversation to raise your hand or just unmute yourself, because I understand you’re a co-host, and you can do that and intervene in our conversation. So I’m going to open the conversation with a couple of guiding questions, but guys who are here, feel free to, again, raise your hand. There are microphones enough in the room, and I see familiar faces here, so you can comment or ask questions. So we would love to hear also your contributions on the topic that we’re discussing. So I spend most of my time at the United Nations, so the topic of the SDGs is near and dear to my heart. So I would rather start the conversation with questions to you guys, the panelists, as to what are the tenets of the multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance, and why are they important to ensuring this open, secure, and interoperable and resilient Internet ecosystem that we have. So who would want to take the first? Leon? Thank you very much, Veni, and thank you, everyone, for being here with us. I think that, as Veni was trying to say, we’re trying to make this more as a dialogue rather than a monologue, so feel free to chime in and raise your hand and just contribute to the conversation at any time. So I think the multi-stakeholder model is essential to not only Internet governance, but I see it, you know, penetrating other real dreams of society nowadays, and I think it’s important because it’s the place where everyone has a seat at the table, and not only a seat at the table, but a seat on a horizontal structure, right? Rather than a top-down model, at least how it works in ICANN, it’s on a bottom-up fashion, right? So it guarantees and it ensures that every stakeholder and every interest group has a saying and is able to raise their voice, and that voice is taken into account. Now, we often confuse being taken into account with producing the outcome that we wished that it was produced by raising our voices. Now, that’s definitely not how any model works, I guess, and the multi-stakeholder model is not an exception, but I think what’s important is that everyone is heard, everyone is, again, sat at the table and able to voice their thoughts, voice their interests, and if, you know, the arguments are so that your point of view prevails, then that is one of the wonderful things that the multi-stakeholder model has, that by consensus, it fosters this interaction between stakeholders that sometimes may have, you know, very opposite points of views and very opposite interests. Nevertheless, through dialogue and through these conversations, we find common grounds that enable us to take action and to build policies and agreements that make the Internet make the Internet work how it works, and I think it’s one of the principles that we should continue to uphold and foster for the next generations to learn and to improve, because, of course, the model is not perfect, right? So we have room for improvement within the model, and I think that’s essential to what we do here in the IGF, right? To try to find those areas of opportunity in which we can improve the multi-stakeholder model and try to then go back to our communities and implement those improvements to strengthen and to make the multi-stakeholder model more efficient. So that’s my initial contribution, Veni, and of course, happy to hear other thoughts.

Veni Markovski:
Thanks, Leon. What you’re saying about the fact that everyone is heard is very important, because indeed, in the multi-stakeholder universe and at the IGF, it is the case. And at ICANN, it is the case. Anybody can come to the microphone, take the floor, and speak equally with the others. Danko, did you want to say something? Yes.

Danko Jevtovic:
Thank you, Veni. Danko Jevtovic, for the record. So I think Leon has very nicely outlined how the model works. But also, we are here at the IGF to celebrate the success of the internet in contributing to the humanity, to the strategic sustainable development goals that UN has. And in discussing that, we are looking also at the model, but I was originally a techie, so I would like to comment a bit why the technical community is an important part of the multi-stakeholder model. So we heard in the Tripti’s and Sally’s opening remarks some very important words, like interoperability, voluntarily system, open standards, and everything. So I would like us to remind us that basically, the technical layer of the internet is on top of the world telecommunication network that now often includes mobile telephony. But this technical layer is actually based on those very open standards and on accepting what is defining the internet, and this is IPv4, IPv6, and the DNS system. And the key to the success of the system is acceptance of this voluntarily defined addresses of the root server system that actually everyone wants to use, because everyone is there. So the power of the network that is happening is something that is attracting the users. So the importance of the internet in today’s life is not coming from some sort of the top down approach, but is coming from the interest of the end users to actually use this network we have. So I think this shows that the open, liberal, and voluntarily approach taken on by the technical community is very much contributing to the success of the whole model. So this is, in my opinion, one of the reasons why the model works. And now, of course, in a multi-stakeholder way, there is a very important role of the other stakeholders, governments caring for the public interest in their democratic processes, academia, obviously civil society, and businesses. So we are all together in this. And in exercising the model, as Leon commented, it works. And we celebrate that here. Thank you.

Veni Markovski:
I’d just like to add something to what Danko and Leon just said. Fundamentally, when technology is created, invented, and developed, it’s not done in isolation, and it’s done for a reason. They’re created for enablement. There’s a form and function to it. So you essentially have to bring multiple stakeholders to the table, because no one is working here in isolation, because then it serves no purpose. So typically, technologies, a technical community develops a technology to enable a user community. And then around that, you need to wrap policies and so forth, so that they implement it fairly and abide by prevailing laws, so on and so forth. And technology in this, in the internet in particular, of course, or stimulates the economy and businesses and so forth. So we’re all sort of interconnected. So let’s not forget the fundamental premise that we don’t work in isolation. Thanks, Edmund, you?

Edmon Chung:
Yeah, Edmund Chung here. Happy to add a little bit of my perspective. I think we, I love ICANN and it’s very important. I grew up with ICANN and almost, but we’re here to celebrate the multi-stakeholder model, not just ICANN. ICANN is one of many successful multi-stakeholder models for internet governance. IGF here, the multi-stakeholder advisory group, the MAG of the IGF is another one. The IETF, the RIRs use a different model, but they are all successful multi-stakeholder models for the global internet and that’s what makes it work. I think that’s a very important part. It’s the global internet governance ecosystem that really makes it tick because I think both Tripti and Sally earlier mentioned that really every click on the internet touches the DNS, touches the IP addressing system. And ICANN plays a role in maintaining the unique identifiers, but these identifiers are developed by the IETF and also maintained by the RIRs as well. So it is working together that makes the global internet governance system work. So another thing that Sally touched on that I want to add is the internationalized domain names. Those who know me know that that’s a topic of passion, but that has been a topic of passion for 25 years. 25 years ago, I went to ICANN and the door was completely open and allowed me to really pick up the mic and start speaking. That goes to Leon’s point about being able to raise a voice for issues that are important because I do believe that a fully multilingual internet is important and it is a foundation towards digital inclusion, which brings me to the topic of SDGs. It’s the sustainable development goals that is really important because the internet is supporting the achievement of these goals. And if you look at IDNs, for example, the acceptance, the universal acceptance of the multilingual internet needs other stakeholders as well. And it’s not just ICANN, it’s not even just the internet governance ecosystem. We need other stakeholders, more of the governments, more of the academia, more of the industry and civil society around the world to make this work. So that’s, in my mind, what is, I guess, beautiful about this model. And Veni started the open the discussion by saying, what are some of the tenants? Well, multi-stakeholder model is of course one of them, but there is a little bit more. So what is in the multi-stakeholder model is also important. And I will highlight two of them that I believe are important tenants. One is the bottom-up agenda setting. And that’s what ICANN is about. That’s what 25 years ago, I was able to step into the mic and speak about. That’s what the IGF here embraces as well, the bottom-up agenda setting, the setting of the program, the MAG and the workshops. The other thing is consensus-based and rough consensus. And I think both Leon and Danko mentioned it, not necessarily always be on the side of the consensus. Sometimes you would be on the side of the rough, right? For the first 10 years, I have been struggling to get anyone being interested in IDNs to, and it took time for the technology and policy to develop. So those two things are equally important, I think, as part of the ecosystem. So finally, I wanted to touch on one thing. There are attacks to the system. There are attacks to ICANN. There are attacks to this global multi-stakeholder model. And for example, that it’s being slow, that things aren’t getting done. I think it’s the time it takes to develop a global consensus on global policies need time. But that doesn’t mean there are not situations that almost borders into filibustering, right? I mean, there are those cases. And that’s why we need to continue to improve. Is it fully democratic? No. Is it a representative democracy? No, but it is a more deliberative, it is a more liquid kind of democracy, but we need to continuously improve it. And at the GNSO at ICANN, you would hear that the policy development process is now in 3.0. What that means is that over the last 20 years, it has been updated three times. So that’s an important part of the multi-stakeholder model, I think. And finally, I wanna say, I very much believe that a noisy ICANN is a healthy ICANN. That being said, for those who wanna challenge this system, and those who wanna really sort of extinguish this open and bottom-up and consensus-based approach, we also need to develop protection mechanisms. And I think ICANN has developed some of it. And then I think also the internet institutions are going through processes to improve that because we need these inoculation mechanisms to built into it so that the multi-stakeholder model can continue to thrive. So for those who wanna come and challenge, I would challenge them to come and participate and change ICANN, but also be warned that we do have these inoculation mechanisms to repel those who intend to kill the multi-stakeholder bottom-up consensus-based mode. So I guess this is what defines ICANN in my mind and why I love it. And the internet governance ecosystem has really proven its resilience and value to humanity. And let’s build it better.

Veni Markovski:
Thanks a lot. I don’t know, Sally, if you wanna step in a little bit on that question. Or if not, I have another one for you, but let me see what you think.

Sally Costerton:
I’m happy to take a slide. Why don’t we go to the next question, Veni?

Veni Markovski:
Unless anybody, I mean, I think there is- There is a question in the room, yeah. Yeah. Can you just introduce yourself?

Audience:
Yes, I’m Varun Dhanapala from Sri Lanka, government of Sri Lanka and one time GAC alternate member. So just to add to the colleagues, so there are a lot of argument of this model, multi-stakeholder model and all these things. I was actually new to this ICANN business. My colleague, Jayanthi Fernandes, introduced me and then I went for an orientation session in Kathmandu. Then only I realized what it really is and engaged with various stakeholders, but we could build trust in this model. So there is a, I attended a couple of sessions, one of the AGMs in maybe Montreal or Barcelona, and there are some arguments with the, it is, whether there’s a competition between IGF and ICANN and I see it rather complimentary rather than competitive. So there’s a lot of give and take things from the state-driven or multi-stakeholder approaches. So that’s what I got and I also, having a diplomat head in New York, I think we could host one of the events for ICANN by the Srilanka Mission in New York for various nation states to give some light on what ICANN is doing in New York. So I think when it compares to many of the infrastructure, I think the internet has a wide outreach and there should be a real strength should be harnessed through all these aspects. That’s my comment and to this, thank you.

Veni Markovski:
Thank you, thank you very much. So Sally, we were talking, I think Edmund mentioned about the resiliency and how the service is working. So the DNS is providing uninterrupted service, which illustrates its reliability and connectivity. How do you think the multi-stakeholder model contributed to maintaining this level of resiliency and do you think this model actually is the one that helped the internet?

Sally Costerton:
Thank you, Veni. Yes, it’s the short answer to the last part of your question, but let me explain a little bit about how I think that works. Well, I think probably everybody maybe in this room understands this, but I think it merits repeating that it is not, part of ICANN’s mission is to serve the global public interest. So the maintenance, the mandate to ensure the stable, secure and resilient and open DNS is how we do that. That is what we are actually delivering to the internet users of the world. And you may say, well, why does that matter? Well, because every time any of us go online, whatever device you’re using, you are, or whatever type of network you’re connected to or wherever you are in the world, you’re going to touch something that originates from ICANN. And those, that takes the form of the unique identifiers, particularly the domain name system identifiers that enable internet users to connect to each other. So at its simplest level, if you type ICANN.org into a browser, that system ensures that you can end up on the right site. And we make that work at a technical level. Do it in coordination with partners in the technical ecosystem. And we are not a political organization. So it’s ICANN, it is different groups of people from many diverse communities, as many people have referred to already this morning, performing that mission and doing it using a bottom-up process that uses consensus. And what that means is that when those policies are developed, in my experience at ICANN, and I think what ICANN has brought to the world in the last 25 years, it’s our 25th anniversary this year, is sustainable policy, because it has the hands of so many people over it. The consensus model is so critical because diversity means people come to ICANN and they don’t agree. They may come from many different points of view in the analog world where they have different ways of doing things. But when it comes to making the policy and coordinating the identifiers that deliver this service to the world, this critical service that keeps the internet open and functioning and always on, they do it using this consensus model where you come into ICANN and you agree that you will find a way forward. And that policy will then have the stamp of agreement and approval and support of the multi-stakeholder community that represents the world’s internet users at ICANN. And that is, as Edmund said, and he’s right, sometimes that process can take quite a long time because to get people to agree to something that is sustainable and that works and that contribute to that critical infrastructure that we all rely on so much, you can’t rush these things. They have to work. They have to work technically. They have to work between all the stakeholders that use the internet. And in order to do that, we have to do one thing that maybe we haven’t talked about yet today, but I want to stress it. And that is we have to build trust. And trust is built between people one-to-one, structures as in organizational groups, organizations, countries, governments, and we all have to have that climate of trust, that ability to trust that we are going to do what we said we were going to do every second, every minute, every day, every hour, wherever internet users are in the world. And the power of the internet comes from the fact that it is a single interoperable system, which is accessible globally and locally, such that one of the, that great strength that we deliver that all the time can sometimes be challenging because it looks so easy. It can look to people that don’t understand how it works like it’s just there. It’s just always there, if you like, like a magic trick. But the reality is, as Tripti said in her comments, that to focus on that part of the internet, we need an internet governance structure as we work so closely today with the MAG, with the IGF, and have done for the whole of the period of this, the time ICANN has been in existence, that the aspects of internet governance around content are outside our remit. So when we are working, we’re working around our mission, around the governance of specifically the technical infrastructure layer. And I think that level of focus has been an incredibly important part of ICANN’s ability to deliver that success over the years. And finally, I just wanted to say, is that one of the key elements we have to focus on, I’ve been very involved in this in the time I’ve been working in this organisation, we have to keep bringing new people in. The world is changing constantly. The internet is an increasingly important element and aspect and driver of that change. And in order to do that, we have to keep widening the net. We need to keep bringing new users into ICANN and we need to help them with capacity development tools and with working together to come into our world, like Edmund said, to show up, to feel welcome, to feel heard, to feel equal, to feel empowered, so that they can make meaningful contributions. I hope that’s helpful, thank you.

Veni Markovski:
Very helpful, thank you. Before I see a couple of hands, but I would just want to make sure if somebody, okay. Oh, Edmund wants, oh, you know. Okay, go ahead. Sebastian was first, I think. Can you? Yeah, there is a microphone, but it’s okay. All right, Steve Del Bianco. I know, you can argue who’s gonna first.

Audience:
Steve Del Bianco with NetChoice and we’re halfway through this session and thus far, the audience to which the message has been directed would be an audience of multi-stakeholders who don’t really have any experience with ICANN. To that extent, it’s been normative and aspirational about how welcome it is to have a voice. I think that’s appropriate to bring people into the consideration of trying ICANN. But at least half of our audience at an IGF, the 17th IGF, are people that have been working within ICANN, as I have for 20 years. That audience realizes that having a voice is not the same thing as having influence and that audience might regard with some skepticism the ease with which having a voice affects outcomes. We actually have a good story to tell to that second audience and our story would be how business, government, and civil society, if they do more than exercise a voice, if they actually show up and participate, can, over time, begin to nudge and change policies. Giving examples that will affect the thinking that will go on, the debate that will go on in governments and the General Assembly over the next two years. Some of that audience experienced ICANN and we need to remind them how governments, through the GAC, have a special form of influence at ICANN, how we engineered their special role through the transition, how governments affect the way ICANN moves and has a huge role on the new GTLD program. Civil society, we want to remind them that, over a decade of effort, they did have a significant nudge to the way ICANN handled the publication of WHOIS data and the new policies that emerged. And in the business community, the story’s a little more muddled because different parts of the business community see ICANN in a different way, but all are able to influence policy, but only by participation. I really believe you oversell, you oversell the value of, oh, having a voice, giving a speech and an open microphone. That is not gonna ring true and effective for the audience that will decide the degree to which governments will accommodate ICANN’s role in the vote the General Assembly takes in less than two years.

Veni Markovski:
For those of you who are wondering what this vote is in two years, it’s the WSIS + 20 review, which many sessions here actually have touched on that. Sebastien.

Audience:
Thank you, Sebastien Bachelet. I wanted to come back to a few positive things and maybe some less positive on ICANN. The first is that, yes, it is participation. And ICANN, it’s the only multi-stakeholder organization who support participation to some of the people. I will just take one example. During the pandemic, ICANN decide to help people to be connected to internet, to participate to the meeting of ICANN in some country where it was expensive, difficult. And there are many other example. I don’t want to take too long on that. But for me, it’s one of the, it’s the only organization doing that. Therefore, it’s important to put that on the table. I understand that you are happy with what ICANN is doing and we are happy with ICANN is doing. But I feel that we can bring new people, yes, but we need also old timers. And we can’t say one and not the other. The diversity, it’s important. We can’t have people just, okay, let’s have everybody out and put new people. We need to have this diversity. It’s also important to continue to have more and more diversity of age, diversity of language. background and so on and so forth. But I really feel that after 25 years and more than 20 years of the last real reorganization of ICANN, it’s time to sit down and to think about that. Yes, I know there are pressing issues, the next round of TLD, the RDAP, and so on and so forth. But if we don’t sit down now, and I say now, to discuss how we can evolve ICANN to shorten the time of decision. Yes, we need time, but maybe we don’t need so much time. With 20 years, more than 20 years, we are discussing on that. It’s sometime we need to find a way to have decision-making, maybe a little bit different. Yes, maybe it will be to take out to some bodies as a final decision, maybe to rebalance the things was done after the transition. But if we don’t sit down now, I am in trouble for the future. Yes, we are doing very good things and yes, ICANN is essential and the way ICANN is working, it’s very good, but we can do better. Thank you.

Veni Markovski:
To address Steve’s comments, you’re absolutely right that it’s one thing to say we are open and you know anyone, but participation is important. One thing that is coming out of literally like last week, I’m already lost what days today, is that with regards to the governments, because I know you understand the importance of them participating and ICANN not just having a voice, is that there will be a high-level governmental meeting in Rwanda on June 9th and we’ve already used the opportunity in our meetings here with government officials to invite them and there are some commitments already of people to come. There will be some official announcement coming at the ICANN Hamburg meeting, but it’s important we, as important as the other stakeholders participation or maybe even more so because of the process that you mentioned, the WSIS plus 20 and the global digital compact which is next year. So we are not happy about the fact that you know it’s an open microphone, anybody can speak, but we are happy that governments actually we see now with Rwanda taking the lead you know to host a high-level governmental meeting and with the conversations that we had here and the bilaterals that I have in the last several months, there is I would say a new commitment by governments to participate, not just to have the right to participate. So we’ll see, you know, they make promises, we’ll see how it goes. Do we have any questions online or no? I don’t know if Sally, do you have any comments?

Sally Costerton:
Thank you, Veni. I absolutely agree with what Steve and Sebastian said about participation, meaningful participation and that requires an empowered stakeholders who are equipped with the right skills and knowledge and confidence. So people skills, individual skills, as well as the knowledge that they need, the subject matter, the knowledge that they need to contribute. Because Steve’s right, the purpose is to is to create sustainable policy and to have an influence on that and to make sure that it’s done through the voices of many and not few.

Veni Markovski:
Thanks, Sally. We have several comments here, go ahead.

Audience:
Thanks, Jonathan Zuck from the Innovators Network Foundation and I’m currently serve as the chair of the ALAC which is the part of the ICANN community that’s endeavors to represent the interests of individual and users. But just speaking for myself and talking about ICANN generally, it’s interesting what Sebastian said that it’s we’re good but we could be better and I suspect that no matter what we do that will always be the description of ICANN, right? There’s that song Imperfectly Perfect or Perfectly Imperfect or whatever it is, right? And that’s going to be the answer. When Jordan Carter yesterday asked people to raise their hand if you thought that internet governance is perfect, I raised my hand. He didn’t see me thankfully because it might have led to an extended conversation. But the truth of the matter is it doesn’t mean that if you have a perfect system you’re gonna have perfect outcomes or anything like that. It just means that you have a system that has the capacity to evolve, that has the capacity to deal with change, etc. But one thing I feel like I’ve been talking about for about 20 years that I think is a challenge much more so than the structure of ICANN is the ability to involve people periodically. Because there’s a lot of people out there in this sort of internet community that have specific areas of expertise but don’t have a general interest in devoting their life to the work of ICANN. And we sort of create this binary that says okay you can come participate and as Steve says you can influence things and Steve’s managed to influence things with just participating for 20 years in the ICANN process. And I think we really need to find a way to, and this was part of the GNSS efforts with PDP 3.0, was to find a way to make the efforts more granular so that I’m asking smaller questions, I’m packaging them in a way that people that have domain expertise can participate for the duration of that small conversation and go back to their regular life. I mean we don’t want twice as many people twice as many lifers that ICANN but we want more voices when they matter, when they count them, when that expertise can be brought to bear. And I think that’s something we should really focus on doing is helping people with periodic participation.

Veni Markovski:
Thanks. I think I mean Tripti has a short comment.

Tripti Sinha:
Thank you Jonathan. Thank you Sebastian. I just want to remind everyone this is not an ICANN meeting. And point well taken but this is about the multi-stakeholder model and how we can sharpen that model and contribute towards the United Nations SDGs and so forth. So just just to remind everyone this is not an ICANN meeting. But I’m glad that you’re interchanging it, getting it confused with IGF and multi-stakeholder when I can. So at least it means that we’re on solid footing when it comes to multi-stakeholderism.

Veni Markovski:
Thanks Tripti. I think Edmund, who is first?

Edmon Chung:
I can quickly because I think it adds on to what Tripti said. I think this is a great demonstration of a noisy ICANN that I think is a healthy ICANN. So but I did want to highlight one of the things that that yes I agree the the evolution of the system is is very important. But one of the things that that I want to highlight on the resilience it is this thing this type of argument that that that supports the resilience of the governance system as well and not counting on full agreement. That’s the the beauty of rough consensus right. But in terms of rough consensus there’s also a nugget where we do agree. We agree enough to continue to work together and not go out and do something else. And I think that is equally important. And that is the the nugget of rough consensus that that’s what maintains one Internet unfragmented. And then you know that’s that’s the one thing that I wanted to add.

Audience:
My name is Werner Staub. I’m also part of the that half of the audience was attending ICANN meetings on a regular basis. And in the context of how we should organize the multi-stakeholder process of ICANN we can actually look back on 20 years of experience and see successes and one enormous failure. And that only enormous failure is the fact that if you have this pyramid of multi-stakeholderism focusing on the top which is the ICANN itself you know the it’s it’s it’s a it’s governance structure. It fails to interact with other processes that produce useful things that would actually be very much necessary for the community that ICANN is supposed to serve. And that community is not the domain holders. That community is the end-users of the Internet. And specifically I can give a couple of examples of other processes. They’re even kind of not so represented in in this IGF but they’re really key to it. One of them is the CA browser forum. We have a lack of interaction with that organization which is critical form for most of stuff that affect the users of what ICANN ultimately outputs. Secondly we have the Financial Stability Board which finally took action about identification of legal entities worldwide. And compare that to ICANN’s conclusion that it was unable to distinguish effectively between organizations and natural persons. It beggars belief that we had that result simply because we’re looking for a solution inside of this pyramid when actually the solution comes from from somewhere else. And finally we’ve got another example which is the identity forums. You know there’s a number of there’s a number of initiatives around there. The Decentralized Identity Foundation and so on. All these they would need some interaction but we cannot organize this you know with just some of the stakeholders going there. It needs some interaction from the top of ICANN as well.

Tripti Sinha:
Thank you. Once again just a response to your comment. You’re talking using ICANN as an example again but the takeaway from your comment is that regardless of what multi-stakeholder model we use whether it’s for the IGF or for ICANN or any other body let’s make sure that we look outside of our own system. And good point well taken. Thank you.

Veni Markovski:
Thanks and I want to bring Sally again in the conversation because I think it goes along with a couple of the comments we heard. So my next question is how to ensure that this multi-stakeholder approach is inclusive yet representative which is something that Steve was talking about. And particularly of underrepresented groups and regions. And what is the role of capacity building that and how ICANN is engaging to expand and to bring new people. So Sally do you want to comment on that?

Sally Costerton:
Thanks Vani yes it’s essential and right as Tripti said not just within ICANN but right across the internet ecosystem. We’ve done we’ve done an enormous amount of work on bringing in newcomers of all different types to ICANN. Now what we discovered early on and I’ve been at ICANN about 11 years and during this time we discover this and I know that our colleagues at ISOC and in the RIRs and right across the the system have the same challenge that as Jonathan said the first thing is you have to get people interested and that means they have to understand why what ICANN does affects them. People will not give up hundreds and hundreds of hours of their own time it’s a volunteer community to do something however important we may think it is until they understand why they think it’s important and so that’s that’s a critical hurdle that we have to get over as an internet community not just as an ICANN community and one of the things we have to do to do that effectively and this is an incredibly important part of the role of the IGF I think is to raise awareness of how the internet actually works and how those how people can come and be part of that and why it matters and how they have an influence and as those 10 years have gone on there’s been more of more interest in how the internet works more and more interest in the internet itself which is no surprise as the as the users have grown so very much and that means then we also have to bring people in and say here’s what you need to know. Now some people come to ICANN and they know they very well understand the content but they may not have the personal skills they may come from environments where they’re not trained in in the personal confidence skills and the time management skills chairing meetings participating in meetings and so forth and the work of drafting and editing that goes into policymaking which we see is again not just not just ICANN but in in many other groups that are involved in this. So the capacity building with what we mean is in what usually my definition of that would be is we’re giving people a skill so that they they can stand on their own feet this is sort of the teach a man to fish and teach a woman to fish idea. So much of the capacity building we do at ICANN around the world is about working with groups of people to help them to learn for themselves the skills that they need to to use that energy and ambition and excitement that they have to be part of it in a meaningful way so they are not just talking in a microphone they are participating in that policymaking process and we have to do that in multiple languages we have to do it in multiple time zones and we have to do it with different groups of of participants. So what students might need engineering students might need for example in Asia Pacific might be very different from what a new GAC rep might need in Latin America in South America or Latin America. So we do lots of different kinds of training capacity building we create a lot of different content in lots of different languages and some of that capacity building is very hands-on particularly our technical training so when people are putting in new infrastructure in their or in their countries and their organizations we do everything we can to help them to do that to make sure that they understand how to how to put in those things like DNSSEC for example security for the DNS they can do it effectively and they have the confidence to do that moving forward.

Veni Markovski:
Thanks Sally. Keith you’re giving priority here.

Audience:
Thank you very much Benny and hi everybody Keith Drezik I work for Verisign we are the registry operator for the .com and .net top level domains we operate two of the internet’s root servers and we perform the root zone maintainer function under a contract with ICANN and that may be well-known information to some of the ICANNers in the room but I’m sort of introducing myself in the company for those who may be following online maybe watching the recording later. I want to take this conversation perhaps up a level and back to the focus on ICANN’s role and the ICANN multi-stakeholder community’s role in supporting its mission its technical coordination mission of the IANA functions as well as in support of the SDGs. I think as we talk about this session the way that it was teed up it’s you know important to note that ICANN has a very important role at the technical layer of the internet it has a very important multi-stakeholder engagement in support of the development of policies that impact that technical layer of the internet and as we look at the SDGs there is no one that is you know a direct recipient of something specific that is coming out of the ICANN process but fundamentally what ICANN does in the coordination of that technical layer and of the IANA functions specifically the coordination of domain names of IP addresses of protocols that come out of the IETF is that what we do in a predictable manner in the ICANN space it creates stability security and resiliency for that technical layer that enables everything else to function in a predictable way for the work that needs to take place to deliver on the sustainable development goals it all in our interconnected world relies on the predictable stable secure and resilient operation of the DNS and I think it’s just critical to recognize that ICANN’s mission is a narrow one by necessity ICANN does it very well VeriSign has been delivering on our DNS uptime for ComNet and the root servers that we operate 100% uptime for more than 26 years we are able to do that because of the policies and because of the predictability that exists in the ICANN space in the management of the IANA functions our ability to do that and other registries and registrars and the service operators the RIRs we are able to do that because of that predictable nature but it’s really important to note that policies do need to evolve policies do need to change attackers and the DNS are getting more sophisticated they are evolving we need to evolve our policies accordingly and there’s probably another you know a range of more options or examples that I could provide but just you know to summarize I think we have very good engagement in a multi-stakeholder way in the ICANN space multi-stakeholder consensus building is really about compromise at the end of the day consensus building bottom-up consensus building in a multi-stakeholder fashion is about compromising but it needs to be done carefully and it needs to be done to ensure that predictability and secure stable resilient operation of the networks so thank you very much thank

Veni Markovski:
thank you this could have been actually a good fine final statement for the meeting but we still have time and we have people who raise their hands so first is Danko and then Leon.

Danko Jevtovic:
Thank you Kit I think this is a great introduction also to what I wanted to say so by celebrating the success of internet here probably we are talking so much about ICANN also because well it’s a lot of ICANNers here but we also celebrating 25th anniversary of ICANN here and I think this is part of this success story for the whole internet so inside the ICANN ecosystem we are coordinating those policies that enable this mid-layer to function and to be the fundamental for all the services and content and everything why the users are there but also as Sally explained it is our role to engage and to explain the technical consequences of possible legislations that are coming so in these discussions in the IJF I think it’s very important to contribute because we are walking towards the global digital compact we are walking towards voices plus 20 and for all of this technical community and things that are coordinating in the multi-stakeholder model well through ICANN and through IJF and for others it is important that we understand what are the consequences of the possible legislative processes and initiatives that are happening also in other fora and give our best help, assessment, expertise to be able to, for this great internet to continue for next 25 and 25 and more years after that and obviously to evolve to serve the needs of the end users of the people of the world and businesses. So I think this is very good explanation how actually the things work and it will continue to be helpful.

Leon Sanchez:
Thank you, so just as Tripti was reminding us that this is not an ICANN meeting, I’d like to take the conversation a little bit out of the realm of the ICANN world and try to remind us how the multi-stakeholder model and what it produces actually has been successful in forwarding or going forward or progressing at least two of the SDGs and I’m gonna center in SDG four, which is quality education and SDG 16, which deals with justice. And we could see the results of how the multi-stakeholder model delivered in progressing these two goals during the pandemic, right? If it hadn’t been because of the products made out of the multi-stakeholder model, children, a lot of children around the world, of course, didn’t have the benefits of having continuous education during the pandemic, that’s for sure. But those who were able to connect, those who had connectivity, they were able to continue having their lessons taught. They were able to continue learning. And that is another challenge of the multi-stakeholder model to connect the next users that are still not connected. So this is an effort that only, at least in my mind, only through a multi-stakeholder model of doing things we will be able to achieve. And that will also progress on the SDGs of equity, et cetera, et cetera. And in terms of justice, I know that this might not apply to all legal systems around the world, but at least I can tell you my experience being a practicing lawyer in Mexico. We’ve had legislation that established electronic means for filing, for litigating, et cetera, et cetera, for years, but they were never implemented because we didn’t need them. And as soon as the pandemic hit us, then all of a sudden, the courts, the different offices in government, et cetera, et cetera, they implemented this legislation that had been dormant for years. And we were able to continue litigating, we were able to continue filing all types of affairs in front of government offices because of the products that we produce in this multi-stakeholder model. Not only within ICANN, again, but through the different allies and the different bodies that conform the wider internet community, right? And I think one lesson that I’d like to convey or to share with those decision makers that might be listening to us is that we don’t necessarily need to legislate the internet because it’s already regulated, right? Because regulation regulates conduct. It doesn’t regulate means or media. So whatever we do in our physical world, it already has an equivalent conduct in the digital world. So whatever legislation we apply to the physical world, we can port that to the digital world. Of course, there might be gaps that we need to look at, but we should look at them in a very careful way and by all means through a multi-stakeholder approach because that will ensure that whatever legislation is crafted will take into account the interests of those who will be affected by those legislation. So again, I think porting this multi-stakeholder model not only to the internet community, but to a larger model like the representative democracy and turning it into a participative democracy would be the ultimate goal for us to prove that the multi-stakeholder model is fruitful.

Veni Markovski:
Thanks. I understand there are some comments online if you wanna read them.

Vera Major:
Yes, thank you, Benny. Can you hear me? Thank you. Thank you, Benny. You can hear me now? So we have several comments in the chat as well as a question which was answered in the chat, but I’d still like to read it out loud. First, Desiree Milosevic commented, I would like to highlight a really great recent development that ICANN in terms of diversity. ICANN has two women at the helm of ICANN, the board chair and the interim CEO, and many diverse members of the ICANN community in leadership positions. And there was a question for Morgan Rockwell. Is there a transparent report on how governments and military and intelligence agencies requested ICANN to interfere in internet traffic, IP designation, or any policy choices? Which was answered by Mikaela Nalon in the chat. ICANN published the letters they received and he provided the link. So for anyone who would like to see the link, please go to the Zoom room in the chat. And finally, an observation from our board member, Edmund Chung. There’s one specific SDG 9.1, develop quality, reliable and sustainable and resilient infrastructure, including regional and transborder infrastructure to support economic development and human wellbeing with a focus on affordable and equitable access for all. That was it for now. Thank you, Vera.

Veni Markovski:
That kind of brings me, the whole conversation here brings me to the point where I wanna skip a couple of the questions I was having in mind, but go to the point that Steve was mentioning, which is the WSIS plus 20 process and to see like in the next two, three years, there are international and multilateral processes that have relation to ICANN’s mission. They’re happening at the UN, they’re happening at the ITU, they may be happening at the European Union level with different elections next year and different legislation. So I was wondering whether maybe Sally, cause we don’t see you here in the room, but I can see a little screen with you there. So on our screen, so maybe do you wanna take it from here and say how do you see ICANN’s role in the next couple of years vis-a-vis those international intergovernmental processes that in some of them we cannot participate because they are closed only for governments and in others, they try to open them with stakeholder consultations and stuff like that and to give you some background, two days ago, I believe, in one of the sessions, Jordan Carton, I believe, from Aude said that it’s enough with the consultation, we want to be involved. Now, within the UN General Assembly, we cannot be involved because the rules of procedure do not allow us to be involved. So consultation is the only path forward. But what do you think about these processes internationally and intergovernmentally that might impact ICANN’s mission?

Sally Costerton:
Thank you, Vani. Yes, it’s an extremely critical topic for ICANN, for the world and for the internet as we go forward into the next two years of this discussion. And we are about to have our next meeting in Hamburg, our AGM, which will take place in a couple of weeks’ time. And I know from having seen the agenda and talked to many stakeholders that we will have a lot of discussion on this exact question you’re asking. So first thing I would say is I think we need to raise awareness of the importance of the discussion inside ICANN. Although it is not an ICANN process, clearly it is a process in which ICANN is very affected and is very involved. So everybody that participates in ICANN needs to increase their awareness about what it is, why it matters, and what they can do and what we should do as organisations and groups to contribute. It revolves around two fundamental objectives in terms of our position, I would say. The primary objective is to uphold the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance that was created 20 years ago. And I think there is a, certainly my view and I think view of many people in our ecosystem is that it is that multi-stakeholder model, that process that we’ve discussed a lot this morning in this discussion, that has delivered the success that we see from the internet today, which Leon referred to, many other people referred to the outcomes of what the internet has been able to deliver. And that extraordinary model at the centre of it that was created 20 years ago has been probably one of the most important contributory factors that has enabled that to happen. So maintaining that as we move forward with a dramatically expanded internet, as I said earlier on, and Edwin referred to, of many new participants with different languages, different scripts, different needs to participate, but that model needs to stay at the heart of it. And to achieve that objective, we’re dedicated to raising awareness, not just inside ICANN, but also awareness amongst the member states that will discuss this and all stakeholders by whom they will, who will also participate and who will also be very influential onto the member states that are involved. And that means sharing our knowledge about how the internet works, the consequences of unintended regulation, some of the topics we’ve talked about this morning, and going back to something Steve referred to earlier, and we have an ex-GAC member in the room, I know, the role of the Government Advisory Committee is such an important part of the way that ICANN works. It’s a very unusual setup. It’s extraordinarily, I think, an important part of ICANN and making sure that the GAC, the individual GAC members and the GAC as a group are fully equipped and fully empowered to participate in that discussion and that we’re maximizing the knowledge and access and relationships that the GAC members who come to ICANN have within their own countries and their own governments to increase the understanding of those governments in these critical issues. The final thing I’d say is that we have two specific, two aims for WSIS-20. Firstly, to increase the awareness of the global digital cooperation, the GDC, as you mentioned already, Bernie, and the review. And the second is, as I said earlier, to draw attention to the key issues within that review that have the potential to adversely affect the internet and adversely affect ICANN’s ability to deliver its mission in the successful way that it has for the last 25 years. Thank you.

Veni Markovski:
Thank you, Sally. Actually, on that point, with regards to the WSIS-20 process, this is one of the, ICANN is, I don’t know if it’s the only organization, but ICANN definitely has a goal, a CEO goal, which is about WSIS-20. So that shows commitment of not only the CEO, but the whole organization to make sure that we pay attention, we raise awareness, we continue to provide technical, neutral information to governments around the world and in the United Nations so that when they go to those negotiations behind closed doors, we hope there will be enough knowledge there so that they are not going to propose stuff which we have seen in the previous discussions, especially in the WSIS plus 10 negotiations in 2015. So a lot of work needs to be done, but we are hopeful that we’ll continue to do that. Any comments on that question in the room online? No. So another question, though, related for me, then related to this one would be for you guys, the panelists, is to, do you think there is, I mean, we all hear about the proposals for creating a multilateral forum. There have been conversation here in the hallways whether this multilateral forum that it might be or may not be, we don’t know, created next year at the Summit of the Future and the Global Digital Compact, whether this could mean a replacement for the Internet Governance Forum. On the other hand, we are at the IGF and we heard a lot of public statements in support of the IGF, but I’m just wondering whether any of you want to, like, maybe even make a guess or, and then we can remind you two years in the, Steve is nodding no, want to make, doesn’t want to make a guess. Take bets. We can make a little bet, you know, a glass of water or something like that. Any, Edmund? Happy to add Edmund here.

Edmon Chung:
Well, I guess this is topic that is one of the hot topics around, you know, as I was discussing with different people here at the IGF. I think generally, at least, maybe it’s because I’m from ICANN and from, you know, supporting the IGF as it is, but I generally, I think here that the community thinks that the IGF needs improvement, but the IGF and the multi-stakeholder model that it takes actually can work better and will work better based on a multi-stakeholder model that can actually bring in different stakeholders. Yesterday, I was at the main session on sustainability and environment, and there’s a clear need to bring in other stakeholders, which is the, I guess, the benefit of a multi-stakeholder model versus another type of model, because then the changes might be much harder to make, and from that main session, at least my conclusion is that we need to take the discussion about internet governance in relation to sustainability and environment to the national and regional IGFs, which then comes back and inform the global IGF, and again, that is the multi-stakeholder model in action and how it would work that I think the IGF can build on and is kind of the right model to build further, and that’s sort of what I’m, at least I’m hearing from the community as well.

Veni Markovski:
Thank you. Yes, Danko.

Danko Jevtovic:
Thank you, Veni. Danko speaking. So I am happy to take possible criticism that I’m too optimistic here, but today is the last day of this great IGF meeting, and I was a MAG member from 2017 until 20, so Paris IGF, Berlin IGF, and a virtual Katowice IGF, and I think, first, I’m very grateful for the Japanese hosts here, but I think this is great IGF. It is getting better every year, and I think this is actually proof not only of the success of internet, as I’m often saying, obviously, but the proof that IGF is functioning and it is getting better, so I don’t, I see those discussions. I see that UN, as the organization of member states, has a certain point of view, but I don’t really see the need to change IGF or to create something in parallel to it. We need to discuss, we need to evolve, and we want to strengthen the IGF, but I think this year is a great success, and I think it should be celebrated by striving to get better and better IGFs, but using that as leverage to create a better internet and to work on the sustainable development goals.

Veni Markovski:
Thank you, Danko. Keith? Okay, thank you, Veni.

Audience:
Thanks again, Keith Drezic, Verisign. So I’d like to build on a bit of what Danko and Edmund just said. I think as it relates to IGF, Verisign has been a longtime supporter of the IGF as a multi-stakeholder engagement, very important. So I think we think of multi-stakeholder internet governance, there’s a macro level, right? There’s the big picture where it’s very, very important that stakeholders have a voice in the development of policy and the development of governance structures. I think that’s all very important and critical at a macro level, but I think in order to have the internet governance forum be relevant and to encourage participation, and as Danko said, we’ve seen tremendous participation here at this IGF meeting in Kyoto. Which I think is really positive, but I think it’s important to be able to identify specific issues and specific topics that need focus and that need contribution and need dialogue and discussion. And I’ll give you an example just from this week. So the Dynamic Coalition on DNS Issues was originally established, I wanna say six years ago, and its focus at that time time was on universal acceptance issues, IDNs, but universal acceptance in general. And then during the pandemic, it sort of went dormant. And obviously, there were the challenges of lack of in-person participation, but the group sort of went quiet. And we have just re-energized, re-established the dynamic coalition on DNS issues. It’s now we were able to get a dynamic coalition session here in Kyoto. And that session was focused on the governance gaps as it relates to the DNS. As was noted earlier, ICANN’s role is very limited. It’s limited to primarily a technical function. And it is clearly not in the content arena. ICANN’s bylaws prohibit it from, it and its contracted parties and others in various ways, from engaging in content moderation. So one of the governance gaps that we’ve identified is, how do we have policy development in a multi-stakeholder way, or even just dialogue and development of best practices in a multi-stakeholder way on content-related harms or content-related matters? So we’re starting this dialogue in a parallel multi-stakeholder track outside of ICANN, but within the Internet Governance Forum context. This is just beginning. I think there’s an opportunity there for a range of views and voices to contribute to that effort. And so, again, just to summarize, macro internet governance, multi-stakeholder IGF, really important. But I think the micro issues, where you get into the more concrete details, will generate more participation, more contribution, and more engagement. Thanks.

Veni Markovski:
Thank you. I want to use the fact to have somebody from DESA here and talk a little one comment on the IGF, which is, I mean, we hear a lot about the IGF. It’s a place for discussion. Actually, the WSIS Tunis agenda in the paragraphs that establish and define what the IGF is, it actually says that the IGF can provide recommendations on new technologies. So I mean, I was thinking, listening to the Secretary General in the last few months, he says, you know, we need an AI agency because AI is dangerous, et cetera, et cetera. This is one thing that the IGF could also do. There could be sessions on AI, and there could be some recommendations expressed by the IGF. So there are still unused opportunities of the IGF. I think that we need to go back and reread the document, the WSIS Tunis agenda, and the WSIS plus 10 outcome document, and maybe provide some feedback to the governments in New York and our national governments, and tell them, hey, you can use the WSIS plus 20, actually, to improve the IGF. And also, you can urge the IGF to be more contributing into what we are going to say. You don’t need to comment, but you have the microphone.

Audience:
Yeah, I do. This is why I’m walking around. But I think you have pretty much stated the lines. But I just like to also, on the record, if you revisit the Secretary General message for the opening of this IGF, I think that that is actually a very big compliment about the IGF, how it has demonstrated in the past 18 years of the multi-stakeholder model. The question in context is actually whether there need to be a separate body on AI. So right now, the approach of the Secretary General is of a high-level advisory body. That doesn’t mean that there will be a high AI advisory board, high-level advisory to him in giving recommendation. So that does not stop IGF from giving recommendations. As a matter of fact, one of the themes of this IGF is on AI. So hopefully, we will have significant or good enough key messages that will talk about what will be the AI, the trends, or the recommendations, or anything for that matter. But having said that, I think for the remaining two years, this is still a possibility for the IGF to reinvent, because that will also be demonstrative of how, during the review in 2025, about what specific impact. And that also relate to the future mandate of the IGF. So I think it’s important. And as a staff member, I heard many compliments about the relevance of IGF. And there’s no need for other bodies. But I think it’s also within this room or this hall, we do have to look at what are the views of those who still think that what are the sort of gaps that IGF ends up being able to fulfill. Thank you.

Veni Markovski:
Back to you. Thank you. I don’t know if there are any comments. There are no comments online, right? OK. So Sally, we are coming to the end of this session. I wanted to see whether you have some final remarks of what you’re thinking about this whole discussion that we had here. And then I’ll pass it to Tripti for the final comments.

Sally Costerton:
Thank you, Veni. I want to thank everybody for coming together at the IGF meeting, for having the energy, the focus, the commitment, and the passion to continue to focus on these critical issues that we’ve been discussing today, and for helping ICANN to continue to raise awareness of the issues that are so, so important as we move through these next couple of years, which we’ve been discussing, particularly in the second half of this meeting. So any of you who are coming to Hamburg to our meeting, I look forward to seeing you there, either online or in person. And in meanwhile, if there is anything that anybody would like to raise with us, with ICANN, that we’ve discussed this morning, we have plenty of ways of communicating with us. Please do that. And thank you very much for your participation this morning. It’s been really a very, very important discussion.

Veni Markovski:
And thank you, Sally, for staying with us. We understand what the time is in the UK. So thanks a lot. Really appreciate it. Tripti?

Tripti Sinha:
Thank you, Veni. So thank you, everyone, for the discussion. I was reflecting on how I’ve come to realize that ICANN is a synonym for the MSM and the IGF. And so I take that as a compliment that our discussion kept going back to ICANN. I think it’s being used more as a model of a multi-stakeholder model that it’s functioning. And as you pointed out, Steve, you’re saying let’s not just have a voice. Let’s be influencers. Let’s move the needle on issues. And we need greater engagement, just more proaction in how we actually bring about change and effect change. And as you were saying, the other gentleman, that oftentimes the solution may exist outside of the perimeters of whatever system we’re working within. And you’re absolutely right. And to me, the gap that that addresses is that perhaps we don’t have everyone inside. We need more stakeholders. And we should go seek them. And that is a point that has come up in the discussions this week here, which is what’s missing at the IGF? And who’s not at the table? And let’s bring them in. And I think that applies to any model of MSM. And no model is perfect, Jonathan. But I think we’re doing quite well. And if I could end on one note, which is in many ways, this is a democracy, if you will, at a high level of abstraction. This is a democracy where you’re trying to bring everyone’s voice and influence to play. And if we’re moving towards multilateralism, I’d say, sadly, the old truism that democracy dies in darkness, that is indeed what will happen. You take away some very important players and you begin to create instability and destabilize the system. So on that note, I’d like to say, let’s just chisel away and make this a better system. Thank you.

Veni Markovski:
Thank you, Tripti. Thank you, everyone, for coming. I understand it’s the last day. So it’s kind of a, you know, you’re looking forward to leave the venue. But thanks again for coming. And thank you, Vera, for the online support. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. You too, let’s see next. Oh, that’s okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.