Uncategorized

Audience

Upon analysing the statements presented by the speakers, several key points emerge regarding internet governance and youth engagement. Firstly, mentorship is highlighted as a crucial factor for newcomers in the field. A speaker mentions being mentored by a veteran from Brazil, named Davi, who had a significant impact on their career and understanding of internet governance. The role of mentorship in shaping one’s understanding and participation in internet governance is cited as a crucial factor.

Additionally, there is an advocacy for improved communication strategies to engage more people, particularly youths, in internet governance. The speaker acknowledges the relevance of studying communications in relation to internet governance. They also praise the Youth Atlas initiative as an example of successful attempts to engage youths from diverse backgrounds in internet governance.

Furthermore, the significant participation of young people at recent events is emphasised. Youth involvement, especially at the Latin American Caribbean IGF, was notable, as large numbers of sessions were proposed by youths and their voices were heard, demonstrating their active involvement in the field.

In terms of inclusion, the importance of including more voices from indigenous people, people with disabilities, and other minorities is stressed. The need for diversity and representation within the field of internet governance is emphasised, indicating the desire for a more inclusive and equitable environment.

Moreover, the speakers highlight the significance of speaking out, even in the face of adversity. They encourage individuals to persevere, even if they are nervous or make mistakes in English pronunciation, emphasising the importance of having the confidence to voice opinions and engage in discussions.

The value of youth participation in the tech space is also recognised. The speaker, who was once a newcomer but has now become a veteran with numerous connections in the tech industry, explores youth involvement in the policy network concerning internet fragmentation, which was presented in the main session.

The aspect of learning and development in the tech space is emphasised, with the speaker emphasising that support is readily available and there is always a learning curve present. The journey of development is acknowledged, with appreciation extended to everyone involved in the process.

Moreover, youth participation programs at internet governance events are considered valuable. The speaker’s own career trajectory serves as an example, highlighting the positive impact of such programs on career development and networking opportunities.

Persistence and dedication are identified as essential qualities for personal growth. The speaker shares their own journey of progress and growth, attributing it to persistence in pursuing their goals and aspirations.

Furthermore, the growing relevance of issues such as privacy and AI within the field of internet governance is acknowledged. The importance of these issues is substantiated by the observation that there is an increase in investment and attention directed towards them over time.

In conclusion, the analysis of the statements reveals the importance of mentorship for newcomers in the internet governance field, as well as the need for improved communication strategies to engage more people, especially young people. The substantial participation of young people at recent events underscores the importance of youth involvement. Inclusion, diversity, and representation are highlighted as crucial elements for a more equitable environment. The significance of speaking out, youth participation in the tech space, and support for learning and development are recognized. The growing relevance of issues like privacy and AI indicates the evolving landscape of internet governance.

Juliana Novaes

The Youth Atlas is a comprehensive documentation of the experiences and journeys of young individuals in the internet governance ecosystem, specifically those who have participated in IGF fellowship programs. The idea for this initiative stemmed from discussions about measuring the impact of these programs on young participants. The inaugural edition of the Youth Atlas was launched in 2019 at the IGF Berlin, marking an important milestone for this resource.

Despite progress in youth representation within the IGF, challenges persist within the internet governance sphere. These challenges, although less prominent now, continue to hinder the full engagement of young people. Difficulties in obtaining approval for IGF sessions and securing funding to attend events are some of the barriers they face.

Notably, youth initiatives in internet governance heavily rely on volunteer work and personal time dedicated by individuals. The inaugural edition of the Youth Atlas was completed in under three months by a team of volunteers, who have all been acknowledged and credited in the book. This highlights the importance of individual passion and commitment in promoting youth involvement.

Greater youth involvement is essential for fostering a healthier and more collaborative culture within internet governance. The Youth Atlas serves as a source of pride and inspiration for young individuals in the field, aiming to encourage more initiatives that empower and support their participation. By amplifying their voices and experiences, the Youth Atlas strives to create a platform for youth-centric initiatives that contribute to inclusive and progressive internet governance.

In conclusion, the Youth Atlas is a valuable record documenting the journeys of young individuals in the internet governance ecosystem, particularly those involved in IGF fellowship programs. While challenges persist, efforts are being made to address them, recognizing the significant role of youth initiatives in shaping the future of internet governance. By promoting youth involvement and providing inspiration and resources, the Youth Atlas aims to contribute to a more inclusive and collaborative internet governance landscape.

Veronica Piccolo

The meeting introduced the second edition of the Youth Atlas, which focuses on tracking the pathways and impact of young people in internet governance. It serves as a comprehensive tool for understanding and highlighting the role of young people in this field.

During the meeting, a key emphasis was placed on clear communication. Participants were encouraged to speak clearly and at a reasonable pace to ensure effective communication. The Q&A session also encouraged questions from both on-site and online participants, promoting an environment of open dialogue and information sharing.

In addition, maintaining a respectful and inclusive environment was highlighted. Participants were requested to uphold respect and inclusivity both in the physical meeting space and in online interactions. This focus on inclusivity is aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals of Gender Equality (SDG 5) and Reduced Inequalities (SDG 10), aiming to create an environment that fosters equal participation for all.

The Youth Atlas is divided into four sessions, each addressing a specific aspect of youth engagement in internet governance. The first session focuses on data and statistics, providing an overview of the development of youth engagement over the past two or three years. The second session entails interviews with individuals who have been engaging in internet governance for three or more years, offering insights from experienced participants. The third session is dedicated to newcomers, providing them with relevant information and resources to get started in the field. Finally, the fourth session focuses on youth programs, highlighting their significance and impact in the internet governance landscape.

Despite the challenges faced during the creation of the Youth Atlas, such as a tight timeframe of less than three months, the process demonstrated dedication and international cooperation. Volunteers from diverse countries contributed to the project, showcasing the importance of youth engagement in internet governance.

The Youth Atlas aims to inspire, empower, and promote personal growth among young people in the internet governance sector. It highlights the contributions and achievements of young people, validating their roles within the internet governance ecosystem. This aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals of Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure (SDG 9), Gender Equality (SDG 5), Reduced Inequalities (SDG 10), and Quality Education (SDG 4).

The meeting also acknowledged and appreciated youth participation and initiatives. Anja Gengo was specifically recognized for empowering youth and encouraging their participation in IGF initiatives. The positive influence that young people can have on senior stakeholders was also acknowledged, with Veronica Piccolo and Emilia working together to set up a youth IGF in Ethiopia.

Veronica expressed excitement and admiration for Pyrate Ruby Passell, who became the youngest person in the IGF youth track at the age of 14. Pyrate’s extensive involvement in the internet governance environment since joining a year ago was also commended. Veronica showed curiosity and interest in understanding Pyrate’s experience as a younger member in the IGF.

Veronica also expressed interest in Pyrate’s activities within the Teen Dynamic Coalition, highlighting their contribution as one of the highlights in the Youth Atlas. The book features both a printed version and a digital edition, with the digital edition including interactive content such as QR codes linking to video interviews and a Spotify playlist curated by Pyrate.

Overall, the meeting emphasized youth empowerment, career and skill development, and the importance of youth engagement within the European community. The Youth Atlas publication was highly recommended, with young participants invited to obtain a copy. The progress made in youth engagement and initiatives since the first edition of the Atlas in 2019 was acknowledged, reflecting global youth engagement in internet governance.

Anja Gengo

The Youth IGF initiatives have seen significant growth in youth engagement through the organization of webinars and summits in various parts of the world. These events have successfully attracted thousands of young people from all over the globe, demonstrating the increasing interest and involvement of youth in important global issues. By providing a platform for dialogue and capacity development, such as the Youth Summit held in Poland, these initiatives have created spaces for both senior and junior leaders to come together and exchange ideas. This intergenerational dialogue is crucial in fostering leadership and partnership for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The IGF Secretariat has been actively working towards simplifying the process and channels for youth engagement. They have organized capacity development workshops in regional IGFs to enhance the skills and knowledge of young participants. These efforts aim to provide easier access and avenues for youth to contribute to discussions on topics such as quality education and industry innovation and infrastructure, which are central to the SDGs.

The IGF meetings, held in Finland, Colombia, Australia, and Nigeria, have played a vital role in taking youth engagement to a global level. These meetings, organized by different youth IGFs, have provided opportunities for young people to participate and contribute on an international scale. This has expanded the reach and impact of youth engagement, moving beyond the conference level and facilitating meaningful involvement in global conversations.

Despite the challenges faced, the enthusiasm and energy demonstrated by young people in these initiatives give confidence for a bright digital future. Many young participants are digital natives, equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge to navigate the digital world. Their involvement in global initiatives contributes to the promotion of decent work and economic growth. It also highlights the importance of embracing digital advancements in shaping a promising future.

The 18th IGF meeting was considered a success from the youth perspective due to the commitment and dedication demonstrated by young participants. Their active involvement and contributions have made a significant impact on the meeting’s outcomes and discussions. This success further facilitates the recognition and value of youth engagement in shaping policies and partnerships for the SDGs.

Anja, an important figure in the Youth IGF initiatives, expressed appreciation for the engagement of young people and expressed commitment to supporting their continued connection and exchange. Anja also extended an open invitation for organizations to invite her to their IGFs, highlighting the enthusiasm for attending and learning from other initiatives and events.

In conclusion, the Youth IGF initiatives have experienced significant growth in youth engagement through various activities such as webinars, summits, and regional IGFs. These initiatives have provided platforms for dialogue, capacity development, and have successfully taken youth engagement from local to global levels. The dedication and commitment of young participants have played a crucial role in the success achieved so far. The enthusiasm and energy exhibited by young people indicate a positive outlook for a bright digital future. Anja’s appreciation for youth engagement and her willingness to engage with other initiatives further emphasizes the importance of youth involvement in global conversations.

Jenna Fung

During the analysis, several key points emerged from the speakers’ arguments. One prominent theme was the positive sentiment towards youth participation in ongoing matters. The speakers highlighted examples of individuals like Nadia and Jenna, who have made significant contributions to various platforms and initiatives. These examples served to demonstrate the value and impact of youth involvement in addressing important issues.

Another argument put forth was the necessity of giving youth a place in decision-making processes. The speakers argued that youth participation can help to reduce inequalities and contribute to decent work and economic growth. By involving young people in decision-making at all levels, it was believed that more inclusive and effective solutions could be achieved. Jenna’s experience in the Asia Pacific Youth Internet Governance Forum was cited as a compelling example of how youth participation in decision-making can lead to positive outcomes.

Furthermore, the importance of youth initiatives was emphasized. The speakers acknowledged the energy and passion demonstrated by newcomers in the field of youth initiatives. They also mentioned that although there are many acronyms related to youth initiatives, not everyone may be aware of platforms like the Global Youth Summit. This highlights the need for increased awareness and support for such initiatives to ensure their continued success and impact.

The analysis also revealed a strong emphasis on the need for ongoing efforts for youth development. A colleague’s quote emphasizing the importance of continuous efforts and future planning beyond a single session highlighted the belief that sustained commitment is necessary to bring about long-term positive change for young people. This sentiment underscored the idea that youth development requires continuous investment and attention.

Finally, the analysis emphasized the significance of youth involvement in policy-making. The speakers put forward the viewpoint that “nothing for youth without youth,” indicating the importance of ensuring that young people have a voice in decisions that affect them. Jenna’s perspective on the significance of young people’s voices in decision-making further reinforced the argument for greater inclusion of young people in policy-making processes.

Overall, the analysis revealed a positive sentiment towards youth participation and highlighted the benefits of involving young people in decision-making, supporting youth initiatives, and making ongoing efforts for youth development. These insights underscore the importance of recognizing and empowering the youth population as key contributors to achieving sustainable development goals.

Nadia Tjahja

According to the analysis, there is a growing consensus that youth should have a more significant role in Internet Governance Forums (IGFs). This is because young people have the potential to provide concise, clear, and visible ideas that can greatly contribute to the content and structure of these events. It is believed that involving the youth in IGFs can lead to fresh perspectives, innovative approaches, and effective solutions.

Furthermore, meaningful participation in IGFs requires more than just being present. It involves being well-informed, engaging in consultation, and assuming leadership roles. This concept of meaningful participation is seen as a process that contributes to the constant change in the IGF ecosystem. It is viewed as a way to strengthen the decision-making processes and ensure that all stakeholders, including the youth, have a voice in shaping the Internet governance landscape.

To support the youth in their involvement with IGFs, it is suggested that the IGF should create opportunities that foster their growth and leadership. This can be achieved by working in partnership with the youth to create specific structures and spaces that cater to their needs and interests. Additionally, young people should be given the chance to take on positions as session organizers or collaborate with the IGF Secretariat. These actions would not only enhance youth participation but also contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals related to decent work and economic growth, along with reduced inequalities.

Overall, there is a positive sentiment towards youth involvement and meaningful participation in IGFs. The analysis highlights the potential benefits that can arise from including the youth and emphasizes the need to create an environment that encourages their active engagement and contribution. By embracing the ideas and voices of the youth, IGFs can truly become more inclusive, dynamic, and representative of the diverse perspectives and needs within the Internet governance space.

Pyrate Ruby Passell

Pyrate Ruby, a 14-year-old attendee, is thrilled and proud to be the youngest participant on the IGF youth track. This marks her first time attending the IGF, and she expresses her excitement and pride in being able to contribute at such a young age. She strongly supports the idea of encouraging younger participants in the IGF and similar conventions, highlighting the importance of engaging the youth in discussions about important global issues. Her stance aligns with the goals of SDG 4: Quality Education and SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities.

Having been involved in the IGF environment for over a year, Pyrate finds the experience incredibly gratifying. She has actively participated in the IGF youth track and attended the youth summit, where she has been involved in meaningful work. The opportunity to engage with experts and other young individuals passionate about addressing global challenges has further motivated her.

However, Pyrate does find one aspect of participating in the IGF challenging – the time zone differences. As a result, she often has to stay up late, which she finds amusing but also highlights the dedication and commitment she has towards her involvement in the IGF.

Despite the challenges, Pyrate is delighted to be working with her team. She values the opportunities for collaboration and the shared sense of purpose that comes with working towards a common goal. The sense of camaraderie and teamwork contribute to her positive experience within the IGF environment.

In addition to her involvement in the IGF, Pyrate mentions a newly-formed organization called the Dynamic Teen Coalition. Although limited information is provided, it can be inferred that this organization is relevant to Pyrate’s interests and potentially connected to her work within the IGF environment.

In conclusion, Pyrate Ruby, at just 14 years old, is an enthusiastic and dedicated attendee of the IGF. She not only takes pride in being the youngest participant on the IGF youth track but also advocates for greater youth involvement in such conventions. Through her participation, she finds great fulfillment and enjoys the opportunities for collaboration and teamwork. Furthermore, her positive experience is not limited to the IGF, as she mentions the newly formed Dynamic Teen Coalition, suggesting her involvement in various initiatives aimed at empowering teenage voices.

Veronica Piccolo:
we are going to officially present the second edition of the Youth Atlas. Welcome once again, I’m Veronica Piccolo and I will be the online moderator for this session. Mohamed Ali will be the on-site moderator for this session, Mohamed Ali will be the online moderator for this session and Humud Pararu-Velasquez will be our rapporteur. With me on site I have Anja Gengo from the IGF Secretariat and Nadia Tjahja from EURODIG and online I can see Juliana Novaes. Hello. Juliana is the head of editorial of the Youth Atlas and we will start very soon for this presentation, but just a reminder I would like to request all the speakers and audience who may ask questions during the open floor to please speak clearly at a reasonable pace. I would also like to request everyone participating to maintain a respectful and inclusive environment in the room or in the chat. You can ask questions during the Q&A. If you are on site please approach the microphone, if you are online please raise your hand so that you can be unmuted by the tech and if you have any further questions or comments or would like the moderator to read out your question or comment, please type in the Zoom chat. Without further ado I would like to start the presentation of this book. Some of you might already know this. This book is the second edition of the Youth Atlas and it follows the first edition which was published in 2019 and it collects all the stories of young people actively engaging or working into the internet governance ecosystem. We have been honoured by a forward by Vint Cerf and the preface of Anja Django and this book particularly is divided in four sessions. The first which contains data and statistics about the development of youth engagement over these two or three years. Then we have a first session which we call the veterans with all the interviews of people engaging in internet governance for three or more years. Then we have the section for newcomers and in the end we also have a section dedicated to all youth programs. In this regard I would like to quickly give the floor to Juliana to explain us a little bit about the content and findings of the book. Thank you.

Juliana Novaes:
Thank you so much Veronica. First of all thank you very much for coming to this session today. Unfortunately I’m not in Japan this time. It’s around 6 a.m here but I can feel the energy in the room and I’m happy to be with you in spirit if not in person. I would also like to thank the Youth SIG from ISOC for having me as a collaborator of this project again of the second edition of the Youth Atlas and especially for Veronica for all the effort that she put into this project. So thank you so much for this. So about the Youth Atlas, Veronica rightly mentioned this is the second edition of first book that we launched back in 2019 as part of the Youth ICG from ISOC and the idea came from a conversation that we were having with some people that had previously participated in fellowship programs to attend the IGF such as the ISOC fellowship program, the Brazilian fellowship program and other ones and we were always saying how there were always moments in which the organizations that fund these kind of programs wonder exactly what are the results that come from these initiatives. So basically what happens to the young people after they join the IGF and they participate in these kind of events. So essentially what’s the outcome of the investment that they are doing in these young people and we all know as former participants that there are many success stories out there. We all know people who first joined an IGF and then got a position at some organization or started their PhD on the topic or then started working for the government or some kind of multilateral entity. So we all know these success stories but we didn’t have at the time any kind of documentation or formal record of the young people who had previously participated in this program so it was very hard to measure the impact of them in the lives of young people after they joined the IGF. So this is how the idea of the first edition of the first Youth Atlas started. So we decided it was time to record the results of the young people and their trajectories after they joined their IGF and show the importance that these fellowship programs had in their lives and the importance of maintaining them, maintaining these young people in the IGF ecosystem. Also to show some of the difficulties that they faced as young people joining internet governance for the first time and continuing their trajectory in this field as well because I mean a lot of improvement has been made in terms of youth representation in the IGF in the past years but it hasn’t always been that inclusive. So it was hard in the past to get sessions approved at the IGF if you were part of a youth organization. It was always hard to get funding to attend the IGF as well. It still is but it was way harder back then than it is now so it was also a project to show how some of these difficulties remain in our ecosystem for young people. So then we made the first edition of this book and we had very limited budget at the time and also very limited time. We put the whole book together in less than three months and launched it at the IGF Berlin 2019 and now I’m so happy to see that this second edition which now shows not only the trajectories of people that had been previously in the IGF ecosystem but also the newcomers so we can see a contrast between the people who have been joining these events for over three years and the people who are just joining now. So what are the differences in their hopes and their expectations in the challenges that they face and I mean without going much further into this I also think it’s important to mention that this book has only been made possible with the hands of several people. A lot of volunteers who have worked hard in editing text, doing interviews and putting their own free time into this initiative as it often happens with youth initiatives. We often work on a volunteer basis using our free time to do this so I just wanted to show my appreciation for all the volunteers that have collaborated with us and also to the people that actually participated in our surveys and interviews entering our questionnaire. A lot of things in our IG ecosystem are the product of volunteer work so we’re also very proud to say that every single person that has contributed to this project has been credited there so I would just like to personally thank them so much for making this possible. And of course this is a book which aims to give visibility to you as a young person and to me as a young person as well and give us credit for all the work we have done since we started participating in the IG ecosystem. We want to build a healthier culture and internet governance, a more collaborative culture in which people have more freedom to to participate in initiatives and we have the power to do this as young people and we hope that this book is a source of pride and is a source of inspiration for young people either joining the internet governance ecosystem now or who have been here for a long time now and we hope that this helps foster more initiatives such as this and it helps to empower more young people in our field. And in saying this I would like to thank you all again and I hope you’re all enjoying the IGF in Japan.

Veronica Piccolo:
Thank you Giuliana. I’m particularly sensitive in this moment. This was a very hard work and as Giuliana pointed out it was mainly on a volunteering basis and we put our time into this book, our free time into this book and it might not be perfect so you might also come across some mistakes, some typos and errors but I think that this is the token of cooperation, of international cooperation. We had people working on this from Brazil, from Africa, from Europe and we had an amazing support from our friends from Japan because this book is the product of the work of many hands and I’m very proud to present this at the IGF but this also was printed in Japan so it was also very representative of our global meeting here and what this IGF is meant for us. But I know that this book has attracted a lot of attention. Maybe online you don’t know this but I already have some copies reserved from people who came to me asking to have a copy of this and at the end of this session we will distribute, we will have a picture with all people featured in this book who are also here at the IGF and we will distribute these copies to them and also to the people attending but I would also give the possibility to Anja to come in and first of all I would like to thank you for the time you took also to write your preface for our book and from you I would like to know since 2019 when the first edition was published how the work of the IGF secretariat evolved to support young people because most of the people also present here they were not even able to know how the youth summit was even created so thank you.

Anja Gengo:
I hope you can hear me. Thanks to precisely a wonderful methodology of our host country we hosted together with young people from around the world webinars that had thousands and thousands of young people from different parts of the world joining. That was really a game changer for the youth track and in general for the youth engagement. In Poland we hosted the youth summit it was I think the well second edition within the youth track but certainly it was there were other editions organized by different youth IGFs at the annual IGF meetings so the youth summit was in Poland good opportunity to create space for a dialogue between senior experts and leaders with of the current generation and then the next generation of experts and leaders and we follow that practice. Of course we work on polishing the format making sure that we are creating just simpler easier entry points channels for young people that can decide to just jump on our train and then ride with us toward hopefully a safer digital future. In Ethiopia last year we continued the practice we the secretariat was satisfied with the level of engagement with young people this certainly the process there went further from organizing a couple of sessions to ensuring that we have a robust mechanism throughout the year so we worked very closely with the regional IGFs to organize capacity development workshops and to ensure that we have our presence not just at one annual meeting given the fact that we are limited in time we are challenged by time zones and so on but that we have presence at the regional IGFs to maximize our inclusion opportunities. Grateful to the regional IGFs to the youth regional IGFs for being our great partners to work on organizing and implementing capacity development workshops there. This year for example we managed to tour the globe in just a couple of months span from Finland Tampere we went to Cartagena in Colombia then to Brisbane in Australia then to Abuja in Nigeria all thanks to EuroDIG thanks to Asia Pacific IGF thanks to LAC IGF the youth LAC IGF the African IGF and the youth associated IGF and then finally after so many discussions conclusions agreements but I’ll say also disagreements great ideas shared we met here in Kyoto and you know that on Sunday I think all of you have seen that I’ve seen you there we held a very successful IGF 2023 global youth summit organized by all youth IGFs and many other initiatives which are youth centered and that work closely with with all of us it’s a result of year-long preparations so nothing is an instant result it really is a product of hard work and I have to admit a wonderful energy I have a pleasure to work with colleagues coming from the youth IGFs not an easy work for sure but you always regardless of how much time you spend how much just intellectual effort you invest how much physical effort it takes these are time-consuming processes you’re challenged with time zones so sometimes you’re sleep deprived but it’s such a wonderful energy that exists among the youth IGF coordinators that you just don’t feel the fatigue and you just feel that enthusiasm that regardless of the environment that is surrounding us now geopolitical tensions you’ll see wars around us you see people losing lives you see the dark side of the internet victims of online frauds many online abuses and still working with young people most of a lot of them digital natives people growing up with technologies just understanding them because they don’t have other choice it really gives not just hope it gives confidence that our future analog or digital is very much bright as long as we have you empowered to lead us toward it and the IGF secretariat is committed to continue working with all of you we will definitely add this wonderful Quo Vadis youth second edition of the youth atlas to our library and I’m sure it will be consulted so many times many of the faces here that you see are our dear colleagues and friends but many are new so I’m looking forward to meet you all here toward the closing of the 18th annual IGF meeting in Kyoto but also of course online we’re lucky to be connected through the means of the internet and let’s please use it and finally to conclude I want to thank all of you for being here at the 18th annual IGF meeting I can I think we can say that from the youth perspective from the way you channeled your voices and from the way it was heard it was a great success and it wouldn’t be a success if it wasn’t for your commitment for your dedication to allocate time efforts and ideas to these processes the IGF secretariat is truly grateful to all of you for that and thank you very much for inviting me

Veronica Piccolo:
thank you Anja I think a lot has been done so far since we have been we have gone a long way since 2019 we have experienced firsthand that a lot of youth IGF initiative have been set up in the last year we have here Emilia as well as trained one has helped set up the youth IGF in Ethiopia after Addis Ababa last year so we could actually work on this initiative ourself and I think that the global engagement of young people to empower them each other it’s it’s a great example to go to to give to senior stakeholders I know that you have to go I would like to take a picture with you This is a gift from all of us. Thank you for your support. Thank you so much. It’s such a great honor. Thank you. This is my signed version. It was a signed version.

Anja Gengo:
And just colleagues, I really have to apologize. I would wish that I could stay here because I know there will be a wonderful discussion. But as you know, the Secretariat needs to wrap up this meeting and prepare for the closing. All the reports need to be on the website in the next half an hour. Some of them are on my computer. So I have to deliver on that. But thank you so much. Let us please connect. And after the closing ceremony, I will be around. So I would really appreciate if you could approach, if you have a couple of minutes just to chat and exchange contacts and to understand how you found this year’s IGF and when is your IGF so we can come there. It’s always easier to be at someone else’s IGF and just enjoy the discussions. Thank you so much. If you have a copy of the Atlas that is signed, please do give it back to me. I think that’s my version. Thank you so much.

Veronica Piccolo:
Let’s move forward because we also have another guest. Talking about IGF attendance and the first-comer, Pirate Ruby is 14 years old, is a teenager who last year attended for the first time his first IGF. And being the only teenager, she was wondering, there are a lot of young people, but not everyone is actually real young. So I would like to give the floor to Pirate. Pirate, are you online? Yes, I am. Hello. Let me just get my camera on.

Pyrate Ruby Passell:
Hello. It’s nice to meet you all today. I’m so happy and so proud I’m able to attend this today. It has been such an honor working as the youngest person in the IGF youth track at 14, and it’s so exciting.

Veronica Piccolo:
Thank you, Pirate, for being here. And thank you for borrowing your face and your experience to this book. Your experience, your interview is also contained in our book. But my question to you is, how is it to be a teenager in the IGF environment? And you joined the IGF one year ago, attending the youth summit for the first time. And since then, I know that you have worked a lot in this environment. Give me one highlight of the work that you have done so far.

Pyrate Ruby Passell:
Well, I think it’s personally been great. But one of the things that I’ve noticed is that due to the time zones, I always have to be up a bit late, which is not a problem. But I think it’s a bit funny. Anyways, I’m so happy to be working with all of you. To be honest, all of this is a highlight for me, and I’m so happy and proud to be working with all of you. Thank you.

Veronica Piccolo:
What is the main, let’s say, activity that you would like to share with the audience today? The activity that you care the most. I know that you have done a lot this year. And for example, you are one of the founders of the Teen Dynamic Coalition. Can you tell us a little bit more about this?

Pyrate Ruby Passell:
Well, recently, the Dynamic Teen Coalition, it’s newly came out, so there’s not too much information on it yet. So hopefully in the future, there will be more to learn about that. But it’s just recently opened.

Veronica Piccolo:
Thank you. Thank you, Pirate. I think that your experience and your example are very important to engage young people that are really young, that are really teenagers. And I’m very proud to get to work with you, and I’m very happy to have you in our team and to have your interview. Pirate’s profile is one of the highlights. And in the book, you will also find a QR code in one of the introductory articles written by Stacey. She’s Pirate’s mother, with Stacey’s playlist on Spotify. One aspect I would like to highlight about this book is that we have the printed copy, but we also have a digital copy. And you will find a QR code that you can scan and also watch video interviews of some of our people that we were able to interview, and a QR code to Pirate’s playlist. So many thanks, Pirate. Speaking of the evolution that young people have gone through this past year, I would like to pass the floor to Nadia. So the first youth summit was held in Germany. I think you were there. No, you were not there. But I know that you have worked a lot in the European community to empower new generation. And some of them have actually remained in this environment. And I know that also your research focus is on youth engagement. Would you like to give us some highlight on this?

Nadia Tjahja:
Hello, everyone. Thank you all so much for coming to this extremely important session. And I also just would like to add my congratulations to everybody who worked really hard on this and all the people who supported and sponsored this publication. It shows the effort, the interest, the engagement that young people have to be involved in these spaces and the different ways and methods that we try to be involved. And I think that is really important and it is really difficult to map because some things are very invisible. And through this beautiful publication, some of these things that are happening behind the scenes, some of these things that you may never have known about them existing on a wider scale have come to light in front of this. And another example of invisible things that you may not have known is that Veronica also actually organized with a really large team of international youth an event during this IGF to bring youth together to exchange ideas, exchange their experiences, but also make new friendships for further collaborations so that in a few years there will be a new youth atlas with people who are from this IGF working on new projects together. And for this reason, I think it’s really admirable that this has come out from it. I wasn’t there at the youth summit in Germany and the reason why I ended up not being there is because I was excited to see what information was going to come out from those sessions. I knew what was going to be there. I could have been there in the room, but what I wanted to see is the youth coming into the IGF and listening how youth would actually be presenting their ideas. If you already know what’s going to happen, sometimes you tune a little bit out. There’s a lot of information going on at the IGF and you need to focus. But what I loved about the youth summit is it allowed people for an empowered message. They came into the rooms in a group, they discussed with each other what they wanted to say, they planned how they wanted to say it. Their thoughts and ideas were concise, clear, and visible. Being part of something where we can support each other, standing at a microphone can be extremely intimidating. When you don’t know anyone in the room, you’re there for the first time, you’ve never been to this country before. This is my first time in Japan and I’m not wearing sleeves and everybody is and I feel very self-conscious about that. Would I then still want to be on a microphone, et cetera? But I feel supported. I feel that I am here with people who are kind and open and that allows me to speak more of what’s on my thoughts and on my mind and I hope that we can then continue fostering this continuation of participation that is supported by our peers through activities like this and bringing in new people from these spaces, from our local communities. This is why I started looking at how we could have meaningful participation at the Internet Governance Forum. I’m a Ph.D. researcher at the United Nations University and I’m based in Bruges but I also coordinate youth activities for the European Regional IGF, which is called EURODIG, and our event is called the Youth Dialogue on Internet Governance. If you live in Europe and you would like to attend, our application is open in January. The most important thing I would like to say is that meaningful participation, we hear that word so many times, the United Nations Secretary General added it in his Our Common Agenda, the UN Youth Envoy wrote a paper on meaningful participation and I wanted to know what is meaningful participation at the IGF? The IGF strategy does not give a definition of this. When we look at the outcomes from the IGF, we see how many people are attending, the stakeholders, etc. It’s numbers. Who’s here? Presence. Or who’s represented? Your affiliation. And does that say enough about you as a youth? Youth that has so many definitions based on age, based on your status as a newcomer or not, based on how far you are in your career track. There are so many different ways. So the definition that I chose to use was adopted from a paper from Malcolm which looked at processes. How can we make sure that processes include youth inclusion, integration? And I created a framework that looked at how do we participate? Because we always say, you know, when you’re here, you need to do X, Y, Z, and then you’re part. But are you really then part of the community, just being here, making a comment, making a statement, per se? I believe that we’re an ecosystem. And an ecosystem consists both of content and structure. And I believe that when you come here for the first time, there’s a lot of information coming at you and you’re being informed. That is a way of learning not only the content of this event but also the structure of how things work. When do you get to be on the microphone? Who gets to speak? At what point can you walk into the room? So right now, someone could walk into the room and I’m not offended by it. So then you also have a moment of consultation. So you’re learning something, but then you’re like, hey, I have a different perspective about that. Or I am really not sure about that point. Can you clarify that? You then take the microphone and you comment and you consult, you add to the conversation and debate. And as you go along, there will be moments and opportunities in which youth then will take on leadership positions. Either you become a session organizer and then you work with a large group or a small group of people to provide content and structure to further debates. Or perhaps you start collaborating with the IGF Secretariat to create structures like the Youth Summit to work in partnership with the IGF to foster youth spaces. And this ecosystem can go up and down. So at one moment in time, you’re still being informed. So you could walk out in the next session and you’re a speaker at the other table. Or you can walk out of the session as a speaker now, like I am now, and then I’ll be sitting in an audience somewhere and learning. It’s an ecosystem. And when we then look at participation at the IGF, I am asking you to look at it as a process. So when we’re saying we’re going to invite 30 young people, and 30 young people means that there’s participation, I’m asking you to think of it as a process. When you’re inviting young people to your table, to your events, think about it as a process. They’re coming in. What are they learning? What are they contributing? How can they start moving into being an empowered person into leadership roles? But how can we ensure their sustainable participation, whether that’s a continuous flow or the return of participants? And I’m very excited to continue this discussion because it’s certainly meaningful participation isn’t just this one framework. There’s so many different ways of approaching it. And having these open conversations about it is definitely the way forward of how we can ensure that we are leaving nobody behind. Thank you very much.

Veronica Piccolo:
Thank you, Anja. I really appreciate, actually, the concept, Nadia. I really particularly appreciate the concept of youth participation as a process because it’s not enough that a young person actually participate, speak on the microphone and talk, ask questions, and formulate comment, but also a matter of engaging on an ongoing basis also with the community of like-minded people. And I think that since 2019, we have gone a long way, but the title of this book is Covadis Youth, meaning where are you going, youth? So my question for Jenna here would be, how do you see the future of young people?

Jenna Fung:
Thank you. Thank you, Veronica, and everyone in this room to welcome me and allow me to be in this position and share my thoughts. I kind of want to start off something because I think Nadia helped us with delivering some institutional knowledge, memories, as well as touching on a little bit on how we should envision youth participation. So that first thing I really want to point out is that we, as youth, should really put ourselves out there and to be on the same table as everyone. That I mean, like literally, I wish we all are at the same table because most of you are behind me right now, and it’s kind of weird that I’m looking at myself in the back of that projector. So I mean, if you’re not too busy and if you don’t mind, I hope that you guys can move to the table because I feel very awkward when there’s like no one and I have to be the only person speaking is really my own problem. And yeah. I don’t know how many of you have been here. I would say I’m fortunate enough to be here for like my sixth time now, and unfortunately I think kind of old enough to, you know, it’s time to back out because you need to allow and make the space available for newcomers, which we have a lot. Consider I am, well, I haven’t introduced myself actually, consider I am the program coordinator of the Asia Pacific Youth IGF with a lot of different mechanism working groups set up by all the youth and youth IGF from my region, for example. They are coming in very consistently, energetically, passionately, and so we should be prepared and then at least like first thing, not to be shunned, to sit at a table, get yourself prepared to contribute. But it takes time, one step at a time, and I think it’s really important for me, and I hope it’s important for everyone as well to hear from someone like Nadia to learn about the institutional knowledge, and I think this is really important, and I only get to think about it like 30 minutes ago, because Nadia is one of the first person in the youth space that I met. I met her 2018 in Paris, and well, I get so lost, or maybe I can test it out, like how many of you have been here before, not in Kyoto, but like been to IGF before, can you raise your hand? So not too many, let me try to overwhelm you with all the acronyms, or maybe I don’t need to try, like what is Dynamic Coalition, or what is NRI, not all of us know, but in order to participate, these are really important, and so I think it’s extremely crucial for people who have been in this place for a long time, like long enough at least, to proactively work with the youth community, that includes the veteran or dynamic coalitions or the national and regional initiative that might be your own country’s IGF or your own country’s YIGF because that’s where you that’s where you’re from sometimes and you know you start from a safe space before you have to got to put yourself out there and be fearless sometimes like it takes time so and this year I am fortunate enough that I was invited to one of the DC I mean dynamic coalition sorry about that so sorry about the acronym and that dynamic coalition for example cares about child rights in digital environment and they are really interested in working with us and I appreciate that because finally all those spaces in IGF would want to work with us and sometimes even people who’ve been here for like more than 20 years did not know that there is such global youth submit that’s happened since 2019 and then when they think we need to do capacity building and they they might how the approaches is that they might start from scratch by consulting all the stakeholder how should we do capacity building without without really working with the youth and so I hope that since we have a really big and strong team put yourself out there let them know we work so closely with IGF Secretariat specifically Anya to put this youth track together and we have a youth summit every time and I hope that we will continue to have and next is what will that go rather than just doing full workshop in different regions plus this summit I hope that we can all bring this and you know football thought bring it home and think what can we do other than just this five session because I believe ongoing and ongoing effort is even more important than a one time one hour session like this and I would like to quote some and quote a phrase from my colleague actually look tail was on a table he he was helping with the Asia Pacific youth IGF this year in Brisbane and then the team behind it actually work on a lot in designing the program that is truly all going I mean all of us do that to be fair they are truly organized by you for youth and if we were to work with other stakeholder I hope that we should send out a message and let them know that nothing for youth without you that’s it thank you

Veronica Piccolo:
thank you thank you Jenna. I actually I agree with you that if I have to take some some take away from from what Nadia said or what you said I think that handover of knowledge is very important I mean it’s very important to have in this system a person is with a veteran who can transmit knowledge and can actually you know mentor young people because it is not easy to for a young person to be mentored by a more senior stakeholder because of gap in communication while a young person can see in a person in a young in appear like a someone who can actually trust and I see a lot of newcomers here and I know that you have been also accompanied by other young people that have been here in the in this ecosystem for a few years and have been able to guide you in in some way we have ten minutes left but in I would like to have like fee five or seven minutes before the group picture to give the floor to a newcomer I won’t call name but if someone of you wants to come out to the microphone and yes yes

Audience:
good afternoon everyone so I’m a newcomer to IGF I’m felt I’m from Brazil Brazilian youth delegation and I was reached by an veteran in Brazil Davi he isn’t in this edition of the IGF and it was really nice of him to make me aware of the youth program there and we just sat side-by-side he helped me to sign the the application form and all that stuff and that really changed my entire career so I’m I studied communications so in Brazil it’s kind of study area that is not that into internet governance and I think it’s funny because I seen from the outside I see that internet governance has a lot to to how could I say that a lot to move on with communication studies and communication strategies to reach more people to make more youth youth people from all around the world aware of that and how we can make those spaces not only for us to watch them but but to actually participate so as part of the Brazilian youth delegation we are a lot of people right here right now I’m really really proud to see those actions like this youth atlas and how we are being here we’re in from different different backgrounds of studies of areas of working and taking these spaces especially being from the South or left late in America so it’s really nice to be here and to see space to talk in those spaces and to reach each other and know other regions from around the globe and exchange some points of views thank you

Veronica Piccolo:
thank you for sharing your experience I think that for all of us it’s very important to know that and to remind us that we have been newcomer as well and for us has been overwhelming as well anyone else wants to come in Denise

Audience:
okay yes but I’m also from from Brazil and I am a former fellow from the Brazilian youth program and I am happy for being here and for watch all the youth initiatives and I also would like to highlight the the thing one thing which is we had a lot of sessions these years this year which were proposed by youth young people we had this big group where we’ve organized lots and lots of proposals and we’ve sent it and we’ve made it until here and we’ve occupied the space and made our voices heard which is very very important I’m also part of the youth Latin American Caribbean IGF I can’t I have to say it because my friends are there and looking at me like remember you have to say it so we have a long way to include all the people that we need to include and also in the youth Latin American Caribbean IGF and also here I think we need more voices from indigenous people and also people with disability and other minorities so I want to be I want to make this a point so that we can we can work on it for the next events and not only IGF but our events in our countries and thank you for all the work we have done until here think thank you thank thank for all of you and also for myself yes let’s keep doing the nice work and don’t be sad when a session is not full of people be brave keep going and if even if you are nervous your voice need to be heard even if you make little mistakes on your English pronunciation keep going everyone young people must be heard and we must keep doing our job our work here

Veronica Piccolo:
thank you thank you is there okay we have only five minutes left I just wanted to thank you everyone for coming in I just want to take this five minutes I don’t know if anyone wants to come in I just okay one minute one minute

Audience:
hi Zon Khan former youth ambassador at ISOC I just wanted to really quickly come in as I’m not exactly a newcomer but I’m not exactly a veteran either and I think perspective in the middle is probably really helpful because I was on the exact position where you know all of you are sitting right now and to come from there my first ever IGF where I knew absolutely nothing and I was not part of any youth program and I knew absolutely no one and showed up to having made a lot of potentially lifelong connections with not only individuals who are experts and academics and technicians in the space but also lifelong friends and to take your ideas and interventions from when you first start to the point where for example two days ago the work that I along with other people was involved with the policy network in internet fragmentation was being presented in the main hall to go from nothing to that it just shows you that youth participation can in fact be meaningful and I want to strongly echo the point that even if nobody’s there in your session or even if you don’t know anyone or don’t know anything the learning curve is always going to be there people are always going to be there to support and I really really want to thank everyone who has been involved in that development journey and I want to make sure that I can give back as well so I’m always happy to be reached out to and thank you to Nadia and Veronica who have worked with personally they’ve done an amazing job of teaching me the ropes and hopefully moving forward with the youth programs as well and thanks to everyone who’s actually been involved in youth programs as well because they are very very impactful so that’s what I wanted to say thanks

Veronica Piccolo:
thank you I just want to take another minute I know that there is another person who wants to come in he’s not she’s not actually a newcomer but I would like to give the floor to her

Audience:
thanks Veronica can you hear me hi everyone I’m definitely not a newcomer but I feel like the the different youth participation programs I IGF is very special for me because I came in 2018 in the in the coldest European winter really nervous having no idea what to do how to do it my colleague back then didn’t get her visa I was thrown into a BPF session where I was a panelist I mumbled a lot I still regret that recording but my point is yeah the idea is to keep going these programs help me make connections lifelong friends and they all kind of build fruition into me having a career in the space I work on a lot of different IG issues but it’s all because of the different working groups the different speaking sessions I have become a public speaker in so many different for us and I do owe it to a lot of the different participations writing sessions late-night sessions conversations with so many of you here thank you yeah for all of your support and so many other people who have been there but my my whole point is that you should take all of these things seriously and things do increment it takes time it builds time but also people should also understand is that our space is getting more relevant issues of privacy AI or any other issue that you want to work on will grow over time there are there’s more money being poured in and it is a viable career option for a lot of you so never give up and we are the future thank you

Veronica Piccolo:
I just want to point your attention to the screen you will see a query code to our digital version of the youth atlas people those who are on site will have the privilege to get a copy of the printed book and but before closing the session I would really like the young people who are here on site who are featured in this book to come here and take the picture and to take your copy of the atlas and thank you everyone for attending this thank you also for a participants online and to Mohammed for sharing everything okay let’s go in front of the screen I want your signs please everyone in front of the screen thank you I would borrow one as a photo

Audience

The audience emphasised the importance of supporting both girls and boys in their upbringing to grow and work together in equality. They highlighted the need to provide equal opportunities to children, regardless of their gender, to ensure a more balanced and fair society. The audience strongly believed that promoting gender equality from a young age is essential for building a future where both genders can collaborate and thrive.

Another important topic discussed was the need for a broader understanding and definition of online gender-based violence. The audience provided an example of how online platforms were used for propaganda and justification of rape in the context of war in Ethiopia. They argued that online gender-based violence goes beyond direct physical harm and includes harmful ideologies promoted on various digital platforms. The audience called for a more comprehensive approach to address this issue and stressed the importance of recognizing and combating these harmful practices online.

The audience also questioned the extent to which actions in various sectors truly reflect feminist principles. They argued that feminist analysis and gender sensitivity are not always enough, and there is a need for substantial action to address gender inequalities. The audience urged sectors to reflect on their practices and ensure that their actions align with feminist values, rather than merely performing a surface-level gender analysis.

In terms of LGBTQ rights and inclusion, the audience emphasised the importance of involving the LGBTQ community as active allies and contributors of knowledge. They highlighted the need to move beyond tokenistic inclusion and actively seek the perspectives and expertise of the LGBTQ community to create a more inclusive and equal society.

The audience also discussed the influence of the global North on the conceptualisations and terminologies of feminism, particularly in Africa. They pointed out that conceptualisations and funding often come from the global North, leading to a disconnect at the ground level in Africa. This raised questions about the applicability and relevance of feminist concepts in different regions and emphasised the need for more local and context-specific approaches to gender equality.

Cyber harassment and women’s digital rights were identified as significant barriers to women’s participation in business and politics. The audience noted that women face challenges such as cyber harassment and infringements on their digital rights, which discourage them from actively engaging in these domains.

On a positive note, the audience found that engaging through political ideologies online can help mitigate cyber harassment faced by women. They highlighted that women who engage with political ideologies face less cyber harassment and bullying, suggesting that political engagement can provide a protective environment for women online.

Moreover, the audience agreed with the need for diverse views in policy formulation and the inclusion of women’s perspectives. They emphasised the importance of women’s experiences and expertise in shaping policies that address the specific issues faced by women. The audience shared examples of women advocating for their inclusion in policy discussions and providing evidence from reports highlighting the challenges that women face.

The diversity of perspectives in defining feminism was also acknowledged, with differences observed between the global North and South. The audience highlighted the huge diversity of feminist perspectives in Germany, for example. This diversity raised difficulties in defining feminism and emphasised the need for ongoing dialogue and understanding among various feminist viewpoints.

In terms of development interventions, the struggle to translate observations into practice was highlighted. The audience emphasised the importance of evidence-based interventions to address gender inequalities effectively. They called for a more concerted effort to bridge the gap between observations and practical implementation.

The audience also highlighted the challenges women face when filing complaints online, as non-feasible practices discourage them from doing so. They emphasised the need for user-friendly platforms and processes that encourage women to report online harassment without fear of retribution.

Another important point raised was the demand for keeping online platforms accountable for their role in perpetuating gender-based violence. The audience called for the implementation of measures that hold online platforms responsible for the content and actions within their domains, ensuring a safer online environment for everyone.

Finally, the audience agreed that improved attention to the specific issues faced by women is necessary in policy making. They stressed the importance of policy formulation that takes into account the unique obstacles and challenges faced by women, thus promoting gender equality and social progress.

In conclusion, the audience’s discussions covered a wide range of topics related to gender equality, feminism, LGBTQ rights, online harassment, policy formulation, and development interventions. They emphasised the importance of supporting both girls and boys from a young age and called for a more comprehensive understanding of online gender-based violence. The audience urged sectors to translate feminist principles into meaningful action and involve the LGBTQ community as contributors and allies. They acknowledged the influence of the global North on feminist concepts in Africa, highlighted the barriers faced by women in business and politics, and advocated for engagement through political ideologies as a means to mitigate cyber harassment. The importance of diverse views, women’s perspectives in policy formulation, and evidence-based interventions were also discussed. Challenges in defining feminism and the need for platform accountability were raised, along with the call for improved attention to the specific issues faced by women in policy making.

Moderator – Towela Jere

The African Union is actively developing multiple strategies for digital transformation, with a strong emphasis on the importance of gender inclusion. These strategies are aimed at various sectors, including agriculture, health, and education. Recognising the need for gender inclusiveness in digitalisation, the African Union is committed to addressing the challenges and barriers that exist in this area.

It is widely agreed that digital transformation and inclusiveness must take into account the perspectives and needs of women. The implementation and benefits of digital strategies should be inclusive of women, ensuring that their voices and concerns are heard and addressed. This is crucial for achieving gender equality and ensuring that women are not left behind in the digital revolution.

Panel discussions have also been taking place to explore and address the issue of gender inclusiveness in digitalisation. These discussions provide a platform for stakeholders to share their experiences, insights, and ideas on overcoming challenges and promoting inclusivity. By delving into these issues, greater understanding and actionable solutions can be achieved.

However, concerns remain regarding the overall policy landscape in Africa in terms of women’s inclusion. Nnenna Ifeanyi-Ajufo has highlighted the lack of targeted policy implementation and development for women in the region. There is also a lack of a harmonised approach to gender issues at different levels. It is argued that women must be adequately included in all aspects of policymaking, policy implementation, and research, rather than being treated as charity or token representation.

Research and data also play a critical role in understanding gender issues in Africa. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of available research on women-related issues in the region, making it difficult to effectively address these issues. It is essential to conduct comprehensive research and collect accurate data to inform policies and initiatives aimed at promoting gender equality.

Lastly, women are encouraged to take the lead in holding institutions accountable for the implementation of policies and strategies. This involves actively participating in decision-making processes and ensuring that women’s perspectives are valued and integrated. By doing so, women can drive change and ensure that institutions are held accountable for their commitments to gender equality.

In conclusion, the African Union recognises the significance of gender inclusion in digital transformation strategies. The challenges and barriers to gender inclusiveness in digitalisation are being addressed. Implementing digital strategies inclusively, engaging in panel discussions, addressing policy gaps, promoting research and data collection, and encouraging women’s leadership are all key components in achieving gender equality in Africa.

Alice Munyua

Alice Munyua is a trailblazer in the field of digital policy-making, having made significant contributions to the advancement of technology and women’s representation in the industry. She has an impressive track record, having worked with prestigious organisations such as the Vatican, Kenya’s government, and Mozilla. Munyua’s involvement in the World Summit on the Information Society has helped shed light on the gender gap in technology and paved the way for addressing this issue.

In an effort to bridge the understanding and implementation of information and communication technology (ICT) between the government, private sector, and civil society, Munyua founded the Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet). Through this initiative, she has been instrumental in creating a platform that promotes collaboration and cooperation in the ICT sector.

Throughout her career, Munyua has faced numerous challenges as a woman in the field, but she has consistently overcome them with resilience and determination. She is a strong advocate for more women in leadership roles and emphasises the need for companies to have a global presence. Munyua recognises the loneliness that women often experience in the technology field and the sometimes hostile environment that they face. To address this, she has made it a priority to ensure female succession in her organisations, ensuring that women have access to opportunities for growth and leadership.

Similarly, Mozilla, a technology company, is also devoted to advancing gender equality. It actively engages and empowers women, with nearly 90% of its executives being women. This demonstrates the company’s commitment to creating an inclusive and diverse workforce. Mozilla places great emphasis on capacity building for women, acknowledging the importance of providing the necessary skills and resources for women to thrive in the technology sector.

Furthermore, Mozilla works collaboratively with organisations such as the African Union and TOELA to find solutions to the challenges faced by women entrepreneurs in the tech sector. The company conducts research on the startup ecosystem and women entrepreneurs, demonstrating its commitment to empowering women and promoting their participation in the technology industry.

Overall, Alice Munyua and Mozilla are both playing significant roles in advancing gender equality and empowering women in the technology sector. They serve as inspiring examples for other individuals and organisations to follow. By prioritising women’s representation and actively engaging and supporting them, they are contributing to a more inclusive and diverse industry.

Sonya Annasha Bonita

The research conducted by Policy in 2019-2020 in five African countries highlights the issue of online harassment faced by women in leadership positions, human rights defenders, and women in the media industry. The study reveals that these groups of women are particularly susceptible to online harassment, which can have profound psychological and professional implications for them. This finding underscores the urgent need for action to protect women in these roles from the harmful effects of online harassment.

Furthermore, the research also sheds light on the underreporting and lack of attention given to online gender-based violence against African women. While cases of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and female genital mutilation are recorded more diligently, cases of online gender-based violence receive less attention. This discrepancy indicates a real gap in addressing and combating online violence against women in Africa. Efforts should be made to acknowledge, document, and respond to this specific form of violence.

The study also reveals that the discriminatory practices faced by women offline are reproduced in online spaces. Women encounter similar harmful behaviours and practices in digital environments, which perpetuate the discrimination they experience in their everyday lives. This finding emphasises the interconnectedness between online and offline spaces, highlighting the need for comprehensive strategies to tackle gender discrimination and violence.

Another crucial aspect highlighted by the research is the inadequacy of existing policies and normative frameworks in addressing online harassment or violence against women. While there are discussions on cybersecurity and discrimination, there is a lack of explicit mention of online violence against women. This absence indicates the need for policymakers to explicitly include online violence against women within existing policies and to develop comprehensive frameworks that address this issue. Without such explicit recognition and actions, women will continue to face the negative consequences of online violence without sufficient protection or support.

In conclusion, the research underscores the importance of making online spaces safer for women, particularly those in leadership positions, human rights defenders, and the media industry. Additionally, it highlights the urgent need for improved policies that explicitly address online harassment and violence against women. By addressing these challenges and ensuring the protection of women in online spaces, significant strides can be made towards achieving gender equality and creating a safer and more inclusive digital environment.

Nnenna Ifeanyi-Ajufo

The analysis reveals significant issues related to gender equality and the digital space in Africa. There is a lack of harmonised policy approaches, leading to fragmentation at the national level. This, coupled with a lack of conceptual understanding and implementation plans, results in little focused policy development for women. Additionally, the digital transformation strategy in Africa lacks accountability, clarity, and measurable outcomes despite being in place for several years.

Research on women and technology in Africa is scarce due to a shortage of African researchers and a lack of data. Nnenna emphasises the importance of understanding and mapping the realities faced by women to address this gap. Prioritising gender issues for digital empowerment is essential, including empowering girls, children, and families. However, Africa’s charter on human rights does not adequately prioritise women’s empowerment.

The analysis also highlights the overlooked areas of rural women and refugees in discussions on internet rights and access for women in Africa. Cyber harassment tends to overshadow the importance of internet access and rights for these underrepresented groups. Furthermore, there is a divide between the global North and South in addressing internet issues, with challenges such as acceptance of LGBTQ rights. Bridging this divide requires collaboration, mutual learning, and a focus on common challenges.

The analysis raises concerns about non-African researchers writing about Africa, which can lack authenticity and understanding of the local context. Publishers’ reluctance to work with African writers exacerbates this issue. Collaboration among different bodies is essential in promoting research platforms and supporting African writers to share their own stories and perspectives.

In summary, the analysis stresses the need for targeted policy implementation, accountability, and clarity in the digital space in Africa. It calls for more research on women and technology, prioritisation of gender issues in digital empowerment, and inclusion of underrepresented groups. Bridging the global North-South divide and promoting collaboration are crucial in addressing internet issues. Emphasising authentic African perspectives through collaboration and supporting local writers is also vital.

Tobias Thiel

Germany has made gender equality a key priority in its development policies. The country aims to allocate 90% of its development corporation portfolio resources globally by 2025 to promote gender equality. The German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development has introduced a feminist development policy to support this commitment.

Germany is collaborating with the African Union to eliminate discriminatory structures for women and girls in digitalization and data governance. Through the partnership known as AUDANIPAT, Germany ensures that female voices are included in all activities of the German Development Corporation portfolio.

Recognizing the importance of addressing inequalities in power structures, Germany emphasizes the need to tackle these issues as part of sustainable development. The country acknowledges that sustainable development cannot be achieved without addressing power dynamics and reducing inequalities.

There is a diverse range of feminist perspectives and conceptualizations within Germany and other countries. This diversity poses challenges in labeling feminism due to different interpretations and understandings around the world.

Focusing on common ground and basic issues is paramount when discussing gender equality and reducing inequalities. By emphasizing shared goals and areas of agreement, progress can be made in advancing these causes.

Research findings and evidence-based interventions are crucial in improving development practices. It is important to translate observations into practical interventions to ensure effective and impactful development.

Challenges exist in addressing the obstacles faced by women in accessing digital services. Limited knowledge about the specific obstacles hinders efforts towards gender equality in the digital sphere.

To tackle complex policy environments ingrained in power structures, an effective diagnosis and design of interventions are necessary. Germany recognizes that power structures are deeply embedded in informal structures, ministries, and organizations. Analyzing these environments and implementing tailored interventions are key to promoting sustainable change.

In conclusion, Germany has made gender equality a priority in its development policies. Through a feminist development policy and collaborations with organizations like the African Union, Germany is working towards eliminating discriminatory structures and promoting inclusive development. Challenges remain in addressing diverse feminist perspectives, overcoming obstacles in accessing digital services, and navigating complex policy environments. However, Germany remains committed to evidence-based interventions and finding common ground to achieve gender equality and reduce inequalities.

Anna Margaretha (anriette) Esterhuysen

Progress has been made in involving women in internet governance, although challenges still persist. The African School on Internet Governance has played a significant role in showcasing this progress by ensuring an equal number of women participants. This demonstrates a commitment to gender equality and creates a more inclusive environment in the field.

Women experts in internet governance bring valuable expertise and are essential for balanced decision-making. However, it is often assumed that their primary focus should be on addressing women’s issues, limiting their contributions to a narrow scope. This expectation unfairly restricts their ability to fully engage in broader discussions and decision-making processes.

Gender stereotypes and cultural norms also present obstacles for women in the field. In some cultures, women may face higher expectations to conform to traditional gender roles or may experience a lack of respect for their professional opinions. These challenges highlight the broader issue of gender inequality, which poses a significant barrier to women’s meaningful participation in internet governance.

Despite these challenges, there is evidence of progress. Compared to the early 2000s, there is now more space for women in the field, indicating a positive trend towards greater gender diversity and inclusivity. However, it is crucial to emphasize that this progress should not be taken for granted. Continued efforts are necessary to encourage and support women’s participation, ensuring that their competence and contributions are acknowledged and valued.

It is noteworthy that the sentiment towards women’s involvement in internet governance is mixed. While there is optimism about the progress made, there is also an acknowledgment of the ongoing challenges that need to be addressed. This recognition underscores the need for a proactive approach in actively promoting gender equality and inclusivity in the field.

In conclusion, significant strides have been taken to involve women in internet governance, but there are still obstacles to overcome. The African School on Internet Governance stands as an example of progress, but it is essential to continuously challenge gender stereotypes, cultural norms, and expectations to create a more inclusive and equitable environment. By fostering sensitivity, respect, and acknowledging women’s competence, we can continue to improve the representation and contributions of women in the field of internet governance.

Liz

The participants in the discussion focused on several critical issues regarding gender equality in the digital sphere. They highlighted the disproportionate impact of information and communication technologies (ICT) on women, noting their lack of access and representation in this field. They also emphasized that new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, further marginalize women. This negative sentiment stems from the argument that internet governance, cybersecurity, and emerging technologies suffer from inadequacies in accessibility and representation for women.

However, the discussion also highlighted positive initiatives. One of these initiatives was a project that aimed to build the cybersecurity capabilities of women. Through collaborations with organizations like the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and universities, the project sought to empower women in this field by providing training and educational opportunities. This positive sentiment underscores the importance of fostering digital literacy and capacity-building for women in cybersecurity.

Moreover, the session emphasized the significance of formulating inclusive policies and decisions that prioritize women. Notable examples of this were highlighted, such as the efforts to implement policies at Kickternet and to incorporate feminist principles in internet governance at RIA. These initiatives aimed to ensure that policies and decisions are made from a gendered perspective, promoting inclusivity in the digital world.

Additionally, the discussion stressed the need to enhance data and research capacity in order to study the effects of digital inequalities more comprehensively. By developing research capabilities and conducting after-access surveys, it becomes possible to shed light on the realities of access and how women are specifically affected. This positive sentiment underscores the importance of evidence-based approaches to address and mitigate digital disparities.

Furthermore, the conversation explored the influence of varying terminologies and concepts of feminism between the global North and Africa. It was noted that many funding and theoretical influences originate from the global North but often fail to effectively translate into practice on the ground in Africa. Moreover, different conceptualizations of feminism in various African regions contribute to a disconnect. This negative sentiment highlights the need to consider local nuances and realities to effectively empower women in Africa, instead of merely replicating models from the global North.

Additionally, the speakers addressed the issue of cyber harassment and other barriers that impede women’s participation in digital activities, particularly in Africa. The growing online presence of businesses creates difficulties for women who experience cyber harassment, which affects their ability to actively engage in digital spaces. Furthermore, women aspiring to hold political office often face discouragement from cyber harassment and other forms of resistance. These challenges underscore the importance of addressing cyber harassment and fostering an inclusive digital environment for women.

In conclusion, the participants in the discussion emphasized the need to address gender inequalities in the digital realm. They highlighted the lack of accessibility and representation of women in internet governance, cybersecurity, and emerging technologies. However, positive initiatives were also recognized, such as the capacity-building efforts in cybersecurity and the formulation of inclusive policies. The significance of conducting research and collecting data to better understand and address digital disparities was also emphasized. Additionally, the discussion shed light on the impact of varying terminologies and concepts of feminism between the global North and Africa. The issue of cyber harassment and other barriers to women’s participation in digital activities, particularly in Africa, was also highlighted. These insights call for a more comprehensive approach that takes into account local nuances and realities to effectively empower women and reduce cyberbullying and violence in the digital space.

Moderator – Towela Jere:
So good morning, good afternoon, good evening to everyone, depending on where you’re joining from. This is the IGF 2023 Open Forum, appropriately titled, Whose Internet? Towards a Feminist Digital Future for Africa. My name is Toela Nyirandajere, I work with the African Union Development Agency in Johannesburg, South Africa, and I lead the Economic Integration Division team. And it is my singular honor and pleasure really to host this session, to moderate and actually co-moderate with my colleague, Alice, who is sitting in the room, and really happy to have both the panelists that are physically present in Kyoto, but also those that are joining online for this particular session. So just to give a bit of context in terms of the discussion that we will have today, I think there’s been a number of exciting developments from the African Union side in terms of the digital transformation strategy, which the Commission has been working on in terms of unpacking that into a number of different policy frameworks and strategies for implementation, including very deliberate strategies related to data policies and data governance, looking at issues of digital ID, looking at issues of the transformative aspects of digitalization as it applies to different sectors across the continent, whether it’s in agriculture, health or education, and really trying to see how to appropriately position ICTs and digitalization at the center of Africa’s economic transformation. I think attendant with that, of course, will always be the discussions around gender inclusiveness and how we really ensure that all these different framework strategies adequately take cognizance of the important aspect of gender, and particularly the issues around inclusiveness when it comes to making sure that these policies and frameworks respond to the needs of women, that they actually are inclusive in terms of adequately positioning women, not only in the definition of the strategies, but also in their implementation and in the benefits thereof. So this discussion really is meant to give us an opportunity to delve into some of those issues. I’ve got a very stellar panel in front of me that will be really looking at this issue and trying to unpack for us from their experiences, what have they experienced in terms of gender inclusiveness, what have they done in terms of the work that they do in terms of promoting gender inclusiveness, but also the challenges that they have faced. We’ll look at some of the barriers that perhaps we need to address as we look at the gender transformative nature of digitalization, and then we will also look at some of the opportunities. Ultimately, at the end of the day, we want to be able to have recommendations for ourselves as women, recommendations for our policymakers, recommendations for our partners, and really recommendations that will ensure that for African women, indeed, the future is digital and it’s the digital future that takes cognizance of their role, both on the supply side and on the demand side, and in terms of also on the benefits as well. So maybe just to introduce my panel very briefly, and I’m sure as they also make their interventions, they will also perhaps supplement my very brief introduction with some additional information about the work that they have done. So in no particular order, we have Alice Munoz, who is the Senior Director for Africa working on a project called MRADI at Mozilla, and she has decades of experience working with multiple stakeholders on the continent on different issues, including being the founder and convener of Kittenet, and I’m sure she will tell us a little bit more about that in terms of her experiences with establishing that particular organization. We have Bonita Nyamire, who is joining us online, Co-Director for Research at Policy Uganda, which is a think tank that works at the intersection of data, technology and design to improve government service delivery. We have Dr. Nnenna Enyi-Adjufo, board member of the Network of African Women in Cybersecurity and a professor of technology law. We have Ghana Ayman, a Pan-African Youth Ambassador for the Internet Governance Forum, and the students studying at Cairo University. We have Liz Orembo, who is a Research Fellow at Research ICT Africa based in Kenya, and she basically has worked also in other capacities carrying out national cybersecurity assessments. Last but not least, we are joined by the only male on the panel, so he will give us the male perspective, but also perhaps the partner perspective on this. Tobias Thiel is the Director of the GIZAU office in Addis Ababa, and we are really pleased that he is able to join us for this session. So with that, let’s get into it. We will, of course, have a few rounds of questions and specifically to the different partners, to the different panelists. But we’re also very much welcoming our online participants to also, I think, make use of the chat functions in terms of your Q&As and then also in terms of the people that are in the room. Also, please hold your questions so that we can take them when we do the Q&A session. Just to also acknowledge the fact that Alice has generously agreed to support and co-moderate this session with me, and she will be helping us with the Q&A part of the session. So Alice, I’m going to start with you and really just looking at the different experiences that are in the room and among the panelists and how we have all traversed this digital journey. I think you’ve been working in digital policymaking for a long time. You helped establish the Kenya ICT Action Network, KICTANet. You have done a lot of consulting, including for the African Union, and you are now working for Mozilla as a director. So maybe just share with us what has been your experience in terms of paving the way, I think, for so many young African women who are on this journey and hoping to follow in your footsteps.

Alice Munyua:
Thank you very much, Toela, and thank you very much, GIZ, for inviting me to be on this panel and to co-moderate with you, Toela. I’ve known Toela for very many years, and you’ve really made me – you’ve aged me. You’ve really made me – yes, yes. I’m actually quite old in this space, having started when we used to call this communication for development, or even before communication for development, we used to call it social communications. So, yes, you know, and yes, my first job was actually beginning to look at what the internet, the impact that the new so-called internet was having on society when I was then working for the Vatican, the Vatican Radio, and we were creating the Vatican II Council. Okay, God, yes, I’m old. And we were the first ones to actually begin to interrogate what this so-called new technology was about and what impact it would have in society generally. So – and yes, I was actually the second or third cohort of women to be allowed to attend the prestigious Pontificia Universitas Gregoriana at the Vatican, and also as a program assistant for the African service of the Vatican Radio. So my background in communication is quite, you know, very fast, and my fast laptop was actually those huge things that needed a whole wheelbarrow to carry when I lived in Rome, so it’s quite a long journey. And by then, then, you know, we were looking at radio, and then from then the internet, and then I was involved with the World Summit on the Information Society, and there really acknowledging that there was a huge gender gap in that women were not involved in the discussions, the discourse, and even the building of this new technology, the internet. So that’s how far I come, and I would find myself in these spaces as the only woman, and for those who know how that can be – I don’t want to – I mean, I think I am going to use the word violent. It can be really a violent space to be the only woman and the only black woman in these spaces, but then we did it, and also then coming home to Kenya where the Kenyan government had declared the internet illegal and having to fight that, that whole process. Our government actually did not want the internet introduced in our country because there was this perception that it was taken away from the Kenyan posts and telecommunication, what you used to call telecom Kenya. Lonely journey in that we didn’t – nobody understood this technology. The government policymakers did not understand this technology, did not understand how it could contribute or what value it was bringing to its own national development framework or the way they thought about the development framework. So it’s through that and through joining together with – I actually started working – my first job was with the Association for Progressive Communications with UNREIT here running as their program officer for communications, running a huge project called Catalyzing Access to ICTs in Africa that was funded by the UK government, the DFID. And it’s from there that I then created the Kenya ICT Action Network simply because the reason why I created the Kenya ICT Action Network was because a lot of people – on one end you had government that did not understand the internet. Then you have the private sector that understood the potential of the internet, and there was the civil society that also understood the potential for the internet in democratizing communication. And we were all fighting each other, you know, pulling each other. And so I took on the responsibility to try and bring us together. And those who are Kenyans know that around this period until today – and it’s not just Kenya, actually, it’s globally – when you’re fighting for any right, it’s very easy to be branded, you know, terrible names. There’s an African saying that when a hyena wants to eat its cubs, it first accuses them of smelling of goats. And so we were accused of being activists. And because once you’re called an activist in Kenya – I don’t know about other countries – it means that policymakers are not going to listen to you. Neither is the private sector. Actually, neither is the media, unless they’re really courageous to put down and to expose what we are trying to advocate for. So luckily for us, there was a huge policy window. A new government came in, the Kibaki government in 2000, and there was a policy window. And at that point, the Ministry of Information and Communication was created. And two of my really good friends, Honorable Tuju and Honorable Regé, were then appointed Tuju as the minister and Honorable Regé as the permanent secretary. But then they made the mistake of disbanding the communications commission, the regulatory body, the board, and by then had left the APC and was fully committed to just convening and ensuring that Kiktonet was running and fighting to have an ICT policy framework that would allow especially the private sector and civil society to then do work in the country. And guess what? Kibaki then appointed me to be a commissioner on the regulatory authority, and I served for six years there. And serving with the various ministers, it was fast. The first was second and third. We managed to bring in the fiber optic cable, managed to create competition, signed. I’m the one who was the chair of the technical committee of the communications commission of Kenya then. It used to be called the CCK. Now it’s called the Communication Authority. Including signing the papers for what the famous mobile money, M-Pesa. Mobile money is the most famous mobile payment platform actually in the world. And even Kiktonet is actually the only network of that nature. Although currently it’s completely different. Government no longer actively contributes. It’s become a think tank, which is brilliant because we had not anticipated, and Riet will actually affirm to this, we continue to do a lot of monitoring and evaluation. And we’re very clear that we didn’t expect Kiktonet to survive beyond the creation of the ICT policy, that it has survived beyond that. It’s a huge legacy, and I’m very, very proud of what it is. But it was actually quite difficult doing that as a woman. It was lonely. I was the only woman, but I was very, very fortunate to be supported by a very strong team of men and allies. So the former minister of information communication, the immediate former minister, Joseph Moshero, created the network with me. And it is what it is now. And as a woman, and I knew how difficult it is, especially for young women to get into this kind of leadership position, so I only stayed long enough to be able to pave the way and hand it over to the current convener, Grace Githaiga. And I remember making her promise me that she will not continue becoming a convener for more than five years so she can hand over to the next women, so we can have even more women in this space. So I moved from there and worked with the African Union for about three years. That was, I think, the most difficult period of my life because I became the punching bag. I was an easy target. I became the punching bag for our top-level domain, .Africa. We were fighting for our top-level domain, .Africa, from an American that wanted it. So an American wanting a domain name that belongs to an entire continent. How I became a punching bag was because I was the only woman among a team of men that was fighting for that. We eventually had the domain name delegated to the African Union and with the back-end manager, the ZACR, and I’m really proud of that. I moved from then and I am now leading and worked for Mozilla for about two years as the policy lead for Africa, and I’m now leading a program that’s looking at having Mozilla’s presence in the global majority. So in Africa, South America, and Asia. Because Mozilla is an American company that hasn’t actually made such a huge effort to be global. So my role is actually to create a blueprint for Mozilla to show up globally and to show up globally differently because Mozilla is not big tech. Mozilla is a mission-based company, although I work for the corporation, not for the foundation. But we are a very different kind of corporation. We believe in an internet that is truly healthy, joyful, and puts people, especially women, back in control of their online lives. I’ll leave it at that for any questions. Back to you, Toela. Thank you.

Moderator – Towela Jere:
Thank you very much, Alice. And I think maybe the themes of persistence, resilience, and also being able to pave the way and hand over and pass the baton to other women, I think, are coming through in terms of your story. So I’m going to turn to you, Bonita. And I know that you do quite a lot of research in terms of looking at issues around women’s participation in the internet. You have co-authored a very interesting report about alternate realities and alternate internets and how African feminist research can actually guide a feminist internet. And I’m curious to know a little bit more about this research and really what were the most interesting insights that you were able to uncover, Bonita.

Sonya Annasha Bonita:
You can see me and hear me. Please let me know. Thank you. My name is Bonita. As already introduced, I work for Policy as a co-director in research. And the research that Toela is talking about, we conducted as Policy in 2019-2020. That was in five African countries, Uganda, Kenya, South Africa, Senegal, and Ethiopia. And in this research, we looked at experiences of women who use the internet. So general women who use the internet and wanted to understand their experiences, gain an insight into their experiences while using online spaces, while using the internet. And we got very interesting, what we can say interesting findings, but also very sad findings on the side of women. And some of the key findings that we got were that that all women are generally affected by online harassment, you know, in online spaces, on different platforms. And it is not that only women are affected, even men are also affected by online harassment or online gender-based violence, but women are significantly affected. They are more affected compared to men. And we also discovered that it was different categories of women that affected by this online harassment in these digital spaces. There were categories that was more affected than the others. And we looked at, we saw women who are in positions of leadership. Like Alice was saying, she was, you know, a punching bag, very, very true. I relate with her experience physically, but also online when it comes to women who are in leadership positions, both political leadership and other leadership positions. They are very, very significantly affected by online harassment. Then women human rights defenders, again, goes back to Alice’s job at one point as a woman human rights defender. They are also significantly affected by online harassment because of the work they do. You know, they are trying to, you know, to create safer spaces for other women and girls. So they really become punching bags in online spaces, but also in offline spaces, like Alice really said. Then women in the media, women journalists, bloggers, influencers, you know, because of the work they do. You know, they are in the face, you know, of the TV, of online platforms every time, sharing news, raising awareness on different issues. So they also significantly face or experience online harassment. So those were the key categories of women that we found that are significantly affected by online harassment. Then the other key finding from our research was that issues of online presence for African women are not as well attended to if you compare to other forms of violence. And this is about online gender-based violence. So we found that other forms of harassment or violence or gender-based violence, they are well attended to, they are articulated, they are policies which are very straightforward. But if you look at online harassment, online gender-based violence, it is not as well as explored if you compare with, for instance, domestic violence, with intimate partner violence, with female genital mutilation. I’ll give an example, for instance, if you come to Uganda to any police station looking for registered or recorded cases of online gender-based violence, you will hardly find any. But you’ll find cases of domestic violence have been recorded, cases of intimate partner violence have been recorded. FGM is very recorded in areas where it was in Uganda or is still even up to today. So you find that these issues of online gender-based violence among women, they are not as recorded as if you compare with other cases of forms of violence against women. So which is a very, very big gap. They actually tend to be pushed away and they are told that, oh, this is a small thing that you can deal with. You can handle that. It’s very simple. Or you actually, you are the one who caused it, go and handle it. And it is because of the work they do. It is because of their presence on online spaces, in digital spaces that they encountered these experiences. So that was the other key issue that we found out. Then the other one was that what we see offline actually is reproduced online. The discriminatory agenda practices shaped by social, economic, cultural and political structures that we see offline, they are really now reproduced online. Whatever women are encountering in offline spaces, they are now seeing the same thing happening to them in online spaces, on social media platforms and so on and so forth. The other key finding was that the policies that exist for countering online gender-based violence among women, they are not very explicit about this kind of violence. They are very silent. They talk about cyber security. They talk about discrimination in online spaces. There shouldn’t be discrimination. There should be equality online. The internet is a human right, even for women, but they are not very explicit. They don’t really come out to say online harassment. They don’t really end against women, because we have other policies, more like domestic violence, intimate partner violence, saying all A, B, C, D, X, Y, Z about women, about girls, about children. So that is not yet happening in the context of online gender-based violence. So most of the policies, even the normative frameworks, they talk about gender equality, but they do not really come out about this form of violence. So those are some of the key findings that we established from our research, and I will leave it at that. Thank you very much.

Moderator – Towela Jere:
Thank you, Bonita, and really thank you, I think, for highlighting, I think, the fact that perhaps there’s a lot of asymmetry in terms of the information that is being captured about women’s experiences online, especially when it pertains to the harm that is caused by online spaces, and how that perhaps can then impact on the women’s ability to engage effectively with online spaces. I think it’s also important, maybe as we continue having this discussion, to always be mindful that in our context, I think women span a very broad socioeconomic base. So you have women in the rural areas, you have women in the urban, very urban, and all of these women are having different experiences of the same issues, and the question is, how does one then also begin to address that as well? I’m going to turn to you now, Nnena, and I know that you are a prolific academic and researcher, you teach on law and technology in the UK, but you’re also very connected to the policy spaces, not only globally, but on the continent as well, and you have a leading role in the AU Cyber Security Experts Group. So I’m curious to hear from you, what have your experiences been as a woman working in this field, but working, I think, in two different contexts, one in the UK, one here on the continent, and really trying to navigate that space in terms of the intersection of law and technology, but also your journey as a woman in that space, Nnena.

Nnenna Ifeanyi-Ajufo:
Thank you so much, Toela. Namaste, thank you to our Danepad for this very important conversation, this panel, and of course to GIZ as well. In terms of personal experience, I would say that a huge motivation for me has been women’s rights. 17, 18 years ago, which is also interesting to see the dimensions, the differing dimensions of our conversation in terms of women and the discussion. I was researching into criminal human rights abuses, international criminal crimes in Anglophone Africa then about 18 years ago, and it struck me one day how women’s voices could be amplified in terms of being witnesses or being victims. And interestingly, years later, the International Criminal Court is now accepting digital evidence. And for me at that time, it was how do I work in an area where digital evidence, human rights, cyber rights would be relevant. And I think as we have these conversations, there are three key issues that needs to be underscored. The first one is human rights and technology for women, which Bonita has talked a lot about, digital rights. There are also questions of cybersecurity and women, which Bonita has also highlighted. And also bridging the digital divide is key in Africa because sometimes when I think about bridging the digital divide in Africa, there are still levels to it. Africa remains the least digitalized region in the world, but not just bridging the gender digital divide as we talk about, but also enhancing inclusion and ownership in the digital space for women. These conversations need to be had in this sort of, when we promote these discussions. Now, in terms of my experience and aligning to promoting women and enhancing women participation and rights for women, I will first of all start by saying that in the policy space, I’ll come to the research and academic perspective. In the policy space, there is very little focused and targeted policy implementation and even policy development for women in Africa. What we have seen is sort of a charity approach to these conversations. Sometimes I usually say it’s easy to come for election campaigns and hear men talk about what they would do for women. And of course that is also reflected in the digital space. So it’s easy for new policy makers to talk about what they want to do for women. But in reality, these policies are not clearly conceptually clear and they are not even, there is no plan to implement these policies. The other issue is a lack of a harmonized approach to these issues. Now, one of the things you pointed out is being in the UK, you would see a more harmonized approach to these issues. It is clear that this is what the policy is all about. This is what the target, this is what the outcome, this is what the goal is. In Africa, there is no harmonized approach, whether from the African Union regional level, the sub-regional level, and even at the national level. So even at the national level, you have this sort of fragmented approach to the issues of women in the digital space, whether it’s for inclusion, whether it’s for participation, digital empowerment, cybersecurity issues, or questions of digital rights. What you then have is a more individualistic approach in terms of capacity building, in terms of access. You have individuals who want to help, you have civil society organization, like Bonita’s organizations. But then when you then talk of having it harmonized and measuring the implementation is usually a challenge. The other issue for me is Africa’s digital transformation strategy. I mean, we’ve done well by pushing out a digital transformation strategy for the next 10 years, but I usually ask, where is the accountability in terms of the digital transformation strategy? Are we clear on what we want to achieve with the digital transformation strategy? What is the short-term implementation? What is the long-term implementation? It has been there for three to four years now. Where are the gains? We don’t see any document anywhere telling us this is what has been achieved, who has achieved what, and where we are going with the strategy. And I think we have to be practical with these conversations. It is very silent when you talk of women. And so there is even a lack of prioritization of these issues. And I think that is where we also need to start having the conversation. Are we prioritizing issues of gender? And when we talk of gender in Africa, we usually think, oh, it’s all about empowering women. It’s just about women, but it’s a whole triangle of even empowering children, girls, the girl child, children, and even the family as a whole. And if you look at Africa’s charter on human rights, Africa is one continent that actually stipulates culture and family as a key issue. And I think it’s something that should be reflected in other aspects. Now, I also want to talk about research. I think in 2017, I was privileged to do a human rights publication on human rights and technology for African women. And sometimes I go back to look for research in relation to women in Africa. There is none. Interestingly, I’m working with Bonita on an edited project on cyber rights. And it’s been a struggle getting that book published. She knows about this. And it just gets me to reflect on the challenges you have with research. First of all, the challenge of having African researchers in the field. We can’t do anything without data. We can’t do anything without research. And I think it’s one thing I’ve noticed in terms of my experience is a huge challenge in that aspect. We can’t have these conversations if we’ve not mapped the realities. And I know ICT Africa, Lizzie is here. They’ve been trying to do so much work as well. So we can’t have these conversations if we’ve not mapped the reality. It becomes more hypothetical than it is real saying, oh, Africa in terms of culture, gender issues. But then in reality, if we can’t map the reality, then we can’t actually answer or have a valid conversation about these issues. And as we go on, I can talk more about other experiences. Thank you.

Moderator – Towela Jere:
Thank you very much, Nnenna. As I will not attempt to summarize all of that, but I will say that what has stood out for me is the fact that number one, we don’t want charity. We don’t want tokenism. I think women want to be adequately included in all aspects of whether it’s policymaking, policy implementation, research, and just making sure that our voices are heard. And I think that to the point around really the research and the data and the evidence, I think there is also, I think, a space perhaps for having a conversation about how as women we’re going to show up in terms of leading and driving some of these processes, including holding our institutions to account when they develop strategies and when these strategies now need to be implemented. So, Tobias, I’m going to now turn to you. You have heard from three very powerful women. One more is still to come, but I’m curious to know from you now in the role that you have working at GIZ, working with the African Union and really managing that cooperation between the GIZ on behalf of the German government and the African Union. Based on your experience, how do you see Germany’s development cooperation adequately supporting Africa’s digital transformation? And what role do you see gender inclusiveness playing in the digital sector, Tobias?

Tobias Thiel:
Okay, I’ll try this one, yeah. Thank you so much, Tovela, and good afternoon to everyone and good morning to those who are joining us online from the African continent. It’s a real pleasure to be here at the IGF and I would just like to use the opportunity to thank our hosts, the GIZ, and the African Union for their support. I used to seize the opportunity to thank our hosts, the government and people of Japan for doing an absolutely wonderful job at the hospitality here in Kyoto. Since I identify as a feminist and an ally in the cause of women’s empowerment, it’s of course a particular honor to be on a panel that is basically, except for myself, only staffed with powerful and inspiring women and I believe that this actually sends also an important signal because I think we all know that there is a tendency in international conferences for panels to be rather male-dominated. The theme of this session is actually a very important one for the German Development Corporation. I mean, a feminist approach to Africa’s digital transformation. It both resonates with the German Development Corporation as a whole in terms of general policy but also especially with the work that my colleagues and I are doing in the context of our work with the African Union. So as you might know, the German government has made gender equality a key priority and that includes also having a foreign and development policy that takes gender equality as a particular priority. So the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development, the BMZ, recently introduced a new strategic approach which it calls the feminist development policy and at the core of that policy or strategy lie the three R’s. There’s a focus on rights, resources, and representation as sort of three important dimensions that we need to consider when promoting the cause of women’s empowerment. So in that spirit, Germany has set itself the goal of dedicating directly 90% of the resources of the German Development Corporation portfolio globally to contribute to gender equality by 2025. And this feminist agenda is, of course, also a close guiding principle for our cooperation with the African Union, including AUDANIPAT, where Tovela works. And together in that context, we aim to eliminate discriminatory structures for women and girls and other marginalized groups in the field of digitalization and data governance. And in this context, we try to ensure particularly that female voices are systematically considered in all of the activities of the German Development Corporation portfolio and not only that these voices are included, but also that they actually heard and find the right resonance. And the reason why we do this is out of the conviction, the fundamental conviction that sustainable development cannot be achieved if we don’t address the fundamental flaws and inequalities in power structures. And this includes women particularly, who constitute 50% of the population of this planet, but it, of course, also includes any other group that experiences any form of discrimination based on any of the criteria or characteristics. So, and in that sense, it’s particularly important that gender equality and inclusion become a reality for all. Thank you.

Moderator – Towela Jere:
Thank you very much, Tobias. Thank you really for highlighting those three R’s, the rights, the resources, the representation. I don’t know about everybody else, but I definitely have latched onto that 90%. So we will see how we also make sure that we are able to direct resources adequately towards the participation of women. But I think it’s also perhaps a challenge to the continent as well, in terms of being able to also direct more resources to amplify the voices of women. My last panelist, I believe Liz is now in the room. Before we go to taking some Q&A and comments from the room and from those online, Liz, I’m just going to invite you to really share with us your experience in terms of the work that you’ve been doing in intergovernance, in multi-stakeholder engagement in Africa, and really perhaps just getting to hear from you, your experience of the gaps in terms of where the women’s engagement in digital processes is evident. And then also what else you have found in terms of your work, both at RIA, as well as at Kiktonet. Liz.

Liz:
Thank you, GIZ, for inviting me to this session, which I’m so passionate about. And I’d like to start off by saying my story is not a movie like Alice Muñoz and the rest because she actually opened up ways for us, other women who are coming after her. And actually my story started out from the global internet governance that she organized in Kenya in 20, was it 2012, 2011. Then I was a student and I was struggling to find out where I would fit into the society as a second year student taking communications, bachelor education communications. At that time I was struggling to see whether I would like to be a poet, I would like to be a singer, I would like to be all those things. But then I stumbled upon, I noticed that said something like, do you want to know how the internet works? And I started volunteering for that organization. But what I didn’t know is that I was working on the wrong side of the history. So when Alice says that she was being bullied, I was on the team that was bullying her. I wasn’t bullying her, but I was on that side until I was invited to the global IGF to market the other side of dot Africa. And then I got the story and I was invited to intern at Kenic where she was a board member. So it was a very good experience from that leadership and from there I got to have a chance to be in the team that actually formed Internet Society Kenya Chapter, which was a struggle to form because of many, a lot of political issues through the 10 years, but it was a success. I’d like to say that during that year, tech was really developing in Kenya, but it was so much of an elitist thing and a men’s thing. So being in that field as a woman, it was intimidating and I would agree it’s also violent because you raise your hand, no one is interested to get what you’re saying. And even when you manage to say something, no one acknowledges it. And it’s those tiny things that actually discourage you from continuing being in the space. At that time, as a woman and as a youth, the spaces to participate in Internet governance was very, very little and it was a struggle to stay in the space. Because one, you need to sustain yourself in the space, you need to travel, you need to contribute as a volunteer. It’s meant that at that time you’re struggling between finding a job that actually pays you and actually doing some of these passionate things. And also, when you’re attending meetings, as a young woman, you’re assigned the role of a note taker and you don’t get to contribute to those meetings. So for a very long time, I was a note taker, but it wasn’t a disadvantage. It was a disadvantage in the end because you get to understand, because the field is so dynamic, it meant that you get to understand what people are saying. You have to put it down in a way that other people also understand what is communicated in those meetings. And that really helped grow my career. So from there, when Gigi was taking over Kickternet, she invited me to be part of the board members of Kickternet. And I would say the experience there was exciting and challenging at the same time because that was when internet governance and the usage of internet was really opening up in Kenya. And we had to start demystifying concepts of net neutrality, privacy, in a way that policymakers actually understand. And I think that was the most exciting thing for me during that time. And I remember now moving it forward to now when we are trying to tell people about the concepts of privacy and the data protection, now it’s very, very easy. I remember the first times when we were advocating for the same and trying to get parliament to put in a data protection policy, parliamentarians would ask, if you’re a good citizen, what do you want to hide? And what would citizens want to hide? And those were very difficult questions also to answer from our end. And so conceptualizing those concepts in a way that policymakers and even people on the ground got to understand and even start working on those policies was a challenging thing, but it was also exciting at the same time. So I continued working with Kickternet. And I think, as Alice mentions, that we moved from that space of engagement. It’s still an engagement space, but you also realize that much of the things were being said on the list, but not being carried out or even being followed up. So when government made a commitment to say that they want to follow up with data protection frameworks, then they would need someone to help them, the civil society to help them. And Kickternet became that civil society that actually helped them through policy implementation. That meant that we had to be registered. That meant that we had to start designing the organization from just where people just engaged, but also people collaborated at the back end. So after Kickternet, I moved to Global Cybersecurity Capacity Center, which was another exciting venture for me. I felt like I had done enough at the national level, and we had opened up spaces for participation through the Kenya School of Internet Governance that brought in very many experts from different fields to start working on internet governance issues, which Kickternet by itself could not have done that because it was so overwhelming even for the organization. For the GCSEC, another exciting work, like I’ve said, and I’ve worked with Toela. At that time, I started working with RIA because they were very big partners with the GCSEC, forming the Global Cybersecurity Capacity Center for South Africa, C3SA. And that’s where we worked with governments to actually build capacity, national capacity on cybersecurity. There, again, it was another space where women were not actively participating, and especially African women. And we started driving the concept of cybersecurity not just being a technical thing, but it also has a people process, and women were so instrumental in participating in cybersecurity policies. And also because they are also most vulnerable because digital literacy, they’re on the other side of the disparity on digital literacy, access use. The domestic nature of African homes is that women manage the small bills in homes, and they’re the ones who use the mobile money, they’re the ones who manage the homes. So even being targeted by cyber, what do we call them, the social engineering tactics was very easy, like someone being told that your child is sick, please send this kind of money or they’re in danger, and they would be vulnerable from that point. So with those projects, we started seeing the need of getting more women into the space of cybersecurity capacity. We started, we partnered with ITU, we partnered with some of the universities that we were working on, universities in Cape Town, universities in Tanzania, on global cybersecurity, on capacity building CCB for women. And from there, I see more women participating, the alumni in those programs participating actually. So I worked at the GCSEC for like one or two years, one and a half to two years, and then I felt like I wanted to develop my research capacity, and I moved to RIA. And the first project with RIA was conceptualizing the feminist principles that would go into the GDC, was the new deal that we want. And that resonated so much with me because through my work, I’ve been seeing how women have been affected disproportionately by ICT. They lack access, lack of representation with the new technologies. They become even more marginalized because they’re not seen in the new technologies like AI, which also automatically makes decisions for them. So these decisions are biased, even in the first place. And from there, we started developing not just feminist principles, but African perspectives to it into these global processes that are actually starting, and we are continuing to make submissions to engage with the technical envoy and with other partners on these feminist principles of them. And in every submissions that we also make, we also try to see the gender perspective of it. And from the access research, I think this is something that we’ve been seeing through the IGF, that the inequalities that are actually reflected from the after-access surveys, that women are so much disproportionately affected in such a way that there’s so much economic injustice for them to participate economically, politically, and even socially. And what the after-access survey does is to provide this disaggregated data so that you can see the realities of access and how they’re affected even beyond. I’m going to stop here, and then I’ll welcome any questions if you have.

Moderator – Towela Jere:
Thank you very much, Liz. And I must commend my panel, because I think you have made our work a little bit easier, because you have managed to touch on a number of things in your intervention. So looking at your experiences, some of the barriers, and maybe even some of the opportunities. So what I would like to do now, because I am mindful of time, and I also would like to give space for discussion and dialogue and Q&A. So I’m going to open the floor now for questions, comments, inputs, both from the online and those that are physically in the room. And for this, I am going to hand over to you, Alice, to manage for us this process. And Fabiola, I think, will support you in terms of the online interventions. Over to you, Alice.

Alice Munyua:
Okay. Thank you. Thank you to all. And thank you to all the other panelists. So I’d like to open it up to any questions from the room. Microphones, one there, one there. And there’s also roaming microphones here.

Anna Margaretha (anriette) Esterhuysen:
I want Andri to say what I told her many years ago. She looked at me in one of these meetings and said to me, because I offered, put up my hand to take notes. And she said, you never do that. But actually, as someone said, I don’t know, who was it? Was it you, Liz? Well, someone said that if you take notes, it does give you a certain kind of power as well. Yes, it does. No, I just wanted to say that I think, I mean, it’s really amazing to listen to the stories. And Alice, a movie is a good idea, I think. Liz is right there. My name is Anriet Esterhuisen. And I, together with Alison and the African Union, organize the African School on Internet Governance every year. And I think the one thing that I can say for that is that we’ve made huge progress. We never struggle to get good women who are experts. Tawela is one of the founders of the school. So having Tawela there as well, it’s just very difficult to get hold of her. She’s so busy. But there are women in the field. We have them on this panel here. And there are others. So the expertise is there. We always have at least half the participants also women. But there are still, there’s still resistance. I think there’s still particular, there’s still assumptions. There’s assumptions that women experts have to deal with women’s issues. And that if women or gender issues are on the agenda, it has to be women that put them on the agenda. And then I think at the level of cultural norms of expectations of how women behave, there are still huge barriers. You know, I think several of you mentioned the bullying, the expectation of how to behave as a woman in this space. You’re not supposed to be controversial. You’re not supposed to really be challenging, particularly not challenging people in authority. I think in Africa, there is respect as a very much part of the culture of how we work. And I think it can sometimes be a little bit of a barrier. But I think, I mean, what we try to do at the African School is at least create a space where there is, where gender is recognized, even if that’s not the focus. And where participants are made conscious of the need to be respectful and to listen to one another. So, I think as one of our members of parliament who participated in this year’s school, when they wanted one of the women staff members to type their notes, she said no. And in a way, that’s how we are trying to contribute to establish more sensitivity to that. But I just want to commend you, really. I mean, Alice, listening to you and talk of those early years with Minister Tuju, how hopeful we were, and then how many challenges there were. I really think there has been a substantial change. There’s still lots of challenges. But compared to the early 2000s, I think there’s just, there is more recognition, there is more space for women to be in this space. And I think it’s done by people like yourselves. And Alison over there as well, who never stops annoying government officials and policy makers with all her very disturbing statistics.

Alice Munyua:
Thank you, Andrea. Yes, please.

Audience:
Is it working? Okay. Thank you, Alice, for moderating this. And thank you for weathering everything that you went through. And it is absolutely wonderful. I am a woman. You’ll be surprised, because on my right side is a woman, and on my left side is a man. So together, if you take the word woman, you put a bracket at the man. So you find the set is a woman, and a man in a subset. So I am a subset of a woman. My mother didn’t go to school. And it is because of a man. His brother, when she passed to go to the grade four, she was told that you cannot go to school because you are supposed to be working, doing the fields, and taking care of the cows. So when my mother told me that story, I made up my mind then when I was in primary school that when I grow up, you know, if I have a boy and a girl, they will grow on equal footing. So thank you for everything. So my thing really is to say that we really need to make sure that we continue to support girls and boys to grow up together, to work together, to support each other, so that as they grow up to become full women and men, they defend each other in terms of supporting each other. That is all I wanted to say. Thank you. Thank you for being an ally. There’s a lady there. Hi. Hello. Sorry. I had my hands up. I’m behind you. Hello. Hi. I’m sorry. It’s okay. Can I ask? Yes, please. Thank you. Sorry. So my name is Tagus. My name is Tagus. I am from APC. So now everyone is looking at me, so I’m just scared. I’ve been following the conversation actually online because I was supporting a friend who was in need of some consulting. But thank you, Farben, for sending me the link. So I have listened to most of the conversation, and it has been very engaging. And it’s so inspiring to hear feminist researchers having a conversation in a room because I think we’re stuck with gender as part of analysis but not feminism being welcome in spaces. So it’s a good and refreshing thing to hear. I have a couple of questions maybe if the panelists can respond to. The first one is, I mean, in this IGF, one of the things that we have realized is thanks to organizations like APC, after decades of struggle, that we now get to see online gender-based violence with its new terminology, technology-faceted gender-based violence being part of the agenda. You hear it everywhere. Everyone is picking it up, which is awesome, which means that part of the struggle has been won. So that’s a good thing. So for me, my question is, it seems like in terms of—this comes from a research perspective—it seems that we are much more inclined into talking about online harassment, which are very valid conversations to be having, and dog-seeing and other—they are very predictable thematic areas that we keep on picking up on. And I feel like there has to be a way in which feminists have to start thinking about expanding the idea of violence, specifically online, from a multiple perspective. And I think I kind of came to that realization after we have experienced it—I’m also from Ethiopia—a war in different regions, and the online space being a propaganda space for justification of rape against women, and that being seen not only from a government perspective, but also even from international media, who have been reciting around that. And I think that kind of reciting—that kind of work needs to resurface in this space, so that the urgency of the matter can be much more pertinent. So, that’s my invitation, and also I would like to ask for people to start thinking about expanding the idea of online gender-based violence from multiple spaces. The other one is, how feminists is our work? I’m asking that because we tend to write feminism, but we end up doing a gender analysis. For me, they are two different things, because feminism has its own values in terms of really prioritizing women in gender-diverse communities. And in that sense, how do you reflect about the sector that we are working on, and then how are you dealing with trying to bring in feminist issues in that space, by dealing with those who are— are only interested in the analysis of it. The last question I have is, and also, how do you deal with, this is also, again, from a research perspective. One of my critics that I have is, in this kind of online gender-based violence, we tend to categorize women in the LGBTQ community together. And then the analysis, even the conversation, end up being about women. And so how do feminists start making sure that the LGBTQ community are not just there as a list, but also as an active allies, and active contributors of knowledge? And so, yeah, I’m asking that question. Thank you.

Alice Munyua:
Thank you for those questions. Would any of the panelists, because these are research questions. Can I hand that to Nnenna and to Liz? Liz, do you want to start to respond? Nnenna, please? Yeah, Nnenna can start. Is Nnenna still online?

Nnenna Ifeanyi-Ajufo:
Yes, I’m here. Thank you very much. And I think it’s also a very important question for Bonita. She has also been engaged in research. Just to say that Tigi’s points, they’re very, very valid. One of the things, the project I talked about, the edited project that we’re struggling to work on, I think chapter two of that book is entirely on the topic I’ve termed Afro-cyberfeminism. And interestingly, you’re talking about these points. I agree with you. Sometimes it seems like the conversation is all about just cyber harassment. But I also want to point out that there are also other aspects of the core. It’s a broad discourse more than. In fact, when Toela was talking, I was like, apart from rural women, there are also questions of refugees, women who are refugees in Africa. Nobody’s really talking about this group. And in terms of access, in terms of rights, there are absolutely so many discussions that needs to be had. But I just want to say that, except we work together, I’ve been very careful not to talk about personal experience because if I do, people in the room or people online would actually pinpoint at maybe who I’m referring to in terms of some of the conversations and the challenges that we tend to have. And one of the things Lizzie also pointed out too is we’ve moved from this space of technical expertise to broader aspects, policy and all of that. And I’m excited to see that and read, Alison is in the room. I think we need to work more together and bring together the stories. The stories I’ve had today gives a reflection of the research perspectives we need to put out there. But what challenge you tend to have, like I said earlier, is lack of researchers that are homegrown. Again, I had the cyber crime working group of the GFCE. There is also the challenge of the Global North and the Global South dichotomy, which you find reflected in issues of research. For example, talking of LGBTQ, we have to look at the African realities and acceptance of these issues and then advocacy and campaigning to push these conversations. The fact that there are people in those groups who would want to also tell their stories, but because of the African reality to these perspectives, they also can’t come out to speak about their realities. So there is that Global South, Global North dichotomy. We can also move from just having an African conversation to more of a Global South, where we can look at challenges and look at commonalities in both regions. I think it would help if you look at, for example, Latin America and this sort of Afro cyber feminism conversations, and even from the LGBTQ perspective, there is a lot to share. So finally, just because of time, there are bodies, for example, like the UNECA. I know they are happy to work with organizations like the UNICEF, the UNICEF, the UNICEF, I know Research ICT is doing a lot. I think that there should be more platforms for research. People want to write. I know more and more academics in Africa, they want to write, but you also have this sort of Westernized approach to writing. Most people who are writing about Africa are actually not in Africa. And that’s a huge challenge. People tell you that publishers don’t actually want to work with them because they can’t validate the authenticity of their work in Africa. And I find that very off-putting. It’s triggering for me, but then you find that people want to tell your stories more than you can actually tell your story. And I think UNREC is here, the Internet Governance School. It’s a great agenda, and I think it will be an opportunity to highlight more of these issues, as well as give opportunities for more platforms for women to talk about this from the points you’ve raised. Thank you.

Alice Munyua:
Yeah, thank you, Nnenna, for that. And actually, thank you so much for bringing up the issue of the global North and global majority dichotomy, because even more nuanced than that, there’s the whole difference. When you look at feminism, there’s the way black women look at feminism and the way other non-black women look at feminism. There’s also that dichotomy that I think we should not shy away from talking about it. It should not, you know, it’s a controversial issue and we should not lose. And then, there’s a lady. Yes. Oh, here, I can give you this one. Okay. I can take it out. Okay. Oh, it’s to Liz. Liz. Yeah, yeah. Okay, let’s, yeah, thank you. Okay, let’s, yeah, take this one. Oh, is this one working? Thank you.

Liz:
Yeah, so I get it that what was asked was the terminologies of feminism as it’s in different regions, which you’ve actually started talking about. And this is something that we’ve realized, not just in my work with Ria, also with Kiktonite, because some of these concepts come from the global North because the funding is also coming from the global North. It comes with the conceptualization of how the global North faces it. And when you come to the ground, you realize that there’s a disconnect, that people don’t really, either don’t understand what you’re saying or they just listen to you, but there’s no impact that is actually going to happen. The other kinds of differences in these terminologies is how also different regions in Africa also conceptualizes the term, because it’s different from Francophone region, West African region, East African region, South African region. And also what you’re trying to do at Research ICT Africa is to also enact some of these conceptualizations so that when you are talking to policymakers, what are we equipping them with? Are we equipping them with evidence from what you get from the ground? And also with our consultation, we also try to reach as wide as we can so that we also get the contributions especially from Francophone, which is not really covered in the work that we do. So yeah, the other one was on cyber harassment and rights, which is also kind of the same. Most of the work that organizations in Africa and women do first go to cyber harassment, digital rights, women accessing opportunities. And which is rightly so, because we look at these things as just one thing, but it’s one thing that is actually affecting other areas of women participation, be it in business participation, because so much businesses are going online, so much marketing is actually going online. And when women can’t participate in these social spaces, it means that they can’t market themselves. They can’t even run for office. There’s this training that we actually did after Kenyan elections, where we called women who vied and started getting their experiences on how they performed and whether they would like to vie again. And they were so discouraged because of the journey that they’ve gone through. So it’s a series of harassment one after another. And through the campaign period, they think that this is just the last one until we go to vote. And then after voting, they even realized that even the promises that they got from the ground, nothing just actually materialized. So they think back and they’re like, all these hurdles that they’ve passed through, including cyber harassment, was it worth it when it doesn’t actually translate even to a single vote? So when we actually did that training, and it was a wholesome training, not just a cyber security training, but also for them how to engage themselves, much of it covered media literacy and digital literacy. You start getting hope and different approaches in how they also engage the society. So coming back to the terminologies and how they help, how to translate on the ground, is that some of these approaches, we have to be careful in how we translate them from the West coming down. Because it means that these trainings that we do, as much as we get funding from them, that one, they’re not having an impact and two, they’re even doing worse because they go out there with so much confidence, but yet they get even more backlash when it comes to implementation. I think the first digital security trainings we emphasize on women having a thick skin, which really didn’t help. And we tried to conceptualize things like, how should we take on our content online? Should we go with the norms that are actually there? If a woman is supposed to market themselves with how they dress, should they continue? Or should they continue with engaging with content? And we started mapping out how much of these women or giving examples of women politicians, especially who actually engage online with political ideologies rather than other types of content that are quite popular. And when telling them that their realities, that there are women who are out there who don’t actually conform to this content that are popular and actually attract so much cyber bullying and cyber violence and they can actually engage in ideologies, then they start seeing these examples as things that can actually work and they’ve actually started trying them out. So, yeah, in conclusion, I think, yeah, this, we can form our own ideologies of how that would look like and how, what approaches that you can use in engaging when seeking higher positions, political positions or whatever social positions that you want.

Audience:
Thank you, everyone. And so my first response, not a question, just supplementing the conversation. She’s asked a question that, are you equipping policy makers with evidence? And that is my thought process this whole time, which takes me back to a time last year when I was invited as a note taker for a consultation meeting where our, my name is Claire and I’m from Uganda, our Ministry of Information and Technology was trying to introduce a bill that is going to review policies and laws governing the media industry in Uganda and we’re holding consultation meetings. This particular consultation meeting was this big with just one woman, two women, another lady and myself was taking notes. So I listened to the conversation and the views that everyone in the room had and did my job as a note taker. When I was done with my report, what I did was to write my own recommendations as a note taker. But okay, well, this is what was discussed, but I think that we can do better to get more diverse views and I wrote about three pages of recommendations at the end and then included the list of women, what they do and how they can contribute to this discussion. And I also included evidence. One of the reports I attached was the report by policy that Bonita has been working on that talks about cyber harassment and stuff and other reports that have talked about issues affecting women in the media industry in Uganda. So I attached that to the report and included a note in the email to the person who had invited me. I said, here’s the report. I didn’t participate in the discussion because I had to listen to your views, but I’ve also added my views as a woman who is in the media industry and is affected by these issues. I’ve also included recommendations of women you can invite in future. Within a month or so, there was another activity that was involving the women that I had listed. So I think sometimes you just have to use the little opportunity you have to make your mark.

Tobias Thiel:
Thank you. Yes, thank you. I just wanted, from the perspective of a policymaker and the German Development Corporation, address some of the things that have been said here. I mean, first of all, I very much agree with my co-panelists that labels are something that is quite difficult. And we have, I would say, quite different conceptualizations of what feminism means, both between the global north and the global south. But it is also something that, even if I look at my own country, Germany, you will find a huge diversity of different feminist perspectives and streams. And I think what is important is not to lose the final end out of sight, which is that, I mean, there certainly are differences, but I think quite often the issues that we’re facing are quite basic. And there’s a lot of common ground, there are a lot of interfaces between different diverging opinions that we share together. And I think if we want to achieve something jointly, I think we should focus on that rather than dwelling on or having conceptual debates about which label is the right one. The second point that I think concerns us as policymakers a lot is also the question of how we translate what we observe, what we see into practice. Because we, I mean, we are always interested in improving the development interventions that we do. And I think it’s very important to have discussions like this and rely on the findings of research to actually have evidence-based interventions. And I think we often find that we’re still lacking a lot of detailed knowledge of what other specific obstacles that women face in terms of access to digital services, for example. On the one hand, so what’s the diagnosis of what are the issues? And on the other hand, what are effective ways, even if we know them, how to address them? Because we often work also in highly complex multi-stakeholder policy environments where there are power structures ingrained in informal structures, in ministries, in organizations. And so even having just a diagnosis is not enough to really design effective interventions. And I think that’s why the discussions like this are very important.

Audience:
Hi, everyone. My name is Tashi, I’m from India. It’s been a very fascinating discussion because although I’m not from the region, I have worked in the region in some way or the other. And I like how everyone talks about policy, people talk about regulation. My question was, I was actually looking at what are some of the best practices and solutions that organizations have when it comes to convincing women to come forward and report a complaint? And also, I mean, a complaint of an abuse or harm. I used to work on building multilingual repository of hate speech lexicons. Policy, people were talking, someone was here from policy. Policy actually used a data set for a report that they did out for online abuses against female politicians in Uganda. And I think there’s also a new report out for the Tanzanian region. I’m more interested in learning about how these discussions can help platform accountability, not with big tech, but maybe smaller platforms that would take these mechanisms seriously. But I’m really curious as to how Mozilla’s leading that work or GIZ is leading that work in keeping platforms accountable and how do we find solutions? Because there are so many of these mechanisms, but we also see that a lot of women are not confident with moving online and sharing their grievances or complaint. And I know that I’m running out of time, but yes, I was just curious.

Alice Munyua:
Yeah, that would be the last question. And perhaps you can, Tobias, you want to start on how perhaps GIZ deals with that, how GIZ deals with that first? Do you want to start? The question is some examples. And we want. Yeah, we’ve only got five more minutes, I’m so sorry. You know, at Mozilla, we’re very lucky. To begin with, Mozilla was founded by a woman. So, you know, and we have, you know, Mitchell Baker, she’s the founder, chairperson, and current CEO of the Mozilla Corporation. And she’s the founder and CEO of the Mozilla Corporation. And she’s the founder and CEO of the Mozilla Corporation. And she’s the founder and CEO of the Mozilla Corporation. And actually, more than nearly 90% of the executives are women. So, very, very proud of Mozilla. You know, and we actually really work hard to try and engage as many women as we can, and not just engaging them, but we go beyond. For example, you know, understanding the role that women play in society and community, that there’s still that societal experience that there’s still that societal expectation. So we make space for that kind of thing. For example, you know, parental, understanding that their parental obligations are usually, you know, placed on women. And a real emphasis on engaging on capacity building, especially, you know, for women. We haven’t got it right yet. It’s still an issue, and it’s still an issue that we are struggling with, even as a mission-based company. And really looking forward to working with other organizations to be able to find really lasting and sustainable solutions to support that. And in fact, that brings me to one issue that we’ve done, for example, and together with the African Union and TOELA, we conducted a research on the startup ecosystem and women entrepreneurs, because that is one thing that we haven’t touched on. And when you look at that, for example, the African continent, more than 80% of micro, small, and medium entrepreneurs are women. And yet, they receive only… This, this, this…

Pratik Chapagain

UNESCO is actively driving discussions on the regulation of various aspects while also supporting artists. They have recognised the importance of information as a public good and have endorsed this concept. In order to ensure media pluralism and transparency in the digital realm, UNESCO has developed guidelines. Additionally, they are actively engaged in strengthening Internet governance and promoting the proliferation of media.

To enhance digital capacity within public administrations, UNESCO is working on various initiatives, including the exploration of digital capacity building programs and training opportunities. Moreover, UNESCO is planning a significant conference in February 2025 with a focus on addressing challenges related to digital transformation and governance. This conference aims to bring together stakeholders and partners from diverse backgrounds to discuss and find solutions.

Furthermore, UNESCO is considering establishing an Internet Governance Forum (IGF) dynamic coalition for digital capacity building. This demonstrates UNESCO’s commitment to enhancing digital skills and knowledge across different sectors.

In November, the UNESCO General Conference will take place, where discussions related to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) will be conducted. This highlights the importance UNESCO places on global cooperation and addressing digital challenges.

Overall, UNESCO’s active involvement in regulation discussions and support for artists signifies their commitment to fostering a fair and inclusive digital landscape. By endorsing information as a public good, developing guidelines, and focusing on capacity building and engagement with multiple stakeholders, UNESCO strives to promote transparency, accessibility, and knowledge sharing in the digital domain.

Gitanjali Sah

The first open consultation process meeting for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Forum has begun. This meeting marks the start of the consultative process and aims to develop the agenda and program for the event. The purpose of this open consultation process is to involve all stakeholders and encourage their active participation and feedback. This inclusivity ensures that all voices are heard and taken into consideration.

Furthermore, the WSIS Forum will be held in collaboration with the AI for Good Summit. The AI for Good Summit will take place in the CICG, while the WSIS Forum will be held in both the CICG and the ITU premises. This collaboration emphasizes the importance of combining efforts in leveraging technology for the benefit of humanity.

The review process of WSIS Plus 20 is a multi-stakeholder approach that involves the collection of perspectives from various sectors such as civil society, academia, and other stakeholders. This process consists of different stages, including the SDG Summit, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in 2020, regional reviews by different commissions, and a high-level meeting in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in 2025. The aim of this review process is to ensure the continuous engagement of different stakeholders in shaping the future of WSIS beyond 2025.

The WSIS process strongly encourages cross-sectoral participation. Ministers from various sectors including environment, education, and climate are expected to engage in the process. Additionally, participation from heads of state, UN agencies, CEOs, ambassadors, mayors, and leaders from civil society is also invited. The meeting also provides a provision for remote participation, allowing for wider inclusion.

During the UNESCO General Conference, discussions will focus on the challenges surrounding digital transformation and capacity building in public administrations. This thematic focus highlights the need to address the obstacles faced during the process of embracing digital technologies in public administrations and the importance of enhancing capacity in this area.

Ensuring the smooth execution of both the WSIS and AI for Good conferences is a priority. Logistics for these conferences are currently under discussion, and efforts are being made to ensure that the venues for both events are adjacent. This will facilitate better coordination and alignment between the conferences, promoting a seamless experience for participants.

The role of the technical community in internet governance is crucial. However, it was noted that there was an oversight in one of the presentations, where the role of the technical community was not sufficiently highlighted. This was acknowledged as a human error, and Gitanjali Sah agreed with Byron Holland’s suggestion of including the technical community as a prominent stakeholder. This emphasizes the importance of recognizing and involving the technical community in shaping internet governance policies and practices.

In conclusion, the first open consultation process meeting of the WSIS Forum has begun, focusing on developing the agenda and program for the event. The WSIS process encourages the involvement of all stakeholders and aims to gather diverse perspectives for the review of WSIS Plus 20. The collaboration with the AI for Good Summit and the emphasis on cross-sectoral participation further highlight the collaborative approach of WSIS. Additionally, discussions during the UNESCO General Conference will center around digital transformation challenges and capacity building in public administrations. The smooth execution of both the WSIS and AI for Good conferences is a priority, and the importance of involving the technical community in internet governance has been recognized.

Tomas Lamanauskas

The World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) is a significant global platform for digital cooperation and development. It has been praised for its inclusive and multi-stakeholder nature, allowing various voices and perspectives to shape policies and initiatives that will define our digital future. The WSIS process plays a vital role in harnessing the collective energy of stakeholders for the benefit of humanity and the planet.

One noteworthy argument is that digital technologies have the potential to boost 70% of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) targets. This highlights the transformative power of technology in achieving the SDGs, particularly in areas such as industry, innovation, and infrastructure. By leveraging digital technologies, countries can accelerate progress towards achieving the SDGs and addressing global challenges.

The upcoming WSIS plus 20 high-level event, scheduled from 27th to 31st May 2024, is a special edition of the annual WSIS Forum. This event will be co-hosted by the Confederation of Switzerland. It provides an opportunity for stakeholders to come together and discuss the future of digital cooperation and development. Such events allow for collaboration, innovation, and work towards creating more inclusive information and knowledge societies.

The Consultative Meetings within the WSIS process are highlighted as crucial platforms where diverse voices can shape policies, strategies, and initiatives. These meetings offer an opportunity for stakeholders to contribute their insights and expertise in defining our digital future. By taking an inclusive approach, the WSIS process ensures that the needs and perspectives of all stakeholders are considered.

Another notable aspect is the Open Consultation Process (OCP), which invites all stakeholders to participate. This process encourages individuals and organizations to share their views and ideas, fostering collaboration and engagement in digital cooperation efforts. It acts as a mechanism to gather input and promote a bottom-up approach to decision-making.

Furthermore, the importance of collaboration and partnership among stakeholders and UN agencies is emphasized. The WSIS plus 20 review calls for enhanced collaboration and partnership to strengthen digital cooperation and development efforts. The close collaboration among UN agencies such as UNESCO, UNDP, UNCTAD, CSTD, and UNDESA is cited as an example of the valuable partnerships that can be formed.

In conclusion, the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) is a vital global platform that promotes digital cooperation and development. Its inclusive and multi-stakeholder nature allows for collaboration, innovation, and the shaping of policies and initiatives that will define our digital future. Digital technologies have the potential to boost the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The WSIS plus 20 high-level event, Consultative Meetings, Open Consultation Process (OCP), and collaboration among stakeholders and UN agencies all contribute to the ongoing efforts in achieving digital cooperation and development goals.

Valeria Betancourt

The analysis of the provided information reveals several important points made by the speakers. Firstly, it is highlighted that digital inequality is increasing as more people become connected. This amplifies and complicates existing disparities. The speakers argue that as technology becomes more accessible and prevalent, it is essential to address the growing digital divide to ensure equal opportunities and access for all individuals.

The second point raised is regarding the upcoming WSIS plus 20 review. The speakers pose the question of what we want to achieve and in which direction to go for building a digital society. This review serves as an opportunity to assess the progress made so far and to determine the future direction. The speakers emphasize the importance of strategic planning and the need to identify the desired outcomes for building a digital society.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the significance of compromises and inputs in shaping policy processes for the digital future. The speakers argue that to address the complex issues surrounding digital advancements, it is crucial to arrive at agreements that consider multiple perspectives. They stress the need for inclusive decision-making processes and the involvement of all stakeholders to ensure policies are effective and beneficial to society.

Lastly, there is a call to strengthen the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) to operationalize global digital cooperation. The IGF serves as a platform for dialogue and collaboration among different actors involved in internet governance. The speakers argue that by enhancing the IGF’s mandate, there can be greater operationalization of global digital cooperation, leading to more effective and inclusive decision-making processes.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the increasing digital inequality resulting from the expanding number of people becoming connected. It emphasises the importance of strategic planning and goal-setting for building a digital society, as well as the need for compromises and inputs in policy processes addressing the digital future. Moreover, there is a call to strengthen the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum to enhance global digital cooperation. These insights shed light on the challenges and opportunities in the digital realm and underscore the need for collaborative efforts to ensure a more equitable and inclusive digital future.

Audience

During the review of WSIS plus 20, it has been highlighted that addressing the implications of changes in the digital society is crucial. This is due to the fact that an increasing number of people are getting connected, leading to a rise in digital inequality. The argument is that it is important to deal with these implications in order to ensure a fair and inclusive digital society.

A key aspect emphasized during the review is the necessity for compromise and agreement in order to achieve the goals set by WSIS. This is particularly important in relation to industry, innovation, and infrastructure, as well as peace, justice, and strong institutions. The focus is on identifying factors that will contribute to reaching compromise during the review process.

Addressing the issue of digital inequality is another important aspect discussed during the review. As more people become connected, digital inequality is amplified and continues to grow. The argument is that this paradoxical situation needs to be addressed in order to achieve SDG 10, which aims to reduce inequalities. The review acknowledges the need to find solutions to bridge the digital divide and prioritize digital inclusion.

Critical attention has also been given to other areas such as digital rights, environmental sustainability, digital inclusion, and cybersecurity. These are seen as significant factors that require careful consideration and swift action. The review highlights the importance of protecting digital rights, ensuring environmental sustainability in digital development, promoting digital inclusion for all groups, and prioritizing cybersecurity to safeguard digital systems.

The importance of financial resources in building the digital future is also highlighted. This neutral argument emphasizes the need for financial investments to support the development of digital infrastructure, innovation, and initiatives. The review recognizes that financial resources play a vital role in ensuring the successful implementation of the digital future.

One positive outcome mentioned in the review is the extension of the mandate of the IGF (Internet Governance Forum) and WSIS Forum. This is seen as a positive development, as these platforms facilitate discussions and collaboration on key digital issues. The extension of their mandate reflects the recognition of their importance in shaping the digital agenda.

However, the review also criticizes the lack of ambition in previous actions. It highlights that previous initiatives and resolutions, including those discussed in the UN General Assembly, did not adequately address crucial aspects such as artificial intelligence, social networks, and the Internet of Things. This critical stance underscores the need for more ambitious and comprehensive actions to address emerging digital challenges.

The review also emphasizes the importance of outlining the future with ambition. This calls for forward-thinking and proactive planning to adapt to evolving digital landscapes. It is mentioned that the future needs to be thoughtfully and ambitiously defined to ensure progress and avoid falling behind.

One observation made during the review is the uncertainty regarding the influence of the UN General Assembly due to political influences. This neutral stance acknowledges that political factors can impact the decision-making process and the implementation of digital initiatives. It highlights the need for careful consideration of political influences and the importance of ensuring unbiased decision-making.

In conclusion, the WSIS plus 20 review underscores the need to address the implications of changes in the digital society. It emphasizes the importance of compromise and agreement to achieve goals, as well as the need to tackle digital inequality. Critical attention is given to digital rights, environmental sustainability, digital inclusion, and cybersecurity. Financial resources are deemed necessary for building the digital future, while the extension of the mandate of the IGF and WSIS Forum is considered a positive outcome. Criticism is expressed regarding the lack of ambition in previous actions, and there is a call for outlining the future with ambition. However, uncertainty exists regarding the influence of the UN General Assembly due to political influences.

Shamika Sirimanne

The WSIS Plus 20 review process has commenced with the initiation of the first consultation at the IGF (Internet Governance Forum). Adopting a multistakeholder approach, the process aims to evaluate progress in implementing the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) outcomes. Furthermore, plans are in place to organise events in various regions in collaboration with the regional commissions or the IGF regional forums. This inclusive approach promotes diverse perspectives and contributions to shaping the information society.

UNCTAD, together with other agencies such as ITU, UNESCO, UNDP, and DESA, has released a questionnaire to assess the advancement towards achieving a people-centred, inclusive, and development-oriented information society as envisaged in Tunis. The objective is to gather comprehensive data for a meaningful review, which will be submitted to the General Assembly. This collaborative effort among agencies reflects the commitment to evaluating and fostering progress in the information society domain.

UNCTAD’s primary mandate revolves around leveraging international trade for development, with a particular focus on enabling developing countries to engage effectively in e-commerce and the digital economy. To facilitate this objective, UNCTAD has conducted diagnostic assessments for approximately 39-40 countries to determine their readiness for e-commerce. Additionally, the E-trade for All Platform, a collaborative initiative involving 35 agencies, is working towards addressing the challenges and opportunities associated with e-commerce in developing countries. UNCTAD’s upcoming E-Week in Geneva will dedicate its focus to capturing the potential benefits of the digital economy for developing nations.

However, despite the efforts being made, numerous developing countries, especially the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), face substantial obstacles that impede their ability to actively participate in e-commerce and the digital economy. These challenges include insufficient connectivity, inadequate legal and regulatory frameworks, and inadequate logistics facilities. It is evident that addressing these issues requires a collective effort, as no single agency can single-handedly achieve the goal of inclusive participation in e-commerce for all developing countries.

In conclusion, the WSIS Plus 20 review process has commenced with the inclusion of multiple stakeholders, allowing for a comprehensive evaluation of progress in implementing the WSIS outcomes. UNCTAD, in conjunction with other agencies, is working towards assessing the achievement of a people-centred information society through a questionnaire. UNCTAD’s primary focus on leveraging international trade for development aligns with its efforts to enable developing countries to embrace e-commerce and the digital economy. However, challenges persist, particularly in the case of developing countries and LDCs, in terms of connectivity, legal frameworks, and logistical capabilities. Addressing these issues necessitates a collaborative approach involving various stakeholders to ensure meaningful and inclusive participation of all developing countries in the digital economy.

Nigel Hicson

The WSIS plus 20 review process was emphasised as being of great importance. The focus of this review process is on the process itself, ensuring that all stakeholders and diverse regions are included. This highlights the significance placed on inclusivity and collaboration in shaping the future of the WSIS. The review process aims to examine not only past achievements, but also looks ahead to the future, considering the importance of the roadmap towards the UNGA discussions and the need to bridge the connectivity gap.

The discussions also highlighted the need to bridge the connectivity gap, emphasizing its hindrance to progress in various areas, including achieving the sustainable development goals. To achieve this, there is a call to evolve the WSIS action lines to complement the sustainable development goals. The linkage between the sustainable development goals and the matrix developed in 2015 was seen as important, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive approach that aligns various objectives to promote a more interconnected and sustainable world.

In addition, a recommendation was made to have ministers come to Geneva to discuss issues at a proposed high-level track during the WSIS Forum. This aims to facilitate more meaningful and impactful discussions, indicating the importance of preparation in advance to ensure that important topics are effectively addressed.

The analysis also revealed a positive sentiment towards the work done by UNESCO and ICANN on multilingualism, recognizing their efforts in reducing inequalities and fostering inclusivity in communication and internet accessibility. UNESCO’s “Connecting the Dots” event was greatly appreciated, along with the recognition of ICANN and other areas’ work in developing international domain names and furthering multilingualism.

Overall, the observations from the analysis indicate the recognition of the importance of the WSIS plus 20 review process, bridging the connectivity gap, and evolving the WSIS action lines to align with the sustainable development goals. The recommendation for a high-level track at the WSIS Forum, along with the appreciation for UNESCO and ICANN’s work on multilingualism, further demonstrates the commitment towards promoting inclusivity, collaboration, and international cooperation in addressing global challenges.

Brooke Biasella

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) has made significant progress, operating in 182 countries and offering concrete solutions to address the challenges of today. The need to prioritize WSIS goals and align them with other important issues has been emphasized. One argument put forward is that the focus on knowledge society and transformation should be reinstated, recognizing the importance of skills, competencies, democratic participation, and individuals’ ability to tackle current and future challenges.

It has been observed that the impact of digital transformation on traditional media and the public sphere is profound. Legacy media has been significantly affected, and the public sphere has become fragmented due to the rise of various digital platforms and sources of information. This raises questions about the future of traditional media and the importance of ensuring a diverse and inclusive public discourse in the digital age.

Furthermore, there is a call for European Union (EU) countries to unite around a digital solidarity agenda. Digital solidarity is seen as a political agenda crucial for bridging the digital divide. Cooperation among EU countries is essential in addressing disparities in access to digital technologies and ensuring equal opportunities for all citizens.

In conclusion, the WSIS demands focused prioritization and collaboration with other areas of concern. Reinstating the focus on knowledge society and transformation is crucial, encompassing important aspects such as skills, competencies, democratic participation, and the capability to address current and future challenges. The impact of digital transformation on legacy media and the public sphere is undeniable, highlighting the need for adaptation and inclusivity. Additionally, unity among EU countries on a digital solidarity agenda is necessary to address the digital divide, ensuring that no individual or community is left behind in the digital era.

Bertrand De La Chapelle

The analysis focuses on the frustrations expressed by Bertrand regarding the lack of global cooperation in digital matters. Bertrand expresses a desire to understand the collective global ambition for digital cooperation. The success of the technical architecture during the pandemic is mentioned as evidence of the potential for collaboration. However, the absence of a collective decision is seen as a hindrance to achieving this ambition.

The discussion also highlights Bertrand’s negative sentiment towards WSIS Plus 20 being limited to a mere review. He believes that the event should be more than just a backward-looking examination of past achievements. Rather, there should be a critical evaluation of the failings and missed opportunities to drive progress in digital cooperation. This stance suggests the need for substantial and meaningful action during WSIS Plus 20, rather than merely revisiting past discussions.

The analysis further emphasizes the significance of transnational institutions in addressing the lack of cooperation. It is argued that the absence of collaboration is a major obstacle to achieving digital cooperation goals. While the technical community is acknowledged for its successful contributions, it is believed that they do not have the authority to speak on policy matters. Thus, the need for transnational institutions is highlighted to facilitate effective policy-making and decision-making processes.

In conclusion, the analysis illuminates the frustration over the lack of global cooperation in digital matters. It emphasizes the importance of a collective decision on the ambition for digital cooperation and calls for WSIS Plus 20 to go beyond a mere review. The significance of transnational institutions in fostering collaboration and addressing policy issues is underscored. Overall, the analysis highlights the need for concerted efforts and effective governance structures to achieve meaningful progress in digital cooperation.

Balzur Rahman

The analysis highlights several significant points regarding the integration of WSIS action lines in Bangladesh. Firstly, the government of Bangladesh, in collaboration with civil society organizations (CSOs), has successfully integrated the WSIS action lines with their 5-year plan. This integration demonstrates their commitment to digital transformation, as they have aligned their national development goals with the objectives set by the WSIS action lines. This achievement is a positive indicator of Bangladesh’s progress in promoting industry, innovation, and infrastructure, as outlined in SDG 9.

Furthermore, the analysis emphasizes the need for an annual WSIS forum. This forum would serve as a platform for stakeholders to come together and discuss the latest developments in industry, innovation, and infrastructure. By convening this forum, opportunities for collaboration, knowledge-sharing, and partnership-building can be created. This neutral argument recommends the regular organization of this forum, given the fast-paced nature of advancements in technology and the need for continuous dialogue among stakeholders.

Moreover, the analysis highlights the importance of the WSIS Secretariat developing a toolkit for parliamentarians and mayors. This toolkit would assist these key decision-makers in effectively implementing the WSIS action lines and promoting sustainable cities and communities, as outlined in SDG 11. By providing parliamentarians and mayors with practical resources and guidance, the WSIS Secretariat can contribute to the successful implementation of the action lines at the local level.

Additionally, there is a discussion around the need for the localization of WSIS action lines and the conduct of separate sub-regional open consultations. These measures would ensure that the WSIS action lines are adapted and implemented to suit the specific contexts and needs of different regions. Localizing the action lines and facilitating sub-regional consultations can help address the diverse challenges and opportunities faced by different countries and communities.

Moreover, the analysis raises concerns about the impact of social media and new technologies on the community media sector. It argues that community media, which plays a crucial role in giving voice to marginalized groups, is under threat due to the dominance of social media platforms and advancements in technology. This negative sentiment calls for the protection of the community media sector as a voice for the voiceless. The summary further highlights the supporting fact that community media is the only media ensuring voices for the voiceless from the ground.

In conclusion, the analysis provides valuable insights into the integration of WSIS action lines in Bangladesh, emphasizing the successful alignment of the action lines with the country’s 5-year plan. It also highlights the importance of an annual WSIS forum, the development of a toolkit for parliamentarians and mayors, and the localization of action lines through separate sub-regional open consultations. Additionally, it highlights the challenges faced by the community media sector and advocates for its protection as a valuable platform for amplifying the voices of marginalized groups. These findings underscore the significance of international cooperation and collaboration in achieving the sustainable development goals and promoting digital transformation.

Vladimir Minkin

During the event, the speakers emphasised the importance of long-term planning and consideration beyond the year 2025. They suggested taking a preliminary 20-year view to better understand future needs and goals. This long-term vision is seen as necessary for effective preparation and decision-making.

A key aspect highlighted by the speakers is the need to define what is desired for the future. By clearly outlining the objectives, it becomes easier to work towards achieving them. This includes considering the future of visas, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and digital companies. Involving a broad range of stakeholders allows for multi-stakeholder estimation, providing diverse perspectives and insights.

The involvement of multiple stakeholders is regarded as essential in shaping the future of visas, SDGs, and digital companies. This approach enables diverse voices to be heard, ensuring that decisions are well-informed and inclusive. The speakers believe that by soliciting input from various stakeholders, a comprehensive and holistic understanding of the future can be achieved.

The speakers stated the importance of considering at least a preliminary 20-year view as evidence. This suggests that future planning should take into account long-term consequences and impacts. Proactive measures can then be taken to address potential challenges and opportunities.

Overall, the speakers expressed a positive sentiment towards long-term planning, multi-stakeholder involvement, and defining future goals. They emphasised the value of considering a broader perspective and seeking input from various stakeholders for a more inclusive and comprehensive decision-making process.

To conclude, long-term vision and planning beyond 2025 are crucial for effective preparation and decision-making. By involving multiple stakeholders and defining future objectives, a more inclusive and comprehensive understanding of the future can be achieved. This approach ensures that decisions regarding visas, SDGs, and digital companies are well-informed and aligned with desired outcomes.

Justin Fair

Justin Fair, a prominent figure in the field, applauds the coordination and maturity displayed in the WSIS (World Summit on the Information Society) process. He notes a significant improvement in these areas, resulting in better outcomes. This positive sentiment signifies general satisfaction with the progress achieved in the WSIS process.

Fair also emphasizes the importance of conducting a thorough review of past progress and challenges in the WSIS. He highlights the WSIS Plus Forum as a valuable platform for retrospectively evaluating accomplishments and obstacles. Fair argues that understanding these experiences is vital for preparing for the future. By drawing insights from past successes and challenges, stakeholders can develop more effective strategies to achieve greater outcomes.

Furthermore, Fair seeks more information about an upcoming UNESCO conference scheduled for early 2025. He specifically wants to know if the conference is part of the WSIS Plus 20 review. Fair also raises concerns about the logistics of merging two meetings in Geneva and managing a large number of attendees. These inquiries underscore the significance of detailed planning and efficient execution in organizing successful conferences and events.

Overall, Fair’s observations and insights highlight the positive developments within the WSIS process. The coordination and maturity he commends serve as catalysts for achieving better outcomes. Additionally, his focus on reviewing past progress and challenges acknowledges the importance of learning from past experiences to shape future actions. Fair’s inquiries about logistics and concerns about attendee management underscore the practical challenges organizers must overcome to deliver successful events.

Byron Holland

The analysis presented focuses on the contention surrounding the inclusion of the technical community in the process of internet governance. One of the speakers, Byron Holland, who represents CIRA, which operates the .ca domain, advocates for the involvement of the technical community. Holland stresses that the technical community, distinct from academia and civil society, plays a crucial role in running the internet and should therefore have a voice in the governance process.

Another speaker takes a neutral stance on the issue, arguing that the technical community should be recognized as key actors and stakeholders in internet governance. It is important to note that the technical community comprises both for-profit and non-profit organizations.

The overall sentiment towards the inclusion of the technical community leans towards negativity, indicating opposing views on their participation in internet governance. However, the neutral stance on their role as key actors suggests an acknowledgment of their significance and influence in the process.

The analysis lacks specific supporting evidence for the negative sentiment, making it necessary to further explore the reasons underlying this viewpoint. Delving deeper into this topic could provide insights into the concerns or reservations held by those who oppose including the technical community in the governance process.

In conclusion, the debate over the inclusion of the technical community in internet governance reveals differing opinions. The analysis raises important points about their role and underscores the need for a comprehensive understanding of this issue.

Thomas Schneider

The WSIS plus 20 process has significantly evolved over the past 20 years, as there has been an increase in the number of events, structures, and overlapping structures. This complexity is seen as both a challenge and an opportunity. On one hand, the multitude of tracks and parallel structures can make the process more challenging to navigate. However, on the other hand, it is seen as a positive reflection of the diversity of perspectives and interests involved in the process.

The WSIS process and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) have played vital roles in creating a more inclusive space within the United Nations (UN) and other institutions. By giving voice to stakeholders from all over the world, these initiatives have helped ensure that diverse perspectives are represented and considered in discussions related to industry, innovation, and infrastructure (SDG 9) and reducing inequalities (SDG 10), as well as peace, justice, and strong institutions (SDG 16).

Switzerland is set to co-host the next year’s WSIS event, which demonstrates its commitment to the process. Thomas Schneider, in particular, has shown his support for the actors driving the WSIS process and is excited about Switzerland’s role as the co-host. This involvement further underscores the importance of the WSIS process and Switzerland’s dedication to fostering partnerships for the goals (SDG 17).

The AI for Good Summit, a significant initiative in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), will be held during the WSIS Plus 20 High-Level Forum week. This demonstrates the recognition of the interconnections between the advancements in AI, industry, innovation, and infrastructure.

However, it is important to acknowledge that there has been a shift in the global landscape. 20 years ago, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there was hope that technology would foster peace, freedoms, and sharing. However, in the current environment, the focus has shifted towards competition, with a win-lose mentality prevailing over collaboration and sharing. This observation highlights the need for a renewed commitment to peace, cooperation, and collaboration in the face of these complex times. It is essential to reinterpret the Vicious Vision, a concept associated with striving for peace and cooperation, in light of these challenges.

Overall, the WSIS plus 20 process has become more intricate over the years, with an increase in events, structures, and overlapping structures. However, the existence of several tracks and parallel structures is also seen as a positive reflection of the diversity of perspectives involved. The WSIS process, along with the IGF, has played a crucial role in creating a more inclusive space within the UN and other institutions. Switzerland’s upcoming role as co-host of the next year’s event further demonstrates its commitment to the process. The AI for Good Summit, held during the WSIS Plus 20 High-Level Forum week, highlights the intersectionality between AI and the WSIS process. As the world becomes more competitive, it becomes increasingly important to strive for peace, cooperation, and reinterpret the Vicious Vision to address the challenges of the present times.

Rob Golding

ICTs and digital technologies are poised to play a crucial role in shaping the future of humanity. This recognition marks a pivotal moment in our understanding of their potential impact and significance. The speaker highlights the importance of these technologies in advancing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specifically SDG 9, which focuses on industry, innovation, and infrastructure.

There is widespread recognition of the transformative power of digital technologies in accelerating progress towards achieving the SDGs. The argument stresses the positive impact these technologies can have on various aspects of society. The SDG Digital Acceleration Agenda report, co-released with the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), supports this argument by showcasing the numerous ways in which technology can contribute to SDG attainment. It is seen as cause for celebration, as the potential of digital technologies to address the underlying challenges outlined in the SDGs is acknowledged.

The speaker proudly mentions their role as a co-chair of the UN Group on Information Society. Together with co-organizers UNCTAD and UNESCO, they actively contribute to the work of this group. The UN Group on Information Society is focused on SDG 17, which emphasizes partnerships for the goals. This highlights the importance of collaborative efforts in achieving the SDGs. The speaker expresses gratitude towards the government of Switzerland for hosting the WSIS Forum this year. This serves as a platform for sharing ideas, insights, and experiences to further advance the information society agenda.

In conclusion, ICTs and digital technologies have become vital tools for the future of humanity. Their potential to accelerate progress towards the SDGs is widely recognized. The speaker’s involvement in the UN Group on Information Society reflects a commitment to partnership and collaboration, as no one entity can achieve the SDGs alone. Finally, the speaker extends their gratitude to the government of Switzerland for hosting the WSIS Forum, a significant event for advancing the global information society.

Gitanjali Sah:
Good morning, ladies and gentleman. We’re about to start. I believe there’s a parallel session going on Where some of our participants are still stuck, So I encourage you to join us around the table because This is going to be a consultative process. When this session gets over, the others can join us as well. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is the first open consultation process meeting, hybrid meeting. Every WSIS Forum has a consultative process where we develop the agenda and the program of the event and basically highlight the priorities for the event. So thank you very much for joining us today. We have only one hour, and we will start by short introductory remarks by the co-organizers and then the co-hosts, Switzerland. I have a short presentation to update you on the plans till now, and then we’ll open up the floor, and as usual, we expect to receive some comments from you all. It’s a consultative process, so this is more to listen from all stakeholders. So our Secretary General of ITU had to leave yesterday, so I do have a video from our Deputy Secretary General, and I’d like to request our colleagues from the logistics team to please play it.

Tomas Lamanauskas:
Excellencies, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, for 20 years now, the World Summit on Information Society, or WSIS process, has been an important global platform for digital cooperation and development, standing the test of time. As the SDG acceleration agenda recently released by YES together with UNDP and other partners demonstrate, 70% of SDG targets could be boosted by digital technologies, and such a boost is desperately needed. At the midpoint of the implementation of the sustainable development agenda, we find it woefully off track, and the climate crisis is becoming a reality through scorching heat, wildfires, and floods that we have to reckon with. The WSIS process plays a key role in harnessing the collective energy of the vast variety of stakeholders to enable harnessing the power of digital for the benefit of the humanity and the planet. As we embark on the WSIS plus 20 process, this first meeting of the high-level event open consultation process is an invaluable opportunity to collectively gather inputs and perspectives that will help shape preparation and program of our WSIS plus 20 high-level event, which is a special edition of the annual WSIS Forum and will take place next year. The event will be held from 27th to 31st of May 2024 and will be co-hosted by the Confederation of Switzerland in Geneva. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Switzerland for co-hosting the event and to Ambassador Thomas Schneider for his leadership and commitment to the WSIS process. Outcomes of this open consultation process will also contribute to the overall review of the implementation of WSIS plus 20 outcomes by the UN General Assembly in 2025. We also hope that such outcomes will be found useful in the context of broader discussions on our digital future, including in terms of the next year’s Summit to the Future and development of the Global Digital Compact. Your voices matter. The strength of the WSIS Forum lies in its truly inclusive and multi-stakeholder nature. The consultative meeting is a testament to the enduring spirit of WSIS, where diverse voices converge to shape policies, strategies and initiatives that will define our digital future. It is an invitation to collaborate, innovate and work together towards a more inclusive and equitable information and knowledge societies. Your active participation and valuable insights are integral in ensuring that WSIS remains at the forefront of addressing the evolving challenges and opportunities in the era of digital transformation. As the WSIS plus 20 review draws near, it is crucial for all stakeholders, including governments, civil society, the private sector, technical community, academia, regional and international organizations, to come together. We also appreciate the close collaboration among UN agencies – UNESCO, UNDP, UNCTAD, CSTD and UNDESA – which highlights our unified joint approach and shared commitment towards the WSIS plus 20 review. I am confident in the spirit of collaboration and partnership that has defined WSIS will continue to steer us towards progress. Thank you for your commitment as we continue to build on the foundation established over the previous two decades. I encourage you to actively engage in the OCP, or Open Consultation Process, by participating in consultative meetings and submitting input through the official submission form. I look forward to the productive discussions and outcomes that will emerge from our collective efforts. Together we can build a world where technology serves as a force for good and where information and knowledge societies truly empower every individual. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah:
Thank you very much to our Deputy Secretary General. You heard him right, this venue is basically to collect voices of the civil society, private sector, technical community, of course governments, UN agencies. We see all our partners here. And I’d like to pass on the mic to our co-organizers, starting with UNESCO. Pratik is representing UNESCO today for very short remarks on what their expectations are of the event next year.

Pratik Chapagain:
Thanks, Geethanjali, and I’ll be very short, we have only one hour. So, just to outline that UNESCO is also looking towards WSIS 2.0, and we’ve been working to strengthen the mandate that we had from WSIS around Internet governance with the Rome Principles, but also with the UNESCO General Conference adopting, endorsing information as a public good, the Windhoek Plus 30 Declaration, to strengthen media pluralism and independence and transparency of digital platforms, which was again guidelines which have been developed and were consulted upon actively with the multi-stakeholder community this year. We’re also working to strengthen media and information literacy in view of the challenges of disinformation, misinformation, and hate speech online. The programs on open solutions and what we are now calling digital public goods are an active part of UNESCO’s mandate with the recommendation on open science, which was adopted in 2019, and the recommendation on open educational resources, which have now vibrant dynamic coalitions functioning. We’ll briefly mention two more things, the recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence, which is now a global standard and the only one which has been adopted by 193 countries and is informing global discussions on this important topic. In the field of culture, UNESCO is advancing substantial discussions on regulation, but also supporting artists, and there was the UNESCO Mondial World Conference, which was organized in 2022. Finally, we have been working on digital capacity building of public administrations, as was also highlighted in the Secretary General’s roadmap on digital cooperation, but also the recent policy papers on GDC. And in this regard, as part of the WSIS process from UNESCO, in addition to the WSIS Forum, we will be organizing organizing a major conference on this in 2025 in February, and the theme would be on digital governance and digital transformation, empowering civil servants. I will stop here now and pass the mic back to Geetanjali.

Gitanjali Sah:
Thank you, Pratik. I’ll invite Shamika from UNCTAD. Shamika.

Shamika Sirimanne:
Thank you, thank you, Geetanjali. Good morning to all of you. So good to see all of you. I think many faces I see at the CSTD. So on behalf of UNCTAD and our co-facilitators of the WSIS Action Line on E-Business, that means the ITC, the International Trade Center, the Universal Postal Union, and so a big welcome to all of you for being here. Let me highlight two things. First, as Geetanjali, you started saying, we have begun the WSIS Plus 20 process. The CSTD has been asked to begin the process. So we had our very first consultation here in this IGF, and I think it’s very fitting to do that, to begin the process here, and we had a very good and energetic and a very insightful session yesterday. And we will continue this, and we will continue this in the vein of multi-stakeholderism, which was, as Peter, you mentioned, which was born, given birth to in the UN system in WSIS process, and we would make sure that it is the case as we review the WSIS Plus 20 process. So be aware of the events that we will be holding in regions, especially with the regional commissions or with the IGF regional forums. And here, I also want to say that we have issued a questionnaire, meaning all of us, ITU, UNESCO, UNCTAD, UNDP, DESA, we have issued a questionnaire to gauge the views of key stakeholders on how far we have come from the Tunis aspiration of people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented information society, and how far we have to go to fulfill that aspiration. So please take note of this questionnaire, and please give it to all your networks, and get us data so that we can have a very meaningful review done, that to send to the General Assembly. Now on the action lines, let me just very quickly say from UNCTAD perspective, our mandate is basically to leverage international trade for development, and we have done a lot of work. We are working on developing countries’ readiness for e-commerce and the digital economy. We have done about 39, 40 countries’ diagnostics. Are they ready to engage in the e-commerce? And we assess this readiness on various policy measures. We look at the connectivity, we look at the regulatory frameworks, the e-payment systems, logistic skills, finance, and so forth, and we find many developing countries, I think the vast majority of developing countries, almost all LDCs, are not ready to engage in e-commerce and the digital economy, and this, so we are quite concerned this massive technological revolution would yet again bypass them. So there are, it’s not just the issues, are not just connectivity issues, the issues are multifaceted, issues of the inadequate legal regulatory frameworks, inadequate e-payment system, especially if you want to do exports, and inadequate logistics facilities, especially if you want to do exports, because everybody wants to get your goods fast, because that’s the digital commerce. So there will be, and what we also found, is that we cannot, one agency cannot do it all together. We at UNCTAD, we cannot do the regulatory systems, the e-payment systems, the skills, the finance, and the gender aspects and all that. So we have created a very, very effective platform called E-Trade for All Platform, and 35 agencies are working with us, meaning who is who in e-commerce and the digital economy are part of it. So if, for example, if a country ask us, they want to do more on e-payment systems, we, for example, would invite the World Bank to undertake that work. And many countries ask us, their post offices are not ready to do small parcels, we work with the UPU to do that work. So that’s how we work, and the platform is a real, a true, this is something that we aspire here in the WSIS Forum. So everyone, so note, we are going to have E-Week in Geneva, and it’s the week of December 4th, and it is called Shaping the Future, and it is about entering the digital economy, capturing the gains for digital economy for developing countries. So having said that, and thank you so much, Geetanjali, and thank you that you all see that we are all together in this journey, the UN family, and you will see as we go for the WSIS Plus 20 review, we will go as one UN. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah:
Thank you, Shamika. Rob?

Rob Golding:
Yes, very quickly. I actually would just maybe, I know Thomas has set a little bit of the context, but just a little bit more on that. We are definitely at a pivotal moment for the role of ICTs and digital technologies for the future of humanity. I think that’s not an overstatement. This year we had the SDG Summit, so we’re halfway through the SDG period, and I think there’s broad recognition of the role that digital technologies can play in accelerating our progress. To that end, we, together with ITU, released a report called the SDG Digital Acceleration Agenda, and celebrated that day the various ways in which technology can really help us get to the SDGs. This also comes in the run-up to the global digital compact process and the summit of the future next year. So the role of WSIS in this is really important, and we have a very strong opportunity to leverage the platform that is there to feed into the global digital compact, to follow the process after the global digital compact, and be really a platform where the world comes together to look at how does this actually work? How does this actually get done? So that’s what we’re looking forward to, and UNDP is pleased to co-chair the UN Group on Information Society this year, and work together with our co-organizers, UNCTAD, UNESCO. On this, we are, as Shamika said, we are acting as one on this. We see nobody can do this alone, so we work together, and we also look at how do we extend this platform and go through the WSIS plus 20 process, and really come out the other end with, I can’t remember who said WSIS 2.0, maybe it was you, Pratik. And just also just to say a wonderful thanks to the government of Switzerland for hosting the WSIS Forum this year, and we’re really looking forward to this opportunity.

Gitanjali Sah:
Thank you, Rob, representing UNDP. So we are about to start with our updates and preparatory process for the high-level event next year, but we also have Ambassador Schneider with us from Switzerland. So Ambassador Schneider, what can people expect next year? How should we prepare?

Thomas Schneider:
Yes, thank you, and sometimes I think that the more difficult question than how will AI change all our lives is how will the WSIS plus 20 process look like, and people keep asking themselves and each other questions, and I must say it’s complicated, and it was much easier 20 years ago. 20 years ago at this time, we were negotiating the Geneva Declaration and the Geneva Plan of Action, and that was the only thing there was. There was no structure, there was nothing. There was just the WSIS process, and based on a number of UN institutions and other players, but that was it, and now the world has become much more complicated. We already have hundreds of events and structures and parallel structures and overlapping structures, but on the other hand, this is life. That’s diversity, so we may not get all the answers today. I don’t think anyone has them because there’s so many players, but I think it is also just reality that there are several tracks, and it helps, I think, and this is one of the key points why we are still very much supportive of the WSIS process because in order to make all possible voices heard, one-size-fits-all solution, one track may not be enough, so we don’t have a problem per se with the fact that there are several tracks, there are several things going on at the same time. Of course, it would be nice to see how this all fits together, and for us, it is important that we have a discussion in New York, in the UN, in the General Assembly, but this is definitely a very government-led space, which is necessary, which is important, but which needs to be complemented by other processes that are more, let’s say, balanced towards stakeholder participation, and for us, really, the WSIS process has been a milestone in broadening up the space in the UN and building bridges to other stakeholders like it didn’t really exist before, at least not in the areas that I know, and I think also the ITU, UNESCO, and all the other institutions have been able to develop with the WSIS process to become more inclusive, to try and give more voices to stakeholders from all over the world that have not been heard before, and basically, the key for us is that we continue to use the WSIS process and the IGF, which for us is also part of the WSIS process, has been created to bring voices in to make sure that decisions that are taken, no matter where they are taken, are as respectful as possible of all the issues, all the needs of all the people in the world, and so this is why we are still very committed to the WSIS process to support the actors that are driving the process, and we’re happy to be the co-host of the next year. It’s gonna, again, probably be a complicated week because it’s a shared week with the AI for Good Summit, and not everything there is clear either, so don’t expect too clear answers, neither from the IG nor from anybody else. We’re all, I think, working on it, each of us with our capabilities. You will hear more details about what is planned for the WSIS Plus 20 High-Level Forum, and I would stop here because actually, this is to also listen to expectations so that the actors can actually build on what they are expected to do and try to live up to the expectations, which is a very challenging thing, probably. Thank you very much.

Gitanjali Sah:
Thank you, Ambassador Schneider. So I’ll start with my short presentation. Of course, WSIS is a UN process. We work with more than 32 UN agencies. I can see many of our friends here, FAO, UN-DESA, and quite a few of them, so thank you very much for being here. In 2015, we aligned the WSIS action lines with the Sustainable Development Goals to highlight the clear linkages of digital, accelerating the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. You’re very familiar with the matrix, so a slide with the timeline for those of you who are new here, but I doubt if anyone is new. You’re all familiar faces. So basically, we’ve put it together until the UNGA high-level meeting in 2025. These slides will be available, so please feel free to look at the website later. So also, the WSIS Plus 20 review process, what are the expectations from the UN agencies, from multi-stakeholders, that of course it should be a multi-stakeholder process. We have to ensure, as Ambassador Schneider said, that though a process will take place in the overall review in the UNGA, but there have to be avenues for collecting the voices of the civil society, academia, and all stakeholders. Strengthen digital collaboration, so you heard from our co-organizers. We are working very closely, ITU, UNESCO, UNDP, CSTD, UNDESA in particular, who have a clear mandate to implement the WSIS process. 20 years of implementation. We did hear a lot of people talking about achievements in these 20 years, so it’s really important that we capture these achievements. And of course, outcome expectation would be that it’s a multi-stakeholder outcome on a vision of WSIS beyond 2025, and we do hope that this is submitted to the Summit of the Future and endorsed during the high-level meeting in 2025. So brainstorming that has been happening. You also saw Shameka present this during the CSTD session. So there are, of course, the SDG Summit already happened where we contributed as the SDG digital. Rob mentioned it, highlighting the importance of digital preceding the UNGA. 2020 Japan phase is the IGF. We have heard several discussions on the WSIS Plus 20 review process and the future. Regional reviews, our colleagues are sitting and we’d encourage you to take the floor later. SCAP is doing one in Armenia. ECA is scheduled to do one soon. ESCWA in February 2024. Geneva phase, Ambassador Schneider mentioned it briefly. And then we do expect that the Summit of the Future captures some of the outcomes of all these phases that we’ve been working towards. Paris phase, Pratik did mention it, UNESCO 18 to 28 February 2025. Tunisia would like to host, though it’s not confirmed, they would like to host a session on WSIS Plus 20 in Tunisia. CSTD review takes place in April 2025, the official one that Shameka mentioned. 2025 WSIS Forum may happen in UAE. It’s still not confirmed. And then eventually it all finishes at the high-level meeting which takes place in the UNGA. So moving now to the high-level event, the WSIS Forum high-level event will take place from the 27th to 31st of May. So please mark this on your calendar. And as Ambassador Schneider mentioned, we are doing it in collaboration with the AI for Good Summit. So Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, we will be in the CICG. And Thursday, Friday, we come to the ITU premises. AI for Good will take place in the CICG. So there are very clear two processes for AI for Good and WSIS. So we will make sure that the linkages and wherever we are trying to save resources, we are highlighting all of that. However, it’s very clear that there are two independent meetings and processes. So the open consultative process, today is the first meeting. 13th of December, we’ll have one in Geneva, Switzerland. So we do hope to see all of you there as well. And the final briefing will take place on the 15th of February. And 26th of March, we plan to do a special session with Ambassador Schneider’s leadership and the chair of the WSIS Plus 20 Forum High Level Event. The open consultation process, you’re familiar with it. It’s an online form. So those of you already have an account, you don’t need to create an old one. We’ve developed the website in a way that your details are recorded there. Those of you who don’t have a form, you’ll have to create an account for yourself. The preparatory process, it’s the same. You fill up through the form. We have an open consultation process and also multi-stakeholder discussions to elaborate the outcome of the meeting. So we have the written inputs, the 20-year reports, also the CSTV form, the 20-year WSIS Action Line reports, which we are working with the UN Action Line facilitators for linkages with the Partner to Connect, UN High Impact Initiatives, and so on and so forth. High level track participation, we are working with Ambassador Schneider and his team to explore the participation of heads of states. So those of you who are interested, please do get in touch with us and we will make sure that we enable this participation. Ministers, of course, we nearly have more than 80 ministers at the WSIS Forum. However, we’d like to make it cross-sectoral. So if you have ministers of environment, of climate, of education, it’ll be really great if we can have a cross-sectoral discussion amongst the ministers and the ministerial. Ambassadors, mayors, we initiated a discussion on smart cities with. mayors and local chiefs. This was really a very interesting discussion. And they were able to share a lot of ideas because not all cities are as advanced as the others. Heads of UN agencies and international organizations, we were approached by some parliamentarians who would like to do some activities there, CEOs, civil society leaders, and of course, it’ll all have remote participation as well. Agenda and program, we develop it through a consultative format. So we are, of course, still developing it, but just to share the structure and the skeleton, the high-level track, workshops, of course, all interactive, civil society, private sector consultations. We were approached by many young people to ensure that the youth track is maintained. So the last day will be mostly focusing on youth track activities with the convergence with the AI for Good Summit. So AI Governance Day, most probably on Wednesday. The WSIS plus 20 track, UN consultations, and the academia track. So there are several other calls for action. You know that we have beautiful photographs from the ground that are submitted by you every year. And these are free for use by all of you. So if you want to use them for your presentations, your websites, you can just write to us and take them from there. The WSIS Digital Service Design Special Prize, which we launched last year. The WSIS Healthy Aging Innovation Prize, which focuses on healthy aging and is aligned with WHO’s Decade of Healthy Aging. We will have an exhibition space. And as you’ve seen, we are extra budgetary. So it’s a very humble exhibition space. It’s not very fancy, but of course it does the job. You have your area to talk about your projects and to interact with all participants. The call for WSIS Stock Taking Database will be launched soon and WSIS Prizes. I can see many winners here. So please make sure that you also start applying for the WSIS Prizes very soon. Like I mentioned, WSIS Forum is completely extra budgetary. So we really appreciate the contributions we receive from you every year. So please do write to us if you’re interested in partnering with us. Currently, all the packages are open. So thank you very much. I’d now like to open the floor. This was just to provide some updates. Please do raise your hand and we’ll just share the mic with you. So there are some roving mics and there is one mic there at the audience space as well. So, sure. Professor Brook, over to you.

Brooke Biasella:
Thank you very much, Chittangli. I’m the chairman of the World Summit Awards and we have, since 2003, every year presented the best practices globally from how digital technologies are used for a positive social impact. We are very happy to contribute also to the WSIS Review and to the events there. I want to recall for those of you who have been in 2003 and 2005 in Geneva and in Tunis that we had very spectacular events showing the creative side of using digital technology with a positive social impact. And I think it’s very important to see that this is actually a bottom-up view from the creative side regarding what they can contribute, what is contributed from all around the world. WSIS is now present in 182 countries in terms of how to transform and meet the challenges of today and offer very concrete solutions. That is very important in so far as in the WSIS action lines, there’s a specific paragraph and also emphasis on local content and on local impact. And I think it’s very important that we look at this through a procedure as the WSA, which is a multi-stakeholder initiative. There are two things which I think is important in addition to this kind of offer of collaboration and input. It is that I think that we have, and this speaks very much to Ambassador Schneider’s point regarding that there are hundreds of events and many different kind of issues. I think that from our point of view and from civil society point of view, it would be very good to set and focus and prioritize what WSIS wants to do in comparison and in conjunction with other issues. So you have said yourself that there is AI for Good Summit. I think that it’s very important that we deal with AI issues there and we deal with other issues at WSIS. What are these other issues? In the Tunis action plan, there are three issues which have been lost in terms of the site of the WSIS process. And I talked yesterday already at another session about the focus that we have lost very much is the focus on knowledge society and the transformation. And I think it’s absolutely essential that we focus on this in terms of all the related issues regarding skills, competencies, democratic participations, the people’s ability to deal personally and also communally with the challenges of today and in the near future. The other things which I think is very important is the entire media agenda. And I think it’s very important here that we also deal with the economics of the digital transformation. And I think the devastation of the traditional media, the legacy media and the fragmentation in terms of the public sphere is something which needs to be as a topic. And the third one is, I think we have as an action line under the number D, the entire agenda on digital solidarity and also the digital solidarity fund and the issues there in terms of funding certain kind of aspects and having an equitable, I mean, also way of looking at that we close digital divides this way. I think that is a political agenda and I will push very much that the European Union will also put this on the agenda because I think it’s very important that European Union countries speak with one voice on the United Nations level on that issue. Thank you very much.

Gitanjali Sah:
Thank you very much, Professor Brook and thank you for the great collaboration WSA has with us. In fact, quite a few of your community were applicants to the SDG Digital Game Changers Award. So yes, thank you for this great collaboration. APC has raised their hand, chat APC.

Audience:
Thank you very much, Itanjali. It is really encouraging to see the room full in order to shape the future together. This is Valeria Betancur from the Association for Progressive Communications. It has been pointed out so much has changed since the WSIS and since the 10-year review. In the preparations for this review of the 20 years of the WSIS, obviously we will have to deal with the implications of those changes that are not a few, are many and also with the reinterpretation of the WSIS vision in order to respond to this constantly changing environment of the digital society that we have today. And obviously there are also unquestionably remaining challenges from the WSIS plus 10 review that persists until the current time such as inclusion and equality and something that we are calling the digital inequality paradox. As more people are connected, digital inequality is amplified and increasing and getting more sophisticated. So what are the long-term opportunities and also the risks in areas that are critical today such as digital rights, such as the environmental crisis and environmental sustainability but also sustainable development, digital inclusion itself, cybersecurity, surveillance, concentration of corporate power among others. The underlying question in our view that should guide the preparations for the WSIS plus 20 at the end of the day is what do we want to achieve? What do we want to go in which direction? What type of digital society we want and also what we need to build it including financial resources, the financial resources that we need to really build the type of digital future that we want to address that systemic and structural challenges that we are still facing. So at the practical level, it is also very important in our view that we identified what will contribute to reach compromise during the WSIS plus 20 review, what type of process has to be in place and what type of inputs are needed to contribute to arrive to those agreements, to build on processes that help us to address this widened scope of policy issues

Valeria Betancourt:
that we have today. So what are the conditions that have to be in place for coming up with outcomes that balance the differences of power, not only between stakeholders but also within stakeholders and the contesting parties as well as the multiplicity of interest. We also seen that in particular the WSIS plus 20 review process should be used to contribute to the strengthening of the mandate of the Internet Governance Forum and it’s the role that it has to operationalize global digital cooperation and reach the gap between the decision making spaces and the multi-stakeholder ones and then to take it as the very unique opportunity to place global digital cooperation towards global and contextual responses that are needed and to put those issues at the top of the political agendas in order to address the challenges that we face today. APC is looking forward to continue contributing to not only the implementation of the WSIS action lines but to commit to the review in all its phases and to bring our contingency to shape the digital future that we want together. So thank you so much.

Gitanjali Sah:
Thank you. Thank you Valeria and thanks to APC for galvanizing action around civil society for so many years. You also the nodal civil society group which got the voices together in 2003. So we do hope that this will continue. Thank you so much. I think Justin from USA has raised his hand. Yes.

Justin Fair:
Yeah, Justin Fair, U.S. Department of State. First off, just thank you all for this, for Gitanjali for organizing this and Ambassador Snyder and the Swiss government for coming along to host this year but all the other UN agencies that are here. I think that over the past year, to the point Ambassador made about all the various processes, there has been a lot of concern just about the system is kind of overwhelmed and that we really need to avoid duplication of effort, find synergies, do better at digital cooperation. I really like that term, digital cooperation. And I think you see it here this morning within the WSIS process and for the WSIS review of a great deal of coordination. And I want to commend that because I think it shows a maturity and a strengthening of the WSIS process that wasn’t always there but I think is there now and hopefully that will lead to a good outcome this year. I will say I think that the WSIS Plus Forum is a really good opportunity to do what we often talk about, taking stock. I mean, born out of the meeting of the Action Line facilitators, as we kind of look to the future, it’s really important that first we have that kind of understanding of what has worked, what progress has been made, where there were challenges, what was done and tried, what worked, what didn’t. And that’s part of the review process, that first step to really kind of understand how we got to where we are. And then we kind of look to like, okay, then what comes next, how we can put the whole system together. So really look forward to this meeting, this engagement. I do have two questions just from the briefings this morning. One for our colleagues from UNESCO, the conference on in early, I think, February 2025, just if there’s any more information about what that is, is that envisioned as part of the WSIS Plus 20 review, kind of like the connecting the dots or something, any information about that? And then also just logistics on pushing two meetings together in the same week in Geneva, how that’s gonna work. For those that have been there, there’s a lot that come to both. I’m sure there’s overlap, but it’s a lot of folks descending on one little area in Geneva. Same venue, different venues, kind of how that’s gonna be managed. Any information there for planning purposes, I think would be very helpful. Thanks.

Pratik Chapagain:
So thanks for that question. Actually, it’s part of the discussions at the UNESCO General Conference, which will take place in November. And it’s part of the draft resolution so far. So it is for WSIS discussions, part of the roadmap as Gitanjali had highlighted, but we are also bringing a more thematic focus to that conference, to focus on capacity building in public administrations, focusing on the challenges that we are seeing around digital transformation, digital governance, and so to bring all the stakeholders, partners around the table. Yesterday, we had the discussion around launching an IGF dynamic coalition on digital capacity building. So it’s really also going to be a multi-stakeholder endeavor which will feed into some of the WSIS action lines. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah:
Thank you. Thank you, Justin. So as Ambassador Schneider said, we are still figuring out the logistics, but of course, the venues will be next to each other. So CICG and ITU. And like I mentioned, the way we are planning it is Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, WSIS will be in CICG, the high-level component. And then we come back to ITU for Thursday, Friday, which would be more of workshops and exhibitions and things like that. And the AI for Good takes place only for two days. So Thursday, Friday, they’re gonna be there. So we will try to make sure that we are aligned and we keep taking suggestions from you to make sure that it’s smooth and you’re able to participate. Sir, yes, please, Justin, do you have the mic yet? Yeah, if you could please introduce yourself, sir.

Byron Holland:
Thank you. Byron Holland from CIRA. We’re the operators of the .ca country code top-level domain. And we also do a lot of work in the cybersecurity and DNS fields on behalf of others. Thank you very much for this presentation. I think many of us have been trying to understand what the process looks like. And definitely, certainly to my mind, charts and graphs and linear timelines make sense. So thank you very much for helping bring this into focus. The one thing that I couldn’t help but noticing a couple of slides back was the agenda and the different groups that were gonna be part of the process. No surprise, I was quite struck by the absence of the technical community. So when I looked at the agenda and all the communities involved, the technical community, the folks who in general actually run the internet are missing from that. And I would suggest strongly that you would want to include that community as one of the key actors and one of the key stakeholders in the process. Because we are very different from academia. We are not per se civil society. Some of us are for profit. Many of us are not for profit type entities. It’s a distinct community. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah:
Thank you, Brian, for highlighting that. Basically, it’s human error. That’s it in one slide. Because in the rest of the slides, you will see that technical community is very prominently featured. This was a couple of years back where we were basically decided all of us together that civil society and technical community should be a different category. And it has been so ever since. So thank you very much for highlighting that. Nigel from UK, Nigel, does it work? I think you have to switch it on, Nigel, from the top.

Nigel Hicson:
Okay, thank you very much, yes, after yesterday. Nigel Hickson from the UK government. I mean, just first of all, to echo what was said yesterday during the UN CSTD session, and what’s been said this morning, you know, the focus on the WSIS plus 20 review process is clearly very important. The roadmap towards the UNGA discussions is complicated, and like Byron, it’s good to see a timeline for these discussions. We’re very much focused on the process, and that the process includes all stakeholders, and a diverse range of regions, and that everyone has an opportunity to contribute to this process ahead of the UNGA discussions. And for us, it’s very important that the UN CSTD produces this report, which was discussed yesterday, which will not only look at where we’ve come from, perhaps, in the last 20 years, but will look to the future. Because I think, for many of us, the future is what’s important, how the WSIS 2.0, I, you know, this is a new term, but, I mean, you know, whatever, you know, can come out, if you like, from those UNGA discussions, and can emerge. And for us, it’s very important that we focus on what is important to bridge the connectivity gap, to do what many people have been talking about at this, to do a lot more, in terms of evolving the WSIS action lines, so they help complement the sustainable development goals, so there’s a clear linkage between that, between those goals, and the matrix, of course, that was developed in 2015, was important in that regard. So I think that, you know, there are some real important steps that have to be taken. In terms of the WSIS Forum next year, clearly important to have this WSIS Plus 20 high-level track, but I think it has to be prepared well. If we’re going to have our ministers to come to Geneva to discuss these issues, then there has to be some sort of preparation in advance, so they know what they’re going to discuss, but, you know, clearly important. It’s really good to hear that UNESCO are doing something. Many of us remember joining the dots. I think it was joining the dots, wasn’t it? No, it was connecting the dots. Oh, connecting the dots, I’m so sorry, yeah. But I mean, that was a very significant event, and the work that UNESCO has done on multilingualism is, I think, another important factor that perhaps will feature at the WSIS Forum next May, and that brings to an extent in the technical community and the work that’s been done at ICANN and in other areas to develop international domain names, to further multilingualism, to look at universal acceptance, and that, in terms of, you know, the evolving of the action lines to meet the Sustainable Development Goals is an important factor, so thank you.

Gitanjali Sah:
Thank you very much, Nigel. Balzoor, is the mic somewhere there? Thank you very much.

Balzur Rahman:
Very good morning. Basically, my name is A.S. Balzoor Rahman. I am working with Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication. Basically, Bangladesh is one of the impact country of the WSIS action line implementation, C1 to C11. So, Bangladesh government and CSO, civil society organization, successfully integrated WSIS action line, C1 to C11, with the five-year plan, and as well as digital Bangladesh process, and smart Bangladesh process, and as well as civil society organization intervention. As a result, Bangladesh government and civil society organization received lots of WSIS prizes, as a winner and as a champion. Especially, my organization, Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication, received seven award, as a winner and as a champion. We need WSIS forum annually. It is really multi-stakeholder manner. Now, it is model of multi-stakeholder. We would appreciate if the WSIS Secretariat would publish a toolkit for parliamentarian, and as well as mayor, because I saw they have a parliamentarian track, and also mayor track. We need WSIS action line localization, like a sub-regional basis, often consultation, like South Asia, because UNSCAP is so far from us. It is a mixed of the South Asia and Southeast Asia. So, we need a separate sub-regional open consultation about WSIS action line, like South Asia, and as well as country level open consultation. Open consultation is very important for reviewing the action line progress, called C1 to C11. C9 is very important, UNESCO representative is here. It is real that community media sector is now under threat by the social media, and also new tech. This is the reality. But community media needed for voices for the voiceless. It is only media ensuring voices for the voiceless from the ground. Finally, based on the WSIS multi-stakeholder experience, we have harmonized with the Global Digital Compact, and as well as Summit of the Future.

Gitanjali Sah:
And we developed one initiative, two years initiative, basically called Bangladesh Initiative for Connecting, Empowering, and Amplifying Unified Voice on Global Digital Compact and UN Summit of the Future. Make Bangladesh voices heard at the GDC, and as well as UN Summit of the Future. Thank you. Thank you, Baljour. Mr. Bertrand de La Chapelle, it’s good to see you after a long time.

Bertrand De La Chapelle:
Thank you very much. I’m Bertrand de La Chapelle, I’m the Executive Director of the Internet Interdiction Policy Network, and the Chief Vision Officer of the Data Sphere Initiative. It’s great to be here, but I have to say that I may be a little bit less diplomatic than I’m usually. I have an intense frustration with the question of the WSIS plus 20. A deep frustration. As many of us have participated in the initial WSIS in 2003, 2005, there was a drive there. There was an ambition, there was a vision. People were thinking that there was a challenge at the time, 20 years ago almost, that there was an information society in the coming, and that it created a certain number of technical, social, but also political challenges, and that we needed to find a way to work together to address those challenges, and make the best of the information society, which at the time was just ICT. We are 20 years later, and in spite of all the amazing developments, the political landscape has become worse and worse. We are not able to address the challenges because there is a lack of cooperation internationally. We do not have the transnational institutions that are needed. The technical architecture and the technical governance architecture is functioning very well, thank you. During the pandemic, without the internet, the world wouldn’t have been able to live, and the technical community, which doesn’t have basically the right to speak on the policy issues, is the one that managed the world to keep tight. Meanwhile, and I don’t even talk about the environment or the political geopolitical battles, we’re seeing an absolute lack of capacity to address the key challenges, and the Secretary General of the UN has rightly said that there are two existential crisis. One is the climate crisis, and the other one is what is the digital society we want to build together? And here, when we’re talking about the WSIS, 20 years is a nice anniversary. It’s usually a coming of age party, and we’re going backwards, just looking at the review, and don’t get me wrong, the review is extremely important. What we’ve accomplished, what we’ve not accomplished is important. I’m afraid that we’re gonna look too much at what we’ve accomplished and missing what we have not accomplished, which is a lot. We should have a little bit of self-criticism collectively, but what I would like is a term that I haven’t heard in many years, is what is our ambition? What do we collectively want to achieve together? And I want just to finish by saying, for a year and a half, I’ve participated in a few sessions regarding the WSIS Plus 20, I still don’t know what it is. And Thomas was saying it. I think if it ends up being the equivalent of the WSIS Plus 10 review, a mere resolution in the UN General Assembly, we have missed a massive opportunity. So I would like to encourage everybody to think about this not as a WSIS Plus 20 review, but as 2025, as the moment where we, through all the different processes, think about what is the damn ambition that we want to have for cooperation. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah:
Thank you very much for that call for action. Call for action that was very much needed in this meeting. What is our ambition? So who’s next? Peter, the right person. Is there a mic there? No, okay. Okay, yeah.

Audience:
Thank you, Bertrand. Thank you. Well, you rightly said the 10-year review, which ended with the resolution, produced nothing. Well, that’s not true. We have extended the mandate of the IGF. We have extended the mandate of the WSIS Forum. That’s true. However, there was no ambition. However, if I record the CSCD report, which was a very short report of 300 pages, we have already mentioned a lot of things. Does it ring a bell? AI, social networks, IoT, everything was there. Everything in the report. Have you seen anything in the resolution? Nothing. We are going to do something very ambitious this time as well. As you said, we would like to outline the future, and I’m sure we are going to do that. Now, if we do our best, probably it won’t be enough, because the UN General Assembly will be very political. Say, what influence do we have? It’s a question I don’t have the answer. I don’t really have the answer, but we have to do our best, and I think what you said, we should be doing it, and we are going to do it.

Gitanjali Sah:
Thank you, Peter. We look forward to your guidance in this whole process, and Bertrand, if you noticed, we are trying to be slightly ambitious, because in the time that we have, we are trying to be slightly ambitious, because in the timeline, we have made sure that the UNGA is involved in the whole preparatory process, and our colleagues from UNDESA are also present here. So we have one minute. We have a few remote participants. Professor Minkin can hand you the floor. Very quick comments. Remote participation, please. Logistics team, we have a remote participant. Professor Minkin, we are informed that you need to unmute yourself. We do not hear you. You can just unmute yourself and go ahead. Please go ahead.

Vladimir Minkin:
Yes, thank you. Thank you very much, Gitanjali. Good time of the day, dear colleagues. Let me shortly, first of all, I agreed the last speakers, especially Nigel, Bertrand, and Peter, and I think we have a lot to learn from them. And Peter, and I would only draw attention, now our first meeting for preparation. And main point, we should think what will be the outcome of this is plus 10 high-level event. What we want from this outcome, it was formed with this outcome, how we will prepare to this outcome. In all cases, what we should do, we should consider at least preliminary 20 years view, what was happening in each action line, and define what we want from future. How we see the vision, this is beyond 2025, that we should prepare to that. It should be chance for multi-stakeholder estimation, this, and to receive multi-stakeholder view on the future. Future of visas, future of SDGs, digital companies, and so on. That we expected from this high-level forum, and I hope we should carefully prepare for that together. Thank you very much.

Gitanjali Sah:
Thank you, Professor Menken. The logistics team is giving me an indication that we need to finish. There are a lot of hands up still. Yeah, there are a lot of hand ups still, but we continue on the 13th of December in Geneva and virtually, so please join us. But Ambassador Schneider, you have a few last words.

Thomas Schneider:
I’ll just, and please, those that did not have the chance to comment, there are ways to contact us, to contact also the DI2 and UNESCO and us. Just one reaction, a brief on Bertrand, and it would be also nice to hear from younger people, because we were maybe younger 20 years ago, but we are definitely not that young anymore now. But that’s a side remark. I think the world has changed. And because 20 years ago, it was 10 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we were all hoping that the end of history would be a nice thing and that the technology would help us to spread peace and freedoms and everything, and sharing was the word. Now we’re in a different, not just geopolitical, but we’re in a different environment. It’s not about sharing, it’s about fighting. It’s about winning or losing. We are back into some kind of middle-age thing. It’s like we cannot all win together. If I win, you need to lose. We’re gonna have a discussion on this, and we can continue. Just to cut it short. And that has an impact also on us. It does. I think it is up to us to try to make the best out of it and reinterpret, as Valeria had said, reinterpret the Vicious Vision in the times that we are now. They are more difficult, but it’s not the end of history, so it’s also up on us to try and go back into the right direction. But it’s difficult times, I guess, for all of us.

Bertrand De La Chapelle:
But it’s precisely because of this environment that we needed spaces to cooperate and bring the moderates together instead of being hostages by the extremes in all cases.

Gitanjali Sah:
On that note, thank you.

Audience

The audience member at the event was seeking insights into the resources that policymakers can provide to young people advocating for sustainability through technological innovation, apart from financial support. They strongly believe that policymakers should go beyond financial aid to encourage and support the sustainable pursuits of young people in the field of technology. The audience member wanted to know about other types of resources and support that can empower the youth in their pursuit of sustainability.

During the discussion on youth participation in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), the importance of learning and capacity building was emphasized. The speaker, who is the chairman of the World Summit Award and the Young Innovators Award, stressed the need for learning and building capacities to actively participate in the IGF. This was particularly highlighted in the context of the Democratic Republic of Congo. The audience member supported the notion that more resources are needed to enable meaningful impact in the IGF.

Another point of discussion revolved around involving youth in the police process and bridging the gaps between them and decision-makers. Andrea Palomino’s project, “Youth for Our Data Future,” aims to achieve this by including youth in the police process. This initiative was positively acknowledged by the audience, who expressed gratitude for the proposed project. Building stronger connections and involvement between youth, decision-makers, and the community can contribute to achieving sustainable cities and communities, aligned with SDG 11.

Overall, the discussions highlighted the audience’s interest in exploring various dimensions of youth empowerment in sustainability and technological innovation. The importance of non-financial support from policymakers, such as resources, capacity-building initiatives, and inclusive participation frameworks, was emphasized. The audience showed appreciation for the dialogue and supported the proposed initiatives focused on youth engagement and bridging gaps between them and decision-makers.

However, it is important to note that the sentiment expressed by the audience members was typically neutral or positive. No specific negative sentiments or arguments were mentioned in the provided data.

Atanas Pahizire

The speakers in the discussion shed light on the importance of youth empowerment and its role in fostering innovation. They highlight the Pan-African Youth Ambassadors on Internet Governance initiative as an example of empowering young people. The initiative has successfully trained over 1,000 young individuals in Africa in five different languages, emphasising the significance of digital literacy and capacity building in enabling youth to contribute to the future of the Internet.

The discussion also emphasises that youth should have a voice in regulatory consultations on artificial intelligence (AI) and data protection. Recognising that youth are the major users of digital technology and will be future leaders, incorporating their perspectives and insights in regulations is essential.

Financial resources are another crucial aspect of empowering youth and fostering innovation. The discussion highlights that having ideas is not enough; young innovators need access to adequate financial resources to turn their ideas into reality.

Moreover, the speakers argue that policies should focus on genuinely empowering young people, rather than just including them as a token gesture. This means involving youth in decision-making processes and ensuring their participation in shaping policies that directly affect them.

Administrative burdens and visa issues are identified as challenges faced by young entrepreneurs, hindering their ability to innovate and collaborate internationally. The speakers call for reducing administrative burdens and improving immigration policies to create a more conducive environment for young entrepreneurs and support inter-regional collaboration.

Despite these challenges, the discussion highlights the resilience and determination of youth to participate and foster sustainable innovation. They encourage young individuals from different fields to continue fighting for their beliefs and building sustainability, even in less than ideal circumstances.

In summary, the discussion underscores the importance of empowering youth and fostering innovation. This includes digital literacy, access to financial resources, meaningful inclusion in policymaking processes, and addressing administrative hurdles for young entrepreneurs. Despite challenges, the speakers find hope in the resilience of youth to create sustainable innovation and advocate for their needs.

Theorose Elikplim

During an event attended by Theo from the Ghana Youth IGF, multiple speakers covered a range of important topics. A more detailed summary of the event reveals that the speakers highlighted various key points and presented arguments backed by evidence, drawing insightful conclusions.

One speaker discussed the significance of digital literacy in empowering the youth in Ghana, emphasizing the need to provide access to digital skills and education to bridge the digital divide. They argued that by equipping young people with necessary knowledge and tools, they can actively participate in the digital economy and contribute to the country’s development.

Another speaker focused on the importance of online safety and security, highlighting the growing risks and threats faced by young people in the digital age, such as cyberbullying, identity theft, and online scams. They suggested implementing effective policies and raising awareness about digital safety to protect the youth and ensure their online well-being.

Furthermore, a discussion on the role of social media in youth activism was explored. The speaker acknowledged the power of social media platforms in enabling young people to raise their voices and advocate for social change. They provided examples of successful youth-led movement campaigns driven by online activism, emphasizing the need to harness these platforms for positive societal impact.

Additionally, a speaker talked about the potential of technology in contributing to sustainable development. They discussed how innovation and digital solutions can address environmental challenges and enhance access to healthcare, education, and other essential services. They called for collaborations between policymakers, tech entrepreneurs, and the youth to develop and implement sustainable technology solutions.

In conclusion, the event provided valuable insights into various relevant topics, including the importance of digital literacy, online safety, youth activism through social media, and the role of technology in sustainable development. By understanding and addressing these issues, it is possible to empower the Ghanaian youth and pave the way for a more inclusive and prosperous future.

Nicolas Fiumarelli

Innovation is essential for progress and is often synonymous with technological advancement. It has the potential to solve complex problems and enhance the quality of life. The private sector plays a crucial role in driving technological advancements and shaping economic pursuits.

However, in the digital age, there are barriers to innovation. Unequal access to the internet is a significant challenge, as a large portion of the population still does not have access to it. This creates a digital divide, where many people are unable to unlock the knowledge and opportunities that the internet provides.

Overregulation is another barrier that can inhibit experimentation and restrict the free flow of information. Striking a balance between regulation and innovation is crucial. It is important to govern the internet in a fair and inclusive manner that facilitates technology and opportunities for all.

Global collaboration is essential in championing a free and innovative internet. Collaboration across nations and generations is necessary to address the complexity of the challenge. The UIGF Uruguay, for example, is committed to advocating for a free, fair, and innovative internet.

Sustainability is not just about collaboration and innovative ideas, but also about considering the environment. It is important to prioritize long-term ecological wealth over immediate corporate gains. Corporate legacy should recognize the profitability of sustainability.

Global equity is crucial for progress. Progress should not only benefit the privileged few but should be inclusive and benefit everyone. This requires a shift towards a more equitable society, where opportunities and benefits are accessible to all.

Youth have an essential role to play in internet governance and innovation. Their fresh and innovative perspective can lead to the creation of new ideas and solutions. Supporting mentorship programs that target young individuals in internet governance is important to foster their involvement and provide guidance as they navigate the digital landscape.

Youth can also drive sustainable practices in the tech industry. They are often more environmentally conscious and can integrate sustainable practices from the beginning. Their involvement can contribute to a more sustainable and responsible approach to technological development.

In conclusion, innovation is crucial for progress and technological advancement. However, barriers such as unequal access to the internet and overregulation hinder innovation in the digital age. Governing the internet in a fair and inclusive manner is important to facilitate technology and opportunities. Global collaboration is needed to champion a free and innovative internet, while also considering sustainability and the environment. The involvement of youth in internet governance and their drive towards sustainability is essential. Supporting mentorship programs further enhances their involvement and development in this field.

Osei Kagyah

The speakers in the discussion highlighted the crucial role of youth participation and collaboration in driving innovation and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They emphasised that young people possess the energy and fresh perspectives necessary to bring about innovative solutions to complex global challenges. By actively involving young individuals, the speakers argued, societies can harness their potential and creativity to drive progress in various fields.

The importance of effective collaboration was also emphasised during the discussion. The speakers noted that collaboration is essential for addressing “the elephants in the room,” indicating that complex and longstanding issues require a collective effort to be resolved. By working together across different sectors and disciplines, it becomes possible to tackle these challenges more effectively and achieve meaningful progress towards the SDGs.

Furthermore, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) was highlighted as a significant platform for facilitating collaboration among young people from different countries. The IGF was recognised as a space where individuals can come together, share their ideas, and work collectively towards finding solutions to global problems. The forum’s inclusive nature allows young people to engage in international collaboration, exchange knowledge, and foster partnerships to drive positive change.

In conclusion, the speakers expressed a positive outlook on the role of youth and collaboration in shaping a better future. They underscored the importance of involving young individuals in innovation and problem-solving, highlighting their unique perspectives and fresh energy. Moreover, effective collaboration, both within and across diverse communities, was stressed as a crucial element in addressing global challenges comprehensively. The Internet Governance Forum was singled out as a platform that offers opportunities for young people to collaborate globally and contribute to achieving the SDGs. Overall, the discussion shed light on the necessity of youth participation and collaboration as key drivers for innovation and sustainable development.

Shradha Pandey

The involvement of youth in international discussions surrounding digital transformation has witnessed a significant increase, with young individuals playing a more substantial role and moving beyond mere token representation. These young members are actively contributing to strategic plans and priorities, developing new skills in leadership and strategy. This engagement has not only empowered grassroots communities but has also enabled youth to participate in high-level discussions.

One of the key arguments put forth by the youth community revolves around advocating for inclusive and sustainable innovation. It emphasizes the importance of incorporating rights-based approaches, environmental care, security, and sustainability into digital legislation and innovation. The involvement of youth members recognizes and addresses crucial issues related to trust, security, environmental sustainability, and accountability. They actively advocate for the integration of these aspects as inherent elements in the development and implementation of digital policies.

To foster innovation, it is essential to strengthen human resources, particularly those of young individuals, alongside allocating sufficient financial resources. Youth contributions in this context are based on volunteering their time, energy, effort, and hours. This highlights the need for adequate support and recognition of their input. Furthermore, the correct implementation of policies and the availability of financial resources are imperative for creating an environment conducive to youth-led innovation.

The youth community also stresses the significance of building digital skills and literacy. They argue that these skills should be an integral part of lifelong learning, with digital literacy being incorporated into formal education. By emphasizing the adoption of new technologies and fostering local development of digital content, the youth community aims to ensure that individuals are equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge to navigate the digital landscape effectively.

Lastly, investment in digital initiatives, projects, and infrastructures is highlighted as essential for fostering innovation and supporting communities. Public and private development services play a crucial role in creating an environment that enables youth to thrive and contribute to innovation. Mentorship, incubation labs, and capacity-building programs are a few examples of initiatives aimed at supporting the youth community in their digital development journey.

In conclusion, the involvement of youth in international discussions related to digital transformation has witnessed a positive shift, with young individuals assuming more significant roles and contributing to strategic plans and priorities. Their presence has empowered grassroots communities and allowed for their participation in high-level discussions. The youth community advocates for inclusive and sustainable innovation, stressing the importance of incorporating rights-based approaches, trust, security, environmental sustainability, and accountability. Strengthening human resources, particularly the youth, and allocating adequate financial resources are crucial for fostering innovation. Building digital skills, literacy, and promoting local development of digital content are seen as essential for capacity building. Furthermore, investment in digital initiatives, projects, and infrastructures plays a vital role in creating an environment that supports youth-led innovation. Lastly, the continuous development of digital skills and literacy should be a lifelong learning process, with digital literacy being integrated into formal education to ensure individuals are equipped to navigate the digital landscape effectively.

Deborah

Deborah is a strong advocate for networking and believes in its value and importance. She expresses her belief in and support for networking, highlighting its benefits for personal and professional growth.

In addition to her passion for networking, Deborah also operates a nonprofit organization called findoutwhy.info in The Hague. The focus of her nonprofit is on partnerships for the goals, aligning with SDG 17. She emphasizes the importance of partnerships and collaboration in achieving sustainable development.

Denise Leal, another individual mentioned in the analysis, emphasizes the need for digital literacy in today’s society. She offers one-to-one mentoring services at Find Out Why, based in The Hague. By providing mentorship in digital literacy, Denise aims to empower individuals and equip them with the necessary skills for success in the digital age. This aligns with SDG 4 and SDG 9, which respectively focus on quality education and industry, innovation, and infrastructure.

Deborah also encourages individuals to seize opportunities and take a proactive approach to professional advancement. She urges them to embrace their seniority, disregard hierarchical structures, and form alliances to collaborate effectively. This approach promotes gender equality (SDG 5) and reduced inequalities (SDG 10).

The Digital Fluency Lab, an organization mentioned in the analysis, operates in the city of peace and justice. Their work is centered around championing fairness, human rights, trustworthiness, and privacy. By aligning with these values, the organization contributes to SDG 16, which focuses on peace, justice, and strong institutions.

Deborah’s personal history reflects her resilience and mentorship capacity. She shares her experiences of career reinventions and personal adversity, highlighting the valuable lessons she has learned along the way. Her journey serves as a source of inspiration to others and demonstrates the power of resilience in overcoming challenges.

Lastly, Deborah believes that the youth have a deep understanding of betrayal based on their historical experiences. She encourages young individuals to use their influence and make a positive impact. This aligns with SDG 10 and SDG 16, which focus on reduced inequalities and peace, justice, and strong institutions.

In conclusion, Deborah, Denise Leal, and the Digital Fluency Lab are individuals and organizations that are committed to making a positive difference in the world. Through networking, partnerships, mentorship, and a strong belief in fairness, they contribute to various sustainable development goals, including quality education, reduced inequalities, and peace, justice, and strong institutions. Their efforts inspire others to embrace personal growth, seize opportunities, and create a better future for all.

Celestine Alves

The discussions centre around the lack of innovation in Brazil. It is argued that this lack is not due to a lack of thinkers or intelligence, but rather a lack of opportunities and funding. There is a belief that innovation can push and influence the government and public sector to invest more, particularly in public universities. The sentiment regarding this argument is neutral.

Another factor that is said to contribute to the decrease in industry in Brazil is the impact of the global economy and police problems. It is noted that this has complicated the region’s situation over the past few decades. The sentiment towards this argument is negative.

Regulation is seen as a means to foster innovation, rather than block it. The stance is that regulation can actually encourage innovation, and methods like Sandbox are mentioned as examples. The sentiment regarding this viewpoint is positive.

When it comes to private investment, it is acknowledged that it is profit-focused. However, there is a recognition that preventative measures must be in place to address potential risks associated with innovation. Unfortunately, no specific supporting facts are provided for this viewpoint. The sentiment regarding this stance is neutral.

The importance of innovative hubs in universities and public investments is emphasised as a way to foster innovation in Brazil. However, no specific supporting facts are provided for this argument. The sentiment regarding this argument is positive.

It is argued that big tech companies are exerting control over innovation worldwide. This is supported by the fact that small tech startups, such as the app Waze, have been acquired by big companies like Google. It is suggested that Brazilian engineers from universities are thinking about creating tech solutions that could be sold to these big companies. The sentiment towards this argument is negative.

There is a call for the empowerment of young people and small to medium-sized businesses so that they can control and stimulate their own innovation. It is noted that young people and graduates are already innovating but lack sufficient financial support. There is also a concern that big tech companies take control over smaller startups through acquisition. The sentiment regarding this argument is positive.

The need for society to regulate the control of big companies over innovation is highlighted. It is argued that regulation is necessary to prevent big tech companies from exerting too much power and control over the innovation landscape. The sentiment towards this viewpoint is neutral.

Another aspect that is deemed crucial for innovation is more diversity and participation. It is believed that complex problems require different perspectives, and that solving these problems necessitates the involvement of those who have been affected by them. The sentiment towards this argument is positive.

Lastly, there is a call for the youth to be included in the decision-making process. It is recognised that the youth have ideas and thoughts that could contribute to important discussions, and that simply inviting their participation is not enough. The sentiment regarding this viewpoint is positive.

In conclusion, the discussions surrounding the lack of innovation in Brazil centre around the need for more opportunities, funding, regulation, and diversity. The involvement of the youth in decision-making processes and the empowerment of small to medium-sized businesses are also highlighted. Additionally, there is a concern about big tech companies exerting control over innovation globally.

Boris

The analysis comprises multiple speakers discussing a range of topics, including innovation, sustainability, education, and youth empowerment. One of the speakers, Boris, believes that every aspect of life provides learning opportunities for making positive changes. Boris himself developed a strong understanding of programming after reading the book “How Things Work” in year six. Using his programming skills, Boris and his team in the computer science society created a neural network that successfully pairs students with their preferred subjects. Boris encourages youth to recognize the impact they can have by harnessing their skills and thinking resourcefully.

The sentiment turns negative when tech companies are discussed. It is argued that these companies intentionally make managing cookies a difficult process to collect more user data. This practice raises concerns about privacy and data collection.

Another negative sentiment arises when discussing the use of carbon offsetting by many companies. While these companies claim to offset their carbon emissions, it is stated that many of these offsetting methods are ineffective. This highlights the need for more accountability from tech companies regarding their contributions to data center pollution.

On a positive note, one speaker advocates for the implementation of a data tax. The argument is that everything on the internet is intellectual property, and companies should be held accountable for using this data to create new technologies. The suggestion is to impose a data tax to ensure that companies are held responsible for their data usage.

There is also a call for increased government funding targeted at youth below the age of 18 to engage in sustainable tech solutions. The argument is that governments can do more to support and fund young individuals, allowing them to exercise their creativity and contribute to sustainable technology.

The importance of accessible knowledge, a suitable environment, and mentors is emphasized for youth to make a significant impact. The speakers stress that for young people to succeed, they need up-to-date knowledge in emerging sectors such as the metaverse and cryptocurrency. Mentorship is seen as essential in guiding young individuals to effectively utilize their skills. Additionally, government policies that promote the right environment are viewed as crucial for skill development.

The idea of increasing collaboration between the public, private, and civil society is highlighted. It is argued that such collaborations can provide necessary resources and training programs for individuals. Moreover, increased interaction between youth and older individuals can lead to valuable learning experiences and further skill development.

The analysis concludes by asserting that anyone, regardless of age, can make a positive change in their communities. The speakers urge individuals to take action and collaborate for a better future.

In summary, the analysis presents various viewpoints on innovation, sustainability, education, and youth empowerment. While there are negative sentiments towards certain practices by tech companies, there are also positive ideas proposed, such as a data tax and increased government funding. The importance of accessible knowledge, a suitable environment, and mentorship for youth is emphasized, along with the need for collaboration between different sectors of society. The analysis inspires individuals to recognize their power to make a difference and work together towards creating a better future.

Denise Leal

Denise Leal, a young innovator from Brazil, is taking the lead in hosting a youth panel focusing on innovation. This event is particularly significant for some of the speakers, as it marks their first participation in such a gathering. Denise shows great enthusiasm as she actively encourages the speakers, creating an environment that fosters engagement and learning. She expresses her delight in seeing the audience join the session, clearly demonstrating her passion for youth participation and encouragement.

During the panel, Andrea Palomino discusses a noteworthy project called ‘Youth for our Data Future’. This initiative aims to include young people in the police process and bridge the gap between youth and decision-makers. Andrea’s comment highlights the importance of empowering and involving young individuals in decision-making processes, particularly in areas related to community development and the promotion of peace and justice. This project serves as an excellent example of the positive impact that youth inclusion can have on building stronger institutions and sustainable cities.

Denise also emphasizes the significance of continuous contribution to the Internet Governance (IG) community. By encouraging active participation and engagement, she demonstrates her belief in the power of collaboration and collective action. Her support for the inclusion of youth in the decision-making process reinforces the idea that diverse voices and perspectives are essential for making informed and inclusive decisions.

In conclusion, Denise Leal’s hosting of the youth panel centered around innovation showcases her passion for empowering young people and amplifying their voices. Through her enthusiasm and encouragement, she creates an environment that fosters collaboration, learning, and engagement. Furthermore, her support for initiatives such as ‘Youth for our Data Future’ highlights the importance of youth inclusion in decision-making processes and community development efforts. Denise’s dedication to the IG community exemplifies the potential for positive change when young individuals are given the opportunity to contribute and shape the future.

James Amattey

James Amattey, a student at the University of Hong Kong, advocates for increased support and collaboration to assist young people in developing sustainable initiatives. He understands the challenges faced by youth in sustainable innovation, including the lack of experience, resources, and skills. James emphasises the importance of collaboration with government and big firms to provide the necessary support and capacity building for young individuals in sustainable innovation. This collaboration is crucial for the success of sustainable initiatives as it allows for the inclusion of the youth’s perspective and provides the needed resources, capital, and training.

Furthermore, young people play a crucial role in the digital economy and are at the forefront of finding innovative solutions to societal challenges. Their proximity to these problems gives them an advantage in contributing to sustainable development. James encourages the younger generation to communicate and share their views through existing platforms, enabling them to actively contribute their knowledge, experiences, and viewpoints.

Intergenerational mentorship also plays a significant role in bridging the knowledge gap. The older generation’s increased openness to offering mentorship to young individuals is essential for transferring knowledge and expertise. This exchange of wisdom and guidance empowers young people to effectively lead sustainable initiatives.

To summarise, James Amattey highlights the need for increased support and collaboration to assist youth in developing sustainable initiatives. Collaboration with government and big firms provides the necessary resources and capacity building for young individuals. Young people’s active involvement in the digital economy and their ability to communicate their viewpoints are valuable assets for sustainable development. Intergenerational mentorship is also crucial in bridging the knowledge gap and empowering young individuals.

Ethan Chern

Ethan Chern, a concerned student, identified a waste problem in his school involving the disposal of unused books, leading to the emission of carbon dioxide. At the start of the school year, only 2-3 books were designated for book crossing, but by the end of the year, this number had surged to 400-500 books. Unfortunately, the school management decided to discard or recycle these books, resulting in additional carbon emissions. Ethan observed that this waste issue was detrimental to the environment and called for immediate action.

To address the waste management problem in educational institutions and promote sustainability, Ethan, along with his father, formulated an innovative solution. They established the Mon Pau Foundation, which aimed to find ways to deal with the excess books in a sustainable manner. The successful establishment of the foundation paved the way for ongoing initiatives and actions to mitigate waste and foster environmental consciousness among students.

Ethan firmly believes that everyone, regardless of age or gender, possesses the ability to contribute towards making the world more sustainable. In a speech, he stressed the significance of collective efforts towards sustainability and highlighted the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a common objective. Ethan’s advocacy for cooperation and inclusivity resonates with SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals, which emphasises the need for collaboration between various stakeholders to achieve sustainable development.

In conclusion, Ethan Chern’s observations and initiatives shed light on the pressing waste management issues faced by educational institutions. His determination to address these challenges led to the establishment of the Mon Pau Foundation, a commendable step towards sustainability. By promoting collective efforts and emphasising inclusivity, Ethan encourages individuals of all ages and genders to contribute towards achieving the SDGs. It is through cooperative endeavours that we can pave the way for a more sustainable future.

Denise Leal:
I’m seeing a little bit more. Hello, everyone. So, we have this youth panel now. We are about to start. It’s the first time of some of our speakers in the event and speaking also here. So, let’s have a very nice session speaking about youth and innovation. I am going to invite our speakers to present themselves. And since we had some changes on the speakers and also the moderators, I will ask that each speaker could present yourself. And I am going also to be presenting the online speakers and the online moderator. So, let’s begin with it. Our on-seat speakers are going to present themselves. And I am Denise Leal from Brazil, part of the Brazilian youth. And I am very happy that you are here joining this session with us.

Boris:
Hi, I’m Boris from the One Power Foundation. I’m from Hong Kong.

Ethan Chern:
I’m Ethan Chern. I’m also from the One Power Foundation and, yeah, as well from Hong Kong.

Celestine Alves:
My name is Celestine Alves-Britt. I’m also from Brazil, a lawyer and a researcher.

Atanas Pahizire:
Hello, I’m Atanas Pahizire from the Democratic Republic of Congo. I’m the coordinator of the Youth IGFJRC and also in Internet Society Youth Ambassador. Thank you.

Denise Leal:
Thank you. So, now we are going to speak with our online moderator. Nicolas, are you there? And also James and the other speakers.

Nicolas Fiumarelli:
Yes, I am here. Nicolas Fiumarelli from Youth IGF Uruguay, coordinator.

Denise Leal:
James, Teros.

Theorose Elikplim:
Yes. Hi, my name is Theo. I’m from Ghana Youth IGF. Thank you.

Denise Leal:
Thank you. Osei, I see you.

Osei Kagyah:
Hi, everyone. My name is Osei from Ghana and I’m excited to be here.

Denise Leal:
Thank you. James. Okay, I cannot hear James, but I see Shraddha. Please, go on.

Shradha Pandey:
Thank you. Thank you. Hi, everybody. I am Shraddha. I am one of the board members of the Youth Standing Group of Internet Society and it’s very exciting to be here. Thanks, Denise.

Denise Leal:
Thank you so much. So, we are going to talk about youth’s role and also about innovation and what have you done, like we have done, to bring more innovation and solutions? And we are talking about our perspectives on our groups. I am from Latin America and we have also Asia here and we have other spaces. So, we are going to be talking on our experiences as a young person, personally, and also as a person from different, people from different groups. So, now, for starting, can we start with you, Denise? Yes. So, we are about to start. Let me just find the questions here, everyone. So, Terezinha, in your experience, how have youth-led initiatives influenced sustainability in Brazil? Thank you, everyone. So, Terezinha, in your experience, how have youth-led initiatives influenced sustainable tech solutions? And could you also speak on your perspective as a fellow from youth Brazilian program?

Celestine Alves:
Yes. Thank you, Denise. Well, I will speak from perspective from a lawyer, of course, and from a Brazilian young person. And we saw that, at least I hope that you saw, guys, that the theme of our session is youth drive and tech empowering next-gen innovators. So, when you talk about innovation, especially in Brazil, and I could say in other countries in Latin America, we know that you have a lack of innovation. And this is not a problem of a lack of thinkers or a lack of intelligence. It’s much more a lack of opportunities and a lack of money to be invested in these areas. So, I would say that, in Brazil, we are really pushing and trying to put pressure in the government and in the public sector to have more investments, especially in our public universities, because, unfortunately, we have seen a decrease of our industry in Brazil. And this is probably because of the global economy and all the police problems, which is being really complicated in our region, the last decades, actually. So, what we have to think is that, when you talk about innovation, and I know that we have been hearing here in the IGF that we cannot talk about innovation without talking about regulation. And I cannot agree that regulation is just a way to block innovation. That’s not true. Actually, we can foster innovation by regulation methods, like Sandbox that were told here, I think in the same room. And I think we have to see, especially in Latin America, how we can find ways, and I’m talking about the public sector because, as I just said, we don’t have strong industries. So, we need more investments, especially in our universities. And this, I can see, at least to just initiate the conversation, that the way is to have a kind of innovation, innovative hubs in the universities, and trying to have public investments, and then trying to have, as well, private investments. Why I’m saying that? Because we cannot forget that private investments, they always are focused on profits. So, we have to think, before thinking about making money, we need to prevent some risk and some bias about innovation. Thank you.

Denise Leal:
Thank you, Terezinha. Now, we are going to pass the floor to Nicolas, so that we can hear also Shraddha speaking. Yes, Nicolas.

Nicolas Fiumarelli:
Hello, everyone. So, I wish to discuss an issue that strikes at the heart of the digital age, that is barriers to innovation, right? Particularly as they relate to the objectives and principles of the Internet Governance. Can you confirm that you are hearing me well? Yes? Great. So, innovation is the lifeblood of the progress, right? It’s what drives society forward, allowing us to solve complex problems and to enhance the quality of life. In the digital life, innovation is synonymous of the advancement in technology and the digital realm. So, we can also encompass quantum computing, artificial intelligence applications, and all these new technologies correlated with innovation. But as we forge ahead, embracing the many opportunities the digital world offers, we must be acutely aware of the challenges and barriers that will hinder our path. So, the profound barriers to innovation are unequal access, that is the main key. In a world where the Internet is the key to unlocking knowledge, fostering collaboration, and enabling breakthroughs such as, as I mentioned, artificial intelligence and quantum computing, it is distressing to see a vast number of individuals remain disenfranchised from this resource. So, as we speak of the digital divide, we must remember that it’s not just about access to devices or connectivity. It’s about access to the opportunities, to education, and to the markets, right? Then comes the issue of the regulation, as Denise mentioned, because the purpose of the regulation is to protect the users and ensure these fair practices at times. So, overly strict or ill-conceived regulations can deter startups or inhibit the experimentation or restrict the free flow of information. So, those things are all vital for a thriving digital ecosystem. So, the very platform that provides connectivity and democratization can sometimes become monopolist giants that we have seen, gatekeeping innovation and dictating the terms of online existence. So, the influence often extends to shaping the very policies that govern the Internet. We can lead to an environment not conducive to small players on newer ideas, right? So, the Internet Governance Forum, where we are just here, in its essence is to ensure that the governance of the Internet is inclusive, transparent, and just. But the governance should not be about control and regulation. It should be about facilitating this technology, these opportunities for the people. So, how can we, as members of the IGF, foster a new environment that not only safeguards the users, but also promotes this innovation, right? We have innovators from all around the world with a lot of experiences. So, how can we ensure that the policies are adaptable, resilient, and forward-looking? So, in the case of Uruguay, it has always been a beacon of progress throughout the region, and the UIGF Uruguay is committed to championing the cause of this free, fair, and innovative Internet. But it’s a global challenge, as we were mentioning, and requires a global response. So, we need to have equal foot in the terms of innovation. So, as we move forward, I don’t want to take so much time. Not just focus on the barriers, but maybe on the bridges we can build together. So, let’s collaborate across nations and generations to create this digital world that is not just safe and equitable, but also vibrant and innovative. Thank you, and I look forward to have this fruitful discussion ahead.

Denise Leal:
Thank you, Nicolas. Now, we are going to listen to Shraddha speaking about the role of youth-led initiative. Please go on. We are waiting for your words.

Shradha Pandey:
Thank you. Thank you so much, Denise. Hi, everybody. It’s Shraddha Pandey, for the record. And I’m going to talk to you a little bit about youth-led initiatives and the soft skills that youth can bring to the table while having discussions at such an international level, having such crucial discussions. What we’re seeing now is that the token representation of the youth community members, while it still remains token in some places, has been changing drastically over the past few years. And today, currently, I would like to talk a little bit about leadership and strategy that is – those are the new skills that the youth community members are developing with strategic plans and priorities for digital transformation by having a detailed plan and a detailed way of action towards grassroots communities. Our action about the youth-standing group of internet society on how they further the contribution and to essentially create an internet that leaves no one behind is by ensuring that we empower not only the grassroots communities and the initiatives that are run by people at the rural-most level for the last-mile connectivity, but while we also try to empower youth community members to participate in high-level discussions and make meaningful contributions that bring our voices to the legislations, to the policymakers, to the formation of regulations and initiatives. So these digital legislations and digital actions that are being based to foster innovation, they have to be rights-based, inclusive, and sustainable overall. So one of the key initiatives and ideas that the youth community brings to the table and brings to every discussion is the overall sustainability and overall environmental care or issues relating to trust, issues relating to security, environmental sustainability, about accountability, about being a rights-based approach is extremely important. So participation of youth members is something that I highlight and I say that in addition to contributing at the local level, an international discussion and a platform such as IGF is very important to bring in to understand what the best practices are of these local levels and how they can be replicated further in all other regions. With that, I hand it over back to you, Denise. Thank you.

Denise Leal:
Thank you for your contributions on the topic. We are now going to listen to Anthony’s, right? Based on your experience as a youth ambassador for the Internet Society and your involvement with the Pan-African Youth Ambassadors on Internet Governance, how can policies better incorporate the perspectives and innovations of the youth in shaping the future of the Internet, especially in the African context? Thank you.

Atanas Pahizire:
As a facilitator of the Pan-African Youth Ambassadors on Internet Governance, youth empowerment and digital literacy is a key to this program. The youth need to have the capacity. The youth need to have enough capacity to be contributors, and for this, they need literacy. They need the knowledge. The Pan-African Youth Ambassadors on Internet Governance initiative have trained over 1,000 young people in Africa in five different languages. You understand that it’s not only in English. For this to be meaningful, they have to get capacity in their own languages where they are fluent so that they can be contributors. We trained over 1,000 people in five different languages, giving them enough capacity to make sure that they are global contributors. As we are speaking, we have good ambassadors who were speakers at the African IGF and here also who are contributors. What’s really emphasized is the need for that capacity. One other thing I should say is that now we are having many data protection regulations and AI regulation all over the world, and especially in Africa, many countries are tending to bring in data protection regulation and AI regulation. As all policy processes, we have consultations. The youth need to be at the table. When we are talking about consultations about the AI, we are the actual main major digital users. We are also the future leaders, so we need to be at the table when decisions are being taken about how AI will be regulated, how our data has to be regulated. We need to be at the table. Our voices need to be heard. One of the main recommendations is that we may have more young people at the table in regulations, in consultations of policies related to artificial intelligence, emerging technology, data protection, and so on.

Denise Leal:
Thank you. It was a very important perspective from African region. Now, we are going to listen to Asia perspective. Ethan, can you share one significant learning or experience that has shaped your perspective on sustainable development and innovation, on the topic of innovation, please?

Ethan Chern:
Yeah, of course. It’s actually related to one of my own experiences. There’s a story about this. Two or three years ago, when I was year seven, in my school libraries, there’s a corner that people do book crossing, traditional book crossing. When it’s the first day of school, there’s two to three books inside a corner there. I was like, okay, maybe someone will take it away, or there’s more books at the end of school day. Time flies. It’s the end of the school year of year seven. When I got back there, there’s like 400 to 500 books there. No one takes it to read, just only people that want to give away and want to donate it. What the school did is just to throw it away and recycle it, which actually produced many carbon emissions. When I got back home, I told my dad that, oh, I figured out this serious problem, so we should find a way to figure it out. The idea of Mon Pau Foundation is formed, and we actually did it. Now, today, we’re here. Yes, that’s my own experience.

Denise Leal:
Very nice to hear how initiatives burn and that things inspire us and can be small or big things that make us move and trying to find solutions for innovation and sustainability. Now, also on the topic and Asia perspective, Boris, what were some of the key takeaways that you believe are crucial for the young generation on innovation and sustainable development?

Boris:
I think the main takeaway is just to notice what’s around you, because I think in every aspect of your life, there’s somewhere that you can find something to be learned. I think my experience with books began when I was in year six in a school in Hong Kong, where I was reading a book called How Things Work. This book was detailing how someone used STEM to create… fabulous inventions that change the world, right. So for me, I feel like books were much closer to me than I could ever imagine. But as I grew older, I realized that I grew to have the toolkits of tools I needed to make change. I started understanding programming and just started creating change with one pile. I think it’s very important for youth to understand that if there’s a single set of skills, you’re actually able to deliver a lot more impact than you think. So I think another example of this is that at my school, we have a computer science society, which I’m responsible for, and what we’ve developed is a neural network, which is completely run on a cloud-based platform called Google Colab, and we’ve managed to use that to pair students to their preferred subject choices. So I think it’s just crucial for us to realize that resources that we want is everywhere around us, and we must value this. Thank you for sharing your views on the topic.

Denise Leal:
Now we are also going to listen to our own speaker, Teresinha, talking a little bit about the big techs and small business in Brazil, and also how the youth are leading a paper on the topic.

Celestine Alves:
Innovation is actually one of my passions. That was the reason that I started to do research about internet governance, and I think when we talk about big techs, we don’t talk enough about how big techs impact the innovation around the world. When I say that, I’m not talking about the big techs, the innovation around the world. When I say that, one of the first examples that I saw, like, I think you all know the Waze, right? The app for geolocalization, and we know that the Google Maps was the first, and Waze just, I’m not sure, but Waze is from a company, a tech company, a startup from Israel, and then Google Maps just some years ago, they bought the Waze, and today the Google Maps and the Waze, they both pretend to be the same company. Why is it a problem? I don’t think Google is a problem, because Google is doing what Google is supposed to do, be the best that they can, so we as a society need to do our best, and regulation is one of these issues, because we cannot allow big companies to control the innovation around the world, because there is a kind of bubble. Why I’m saying that? We have startups in Brazil, and the problem is that our engineers, they come from the university thinking about creating an app or creating an app set or creating a kind of tech solution that will be just sell for a big company, and this is a real problem, because at the end of the day, who is really controlling the innovation? Just the private sector, and we need to understand what is the needs of each country, what is the need of each groups, and here I can say the youth, we are part of the society, and we have our needs, and I think a big part of the solution is to foster the small and medium companies, the small and medium business, especially the ones created by young people, especially the ones that just graduated. This is really important, because they are innovating, and they don’t have enough money, and they need to be fostered by someone.

Denise Leal:
Thank you, Terezinha. Now we are going to speak about policies and recommendations our young panelists have to make on the topic. How can policies and regulations can be improved to empower the next generation of innovators with a focus on platform accountability and fostering innovative solutions, and what concrete recommendations do you have that can be made to erase the accessibility of sustainable tech solutions for all, particularly in developing countries? Let’s start with Adenis. Thank you, Denise. For us to foster innovation, one thing

Atanas Pahizire:
Terezinha just mentioned, the youth need financial resources. We always have the brain, we always have ideas, but for us to put this into action, we need financial resources, and the regulations we are now putting in place, I think they should look into that and think, how are we empowering the youth? Not only saying we are ticking a box, we are having the youth in this project, we are having young people in a project, ticking a box because they ask you to have young people, but we have to see how are we meaningfully empowering them, that they can foster innovation, make solutions, and for this, they need financial resources. So, that’s it for now. Thank you.

Denise Leal:
Thank you. Now, let’s listen to Shradha, answering and talking on her perspective on this question.

Shradha Pandey:
Thank you. Thank you so much, Denise, and it was a very valuable contribution. Initially, understanding that financial resources is the starting step is very important because, especially since the contributions of youth community members are based on our volunteering time, our volunteering energy, effort, and hours, they can only take you so far, but I would like to add on a little more with respect to additional human capital or the human resources that need to be strengthened to make sure that the financial resources and the policies that are being implemented to foster innovation are taken forward in the right manner. So, when I say human resources, I’m talking about building digital skills and capacity building of the youth community members and new members who are joining the internet governance forum and are using the internet on every single day. Building their digital skills, ensuring that digital literacy, adoption of new technologies, the usage of new technologies, and local development of digital content goes hand in hand. It goes far away in ensuring innovation that starts from the ground roots level or from the grassroots and the bottom up. What we’re also seeing is an inclusion of digital literacy in formal education on the perspective or the idea that it’s never too late to learn and lifelong learning. These are the ideas and concepts that need to be strengthened to ensure that there is a lot of engagement with digital learning. In addition to that, we’re also talking about allocation and investment in actual digital initiatives, projects, and infrastructures that deploy and scale up technologies and services for these communities. This can be in the form of public and private digital development services, which enable a digital environment for the young people to foster their innovation to create them further and take these further, such as incubation labs, such as any initiative that works towards mentorship, towards capacity building of these youth community members. So, when we’re talking about these, these are the sort of issues that I think are very important and they’re pertinent to be highlighted in terms of what our understanding and what our analysis has to be in these regards. So, for that, from my end, that’s it. Thank you, Denise. Over to you.

Denise Leal:
Thank you, Shradha. We are now going to listen to Ethan on the topic. Yes. Boris first? Okay.

Boris:
So, I think for this question about, let’s talk about the first point first, about platform accountability. I think a main part of data is managing the data self-data governance. So, whenever we’re using a platform, I feel like all of our data is being collected, I think currently not our biometrics, but in the future our biometrics will also be collected, making a full profile of ourselves. So, I think a main question that has been discussed in previous sessions is the idea of the cookie button. So, every time we go on a platform, we click the accept all cookies button, which basically means that all our data is going to be collected by the platform. But what we’re not realizing is that we’re actually able to click manage these cookies, but the reason why tech companies are making this such a difficult process is because they want us to give them their data, give us their data. And secondly, I think for keeping, for keeping platforms more accountable, we need to stop their greenwashing. Many companies decide to use carbon offsetting, but it’s been proven that many of these carbon offsetting methods don’t work. So, you must hold them more accountable for a data center pollution. I think thirdly, there’s been a lot of talk about data tax in this idea. I think this idea of data tax is that everything on the internet is intellectual property, and you’re what, and you’re what being, and that is what’s being used to create a new convolutional neural networks and neural networks on the internet. So, I think we need to hold them accountable for this usage of data, because this is truly not their data. I think for sustainable solutions, what will really help you get more involved in such solutions will be more funding for youth. I think governments can do more funding targeted for youth below the ages of 18, where they have to exercise their creativity, because many avenues require like a computer, hardware, processing power, and it’s quite hard to achieve in this modern day and age. But I think sharing more resources such as online courses, I think Google gets free courses, and I think Google Colab is a great resource for online development. So, I think by doing so and giving more resources for students like us, I think we’ll be able to have a greater impact. Thank you. Thank you. So, now we are going

Ethan Chern:
I have nothing to add on, yeah.

Denise Leal:
Thank you, so now we are going to listen to our online speakers, and please, Jose, are you there to address the word?

Osei Kagyah:
So, yeah, I think a lot has been said. I’ll not maybe add a lot to it, and I’ll just exercise brevity that as youth, as young people, we are at the forefront of innovation, and we just need to more do effective collaboration, most importantly, and bring our energies together. So, I do believe the IGF provides a very, very, very, very big platform for all of us to collaborate from India to Hong Kong to Brazil to Comoros, to just bring our energies together and just solve the elephants in the room. So, I will move on to our next speaker to just speak on that too.

Denise Leal:
So, please, now we are going to listen to James on the topic. James, please present yourself and give us your views.

James Amattey:
Hi, thank you very much. My name is James from the University of Hong Kong, and I’m a student at the University of Hong Kong, and I’m from Ghana. And to touch a bit on the topic, I believe that some of our panelists have spoken at range on what the youth can do to develop sustainable initiatives. Now, I do believe that in as much as we are trying to get the youth, there is still some inexperience that we could learn from pre-existing solutions. So, in that sense, we want to be able to call on collaboration, whether with government, whether with big firms, to be able to help transition the youth into the capacity and the knowledge that is required to innovate and run some of these initiatives. Because very unique, these initiatives are very difficult to carry on without that collaboration, whether it’s in terms of capital, whether it’s in terms of resources, whether it’s in terms of training, whether it’s also in terms of getting the youth perspective on initiatives and policies to be able to ship guard the future. So, I think that collaboration will be key in helping us get to where we want to get to in terms of a collaboration in sustainable innovation. Thank you.

Denise Leal:
Thank you, James. Now, we are going to listen to Nicholas speaking about his perspective about these questions. Please, Nicholas, go on.

Nicolas Fiumarelli:
Yes, I think that this, for example, when you mentioned about the collaboration between the different platforms, I think it’s very important to highlight that these technological advancements need to be shaping our every move on economic pursuits. But we need to know that there is an effort from the private sector to do this because of, obviously, a commercial interest. But what we are trying to, or at least from my perspective, what the youth want to have is more opportunities for creating, for example, taking advantage of these collaborations to create a lot of environments and different applications, new ideas that could shape the new innovative solutions and so on. So, I think that we need to recognize that we are in a new era, in a new century, and sustainability is not just on collaboration and innovative ideas, but also about the environment. That is very important. It’s a broader spectrum. And economic sustainability ensures that these communities are driven and created today and don’t lead to economic pitfalls. But social sustainability as well asks us to look beyond our immediate circles and consider global equity, ensuring that the progress is not only benefiting the privileges, but everyone. So, we are always changing topics because we cannot have, as we say in the beginning, innovation if we don’t have these privileges in the same loop. So, the environment remains at the core of the sustainability, I think, in these extreme weather conditions, the climate of our planet, the carbon footprint, as our panelists from Asia-Pacific mentioned at the beginning. So, to have a balance in our ecosystem is a priority, and the choices we make today will definitely be the legacy we leave behind. So, what can I do? I can pose this question to the panelists. From choosing to reduce waste to supporting sustainability businesses and advocating for policies that prioritize long-term ecological wealth over things, the corporate legacy is increasingly recognizing the profitability of sustainability, but often the synergies are failing, right? So, I put this as a common thing in the panel and maybe see if we can address these

Denise Leal:
challenges. Thank you, Nicolas. Before the speakers start to share their final thoughts, I would like to open the mics for the audience to propose questions if you wish to. So, we have any online or on-site questions? This is the moment for it. Yes, please go on.

Audience:
As a youth passionate about promoting sustainability through technological innovation, technological innovation, what specific resources and support would you like policymakers to provide to empower you and your peers in driving sustainable technological advancements other than funding? Because I heard Boris said funding would be a great help for you, but any other things other than funding would be a good help for your involvement?

Denise Leal:
Let’s listen to the other question and then we are going to answer both of them. Please go on.

Audience:
Thank you very much. I’m very impressed with this session. My name is Peter Bruch, I’m the chairman of the World Summit Award and we run also the Young Innovators Award around the world for people who are using digital for a positive social impact and for achieving the SDGs. I was very moved by the presentation and also by the words from our friend here from the Democratic Republic of Congo and I have a question following his presentation where he outlined and stressed also the need to learn and to have the capacity to be able to participate in something like the IGF. And I have a question to the panel here is what would be in terms of a ranking of priorities the most important things which you would need in order to feel that you are actually able to really present a meaningful impact and also have a clear enough understanding of how to make it in terms of this opportunity of youth participation in the IGF. Thank you.

Denise Leal:
Thank you for your questions. So before making more questions and answering I would like to ask everyone to talk a little slowly and also more clearly out loud because it reflects on the subtitles and since we were on the other panel it was about accessibility so we must have accessible subtitles, right? Thank you for telling us. Now we are going to we have some online questions but before the online questions we are going to answer our on-site participants so please go on who wants to start answering it. I can take the first question. Okay and then Boris want okay thank you. Please go on.

Atanas Pahizire:
Thank you brother. You just mentioned what do we need other than financial resources to make sure so that we can foster innovation and youth participation. Actually, young people are working around startups and innovative solutions, small and middle enterprises with the resources that we can have, that we have. But sometimes administrative burdens too much to handle for us. I’m talking from an entrepreneurship point of view as a co-founder of a startup in my country. The kind of administrative paperwork they will ask you as a young people, you are like, seriously, why are you trying to make the whole thing hard? You are trying to build an impact, you are trying to get your own financial resources while fostering innovation. But the administrative processes can always very tough for young people. I think that’s one other thing that policy makers can help us to ensure that we can build innovation. So if, other than the administrative paperwork when we are talking about small and middle enterprises, one other thing I would like to mention is also, sorry, a second. So other than that, it’s also collaboration. For a young guy to move from one region to another one, lastly, had troubles going to the Latin American region. I cannot access the visa issues is a big problem for young people. I don’t know what you think about, I’m just something about the immigration people. Maybe they think we are going, I don’t know if we are going to steal a vote, but there is more room for collaboration and inter-regional collaboration. But our immigration policies are not really helping this collaboration between regions. So I think that’s one other thing that policy makers can work on to make sure that young people can innovate. If I can go to Hong Kong and Denise can come to Congo and easily work on the same project, put resources together, put knowledge together, and there we can foster innovation. But with all these immigration problems and mostly affecting the young people, it’s very tough. So that’s another thing that we can work on. And yes, financial resources are also very important and the key solution to that as well. Thank you.

Denise Leal:
Thank you, Adeniz, for your answer. We have Deborah online, but wait just a moment. Deborah Boris is going to answer the other question that we had on seat and then we can have you talking and making your question.

Boris:
I’m going to try to answer the two questions together. I think they’re quite related. So I think the most important thing for youth to make an impact, I think my ranking would be knowledge, a suitable environment, and then mentors. I think knowledge is that knowledge has to be accessible. So people need to be able to access resources that teach them about new things. So let’s say we need to learn about the metaverse. It’s about knowing about it. You wouldn’t act on it and you wouldn’t learn skills like blockchain programming, which are required in the field like cryptocurrency and other like metaverse-related things. I think secondly is the environment because without the right environment, like brought by government policies, you wouldn’t be able to practice your skills and also learn the most updated skills. So I think a policy that I would support is increasing the intersection between public, private, and civil society in Hong Kong, which will allow more collaboration between companies and individuals, as well as the government, to provide resources and maybe training programs for individuals to learn more skills in order to slowly build themselves up for impact. I think lastly is mentors because through the power of mentors, I believe that young people are able to truly exert themselves. And then using their skills they have learned, they’re able to find the right places to exert themselves. So I think a mentor at a company will be able to help individuals such as me learn like greater skills and deliver an impact. I think for policies, I think policies would mainly be increasing the amount of interaction that youth and older people have because I think the age gap is what helps people learn. I think people being at the forefront of the industry, teaching their skills to youth, it will really help them gain the most up-to-date, best information. Thank you.

Denise Leal:
Thank you. So now let’s go in to listen to Deborah. You have a question?

Deborah:
Well, I do. And that was perfect. The speaker who just spoke, I don’t know your name, but I know you guys are still talking. The networking. I wanna talk about the networking concept. Okay, so I just gotta give you a little background of who I am and then I’m gonna make an offer for you all because I believe very much in networking. I believe in the Zoom coffee. I have a nonprofit in The Hague called findoutwhy.info. Oh, sorry. Too loud or go quicker?

Denise Leal:
Oh, yes, please. If you could slow down your speech.

Deborah:
Sorry.

Denise Leal:
Yes, thank you.

Deborah:
I’ll speak a little bit further away from the mic.

Denise Leal:
Thank you.

Deborah:
Okay. Okay. And this is just proof. I have online, offline, how I can see what you’re doing and I saw that you needed something to change. Okay, so back to the story. findoutwhy.info, based in The Hague, Digital Fluency Lab. All of you are talking about the need for digital literacy, et cetera, okay? So please do reach out. You can find me on LinkedIn using my name and tell me how you met me if you’re interested in what I’m gonna offer. So one-to-one mentoring is one of the things that we do. And as I said, we’re based in The Hague. You know, I work across all sectors. You know, I work across all sectors. I work with, based in Utrecht is, for example, Team Liquid. And for those of you who do video gaming and understand the importance of that in the future, you’re the digital architects of the future. And the one thing I wanna be really sure to say to you is you have the seniority. You don’t have to wait for the hierarchy to invite you to the table. Take your seat at the table. And you talk often about collaborations. It’s also about, which you just said, about mentoring and allies, and we’re allies, okay? Find out why we’re allies for getting a seat at the table and getting you in the door. So please make use of it. I’m offering that to you just now. Reach out and you’ll find out that we’re here for you. And I think being in the place of the digital realm with the Digital Fluency Lab and the idea of peace in the city of peace and justice, we have aligned values and our core ideals on fairness, human rights, trustworthiness, and privacy. And I think it’s important, as many of the speakers have said, about how we have to build our own network in a way. I’m a non-traditional at this. I was a clothing designer in New York City in the 1980s and 1990s. So I know the value chain. I know the supply chain and the manufacturing chain on a global level. I’ve been through a pandemic. I’ve been through the AIDS pandemic in the 80s. I’ve gone through the financial crash. I’ve raised two sons at the foot of 9-11. So I come to you with that sort of gravitas in terms of navigating through different industries, through reinvention and so on. And so I offer Find Out Why to you as a mentor. Thank you very much for opening my mic. And I wish you guys all the very best. Believe in yourself, trust yourself. Last point I want to make. Find out why we talk about trustworthiness. And we don’t believe that the youth have a problem with trust. We believe that the youth understand betrayal better than any other generation has in the recent history. And you have the gravitas flex on it. And so I say that, and I just really want to applaud all of you. So thank you very much.

Denise Leal:
Thank you, Deborah, for your considerations and also for your questions. We are now going to listen to our speakers making their final thoughts and also answering your question. Let’s start with Nicolas, please. We only have seven minutes more and we are going out without subtitles. So let’s go fast with it. Everyone, go on, Nicolas.

Nicolas Fiumarelli:
Yes, just a few reflection points also about the question on the youth, the role of the youth in the internet governance. You know that the young individuals suffer like this fresh perspective on the challenges and it’s essential to have youth participation in forums like the ICF because we can express our concerns, aspirations and challenges. And also as we have seen in the panelists, the younger generation in developing countries is often at the forefront of this digital innovation or grassroots campaigns sometimes. So participating in the internet governance is an opportunity to highlight our ground realities or share our successful models, right? So as digital natives, the youth have like a keen interest in the technological backbone of the internet. So these sustainable practices are not just an afterthought but are integrated from the get-go. So by forming more alliances or partnerships as other were mentioning between the regions as well, we can share our experiences and make the collective voices more and more stronger at these international forums. Finally, just to mention a few more things is like often more environmentally conscious can be catalysts for driving sustainable practices in the tech industry. And the ICF can focus on mentorship programs as were mentioned, targeting maybe young individuals or ensuring that they have the appropriate skills and knowledge to contribute effectively to the discussions. That is like the active participation of the youth in internet governance is super related with advancing in sustainability because ensuring that the digital future is not only sustainable and inclusive, we have seen it, but also resonating with the aspirations and concerns our generation will be most impacted by it. Thank you.

Denise Leal:
Thank you, Nicolas. Now let’s go for the final considerations of James. James.

James Amattey:
Yes. Thank you very much. I believe I am at a slower pace now. So first of all, I would like to say that the youth are currently the forefront of the digital economy and we are closer to most of the problems. So I think that I’m actually grateful for platforms like these, where we can be able to share our knowledge, share our experiences and our points of view to be able to communicate that across. Now, it is very imperative for us to also take the initiatives to come to the forefront to share our views. Now, sometimes it can be very intimidating because we may think we lack experience, but I do believe that keeping quiet is not the way to go as our thoughts and our voices are very necessary to be able to progress current conversations. And I also like the fact that the older generation is now more open to offering mentorship to the younger ones so that we could learn and be able to bridge that knowledge gap. So I do believe that we can catalyze or take off from this platform to be able to develop various initiatives in our economy. But thank you very much for having me. Another question.

Denise Leal:
Thank you, James and Osei. Let’s go for your final considerations. I don’t see Osei. Maybe he’s gone already. Okay, and I think that Shraddha also has an internet issue and will not be able to speak now. And we are going to our own seat, speakers’ considerations now.

Atanas Pahizire:
Please, let’s begin with Adenis. Thank you, Denise. The youth is ready to participate. The youth is ready to foster innovation. With the low resource we have, with the zeal we have, we are ready to build sustainable innovation. So whatever we need, we are going to go for it. Whether it’s a seat at the table when it’s not given, whether it’s the resource, we are trying in our own way to find this, we’re talking about the environment, to make the environment good enough for us to build that innovation. And so what I would say as a parting remarks to encourage everybody, whether you are a legal practitioner, whether you are a software engineer like me, to continue to build that sustainability. Even if you don’t have all the requirements, even if the environment is not ready enough, just start small, continue in the small way, and fight for what you want. That will be it for me, thank you.

Denise Leal:
Thank you, Teresinha.

Celestine Alves:
Well, I think I will just follow what he just said, because I think sometimes we behave as more participation, more diversity would be just cool and beautiful, but it’s not about that. We need more people, we need different kind of people, because we have problems, complex problems, and we need to think critically and more profound about these problems, and we cannot solve these problems without bringing to the table people who have been affected by these problems. And we need, I think he is not here anymore, but in this question he asked something about our priorities, and a kind of ranking of what are the youth priorities. And I think one of the priorities would be really be able and invited to participate into the decisions, because we have been invited to participate into the discussions, but this is not enough. We need to be part of the decision as well, and our ideas and our thoughts, what we have been finding, because we have been researching, we have been seeing and facing experiences that really could help it, but if you are not even really listening, if people don’t take our ideas, this is bad for everyone. So this is my final, I thank you to be here, and that’s it.

Denise Leal:
Thank you, now we are going to end the session with Boris and Ethan, please go on.

Ethan Chern:
So before I say anything, I gotta thanks Denise and Nicholas to invite me and Boris to this discussion, which is my pleasure. And in my opinion, not only youth, but everyone here, no matter how old are you, or no matter how young are you, we can make impact to this world. We can let the world to become more sustainable. This is, and our goal, our goal is basically the sustainable development goals, this is our common goals that we wanna achieve. And I believe that if everyone of us cooperate together, no matter your age, no matter your sex or whatever, we can cooperate together and let this world to become more and more better, and that’s all, thanks.

Boris:
I think just to end this in a positive light, I think I’ve learned a lot from this IGF experience. I think it was really successful. I hope everyone here stays connected and collaborative in the future, and that everyone, unrestricted by their age, can make a change in their own communities. Thank you.

Denise Leal:
Thank you, and for finalizing it, we had a comment on the chat. It’s Andrea Palomino talking about a project that they have to include youth on the police process and bridge gaps between youth and decision makers. It’s youth for our data future, so please follow them on their website and let’s keep this beautiful work. We count on you for a better future on the IG community. Thanks, everyone, for being here.

Audience:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Brent Carey

New Zealand has shown its commitment to online safety by enacting the Harmful Digital Communications Act in 2016. This legislation takes a principles-based approach to address various forms of online harm, including incitement to commit suicide, breach of confidentiality, and harassment. The act covers both criminal and civil aspects, with NetSafe, a government-approved NGO agency, managing the civil side.

NetSafe plays a vital role in helping New Zealanders resolve online disputes through mediation. Each year, over 25,000 individuals seek assistance from NetSafe, with more than 7,000 engaging in the mediation process. This demonstrates the effectiveness of NetSafe in providing a platform for conflict resolution in the digital realm.

NetSafe has also led the development of the ‘Aotearoa Online Safety Code’, launched in July 2022. This code, supported by major platforms like TikTok, Meta, Amazon, Twitch, and Twitter, addresses issues such as hate speech, disinformation, and misinformation. By adopting risk-based approaches, the code aims to tackle these challenges and create a safer digital environment.

New Zealand is actively seeking innovative approaches to address emerging online harms and learn from global best practices. They have produced a discussion paper titled ‘Safer Online Services and Media Platforms Bill’ to explore content regulation. Additionally, NetSafe participates as an observer in global regulators’ forums, engaging in relevant discussions.

To ensure a comprehensive and collaborative approach to internet safety, different stakeholders need to come together for discussions. This collaboration within the digital ecosystem creates spaces and opportunities for diverse parts of the infrastructure to engage in meaningful conversations.

Industry-led interventions are considered crucial in promoting online safety. By providing a platform for different voices, these interventions contribute to a balanced and effective response to online threats.

However, the regulation of platforms has raised concerns about the withdrawal of news and media plurality. Some platforms have expressed plans to withdraw and stop providing news in response to regulations such as the Fair Digital Media Bill. This highlights the challenge of balancing regulation with maintaining a diverse media landscape.

The importance of media plurality and media literacy is widely acknowledged. Media plurality is seen as crucial for a vibrant civil society, while media literacy empowers individuals to critically navigate the digital world.

The existing media landscape is undergoing significant transformations due to the influence of both old and new media. Brent Carey suggests that understanding these changing dynamics and effective responses are necessary in this evolving landscape.

Preserving online privacy is of utmost importance, and New Zealand has implemented stringent measures to tackle privacy violations. The Harmful Digital Communications Act imposes penalties of a $50,000 fine or two years imprisonment for posting intimate images without consent. The New Zealand police actively prosecute such offenses, emphasizing the seriousness of this issue.

Brent Carey supports severe repercussions for online privacy violations and highlights the effectiveness of the Harmful Digital Communications Act in addressing such breaches.

Encouraging the online industry to uphold the highest standards of safety and corporate citizenship is essential. Brent Carey believes in striving for the highest standards, rather than settling for lower ones exhibited by certain platforms. Companies like Twitter have taken steps in this direction, as evidenced by Brent Carey’s involvement with Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council and their commitment to online safety through localized data.

It is worth noting that the discussion did not cover the Judaic argument, as Brent Carey explicitly declined to discuss it. This suggests that certain limitations or sensitivities may exist concerning specific topics within the broader discourse of online safety and governance.

In conclusion, New Zealand’s enactment of the Harmful Digital Communications Act reflects its commitment to online safety. NetSafe’s mediation services and the ‘Aotearoa Online Safety Code’ further enhance efforts to address online disputes and tackle issues such as hate speech and misinformation. New Zealand actively explores innovative strategies and seeks global best practices to combat emerging online harms. Collaboration among stakeholders is crucial for effective internet safety, and industry-led interventions play a vital role. However, challenges remain regarding platform regulation and media plurality. Preserving online privacy and promoting the highest standards of safety and corporate citizenship are key priorities.

Rishika Chandra

Fiji is at the forefront of recognising the significance of online safety and has taken concrete steps to ensure a secure digital environment for its citizens. In 2018, Fiji enacted the Online Safety Act, which laid the foundation for the establishment of the Online Safety Commission in 2019. The commission has made considerable progress in organising awareness and education programmes to educate people about potential risks and equip them with the necessary tools to protect themselves online.

Furthermore, Fiji has been actively involved in fostering international cooperation and knowledge sharing in tackling online abuse through its participation in the Global Online Safety Regulators Network. Formed in 2022, the network includes members from Fiji, the UK, Australia, Ireland, Africa, and Korea. This collaboration has been instrumental in promoting the exchange of ideas and experiences in combating online abuse on a global scale.

The partnership between the Online Safety Commission and eSafety Commissioner Australia, along with social media platforms such as Meta and TikTok, plays a crucial role in promoting online safety. Under this arrangement, the organisations work together to support online safety in Fiji and Australia by sharing best practices, raising awareness of online safety trends and emerging issues, and developing national online safety strategies. One of the primary ways they collaborate with these tech companies is through their content reporting systems, which enable users to report harmful and inappropriate content for swift action.

Governments around the world face the challenge of balancing regulations on online content and data privacy without infringing upon individuals’ rights to free speech or impeding innovation. While it is important to protect users from harmful content or cyber threats, it is equally essential to ensure that regulations do not stifle freedom of expression or impede the progress of technological advancements.

Fiji has taken a strong stance against online harassment, cyberbullying, image-based abuse, and child exploitation, criminalising these offences. The penalties are significant, including imprisonment and fines. However, it is worth noting that defamation is not covered under Fiji’s Online Safety Act.

To effectively regulate social media platforms, Fijians need a better understanding of their design, policies, and community guidelines. It is crucial for individuals to be aware of how these platforms work to navigate them safely. While social media platforms can be dangerous, they also serve as a means of connectivity and communication.

Building strong relationships and collaborations with social media platforms is vital in achieving a balance between regulation and individual rights. By working in a collaborative manner with these platforms, it becomes possible to address online safety concerns effectively.

In conclusion, Fiji’s commitment to online safety is commendable, with the enactment of the Online Safety Act and the establishment of the Online Safety Commission. The country’s active participation in international networks and partnerships, along with efforts to educate its citizens and collaborate with social media platforms, further solidifies Fiji’s position as a leader in this field. However, it is essential for governments to find a balance between regulation and individual rights, ensuring the protection of users while fostering innovation and free speech.

Audience

During the discussion, several key points were raised by different speakers. One audience member expressed concern about the involvement and engagement of civil society within the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). They questioned the extent to which civil society is included and heard in participatory discussions such as the IGF. This raised questions about the room and role for civil society and their ability to influence decisions.

Another speaker highlighted the importance of partnerships and their role in addressing the demands and concerns of civil society. They emphasized the need for the partnership to consider and respond to the voices and needs of civil society, particularly in the areas of peace, justice, strong institutions, and partnerships for the goals.

Doubts were also raised about the effectiveness of voluntary industry associations, specifically in sectors such as automotive, advertising, and digital identity. The audience member noted that voluntary industry associations in these sectors have failed to bring about significant change or address the concerns of stakeholders. This raised skepticism about the potential success of a new voluntary industry association.

The need to strike a balance between government and private sector involvement in regulating the internet was a key point of discussion. One speaker questioned the current system of industry-led regulation of the internet and advocated for a more balanced approach that includes government involvement. They highlighted the example of Canada’s Bill C-11 Online News Act, which required tech companies to pay news outlets for posting or linking content. This led to Meta removing news from their platforms, raising questions about the control that companies have over the digital space.

On the other hand, a speaker argued that less regulation can lead to better outcomes. They referenced the positive effects of the relatively unrestricted early internet and suggested that excessive government regulation can hinder innovation and progress. This viewpoint advocated for self-regulation as a solution, suggesting that businesses should take responsibility for their actions and address any potential harm caused.

Notably, there were contrasting viewpoints on self-regulation between different cultural contexts. A South Korean panel member advocated for self-regulation, while Europe has shifted towards government regulation. This highlighted the different perspectives on how best to regulate the internet and the need for cross-cultural understanding and collaboration.

The enforcement of online moderation rules and regulations was a point of concern, with many customers expressing dissatisfaction. The speaker called for transparency in the enforcement process but also highlighted the impact it may have on revealing business strategies. Striking a balance between transparency and maintaining customer trust was deemed essential.

In terms of partnership expansion, there was a call to bring more gaming companies into the fold and to establish rules and expectations specific to the gaming industry. This recognizes the unique challenges and dynamics within the gaming sector and the need for tailored approaches.

The challenges of information sharing within companies and content moderation were also discussed. Companies have been relatively low profile about information sharing within their functions, but there is a shift towards more sharing while considering trade-offs. Additionally, the stress and challenges faced by content moderators were highlighted through the game “Moderator Mayhem,” underscoring the need for a deeper understanding of the positions and support given to those responsible for content moderation.

The credibility of voluntary industry action in trust and safety was called into question, particularly considering the activities of certain companies in this space. There were concerns that their actions might undermine the overall credibility and effectiveness of voluntary action in ensuring trust and safety.

Finally, a speaker suggested that a non-prescriptive duty of care for user safety would be a better legislative approach. This would involve holding companies accountable for ensuring the safety of their users without prescribing specific actions or methods.

In conclusion, the discussion covered a wide range of topics related to civil society involvement, the effectiveness of voluntary industry associations, government and private sector involvement in regulating the internet, contrasting viewpoints on self-regulation, the enforcement of online moderation rules, challenges in the gaming industry, information sharing within companies, the credibility of voluntary industry action, and legislative approaches to user safety. Noteworthy observations include the importance of considering civil society demands and concerns, the need for balance and collaboration in regulation, and the challenges faced in content moderation and information sharing.

David Sullivan

The Digital Trust and Safety Partnership (DTSP) was launched by David Sullivan in February 2021 to establish best practices for trust and safety online using a risk-based approach. It aims to develop specific standards and practices for companies’ services. DTSP emphasizes the importance of tailoring assessments and practices based on company size and risk. One of its key goals is to prevent internet fragmentation and support a free and open internet by developing international standards on trust and safety. DTSP believes that adopting a risk-based approach and conducting third-party assessments can help achieve these goals. The partnership values the input of stakeholders, including industry perspectives, and aims to engage in broad consultations. DTSP recognizes the significance of independent third-party reviews to provide objective assessments of company practices. It also highlights the changing concept of self-regulation within companies as emerging regulatory regimes are established globally. David Sullivan advocates for greater transparency in online moderation processes and regulations, while also considering trade-offs. DTSP refrains from commenting on specific companies’ activities to maintain industry credibility. The partnership acknowledges previous challenges faced by voluntary industry associations and emphasizes the need for proper implementation and alignment with emerging regulations. It also recognizes the spread and challenge of digital authoritarianism and emphasizes the need for collective action beyond individual company initiatives. Overall, the DTSP aims to establish best practices for trust and safety online by tailoring assessments, considering various perspectives, advocating for international standards, and promoting transparency in online moderation processes. The partnership is committed to driving positive change in enhancing the trust and safety of the online environment.

Nobuhisa Nishigata

In Japan, except for broadcasting, there is no direct regulation of online content by the government. However, there are certain issues that persist, such as cyberbullying, online slandering, and the distribution of pirated content, particularly manga. Despite these challenges, the Japanese government places great importance on respecting freedom of speech and expression.

Measures have been taken to address these issues, including regulations against spam and finding a balance between public safety and human rights. The government acknowledges the need to protect children from online harm and encourages voluntary efforts for software installation and filter optimization. Additionally, discussions have arisen about the liability of internet service providers and their prompt actions in response to harmful content.

There is a positive outlook for the future development of the Digital Trust & Safety Partnership (DTSP) and a recognition of the importance of combating pirated content without direct regulation. Japan believes in learning from successful practices of companies and sees co-regulation as an effective approach to tackle online content issues.

Concerns have been raised regarding public safety and the activities of tech companies. The frustrations of tech companies with government involvement are acknowledged. However, Japan remains committed to maintaining an open and free internet. The commitment of Japanese Prime Minister Kishida and Japan’s support for the Future Declaration on the Internet exemplify this dedication. Additionally, the importance of effective internet governance was emphasized at the G7 ministerial meeting in Takasaki.

Media literacy and caution about relying too heavily on online media and social networking sites (SNS) for information are highlighted. Concerns are expressed about companies lacking journalistic backgrounds and the variation in information depending on the country.

The handling of content-related matters, such as harassment and defamation, as criminal offenses varies depending on the case. Jurisdiction plays a role in determining the approach taken, and for more serious offenses, law enforcement may directly charge individuals. In other cases, private lawsuits can result in sanctions or mitigation.

Nobuhisa Nishigata, mentioned in the discussions, expresses optimism about the further development of digitalization work in the United States. Nishigata supports private-led investment in digital infrastructure and believes the government should act primarily as a coordinator. Japan has already established a basic law concerning digitalization and the digital society, which emphasizes private-led investment in digital infrastructure.

Lastly, there is an expressed interest in a Japanese company joining global partnerships. The importance of partnerships and global cooperation, particularly in relation to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal 17: Partnerships for the Goals, is emphasized.

In summary, while the Japanese government does not directly regulate online content, challenges and concerns persist regarding cyberbullying, online slandering, and pirated content. Respect for freedom of speech and expression is highly valued by the government. Measures such as regulations against spam, finding a balance between public safety and human rights, and involving tech companies in ensuring public safety are being discussed. The future development of the DTSP and the interest in joining global partnerships reflect Japan’s commitment to addressing these issues while maintaining an open and free internet.

Angela McKay

Angela McKay, a technology risk expert, strongly supports the concept of a free, open, and interoperable internet. She acknowledges the desire of global companies to operate in a global market and expresses encouragement toward conversations surrounding this vision. McKay recognizes that collaborative solutions are necessary to address the changing technology and harms landscape. Drawing from her experience in technology risk, she identifies similarities between the discussions around online harm and her field. She notes that governments, civil society, and companies have realized the importance of collaborating to tackle these issues effectively.

In terms of regulation and transparency, McKay believes that these approaches should reflect the cultural values and norms of a region. She acknowledges that regardless of the approach taken, governments represent the cultural values of their respective regions. This implies that regulatory and transparency approaches must be sensitive to cultural variations.

McKay advocates for a risk-based approach to address online harms. She highlights the need for companies to adopt risk-based approaches and emphasizes the importance of considering trade-offs to ensure a safe online environment. This approach allows for a more nuanced and flexible response to the complexities of online harms.

Cross-sector dialogue is another crucial aspect highlighted by McKay. She emphasizes the importance of conversations between different entities, citing examples such as the DTSP (Digital Trust and Safety Partnership) within organizations and the Global Online Safety Regulators Forum between regulators. Through dialogue and collaboration, learning can occur, leading to improved practices.

The exchange of best practices among companies of varying sizes is seen as instrumental in supporting global proliferation. McKay notes that the DTSP has partnered with the Global Network Initiative to involve civil society in advancing the Digital Services Act. This collaboration prevents knowledge and expertise from being confined to only large companies, ensuring that even medium and smaller companies have an opportunity to benefit from best practices.

McKay recognizes that the field of operational maturity is continuously evolving. Companies are constantly seeking out novel methods and practices that have not been previously implemented, highlighting their commitment to continuous learning and improvement.

The importance of exchanging ideas among different communities of civil society is stressed by McKay. It is not sufficient for companies alone to engage in dialogue; the participation of civil society is crucial to ensure a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to addressing online harms. McKay mentions that Google has been actively involving civil society members and academics in discussions on topics like child safety. They are also exploring the use of requests for information and online forums to catalyze conversations and gather diverse perspectives.

Advocating for active engagement with civil society, McKay suggests that companies should proactively encourage dialogue and collaboration among different communities. By bringing in external voices and perspectives, companies can better understand and address societal concerns.

While acknowledging the potential benefits of regulation and transparency, McKay cautions against viewing them as a panacea for all problems. She believes that focusing on what behaviors are being aimed to drive is more crucial than fixating on the enforcement method. This perspective challenges the false dilemma of regulation versus transparency, shifting the focus towards the fundamental goal of shaping positive online behaviors.

The progress made in managing cybersecurity risks is acknowledged by McKay. She highlights the evolution from solely focusing on vulnerability management to a more holistic, risk-based approach. This progress highlights the continuous efforts to enhance cybersecurity measures and protect online users.

In conclusion, Angela McKay’s perspectives highlight the importance of a free, open, and interoperable internet, collaboration to address online harms, culturally sensitive regulation and transparency approaches, risk-based management of online harms, cross-sector dialogue for learning and improvement, the exchange of best practices among companies of varying sizes, continuous learning and improvement in operational maturity, the significance of exchanging ideas with civil society, and the need to focus on driving desirable behaviors rather than fixating on enforcement methods. Her insights contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities and potential solutions within the digital landscape.

Kyoungmi Oh

The South Korean government is currently making efforts to exert control over content on various platforms, which has posed challenges and highlighted the need for increased transparency. Civil society organizations in South Korea are requesting platforms to disclose government requests for user information and content takedown, a practice that ceased around 2011.

The inadequacy of the SAFE (Safety, Audit, Feedback, and Enforcement) framework in addressing the unique aspects of the digital industry has been noted. The framework fails to consider the importance of freedom of expression and privacy, and the potential harms that occur when content is taken down or censored. This calls for a more nuanced approach to trust and safety that prioritizes protecting freedom of expression.

Collaboration with digital rights organizations and civil society is crucial for effectively managing trust and safety in the digital industry. The Trust and Safety Council of Twitter serves as an example of successful collaboration, incorporating a wider range of perspectives and insights into content regulation decisions. Limited transparency with recognized human rights organizations under appropriate non-disclosure agreements is also seen as beneficial.

Incorporating industry-specific considerations and placing greater emphasis on enforcement and transparency within the SAFE framework is necessary. The current framework falls short in addressing the unique characteristics of the digital industry, with abstract questions that do not cater to its specifics. Clarity on what content should be taken down is lacking, leading to confusion and potential bias in decision-making.

Self-regulation is preferred over governmental regulation, as endorsed by South Korean civil society organizations. However, transparency in the self-regulation process is crucial due to the diverse interests, goals, and missions of different organizations.

South Korea has enacted legislation to address cybercrimes, particularly harassment and sexual abuse. The Punishment Act allows the communication network to punish offenders and provides a legal framework for combating these crimes.

In conclusion, the South Korean government’s control over platform content and the shortcomings of the SAFE framework have raised concerns regarding transparency, freedom of expression, and privacy. Collaboration with digital rights organizations and civil society, industry-specific considerations, and enforcement are essential for effective trust and safety management. While self-regulation is preferred, transparency in the self-regulation process is crucial. Legislation addressing cybercrimes demonstrates South Korea’s commitment to combating online abuse. Addressing these issues will contribute to a more inclusive and secure digital environment.

David Sullivan:
Hi, everyone. Welcome to this open forum on the Digital Trust and Safety Partnership. We are just sorting out one matter technically, and then we will get started. Okay. Am I able to control the slides? Yeah. Okay. Because I don’t know how I ‑‑ so good afternoon, everyone, and good morning, good afternoon, and good evening to anyone who is joining us remotely. I’m David Sullivan. I’m the Executive Director of the Digital Trust and Safety Partnership. We’re thrilled to be here at the IGF holding our open forum. What we’re going to do today is first I am going to tell you a little bit more about the Digital Trust and Safety Partnership, our objectives, the progress we’ve made, our approach to really articulating industry best practices for trust and safety online, and then we’ll talk about what that means for the free and open internet, and we have a terrific panel of guests and experts joining us from across the region, around the world, different stakeholder constituencies, and we will so have that panel discussion, and then we’ll really try to benefit from the expertise of everyone here in the room and save plenty of time for open discussion and Q&A. So with that, I’m happy to get started. I just ‑‑ yeah. Okay. Great. Yeah. Here’s our agenda. Just mentioned. And I’ll introduce our panelists in a moment when we get to that piece, but first let me tell you all a little bit more about the Digital Trust and Safety Partnership. So DTSP launched two and a half years ago in February 2021. We’re really a voluntary industry body that’s come together to articulate best practices for what we call trust and safety. This is a term that is well understood within the industry, within technology companies, where teams responsible for something called trust and safety have often been around for 15 or even 20 years, but it’s a term that is less well understood and maybe is often more thought of within the internet governance space as platform governance, platform regulation, content moderation, online safety, all of the issues around the content and conduct online that we are all concerned about. So our partners have come together to articulate best practices using a risk‑based approach, and I would say that there’s two fundamental aspects to how our partnership works that we want to highlight and start with. The first is that there are many, and I think even within the IGF, probably at other sessions that are going on right now, very important discussions about the sort of normative aspects of how should content be governed and regulated online. What does international human rights law say about this? What does national law and regulation say about this? Our partnership is taking a different point of departure. We are descriptive, and so we say there are practitioners inside tech companies who have been working on these issues. Let’s describe the work that they do. The second fundamental piece is that we are not suggesting that companies offering products and services that are very different from each other, from search engines to social media to instant messaging to dating to video games to sharing economy, the idea is that all of these companies should have their own policies, their own terms of service that are particular to their product, to their audience, but that these companies can use the same practices to address the content and conduct that they do not want to see on their platforms, so we are about aligning companies around practices, not around specific types of content. So, as I said, different risks, different threats for all different types, so there really is no one-size-fits-all approach to trust and safety, and as we know, this is a constantly evolving and changing world. The threats that people are worried about online tomorrow will be different than they are today, and so we need this risk-based approach that is going to evolve over time. Here is just a quick snapshot of our current partner companies, and as you can just see from that quick glance, we bring together companies of different sizes with different business models and very different products and services, but again, trying to align around those common approaches, the common framework, and so here is our best practices framework, which all of our companies commit to, so basically we have five overarching commitments that all of the companies who are partners of DTSP commit to, and they mirror the product development lifecycle and start with product development, so this is really about safety by design and sort of identifying and evaluating content and conduct-related risks in product development, so as I said, this is not particular to child safety, it’s not particular to disinformation, but it can really encompass any of the risks that a company might be concerned about. The second commitment is around governance and adopting the sort of being transparent and adopting explainable rules for their product or service, enforcing those rules in the third commitment around enforcement, improving over time, and then being transparent with the public about how all of these processes take place. So here you can see that underneath those five overarching commitments that I just mentioned, we’ve articulated around 35 specific best practices for trust and safety, and the idea is that companies can use whatever combination of these practices or perhaps identify other practices that are particular for their product or service that they can implement in order to sort of align with our framework. The goal is not really to say that, hey, here is all of the answers to dealing with trust and safety online, but to say here’s a framework, can you find within this what works for your company, for your product, your service. So having best practices is great, but it doesn’t mean anything unless there’s really a robust evaluation and assessment of how companies are using those practices. So the first thing that our organization did after it launched in February of 2021 was to develop a methodology for assessing how companies are implementing these practices, which we published in December of 2021 called the SAFE Framework, and in 2022, our founding companies undertook self-assessments of their own trust and safety practices using this approach. And two things that are fundamental to this approach to assessment, which I think can be relevant to a lot of the conversations that are going on now globally about what to do about these issues about online content. The first is that the assessments are tailored based on risk, so they’re about looking at the size and scale of a company so that we’re not asking a company like Bitly to do the same assessment we would expect of a Google or a Microsoft. And then also look at risk, look at the user volume for a product or service or look at the product features that might introduce levels of complexity or risk that would warrant taking a much more intensive and detailed look at that product or service. And then based on that, companies used this five-step assessment methodology to look at and find out what level of maturity are their products and services. And we actually developed this maturity rating scale, sort of five steps from ad hoc to optimized, and companies used our process to identify where they saw their own practices as less mature or more mature. And because our goal as an industry association is to develop best practices and show accountability, it’s not to be ranking our companies against one another. So in our public report about these practices, which is on our website, DTSPartnership.org, we aggregated and sort of anonymized the results of these self-assessments in order to show what’s the range of maturity for the different practices that our companies are using for online safety. And what we found was here’s where companies saw their practices as being more mature. And these processes, generally speaking, are things that teams within companies responsible for trust and safety or content policy can often do sort of by themselves. Teams that have been working on having policies and standards and enforcing those standards and reporting on those standards, that is where companies tended to find that they were more mature. Looking at where companies saw their practices as less mature and in need of improvement, these are the practices on this slide. And here we can see it’s oftentimes things that involve working with external organizations and externals. So getting input from users on how to shape content policies, working on community self-regulation for the types of services that have that kind of community moderation component, or working with researchers and academics on things like access to data and other programs like that. So this is a snapshot in time that’s now more than a year old, but I do think it sort of gives a sense of where the industry saw itself as doing better and as in need of improvement and something to build on. So where we are now is we’ve shared those results and we are starting to pilot how we can look at having independent assessments, where it’s not the companies assessing themselves, but having independent third-party assessments that can complement or work with or help provide companies with workable solutions for compliance with many of the online content regulation regimes that we’re seeing developing in different places around the world, some of which we’ll talk about in the panel discussion shortly. So just to kind of restate, the objectives for our partnership is really first about bringing companies together to protect people online, protect their safety, and protect their rights. See how these best practices can be supported by governments as they consider their own approaches to content regulation. Grow our membership so that it is reflective of the global world and all of the people who are using these services around the world, so looking for new members from other parts of the world. And look to lay the groundwork for international standards in this space. There’s a number of things that we’ve done recently that I wanted to mention briefly. We’ve just released over the summer an industry glossary of trust and safety terminology in order that our members can kind of align around the baseline definitions for the terms that trust and safety professionals use in their daily lives. Again, that’s on our website, and there’s copies I can share. We have a booth in the exhibition hall where you can also access that via a QR code. We’re also working in multi-stakeholder and public-private partnerships, including with the World Economic Forum’s Global Coalition on Digital Safety, to develop together with civil society and regulators and international organizations some common approaches to things like risk assessment. And we’ve just launched and published a set of guiding principles and best practices for age assurance, showing how our partnership can zero in and develop some practices on specific elements within this broader framework of trust and safety. So as I said, next steps is really looking at those, trying to pilot an approach to third-party assessment, continuing to consult broadly with stakeholders, and support our companies with their efforts towards having really meaningful and transparent compliance with regulations in a way that ultimately makes people safer online. So with that, I think we can move on to the panel discussion here, and I am thrilled to welcome our panelists. So here in the room, we have Nobu from the Ministry of Communications of Japan. We have Kimi from OpenNet Korea, a civil society organization from Korea. We have Angela, who’s the head of Trust and Safety Research and Partnerships at Google and a DTSP board member. And Farzana, do we have our remote speakers as well? Yeah. So online, we have Brent Carey from NetSafe, and we have Rashika from the Online Safety Commission of Fiji. And so really what we wanted to do with this open forum was to, you know, sort of leverage the expertise of the global internet governance community to talk about what does this industry kind of effort on trust and safety mean for a free and open internet, and can, you know, this approach of industry best practices and standards be leveraged to prevent things like internet fragmentation and support the goals that we ultimately want of an internet that facilitates and promotes people’s rights, and while also keeping them safe. So I’m going to start here with you, Nobu, thank you. The Japanese government has been generously hosting us here in Kyoto. It’s been wonderful. So you have really an extensive career in technology policy here in Japan, as well as working at the OECD. And I wanted to ask you, what role do you see in terms of industry practices when it comes to the development of Japan’s approach to regulating online content, and how do you see this potentially supporting or not the goal that I know Japan very much shares of an open and interoperable internet?

Nobuhisa Nishigata:
Hello, everybody. My name is Nobu Nishigara from the Japanese government, and thanks for the kind introduction. And, you know, you guys, everybody is welcome to come here. And then let me say, we also thank you, everybody, for your participation and contribution, which made this event great. So this is now, of course, we did a lot of the job and preparation to host you, but on the other hand, it is not all. Remember that everybody makes this happen. And having said that, and thanks for the question, and then just, you know, before answering directly to the question, let me make it clear that one point that the Japanese government is not engaged in the direct regulation of the online content. I mean, except for the broadcasting. We have some regulations, so do the other countries. We have some regulation on the broadcast content, but on the other hand, we don’t have the direct regulation on the online content yet. But on the other hand, having said that, again, then, of course, we do respect the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, et cetera. But on the other hand, secondly, though, I have to say that there are several outstanding content issues regarding the online delivery or, you know, circulation, et cetera. So to name a few, and then the CSAM, the spam, or maybe it’s outstanding in Japan, the cyber-bullying, or online slandering, or maybe I would say include the piracy, the content, the deliberation, I mean, delivery, the pirated contents in manga. I mean, regarding the manga piracy issue in Japan, it’s heavy.

David Sullivan:
But please find your time to visit the IJH village, and the exhibition downstairs to stop by the booth and present how we can combat without the direct regulation over the pirated contents. But we still fight, and there are some introductions out there, and you can get some souvenirs as well. That’s a little advertisement, because personally, I organized half part of the exhibitions. Then, like, for those issues, what we do is, like, we have introduced several measures for the mitigation. For example, like, we have the particular regulation to solve a particular problem, like, for spam. Like, we have some particular regulation against spam. And we have some particular regulation to protect the children from the online harms, particularly for the CSAM. And of course, we do have some voluntary works as well. voluntary though, but to enable the filtering installation, software installation, some help with the telephone carriers in the smartphone, etc. And for the same purpose, to keep the children from the online harms. And maybe we have some other regulation. I mean, this could be some common practice within, particularly in, I would say, like-minded countries, but limit the liabilities of the internet service providers to enable their prompt action to avoid the online harms to the people. So, like, these are the, you know, particularly applies to the internet, but the technology is so fast, right? It’s a unique to the internet, I would say. We have to review and update almost every year and everything. So, better than losing my job, it’s okay to be busy, but still, the internet kept us very busy, and this is where the best practice role come in, you know. So, we face several dilemmas, particularly between the public safety versus human rights, right? And the public safety is our biggest concern as a whole government. Or maybe the individual personal safety, particularly who suffered from online harm versus the other people’s human rights, which is going to be where to be the balance, you know. So, you know, it’s a bunch of dilemmas that we face when we have to think about these things. But, you know, that this, actually, personally, though, I’m having the great expectation that the further development of this work at the DTSP, because the advanced information, the best practice, at least, I mean, from the company side, this is going to help us a lot, you know. I mean, we do usually, like, for example, maybe, like, the current European legislation, new legislation, like a Digital Service Act, DSA, that’s going to be the one reference point when we think about the new regulation, I mean, compared to what we have. I mean, it’s a different style, but maybe, like, what we can do as a government is very similar. But maybe one difference is, like, we don’t have, or maybe we have not reached to the level of the core regulation in this area. Like, a company makes a commitment to the government, right? Then, like, the government’s going to evaluate the commitment later. And we have that kind of system toward the regulation on the online platform, but it’s about the competition side. Like, I mean, very similar to the mechanism to the DMA. And actually, Japan predated the EU, so maybe EU’s got a better system, I would say, but we still have some core regulation. It’s a first example, a good first example of the core regulation in Japanese society or Japanese market, I would say. So the core regulation, I mean, even though we don’t really have to do the core regulation, because if we, the information from the company, what they are doing as a good practice is at least, and then it’s going to be available, then we can learn from them. Then maybe we can talk to some program having companies that, hey, come on, then take the report, you know? I mean, you don’t really have to, but you have to look at it, and then you can think about fixing a little bit about your conduct, you know? I mean, otherwise, you know, if it gets mandatory, then it’s going to be huge, heavy work for the government and maybe some bad reputation to the company as well. So it’s kind of lose and lose situation in which we don’t want to have in many cases. So that kind of expectation I already have, and then just, you know, I just talked about some of the example of the online content issue in Japan, but, you know, the tour, the open and interpretable internet, and it is not only the content issue, but, you know, there are many, many issues with the internet. I mean, of course, as a government person, I understand that some frustration comes in from the tech company, you know, that, come on, don’t get into the market, you know, government should stay away from it. We understand to some extent, but on the other hand,

Nobuhisa Nishigata:
you know, as I said, public safety concerns us, right? So there could be some, well, I mean, it’s going to be easier if we could draw the line, but the line is not a straight single one, so, you know, we have to keep talking, talking those kind of things. So from that perspective, maybe, you know, this best practice as well, that helps. And let me finish by one more introduction, and then I’m not sure if you are aware, but our Prime Minister Kishida came to this event in day one, and he made some speeches, and, you know, the highlight maybe for this open forum would be that he committed, and of course we have to follow it once he commits, right? He committed it to the open and free internet to maintain. I mean, there are background, some evidences, like Japan is one of the first countries to express support to the future declaration on the internet, or like as a G7 chair this year, like we led the discussion about, it’s kind of a rare case that the G7 ministers get together. I mean, we have the G7 ministerial meeting every year, but on the other hand, we don’t talk about internet governance very much, but on the other hand, if you can, you have the time to look at the ministerial declaration from Takasaki, it’s on April 30 this year, but we very much having the ticks on internet governance, and, you know, the G7 get together, join force to support this IGF event, or like, you know, making some collaboration effort to task force to cooperate, like, you know, UN GDP initiative, those kind of things to maintain the open free internet. So, you know, these things, I mean, we have to maintain our good environment, right? I mean, the government has to, the thing that the government has to do it, we do it, but, you know, the government cannot solve many problems only by ourselves, and we need your help to push these things forward. So, thank you very much. Maybe I should stop here.

David Sullivan:
Thank you very much, Nobu. I think that was great. I’m already starting to hear some themes that I think other speakers will come back to, in terms of the value of the conversation between companies and regulators and other stakeholders, the importance of the leadership of states like Japan, especially taking this to the G7, raising internet governance there. But, of course, there are many states around the world, and this segues nicely to turn to our first online speaker, Rishika Chandra, from Fiji’s Online Safety Commission. So, I think what we know is that while many states, and Fiji I commend for taking the lead as a small island state working on safety of people online, but not all states have the same level of resources and the same heft that either the European Union that you mentioned with the Digital Services Act or Japan might have. But nonetheless, these states are working together and thinking about ways to pool resources and work together to coordinate in terms of online safety, and there I was particularly hoping that Rishika can tell us about the work that Fiji is doing as well through the Global Online Safety Regulators Network in this space. So, Rishika, over to you.

Rishika Chandra:
Thank you. Hello, everyone. Greetings to you all. My name is Rishika, and I’m the Project Officer for the Online Safety Commission Fiji. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the management for making Fiji part of the 18th IGF. Thank you very much. Before diving into the Global Online Safety Regulators Network, I would like to first give a bit of background about online safety as to what we do. So, Fiji is one of the first countries to recognize the importance of online safety and take concrete steps towards ensuring a secure digital environment for its citizens. In 2018, Fiji enacted the Online Safety Act, which paved the way for the establishment of the Online Safety Commission in 2019. Since its inception, the OSC has been dedicated to promoting online safety through various initiatives. One of the primary objectives of the OSC is to raise awareness about online safety among individuals and communities. To achieve this, the commission organizes awareness and education programs that aims to educate people about potential risks and provide them with tools to protect themselves online. So, we partner locally. For example, we have signed a memorandum of understanding with the Fiji Police Force in 2020. They help us to enforce and persecute matters that breaches the Online Safety Act. Additionally, we work with other relevant ministries locally, NGOs, as well as non-governmental agencies to promote online safety and digital literacy. Going on to the international engagements, firstly, I would like to highlight our partnership with eSafety Commissioner Australia. The partnership had been engaged, had been exchanged in 2021. Under this arrangement, the organization works together to support online safety in Fiji and Australia through sharing best practice, raising awareness of online safety trends and emerging issues, develop national online safety strategies, strengthening online safety response capabilities, and working together to achieve mutually beneficial online safety outcomes. Moving on to social media platforms, we partner with Meta and TikTok because in Fiji, there’s a lot of users of Instagram, Facebook, vastly Instagram, Facebook, and TikTok. So, we took this initiative to extend our partnership with Meta and TikTok. We work with them closely. One of the primary ways in which we collaborate with these tech companies is through their content reporting systems. These systems allow users to report any content that they find offensive or harmful. The Commission has been actively using these reporting mechanisms to moderate and take down contents that cause or intends to cause harm to an individual. Furthermore, the Global Online Safety Regulators Network, it was formed back in 2022. It was recently formed. So, the Online Safety Commission, eSafety Australia, and Ofcom are the movers of the network. The purpose of the network is to bring together independent online safety regulators to cooperate across jurisdictions, sharing relevant information, best practice, experience, and expertise, and support harmonized or coordinated approaches to online safety issues. Since its formation, the network has immensely expanded with members from Fiji, UK, Australia, Ireland, Africa, and Korea. The discussion and debates from these networks have played a pivotal role in helping the Commission gain valuable insights into debates into how different countries tackle online abuse and incorporate these safety policies into their laws and how the knowledge sharing platform has provided an opportunity for countries to learn from each other’s experiences, successes, and challenges. Fiji, being a small Pacific country, is making significant strides towards embracing the tech world. However, it can benefit immensely from observing and adopting best practices employed by other nations. By doing so, Fiji can ensure that its citizens are protected against online abuse while fostering a safe digital environment. So, that was about the Global Online Safety Regulators Network. We have recently actually welcomed Africa and Korea to our network. So, basically, we discuss topics around age verification, age assurance. These are some hot topics that we are currently on. Human rights, paper, freedom of speech. So, these are the regulations we usually talk about.

David Sullivan:
There’s like a working-level meetings and a senior-level meeting. I represent the working level and Mr. Jishwari Devi, who’s the Acting Commissioner for the Online Safety Commission, represents the senior level. Thank you. Thank you so much, Rishika. Yeah, so I think it’s really interesting to see how regulators are also sort of thinking about how to come together and where we can find points of interoperability, I think, between what’s happening in the governmental space and what’s happening in the industry space where our partnership works. So, we’re going to ping-pong across the Pacific a little bit and we’ll now turn to Kimmy from OpenNet Korea, a civil society organization that’s really been leading as a watchdog for freedom of expression in Korea. And so, the mention of Korea having joined the regulators network is timely, but I think we wanted to talk about what regulation looks like in Korea and whether you see some opportunities or challenges for the sort of practice-based approach of systems and processes to online safety that we’re promoting when it comes to protecting human rights, particularly in the Korean context. First, thank you for having me and I’m glad to hear that,

Kyoungmi Oh:
you know, Kishida declared OpenNet’s commitment because our president did, either. Yeah, so, but the current situation related to platform companies in South Korea is not good. Actually, it is very bad. The UN government has been trying to control platforms and censor the user-made content under the name of to make a healthy society and foster internet ecosystem. In these circumstances, civil society organizations in South Korea request each platform to disclose the number of government requests for user information and take down contents. I mean, transparency. South Korea has several interesting experiences with transparency. Until 2011, the two big platforms, you know, Naver and Kakao, disclosed a number of government requests for communications data. They published the result on their parency report. This made a huge impact on public opinion and legitimized the platform refusing government requests. I’m focusing on transparency and enforcement when I review this report. Actually, DTSP is an honorable multi-phase initiative by digital companies to enhance the trust and safety of their products. But I also how hard it is to assess different platforms using standardized indexes because each platform is different from each other. Size, earnings, business models, target consumers, and so on. If we can somehow apply all these factors, the result might be different. Here are my comments for improvement as a civil society organization’s researcher. So, it could not be comprehensive. First, I have five comments. First, trust and safety does not take into account the human rights harms when contents are taken down or otherwise censored. Trust and safety is defined in terms of content and conduct-related risk, which is in turn defined as illegal, dangerous, or otherwise harmful content or behavior. The way it is defined, only the contents, not their takedowns, are deemed as causing risks. These are sufficiently protect one important human right, freedom of expression. If one can be harmed directly by another’s contents, that is because it causes mental distress or on the subject or audience. However, censorship can also be dangerous if discerning voices are removed. For instance, in a society charged with religious hatred, majority leaders or the government’s disinformation can trigger violence on the minority, and censoring minorities’ leaders will further weaken them. This is especially important because digital authoritarianism is on the rise. The governments are becoming more and more the source of harmful disinformation and harmful censorship. Second, DTSP’s SAFE framework is so well thought out that it seems adaptable to any country, any industry, not just the digital industry. I can clearly see the same iteration of development, governance, enforcement, improvement, and transparency being very important to the trust and safety of the pharmaceutical industry, for instance. But I am then worried whether the framework sufficiently focuses on the unique aspect of the digital industry, such as freedom of expression or privacy. These three industries have formed a liberating and equalizing core of human civilization. Search engines and platforms have provided powerless individuals with the same power of information and mass communication formally available only to big companies, government, or latest media. Can we define trust and safety in ways that protect the unique civilization significance of the internet, or will DTSP become the numerous consumer product safety initiatives? I think that the success of DTSP lies in whether we can answer these questions correctly. Third, fortunately, one way to strengthen the connection to the unique significance of the digital industry is already reflected in some of the 35 best practices. That is collaboration of digital rights organizations. Now technology has been welcomed as much as internet. It was met by new wave of numerous organizations dedicating to protection of the internet. These organizations and companies have common goals only if the companies allow, deviating a little from their private motives. I’m sorry. DTSPs ask companies to work with organizations in the process of product development, product enforcement, product improvement. However, you need the same element in transparency as well, I think. Actually, without transparency, communication during PD, PE, and PI may not be meaningful. Yeah, limited transparency with recognized human rights organization under appropriate non-disclosure agreement can be very helpful in adding context and nuances to content moderation while not risking abuse by bad actors. Twitter’s, yeah, I’m so sorry, it’s now become X. Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council did this relatively well. Yeah, sharing much more information about new products, enforcement, et cetera, with the civil society. This will answer the other question in DTSPs posed about the difficulty of maintaining transparency while not revealing information that can be used by bad actors for abusing purposes. Limited transparency with civil society group must be explored more. Fourth, the safe framework with 35 best practices, 45 questions is too abstract and procedural. Instead of defining what content should be taken down, the safe framework asks the following questions. How are the content reviews prioritized? And what factors are taken into consideration? What types of tool or systems are used to review content or manage it or review process? What types of process or mechanisms are in place to proactively delete potentially violating content or conduct? Asking these questions is not a problem in itself, but it is hard to evaluate the safe framework based on these open-ended questions because we don’t know how content reviews are possibly prioritized and what possible tools, systems are in place. I think the question should be phrased in yes or no format and should be reflected in the industry’s unique aspects. Yeah, just one more question. Yeah, fifth, DTSPs ask the following questions. DTSP is considering whether some commitment or best practices should be given greater consideration than others when conducting assessment. I think that product enforcement and product transparency are the more important because that is where the rubber meets the tires. That is where the products are in direct touch with the users. What is lacking in development, improvement, government can be compensated by rigorous enforcement and transparency. I should be closed. Thank you for listening.

David Sullivan:
Thank you, Kimi. That is incredibly valuable feedback on some of the real detailed aspects of our framework and also a helpful reminder of the wider human rights context and the importance of that, particularly I think in the world of trust and safety, there’s often a kind of we need to take more things down and we need to think about the consequences of when we take things down as well for the rights of all. So with that, I’m gonna turn to our other remote panelist, Brent Carey from NetSafe New Zealand. Brent, and wanna make sure we save plenty of time for Q&A, so I’ll ask folks to be brief. But Brent, it would be great to hear from you how NetSafe New Zealand is working at the local context and how you are sort of bridging this kind of local context to sort of global company tension that others have already spoken to. Yeah, thank you very much.

Brent Carey:
And thank you to Japan again for Host Nation. I was last in Kobe at the ICANN and I wish I could be with you in person. Obviously, New Zealand has a commitment to online safety. And in New Zealand, we passed the Harmful Digital Communications Act back in 2016. And importantly, that act actually has a number of principles because some of what people have talked about is how fast-paced technology is. And so in the Harmful Digital Communications Act in New Zealand, we have a principles-based approach to dealing with online harm. And those principles cover topics like incitement to commit suicide, breach of confidentiality, harassment, and all sorts of other online issues. And in New Zealand, that scheme has both a criminal and a civil side. And importantly, NetSafe has been approved by the government as an NGO agency to deal with the civil side of tackling online harm. And more than 25,000 New Zealanders call on NetSafe every year to assist them to mediate and resolve disputes between victims, perpetrators, and also platforms. And so more than 7,000 people each year go through our mediation process. And that’s something that is quite unique globally to have an ADR scheme, which is looking to resolve issues between perpetrators and victims and platforms. And importantly too, that’s our local approach. And in our Act, it is a requirement for us to work globally and work with platforms to try and address issues. And we’re really heartened too by this initiative to look at a risk-based approach because a lot of what we’re doing is to look at novel approaches for tackling emerging harms. And I just wanna give one example of that novel approach because I wanna really get into the conversation. NetSafe took the lead to convene the platforms two years ago to think about a voluntary approach to looking at some of the more emerging and edge case harms. Those harms are like hate speech, disinformation, and misinformation. And for more than two years, NetSafe convened a forum, consulted with different stakeholder groups, and eventually in July, 2022, we launched the Aotearoa Online Safety Code, which is a voluntary code with five platform signatories, TikTok, Meta, Amazon, Twitch, Twitter, or X, as we know it now. And those platforms have agreed to look at risk-based approaches to what they’re doing in relation to those emerging areas. And importantly for New Zealand, if you go to thecode.org.nz, for the first time we’ve had localized data that has been provided as a result of this voluntary initiative. And just in closing, this is an emerging landscape, the online safety regime, and we’ve talked about the European approach. It could also be a US approach or geopolitical approach. And here in New Zealand, we’re not immune to that. And we have a discussion paper called the Safer Online Services and Media Platforms Bill. I think we’re sitting back to look at how the world is thinking about regulating this space. And that’s also in play to look at what content regulation should look like. Importantly in that discussion paper, it says what is already illegal and what is already harmful or objectionable won’t be looked at. It’ll be looking at other regulatory gaps. And importantly too, in New Zealand, we want to participate in forums like this. And NetSafe2 is an observer of the regulators forum, along with members that are on this panel, Fiji and Korea. We’re pleased to be able to join that forum again this year too. And so we’re trying to learn from best practice as well, and also share our knowledge with the world. So thank you for the opportunity to just give that brief introduction.

David Sullivan:
Thank you, Brent. Really grateful to have your contributions and sorry that you and Rishika are not able to be with us in person. So I now want to turn to Angela from Google who wears both a DTSP hat and a Google hat, but to really both perhaps, tell us what may have resonated or not with some of the comments we’ve already heard from the other speakers, and also help set the stage for a conversation with the other participants here in the room. Happy to.

Angela McKay:
And I’d like to, like my colleagues here, thank Japan for hosting us here in Kyoto and for hosting the IGF. I’m really encouraged when I hear the conversation about a free, open and interoperable internet. That is very much so what I would say, not just Google and the DTSP members are looking for, but I would say many of the companies around the globe, whether it is Naver here, or whether we’re talking about different companies, we are wanting to operate as much as possible with a global market. And so maybe just briefly about me, I’ve spent about 25 years in technology risk. And so was in the world of cybersecurity for about 15 or 20 years before coming over to trust and safety. And what I wanna reflect on here is that many of the challenges that I heard highlighted and many of the solutions I heard highlighted by the panelists here are similar to what I feel like was going on in a cybersecurity conversation 15 years ago. At that point in time and where we are now, both governments, civil society and companies have realized that we need to work together to address online harms. And what I really see is governments working to figure out kind of how to do that, right? Oftentimes they may have existing harm-based frameworks in specific areas. Yet at the same time, they’re realizing that technology is moving so quickly that you might not always have, if you have harm-specific focus, that you have new harms that are coming up and changing over time. And so how to deal with that, changing of the technology landscape and the changing of the actual harms landscape is very similar. One of the other things I’ll note is regardless of the approach, governments are going to reflect the cultural values and norms that are in their environment. So from a company point of view, we can recognize that there are going to be regulatory-based approaches. There are going to be transparency-based approaches. But I think what we are really looking for, and one of the reasons I was so happy to join DTSP and the colleagues here is really these risk-based approaches that think about how do we approach this environment where there are trade-offs, right? We are trying to, all of the representatives from governments up here are trying to ensure a safe online environment. Yet at the same time, I think as Kimmy really noted, there are trade-offs that happen. And so one of the things I just want to highlight and then I’ll open it up to discussion is really the importance of these kinds of conversations. Inside of DTSP, companies need to talk to each other because we are actually learning and improving practice by doing that. We’re learning from each other. I’m so encouraged when I hear about the Global Online Safety Regulators Forum because y’all need to do that too, right? And then we also need to have that conversation with civil society. So I think it’s really important. It’s not just a multi-stakeholder conversation, but also bilaterals between different types of entities such that we can collaborate and really draw forward practice overall. I think I will just pause there so that we can actually open up to conversation, but a few comments just reflecting some of what I heard across the panel.

David Sullivan:
Thanks, Angela. So I think with that, we have the less-than-optimal situation of the mic in the center of the room, but we really wanted to take this point to open it up for questions and discussion and really have as much of a roundtable conversation as we can have in a room that lacks a roundtable. So questions. Nick.

Audience:
Hey, thank you for the overview. And look, I’m super happy that you all have this great space to talk to each other. But I guess at IGF, I have to ask the question, what room is there for civil society? And I was wondering whether I could invite you all to reflect a little bit on these five points about particularly where you might go in the future with the partnership, how you might respond to some of these concerns and some of the demands, I guess, for civil society to be more engaged and to learn more, just like you all are learning more. Absolutely. So I’ll go first on that one, and then welcome if Angela wants to come in.

David Sullivan:
We’ve also, you know, we’ve heard from civil, yeah, I think that Kimmy has made some really great points from a civil society perspective and welcome comments from others as well. I think part of the genesis of the partnership was the need that actually first step, we need companies to talk to each other and sort of come together and think. And so there’s been a certain amount of kind of that preliminary phase, I would say, and also recognizing that there is value in saying that that multi-stakeholder conversations are essential, whether it’s here at the IGF or in other fora, but there is also value in sort of constituency specific initiatives. So we have been deliberately not multi-stakeholder while seeking to consult widely with stakeholders. And so many of the points that Kimmy made were from a public consultation we did when we released the SAFE framework. We did a public consultation around the trust and safety glossary that we issued earlier this year. And we’ve actually authored an article for the Journal of Online Trust and Safety at Stanford about why and how we wrote that article. Farzana, myself, and Alex Fierst wrote that, in which we responded to, I think, some of the points raised by folks who contributed to that consultation from academics in Argentina at CELE or at CIPIC in Canada, as well as folks from Ofcom and eSafety who contributed their thoughts. So I would point to that as kind of like how we’re thinking about the process. I think, ultimately, for us, it’s important that we keep this industry perspective, but have that be a contribution and part of the discussion with all the other stakeholders. And that’s why we’re here, and it’s why we’re at the World Economic Forum, working with that coalition and in other places. But it might be useful to hear, I don’t want to put anybody on the spot, but also to hear from, give me in from. Maybe a couple of things I’ll add just to David’s perspective. Because, again, we do think it is really, really important to make sure that the companies are exchanging best practices.

Angela McKay:
And I think this is… is something that I’ve seen as kind of raising the tide for all the boats. And in particular, you have some big companies in the group, but you also have medium and smaller companies. And I’m hearing more and more about the importance of these kind of practices for global proliferation. But I think DTSP has, and then I’ll speak to a company perspective, in the advance of the Digital Services Act being finalized, they actually did have one conversation partnered with the Global Network Initiative to bring in civil society to work to kind of gain some perspective. But let me just be clear. This is a maturing area for these companies. If you looked at the maturity model, I feel like David actually had, it is a maturing area. And so we’re working to figure this out as well. I also think it’s interesting that there is this kind of regulatory role. And I feel like some civil society is like, hold on. How are we supposed to be fulfilling this role? So when I think about it, from a Google perspective, we have been bringing in folks to, for example, our location in Dublin on specific topics around, for example, child safety, and partnering with existing institutions that have great reach into the civil society community. But we’re also thinking about other methods that haven’t been done before. Because it’s not like everybody can go to one particular location, afford to fly there, and then have a conversation. We’re thinking a lot more about how to use things like request for information and online forums to really catalyze this conversation. And one other thing that I’ll just say is we’re also trying to do a little bit of exchanging ideas among different communities of civil society. Because there are, so I manage a program of the priority flagging on a global basis. And one of the things I’ve noted is we have a lot of different folks who are in the civil society and academia who are in these programs. But they haven’t yet talked with each other. And so one of the things I’m trying to do is go, hey, there’s actually practices that you could exchange among these different harms areas that would be really useful to helping mitigate these harms. And so we’re really also thinking not about how to just get the insights to the companies, but also how to catalyze that community to talk with each other. And I would welcome any of your thoughts after the event as well.

David Sullivan:
And let’s just make sure if Brent or Rajika want to come in that we keep the, and if there’s any questions or online participants want to make any comments. But other questions or comments from folks in the room. And it would be great if you could just introduce yourself.

Audience:
I was about to, not my first rodeo. I’m Sharon Polsky from the Privacy and Access Council of Canada. You’ve been at it for 25 plus years. I got you beat by a decade plus. So I’ve seen a lot of things in government, in private industry, across Canada, and lots of beyond as well. You say this is an industry association, a voluntary industry association. I’ve seen the voluntary industry associations in automotive, in advertising, in digital identity, in a range of others where participation like yours is voluntary. Frameworks are published with great PR and fanfare, lots of money, lots of people, lots of presence. And it sounds great. And one after the other, they fall by the wayside. Companies say it’s a really good idea, gung ho on it, but excuse us, we’re not going to participate. It’s a lot of talk and no action. Why should anybody have any trust that this is going to be any different? It’s a very good question. What I would say is that the proof is in the pudding.

David Sullivan:
We are adding our members to our organization. Just this year, we’ve added TikTok and Twitch. So we’re talking about the key players and more to come. And ultimately, all of this is only as good as it is implemented. But I think what is critical is that this is a space that is no longer just a place where companies are doing their own thing and self-regulating just amongst themselves. We now have this emerging regulatory regime. And it’s incumbent upon all of us to think about how do we, within that context, try to make it meaningful. So I think that’s part of what we’re doing right now, is thinking about how does this set of industry practices relate to the requirements that companies have under emerging regulatory regimes in Australia, in Singapore, in the European Union, in the UK, and in other places. And how do we make sure that those regimes actually serve their intended purposes and actually keep people safer online, while also protecting and respecting people’s rights? I don’t know if any of the other panelists would want to come in on that or add other thoughts.

Kyoungmi Oh:
Yeah, actually, you criticized the self-regulation. But actually, in South Korea, as a civil society researcher, organization activist, actually, sometimes often get criticized, because we are usually claiming the self-regulation, not governmental regulation. But I need this self-regulation. Civil regulation is better than governmental regulation, because governmental regulation has a lot of side effects. So yeah, that’s why we are criticized by South Korea. Yeah, the South Korean society. And I agree with you that the way we are talking, gathering, and the civil society organization, and activists, and the companies, and a lot of people that are gathering, the way of gathering is not changing a lot. But I think that is fundamental. Yeah, it cannot be changed. But I think the transparency is also important, either, in this point. Because each civil society has another. Actually, civil society organizations are not same. They always have different interests, and different goals, and different missions. And so I think more and more, and the best you can gather, the many numbers of civil society, you try to talk with a lot of civil society organizations. And if you make the research, or third-party assessment, and put them the research transparently, how many civil society were answered, and how many civil society organizations

David Sullivan:
are participated in that kind of thing? Yeah. And I think Brent wanted to come in, as well, on this. Yeah, thank you. I think it’s a great question. I also think we’re all part of an ecosystem. And so I just think that’s really important.

Brent Carey:
Because the whole ecosystem has checks, and balances, and holds people to account, as well. And I think in the safety space, it’s which part of the infrastructure, or the internet, are we asking for the interventions to happen? And because of the different, is it content-based? Is it technical? And so I think all of that has a role to play. And if the system is working well, it’s creating the spaces, and places to have those different parts of the infrastructure coming together to have those conversations. And so I do think it’s important, if it’s industry-led, that there are those spaces, and places to have those different voices.

David Sullivan:
Thanks, Brent. Other questions? I do have a question, plus some comments, as well, as a consumer of the internet.

Audience:
My name is Jenna Fung. I am a casual policy observers based in Toronto, Canada. I’m originally from Hong Kong. So earlier, we touched on a little bit about regulations. Because of my background, I have a mixed feeling about having government-driven regulation legislation, as well. But I also questioned about having industry to lead and regulate all this privately-owned public space. At the end of the day, it’s a business. There are things that interest a company or organization. Is there a way to make sure consumer rights are involved in the process, so it’s reflected into all this policy? Just naming one example, recently, in Canada, with this Bill C-11 Online News Act, they require tech company like Google and Meta to pay news outlet for posting or linking the content. And Meta responds in August. They claim that they are to comply with the law. So they are removing news from their social media platform, including Facebook and Instagram. I moved the country to buy me some freedom to see news of whatever perspective. I can’t even use social media to see both domestic and international news. So I want to bring this up and see how everyone’s feel about that, especially when we are in a digital space where it’s predominantly lead and governed or regulated by big tech. So I just want to throw that out and then see how everyone’s thinking about this.

David Sullivan:
Thank you. So does anybody want to respond to that particular? I will say, I think, one, thank you for the question and the comment. It’s an important issue. I think, luckily for us, there are numerous representatives from both Meta and the Canadian government at the IGF. And there may be other sessions where there’s folks who are better positioned to respond to that particular issue, which is a contentious one. But I do think that the recognition that, notwithstanding the challenges of how governments of different types of governments have been using regulation, whether to accomplish political repression or with the unintended consequences for people’s ability to exercise their rights, is an important thing to bring up, the digital authoritarianism that was mentioned is real and spreading and a challenge that we all have to grapple with. At the same time, there is also a recognition that companies doing things on their own is not sufficient. And I do think that that’s one of the reasons why we’re looking at both how do we have a independent third party review of what companies are doing, so that companies are not checking their own homework, while also figuring out how not only our industry efforts, but I think also the perspectives of civil society organizations and other experts and users can inform the development of the kinds of international standards that we need in order to support a more mature ecosystem that is both protective of consumers’ rights and users’ rights, while also respecting freedoms as well.

Nobuhisa Nishigata:
Shouldn’t be long and the time is coming, right? But I mean, I noticed the issue about the Canada and maybe should be sending some condolences to those who suffered from the volcano, those kind of things. But just one comment. It’s a Japanese proverb, old saying that the most expensive thing is provided by free. It has many, many meanings. And particularly, I have some MBA background. So particularly, when the company’s conduct linked to the stock market or short-sighted, long-sighted, those kind of things, many, many things come together. Then in me, I can explain most of the behaviors from the management, the business, schools kind of theories. It’s a nuance. It’s a traditional strategy type of things. Like if you’ve got a short-sighted for the stock market, stock price, those kind of things. And I mean, I’m not going to sit too deep, but maybe that has a history, right? So or like you are paying something somewhere, otherwise getting free for something, right? So then you shouldn’t expect too much about that somebody is giving you for free. So it’s more like a literacy thing. Then it’s our common question to solve that we started rapidly depending too much on like SNS or these kind of online media to get our information. But you have to be careful about they are not having the journalist background for that. We are not sure. It depends on the country how much you can trust about the journalism in your country. But still, there is a difference. So I stop here.

Angela McKay:
I was just going to say very briefly, thank you for highlighting this. And I think while I don’t know the specifics, I’ve heard about it largely, I think you’re highlighting again the challenge of trade-offs, right? And that oftentimes there are unintended actions. I think the one thing that I want to challenge is the idea that regulation or transparency is right. I actually think that when we think about the risk-based approach and making sure that you have the right set of stakeholders involved in the conversation, that is the kind of approach that ends up being effective. It can be done with regulation. It can be done through transparency. But ultimately, getting to that risk-based conversation with the right set of stakeholders is, I think, what really does help drive a difference. And I’ve seen it in, just to comment to the world of 25 years of history. While a long time ago, we were talking just about vulnerability management, that has improved, right? A long time ago, we were talking about what is risk-based approach to cybersecurity. And that has also changed over time. And so one of the things that’s helpful with being a gray beard, if you will, even though I don’t have a beard, is really having that perspective of change over time. It doesn’t happen fast. And I think that’s really frustrating. And I’ll also just say, guys, we all still see the risks. And so there’s a reality that even as we are managing risk, risk is evolving and changing. And so I think it can look hard, like nothing has happened. But change has happened.

David Sullivan:
It’s just we’re managing new and changing risk over time. Brent, I think you wanted to come in as well. Yeah, I was just going to empathize with the questioner. Thank you for it.

Brent Carey:
Because here in New Zealand, we’re in the same experience as Canada. We have the Fair Digital Media Bill, which is about bringing bargaining power to citizens. And we are watching the platforms to response in Canada and thinking, what does that mean for New Zealand? And it is interesting because previously, it was a voluntary landscape where lots of the platforms had negotiated with the media, local media, to actually have an exchange of money in order to support the local media industry. And we’re still doing that. And we’re still working out, well, what was the gap there? Because it seemed to be working well. And then the regulations now stepped in. And it still is just a bill. And yes, these platforms are then saying we’re going to withdraw. And we’re going to stop the news. And so we’re concerned about that from a civil society perspective. But we’re also thinking, well, it’s really important to have media plurality. And that’s what we’re struggling with. We need to have more media sources and have more people media literate. So it’s a really great question. And, um, you know, a lot of countries media landscape is changing because of old media and new media. And I think that’s what we’re all grappling with. So, um, you know, I’m watching the Canadian experience myself personally, um, with interest.

David Sullivan:
Thanks Brent. So, um, I want to come back to the questions in the room. Thank you for your patience. Thank you. My name is Zahid Jamil.

Audience:
I’m an attorney. Very quickly, it’s, it’s, if I look back and say, what if in 1996 or thereabouts, somebody decided to say we should have an internet act, my goodness, this is a terrible thing. It could be used for cyber crime and God knows what else. Let’s just put up, put on the brakes and stop it because regulation is very good. Thank God we didn’t do that. And the lesser regulation led to very good, you know, I don’t even have to explain what goodness came out of it. But now we’re, it’s, it’s, I find it interesting that the example that was just given about how businesses had to respond to a government regulation that led to the businesses being able to do what they wanted to do, right? The criticism of the business did something, but let’s not forget it was because of a government mandate. It was because of regulation to, for their liability to be shielded, they did what they did possibly. And so the harm that regulation is causing is something we should also discuss. And I find it ironic that we went around the world from the West and said, you know, Asia and everybody else should understand that we should have self-regulation. It’s really good for you. And today on this panel, we have someone from Asia saying self-regulation is good for you from South Korea, whereas we’re seeing something else come from Europe. It’s just, it’s an interesting dichotomy. I just wanted to sort of underscore it. Thank you for the time.

David Sullivan:
Sorry. I think Rashika also wanted to come in, so we’ll go back to her.

Rishika Chandra:
Just my comment on the previous question, we’ve noticed that governments around the world are increasingly imposing restrictions on online content and data privacy, while some regulations may be necessary to protect users from harmful content or cyber threats, they should not infringe upon individuals’ rights to free speech or impede innovation. And I think that’s one of the key beliefs, because so far we haven’t been to that extent. Best practices should strike a balance between regulation and freedom of educating of transparency policies that respect users’ rights. So, thank you. Thank you. So we have a few minutes left. Farzana Badi, I’m in the role of remote moderator. I’m very opinionated, so it’s very, I have to clarify that. This is not my question. I’m doing the remote moderation for this session. So we have a question from Rohana Paliagoro.

David Sullivan:
Has any of the online safety acts defined content-related matters, such as harassment, defamation, et cetera, as criminal offenses? Yeah, I think that that’s a, it’s a great question that is complicated to answer, because there are so many different jurisdictions taking different approaches to that. So I’ll open it up to see if anyone from the panel or anyone in the room would want to add some expertise there.

Nobuhisa Nishigata:
But let me just, and generally speaking, it just depends on what the case would be. Like, the bad ones, of course, like the law enforcement can make the case to charge. But on the other hand, some cases, the law enforcement couldn’t make the case to charge directly. But on the other hand, some private lawsuit, and then they got some sanction or mitigation, those kind of things. So it totally depends, I would say. Thank you. I was just going to say, I think that that really exists in terms of areas where, in

Angela McKay:
the physical world, there has been an idea of criminality, and those laws are able to extend into the digital world. So child safety is an example. I think where you have the offline harm also being exacerbated in the online space, where there is existing law, is where I would say that currently is.

David Sullivan:
Thanks, Angela. And I think Brent wanted to come, and Rishika. So we’ll, yeah, Brent and Rishika. Just quickly, in the New Zealand context, yes, under the Harmful Digital Communications

Brent Carey:
Act, it’s a criminal offence to post an intimate image without a person’s consent. And a New Zealander risks either a $50,000 fine or two years imprisonment. So that’s a type of harm that is criminal, and the police do prosecute those matters.

David Sullivan:
And Rishika.

Rishika Chandra:
It’s the same for Fiji. We do criminalize harassment, cyberbullying, image-based abuse, child exploitation. And we have, if it’s an individual, they can have five years of imprisonment or $20,000 fine. And if it’s a corporate, if it’s an organization, then it’s $50,000. It was also mentioned about the defamation. So defamation is not covered under this Online Safety Act.

David Sullivan:
But Fiji does have their own defamation act, which is separate. Great. Thank you. Terrific to get the specific answers to that from some of the countries that are represented here on our panel. So I think we probably have time for maybe one or two more questions. So back to the room. Yeah, thanks.

Audience:
I’m Chen. I’m from ISOC, Taipei chapter. And also, but today I’m speaking on behalf of a consumer perspective. As a Gen Z, I’m a gamer and a casual memer. So apparently I’m a target audience of this product you’re having in this alliance. So I have a really question. Because lots of online moderation is going on on this product. But I think in these days, a lot of customers of this product are not very satisfied by how this online moderation rules and regulations are enforced. We know, we understand these partners from the private sector are very key actors of how to enforce this kind of online moderation stuff. But on the other hand, if you are going to keep the transparency of how the regulations are going to work and the process to reveal to our customers, it might also hurt your business because it might reveal your secret sauce of your business. So I was trying to ask how your alliance is trying to find a balance between the transparent and the trust of your customer. And how to make your partner can get on the board of this stuff. Thanks.

David Sullivan:
So I can take a first stab at answering that and then welcome comments from others. It’s a great question. It’s a very good point. And I would say to just right now within our partnership, we have companies like Microsoft that are gaming companies. We have companies like Discord and Twitch that are where gamers congregate or are streaming. And I think there’s an opportunity to bring more companies from that space in. And to say here’s what this framework means with more specifics for gaming. Same thing for dating, for sharing economy, for different places. The question of sort of how much you share and how much you hold back is a very good one. I think for a long time that this function inside companies has been very quiet. And very low profile. And it’s not just because you don’t want to have bad actors be able to say, oh, okay, we figured out how to get around that. But also because sometimes the employees working in these functions become the subjects of harassment when people do not like what’s happened to their content. Or it’s because of privacy considerations or other considerations. And I think there is a need to sort of shift to be more err on the side of sharing more while being conscious of all of those tradeoffs. Someone has said that trust and safety is tradeoffs and sadness. And one thing I will say also and then we’ll have one more question and then close out is for folks who are interested who are gamers, I would recommend a game that is I believe it’s available in the Apple App Store, I don’t know if it’s on Android yet, called Moderator Mayhem that friends and colleagues have made up where you are in the role of doing content moderation inside a company. It is one of the most stressful iPhone games I have ever played. But it also gives a sense, you know, it’s easy to say, oh, these are gigantic companies and they have the resources and they should be able to solve this. But some of these things are just a perpetual challenge for all of the reasons people have said

Audience:
and that game is a very good illustration of that. So I think we can do one more question and then we’ll wrap. Hi, thank you. My name is Andrew Campbell. I run a public policy, public affairs consultancy. Just two very short questions. Does the sort of activity of X or Twitter in this space undermine the entire industry and its credentials for sort of voluntary action in trust and safety? And then is a non-prescriptive duty of care of users a good legislative approach towards this? So I can answer the first question to just say that not in the business of commenting

David Sullivan:
on particular companies. However, X, formerly Twitter, was a founding member of our partnership and is not a member of our partnership at the moment. On the second question, I don’t have to answer that question because our forum is not a lobbying organization. So we are not taking positions on legislation. But I imagine that some of my panelists may have answers on a question that could easily be its own whole session. So maybe if folks want to give last, any concluding thoughts on that or anything else and then we’ll wrap. So we’ll do rapid fire across the panel here and online. Actually, I missed the chance to talk about the legislation in South Korea.

Kyoungmi Oh:
Actually, we also have the Punishment Act of Harassment or sexual, something around that. Actual communications network can punish the people. Criminal act, yes. I think this place and this opportunity can talk about how we are different and what we are heading for. And I think the transparency report, your report, DTSP report,

Nobuhisa Nishigata:
can be concluded very well, hopefully. Go ahead. Just my final comment is I’m looking forward to seeing the further development of the U.S. work. And hopefully, actually I talked with him about this, but hopefully some Japanese company will join in the partnership. It’s kind of uncertain things. But still, anyway, it’s a voluntary thing. To me, from the Japanese government perspective, of course, in the end, things get worse and we have to do things, particularly for the regulation, those kind of things. But from the beginning, in Japan, we have the basic law about the digitalization and the digital society. It says, it articulates that the investment to the digital infrastructure, digital society, is private-led, should be private-led. The government is more like a coordination, those kind of things. We have some list of the things that the government should do. So in my mind, as a Japanese government, the bottom line is just let the private go first and we follow, or we catch something. So from that perspective, I just want to see the development in the near future. And let me end congratulating so far the process and launch the report. So stop here, then.

Angela McKay:
Before we go over to our online panelists, I’ll just say, I think, again, the premise of it’s either regulation or transparency is a false dichotomy. I think we really have to think about what behaviors we’re seeking to drive, and then you can get to whether that enforcement mechanism should be regulatory or not. But the what that I think is really important that DTSP is contributing here is a way of approaching online safety. And so we can just argue about regulation or not regulation, but I think the conversation that needs to move forward is less on that side and more on the what we are seeking to drive.

David Sullivan:
So then, thank you, Angela. Now I think we can go to Brent. Thank you.

Brent Carey:
Yes, we used to sit on Twitter’s Trust and Safety Council previously. So our comments are in relation to who’s actually trying to drag the lowest common denominator up and lead. And even though we’re not on the Twitter Trust and Safety Council anymore, X is a founding member of our online safety code and remains in the code. And whilst they’ve removed themselves from the European disinformation code, they remain an active member and are providing localized data. So I think it’s easy to call out particular platforms or particular times that they’re not being a good corporate citizen in the eyes of particular stakeholders. I think it’s on us to try and drag everyone in the industry up to the highest common denominator. And so trying to get them to lead, because there’s many other platforms and many other messaging apps that are not even part of any sort of move to actually try and show best practice. And I think it’s on us to actually try and work out where they are and try and bring them along to improve the whole ecosystem. And the Judaic here is a really interesting argument, which I could talk about forever and I’m not going to talk about it. But I think it’s a very interesting approach to this issue and emerging.

David Sullivan:
So I think it was a good thing to talk about. Thank you, Brent. And Rashika, did you have any final thoughts, two sentences? So Fiji, being a small Pacific Island country,

Rishika Chandra:
we don’t actually have a lot of apps being used by our citizens here. For example, Twitter. You wouldn’t believe that Twitter is not really an issue in Fiji, like we don’t have much issues from Twitter. But we do have issues with Meta and Instagram, there is Snapchat and there’s all others. So recently there are a few new apps such as Discord, Line app, which we actually did not hear about. And nowadays we are getting a lot of issues on that platform. So we think that we really need to build that relationship with the social media platforms to learn more about how they design their policy, community guidelines and everything. First, we should understand before regulating it into our policy, we should understand how these platforms work, because we know that these platforms are dangerous at times, but it does act as a platform, as a connectivity to all other people out there. So yeah, maybe we can have a balance there if we work hand-in-hand in a collaborative manner. Thank you.

David Sullivan:
Very well said. So I think that’s a great note to end on. We have a sign-up sheet, we have a booth in the Village. Come talk to myself or Farzana to learn more about what we’re doing. My thank you to all our panelists here and online. Thank you everyone and I hope everyone has a good rest of your IGFs. Thank you.

John Hering

John Hering, a prominent figure in the field of cybercrime and war crimes, highly commends the Budapest Convention as an invaluable tool in combating international cybercrime. He also suggests that the UN cybercrime negotiation process should draw inspiration from the Budapest Convention, which has been successful in addressing cybercrime globally.

Hering discusses the challenges posed by the rise of cyber-enabled war crimes and hybrid warfare. He highlights the potential for traditional war crimes to have a cyber component and cites the conflict in Ukraine as a significant example of hybrid warfare, combining conventional military tactics with cyber operations.

In relation to the role of Microsoft in conflicts, Hering believes that the company should increase transparency and reporting. He appreciates Microsoft’s efforts in providing greater transparency in response to the challenges presented by conflicts, particularly in Ukraine. By increasing reporting on the breadth of cyber operations occurring in these conflicts, Microsoft can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the situation.

Hering proposes the expedited collection of digital evidence of traditional war crimes. He advocates for the development of tools and support to capture digital evidence, which could aid in the investigation and prosecution of war crimes.

Hering expresses concerns about the widespread use of cyber capabilities in armed conflicts, as it brings forth the possibility of cyber-enabled war crimes. The submission of Article 15 reports to the International Criminal Court alleging cyber-enabled war crimes, along with reports from multiple technology companies providing evidence of malicious cyber activities during conflicts, highlights the need to address this emerging issue.

Transparency and disclosure of data requests are key aspects emphasized by Hering. He highlights the importance of transparency in understanding when and for how long data is requested, advocating for disclosure of relevant information within a reasonable timeframe.

Highlighting the valuable role of technology companies, Hering mentions Microsoft’s partnership with Accenture in supporting the International Criminal Court (ICC) with the creation of the OTP Link platform. This platform serves as an objective system for creating a digital chain of custody and a tamper-proof record of evidence, aiding the collection and preservation of digital evidence for war crime cases.

Hering values the independent tools created by technology companies, such as the OTP Link platform, as they ensure neutrality and preserve the integrity of digital evidence. By fostering collaboration between technology companies and international institutions, a more objective and robust platform for addressing war crimes can be achieved.

In light of the emerging domain of conflict in relation to cyber operations, Hering calls for innovation in international systems. He believes that international institutions should step in to uphold expectations in the digital domain, just as they would in the physical domain. The recent decision by the ICC prosecutor to investigate cyber-enabled war crimes is seen as a positive development, reflecting the growing recognition of the need to adapt international systems to address cyber-related conflicts.

In conclusion, John Hering’s insights encompass a wide range of issues related to cybercrime, war crimes, and the role of technology companies. He highlights the effectiveness of the Budapest Convention in combating international cybercrime and encourages the adoption of its principles in the UN cybercrime negotiation process. Hering also underscores the challenges posed by cyber-enabled war crimes, the importance of transparency and data disclosure, and the instrumental role of technology companies in collecting and preserving digital evidence. Through his observations, Hering advocates for innovation in international systems and emphasizes the need for international institutions to address the emerging domain of conflict in relation to cyber operations.

Giorgi Jokhadze

During the discussion, the speakers explored the significance of open source intelligence (OSINT) in uncovering evidence of war crimes and gross human rights violations. They highlighted the extensive experience of Giorgi Jokhadze in Ukraine, where he has utilised OSINT techniques. Notably, he has been actively involved in supporting Ukraine through the Council of Europe since the beginning of Russian aggression in 2022.

The Budapest Convention on Cybercrime, specifically Article 32, was emphasized as a powerful tool for member states to access OSINT from both public and private domains with consent. It was argued that these provisions could greatly assist Ukraine in obtaining compelling evidence for both domestic and international investigations. The tools provided by the Budapest Convention were also seen as instrumental in facilitating the collection of such evidence.

Furthermore, the discussion emphasised that open source intelligence should be considered as an integral part of the overall chain of evidence in criminal investigations. It was acknowledged that open source intelligence plays a crucial role in providing leads and clues that can lead to more comprehensive investigations and successful outcomes.

The speakers also raised the challenges posed by electronic evidence, which often transcends borders. This highlighted the importance of cross-sharing evidence among relevant parties to ensure a unified approach to investigations and the pursuit of justice across jurisdictions.

In addition to the technical aspects of open source intelligence and cybercrime conventions, the discussion touched upon the need for a clear and applicable legal framework. The speakers recognized the importance of integrating open source intelligence and data from open sources within a comprehensive legal framework. Such integration is crucial for ensuring that perpetrators are brought to justice while adhering to legal requirements and due process.

Overall, the speakers concluded that open source intelligence and data obtained from open sources are invaluable assets in the pursuit of justice. However, to maximize their effectiveness, they must be employed within an applicable legal framework. These insights highlighted the need for proper communication and implementation of conclusions derived from discussions with the IGF Secretariat.

In summary, the discussion highlighted the value of open source intelligence in uncovering evidence of war crimes and human rights violations. It also emphasized the role of the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime in supporting Ukraine’s evidence collection efforts. The integration of open source intelligence within the overall chain of evidence and the importance of cross-sharing electronic evidence were also stressed. Additionally, the need for a clear and applicable legal framework that incorporates open source intelligence and data from open sources was underlined. The speakers concluded that integrating open source intelligence and data within a legal framework is crucial for ensuring that perpetrators are brought to justice.

Audience

The Budapest Convention is seen as a potentially beneficial legal framework for dealing with cyber crimes and war crimes, especially in relation to SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions. However, there is skepticism about its applicability to crimes originating from Ukraine. Examples of alleged crimes committed by Ukrainian forces and Ukrainian-based scammers have raised doubts about the effectiveness of the Budapest Convention in addressing these specific crimes.

Access to e-evidence is considered crucial for effectively resolving crimes. The importance of obtaining electronic evidence for the purpose of investigation and prosecution is highlighted, emphasizing its role in uncovering the truth and holding perpetrators accountable.

Concerns have been raised regarding the lack of effective safeguards in both the Budapest Convention and the UN Cybercrime Treaty. Law enforcement officials involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity, and human rights abuses, along with dissatisfaction among civil society groups regarding the absence of adequate safeguards, have generated worry about potential misuse of these conventions.

There is frustration over the lack of communication and fear that the provisions within these conventions might be abused to commit crimes with impunity. This highlights the need for stronger and more effective safeguards to prevent the misuse of these legal frameworks.

War crimes are a pressing issue, and it is argued that they should be addressed regardless of the perpetrators involved. The need for applying international law and cooperation in conflicts is emphasized. It is paramount to hold all parties accountable for their actions, promoting justice and upholding human rights.

During discussions, questions were raised about war crimes committed by Ukrainians, beyond the focus on Russian activities. The structure of the convention for crimes committed by Ukrainians remains unclear, and it is suggested that some war crimes may be committed without Russian involvement, indicating a need for further clarity.

Assertions were made about war crimes committed by the Ukrainian army against civilians, highlighting the gravity of the situation and the urgency to address these crimes.

In conclusion, the Budapest Convention is seen as a potentially beneficial legal framework for cyber crimes and war crimes. However, doubts persist regarding its application to crimes originating from Ukraine. The importance of access to e-evidence is emphasized, while concerns are raised about the lack of effective safeguards in the Budapest Convention and UN Cybercrime Treaty. The necessity to address war crimes, regardless of the perpetrators, using international law and cooperation is stressed. The need for clarity in dealing with crimes committed by Ukrainians and the alarming allegations of war crimes committed by the Ukrainian army against civilians are also highlighted.

Jayantha Fernando

The Budapest Convention, in conjunction with its Second Additional Protocol, offers valuable tools for collecting and sharing electronic evidence. These tools are crucial in combating cybercrime and promoting cooperation between countries and service providers.

The Second Additional Protocol was negotiated by the State Parties to the Convention following the finalisation of the Cloud Evidence Report in 2017. It facilitates direct cooperation between countries and domain name registration information providers and includes measures for expedited disclosure of computer data in emergency situations. It also outlines procedures for international cooperation, even when parties and experts are in different locations.

However, the effectiveness of these tools depends on the domestic capacity of each country to handle and utilise them effectively. The Budapest Convention, also known as the Council of Europe Convention, has a capacity-building initiative that supports global action against cybercrime. Countries that have implemented these initiatives have benefited from training expert judges who can then train judges in their respective regions.

A significant provision of the Budapest Convention is Article 32, which concerns the open-source framework provided under the Convention. It addresses the issue of cross-border access to data and is only available to state parties.

Parties to the Budapest Convention form a community of trust and must uphold principles of the rule of law and human rights, as described in Article 15. Compliance with international standards and respect for fundamental rights are emphasised.

Law enforcement authorities regularly use Article 32, provided they have received appropriate training and comply with minimum standards. This provision applies to a wide range of offences, including drug-related crimes. The use of these tools is guided by standard operating procedures that respect the principles outlined in Article 15, ensuring that they are used in a manner that upholds human rights.

Procedural safeguards and adherence to standards are essential to protect human rights and maintain the rule of law. State parties to international conventions have introduced measures to enable judicial authorities to effectively oversee the process. For example, Sri Lankan law enforcement authorities, as a state party to the Budapest Convention, have revised their standard operating procedures to ensure that electronic evidence gathering and international cooperation comply with international standards.

The Budapest Convention applies to any crime involving digital evidence, including war crimes. Specific procedural provisions, such as Article 14, 18, and 26, are particularly relevant in the context of war crimes. These provisions allow for the invocation of Article 14 in war crime investigations, facilitate the acquisition of evidence from any service provider under Article 18, and enable the spontaneous sharing of information among law enforcement authorities under Article 26.

In summary, the Budapest Convention and its Second Additional Protocol play a crucial role in collecting and sharing electronic evidence. However, their effectiveness relies on the domestic capacity of each country. Upholding the principles of the rule of law and human rights is essential. Law enforcement authorities frequently utilise Article 32, guided by procedural safeguards and minimum standards, to address various offences, including war crimes.

Patrick Penninchx

The Council of Europe was commended for its active promotion of human rights, the rule of law, and democracy. Its crucial role in promoting basic values, combatting war crimes, and addressing human rights violations was highlighted. The session focused on the role of investigative journalism and open-source information in investigations, recognizing their significance in holding accountable those responsible for war crimes.

The Budapest Convention was lauded as a global instrument for fighting cybercrime and promoting accountability. It was noted that the convention has been ratified by 68 countries, with more nations having signed or invited to accede. The opening of the second additional protocol to the Budapest Convention in May 2022 was also mentioned. The convention provides a legal basis for disclosing domain name registration information and direct cooperation with service providers.

The session also expressed support for the active role of various actors in combating disinformation and holding those responsible for war crimes accountable. The engagement of the private sector and organizations like Bellingcat in combating disinformation was acknowledged. The importance of investigative journalism and reliance on open-source information in exposing war crimes were emphasized.

However, it was stated that not all open-source information can be used as evidence in trials. The admissibility of open-source information was discussed, highlighting the need to comply with existing legislation and best practice procedures. Information used as evidence must be reliable, authentic, complete, and believable.

Concerns were raised about the rise of deep fakes and systemic disinformation in the current era. It was noted that some countries are actively promoting disinformation campaigns, posing significant challenges in maintaining information reliability and accuracy.

Regarding electronic evidence and data manipulation, it was observed that technological advancements have enabled individuals, states, and regimes to easily manipulate electronic data. The credibility and authenticity of data were emphasized as crucial factors, and it was argued that questions about their credibility and authenticity are legitimate.

The preservation, authentication, and availability of data for trial purposes were highlighted as essential criteria. It was mentioned that data must be preserved, securely guarded, protected, authenticated, verified, and available for review to ensure its admissibility in trials.

The role of the court in determining the validity of data for trials was discussed. It was stated that the court should ultimately decide whether information can be used as evidence in a trial or not.

While the Budapest Convention was praised as an effective instrument, it was noted that it does not cover all countries. Joining the convention implies compliance with its principles, including the protection of human rights, the rule of law, and pluralist democracy. It was also mentioned that countries not part of the convention are not covered by it.

Furthermore, it was clarified that the Budapest Convention is primarily a criminal law convention, rather than specifically focusing on war crimes. Nevertheless, Article 2 of the convention was highlighted for its importance in enabling cross-border access and obtaining of open-source information for use in trials.

The expulsion of the Russian Federation from the Council of Europe was mentioned, resulting from its illegal invasion of Ukraine and its failure to respect human rights and basic values.

In conclusion, the session highlighted the Council of Europe’s active promotion of human rights, the rule of law, and democracy. The Budapest Convention was celebrated as an effective global instrument for combatting cybercrime and ensuring accountability. The significance of investigative journalism, open-source information, and the need for data credibility and authenticity were emphasized. However, challenges regarding the admissibility of open-source information, the rise of deep fakes and disinformation, and the limitations of the Budapest Convention were also discussed. The expulsion of the Russian Federation from the Council of Europe was noted as a consequence of its violations of human rights and basic values.

Nick Waters

The development of open-source investigation has revolutionized the way footage from conflict zones is analyzed. By extracting detailed information from videos, it allows for a deeper understanding of events that take place in these regions. Nick Waters, an expert in open-source investigation, described an example where his team was able to geolocate a potential location from a video related to a series of executions in Benghazi. Working with three to four people for three weeks, they meticulously analyzed the footage to accurately determine the location.

Open source information, if extracted correctly, has the potential to be used as evidence. By using the latest high-resolution satellite imagery and overlaying the video footage on top of it, Waters and his team were able to definitively confirm the location of the execution. They also used the individuals in the video as sundials to establish the accurate time of the incident. These successful uses of open-source information demonstrate its potential as valuable evidence in various contexts, particularly in the realms of peace, justice, and strong institutions.

However, the Russian legal system has expressed skepticism towards the use of open-source information as evidence in previous incidents. Waters emphasizes the importance of ensuring the credibility of information in the Ukraine civilian harm database. He cautions against attributing incidents to any state party without extensive investigation. The dismissive attitude of the Russian legal system presents challenges in using open-source information effectively in this context.

To address the need for verification of authenticity in legal evidence, collaboration with the Global Legal Action Network has led to the development of a methodology for verifying digital evidence. The process involves locating images and videos in space and time, and excluding misleading information. This methodology not only ensures the admissibility of evidence but also provides a framework for verification in legal proceedings.

Although AI has made significant advances, it is not yet reliable enough to create believable content. Waters acknowledges that the majority of problems in this field arise from real content being repurposed for different events. AI, such as AlphaZero, currently cannot produce credible fake content. Therefore, caution is necessary when relying on AI-generated content for verification purposes.

Waters emphasizes the importance of hiring individuals with deep local knowledge to gather a more accurate understanding of situations. By doing so, it is possible to reduce bias and enhance the comprehension of events, ultimately leading to more reliable and nuanced investigations.

The responsibility of social media platforms for the information they post is a notable concern. Different moderation policies exist within and between platforms, leading to inconsistent treatment of content. Additionally, their algorithms play a significant role in determining what information is shown to users. Platforms have often tried to distance themselves from responsibility by claiming they are not publishers. However, Waters argues that social media platforms should bear partial responsibility for the information they disseminate, highlighting the need for greater accountability.

Cyber-enabled war crimes provide valuable information for investigating atrocities. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has recently announced its plans to investigate cyber-enabled war crimes for the first time. While this presents new opportunities, it is essential to note that computer-generated evidence should not replace traditional evidence. It must conform to legal admissibility and be used in conjunction with other forms of evidence to ensure a comprehensive and valid investigation.

In conclusion, the development of open-source investigation has revolutionized the way footage from conflict zones is analyzed. Open-source information has the potential to be used as evidence, but challenges arise in adopting it within certain legal systems. Collaboration with the Global Legal Action Network has led to the formulation of a methodology for verifying digital evidence in legal contexts. AI, although advancing, is not yet reliable enough to create believable content. Hiring individuals with local knowledge is crucial for accurate comprehension of situations. Social media platforms bear responsibility for the information they post. Cyber-enabled war crimes offer new insights, but computer-based evidence should not replace traditional evidence. Ultimately, a multi-faceted approach to evidence collection and verification is necessary for effective investigations in the pursuit of justice and peace.

Nataliya Tkachuk

The analysis highlights the importance of international cooperation in addressing cyber threats. It emphasizes the need for coordination and control activities among state actors involved in information and cybersecurity in Ukraine. Nataliya Tkachuk, responsible for coordinating these activities, specifically mentions the Russian Federation as the first country to use cyberattacks and disinformation as tools for special information operations. Tkachuk also points out the Russian Federation’s manipulation of social media platforms to spread disinformation and influence public opinion and elections in democratic states. This highlights the need for collaboration between nations to effectively combat cyber threats.

The analysis also underscores the role of electronic evidence in documenting and investigating war crimes. Tkachuk discusses how the law enforcement in Ukraine has registered over 90,000 war crimes since the Russian aggression began. She emphasizes that it would be impossible for any single law enforcement agency or country to document and investigate all of these crimes without the assistance of civil society, international partners, and NGOs. This highlights the significance of electronic evidence, which can provide a comprehensive understanding of war crimes and aid in holding perpetrators accountable.

The analysis reveals instances of cyberattacks on critical infrastructure facilities in Ukraine, such as electric power stations, conducted by the Russian Federation. This highlights the detrimental impact of cyberwar on civilian infrastructure and emphasizes the need for international cooperation to address and mitigate these attacks effectively.

Furthermore, the analysis mentions the success of Ukraine and the United States in attributing cyber crimes to specific individuals and states. The Armageddon Hacker Group is cited as an example, identified as part of Russian counterintelligence. This showcases the possibility and importance of attributing cyber crimes, offering hope for accountability and deterrence in cyberspace.

The analysis emphasizes the significance of international partnerships and efforts in tackling cyber war crimes. It calls on the international community to support these initiatives, recognizing the need for collective action to combat cyber threats effectively.

Moreover, the analysis highlights the Budapest Convention as an effective instrument in investigating cybercrimes. It acknowledges that Ukraine is still working towards complete implementation of the Convention and, prior to the conflict, faced challenges in providing full disclosure and preservation of technical data as required by the Convention.

The analysis also discusses the role of common democratic values in Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression. It advocates for the upholding of justice and the rule of law, as these values are fundamental for ensuring peace and stability.

In addition, the analysis acknowledges the role of civil society in collecting evidence of war crimes in Ukraine. It recognizes their crucial involvement in gathering information and supporting investigations into these crimes.

Lastly, the analysis appreciates the Council of Europe’s efforts in training judges, prosecutors, and civil society in Ukraine. This training is seen as a valuable contribution to Ukraine’s justice system and evidence collection processes.

In summary, the analysis emphasizes the importance of international cooperation in countering cyber threats, the role of electronic evidence in war crime investigations, and the need for effective implementation of international conventions. It also underscores the significance of common democratic values, the attribution of cyber crimes, the role of civil society, and the contribution of the Council of Europe in supporting Ukraine’s efforts in documenting and addressing war crimes.

Moderator

The session aimed to discuss the use of open source intelligence and digital evidence in the prosecution of war crimes and human rights abuses. It highlighted the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime and Electronic Evidence as an important tool in these efforts. The convention provides guidance on how electronic evidence is collected, presented, deemed admissible, and safeguarded.

The importance of investigative journalism and open source information in holding those responsible for war crimes accountable was emphasized. It was mentioned that investigative journalism and open source information play a vital role in investigations, and the speaker emphasized the importance of bringing those in charge to account. The role of Bellingcat, an organization that specialises in open source investigation, was discussed, and its impact in conflict zones was highlighted. It was mentioned that Bellingcat utilised various methods of analysis and verification to ensure the accuracy of their findings in conflict zones such as Ukraine.

Cooperation with international partners in the fight against human rights violations and cyber crime was also emphasized. The Budapest Convention was mentioned as promoting international and cross-border cooperation in the realm of cybersecurity. The speaker highlighted the effectiveness of international cooperation in handling violations and cyber crimes, and the importance of a coordinated approach in gathering evidence and presenting it in various forums.

Concerns were raised about Russian aggression and cyber warfare, with 90,000 cases of war crimes registered since the Russian aggression started. The continued cyber attacks on Ukraine’s critical infrastructures by Russia were also highlighted. It was mentioned that Russia has chosen not to join the Budapest Convention.

The session also addressed concerns about data manipulation and the need for data authentication. It was mentioned that technological advancements have made data manipulation easier, and electronic evidence is vulnerable to manipulation. The importance of preserving data and authenticating data sources to ensure credibility and admissibility in court was stressed.

The role of social media platforms in enabling harmful events was discussed. The differences in moderation policies among platforms, as well as the accusation of Facebook enabling ethnic cleansing in Myanmar, were highlighted. It was mentioned that social media platforms bear some responsibility for the information shared on their platforms, and the influence of algorithms on what is shown to users was also acknowledged.

The importance of joining the Budapest Convention was emphasized. It was mentioned that the convention now covers 68 states, and countries that join the convention comply with the principles of human rights, the rule of law, and democratic society. It was stressed that more states need to join the convention to strengthen international cooperation in addressing cyber crimes and human rights violations.

In conclusion, the session highlighted the significance of open source intelligence and digital evidence in prosecuting war crimes and human rights abuses. The Budapest Convention was recognised as an important tool in this regard, providing guidance on the collection, admissibility, and safeguarding of electronic evidence. The session also brought attention to the role of investigative journalism, international cooperation, and the need for improved handling of open source intelligence and electronic evidence. Moreover, concerns were raised about Russian aggression, data manipulation, and the responsibility of social media platforms in enabling harmful events. Overall, the session emphasized the importance of international cooperation and effective legislative tools in addressing these pressing issues.

Moderator:
crimes and electronic evidence. We’ll start in about three minutes. The panel is sitting on the right, if you’re facing us, so that we can actually see the audience. Otherwise, you’d be facing the screen. So we’ve decided to sit here, so if anybody comes up, we can actually see them and face the audience. So please feel free to sit in the audience, or even if you want to come up and sit at the table, you’re most welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. you you you you Good evening everybody. Welcome to the session on Open Source Intelligence and prosecuting using digital evidence, war crimes and human rights abuses. I am the moderator. My name is Zahid Jameel. I’m an attorney. It’s an honor and a privilege and it gives me great pleasure to co-moderate this session with my colleague Gyorgy who is joining us online and will be helping us moderate through an online platform. Under Gyorgy’s leadership and myself as a consultant, we have in the last excess of 24 months undertaken an extensive project on behalf of the Council of Europe that related to today’s discussion, the topic of discussion today which is trying to assist the Ukrainian government in addressing issues related to open source intelligence that can be collected and used as electronic evidence in terms of its own domestic legislation as well as international law. In particular, using the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime and Electronic Evidence as one of the mechanisms to take such open source intelligence and electronic evidence obtained from there and make it admissible and usable before various forums such as domestic courts and international courts or other forums as well, possibly war crimes tribunals. Whilst we could speak in detail about this in today’s conversation, however, and discussion, it aims to introduce our honored guests and we shall dilate upon these challenges and instances whereupon open source intelligence can be used as electronic evidence for prosecuting human rights abuses and war crimes. I will lead the first segment leading up to a round of introductory remarks by the panelists and then hand over to my co-moderator Jorgi to maybe sort of ask some sort of questions we may have received from online participants and also open it to the floor for comments and questions and then come back to the panel for possibly a second round as well. So with that, if I can introduce my first panelist, of course, we are very honored and privileged to have Patrick here who is the Head of Information Society, the Department of Council of Europe. His areas of responsibility include freedom of expression and freedom of media, internet governance, artificial intelligence, cybercrime, data protection and he’s also responsible for projects related to public-private partnerships and cooperation with business partners. His professional focus, of course, encompasses areas such as freedom of expression, safety for journalists, sound internet governance and international standards and data protection. It’s a pleasure to have you here, Patrick, please. The floor is yours.

Patrick Penninchx:
is yours. Thank you. Thank you so much, Saeed. In fact, this panel represents all the Council of Europe stands for. That is, we want to create an environment that is promoting human rights, the rule of law and democratic society. And in fact, what we see in war crimes and especially is these profound human rights violations in which all the actors that take an active role in promoting those basic values have to stand together in order to be able to fight the disinformation about the war, first of all, but also to ensure that those that are in charge and have to take the responsibility for the war crimes that are being committed. And in that respect, the instruments of the Council of Europe, and you mentioned the different areas in which I have a particular role to play, they come together. And I think this session really focuses on the role of investigative journalism, open source information, the use of such open source information in investigations, and bringing those in charge to account. The Budapest Convention is one of those instruments. And the Budapest Convention is not only a European convention. It is now ratified by 68 countries, when a number of countries, 23 more have signed or have been invited to accede to the Budapest Convention. And that makes it a worldwide instrument. That’s really important. Of course, the fact of having the war on the European soil. has of course meant that we took an extra interest in what was happening from a Council of Europe perspective and in that sense have been engaging quite a bit, including with the private sector. We’re very happy to have Microsoft here around the table, but also with organizations such as Bellingcat that have made open source investigation one of their leading goals in terms of making sure that those responsible are taken into account. A number of elements of the Budapest Convention and especially the second additional protocol which was opened in May 2022 and has had an immediate success in terms of the number of signatories of the second additional protocol will of course help us to fight the proliferation of cybercrime on the one side, but also to fight and to make sure that the increasing complexity in obtaining electronic evidence which is stored in foreign multiple shifting or unknown jurisdictions and the powers of law enforcement which are limited, we have to ensure that with that we can combat that and provide a legal basis for the disclosure of domain name registration information and direct cooperation with the service providers. While offering at the same time mutual assistance tools and of course personal data protection safeguards. This will be also presented by my co-panelists later in this session. So I would like to thank you very much already the ones here present in the room and also the panelists for taking part in this important session. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you Patrick. It’s a pleasure

Moderator:
to have had you. Thank you so much and of course we’ll come back to you for more clarifications and questions probably more about the European status and what may be happening in Ukraine. Of course we have other panelists who are from Ukraine with us to also speak about that. I will now ask my colleague, Jayantha Fernando, who is joining us online as the second panelist, if we could switch to him. Jayantha is a lawyer, now in active digital law practice from South Asia, who has helped to bring Sri Lanka and several countries to the Budapest Convention. He was a bureau member of the TCY, which is the committee of the Budapest Convention of the Member States, which negotiated the second additional protocol and several guidance notes to the Budapest Convention. And I can tell you that he’s done an excellent job of trying to advocate for the adoption of the Budapest Convention right across the globe in several countries, both in the South Pacific and also in Asia. So it gives me great pleasure to invite Jayantha, if you could, please, the floor is yours, Jayantha. I don’t know if you can hear us since you’re online. Just wanted to check if you are there.

Jayantha Fernando:
Yeah, I can hear you very well. Can I be heard?

Moderator:
Please go ahead. Thank you.

Jayantha Fernando:
Thank you, Saeed. And it’s nice to speak after Patrick. And if I think in the interest of time, I’ll be brief in this initial intervention. I think in the context of open source intelligence and use of modern techniques for gathering electronic evidence, Saeed has very clearly enunciated in your opening address as well as what was mentioned by Patrick. And in the context of what we are seeing happening, being live streamed from the Middle East, as we speak, the tragedies and all that’s happening these days, I think this topic is really of significance. I think it is… has been discussed at a very opportune moment at the IGF. In the context of the Budapest Convention and its operative provisions, I think it goes without saying that the tools provided through the Budapest Convention, including through the Second Additional Protocol, are vital in the context of allowing new techniques to be adopted in the investigation of all categories of offenses, including human rights violations, that you very clearly mentioned a short while ago. Most notably, it is relevant to note that the Convention State Parties got together after the Cloud Evidence Report was finalized in 2017 to negotiate the Second Additional Protocol that provides new and novel methods for investigators to gather and share electronic evidence with other parties, as well as directly laced with international service providers. So we have, for the first time, mechanisms provided for enhanced direct cooperation between countries and providers of service, including domain name registration information providers. We have disclosure of subscriber information provided under Article 7 of the Second Additional Protocol, and heaps of measures connected with that. Then there is also a mechanism to give effect to an order made by one country for expedited production of subscriber information and traffic data that’s provided under Article 8. We also have. in the second edition of protocol article nine, which provides for expedited disclosure of scored computer data in an emergency situation. And then procedural measures that deals with now new techniques for emergency mutual assistance, which was either to never provided in any other treaty. Then of course, there are very practical solutions also in the second edition of protocol, most notably in article 11, that describes procedures for international cooperation where parties and experts are in different places. And it is difficult to reduce the evidence that you have gathered. And there is mechanisms available for obtaining the evidence required and clarity and depositions to be provided through video conferencing techniques. And then also joint investigation teams and joint investigations. But most notably, what I would like to emphasize are the additional safeguards that were brought in through the second edition of protocol, which has either to not been found in any other international treaty. There is the provisions contained in article 14, which has got specific data protection safeguards dealing with processing of data that is gathered in the course of investigation and for cross-border sharing of electronic evidence gathered through the new techniques provided under the second edition protocol. Having said that, ladies and gentlemen, what I want to in conclusion emphasize is another important tool that is made available under the Budapest Convention, namely the capacity building measures. All of these tools, legislative tools become meaningful and effective only if there is… domestic capacity in a given country to deal with the problem and equip the criminal justice authorities with the ability to investigate, prosecute, as well as hear and determine these matters within your territories. For that to happen, Council of Europe Convention, the Budapest Convention, and its rules provide a capacity-building initiative for the global action against cyber crime, which has benefited many countries, including mine. So we find, in conclusion, illustrate an example. We have, over the years, been able to have expert judges. Now, we have 14 of them who have gone through a training of the training program, who, in turn, have been able to replicate and introduce cyber crime and electronic evidence module in the Judges Institute to train judges across the provinces in the country. That resulted in 323 judges being trained in the provinces by the 14 expert judges trained under the Council of Europe PLACY program called Global Action Against Cybercrime. Similarly, prosecutors have been trained, who have developed the ability to deal with this problem and equip them with tools to prosecute. And then investigators, who are the first respondents in a human rights violation, genocide, or any other cybercrime-related incident, who can gather the essential ingredients necessary to prove the offence. They have also been trained under the PLACY program, under the Council of Europe. And I just want to flag those benefits as a country that has progressed over the years as a state party to the Budapest Convention, how we have benefited from it. those capacity building tools to develop domestic capability to deal with the range of issues and challenges where electronic evidence is required to be gathered to present them in the various fora, including in the context of the topic being discussed today and the need for such capacity to be developed over a period of time and maintain in a sustainable manner so as to create an ecosystem where the modern day threats, issues, challenges can be dealt with in a coordinated manner with international partners. So with that, Zahid, I will close my intervention at this point and I’ll be available for Q&A. Thank you.

Moderator:
Absolutely. Thank you so much, Antha. In fact, of course, we will come back to you because we’d love to hear more about the incidents and examples that have been helpful to your country and how you’ve used them. But at the moment, we’ll move to John. Let me introduce my next panelist, John Herring, who’s here in the room to my right. He is a Senior Government Affairs Manager for Digital Diplomacy at Microsoft. He analyzes global cybersecurity landscapes and drives engagement with regional government teams and contributes to Microsoft’s efforts to promote peace and security in cyberspace through various multi-stakeholder initiatives. He’s worked previously with the US government and prior to joining Microsoft, John served as a White House Defense Fellow in the Obama administration at the Department of Defense and the Office of Secretary of Defense for Policy. He has also previously led humanitarian aid research in Northeast Nigeria with the Danish Refugee Council and worked as a math and science teacher also through Teach for America. I know you had a fantastic session this morning, John. I just talked a little bit about what’s happening in the international landscape, but over to you to discuss this very important topic and what Microsoft’s doing in regards. Thanks.

John Hering:
Thank you. Thank you so much. And thank you to the IGF for hosting this important discussion. I mean, it’s a privilege to be up here with all of you. And maybe just to begin by saying that, you know, to commend the Budapest Convention as, you know, the invaluable tool that exists for successfully combating international cybercrime. And just to say that we hope that the current UN cybercrime negotiation process to the ad hoc committee sort of takes a cue from the Budapest Convention to certainly not conflict and also to hopefully replicate many of the good measures that are reflected in that to support international cooperation against cybercrime while safeguarding effectively human rights. I wanna pivot a little bit to talk about the topic that brings us here today, which is sort of the potential for war crimes and the potential for cybercrime in the future. And I wanna start by saying that I’m a big believer in the importance of data and documentation is there because innovation in conflict has necessitated innovations in collection, in documentation and of the evidence. My team at Microsoft is our digital diplomacy team. We’re relatively new, but we’re, you know, one way to think of us is Microsoft’s response to cyberspace emerging as a domain of conflict. We spend a lot of time trying to promote new expectations for responsible behavior online and elsewhere. We do what we can to promote accountability to those expectations. And to that end, the use of cyber operations in the, you know, full-scale war in Ukraine that began a little over a year and a half ago, you know, has been rather novel in sort of being the first large-scale example of hybrid warfare that perhaps the world has seen. There are certainly other examples, but not at the scale that we’re seeing in Ukraine. And this has introduced sort of two challenges. The first is obviously the potential for traditional war crimes that we’ve seen in the past and in other conflicts and that are as old as time in many ways. And then the other is the potential for specifically cyber-enabled or cyber-dependent war crimes. And then also everything in between, you know, war crimes that have a cyber component to them or that are enabled by those operations. And this creates new challenges in terms of what our responsibilities as different stakeholders in this space, what is our responsibilities as an industry player that has access to information and can help with documentation. So on the sort of cyber-based. potential war crimes side of this equation, Microsoft has responded to these challenges with greater transparency and increased reporting. In particular, out of our Microsoft Threat Analysis Center, in addition to trying to work to protect and secure civilian data, Ukrainian data, customer data that might be tied up in the conflict, we’re also reporting on the breadth of cyber operations that we are seeing across the conflict itself. This has been in successive reports from our Threat Analysis Center, includes information on the targets, the different malware types, the actors that are responsible, to the degree we can trace who the actor responsible is, and to the degree we can know what the impact of those attacks has been as well, to hopefully serve as a tool of accountability on its own, but then a valuable source of open source intelligence as well. And then there’s the other side of the equation when it comes to more traditional war crimes allegations for which digital documentation could be proof essential. And so we’ve also been exploring how to expedite the collection of evidence or otherwise provide support for the capture of digital evidence alleging for just traditional war crimes under underneath the Rome Statute or other provisions, and making sure that the International Criminal Court would have the ability to document that in a more immutable fashion. So I might leave that there for further discussion just to tee up how we’re seeing this space and how that intersects with some of the work of my team. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you so much. That’s very helpful because it gives us an idea of how businesses are trying to tackle and address and trying to ameliorate the very serious concerns and incidents that are taking place. Now, if I may turn to our participants and speaker from Ukraine, Natalia Tagchuk. She is the head of the Information and Cybersecurity Directorate at the Office of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine. She also holds the position of the Secretary of Ukraine’s National Coordination Center for Cybersecurity and has 20 years of practical experience in the sector of national security and defense of Ukraine. She is responsible for providing coordination and control over activities of main state actors in the sphere of information and cybersecurity, and she holds a PhD in the field of law and national security. Slava Kuranya, pleasure, welcome. Thank you.

Nataliya Tkachuk:
We please you, the floor is yours. Thank you, Zahid. It’s a great pleasure and honor for me to be here with such a great professionals. Thank you very much for your support to Ukraine. It’s very important for us. I would like to start to say a few words. You know, my trip to Japan took almost three days because we don’t have no air connections as this war going on in Ukraine. But this trip was worth it because the AGEA Forum is a very important venue where we can discuss the most important issues of the internet, of new technologies, of cybersecurity. And you know, the first day during the opening panel, I was admiring the opening speeches on the first panel. Everybody were talking about the importance of the internet in democratic world, about artificial intelligence, and also about threats that these technologies can possess. First of all, cyber attacks and disinformation. But to my regrets, no one mentioned the country who actually invented the mechanisms of disinformation, using social media, internet to manipulate public opinion, to manipulate elections in democratic states. Country who was the first country using cyber attacks also as an instrument for further special information operations. I’m talking about the Russian Federation, about the terrorist country. And why it’s important to remember, because when we are discussing the future of the internet, the future of cybersecurity and new secure frameworks, we need to keep this in mind. Today, we will discuss the war crimes and the role of electronic evidence. I should say that since the Russian aggression started, our law enforcement already registered more than 90,000 of war crimes. Can you imagine this number? And even this is old data. Maybe now it’s even bigger, 90,000. And it’s simply impossible for any law enforcement agency, or even for one country to document and to investigate all these crimes. And it’s simply impossible without your help, without the help of civil society, without our international partners, without help of people who take care of human rights, NGOs, and so on. And this is why the question of electronic evidence is very important. And I’m happy that today we will discuss the main issues of this topic. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. You’re absolutely right. And I think a lot more attention needs to be paid and heeded to the kind of issues that you’ve mentioned. Also, I think it’s important that you mentioned the importance of attribution in attacks, et cetera, and also with the evidence that you collect to be able to attribute it is extremely important. So I move now to our last panelist. Of course, we will be having several rounds after this, of course. Nick Waters, he’s the head of the justice and accountability team at Bellingcat. We’re really happy to have you, Nick. Thank you. With a background in the military and cybersecurity, his interests have focused on conflict and the applicability of open source information as evidence. Nick will be speaking about the development of open source investigation, starting with the inception of Bellingcat, the development of a methodology with the Global Legal Action Network to enable the use of open source information to investigate Saudi-led coalition strikes in Yemen, and ultimately its application to the invasion in Ukraine. Over to you, Nick. The floor is yours.

Nick Waters:
First, thank you very much for inviting me. It’s incredibly privileged to be able to speak to all of you here. What I’m going to show you is a much more granular idea of what this can actually mean in terms of information or open source information as evidence. And in order to do that, we have a, or I wanted to show you a video which relates to a series of executions carried out by Mr. Bithali in 2017. So Mr. Bithali was the subject of a restaurant issue by the International Criminal Court regarding the executions of large numbers of people that he accused of being members of the Islamic State, but who had not gone through any kind of judicial process. When we found out about this, we decided that we would also try and find out what kind of information you could work out from each one of these videos. And I would like to show that to you now. Just a warning, this does show the aftermath of an execution. It doesn’t show the actual execution itself. So that is Mr. Bithali reading from a sheet and those are detainees who were about to be executed. And what we needed to do was try and squeeze as much information out from this video as possible. Now, when you see a video, watch a video, you’re only seeing a single still frame at a time. So what we did is we extracted multiple still frames and then blended them together to form a panorama. And within that panorama, it makes it easier to identify features which you can use to geolocate it, to place it in space. In this case, we could identify some buildings in the back left with quite distinctive design with gaps at the base, a wall on the right-hand side and a fork in the road where the actual execution took place. Now, finding the general area wasn’t too difficult. There’s a place called the Chinese Housing Project in Benghazi where fighting had been taking place at the time of these executions, which matched the building. that we could see in the video. And so that’s where we started looking. Now, if you’ve ever seen these kind of geolocations or read an article from Bellingcat, you can see that when you reach the final product, it can sometimes be like really clear. It seems self-evident that the location is correct, but frequently this can take a very long time to achieve. In this case, I think it took us about three weeks with three or four people working several hours a day in order to actually identify the potential location, but we did eventually identify a potential location. And this location had the properties that we were looking for in terms of a fork in the road, a building, and a wall, which are in the correct orientation. However, for us, that isn’t confirmation enough. We want to be absolutely certain. So what we did is we bought the latest high-resolution satellite imagery that was available, and then we overlaid the video of the execution on top of it. And we saw that the bushes that you can see in the top of the image matched exactly with what you could see in satellite imagery. And as we were buying this latest satellite imagery, we also noticed new satellite imagery appeared, which had these black spots in the road. And it took us a while to work out precisely what these black spots were, but again, when we compared them to the video, we worked out that they were the bloodstains of the people who had been executed. So we knew we had the location exactly. We could then use the people within the video as effectively as sundials to work out where the sun was in the sky in order to establish the time, which would have been about 6.30 in the morning. And then we were pretty confident about the date because the bloodstains appeared between the 15th, 16th, and 17th of July. So we had an exact location, a time, probably accurately, within a few minutes, and then a date, accurate to within a few days. And this is the kind of information that we deal with in order to take content like this, images, videos, from primarily from conflict zones, and then verify that content in order to conduct further in-depth investigations. And this kind of information can be incredibly important, especially when it’s combined with other traditional forms of information. Forms of evidence. Yeah, and I think that is my time up. I’m very happy to speak about that if anyone has any further questions. Thank you.

Moderator:
Nick, that was breathtaking, to say the least. Thank you very much. Very helpful. I would like to now go to the remote participants and my co-moderator, Gyorgy. But before I do that, I wanted to give an opportunity to Natalia. Natalia, you see what has just been shown. And while there’s Bellingcat, now it might change to Bellingbear, near Russia. So my question is, how do you feel about this sort of information? Would it be helpful to you in the Ukraine and the conflict there?

Nataliya Tkachuk:
Yeah, of course. This information would be very helpful to Ukraine. And actually, Bellingcat is helping Ukraine right now. They have a special platform which gathers all the electronic evidence of Russian aggression in Ukraine.

Moderator:
Thank you. So obviously, hopefully more people from the tech industry will be also helping out. We hope that is the case. I would like to now take the opportunity and go to my co-moderator, Gyorgy. Maybe he can mention a few comments. I know he’s done extensive work, of course, in Ukraine with respect to OSINT. And also maybe he can tell us if there’s anybody who would like to comment or has questions from the online platform. We’ll go there first. Gyorgy, over to you.

Giorgi Jokhadze:
Thank you, Zahid. And greetings. everyone from Strasbourg. It’s it’s been it’s been a pleasure to to listen to all of the speakers and to participate in this in this event so thank you very much for this opportunity and thank you for all the information shared so far. I’ll start with the second question from Zahid at the moment we have about 30 participants online but there are no particular questions yet coming in or comments that are being relayed to speakers so using this opportunity maybe I can sort of step in myself and and provide a couple of comments as Zahid rightly mentioned when it comes to the use of open source intelligence or generally evidence of war crimes and gross human rights violations in the context of our assistance to Ukraine so for the last few years I worked for the Council of Europe where I’m managing a regional project on cybercrime and ethnic evidence in the Eastern Partnership which also covers Ukraine and it happened to cover Ukraine also from on the days when the Russian aggression against Ukraine started in February 2022 so we’ve been actually quite involved with Ukrainian authorities especially with the prosecutor’s office from the very early days I would say of our action of our joint action to support Ukraine in the war of aggression in terms of like really clarifying the issues where actually do our standards such as the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime and potentially second edition standard in terms of supporting Ukraine to basically to have a clear case and the clear sort of evidence and then standing either domestically or through potential international investigations or international judicial process in these issues as well so what we try to focus on was not really to go that much in depth into the features of the national law because there we had the help of the Ukrainian expert who was actually looking at this quite extensively but for us it was important to identify whether the tools that we have would be helpful and fortunately we have the Budapest Convention on our side and we identified a few tools there including for example article 32 of the convention which is underutilized in daily practice, but still opens up a lot of possibilities to all member states to the Budapest Convention to also have access to open source intelligence, either in the public domain or in the private domain. If let’s say the owner of the data, be it a service provider or a foreign company, or even the civil society organization expresses its content to share with authorities of Ukraine, should such a request would be. It may be, it may sound a bit superfluous, but it’s also very important to note that we view the open source intelligence in this context as a part of the overall chain of evidence and chain of custody leading to criminal investigations and overall criminal justice context. For us, it is important to treat the OSINT as information and evidence, which is just a part of the rest of investigative powers and investigative procedures that investigators and prosecutors have to use to prove the cases either domestically before domestic courts or internationally should this be required. And last but not least, I think it’s very important to note that one of the features of electronic evidence that is that it likes to travel beyond borders. And this is where the tools of the convention and tools of a second edition protocol come into place because cross-sharing of evidence is not just simply about international investigations or the tribunals, but also in terms of the actual acquisition of the data, the actual sharing of the data would be great if it’s sort of put in the framework of a process which is provided by the Budapest Convention, specifically Article 32 and the other instruments that are there. So, sorry for abusing a bit my position as a co-moderator to this meeting, but I thought it would be also a bit thought provoking maybe to focus on those tools as well in terms of discussion in this workshop. Thank you. So far, I see that there are no further questions at the moment from the chat.

Moderator:
Gheorghe, thank you so much, by the way, really appreciate you giving us sort of a primer on how the different provisions of the convention actually work. This is very, very helpful, especially Article 32. I will first of all, look towards the audience to see if there are any questions from the audience. Of course, I have a few questions which I’ll pose to next Jayantha, just giving him a warning, but please, there’s a mic right behind you and we’re happy to give you mics from here if you wish, but if you could go there and then you’d also be on camera when you ask the question.

Audience:
Yeah, sure. Hello, thanks all for coming and thanks to the panelists and moderator for giving the floor. My name is Tim. I think that this Budapest Convention framework may still like a useful legal framework in context of war crimes and crimes in general. However, do you think it can be used for punishing those criminals who are Ukrainian based as long as there is plenty of electronic evidence of war crimes committed by Ukrainian army forces as well, like tortures, killing civilians, presence of war and so on. Same as cyber crimes, fraud and scam. Just for example, Ukraine has a record of having call centers with scammers pretending to be like central bank employees. These scammers call Russian citizens and convince them to transfer money to the attacker’s account. That’s definitely a cyber crime. So my question is, is there any chance Ukrainian based criminals will ever be punished with your help? Thank you so much.

Moderator:
Thank you for the question. I’m definitely going to have some comments to that, but over to anyone in the panel who would like to respond.

Nataliya Tkachuk:
First of all, I would like to comment that actually there is a not only conventional war, but cyber war that is going on in Ukraine. And the Russian Federation started the cyber war in 2014. And actually it was the first example of cyber war when Russia attacked our electric power station with black energy, simultaneously annexing the Crimea and other parts of Ukraine. And I’m thankful to John that you mentioned cyber war. crimes and your question about the cyber war crimes. I can say that Russians are constantly conducting cyber war crimes against Ukrainian population. They are constantly attacking civil critical infrastructure facilities, electronic grids, and other facilities that is being used by civil population. And it’s no matter that it’s rather difficult to attribute cyber crimes, but we managed to do this. And I should say that Ukraine, together with the United States of America, maybe only the two countries in the world really managed to attribute the cyber crimes to a particular people who did this. For example, I should give you an example of Armageddon Hacker Group. The Security Service of Ukraine, together with the Office of General Prosecutor and military department of it, managed to investigate the constant cyber attacks of this hacking group. And this hacking group is a part of the Russian counterintelligence, which is based in Crimea. We had the particular names, phone calls of the people who conducted these cyber attacks. And we can prove that this was actually cyber war crimes. And this is very important for international community to support this, because it’s very important issue. And I should say that this is a new issue, because it’s not the first war, but this is the first

Moderator:
cyber war that’s going on. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. What we’ll do now is we’ll basically ask others to explain what is new about this. And of course, we’ll take more questions. Just one response from me. I’m the moderator, but I think it’s helpful just as a matter of information. And it’s neutral comment. Obviously, these allegations would be by Russian complainants or victims, et cetera. So it’s a very simple answer to this question. Ukraine is a member of the Budapest Convention. Others are members of the Budapest Convention. Russia can become a member of the Budapest Convention, but for some reason it chooses not to. If Russia, just to answer your question, if Russia became a member of the Budapest Convention, then it would be able to assert these rights. But for some reason, the External Affairs Ministry of Russia decides not to do so. So maybe the question should be asked of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs or External Affairs, why don’t they join to solve this problem? I wanted to move to John. And of course, I know you are, they will come back. I want to move to John and say, John, what kind of new challenges are you seeing here with respect to war crimes and electronic? This is one of the first we’ve witnessed since the new age of cyber. And are there specific cyber specific war crimes that you want to sort of talk about and what does that do to the environment? Thanks.

John Hering:
See, it’s not Microsoft’s place to be, I think, deciding in any way what constitutes a war crime one way or the other. But I think, obviously, the widespread use of cyber capabilities in an armed conflict represents the possibility of there being cyber-enabled war crimes. And hence why we’ve sort of been stepping up that degree to which we are reporting out on the offensive cyber activities that we’re seeing in the context of that particular conflict, but then also more broadly. And so I actually would probably direct you to the work of the Human Rights Center out of Berkeley Law School, who has filed now, I think, three successive Article 15 submissions with the International Criminal Court that does allege cyber-enabled war crimes. And as part of, and certainly throughout their sort of very well-documented submissions, there is a very well-resourced set of evidence based on the reporting from not just Microsoft, but a whole host of technology companies who have sort of stepped into that space to say, hey, here’s the activity that we’re seeing. Here’s the best information that we have in terms of where we can trace it back to. Here’s the type of malware that was used in this operation. And then also, to what degree, at least this was something that Microsoft reported on last year, to what degree do we see alignment between military objectives in the kinetic space, as well as then the cyber operations that we see as being aligned? And so whether that’s missile attacks or other kinetic strikes, we are also seeing some evidence of potential alignment there that can be used in similar violence.

Moderator:
Thank you, very helpful. I wanted to now turn to Nick. I know we didn’t give you enough time and you just were able to present the video, but is there anything you wanted to generally state? And also, in particular, to sort of the things you’ve seen happening with respect to on the ground? Because a question was just asked about that it would be helpful to get some sort of response about the experience you’re having.

Nick Waters:
Yeah, so from our perspective, this is less in terms of like the Budapest Convention and more in terms of specific open source information. One of the things that we’ve actually been very careful about specifically with the map that was previously talked about, which looks at instances of civilian harm in Ukraine, is that we’re very, very careful about attributing responsibility for that. So the Ukraine civilian harm database, which we run, contains all the incidents that we can find, which is obviously only minority of what has happened, where civilians have been harmed or civilian infrastructure has been harmed in Ukraine as a result of the Russian invasion. We have taken several safeguards to make sure that we’re careful about the kind of information that’s placed in there. So, for example, we talked for a couple of hours about what colour to label the instance. So they’re not blue, they’re not red, they’re not green, they are specifically purple. We haven’t attributed any of those instances to anyone. So in theory, what you see on that map could in fact have been carried out by any state party. That is something we’ve had to be very, very careful of because we cannot make comment on who has actually carried out a particular instance until we have conducted further in-depth investigations of that. In terms of the Russian state specifically, firstly, we would find it very difficult, for example, to cooperate with the Russian legal system, firstly, because we don’t think it’s a particularly effective one, and secondly, because as soon as we get off the plane, they would arrest us. And secondly, that same legal system has spent the last few years denigrating the idea that this kind of information can be used as evidence, specifically in relation to MH17, as well as in relation to their intelligence agencies carrying out poisonings in Europe. And so I don’t think this kind of information would successfully be used as evidence within the Russian legal system, simply because they rejected that as a possibility over the previous few years. Thank you.

Moderator:
I’m going to ask Jan and Fernando to possibly share with us examples of the use of Article 32, because as I mentioned earlier, we’re going to come back to you and see how you think that Article 32 is unique and provides the ability to be able to combat or deal with open source intelligence, for instance. And I would like to come back to the floor because I believe there’s a question from here and then we’ll come back to the earlier participant. Please go ahead, Jan. Thank you, Saeed.

Jayantha Fernando:
a couple of points I just want to emphasize here in the context of some of the questions also that was raised. It’s important to know that the tools available under the Budapest Convention, including Article 32, is available for state parties to the Budapest Convention and not otherwise. So, I think we need to be very clear about the unique features of the Convention, especially the open source framework provided to Article 32, which is clarified more clearly through the guidance note on transport access to data, Article 32. So, there’s a guidance note, Zahid, if you may remember, on Article 32, which was agreed to between state parties to the Budapest Convention. And it is also important to note a particular sentence I would like to quote from the guidance note, where it is presumed that the parties to the Convention form a community of trust. And that rule of law, human rights principles are respected in line with Article 15 of the Budapest Convention. So, if a state party to a Budapest Convention who wants to benefit from Article 32 and rely on the open source material available online, as clearly explained by many of our panelists today, it is also important to understand that the concept of this being used within a community of trust and to ensure that rule of law human rights principles are respected in line with article 15. That said, I want to emphasize that not only on a day-to-day basis but on a very regular basis, be it in relation to a drug-related offense or any other offense, our law enforcement authorities are using this provision on a regular basis because they have been trained, and not only because they have been trained, they comply with the minimum standards under article 15 and the standard operating procedures on which they use those tools are also respecting the provisions contained in article 15. Thanks.

Moderator:
Thank you. Thank you, Janatha. And article 15, for those who are in the room, is basically the human rights provision. So it’s very important for the convention to basically make sure that any provision of procedural or investigative powers are subject to these human rights provisions. We have a question in the room. Gentleman, please, over to you, sir. Please, you can ask your question. Thank you. I’m Fernando Garcia, and I’m the… Sorry. Hi,

Audience:
I’m Fernando Garcia, and I’m the Secretary Director of R3D, the Utah Rights Defense Network from Mexico. Obviously, I think no one can deny that access to e-evidence can be crucial to resolve crimes. However, I think it’s really important to also make notice that, unfortunately, in many places in the world, law enforcement officials also participate in the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, human rights abuses. In this respect, I think it’s important to say that unfortunately, a lot of dissatisfaction and frustration among several civil society groups with regard to the lack of effective safeguards, both in the protocol of the Budapest Convention and in the proposed draft in the Cybercrime Treaty being negotiated in the UN. For example, the lack of judicial safeguards being mentioned. And in general, I think… There’s a lot of frustration, I think, lack of communication, I think. And I think my question is, does anyone in the panel recognize that the safeguards that are in the protocol or in the draft text of the UN Cybercrime Convention are inadequate? And there’s much more to do with regard to building effective safeguards that prevent the provisions of the Budapest Convention of being used actually to commit crimes with impunity, as unfortunately many places in the world, like in the country that I come from, happens regularly.

Moderator:
Thank you for the questions, very good question. I’m happy to give some response, but any piece, Patrick, go ahead.

Patrick Penninchx:
Well, I think it is indeed better that the parties to the Budapest Convention can respond to that because ultimately they are in charge of committing to the Budapest Convention and using its articles. I just wanted to say two things, also with regards to the previous question. We’re a panel on war crimes and gross human rights violations. This is not the International Criminal Court. So let’s also refocus and make sure that we focus on the topic of our panel right now. And maybe also despite the fact that we emphasize the usefulness of open source information as being potential evidence of war crimes, we also, however, we need to distinguish between intelligence, information, and evidence, and that not every open source information is or can be used for trial purposes. I think that’s important that we recognize that electronic… evidence must obviously be obtained in compliance with existing legislation and best practice procedures to be admissible in a trial. That’s one thing. And from the example that Nick has given us, let’s also be very clear. We need information, open source information that is reliable, that is authentic, that is complete, that is also believable and reliable. And I think those elements are core components once we have to decide when certain information can be used in trial or not. And that’s why the importance of reliable information, not manufactured information, is of clear importance. And when we see that we’re in an era where deep fakes and disinformation, systemic disinformation, is taking place worldwide but also ensured by a number of countries which have a particular interest in that, that we need to ensure that this information is in the first place reliable. Then I leave it to the parties, to the Budapest Convention, to see what the limitations are and where we need to work

Moderator:
further. Thank you. That’s very, very helpful. I just wanted to add a comment, and then of course there are more interventions I believe, that the Convention under Article 15, and I don’t know if you may have read it, stipulates that the human rights standards, in fact it mentions several treaties that have to be applicable, and it talks specifically about safeguards. Every single procedural investigative power, because I teach this constantly every few weeks, actually stipulates that there should be judicial oversight of every single procedural provision within the convention. So this is very much embedded within the crux of the convention. But in addition to that, the capacity building training that the convention does continually talks about the human rights aspect. So I completely agree with you that it’s essential that police, law enforcement and others don’t abuse this. And the Budapest Convention at least provides some. I’m happy to have a conversation with you about where you feel maybe there are gaps. But I do think that you are right when we look at the UN Convention, that our committee convention in the UN currently, there are various concerns of civil society and others. And absolutely correctly, I think, that there are many gaps related to human rights and civil liberty safeguards as it applies to the UN Draft Convention. I should call it a draft at the moment. But Natalia, over to you. And then of course, I have a question for Nick and then we’ll go to the audience back again, please.

Nataliya Tkachuk:
I would like to add that, of course, the Budapest Convention is the very effective instruments in investigation of cyber crimes. But it’s not enough simply to become part of this convention. The implementation is a very important next step. And for example, Ukraine is still working on the implementation of the Budapest Convention. And I think that it’s a very important next step for the implementation of the Budapest Convention. Ukraine is still working on the implementation of the Budapest Convention. Now, there is war going on. We have different regime of war times. But before the war, we still had problems with provisions that provide disclosure and preservation of data, of technical data. Because in Ukraine, law enforcement didn’t have the possibility to issue some warrants strictly as it is implied in the Budapest Convention. And this is also very important. The effective. implementation of this international document.

Moderator:
Thank you, Natalia. I know that, John, you wanted to quickly intervene, please.

John Hering:
Yeah, and I think there’s been well enough said about the provisions of the Budapest Convention, but just to circle back on the UNHC, the Cybercrime Convention negotiations that are ongoing, two points ahead. Thankfully, it is still, I think, a draft, and we still have fairly significant concerns about making sure that there are sufficient safeguards in place for things like human rights, particularly as it relates to some of the data access provisions and opportunities for more transparency as to when and for how long data was requested and making sure that information can always be disclosed on a long enough timeline.

Moderator:
For instance, Article 32 of the Convention actually states that there has to be certain consents given for transport or access. We have no such provision within the UN Convention. So the question is, anybody can then access anything? It’s a question to be asked, Nick. I have a question for you regarding what Patrick said. It’s very important that whatever data you look at is authentic, reliable. And so my question is, how do you verify these images? We saw this wonderful video, to the standard that allowed them to be used as evidence in court, you know, what is the, and have you had experience with, say, war crimes triangles, et cetera? Thank you.

Nick Waters:
Okay, yeah, so what we’ve been doing is working with the Global Legal Action Network, who are a group of lawyers, carry out strategic litigation in order to assess if this kind of information that I showed you can actually be used as evidence. Primarily, this is focused in common law, so the law of England and Wales. However, what we’ve done is focus on the principles of the admissibility of evidence. And so we believe that the methodology that we’ve created with the Global Legal Action Network enables the possibility that some of this, these videos, these images, could be used as evidence in the future. Obviously, it’s not a guarantee, and this is only one way of doing it. Human Rights Centre at Berkeley obviously has the Berkeley Protocol, which our methodology, we believe, is consistent with, but those are the principles that we’ve sought to apply. So when you actually investigate these kind of pieces of content, we talked specifically about AI. However, AI still isn’t really at the point where it can create believable content. At the moment, the majority of the problems come from real content that’s been repurposed from one event that’s been repurposed to say it comes from a different event. And by some very simple verification steps, by placing a piece of content in space and time, you can exclude all of that misleading information. We also seek to use contextual verification as well, comparing it to the context of the event at the time, as well as cross-reference verification. So for example, you can imagine that if a incident happens in a large city, say an airstrike, there will be multiple people who will take pictures and videos, because that’s what people do. It’s happened in Syria, it happened in Yemen, it’s happened in Ukraine. And so we will seek out that content, place it in space and time, and seek it to compare with other pieces of content. So we’ve been thinking about this from the very kind of basic, placing this content in time and space, and then all the way up to the principles of evidential admissibility. anyone is interested in that our methodology with Global Legal Action Network is available online. You just need to look for Glenn Bellingcat and then methodology and you’ll find it.

Moderator:
Thank you, Nick. Thanks. I hope that addresses some of the concerns regarding how this can be used, especially with respect to prosecution. I will be asking John a question about what you’ve been doing with the ICC prosecutor and how you’ve helped. But before I do that, I know a gentleman’s been waiting for some time actually. No, no, absolutely. Please, the floor is yours.

Audience:
Thank you for giving me the second time. I have like small commentary for Natalia. Please. I completely agree with her, with you about that Russia and Ukraine actually have not only like classical war, but also informational war. And the citizens of both countries are suffering from that. It’s absolutely true. But my question to you was about like Ukrainian, baked and sometimes Ukrainian state baked criminals, not like Russian because everything is clear about Russian criminals. So I feel like my question was left unanswered. But my next question is like to you and to Nick, because frankly speaking, I think that war crime is war crime and no matter who did it, who committed it and where. And in terms of conventions, because you said that the Russian inside and conventions, it doesn’t trust or these war crimes cannot be persecuted by this legal way. This sounds a bit strange because there are certain war crimes where like Russia is not even a struggling party. For example, like some soldier killing some civilian on Ukrainian territory, not related to Russia at all. And this is actually the situation where this convention would be used possibly, but let’s stand off Ukraine for a while because I see it like causes some like hot atmosphere here. Thank you for like letting me continue. So my question is to Nick, because in the context I have just given for like last three days, we actually seeing like this normal events in between Israel and Palestine. And like there is plenty of direct electronic evidence of war crimes committed by each party, by Palestinians and by Israelis. There are clearly war crimes. You don’t have to be an expert. You don’t have to be like a lawyer or some kind of specialist to call what is it actually is. So what is your attitude? What is your approach to these kinds of war crimes in this conflict? And maybe there are any investigations already available. And what do you think if any international law or international cooperation could be used in such a way of, in such a conflict? Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you for your question. First of all, let me clarify what I said earlier was that you’d given examples of cyber crime, not war crimes. And so-

Audience:
I’ve given also examples of war crimes because there were like some situations where like, sorry about getting to Ukraine again, but there was some like events when Ukrainian army, Ukrainian soldiers were killing Ukrainian civilians. That is what I was speaking about. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you for your question. Okay. So the idea was that basically for cyber crime and for electronic evidence, the Budapest Convention provides an international law basis. We don’t have another convention that does that. So therefore one would have to be a party to be able to do the exchange of information. and electronic evidence, therefore, Russia being a party to that would be helpful if Russia wanted to take advantage of it. So for instance, I assume that since the point that you’re making is that Russian victims are involved, it would be then, therefore, the responsibility, I would imagine, of Russian government to say that it wants to be able to defend its people. And so therefore, I would imagine they would want to join the commission, but they’ve chosen not to. That was the point we were making. On the other question regarding Palestine and Israel, et cetera, let me just say this, of course. We will obviously go to the panel. We are not here discussing international war crimes generally. The topic of our conversation, and I think you said it earlier, Patrick, you realize we’re not the War Crimes Tribunal, is to look at electronic evidence and how it, especially OSINT, can be used in various segments. It could be any conflict. It could be the Palestinian conflict. It could be the Russian-Israel situation we just saw. Sorry, the Russian-Ukraine situation and the Palestine-Israel situation we just recently saw. We’re not taking any position, per se. It’s a question of academic question. Now, over to the panel. Does anybody else want to answer any of the questions that have been asked? John, anyone? Natalia, please.

Nataliya Tkachuk:
Thank you for your comments, for your question. And you’re totally right. The justice and the rule of law is a common democratic value. This is the value that my country is fighting against the Russian Federation. And every war criminal should be brought to justice, should be accounted for what he did. That’s why there is international mechanisms, international legislation, and the Budapest Convention as well. But I disagree with you that you said that there is information war, that Ukrainians are suffering and Russians are suffering. Russians are not suffering from information war from any other countries, except from their political leaders. They block all the internet. They block all the media. And people who have another point of view that they are political leaders, they are simply scared, because they simply go to jail. This is the information war. information war in Russia, war from its political leadership. That’s what I wanted to comment. Thank you.

Patrick Penninchx:
I know there was a very specific question that is directed to Nick. And so I hope that Nick and John can answer those questions. But unfortunately, Zahid, I have to correct you at this point in time, because I must say that the Russian Federation at this point in time will not be able to join the Cybercrime Convention for the simple reason that the Russian Federation was expelled from the Council of Europe and has lost its status with the Council of Europe because of not respecting human rights and the basic values that the Council of Europe stands for and was therefore expelled from the Council of Europe following the Russian invasion, illegal invasion in Ukraine. So that option is not open at this point in time. It was open in the past, as you said, but that is no longer an option right now. That’s all I wanted to say because there were some specific questions to the other.

Moderator:
This is one of the welcome times where I like your criticism and disagreement with me. So I’m very happy. Thank you so much for that.

Nick Waters:
Nick, please. Yeah, sure. So in the context of Israel-Palestine, yeah, so the very first thing you said that we can say that war crimes, one of the things we’ve been very, very careful about from Bellingcat’s side, specifically within my team, is that we cannot say that. We cannot say something like that. We are not lawyers. We work with lawyers, with GLAN, but we cannot make those kind of statements. And that’s one thing that we’ve been very careful about doing, and in terms of using the vocabulary to describe events that have been happening, both in terms of Israel-Palestine now, but also in terms of Russian invasion of Ukraine, and also other instances as well. We can’t say that. We’re not lawyers. So in terms of the actual approach, at the moment, the amount of content is horrifying. What we’ve been doing is pretty much what has become standard for these kind of incidents. We’ve been collecting the content and we’ve been trying to preserve it. So there are some organizations which do this. You may be familiar with Mnemonic, which helped to collect this kind of information. of content and preserve that forensically so that later on there is a chain of custody and it could potentially be used as evidence. And that’s what we’re doing at the moment. But in terms of further investigations, I don’t know at this point. As I said, like the amount of stuff going on is absolutely horrific. You know, we’re talking about the use of high explosive weapons within Garda Strip and then also the events that Hamas has perpetrated, which looks like widespread killings of civilians, including minors. And this is something which is very, very difficult to investigate simply because there’s so much of it. The vast amount of atrocities that we see simply are never investigated. With that said, our partners, BLAN, are very keen to work within the context of Israel-Palestine simply because they have been working on strategic litigation in support of potential breaches, potential crimes have happened or alleged crimes, I beg your pardon, that have happened in the occupied Palestinian territories. So that’s something that I think that I would hope that we would eventually be able to contribute towards. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Nick. We obviously are trying to make sure that we also are paying attention to the online participation. And Georgi, I believe you have a comment that’s been made in the chat. And if you could read it out for the audience, please, over to you.

Giorgi Jokhadze:
Yes, thank you very much, Zahid. So there was some exchange in the chat and one of the questions came through, which is, I’ll just read it out like directly and then let everyone respond to it. How can we ensure having the neutral, valid and legitimate evidence system when the crime is committed against Ukrainian and Palestinian people? So the question is about, I mean, the availability of neutral, valid and legitimate evidence system, irrespective, actually, if I understood where the crime is being committed. Georgi, we’re having some difficulty understanding

Moderator:
the question, if you could slowly and maybe loudly, because we lost some of it, if you could repeat it. Thank you so much. Okay, my apologies. So the question is,

Giorgi Jokhadze:
is, how can we ensure having the neutral, valid, and legitimate evidence system, whether the crime is committed against Ukrainian or Palestinian people? So in my interpretation, that refers to what is the, I mean, how is the question of availability of neutral, valid, and legitimate evidence system at the moment, irrespective of whether crime is being committed?

Moderator:
So I think the question for all of us is, how do we, in this process of where we’re looking at OSINT and electronic evidence, ensure that there is neutrality and independence, and that we’re not biased and prejudiced? And this is a good question for everybody, because we are all doing different roles. Someone’s from the National Security Organization, someone’s from organizations which are private sector, et cetera. If you could let me go one after the other. John, would you like to take the first one, please?

John Hering:
Yeah, I mean, I think it’s a good example here from sort of just an objective new tool that Microsoft partnered with Accenture to support the ICC, the National Criminal Court. And its prosecutor that was launched last summer is the OTP Link platform that we put together. This is a fairly sophisticated, but at the end of the day, simple platform created for the recipient of Article 15 submissions from witnesses to potential war crimes, either before or after a preliminary examination has begun by the ICC. Again, this is irrespective of which side of a conflict you would find yourself on. But it would serve to unify a sort of disjointed process into a single system, create a digital chain of custody to collect and preserve that information, to hopefully create a tamper-proof record that can be used to be substantiated and further investigated later. So this is one example of the type of sort of objective tool that technology companies can help advance.

Nick Waters:
Yeah, in terms of the type of policy, there are a couple of points within our technology that we found to be really valuable. Right there. Hello? Yeah. So with regards to neutrality and bias, the methodology that we’ve worked with GLAN has a specific section regarding bias. And that includes both your own personal bias as well as the bias of potential from algorithms, for example. And that’s something we’ve really sought to address within that methodology. From my own personal perspective, it’s important to be able to mitigate our own biases and recognize them as well. Because once you can recognize those biases, then you can actually go on to seek to mitigate them. And one of the things that we’ve sought to do is to hire people who have deep local knowledge of context. So it’s not just another group of, forgive me, white European people looking at a situation and saying, this is exactly what’s happening. We have sought to actually hire people who have that particular perspective and who understand the local issues. Thank you.

Patrick Penninchx:
If I may. It’s clear that right now, technological advantage. and advancements have enabled individuals, but also states and regimes to easily manipulate data in an electronic form. So raising questions about the credibility and authenticity is fully legitimate. And I think that’s really important. And in order to ensure that data may be used as an electronic evidence for trial purposes, there must be a number of criteria, as I mentioned before. Data must be preserved like any data, like any evidence in any court. They must be preserved safely and kept due to, especially the high volatility of these data. They must be safely guarded and protected. Quite a lot of the data which are right now specific to the war against Ukraine, but also Palestine and Israel right now is available also from foreign sources. And some of those sources and many of those are stored in foreign jurisdictions. That means that including also in the cloud, obviously. So we need to be able to authenticate those sources in order to ensure that they are not flout. And that goes for any conflict from any side, from any party, whether that be Israel or Palestine, whether that be Russian Federation or Ukraine. I think that is really important. The collected information and the sources, they must be authenticated, as I said, verified and available for review to be able to demonstrate that the data is not fake, simply. And I think if we can take that as a starting point, and it is not for this panel, but it’s for the court to decide whether that is in the end information that can be used in trial or not. Thank you.

Moderator:
We’ll be going to Jayanth because I want to also ask him to explain, because the question was asked earlier about Article 15 and human rights and the Budapest Convention. So maybe he can shed some light on that, but also wanted to. to just inform the audience, are there any other questions? If there are, please do what you’re invited to come to the mic and ask. If you have a question, comment, or intervention, please, you’re very welcome to do so. Jayantha, if we could go to you online and ask you if you could respond to the question that was made, and I know because you do a lot of this work about the human rights aspects and the possible abuse by law enforcement of the powers that are available within the Budapest Convention and how that is mitigated, et cetera. If we could all go over to you and maybe you can help us with that. Thank you.

Jayantha Fernando:
Yeah, you were not very clear, Zahid, on your question, but if I’m to clarify the rule of Article 15, the provisions contained in the Budapest Convention starts with Article 14, the procedural measures where every party that is introducing legislative and other procedural measures provided for under the procedural tools and international cooperation tools in the convention for the purposes of not only cybercrime investigations, but all other investigations or other criminal investigations have to ensure that there are established safeguards within the scope of Article 15. And as you rightly said, the Article 15 human rights safeguards illustrates this with reference to international conventions that countries would have to may consider joining. So as far as some of our countries are concerned, many of us have become state parties to international conventions such as ICCPR. so on and so forth. And that has led to introduction of procedural measures in our domestic system to enable the judicial authorities to exercise their supervision. So that is one way in which I would say that the safeguards are implemented. This is not magic, this is not rocket science, this is just the procedural safeguards and standards that our country following rule of law, human rights safeguards have to follow through judicial intervention and other measures. And going further, as a state party to the Budapest Convention, the Sri Lankan law enforcement authorities revised their standard operating procedures based on inputs we got under the Council of Europe LACI project to ensure that the methodology for electronic evidence gathering, collection and international cooperation that led to its collection are done in accordance with international standards. And the SOPs were mapped to the international law instruments available within the

Moderator:
scope of the convention. Thank you. Thank you, Jayanta, that’s very helpful. I understand we have another question that has come online. So Georgi, may I move over to you and you can

Giorgi Jokhadze:
read out the question? Thank you. Yes, of course, Zahid. I hope there are no problems this time, so I’ll read it out slowly. The question is exactly which provisions of the Budapest Convention would be applicable to investigate and prosecute war crimes?

Moderator:
Thank you. I’m sure I have something to say about that, but maybe anybody from the panel wants to take that? No? Okay. So provisions, basically these provisions apply to any investigation. It doesn’t matter whether it’s war crimes or anything. In fact, there’s an article 14 that specifically states that any crime… where there’s electronic evidence involved, the convention would be applicable to such investigation and prosecution. So whether it’s war crimes, whether it’s theft, kidnapping, rape, whatever have you, as long as there’s digital evidence involved, the Budapest Convention applies. So that would be the sort of basic answer to that. But beyond that, I think the international cooperation provisions of the convention, particularly Article 32, which allows for trans-border access in certain circumstances is an important tool. And as I mentioned earlier, it’s absent from the UN draft that we are currently seeing. And so the question arises, what are the human rights or civil liberties restrictions that would apply to trans-border access, for instance? Of course, they do exist in the Budapest Convention. So I think that’s my answer. Janatha, since you do this a lot as well with me, would you like to also say something about what are the provisions that would be applicable to war crimes, for instance, related to the Budapest Convention? Thank you.

Jayantha Fernando:
Yeah, so I think you can clearly mention the applicability of the procedural provisions based on the reference to Article 14. So I think Article 14 is the provision that can be invoked here. But what is, in addition to Article 32, I think we need to understand the scope and ambit of other provisions, such as, I would say, Article 18, the production order provisions that enables a domestic authority to obtain evidence from any service provider, offering a service to one’s own jurisdiction. And then you have other very innovative provisions, such as Article 26, spontaneous information, where information gathered from. international service providers can be shared by law enforcement authorities. But we have to understand that all this is available tools for state parties to the Budapest Cyber Crime Prevention Convention. And that is something we need to emphasize in the context of the question that was posed. Thank you.

Moderator:
Jonathan, thank you. That’s amazing. We always come back to you when we need a question on the convention answer. So we have a question and I must sort of alert everybody that there are certain platforms who might be present in the room. I mentioned in this question. So going to the remote participant, would you be able to please read out the question in the chat?

Giorgi Jokhadze:
Thank you. Yes, I’ll try to also remind you. I mean, I’m worried it out quickly. Remind you also because of a limit of time. So maybe we’ll not take the questions after this as well. So basically, I’ll just shorten it as well. But because please read the whole thing. And if you could speak loudly, that would help. Yes. Yes. Since in relation to the Budapest Convention, the war crimes as such were mentioned and meaning a comprehensive approach that we can expect the Budapest Convention and its protocol to be used for investigation, prosecution of. Sorry, that’s that’s another question. Sorry, I just missed the previous one. My apologies. My apologies. We’re having some difficulty hearing you, Jorgi.

Moderator:
Do you mind if I just take this because it’s the last one? I really doubt if that’s all right. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Sorry, Zahid. Not at all. Not at all. You know, technology. The issue of bias of cross-border digital platforms regarding the parties to the conflict in maintaining and preserving electronic data and evidence is very important. How do you want to face it? For example, Meta and Instagram cannot be neutral about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict due to their ownership structure. With thanks for your attention. This is the question that we posted in the chat. Anybody want to take that? John? Nick? Go ahead, please.

Nick Waters:
I’ll give you my mic. Yeah, OK. So social media platforms definitely should not be regarded as being neutral. They have obviously between them, they each have different moderation policies. And even within them, the moderation policies are very, very different from country to country. If anyone recalls the kind of moderation changing over 2015 as a result of Islamic State content being posted online, they’ll understand this. Arabic content was and I believe is still being used. moderated very, very differently from, say, for example, English speaking content. And we’ve seen that very specifically in the case of Myanmar, where Facebook has basically been accused of enabling ethnic cleansing. These platforms have deliberately tried to distance themselves from their responsibilities, deliberately stating that they are not publishers of that information, so trying to avoid responsibility. However, they are, to a certain extent, responsible for some of the information that they post online. You know, the algorithm decides what information is shown to what people. So should they be regarded as being neutral? No, I don’t believe they are. And so you need to try and seek that to mitigate that. They are an incredibly valuable source of information. But yes, they should not be regarded as neutral, I think, in these contexts.

Moderator:
Thank you. We’re starting to get a lot of questions in the chat. If I may read out the next one we have. And since in relation to the Budapest Convention, I believe I should say, war crimes as such were mentioned and meaning a comprehensive approach, can we expect the Budapest Convention and this protocol to be used for investigation and prosecution of the U.S. military outrages in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq? There is plenty of evidence on those notorious cases, is the question asked in the chat. Anyone who would like to take that? Please, Patrick.

Patrick Penninchx:
Well, Zahid, you also already mentioned before that for the time being, and as I said in the opening remarks, even though the Budapest Convention now covers 68 states, it doesn’t cover all the countries in the world. And we’re hoping and wanting to increase, of course, the number of states that will join the Budapest Convention, provided that a respect article 15, because the Budapest Convention is not a convention that exists in the void. It exists within a specific context, which is the protection of human rights, rule of law, and pluralist democracy. And countries that join the Budapest Convention comply with those principles. And in that respect, of course, the 20 or more countries that have now been invited to accede, unfortunately, the countries that have been mentioned there are not part of that list. So I think that is one of the key principles. Of course, we would like to see that all those other countries would join. We know that there are a number of differences and divergences when we look at the UN discussions that are taking place. So we cannot make a convention applicable to those countries that have not joined it. And again, article 15, human rights principles need to be respected.

Moderator:
Absolutely right. And in addition, I would also sort of add that absolutely, the answer to the question that has been raised, to the extent that the countries are part of the list, as Patrick mentioned, those would be, the convention could be used for electronic evidence. It’s very important to be clear. The Budapest Convention’s role is of an electronic evidence convention. It is only going to tell you that this is evidence, it’s admissible, this is how you collect it, this is how you present it, these are the safeguards. From then on, basically the rules of the court, whether it’s the ICC, for instance, whether it’s a domestic court or any other would take over. And so the question that I think you pose is not about electronic evidence, unfortunately, I wish it was, but it is about what the other courts would do. And I think that’s a question for them. But Patrick, thank you so much for that response. We are now absolutely last at the last minute. I’m not doing a great job keeping up. So if I could ask the panel to give wrap-ups and I will go to my right and then down the chain. I believe that Jayanthi would not be available, so it’s only us in the room who will be wrapping up. John, please, over to you.

John Hering:
Absolutely. I actually think that’s a great transition to sort of my final thoughts here. Yes, I opened it by saying that there’s a new domain of conflict that’s going to require us to innovate appropriately in our international systems, is that we’re keeping pace with new threats and new challenges, including cyber operations and armed conflict. And so to your point, it’s important that our international institutions are stepping into play a role to uphold those same expectations that exist in the physical domain as well as in the digital domain. And so it was heartening to hear just last month, perhaps it was like six weeks ago now, the ICC prosecutor for the first time announced that his office will be investigating cyber-enabled war crimes specifically. And it’s encouraging to see our international framework starting to apply

Nick Waters:
online as well. Yeah, thank you. Just to say that I think this kind of information would allow more atrocities to be investigated. That kind of information will help, but it cannot replace traditional evidence and it must fit within the currently established principles of legal admissibility. And hopefully, being able to share that kind of information will be useful in the future to holding more people to account for their actions. Thank you.

Nataliya Tkachuk:
Thank you very much for this discussion. I think this discussion was very fruitful. And again, thank you for your support to Ukraine. And this war showed the new role of electronic evidence, the new role of open source intelligence. And we will learn how to do with this. And we were discussing bias and neutrality of electronic evidence. And I agree with you that the main thing, these are procedures. We need to follow the procedures. We need to understand procedures. And I’m thankful to the Council of Europe, because I know the Council of Europe conducts a lot of trainings in Ukraine for judges, prosecutors, for civil society. Because in Ukraine, collecting evidence of war crime is a task for all civil society. And this is very, very important. Thank you.

Patrick Penninchx:
Thank you. The Budapest Convention, as we said, is a criminal law convention. It is not a war crime convention. That is number one. But we know that expedited preservation and exchange of stored information data, including from service providers, is crucial. And a reminder that Article 2 of the Budapest Convention can be used to access and obtain open source information across borders. And that can later on be used in trial. Thank you.

Moderator:
Absolutely. Thank you for adding that, Patrick. So it’s my job now to give the floor back to Georgi, and then I’ll make some closing remarks. Georgi, over to you for some wrap-up.

Giorgi Jokhadze:
Yes, thank you very much. I think we heard a lot of very interesting ideas. And it’s a challenge to compress everything into the final, let’s say, points of the meeting, which I’m not trying to do. do right now because I think it will be just a job for myself and Zahid in the aftermath of the meeting that will communicate them properly to IGF Secretariat. But if I can sort of try to play to the main leitmotif, I think that we have covered a lot of ground when it comes to the open source intelligence and information being a part of the overall picture. So I think that, to paraphrase maybe Patrick a bit, so we don’t apply these concepts in the void as much as we also don’t apply the Budapest Convention in the void. So we have to make sure that the open source intelligence, that all the data information we’re getting from open sources is also part of the applicable and clear legal framework that is going to bring perpetrators to justice. So that is my own, let’s say, view on the discussions here, but I think that we’ll have to flesh it out a little bit more also as conclusions to the Secretariat. Thank you, Gyorgy. Zahid, back to you.

Moderator:
Thank you, Gyorgy. Just last comments. So open source intelligence and the use of how this evidence works is very different from something we’ve seen before, because it’s open source, it can change hands, etc. And to be able to use this electronic evidence in various things, including war crimes and human rights abuses, is extremely important. And the role of the Convention in being able to do that vis-a-vis, for instance, we don’t have that possibility within the UN Convention, for instance, and maybe other places. So it’s helpful to think about what we can do to improve that in other structures as well. I just wanted to say thank you for all the participants who have been here. Thank you for the questions that were asked. I think that was very helpful because they engaged. Thank you for the questions. Also, to the online participants and questions, thank you for that. It helped us basically answer and think about new things. And thanks to the organizers, because they provide us a massive room. And so a lot of people, we didn’t expect this many people to fill this room. So I really appreciate everybody coming. Thank you. That’s all from us. Goodbye.

Corway Wu

In the realm of disinformation, politicians are also actively involved in creating and spreading false information, not just news media and social media. This amplifies the scope of actors responsible for misleading the public. The negative sentiment towards politicians indicates a lack of trust in their intentions.

Timing is a crucial aspect in the dissemination of disinformation. The example of Brexit voting behavior is used to demonstrate this. Voters may be influenced by inaccurate information without realizing it until it is too late. This implies that the impact of disinformation can have lasting effects, shaping important decisions.

However, an opposing viewpoint is presented, disagreeing with Jeanette’s argument about the significance of timing when discussing disinformation. It is argued that Jeanette’s failure to consider timing weakens their argument. The negative sentiment expressed towards this disagreement suggests a potential blind spot in understanding the issue.

Overall, this analysis illustrates the multifaceted nature of disinformation and its wide-ranging consequences. Politicians, news media, and social media platforms are all complicit in perpetuating false information. The timing of disinformation is highlighted as a crucial factor, as it can significantly influence its impact on individuals and societies. The disagreement regarding the importance of timing further emphasizes the complexity of this subject.

Audience

The analysis delved into the multifaceted nature of misinformation and disinformation. One of the speakers put forth the argument that these actions have the potential to incite individuals to act against democratic institutions. To support this claim, they highlighted the example of the January 6th Capitol riots, which they believed were inspired by misinformation and disinformation. The speaker’s sentiment was negative, suggesting concern about the impact of these actions on democracy.

However, another speaker expressed a more neutral stance, highlighting the challenge of settling on a clear definition of disinformation. They pointed out that assessing the longitudinal impact of disinformation is challenging. This sentiment indicates a level of uncertainty regarding the extent to which misinformation and disinformation can influence actions and outcomes.

A disagreement emerged regarding the possibility of completely eliminating disinformation. One speaker argued that efforts should be directed towards reducing its spread and minimizing the damage caused, rather than striving for complete elimination. This sentiment aligned with a more positive outlook on the issue.

In the specific context of Switzerland, it was suggested that disinformation does not possess enough influence to significantly sway elections. The speaker based this claim on the observation that Switzerland has a stable multi-party system with relatively consistent voting patterns over the past 30 years. This sentiment reflects a more neutral perspective on the impact of disinformation in the Swiss political landscape.

The analysis also examined the potential effects of disinformation on internet infrastructure and connectivity. There was evidence suggesting that disinformation governance can impact internet infrastructure, with an example cited of Europe implementing IP blocking of Russian websites spreading disinformation. This negative sentiment implies the belief that the weaponization of disinformation through online platforms has had widespread consequences.

The audience raised concerns regarding the potential threat disinformation poses to the fundamental right of freedom of expression. Historical examples, such as the information war of the Cold War and the use of radio for propaganda during Nazi Germany, were provided to illustrate this point. This sentiment highlights the importance of protecting freedom of expression in the face of disinformation.

Notably, the analysis explored the effectiveness of the Christchurch Call initiative in response to live-streamed terrorist attacks in New Zealand. The sentiment here was negative, as it was argued that rushed solutions to govern and regulate disinformation can cause unintended harm. The speaker stressed the need for a nuanced approach to address disinformation, referencing the impact of tackling disinformation in G7 declarations.

The audience member supporting the Christchurch Call initiative expressed a positive sentiment, believing in its effectiveness. They emphasized the significance of trust-building and multi-stakeholder involvement in addressing terrorism facilitated by online platforms. This aligns with the overall positive sentiment of utilizing a multi-stakeholder model and engaging governments, tech firms, and civil society in combating disinformation.

In conclusion, the analysis highlighted the complex nature of misinformation and disinformation. The arguments presented ranged from the potential dangers of these actions in undermining democratic institutions to the challenges in defining and assessing their impacts. The disagreement regarding the elimination of disinformation reflected a difference in perspectives, with one side advocating for reducing its spread. The analysis also shed light on the specific impacts of disinformation on internet infrastructure, the threat it poses to freedom of expression, and the potential effectiveness of initiatives such as the Christchurch Call in preventing terrorism. Overall, the analysis underscores the need for nuanced approaches and multi-stakeholder involvement to address disinformation and its various repercussions.

Anriette Esterhuysen

The analysis provides a comprehensive overview of perspectives on disinformation in South Africa, covering various viewpoints and arguments. One viewpoint suggests that disinformation is not a major problem in the country, with more concern placed on trusting the government. The public tends to rely on the media, which is regarded as well self-regulated and proficient in dealing with disinformation. Fact-checking is also a common practice in South Africa, swiftly and efficiently debunking false information.

Another argument highlights the successful media regulation in South Africa, which ensures accuracy across different ideological spectrums. It is noted that a commitment to accuracy exists among right-wing, center, and left-wing media outlets in the country. Fact-checking is a prevalent practice, further enhancing the reliability and trustworthiness of the media. This observation supports the notion that media regulation in South Africa effectively maintains accuracy and minimises the spread of disinformation.

The analysis also emphasises the need for careful consideration in the international regulation of disinformation. It is crucial to explore the implications of such regulation on access to information and freedom of expression. While national initiatives regarding disinformation regulation are controversial, existing international instruments may serve as a baseline for effectively governing disinformation.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the distinct dynamics of weaponising disinformation in online platforms compared to traditional broadcasting platforms. Unlike traditional platforms, online platforms allow for the widespread distribution of disinformation without requiring significant political or economic power. This observation emphasises the need for tailored approaches in combating disinformation across different digital platforms.

A noteworthy observation from the analysis is the advocacy for considering bottom-up approaches and self-regulation measures alongside governmental regulations. Anriette Esterhuysen argues that jumping to governmental regulations without exploring more bottom-up ways may be premature. While a regulatory response might be necessary, Esterhuysen highlights the importance of not dismissing self-regulatory and bottom-up approaches to tackle disinformation. This perspective demonstrates a concern that solely relying on governmental regulations might overlook effective alternatives.

Overall, the analysis offers valuable insights into the various dimensions of disinformation in South Africa. The perspectives presented shed light on the strengths of the country’s media regulation, the challenges faced in international regulation, the dynamics of online platforms, and the importance of considering diverse approaches to combat disinformation.

Remy Milan

Misinformation poses a significant threat to the stability of state institutions, as it undermines citizens’ confidence in these establishments. This erosion of trust has detrimental effects on democracy and should not be underestimated. Remy Milan also shares this view, considering misinformation to be a high-level danger to state institutions. The spread of false or misleading information can have far-reaching consequences in a democracy. It confuses and disenchants citizens, weakening the democratic fabric by eroding trust between the governing and the governed. This issue is especially relevant to SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, which aims to ensure inclusive governance and access to justice for all. Misinformation disrupts this goal by sowing doubt and creating divisions within society, hindering efforts to achieve peace and justice. It is worth noting that advances in technology, particularly social media platforms, have facilitated the spread of false information, making it easier for malicious actors to manipulate public opinion. Addressing this issue requires a multi-faceted approach, including education, media literacy, regulation, and responsible platform governance. Overall, the danger of misinformation to state institutions is significant, impacting citizens’ confidence and threatening democracy itself. Remy Milan emphasizes the importance of addressing this issue for achieving SDG 16 and ensuring peace, justice, and strong institutions. Efforts must be made to promote media literacy, regulate false information, and foster trust and critical thinking to uphold the integrity of state institutions and democratic values.

Jeanette Hofmann

This discussion explores the impact of disinformation on people’s minds and voting behaviour. One participant criticises the limited knowledge surrounding this issue due to the lack of empirical evidence. They argue that it is essential to conduct research to better understand how disinformation affects individuals and their decision-making processes.

Another participant highlights the strategic intent of disinformation, stating that it is often used as a tool to manipulate people’s behaviour and influence their worldviews. Disinformation is seen as a deliberate tactic that focuses on achieving specific objectives.

The conversation also emphasises the need to expand research on disinformation beyond platforms and consider the wider media landscape. It is noted that context plays a crucial role, and solely examining platforms and algorithms is insufficient. The impact of disinformation should be studied within the broader media environment to gain a comprehensive understanding of its effects.

Furthermore, it is observed that individuals sharing disinformation may not necessarily believe the information themselves. Instead, they may be using it as a means to signal their belonging or loyalty to a certain group or ideology. This highlights the complex motivations behind the sharing of disinformation and the need to consider social and psychological factors in analysing its influence.

The conversation also touches upon the rising disregard for truth and the detrimental impact it has on public discourse and democracy. This trend of increasing tribal attitudes and a lack of concern for distinguishing truth from falsity has severe consequences for the functioning of society and democratic processes.

Regarding the governance of the internet, there is a recognition that infrastructure standards need global agreement to ensure a cohesive global network. However, content regulation should not be undertaken at a global level, as it may impinge upon freedom of speech and local autonomy.

The Digital Service Act, proposed by the European Commission, is viewed as an interesting development. It extends the scope of human rights to not only govern the relationship between people and governments but also guide platform behaviours. This recognition that the private sector’s influence on the exercise of human rights should be guided by human rights principles is seen as positive.

The Act’s provision for data access related to systemic risks caused by platforms is supported. This data access allows for a better, evidence-based understanding of the impact of disinformation. However, the concept of needing to mobilise systemic risk to gain access to data is criticised, highlighting the need for more efficient mechanisms.

The discussion concludes with the suggestion that the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) could serve as a platform to discuss and implement best practices derived from Article 40 of the Digital Service Act. This highlights the potential for international collaboration and knowledge-sharing in addressing disinformation and its consequences.

Overall, this discussion emphasises the urgent need for comprehensive research, consideration of wider media environments, and the recognition of the complex motivations behind the sharing of disinformation. It also addresses the importance of upholding human rights principles and the challenges of content regulation in a global and interconnected digital landscape.

Bili Drake

The impact of disinformation on democracy is a complex issue that is influenced by various factors and is context-dependent. Different perspectives exist on the extent to which disinformation can affect democratic processes. Some argue that disinformation can have a significant negative impact on democracy, while others caution against oversimplifying the issue and relying on false dichotomies.

It has been observed that a considerable amount of disinformation originates from broadcast media and is then amplified through social media platforms. This highlights the interconnectedness between different forms of media in the spread of disinformation. Several studies have indicated this behavior, emphasizing the importance of understanding the role played by different media channels in the dissemination of disinformation.

One key aspect that complicates the issue of disinformation is the lack of a standardised definition. Leading organisations like the European Union and the UN Special Rapporteur have differing definitions of disinformation, which can give rise to confusion and inconsistencies in tackling this problem. It becomes crucial to establish a common understanding to effectively address disinformation.

Tribal loyalty is identified as a significant factor that can lead individuals to believe in disinformation. In cases like the United States, where tribal affiliations and identity politics play a prominent role, people may align with certain narratives or disinformation due to their loyalty to a particular group. This highlights how social and political factors can impact an individual’s susceptibility to disinformation.

Identity politics further compounds the issue, distorting the perception of truth. Some individuals develop their identities around opposing certain groups or ideologies, leading them to embrace disinformation that aligns with their pre-existing biases. This phenomenon highlights the role of emotions and personal beliefs in shaping the acceptance of disinformation.

Efforts to regulate disinformation on a global level have been proposed, but doubts remain about their effectiveness. Discussions in the United Nations have seen various proposals related to disinformation, such as China’s suggestion to criminalise its spread and UNESCO’s guidelines for digital platforms. However, the complexities and geopolitical divisions inherent in regulating disinformation make it challenging to achieve meaningful global regulation. As a result, long-term engagement is advocated, focusing on building infrastructure to challenge disinformation effectively.

The proposal for a code of conduct on information integrity for digital platforms is seen as an attempt at global internet governance. This proposal aims to govern the information that flows through digital networks, aligning with the definition of internet governance. It raises questions about the extent to which such regulations should be implemented and their potential impact on freedom of expression and privacy.

The primary responsibility to counter disinformation lies with states, according to the UN General Assembly’s resolution. While platforms such as social media play a role, governments bear the primary responsibility to address the issue effectively. Simply pressuring platforms to act does not address the root causes of disinformation.

It is important to recognise that disinformation can originate from various sources, including the dark web. This highlights the need for a comprehensive approach that looks beyond platforms alone. Strategies should encompass multiple sources and channels through which disinformation can be generated and disseminated.

Civil society participation is crucial in the discussion on countering disinformation. While there have been limited discussions on proposals like the UN Secretary General’s Global Digital Compact, greater involvement of civil society in such initiatives can ensure diverse perspectives and balanced decision-making.

In conclusion, addressing the issue of disinformation requires a multifaceted approach that involves governments, platforms, and civil society. The complex nature of disinformation and its impact on democracy necessitate a nuanced understanding, taking into account various factors such as media channels, definitions, tribal loyalty, and identity politics. Efforts to regulate disinformation at a global level should be complemented with long-term engagement and infrastructure-building, recognising the challenges and limitations faced in achieving effective global regulation.

Nighat Dad

Disinformation, which can impact democratic processes, is a topic of concern. However, solid evidence is needed to support this claim. Caution must be exercised in interpreting the complex and contextual definitions of misinformation and disinformation. Disinformation has the potential to harm marginalized groups, and a UN report highlights its negative effects on gender equality. Global governance instruments exist, but their application needs improvement as regulations and laws often suppress freedom of expression. State actors and companies have a shared obligation to provide accurate information and prevent the spread of misinformation. Synergy between existing systems is crucial, and the performance of oversight boards and governance mechanisms must be reviewed. Concerns are raised about governments misusing guidelines and the lack of accountability. Regulatory mechanisms are needed to hold state actors accountable. User rights should not be forgotten in regions with restrictions. The local context is vital, and more global oversight boards are necessary to hold companies accountable. Transparency reports play a key role in holding platforms accountable.

Clara Iglesias Keller

Disinformation has the potential to undermine democracy, although its impact varies depending on the context. While there is currently no solid empirical evidence to suggest that disinformation directly changes voters’ behaviors or affects election results, there is a consensus that further research is necessary to fully understand its implications.

The existing research on the impact of disinformation is primarily focused on the United States and Europe, highlighting a need for expanding studies to include other regions such as Latin America, Africa, and Asia. It is important to understand how disinformation strategies can influence political transformations in different contexts.

Disinformation is considered a communication practice and an online harm, along with misinformation, propaganda, and fake news. Its intent holds significant legal relevance, further emphasizing the need to address the issue.

In some instances, disinformation serves as a form of political intervention. For example, in Brazil, it has been used to express dissatisfaction or directly attack democratic institutions, including the electoral system and high courts. This highlights the destructive potential of disinformation as a tool in political disputes.

However, the concept of disinformation poses a challenge within statutory regulation, as there is no clear space for its definition and regulation.

Global governance solutions, although important, may not be sufficient to address the impact of misinformation and disinformation on political disputes. It is necessary to confront the ultimate convertibility of economic power into political power, particularly within the media landscape. This is evident in countries like Brazil, where traditionally concentrated and unregulated media landscapes contribute to the spread of disinformation.

Additionally, global solutions often rely on consensus-based governance structures, which may lack the power needed to modify digital business models and data usage effectively.

More empirical evidence is needed, especially outside of the global north. In countries like Brazil, internet usage is strongly associated with platforms such as WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram, facilitated by zero rating policies. Understanding the impact of disinformation in these regions is crucial for developing effective countermeasures.

In conclusion, addressing the challenges posed by disinformation requires not only further research but also more institutional innovation. This innovation should create an apparatus that allows diverse stakeholders and civil society to engage in the disputation of truth and content. By confronting the convertibility of economic power into political power and exploring alternative governance structures, we can work towards mitigating the harmful effects of disinformation and safeguarding democratic institutions.

David Kaye

Disinformation is a complex issue that involves the dissemination of false or misleading information. It can have various impacts and is spread through different platforms, including legacy media and social platforms. Understanding the nuances of disinformation is crucial, as there is no one-size-fits-all solution to address it.

David Kaye, an advocate for human rights, highlights the importance of clear definitions and understanding in addressing disinformation through legal regulation and governance. However, he expresses concern about the lack of shared definitions, which may impede the process of regulation. Kaye also raises concerns about emerging regulations in Europe and the UK that rely on platforms to define disinformation, as this may affect transparency and risk assessment.

While global regulation of disinformation may seem desirable, Kaye argues that it is not achievable. Instead, he suggests the development of a common set of guiding principles based on human rights. These principles should be the foundation for addressing disinformation, providing a framework that ensures legality, necessity, proportionality, and legitimacy of objectives.

In shaping policies and strategies to combat disinformation, Kaye believes that civil society should play an active role. They should be included in the drafting and adoption process to ensure a more inclusive approach. Additionally, Kaye argues that governments should be held responsible for their behavior and should support public service media, as excluding them would undermine the effectiveness of addressing disinformation.

Over-reliance on platforms for handling disinformation is a matter of concern. Relying solely on platforms may create challenges in terms of transparency, accountability, and bias. Therefore, it is necessary to explore alternative approaches and strategies to combat disinformation effectively.

The leadership of New Zealand in promoting multi-stakeholder approaches and prioritising human rights in times of trauma, such as after the Christchurch attack, is commended by Kaye. He recognises the importance of keeping human rights at the core of global governance. In this regard, Kaye highlights the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a platform where human rights and access to information should be given priority.

However, Kaye also warns against adopting ideas that disregard human rights in response to traumatic events, such as the Israel-Palestine conflict. While people may have natural responses to such events, it is crucial to ensure that any responses or measures taken are rooted in human rights principles.

In conclusion, addressing disinformation requires nuanced understanding and a combination of approaches. Clear definitions, shared principles based on human rights, civil society participation, government responsibility, and cautious reliance on platforms are all essential factors in effectively combating disinformation. New Zealand’s leadership and the IGF’s emphasis on human rights in global governance are notable examples of positive progress. However, it is crucial to avoid compromising human rights in times of trauma or conflict.

John Mahob

A recent discussion highlighted the detrimental effect of disinformation on democracy in the Philippines. The concern was voiced by the current president, Marcos, who is the son of the former dictator. One of the key arguments made was that disinformation played a significant role in influencing the outcomes of the recent elections.

Disinformation in the political landscape is seen as a serious threat to the country’s democratic processes. It is suggested that the spread of false information and manipulation of facts can lead to citizens making ill-informed decisions, thus undermining the democratic values of transparency and accountability.

Supporting this viewpoint, John Mahob, a representative from the Foundation for Media Alternatives in the Philippines, also expressed concern over the impact of disinformation on the country’s democracy. He stressed the need to address and counter disinformation, as it has the potential to distort public opinion and undermine the credibility of democratic institutions.

The speakers argued that the negative consequences of disinformation are far-reaching. By spreading false narratives and distorting facts, disinformation can erode trust in institutions and create divisions among citizens. It is seen as a tool that can be used by those in power to manipulate public sentiment and secure their own interests.

The evidence presented by both speakers raises important questions about the state of democracy in the Philippines. The influence of disinformation on the recent elections serves as a warning sign that steps need to be taken to protect the integrity of democratic processes. Efforts to combat disinformation and promote media literacy are crucial in order to safeguard the principles of democracy, uphold freedom of expression, and ensure that citizens are adequately informed to make informed decisions.

In conclusion, the discussion reveals a shared concern about the negative impact of disinformation on democracy in the Philippines. The speakers, including the current president and John Mahob, emphasize the urgent need to address this issue and prevent disinformation from undermining democratic values. It is hoped that by raising awareness and taking appropriate measures, the Philippines can work towards creating a more informed and resilient democratic society.

Aaron Maniam

The analysis explores several key aspects of global governance, regulations, misinformation, and digital regulation. One of the main challenges in defining global governance arises from the presence of different models and guidelines, which leads to variations in the level of guidelines and enforcement, resulting in a lack of consensus on the precise meaning of global governance.

Concerning global governance regulations, it is crucial to distinguish between basic standards and additional issues. Examples such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) in the European Union and online safety regulations in Singapore and the UK emphasize the significance of addressing both fundamental standards and more complex issues in regulating global governance. These regulations play a significant role in achieving Goal 16 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions.

Governments can have contradictory impacts on global governance efforts. On one hand, they can be a source of misinformation, hindering progress towards effective global governance. However, governments also possess the authority and skills necessary to continuously update legislation to keep pace with rapidly evolving technology. This ability is essential for achieving Goal 16 of the SDGs.

Interoperability, the ability for different systems to communicate seamlessly, is a vital aspect of digital regulation. Aaron Maniam highlights the importance of interoperability among different countries, as it enables coherent communication and collaboration. This is linked to Goal 9 of the SDGs: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure.

A polycentric approach is crucial in combating disinformation. Governments should move away from solely having an authority-based role and embrace a convening function. By engaging in consultation and deliberation, governments can prioritize and address issues related to disinformation in a bottom-up fashion. Additionally, community building, space building, and urban planning should be part of the government’s role in fighting disinformation.

Education and literacy play a pivotal role in tackling disinformation. In Singapore, various organizations, including the National Library Board, the Information and Media Development Authority, and the Cybersecurity Agency, collaborate to operationalize strategies. Education that starts at home and in schools and libraries is highlighted as a key factor in enhancing literacy among citizens. This aligns with Goal 4 of the SDGs: Quality Education.

In summary, the analysis underscores the complexities and challenges of global governance and the importance of clear regulations. It also highlights the dual role of governments as potential sources of misinformation and as crucial actors in updating legislation. Interoperability is crucial for effective digital regulation, and a polycentric approach is essential in combating disinformation. Lastly, education and literacy are vital components in mitigating the impact of disinformation.

Greta

Greta strongly believes that disinformation is significantly weakening democratic systems. This issue is related to the topics of disinformation and democracy and is associated with a negative sentiment. However, no specific supporting facts or arguments were provided to support the claim that disinformation undermines democracy.

Disinformation, the deliberate spread of false or misleading information, poses a serious threat to the democratic process. It can manipulate public opinion, deceive voters, and erode trust in democratic institutions. Greta’s agreement with this viewpoint suggests that she recognizes the detrimental effects that disinformation can have on the functioning of democracies.

Although no specific supporting facts or arguments were presented, it is worth considering the widespread impact of disinformation in recent years. The rise of social media platforms has enabled the rapid spread of false information, often disguised as legitimate news or opinions. This has the potential to sway public opinion and distort democratic discourse.

Furthermore, disinformation campaigns have been known to target elections by spreading false information about candidates or manipulating public sentiment. Such tactics can undermine the integrity of electoral processes and compromise the ability of citizens to make informed choices.

The conclusion drawn from Greta’s strong agreement is that urgent actions are needed to address the problem of disinformation. Safeguarding the democratic process involves countering disinformation through fact-checking, promoting media literacy, and strengthening regulations on social media platforms. It is essential to restore trust and ensure that accurate and reliable information prevails in democratic societies.

In summary, Greta strongly believes that disinformation is undermining democracy. While specific arguments and supporting facts were not provided, the existence of disinformation poses a clear threat to democratic systems. Addressing this issue requires collective efforts to counter disinformation, promote media literacy, and protect the integrity of democratic processes.

Nighat Dad:
missed your question.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
I just wanted to do an audio check to see if we can hear you clearly. Now you can hear me. And we can. Thanks a lot. OK, we’ll start in a few minutes. We’ll start at 1 o’clock on the dot, Japan time. 1 o’clock. 1 o’clock. 1 o’clock. 1 o’clock. 1 o’clock. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Disinformation from an Internet Governance Perspective workshop. My name is Anriette Esterhuisen, and I’ll be moderating. I’m a senior advisor of internet governance at the Association for Progressive Communications. I’ll introduce you to our very diverse and very interesting panel as we do the workshop. But I actually, at this point, because we’re a small group of people, I want to ask you all to stand up. Because we’re going to start with an interactive exercise, professor. That includes you. So just stand up and line up. I’m going to make a statement. And then I’m going to ask you to position yourself. I mean, along this corridor and that corridor, more or less. On that side of the room, if you strongly agree with the statement. Towards this side, if you strongly disagree. And then somewhere in the middle, according to how strongly you agree or disagree. So the statement is, absolutely you. Otherwise, you’re not going to get a chance to speak. Disinformation is undermining democracy. If you agree, go towards that end. Disagree, somewhere around here. And somewhere in the middle. And the idea is, as other people speak, I’m going to ask people why they stand where they stand. Then think about it. Reflect and decide whether you want to move along this imaginary spectrum. Bill Drake, you have to. Then you have to stand in the middle. Disinformation undermines democracy. So I’m going to start over there with somebody who’s right on the other side. Anybody willing to, why? Why do you agree so strongly with this? And just introduce yourself and then say why.

Greta:
Hi, I’m Greta. I think it’s hard to explain, but the feeling that there is information outside that can hurt how our, yeah, how democratic institutions work and function, or, yeah, really.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
So you feel that misinformation can actually undermine the institutions of democracy. Anyone else here who feels strongly?

Remy Milan:
Hello, my name is Remy Milan. The reason I would say undermining is that mis- or disinformation undermines citizens’ confidence in the institutions of the state. And that’s probably what I view as the sort of highest level danger.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Similar, so remember, you’re supposed to move if he’s moved you. So let me move to that side of the room because I haven’t seen anyone move yet. Jeanette, why don’t you tell us, you’re one of our speakers, so introduce yourself. Why are you standing at this side? Why do you disagree?

Jeanette Hofmann:
But then I sort of, I anticipate what I’m going to say. All I wanted to say, one of the main things I want to say is that while we have a lot of research on generation and circulation of disinformation, we know little, if not nothing, about how it actually affects people’s minds and people’s voting behavior. A lot of what we see here discussed is sort of based on assumptions, but not on empirical evidence. Just introduce yourself. Oh, I’m one of the speaker, Jeanette Hofmann. I’m a political scientist from Germany.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Anyone, you want to react to that? Good, you’re allowed to. You disagree with Jeanette.

Audience:
I would say, since I live in the United States, I would say January 6th was actually a good example of events inspired by mis- and disinformation designed specifically to undermine the democratic transfer of power between two governments. That, I think, I watched on TV. I actually believe that I saw something. So I think there’s empirical evidence that people can be driven to act contrary to democratic institutions by mis- and disinformation.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Any of our online participants, including the speakers, who strongly agrees that disinformation undermines democracy? Nigat, Clara, David, Erin? Nigat, go ahead and just introduce yourself, and then tell me whether you agree or disagree.

Nighat Dad:
Yeah, no, thank you so much. My name is Nigat Dhad, and I run Digital Rights Foundation. I’m speaking from Lahore, Pakistan right now. And I’m like in between agree and in the center. So I was very much agreeing it. And when Jeanette said, I’m like, okay, I want to little bit move on to Jeanette’s side because we have been saying this over and over again that yes, disinformation, misinformation impacts our democratic processes, but what kind of evidence we have to support actually that and a very solid evidence in terms of how it basically changes behavior of people during electoral processes. And however, we see a lot of impact and effect of disinformation on several institutions and also on voters. But I think we still need to have a solid sort of evidence in terms of supporting that yes, it is actually deteriorating our democracy in our countries. I feel like there’s several other aspects that sort of impact this sort of destruction of our democracy processes.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks, Nigat. Before Professor Kulwe, before you, you strongly disagree as well. Are you willing to share why?

Audience:
I wouldn’t say I strongly disagree. Like I’m not over there. That’s true. I’m sort of slightly to the left of the middle, or right of the middle, I guess. I think it’s, I’m from a think tank, we do some work in this area. I think my background is also legal and I frequently find it quite difficult to settle on a definition of disinformation. And then I think there’s a whole separate question of how we actually apply that definition. And I think a lot of people are thinking of different things when they say they’re thinking about disinformation. I also think the sort of longitudinal impact is something that’s very hard to assess. And I think when we think about the causative impact of disinformation, it’s very hard to extract substantive grievance from it. So is it a manifestation of people’s dissatisfaction with the way society is that we can now observe and measure in ways that we couldn’t in the past? Or is it the disinformation that is sort of causing that dissatisfaction? I think that’s a hard thing to unpick.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Okay, so the unknown. So those of you that came late, I made a statement. I said disinformation is undermining democracy. And the idea is that people who disagree are kind of over here and people who agree are over there. Bill Drake, you’re one of our speakers. Please introduce yourself. And what is your position? Why are you in the middle? That’s not actually very common for you. I’ve known you for many years and you very, very rarely sit on any fence.

Bili Drake:
Bill Drake, Columbia University. Hi, because as I’ve said before, when we had a session about this at the Taiwan IGF last week, beware of false binaries. I think when you put these things into simple either or choices, it becomes almost meaningless. The extent to which it impacts democracy and the way it might impact is highly dependent on context, et cetera, et cetera. So, and I would add to Jeanette that social science ability to do effective polling in here may not be the only possible measure. We have tens of millions of Americans who have demonstrated over and over that they believe in disinformation, so.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
You see, Bill has made me move a little bit more to the center. Professor Corway, you wanted to say something. Introduce yourself.

Corway Wu:
Oh, this is Corway Wu. He’s the chair of the TWI from Taiwan. And just like Bill said, I have three points, very simple. First of all, disinformation. Politicians also create and spread the disinformation, not only the news media or the social media, so don’t forget that. Politicians did it, too. The second of all is I don’t fully agree about what Jeanette is saying. The reason is because she didn’t put a time in that coordination, coordinate, because if you put a time, because when the disinformation spread around, don’t forget it, the voting is just a second. So in that second, you might get moved by the disinformation, change your voting behavior. It’s like Brexit. And then maybe one minutes after, you regret, but too late, it’s done. So that’s the reason I’m standing in the middle.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Like the Brexit referendum, so many people regret it. Okay, before we sit down like normal IGF participants with an interesting, we hope, panel on that side and the rest of us on this side, so before we assume the normal divisions of power, anyone else in this side of the room who agrees strongly that disinformation is undermining democracy?

John Mahob:
My name is John Mahob from the Foundation for Media Alternatives from the Philippines. And if you are aware who was our previous president, Duterte, and who is our current president, Marcos, the son of the former dictator, I think it would be easier to appreciate why civil society, at least, feels that disinformation plays a huge part as to why our democratic institutions right now, and democracy in general, is very much in peril, if not already gone, so to speak. So I can understand, though, the search for empirical data. I’m also a sociologist and a lawyer, but we live behind the studies. We live through the realities every day, and we’ve gone through our elections last year, and we saw how much that disinformation actually impacted people across, not just those supposedly in the marginalized sectors, even those who are actually, you would expect to, are learned individuals. They, too, were very much caught into that web, yeah.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
It’s true, but you also did have decades of Marcos dictatorship prior to online disinformation. So, okay, the last word will be from you.

Audience:
Okay, thank you for giving me some floor. Tim, I’m from Russia, and I work for a think tank which is responsible for fighting and countering disinformation and fakes in Russia, so I have some practical experience on that. So, like, some bad news. Disinformation is, like, inevitable at all because the ability to make a mistake is a natural part of humankind and human brain, actually. So, as far as it goes, disinformation and fake news are extremely effective weapon, and nowadays, it’s widely used as a weapon, and you can get that, especially in context of Russian-Ukrainian war. We have an informational war with the Korean along, and we have lots of usage of this weapon, like, against us. And last but not least, actually, when you fight disinformation, it’s never possible to, like, ground zero all the disinformation and fakes and myth and anything else like this possible. But what you actually do is you actually fight the consequences and damage of disinformation and spread of disinformation, but you cannot fight the disinformation itself. Thank you.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks very much. Thanks very much, everyone. Let’s take a seat. Come and sit in the front.

David Kaye:
Henriette, while people are taking a seat, can I answer to you?

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Yes, David, please go ahead.

David Kaye:
I wish I was there. It sounds fun, and it’s six in the morning where I am, so I could use the stretch. So, I’m gonna be a little bit of a diplomat of my-

Anriette Esterhuysen:
David, just introduce yourself to the room.

David Kaye:
So, I’m David Kaye. I teach law at the University of California at Irvine. I was the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression from 2014 to 2020, and I’m the independent chair of the board of the Global Network Initiative. And the diplomatic thing that I was gonna say is that I agree with what everybody said, but the thing, I think there are at least three different issues here that, from an IGF global governance perspective, make it very difficult to talk about disinformation. One is, it really matters, and this came through in the comments already, I think it really matters who’s doing the disinformation. Is it the state? Is it the president? Is it, like, who’s doing it? And also, where is it happening? So, as far as our study and understanding of the impact, I think those things matter. A second thing is, what impact do we actually care about? I mean, do we care about whether disinformation has an impact, as Jeanette was suggesting, on voting behavior? Do we care about the impact that disinformation has on people’s action in the street, as in January 6th? You know, what is the thing that we’re actually studying? And then third, based on all of those different contextual features, I think it’s very, very difficult to say that there’s one particular solution that works at a global governance level that would address disinformation in every instance or every context, whether it’s in legacy, broadcast, media, print, or on social, or search. There’s just such a variety. So I think that it’s just a vast topic that requires nuance and may not be really amenable to a kind of one-size-fits-all response.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks very much, David. Clara, do you want to reflect on this opening statement, and then also please introduce yourself? Tell us where you are.

Clara Iglesias Keller:
Thank you, Antiet. I’m Clara. I’m a legal scholar from Brazil, but I am right now in Berlin, also 6 a.m. here, so keeping strong. Thank you so much for having me. So I’m going to jump right in and say that I think I would be, alongside David, kind of in the middle, a little bit more on the diplomatic side, and I’ll tell you why. I think this information can undermine democracy, depending on context. I prepared myself to talk a little bit about that, right? So depending on sources, depending on political, social context, what disinformation strategies are being pursued, I think they can undermine democracy, but not on the ways that we would instinctively think of. So I agree with Jeanette that we don’t have solid empirical evidence that disinformation changed voters’ behaviors, for instance. We don’t have solid empirical evidence that it changes the results of elections, but I think we do have enough reason to worry about how exactly it weighs in recent political transformations that we have seen in different contexts. And I think this shows that we need more research on that, on these blind spots that were not exactly unfolding yet. But I will say one thing about the empirical evidence, just to close my first statement, which is this empirical evidence we have nowadays, it’s very much focused on the U.S. and Europe, so I would be very happy to see more empirical evidence of how disinformation unfolds in other political contexts, what we call the global South, but I’m talking Latin America and Africa and Asia. So that would be it for my first input.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thank you very much, Clara. We do not yet have our final speaker, Aaron, who was with the Singaporean government recently. He’s now moved to academia. I don’t think he’s with us. I do want to introduce our remote moderator. She’s in Nairobi. Risper, can you just reveal yourself on screen? Put your camera on and say something. I’ll see if I can unmute you. Can you unmute Risper Arose, please? She was there, and she might have just dropped off, but she’s trying to get hold of Aaron. But let me turn to Jeanette and Bill here, and David, you can add on this as well, and Nigat. Our opening question to you was not that dissimilar from the question that I asked the room, and that is, do you think you can define it? What is disinformation? Is it serious? And if so, why?

Jeanette Hofmann:
I think there is less argument about what disinformation actually is. Usually we say it’s a decision we make between misinformation and disinformation, and disinformation focuses on strategic intent. And that usually is to manipulate people in their behavior and in their worldviews. So that is what disinformation is. But now I’d like to come back to what I said earlier, that we really lack empirical evidence and I’d like to elaborate a bit on that. We have right now a strong focus in academia on platforms. And while that makes sense, because we get at least some data about the circulation of disinformation, there is also a little problem with that, because it cuts off long-standing research traditions that focus already on the question of propaganda, of manipulation and its effects on people’s minds. At that time it was less about platforms and it was more about legacy mass media, but also political propaganda. And I have to say that there was never agreement on the question of whether it had a long-time effect on people. There is a strong opinion in academia saying the effect is amplifying what people already believe. If you have a tendency to believe in conspiracy theories, you might be open, acceptable to disinformation. But if you are immune to that, it might not have much of an effect on you. So there is the hypothesis called preaching to the quiet. Disinformation reaches people who are vulnerable. That’s point one. And second one I would like to make is that a lot of research focuses on the individual. But what really matters when it comes to disinformation is the media environment. Countries with a strong tradition of public media, of high-quality media, they are able to counter disinformation much better than countries where the media landscape is a mess. So if we want to learn more about whether or not disinformation works, we need to look beyond platforms and take into account the wider media landscapes. Context matters and there is no point in only looking at platforms and their algorithms. It’s also interesting, I mean, it just kind of struck me the remark about the U.S.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
and then the comment from the Philippines. And maybe there are cultures, media cultures, and populist, you know, political moments which might also be similar. So there could also be other contextual issues. And Bill, do you want to elaborate on your earlier remarks? Okay. Well,

Bili Drake:
first of all, on the U.S. case, I think that there have been a lot of studies that have indicated that actually, further to Jeanette’s point, a lot of the disinformation is not originally coming from social media. It’s coming from broadcast media and then gets picked up by and amplified by social media. So when we talk about the strength of the traditional media environment being a buttress against the spread of disinformation, you have to recognize in a case like the United States, which has a fairly strong and vibrant media system and has for a long time had multiple voices, well-funded, et cetera, et cetera, that we have three networks that get tens of millions of viewers that are completely all in on disinformation. I mean, who are major proponents of disinformation and who attack anybody who questions disinformation as being somehow trying to suppress freedom of speech and so on. So we have a certain problem in the U.S., but I mean, I guess the point I would make is, you know, between traditional media as the savior and platforms as the source of all problems, as again, what I said at the outset, it all depends on the context of what we’re talking about. On the definitional issue, you know, Jeanette said that we all kind of agree on this. It’s actually interesting. I was looking at some of the different definitions that have been put forward by different leading organizations, and it’s amazing how variable they are in their details. Maybe this is because I spent a lot of time in the Internet governance space working on the definition of Internet governance 20 years ago in the UN Working Group and so on, but I mean, I tend to look at these things and think, why are they doing it this way? For example, the European Union describes disinformation as the creation, presentation, and dissemination of verifiably false or misleading information for the purpose of economic gain or intentionally deceiving the public. Why economic gain or intentionally deceiving the public? There’s different ways of formulating the strategic objective there, right? The UN Special Rapporteur in 2022 says false information that is disseminated intentionally to cause serious social harm. So are you saying that it’s only disinformation if it is intended to cause serious social harm, and what constitutes serious social harm? So, you know, you can play with the definitions. In fact, they could be quite messy. Obviously, we want a definition and an understanding that captures the notion of intentionality and of verifiable falsity, and we want to capture that there’s a strategic dimension in the production and the original creation dissemination. But then again, you have people who recirculate disinformation all the time not knowing it’s disinformation, so then when they do it, it’s misinformation, I suppose you would say, right? Because they’re not seeking necessarily to cause serious social harm. Their weird uncle sent them this picture saying that, you know, Hillary Clinton is the devil and eats babies, and they think maybe that’s true, and they send it to their friend. So, I mean, you know, I mean, this is the kind of crazy stuff we have. But I will, back to Jeanette’s point, and I’ll stop on the U.S. thing, though. It is true that social scientists, just to amplify what I said before, social scientists always have trouble demonstrating impact. We have 60-something years of media studies before the internet where people tried to impact, look at the impacts of media, media effects, and how strong or weak they were. Did they cause violence, sexual predation, whatever, etc. It’s hard to get at that through polling data and so on, but when tens of millions of people vote saying that they do so informed by strong disinformation, this would seem to be relevant information to me.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks, Bill. Nigat, do you want to add anything to your earlier opening remark on the concept and the issue?

Nighat Dad:
Yeah. So, based on my work wearing different hats, you know, someone working in Pakistan, looking at the context, but then someone sitting at Matters Oversight Board, I feel that content that is related to mis- and disinformation, it’s very complex to define it as a mis- and disinfo, and even more complicated to identify it. And I think definitions are very, very contextual. Some of the definitions Bill mentioned here, and I’m like, okay, but some, you know, like actors, civil society actors, states, companies, sort of define all these things according to, like keeping their interest in mind as well, or the work that they are doing, or the context that they belong to. But for instance, like disinformation for us, how we kind of see it as a, you know, false content, which is being shared with the intent of causing harm. But then we cannot assume all untrue information is harmful, and we should be very cautious of, you know, defining it in a way where, especially not the civil society, but the powerful actors, when they define it, that means that they are going somewhere to regulate it, right? And that’s where I see a problem is. So, I don’t know what else to add here, but I feel that it’s very contextual. I don’t know how many of you have seen UNSR’s report on gender disinformation, which is just released a couple of days ago, and it has a context of all the regions. And it actually, it was mind-boggling to see that how disinformation causes harm to women and marginalized groups in South Asia, and how it does it in Latin America. So, I feel like it’s such a good document that people should read. It’s very recent, but at the same time, I feel it’s contextual. But we should be very, very cautious when we are defining it, and not giving, not leaving a space where, you know, like, we should basically give space to people to interpret it the way they want to, according to their context, and how they see their political situation is.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks, Nikat. Just a little plug for my organization, Use the IGF, and this shows how the IGF can be really valuable, to have a consultation last year in Addis Ababa with the special rapporteur on gender disinformation, and she used the input from that consultation in her report. David, any additional points from you?

David Kaye:
I think the only thing that I’d add is that, is to sort of put a sort of a legal sort of gloss on all this, which is just to emphasize why definition is so important. If we’re talking about, ultimately, legal regulation, which I think, ultimately, when we’re talking about governance, that’s what we’re talking about, then we have to be clear about what the issue is. And that’s not just some abstract issue, it’s also a fundamental component of legality. We need precise definition, and then, you know, precision in what it is that we’re actually restricting. And one of my big fears is that even though I share the view that there is a problem called disinformation, and there is a wide variety of impacts of disinformation, we don’t really have clear definition. And we see that, I think, even in the emerging regulations from places in Europe and the UK and elsewhere, because what we see there is this move for transparency and risk assessment that assumes that, in those cases, platforms will sort of define the issue as they’re doing that work. Maybe that’s okay, and maybe that will be great evidence for social scientists and for legal scholars, but I’m afraid we’re not at a point where we have shared definitions that are clear enough for legal regulation.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks, David. Janette, you want to react?

Jeanette Hofmann:
Yeah, I wanted to address the question of motives, because many people, of course, for good reasons, refer to distinct episodes like the attack after the last election in the US on the White House. Empirical research shows that many people who act on disinformation and share disinformation do not necessarily believe that this is the truth. One reason why people share disinformation is to signal belonging, to express their loyalty to a certain way of thinking and acting. So many people say Republicans who now share information about the last election being stolen might not necessarily believe this. What they are expressing is their loyalty, their belief in Trump and this sort of crowd of Republicans. And we even have evidence that when people are asked, do you believe what you are sharing, that they might not tell you the truth. And this brings me to an aspect that I find actually alarming. It’s less the amount of disinformation, but there is a growing amount of people in various countries who do not care any longer about the distinction between truth and falsity. For them, political belonging, let’s call it tribal attitudes, are becoming so strong that they are more important than whether or not there is a truth to strive for. And that is what I think undermines public discourse and therefore democracy.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks, Janette. Clara, I hear, I can see you also want to react. Go ahead.

Clara Iglesias Keller:
Yes, thank you so much, Henriette. Just a sec, my kid’s waking up.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Tell them to make you coffee.

Clara Iglesias Keller:
Yeah, unfortunately not possible yet. But yeah, I agree there is this conceptual inconsistency. So we have a lot of definitions more on the media and communications disciplines as one of the many communicational phenomenons that comes alongside misinformation, propaganda, fake news. I think I actually like distinguishing things by intention. It makes all the difference for the law. We often run into social science scholars or communication scholars say, oh, but you can’t tell much about intent when in fact intent holds up a big chunk of legal relevance, right? But what I do want to say is that beyond being a communication practice or being a sort of online harm, which is also another way in which we refer to disinformation a lot, I think we need more definitions or more efforts to conceptualize this information within political theory, within political practice, right? So I think it functions a lot as a form of political intervention that takes shapes in different contexts, as Nigat was saying as well. So I come from Brazil, for instance, and this type of intervention clearly serves there as a means to show dissatisfaction. as somebody pointed out in the beginning of our panel, or to directly attack democratic institutions, in particular the electoral system and high courts. So I think we do have this varied, but not complete enough conceptual framework. And I’m just gonna say one very quick last thing. I don’t think there’s space in statutory regulation for a concept of disinformation.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
I’m about to move on. I’m gonna ask you about regulation next. So Bill, you want to react. Is it about the opening segment, or do you want to actually talk about regulation?

Bili Drake:
I just want to surprise Jeanette by agreeing with her strongly, because we’ve been arguing about this for a while. No, I mean, I just want to emphasize again, and this is why I said at the outset that I was kind of in the middle, and it depends on context and so on. There are indeed lots of people who will say they believe in disinformation because of tribal loyalty. There’s no question about that in the American case. And indeed, one of the things that’s really happened, and this goes also to your not believing in truth versus fiction, they’re not believing there’s a boundary. There’s a lot of people who have just built their identity around giving the finger to the other side. It’s like if you hear a lot of people, when they interview people at Trump rallies, and they say they believe this stuff, and somebody asks them, but you saw this. And they go, yeah, well, whatever, screw that. The libs don’t want us to think this. So it’s all about owning the libs, owning the other side, giving the finger to the people you don’t identify with, and so there’s like a pretense in a way. So it does mean that it’s harder to disentangle. It doesn’t mean that it’s not a vibrant, important part of the mix. It just means is it directly causal, is a little bit more complex.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks. I want to ask everyone in the room, is there anyone here who lives in a context where disinformation is not particularly prominent or influential? Anyone? Just come and tell us a bit about it. Just come to the mic and tell us where you’re from and why you think that’s the case.

Audience:
Well. Hello, everyone. Well, I’m from Switzerland. I wouldn’t say that it’s not a problem whatsoever, but I also wouldn’t say that it has the ability to sway entire elections. We have a multi-party system, for example. People tend to vote for the same parties for the last 30 years. So not much has happened in that respect. Of course, we had the same challenges with COVID as everyone else. But I think I will be exaggerating massively to say that this is the topic for us to focus on.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Well, it’s really good to get a global north perspective. I’m from South Africa. And I can say that disinformation is not a major problem in South Africa. Believing the government is a major problem. But what, so there is often engagement in the media about where the information is false or accurate. But we’ve got very well self-regulated media that deals with disinformation. And the public tends to participate in that. So fact-checking is something that happens on a daily basis very quickly. So a politician will make a statement on television one night. The next day, the media will fact-check it. And the public does tend to believe the media. And what we find quite unique or interesting is that whether it’s right-wing center or left-wing media, there is a common commitment across that spectrum to accuracy, which we think is because our media, the self-regulation actually works. So for us, it’s also not a major concern. I want to move on to the next question, in a way at the heart of why we convened this workshop. By the way, the three of us argued a lot in the course of this workshop planning and design. So it’s for us also not a clear issue. But really the heart of this is it’s at the IGF. And it’s about governance. Do you think that we have, do you think we can regulate disinformation effectively internationally? We know there’s a lot of national initiatives that are being put in place and that are quite controversial. And what do you think, do we have the baseline? Do we have a strong and clear baseline that existing international instruments can provide for the governance of disinformation? And if we move in this direction of international governance of disinformation, what are the implications for access to information and freedom of expression? David, can I ask you to start us on that? I know this is something you have applied your thought and your expertise and experience to.

David Kaye:
Yeah, thanks, Henriette. So my view is that global regulation of disinformation, if we think of that as a concrete set of rules that will guide decision makers in every context and will have kind of a global oversight is a chimera. That’s not, we’re not going to achieve that. And it’s not worth, in my view, even trying to achieve it. What I do think is that governments and platforms and media outlets need a common set of principles to guide how they think about this and how they react to it. And to my mind, I mean, this would be no surprise to people, at least who know my work, I think that those principles are rooted in human rights law. And there’s very, very good reason because we’re talking about information, the sharing of information, the possibility of making it harder for individuals to find accurate information. We need to have standards that are based in Article 19 on principles of legality, necessity and proportionality and legitimacy of the objective. And I think that, and just to end here, I think that there is a way in which resourcing human rights mechanisms in particular, and by that, I don’t mean the Human Rights Council, but rather the Human Rights Committee, regional human rights courts and others, resourcing them, ensuring that they have the tools to answer questions when individuals feel that their government is interfering with their right of access to information by either disinforming themselves or permitting disinformation in one way or another, that those kinds of tools can be a mechanism for global governance, but not in the maybe IGF sense of what internet governance looks like.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks, David. Clara.

Clara Iglesias Keller:
Yeah, so I really enjoy thinking about this question. It was really provoking to me. I am not sure about the extent to which global governance solutions can help us, and I’ll try to summarize this very briefly in two points. First, because I feel this urge to look at this information, disinformation’s role in political disputes and it becomes clear to me that countermeasuring it or mitigating it’s not only about a communication practice in itself, if it’s being used by certain political and economic interests that have been shaping our societies for so long, then mitigating disinformation is also about confronting ourselves with these broader issues. So to stick with the Brazilian case, I think about the ultimate convertibility of economic power in political power, and that includes a traditionally concentrated and unregulated media landscape, especially when compared with other Western democracies. So I think that certainly needs to be a part of the conversation. But even in the interest of getting more granular, it’s okay, it’s fair to say we need some action that targets disinformation specifically as well. And here, I’m afraid I’m also skeptical because global solutions mostly presume consensus-based governance structures, or as David put very well, at least global governance in the IGF sense of things, does not include an authority enforcement, right? And I think even though it offers us very interesting guidelines, human rights standards, I’m afraid that confirmation of current digital business models and data usages will need more than that to mention a few things that should be on the regulatory agenda.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks, and Nigat, do you feel we’ve got the instruments needed? Or how do you feel about the idea of global governance of disinformation?

Nighat Dad:
Yeah, I mean, everything that has been said by David and Clara, I agree with that. I think we already have global governance instruments with us in terms of several principles or conversations that have taken place, resolutions and all of that. But I think we also need to see what actors have learned out of those instruments and tools that we have, which have been developed globally. I don’t think powerful actors have learned that. If you look at national policies, regulations, and laws that are being drafted and introduced not only in global majority, but also in global north, those policies have this appetite of suppressing freedom of expression, right? I don’t think that they are able to identify how certain content can actually cause real world harm. And what David basically said, that especially state actors have this, not only companies, but state actors also have this obligation under human rights standards to provide accurate information and prevent misinformation. I mean, we have Rabat plan of action. We have so many instruments out there. I think we really need to see how different components that are already out there can complement each other and do not work in silos. There are several, and we’ll be talking about those governance mechanisms. You have already mentioned there’s like certain, you know, like for oversight board or other things that are already out there, how those are performing. Are we really, you know, looking into the performance, what they are adding into our existing ecosystem? So I think we already have so much. I think we just need to know how to use that.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks. Thanks for that, Nika. Jeanette.

Jeanette Hofmann:
Yeah, thank you, Henriette. The whole question reminds me of the early days of internet governance when it was always clear that protocol standards for the infrastructure, we had to agree upon to have a global network, but the upper layers, particularly content, that should not be done on a global level. Having said that, there is one aspect I’d like mention that I find quite interesting in this context, and this is the Digital Service Act that the European Commission just agreed upon, and that will take effect early next year. And that DSA has one aspect that, at least from a German perspective, is really interesting. It concerns the scope of human rights. At least in Germany, traditionally, human rights regulate the relationship between citizens, or say people, and the government. But the DSA mentions at several points that human rights should also guide the behavior of platforms, meaning the scope of human rights begins to integrate also private sector action because it affects to such an extent our conditions and possibilities to exercise human rights. So this is an interesting development, and we can think about extending that to other jurisdictions or world regions. And actually, I would like to know what our other panelists think about that.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks, well, Bill, do you want to react to that before we go to, Aaron has now joined us, so we’ll hear from him next.

Bili Drake:
No, I don’t want to react to that. I want to say something else. Go ahead, you can. So the question, I mean, the way the question’s posed, can it be effective? Probably not. I think we have to engage it on the long term anyway. We have to try to build up the operational and normative infrastructure to continually challenge disinformation. But of course, obviously, to believe that it’s going to effectively regulate it at the global level is a little bit far-fetched. But we have to try. That said, I think it’s worth just highlighting, because this is the Internet Governance Forum, we’re trying to talk about disinformation from an internet governance standpoint, some of the things that are happening internationally. I just want to flag a couple of quick things. One is the UN discussions around cybercrime and cybersecurity. In those contexts, you’ve seen a lot of proposals, a lot of language that pertains to disinformation, and it demonstrates the difficulty of trying to do this at a multilateral level in a geopolitically divided environment. So for example, in the cybercrime treaty negotiations going on now, China proposed language saying that all governments should adopt laws calling spread of disinformation a criminal offense. And they described it as anything that makes available false information that could result in serious social disorder. Well, again, what could result in serious social disorder is obviously in the eyes of the beholder. Then we have, secondly, the UNESCO guidelines for the regulation of digital platforms, which UNESCO hopes to finalize this year. That has some language in it that is germane to disinformation as well. And the model of adopting guidelines or suggesting guidelines to countries, you know, there’s the possibility that some countries will implement those guidelines in ways that are restrictive of freedom of expression and will claim international legitimacy in doing so. So the question of guidelines versus treaties is an issue. The last thing I would just mention, the UN Secretary General is now proposing a code of conduct for information integrity on digital platforms. This is part of the global digital compact discussions, and he wants to have this discussed at the summit on the futures. And if you’ve seen the document, he proposes a global set of guidelines drawing on the UNESCO experience that is based on nine principles, many of which are pretty much focused on platforms and how platforms behave and how stakeholders behave. This is, you know, it’s easy, I think, to say, well, platforms have to adopt rules about transparency, disgorging information, allowing scholars to access the data, and so on. It’s a lot harder to say states should not disseminate this kind of information in the first place, or all stakeholders must abide by good taste and common sense. Those things are a little bit hard to achieve, particularly through guidelines, but that’s what the Secretary General is doing. And he’s actually calling also for the establishment of a, quote, dedicated capacity in the UN Secretariat to monitor and advance all of this, which is an interesting thing. So, you know, there’s been a lot of discussion about whether new organizational structures will be built through the global digital compact, particularly in New York. And this is one where I think they might get some political traction in saying there ought to be a centralized mechanism for at least tracking progress in addressing these issues, tracking progress in adopting complementary kinds of guidelines, and so on. So we’ll see. But so there’s a lot going on at the international level, and I think it’s worth talking about that.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks, thanks. Aaron, Aaron Maniam, you are with us now. Please introduce yourself and tell us what you think about this global governance response to disinformation.

Aaron Maniam:
Thanks so much, Henrietta. Apologies for joining you a little bit late. I had some technical challenges, which I suppose are unironic given that this is, you know, a panel at the IGF. And I’m calling in from Oxford, that panel, you know, that capital of the world in internet connectivity. So apologies to everyone. I’m glad I got here now. I love this question on global governance, because I think it gets to the nub of many of the core issues.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Aaron, just tell us a little bit more. I know you’re an academic now, but we were particularly interested on your views based on your perspective as being within government.

Aaron Maniam:
Of course, sure. Until recently, I was a policymaker in Singapore, working on digital issues, you know, covering both how governments can enable digital in the economy, in society, but also what sorts of international partnerships governments need to embark on and the kinds of regulation that we need to do, both in the economic sphere, as well as on content. So I think this is a real, you know, commingling of many of the challenges that any government faces. And on the global front, I wanted to make four points, which I think are all germane to this discussion. The first is, we have to figure out even what we mean by global governance, right? There are so many models. There are de minimis models, where it’s kind of a very basic level of guidelines that get set out and very little else in terms of enforcement or monitoring capacity. But then we have maximal models as well. Things like the ICAO has managed to achieve because we know that there are clear risks and safety issues that are involved. And at the moment, you know, we see emerging examples like those Bill mentioned, the open-ended working group on cyber at the UN is trying to achieve a greater set of consensus on some of these issues. And it’s really not clear where we’re gonna land, I think, in terms of the de minimis or more maximal models of global governance. As a result, just second point that I think is important here is, I think it’s really important to differentiate between the basic standards and the kind of more additional sets of issues that we want to cover in a set of global. governance regulations. Jeanette referred to this, and I think examples like the DSA are really important. In Singapore, we have a set of online safety regulations. The UK, we know, has put that out recently as well. And I think it’s useful to ask if, beyond the basic, you know, we were not able to get to a level of consensus yet, what is useful is that the guidelines that Bill mentioned or any further kinds of regulatory principles that are put in place must at least be interoperable amongst different countries. They don’t need to be identical, but interoperability allows for different systems to at least talk to each other in a much more coherent way. Two last points that I think are also important that we haven’t quite named in this discussion. The first is, I think one major challenge in this work is going to be the fact that, in some cases, governments are the source of mis- or disinformation, rather than the entity that is going to regulate it. And that makes it much more difficult for those sorts of systems to be working with others where governments act in more rational, misinformation-minimising sort of ways. And we need to be able to differentiate the two and not let that first group of governments actually end up holding us back on any kinds of coordination that we need to achieve. This will be hard, of course, because the tech itself is dynamic. In a sense, we’re trying to play whack-a-mole here. I don’t know if they call the game the same thing in every country, but it’s like a new problem comes up every few weeks, and you have to find a new way to keep hitting it down. And the regulation has to keep evolving. But that also means that we need the skills within governments to keep that adaptation going, and we need the ability to continually update our legislation if we want to do this work well. That’s not impossible. It can be done. But it means that parliamentary capacity is going to be stretched, not just executive capacity, because we’re going to constantly be going back and having to update and refine and making our laws more agile and adaptive. Not easy, but I think those are the kinds of challenges we’ll have to deal with to realise the sort of global governance that we would want.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks, thanks, Aaron. And maybe that interoperability, that takes us back to David, to whether human rights frameworks can provide that interoperability. Before I open to the audience, do any of the speakers want to react or comment on one another’s inputs? So I want to open it, sorry, who is that that was that? Nigat, go for it, Nigat.

Nighat Dad:
And yet I just wanted to, before we move ahead, I think one part of this conversation that is missing is we are talking about global governance, but for some reason I always raise this in several panels and it kind of, you know, like it kind of gets lost in the conversation. And that basically is that how to hold those governments accountable who actually use these guidelines for their own interest and benefit and make laws and regulations where they can control content on in their own sovereign jurisdictions, but then they are not accountable that what are the wrongdoings that they are doing. So I feel like that just regulatory mechanisms are good, but how to hold those state actors accountable. And I have had these conversations where many global north actors are like, but those governments will do this anyway. Then where should we all go? Like, should we leave them behind? Should we leave those users behind? Like how we will take them along with us? I think this is the question that I always raise it and it frustrates

Anriette Esterhuysen:
me a lot. Thanks, Nigat. I share that. Bill, you want to react quickly to this?

Bili Drake:
No, actually I want to ask the other panelists for their perspective. I’d like to know if anybody has views. I’m looking at some of the people we have online. Has any opinion on the Secretary General’s proposals? Since this is an important thing, the Secretary General of the United Nations is proposing a code of conduct on information integrity for digital platforms. That would seem to be an instance of an attempt at global internet governance. It’s governing information that goes over the network that fits within the definition of internet governance. So I’d like to know how people view this initiative, what they think of it in terms of its potential impact, how well it’s crafted, etc.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Do you want to comment on that, any one of you? Just jump in if you do.

David Kaye:
I’ll say something just very briefly about it because I do think it’s a very important topic. I’ll say two things. One, I think the process has been interesting, but I am not sure that civil society has played as active a role in helping shape the document as should be the case. So there’s a process issue at the outset. As we look forward to the actual negotiation of an adopted or to be adopted text, if civil society is not in the room, if civil society is not in the places where there’s actual drafting and adoption taking place, I think the legitimacy of the outcome will be suspect. So that’s a process response. A substantive response is that I’m concerned that it focuses not exclusively, but perhaps in an over-reliant way, on platforms. There is absolutely a major role of platforms in the problem of disinformation, but any process that excludes, as we heard from the situation in the Philippines or the United States, that excludes a call for governments themselves to be better behaved, to be supporting and resourcing public service media, public broadcasting, any avoidance of that will, I think, make the process sort of at its core not useless, but will really detract from its value.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks very much, David. I’m actually going to move to the audience now, and I’m going to open with the question that actually I’m going to ask the panel to respond to as well, which is that if we are going to develop governance initiatives to respond to disinformation, how do we do it? David just pointed out the risks of a fairly top-down process, such as the one that’s coming from the Secretary General’s office. So, how do you consult? How do you make decisions about governance responses to disinformation in a way that will be effective? So, I’m opening this question to people in the room, and also, if you have any questions for the panelists or contributions, please stand up, take the mic, and

Audience:
introduce yourself first. Farzaneh, you can go ahead. Oh, thank you. My name is Farzaneh Badi from Digital Medusa. First of all, congratulations on a nuanced and evidence-based discussion on disinformation. This has been lacking from IGF this year, and I think you remedied that with panel. Disinformation governance can become, indeed, an internet governance issue if we rush towards solutions that could affect internet infrastructure. And by talking without evidence, by talking about disinformation and how harmful it is, and rushing to govern and regulate it, we are going to see that it affects connectivity. And it has actually happened when Russia invaded Ukraine. Europe decided to do IP blocking of websites of Russia that were spreading disinformation. So, it is, indeed, an internet governance issue, and at IGF, we need to have an absolutely more nuanced approach to the discussion and not rush to any conclusion. And as Nigat said, we also have been active in coming up with solutions. Anyway, but so, I think that that’s one point that it can be an internet governance issue, and we need to monitor that. And the other is that disinformation is also something that in declarations like G7, they mention it. They commit to open global internet, but they also talk about tackling disinformation, which, like, but our solutions to fight with disinformation should not affect connectivity and internet infrastructure. Thank you. Thanks, Farsi. Wolfgang. Thank you very much. My name is Wolfgang Kleinwächter. I’m a retired professor from the University of Aarhus, and I can only support what Farsaneh has just said. We always risk in this debate to undermine the fundamental right to freedom of expression, as laid down in Article 19 of the Human Rights Declaration. And, you know, as a member of the old generation, I’m asking myself a little bit, what’s really new here? So, I went through the Cold War, and the Cold War was an information war. So, if it goes back 500 years when Gutenberg invented the printing press, so the Catholic Church were excited, then somebody used it to write anti-Catholic pamphlets, and because the Pope said there’s a misuse of technology. And then the struggle started, you know, who is right, who is wrong. So, the critics of the Catholic Church or the Pope were right, and they had the index of censorship. So, it’s very close if we continue the debate that you end up with the censorship regime. So, and the tragedy is also, look at Germany in the 1930s. So, Mr. Goebbels, who was the Minister for Propaganda in the Third Reich, so he did see radio as a weapon. He said it’s like a machine gun, and people loved him. So, millions of Germans, you know, believed in what this crowd of criminals said to the public, and the tragedy is, we know all this, that complex, simple answers to complex questions are given by either idiots or liars. So, but the problem is that a bunch of people love idiots, and they love liars. So, that means what you can do with this. So, that means you have to invest more in education, creating awareness, you know, to enable people that they understand the context. So, I think context is one way forward. So, you have, if you have bad information, the best thing is to have more good information, so that you can rebalance this, and not to cancel it, or to censor it, or something like that. So, I think Jeanette mentioned the Digital Service Act. That’s one step in the right direction. We have the Facebook Oversight Board, you know, it’s an effort, but I’m also very critical. So, I think we have a problem, but I do not have a solution, and I think in 20 years, we will discuss, you know, what could be the solution for this problem. So, we have to go with very small steps to identify where we can minimize the negative side effects of this disinformation. You will not be able to remove it. So, and, you know, one idea I have is, since years, so in the ICANN context, we have the dispute resolution mechanism for domain names. So, the UDRP system allows a broad system, on a case-by-case basis, to go through cases, taking into account a regional context, and individual constellation, and 80-90 percent of content-related conflicts in the internet are relevant for the region, and the cultural context, and they involve parties. So, that means, why not to think about a distributed system, where you, on a case-by-case basis, go through certain issues, and this could create a body of understanding what is bad and what is good. So, that means, these are the, then the voluntary guidelines could outcompete it, so best practice or something like that. So, I fully agree with David, that he said, you know, a top-down regulation will never work. We have Article 19, we have Article 19.3, we know how the national security, public order, public health, and moral as possible restrictions are misused by governments, but this is not a governance issue for the IGF, this is a national issue for national policymaking, and insofar, we should debate this in the IGF, but we should not expect that we will find a solution. Thank you.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks, Wolfgang. I just want to make one point, though. I do think we have to recognize that the weaponizing of disinformation is very different now from what it was when you had to do it via radio, to do it via broadcasting platforms. You needed to have some kind of political power or economic power, and in online platforms, it’s much more distributed, that ability to weaponize disinformation, and I think that is a challenge we cannot ignore. So, yes, there are similarities, but there are also differences, and I see, Korwe, you want to have the floor, but I wanted to know if there was anyone from the Christchurch call in the room who might be willing to share how they approached consultation, because I think that is an important part of what we’re trying to address with this workshop, to find effective ways of getting towards governance ignitions. So, please go ahead, Korwe.

Audience:
I have two comments. The first comment, actually, is I really question about, you know, the UN Director General, his saying is really can get consensus or any respect from the state, you know, the different states, because well, how he can act that, and eventually the state agree upon, that is difficult. And the second one, actually, is a question, because we are talking about disinformation, because we are living in a luxury democratic system, or some of us. We have a democratic system, we allow you, you know, even the disinformation, you can debate. Let me ask a simple question. If this disinformation, most of that, or maybe 80 percent of that, is a dispute by government. In that kind of environment, can you tell me how the people can react that? Because the disinformation is not from people, it’s from government or from politicians. Then what are we going to do?

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks, Korwe. And anyone else from the audience before we go back to the Christchurch? Did you want to, Paul, are you going to, do you want to say something about it? I know it’s a slightly different topic, but I think that what you did was, in terms of the consultation process, maybe if you could just say a little bit about how you approached finding solutions through consultation. Apologies for putting you on the spot like this, but.

Audience:
It’s okay, I’m often put on the spot. I’m just used to taller microphones than this. Thank you. Yeah, I’m just trying to think through the various different layers. The Christchurch call has been through a bit of a journey. For those who don’t know much about it, it was started in 2019. And just introduce yourself, please. Sorry, I’ll go back. My name is Paul Ash. I’m the Prime Minister’s Special Representative on Cyber and Digital from New Zealand. I also lead the team in the New Zealand end of the New Zealand-French Secretariat leading the Christchurch call. For those who aren’t familiar with the call, it was stood up after the terrorist attacks in two mosques in Christchurch in March 2019, when the murder of 51 worshippers was live streamed around the world, amplified algorithmically, and found its way, I’m sure, into many of your social media feeds and inboxes. And rather than let that stand, we took a deliberate approach to working with companies, seeing them, governments, and civil society as stakeholders in the process of trying to build solutions to prevent that happening again. And as we did that, we negotiated a set of 25 commitments. That was done in rather a hurry, through eight weeks, but actually those commitments have proved very durable as we’ve looked to the implementation of them. As we went through that eight-week process, we met with civil society groups. At that point, we were not in a space of a full multi-stakeholder construct, in part because we wanted to capture the moment and make sure that we fed that input in, put a placeholder in the Christchurch call text in order to enable full participation thereafter, and get those commitments landed at a meeting in Paris in May 2019. Thereafter, we’ve worked on the process of implementing specific commitments around things like live streaming. around the ability to detect and deal with terrorist and violent extremist content, and increasingly recently, focusing in on issues like algorithmic amplification, like user journeys and the pathway to radicalization to violence. And it’s probably in that area that there are some significant connections to the topic of dis- and misinformation and its distribution. And certainly there is a good body of evidence showing that the amplification of disinformation messages can lead to radicalization to violence. The approach we’ve taken since then around consultation has been over the period of 2019 to build up and establish a civil society advisory network that works with the Christchurch Call partners, and over time, to broaden that out, to develop what we call the Christchurch Call community, in which all of those involved, whether they’re in the advisory network, whether a partner, whether they’re a government or an online service provider, a supporter, can contribute to a discussion on all of the different pieces of policy and problem solving that the Christchurch Call is working on. Over the course of a year, we work on those through specific working groups and work streams that the Christchurch Call leaders ask us to focus in on. And each year, we hold a Christchurch Call summit, where heads of government, heads of tech firms, heads of civil society organizations consider the outputs from that and give direction around the work that we will take forward in the subsequent year. It’s a different subject matter set from dis- and misinformation. We’ve been very careful to distinguish the subject areas. What I would say is keeping scope really tight has been one of the things that has enabled the Christchurch Call to make progress. It’s not a call about child sexual abuse material or body image or a range of other things. It’s focused in on one specific subject area. And I think having a secretariat that, at times, is able to build trust across participants to work quietly on issues that can be really contentious is also a very, very important lesson that we’ve taken from this. But the most important, I think, analog that could be drawn and brought over into the area of dis- and misinformation is the strength of a fully multi-stakeholder model. We’ve looked at many, many different multi-stakeholder configurations that might be governments and civil society, tech and civil society, tech and governments. Having that mix all in a room together is actually incredibly difficult. You get aspects of the three-body problem working at times, and that can be really complicated to deal with. But it does mean that there’s a process of building trust and becoming, as we put it, comfortable having uncomfortable discussions. And I think that’s one of the most important things to learn. Over time, we’ve had to systematize that a bit more. And as it’s grown, one of the hardest things to do is actually maintain that trust across the community. So there’s a useful lesson there for any other multi-stakeholder governance construct. I’ll stop there, because that’s probably more information than you needed, but thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks, thanks, thanks for that, Paul. But I think it’s very useful because I think it’s the, it’s about the depth of the process, the fact that it takes time, that it takes time to establish a process that’s going to help you respond effectively to a problem, and then I think the focus. Maybe we talk about disinformation, but maybe disinformation about sexual and reproductive health is very different from disinformation about elections. But so now to go back to the panel, and Bill, I’m gonna start with you, this question about how to approach the consultation, the decision-making process to respond to this from a governance perspective.

Bili Drake:
You keep asking me questions that I don’t wanna answer. I wanna do something else.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Okay, then I’ll go to someone else. No, you can answer the question that you want to answer.

Bili Drake:
I wanna reply to David and Galway on points they made real quick. Galway was talking about the governments being the source of things. This goes back to what I was saying about the Secretary General’s initiative. You know, December 21, the General Assembly had a resolution on countering disinformation which recalled, reaffirmed, recognized, highlighted, expressed concern for, et cetera, et cetera, and asked for the Secretary General to do a report. He did a report the next year, August 2022, and said, one of the big conclusions, states bear the primary responsibility to counter disinformation by respecting, protecting, and fulfilling the rights to freedom of opinion and expression, to privacy and public participation, and called for a multifaceted approach anchored in the protection and respect for human rights. And now, what’s he doing in response to that? Guidelines for platforms. Because the reality is, it’s pretty hard for the United Nations to have any kind of really constructive process around governments being the source of much of the disinformation that matters because governments reserve the rights under the UN Charter to do whatever the hell they want, and they’re not gonna be constrained. So instead, we focus on the platforms. I agree that platforms have some issues. I agree that, you know, it’d be useful to try to encourage greater transparency, et cetera, et cetera, in the platforms. But that’s not, you know, telling Facebook that they have to do something because Russia used Facebook to disseminate information does not address the fact that Russia is disseminating information. And it’s not just, you know, Facebook and Twitter, and, you know, what am I trying to say? You know, YouTube. There’s so many different sources of disinformation, on the dark web and so on. It’s an incredibly robust environment. It’s a commercial marketplace. People create this stuff. You can go online on the dark web and hire people to generate disinformation using bots, and so on and so forth. So, I mean, it’s not just, you know, you can adopt rules for a few of those platforms. It’s not gonna solve the thing. The other point I just wanted to make real quick was that David said we need greater civil society participation in the Secretary General process. This is why I brought it up. Here we are at the IGF. We’re having almost no discussion around the various things that are being proposed through the Secretary General under the Global Digital Compact. I’ve been to many sessions. We’re not doing it. We’re not taking advantage of the opportunity to say, we, the stakeholders, not just civil society, but all stakeholders, demand right to be heard and weigh in on these processes. Nobody knows where this is being done and how it’s being done. It’s just outreach to a small set of players. That’s, something has to change there.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Now, there is a sense, I haven’t heard anyone use the concept yet of disinformation panic, but I think there is a bit of a sense that multistakeholder and self-regulatory processes aren’t dealing with it. Therefore, the parents have to come and step in and we need governmental regulation. And I think, well, certainly in my view, I’m not saying that there isn’t a need for regulatory response, but it does feel as if we are leaping to that response before we’ve actually explored more bottom-up ways. Jeanette, what is your view?

Jeanette Hofmann:
When it comes to what we should do, I’d like to go back to the Digital Service Act. It’s paragraph 40, has a provision that gives regulators, but also vital for me, researchers access to data from platforms in the area of what is called systemic risks caused by platforms. I’m not so happy about this restriction that we have to sort of mobilize systemic risk as a concept to get access, but the fact that we now will get access to data that help us understanding in a better, more evidence-based way of what disinformation does, also how many people it actually reaches, we don’t know much of that, right? We have only vague data from the US and Europe saying it’s sort of between 0.4 and 5% of the people, of the users of platforms actually get to see disinformation. There are better times lying ahead of us with getting access, and I hope that the IGF could be a mechanism where we can sort of provide best practices of how to actually implement this article 40, and I hope that also small jurisdictions will pick this up and say, here, you are giving people access in Europe, why don’t you give us access in other countries? IGF could be a way to sort of discuss this.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Yes, it’s very important to note that this access to data is not available to researchers in the Philippines or in Brazil or in other instances where there is the need to look at the impact and how it operates, how disinformation operates. Aaron, what is your view on this, on how we develop these responses? And particularly, I would like to respond on the role of government, because I think we are in a moment where governments are taking this very seriously, I think sometimes with good intentions, not always with bad intentions.

Aaron Maniam:
No, thanks. Thanks so much for that. I broadly agree with the thrust of the discussion so far that this work needs to be polycentric. It’s not just about having multiple people involved, but there needs to be leadership and decision capacity in multiple centers of power and influence. And that means that governments move from just having an authority-based role to having a convening function. And it means governments bring together the right players, it means governments have to acquire skills in facilitation, in interest aggregation, potentially even in conflict mediation, in order to allow for emerging consensus to actually distill itself. In Singapore, we’ve been doing a lot of this consultative, deliberative work in terms of the kinds of bottom-up democracy that we’ve been calling forward Singapore in its most latest incarnation, is how are we looking to build a future identity for the country? During COVID, there was a process of thinking about recovering and emerging stronger together as well. And it’s something that we’ve been experimenting with for a good part of the last 20 years, how we build this bottom-up set of priorities and issues. But as a kind of side note to that, but a very important side note, I think even where government itself is thinking about its role in relation to the private sector as well as civil society, it’s really important to harness the range of roles, not just the regulatory functions and the lawmaking functions that we have, but also the possibility of governments in community building, in space building, in urban planning, because a lot of the solutions might actually lie in there. One thing I was very struck by in my last job, for instance, is that the three agencies that worked together with the ministry in operationalizing strategy, right, were the Information and Media Development Authority, the Cybersecurity Agency, and the National Library Board, right? So we have a board that looks after all of our national libraries. And it’s really interesting, because when you think about it, we’ve talked a lot about regulation. We’ve talked a lot about the dark aspects of security and how we want to respond to that. But we haven’t talked about the literacy that our citizens need with as much detail. And if you ask me, I think schools and libraries are as important players in this whole process as the more regulatory counterparts that they might have in government. This isn’t always obvious to us, because this is where the patience comes in, right, and it takes time to build up literacies. But I think that’s where we need to start, right? I look at my one-year-old nephew who knows how to swipe on an iPad, even before he can talk. His literacies are gonna be very different from the literacies that all of us have had to develop over time. But I think we need to bring our libraries, bring our schools, and bring our family discussions into this a lot more, because that’s where some of those core literacies and moral sensibilities will start to get laid, yeah.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks. Clara, we have three minutes left, so let’s move quickly. And then I’m still gonna come back to the panel for the takeaways. Clara, keep it brief, please.

Clara Iglesias Keller:
Okay, so I’m going to second Jeanette on a call for more empirical evidence, especially outside of the global north. I’ll stick to Brazil to tell you, for instance, that we all know that Latin American countries have another sort of relationship with messaging apps, for instance. In Brazil, this is aggravated by zero rating policies, where for a huge majority of the population, the internet equals WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram. So this just shows you how we need more data in order to understand how all this political, social contingencies that we can see actually play into the way this information behaves. Very briefly to our promise, and yet I think we need more institutional innovation in the sense of, among all of the things that we need to find this information, there’s a lot that is up for government, but there’s this one thing that is disputing the truth, disputing content, and that should definitely be with civil society. It should be with different agents, and I think we need the institutional apparatus to allow for that to happen.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks, so Clara’s actually already done what she wants to see and what she doesn’t want to see. Nighat, what about you?

Nighat Dad:
Yeah, Andrea, I actually, to go back to your point where you said that we sometimes quickly want to get into other solutions, and I feel that the ones that we have, we really need to look into the nuance that those solutions have established. Of course, like it or not, some solutions, all solutions have pros and cons, but to your point about the consultation, one thing that I have learned sitting at the board is that we are talking about context a lot, but we really don’t know how to extract that context when we are deciding about something, and at the board, what we have done is speaking to civil society from that particular region. Where we have selected that case from, and I think that’s the kind of process that we need. We need more global oversight board. We don’t need only one because if regulation is doing something from the state perspective, we need these boards to also hold these companies accountable and do their work. Our transparency reports are there. Our decisions are there. I think those also give really good data point, data sets to researcher to hold these platforms more accountable.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks, Nighat. David.

David Kaye:
Yeah, I really appreciate that Paul Ash sort of made an intervention because I think that his leadership and New Zealand’s leadership and the role of multi-stakeholder approaches, even in the wake, and let’s remember the Christchurch call, is, you know, could have gone the other direction. I mean, it was a moment of real trauma and people have a kind of natural response, as we’re seeing right now in Israel and Palestine, a natural response to adopt ideas that are not rooted in human rights. And the Christchurch call and Paul’s, I think, stewardship of that had that at its core. And I think we need to find ways to ensure that that remains at the core of the global governance. IGF has not always been a place where human rights and access to information is front and center, but it can be. And I think there are a lot of people in this room or on this Zoom who believe in that. And there are models that we can draw from as we move it forward.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks, David. So, Berlindje Net, you’re gonna have the last word. And I want you to say the one thing that you’d like to see taking this forward and the one thing you don’t want to see. And be brief.

Jeanette Hofmann:
One thing, let’s start with the negative. The one thing I don’t want to see is that governments use this sort of global concern on disinformation as an excuse for regulating their people, speaking up in public during a time where for the first time they can actually speak up. It’s so important to support people and giving their opinion and exchanging their views and not sort of primarily thinking of it in terms of regulating. That’s the negative. The positive, I’ve always been an internet researcher with a focus on the internet. And over the last months, I begin to grasp the importance of high quality journalism. I want everybody to have the right to claim that the earth is flat as long as there is good journalism that depicts the globe, right, that shows and talks about it so that everybody can disseminate crap because it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t do harm to society as such. Good journalism and business models that are also robust for the future that comes where the young generation doesn’t subscribe to newspapers anymore but use social networks. We need to prepare for that time that the young generation doesn’t pay anymore but depends on high quality journalism.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks. Nick, I just thanking you for saying that. Bill, you have the last word before me.

Bili Drake:
I would like to see the European Union find Elon Musk. Substantially, they’ve got the capacity under the Digital Services Act and their guidelines. He has told them, screw you, I don’t care what you think and dropped out. I mean, I think governments are the main focus but we have to do some stuff on the platforms and making it hurt financially, especially vis-a-vis the advertisers is a good way to start.

Anriette Esterhuysen:
Thanks very much and I’m sorry we went over time. I’m sorry we didn’t have time to come back to our participants again but thank you very much to all our panelists and our online participants and to the tech team and to CRISPR and enjoy the rest of your IGF and let’s continue using the IGF to get to the nuts of these problems and to unpack the misinformation about misinformation. Thanks everyone. Thank you.