Uncategorized

Audience

In Africa, the tracking and prosecution of cybercrime is often impeded by poor addressing systems and high residence mobility. This poses a significant challenge for law enforcement agencies trying to identify and apprehend individuals involved in criminal activities using SIM cards. The absence of a proper addressing system in many African countries further hinders the tracking of cybercrime. As a result, there is a pressing need for digital addressing in Africa to enhance cybersecurity and facilitate more efficient law enforcement.

Digital addressing would provide a specific location for every citizen, allowing law enforcement agencies to more effectively identify and track individuals involved in criminal activities. It is important to note that digital addressing is not synonymous with surveillance; rather, it aims to establish a means of knowing the whereabouts of individuals, facilitating the provision of safety measures, and improving law enforcement efforts.

In addition to digital addressing, there is also a need for the capacity building of judges to ensure the effective implementation of digital laws. The successful implementation of legislation involves various stakeholders, including the executive, Parliament, civil society, and the judiciary. The judiciary plays a critical role in interpreting the laws, ensuring their proper application, and upholding justice. Therefore, providing judges with the necessary knowledge and skills to understand and apply digital laws is crucial to their effective implementation.

Moreover, judicial transformation in Africa has the potential to advance democracy. This notion was expressed by a member of parliament from Cameroon who recognized that transforming the judicial system could contribute to improving governance and democratic processes in Africa. By enhancing the independence, efficiency, and transparency of the judiciary, judicial transformation can help ensure fair and just legal systems, thereby promoting democracy and the rule of law.

The African Union (AU) should also consider conducting a survey on the impact of member countries not adopting the Malawi Convention for digital transformation. The low adoption of this convention in member countries is hindering the advancements in digital transformation across the continent. Understanding the reasons behind this low adoption rate can help the AU address the challenges and advocate for the implementation of digital transformation strategies more effectively.

On a positive note, The Gambia is making significant progress in its digital transformation strategy with guidance from the Economic Commission for Africa (ECA). The country has successfully laid broadband networks across the country through projects such as the ECHO-1 project and the National Broadband Network. The Gambia has also developed an ICT master plan that encompasses various aspects, including capacity development, youth and women empowerment, human capital, e-agriculture, and national broadband network strategies. Additionally, consultancy for a digital ID system has been completed with the assistance of the ECA. The Gambia is also in the process of establishing a digital addressing system, with the capital and major cities already covered. These efforts demonstrate The Gambia’s commitment to embracing digital transformation and reaping its numerous benefits.

Overall, improving digital addressing, capacity building of judges, and promoting judicial transformation are essential steps towards enhancing cybersecurity, law enforcement, and democracy in Africa. Conducting surveys and providing guidance on digital transformation strategies will further support the continent’s progress in this regard. The Gambia serves as a notable example of a country making commendable strides in their digital transformation journey.

Luís Soares Barbosa

The analysis highlights several important points regarding the digital transition in Africa. It acknowledges that Africa has both weaknesses and frogging opportunities. One key strength is its vibrant youth population, which can drive digital transformation. Moreover, Africa faces fewer legacy challenges than other regions, giving it an advantage in embracing new technologies.

One argument made is the importance of digital governance in the digital transition process. Effective digital governance can significantly impact the successful implementation and adoption of digital technologies. Case examples from Cape Verde and Gambia support this argument, demonstrating the positive outcomes achieved through effective digital governance.

The European Union (EU) has a vision to strengthen Africa’s economic sector and make it a producer in the global economy. The EU aims to promote diversification and development through strategies that foster economic growth and encourage active participation in the global economy.

Improving the effectiveness of government and public administration in the digital transition is another vital aspect. By bringing the state closer to citizens and meeting their needs, governments can enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of their digital initiatives. Examples from Cape Verde and Gambia illustrate the positive impact of such approaches.

While digital technology holds great potential, it is important to note that there are no free lunches. This means that careful consideration and planning are required to address challenges and ensure equitable distribution of benefits.

Cooperation and proper management capabilities are essential for effective digital governance. Collaboration between different ministries and the development of management capabilities play a crucial role in implementing and managing digital initiatives successfully.

Political will is crucial for the transformation towards a more democratic system. Strong support and commitment from political leaders are necessary to implement necessary reforms and ensure a smooth transition to a democratic and inclusive society.

Building collective trust through digital technologies is also important. Digital technologies can improve citizens’ lives and contribute to building trust. This trust is vital for sustainable adoption and acceptance of digital technologies.

African governments face challenges in attracting and maintaining technical skills. Technical skills often move to the private sector or abroad, posing a challenge for governments seeking a skilled workforce to drive digital transformation.

Digital identity is crucial in the digital transition. The Weneke case in Gambia serves as a pilot project for creating digital identities using local communities. Digital identity provides access to services, improves inclusion, and ensures security and privacy.

Investment in Africa to design national and sectorial strategies is beneficial. Investing in the justice sector has resulted in positive outcomes. Emphasizing engagement processes over relying solely on data is crucial in designing effective strategies and policies.

In conclusion, Africa has weaknesses and frogging opportunities in its digital transformation journey. Effective digital governance, the EU’s vision for the economic sector, improving government effectiveness, and citizen-state interaction are essential for successful digital transition. Challenges such as attracting technical skills and the importance of digital identity are also key considerations. The analysis provides valuable insights into driving digital transformation in Africa.

Lamin Camara

During a recent discussion, several key initiatives were highlighted to address digital transformation and promote sustainable development goals in the country. One of the primary areas of focus is addressing connectivity. To improve connectivity, the government plans to create more capacity and redundancy for existing submarine cables. This will enhance the country’s ability to provide reliable and high-speed internet access to its citizens.

Regarding digital identification, the government has developed a comprehensive digital master plan and strategy. One of the challenges mentioned during the discussion was the need for better coordination and data integration. To address this, the government plans to integrate existing digital addressing systems and SIM registration platforms. By streamlining these processes, the government aims to enhance the efficiency and security of digital identification systems.

Promoting financial inclusion is another important aspect of the country’s digital transformation efforts. The government is focused on establishing a national switch, which will facilitate payment gateways and enable easier access to financial services for all citizens. This initiative aims to reduce financial barriers and empower individuals to participate fully in the economy.

Cybersecurity is a critical concern in the digital age, and the government is taking proactive steps to address this issue. The development of a cybercrime bill is underway, which will help establish a legal framework to prevent and combat cyber threats. Additionally, plans are in place to establish cybersecurity emergency response teams. These dedicated teams will be equipped to swiftly respond to and mitigate any cyber attacks, thereby safeguarding the country’s digital infrastructure.

The digital divide, referring to the unequal accessibility to digital technologies and internet connectivity, is another challenge being addressed. The government has identified challenges related to last mile network access and device affordability. To bridge this gap, the government plans to develop strategies that utilize mixed technologies. Furthermore, collaborations with device providers are being explored to achieve affordable options and increase accessibility to digital devices.

Notably, the government is also keen on developing localized e-applications that address specific local problems. To avoid reinventing the wheel, the government intends to adopt successful platforms from partner countries. Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) have already been signed with countries such as Rwanda, Mauritius, and Nigeria to facilitate the exchange of innovative digital solutions.

In conclusion, the country is actively pursuing various initiatives to achieve digital transformation and support sustainable development goals. Efforts are being made to enhance connectivity, improve digital identification systems, promote financial inclusion, ensure cybersecurity, bridge the digital divide, and develop localized e-applications. These initiatives demonstrate the government’s commitment to leveraging digital technologies for the benefit of its citizens and overall socio-economic growth.

Anand Ramaswamy

Digital transformation has the potential to advance Africa, and the development of the ECA payment system is one initiative towards this goal. However, cybercrime acts as a hindrance to digital transformation, with underreporting being a key issue. Mobile money schemes and other cybercriminal activities pose challenges in this regard. There is a need for robust cybersecurity measures, considering the unique legal frameworks of each African country. Technical solutions, like cell site triangulation and surveillance cameras, have been effective in combating corruption and fraud. Specific training for judges is also necessary to strengthen the judicial system. By addressing these challenges, Africa can unlock the full potential of digital transformation and foster sustainable development.

Joao Cruz

Cap Verde has made significant progress in digitalisation since the early 20s, presenting big opportunities for enhancing service delivery. The country has numerous office infrastructures and applications that can be utilised to build services for its citizens. Cap Verde also has a unique system for digital identification, enabling the development of multiple services. Recently, an online service was launched allowing citizens to access their criminal records through a new Mobile Key based on digital certificates.

To further support their digital initiatives, Cap Verde is creating a digital ecosystem through a technological park and the establishment of two new data centres. The technological park will house several companies, including government data. This development aligns with Cap Verde’s commitment to achieving SDG 9, which focuses on industry, innovation, and infrastructure. Furthermore, the digital ecosystem contributes to SDG 11, which aims to build sustainable cities and communities.

However, there are several challenges that Cap Verde must address in its digital transformation journey. One significant challenge is digital literacy among its citizens, as people need to acquire more skills to effectively utilise the internet for productivity. To tackle this issue, the government is working on a digital literacy program to increase citizens’ proficiency. Another major challenge is cybersecurity, as the country faced a significant attack on its systems in 2020. Efforts are underway to enhance Cap Verde’s cybersecurity systems and protect against future threats.

In addition to these challenges, change management and organisational shift are proven to be difficult during the course of digital transformation. Resistance from employees and the existence of silos within the government hinder the smooth transition. These challenges must be addressed to ensure a successful digital transformation.

Cap Verde’s young population is a valuable asset that needs to be effectively utilised. The country should explore avenues to leverage the skills and talents of its young workforce to drive economic growth and create decent work opportunities. Recognising this, Cap Verde should focus on developing programs and initiatives that cater to the needs and aspirations of its youth.

Despite the challenges, Cap Verde benefits from its small size when it comes to law enforcement. Due to the country’s limited land area, knowing someone’s location is not difficult, making it easier for law enforcement agencies to operate effectively.

The concept of digital addressing holds potential for countries with larger territories in Africa. Cap Verde’s experience suggests that adopting digital addressing systems could bring benefits to other African nations. However, it is essential to address concerns surrounding data privacy and protection, especially when tracking registered SIM cards. Safeguarding personal information should be a priority when implementing digital addressing systems.

Governance plays a critical role in Cap Verde’s digital transformation journey. The government has included all sectors in its strategy, and new projects undergo careful analysis and validation before implementation. Furthermore, standards are being developed to ensure the responsible and ethical use of technology.

Cap Verde’s digital strategies are being designed with sustainability in mind. They aim to avoid relying on legacy systems and focus on adopting technology that is environmentally sustainable in the long run. This approach aligns with SDG 9, which emphasises the need for industry, innovation, and infrastructure to be sustainable.

It is important for other sectors to recognise the benefits of digital transformation. Cap Verde has incorporated the goals of various sectors into its digital strategy, reinforcing the idea that digital transformation is not limited to specific industries but spans across the entire government.

In conclusion, Cap Verde has made remarkable strides in digitalisation, greatly enhancing service delivery. However, challenges such as digital literacy, cybersecurity, change management, and organisational shift persist. Efforts to better utilise the young population and address law enforcement needs have been observed. The concept of digital addressing holds promise for larger African countries, provided that data privacy and protection concerns are appropriately addressed. Governance plays a crucial role in steering Cap Verde’s digital transformation journey towards sustainability. Recognising the benefits of digital transformation, other sectors should proactively embrace digital initiatives to drive development and meet the goals set by SDG 9.

Rose Mosero Maina

Kenya recognizes the immense potential of digital transformation in driving its economic growth and has implemented a comprehensive strategy to harness this opportunity. As part of its strategy, the country has included Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) in its long-term strategic goals from 2012 to 2030. This demonstrates Kenya’s commitment to leveraging digital technologies to support its overall development.

Furthermore, Kenya has made significant efforts to improve its digital infrastructure. The country plans to enhance its national fiber optic backbone by extending it by 100,000 kilometers. This investment in infrastructure will lay the foundation for faster and more reliable internet connectivity, enabling the digital transformation to thrive. Additionally, Kenya already offers over 5,000 digital services online, further establishing its position as a leader in digital innovation.

To ensure that the digital transformation is conducted ethically and lawfully, Kenya has prioritised the establishment of data governance structures. This includes enacting Data Protection laws and creating the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner. These measures are essential for safeguarding individuals’ rights and promoting responsible data use, addressing concerns related to privacy and security.

However, despite these efforts, Kenya faces the challenge of addressing the digital divide. Connecting people, promoting digital literacy, and providing relevant devices to underserved communities remain major hurdles. The government and private sector must collaborate to bridge this gap and create equal access to digital opportunities. The private sector, in particular, plays a vital role in advancing digital transformation by offering affordable mobile devices, providing financial inclusion, and creating digital business opportunities.

Kenya has embraced technology and digital transformation, with both the government and private sector actively advocating for digital change. Kenya takes pride in its status as the “Silicon Savannah,” reflecting its commitment to technological innovation and digitalisation. Examples of digital transformation in Kenya include initiatives like digitising land records and digitising identification documents, demonstrating the country’s determination to leverage technology across various sectors.

When it comes to data governance and protection, the perceived resistance may largely stem from a lack of education about the benefits of these measures rather than outright opposition to change. Kenya has already enacted data protection laws and is working to raise awareness through the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner, aiming to educate the public about the importance of data protection in fostering trust and ensuring responsible use of data.

In terms of service delivery, Kenya recognises the need for a national addressing strategy. The current addressing system, which relies on landmarks or specific service information, is inefficient. Developing a national addressing system will improve service delivery by enabling better identification of locations and ensuring efficient provision of services.

Digital addressing services, which merge the digital and physical worlds, can greatly enhance governance and service delivery. By using digital addressing services, Kenya can improve efficiency in serving its citizens’ needs and promote better coordination between government agencies.

While there are challenges related to the duplication of projects due to government agencies working in silos, Kenya supports cross-ministerial collaboration to address this issue. By designating specific ministries to guide projects and including the data protection commissioner in data governance issues, the country aims to prevent duplication and promote effective project execution.

In conclusion, Kenya recognises the significant role of digital transformation in driving economic growth. The country’s digital transformation strategy, investment in digital infrastructure, and focus on data governance are key pillars of its approach. Efforts to address the digital divide, leveraging the involvement of the private sector, are essential to ensure equitable access to digital opportunities. Kenya’s embrace of technology and commitment to effective project management indicate its determination to succeed in the digital era.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.

Digital transformation plays a crucial role in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the African Union Agenda 2063. Africa’s youth population is projected to reach 70% by 2050, making up 42% of the global youth population. To harness this demographic advantage, it is essential to leverage digital technology. However, Africa faces several challenges on its digital transformation journey.

One of the key challenges is limited internet access. While Africa has made significant progress, with internet access increasing from 6% in 2005 to 40% at the time of the discussion, there remains a substantial divide between urban and rural areas. Additionally, a gender gap persists, with 60% of Africa’s population remaining offline. Bridging these divides and ensuring universal internet access is vital for inclusive growth.

Cybersecurity poses another significant challenge to Africa’s digital transformation. Cybersecurity issues cost the continent 10% of its GDP per year. Developing adequate digital transformation strategies, including capacity building in cybersecurity, is necessary to safeguard against potential threats and ensure a secure digital ecosystem.

Furthermore, change management presents a challenge to digital transformation. Innovation and change can disrupt business processes, and not all organizations are equally open to embracing change. Overcoming resistance to change is vital for successful digital transformation.

In terms of governance, effective digital governance is paramount. It can help improve the effectiveness of government and public administration, bridge the gap between states and citizens’ expectations, and contribute to broader development objectives. Implementing robust digital governance frameworks ensures digital sovereignty and the flourishing of the digital economy.

Prioritizing resource constraints is crucial when implementing digital transformation strategy frameworks. The African Union’s Digital Transformation Strategy Framework for 2020-2030 aims to assist countries in prioritizing their needs based on available resources. This approach ensures efficient resource allocation and maximizes the impact of digital transformation initiatives.

Collaboration between ministries and government agencies is essential in achieving effective government strategies. Siloed approaches can lead to duplication of projects and initiatives, hindering progress. By combining expertise and resources across different ministries and sectors, better results can be achieved.

Technology also has the potential to support anti-corruption efforts, increase transparency, and foster greater engagement and accountability. It can be a powerful tool in driving sustainable development and achieving SDG 16 – Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions.

Key enablers for digital transformation include infrastructure, affordability, reliability, and skills. Investment in digital infrastructure, ensuring affordable access to technology, reliable digital services, and developing the necessary skills in both the population and the private sector are crucial for successful digital transformation.

The technopolitical dynamics between global players in North America, Europe, and Asia can provide opportunities for African countries to benefit. Engaging in collaborations and leveraging these dynamics can accelerate digital transformation on the continent.

In conclusion, digital transformation holds great potential for Africa’s development. However, it is essential to address challenges such as limited internet access, cybersecurity threats, resistance to change, and effective governance. By prioritizing resource constraints, promoting collaboration, and investing in necessary enablers, Africa can harness the power of digital technology to achieve the SDGs and the African Union Agenda 2063.

Mactar Seck

Digital transformation has the potential to play a significant role in achieving sustainable development goals in Africa. Over the years, there has been progress in internet access on the continent, with an increase from 6% to 40% since 2005. This signifies improving connectivity in Africa, which is crucial for driving digital transformation. However, despite this progress, there are still several challenges that need to be addressed.

One of the main challenges is the existence of a digital divide. Approximately 60% of the African population remains offline, highlighting the disparity in access to digital technologies. This divide is further intensified by limited internet connectivity in rural areas, where only 23% of people have access to the internet. Additionally, there is an 11% gender gap in internet connectivity, which hinders the full participation of women in the digital transformation process.

To effectively harness the benefits of digital transformation, it is essential to have adequate digital policies that cater to the specific needs of African countries. The policy framework should address the challenges of the digital divide and promote inclusivity in the use of digital technologies. It should also focus on bridging the urban-rural divide in internet connectivity and closing the gender gap.

Another important aspect is data governance, which ensures digital sovereignty and protects citizens. The emergence of advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) requires robust data governance frameworks. By having control over their data, African countries can safeguard their citizens’ privacy and create job opportunities in the digital economy.

The African Union’s digital transformation strategy includes various components, such as digital finance, digital skills, innovation, and capacity building. These components are essential for African countries to leverage digital technologies and achieve their sustainable development goals. The strategy also emphasizes the importance of addressing infrastructural gaps and cybersecurity concerns, as these are crucial prerequisites for the success of digital transformation initiatives.

Digital ID and digital trade are also highlighted as crucial aspects to consider in the digital transformation journey. The African Union’s digital transformation strategy recognizes the significance of digital ID and digital trade and seeks to incorporate them into the overall implementation plan.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights instances where digital technology has been used effectively to fight corruption. Examples include the implementation of digital taxation, which has resulted in a 55% increase in government revenue, and the use of a human resource management system to combat the issue of phantom employees drawing salaries.

The Kenya model is cited as a positive example of successful digital transformation in Africa. Kenya has seen notable outcomes from its digital transformation initiatives, including approximately 10% of GDP being attributed to digital transformation, 98% mobile money usage, and 65% internet access in the country. Other African countries can draw inspiration from Kenya’s success and tailor their own strategies accordingly.

The United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UN-ECA) supports African countries in developing their national digital identities and digital economy. This support is significant in promoting the adoption of digital technologies and achieving sustainable development goals.

Capacity building programs are identified as crucial for enhancing knowledge in areas such as technology, cybersecurity, and fintech. These programs can help address the manpower and resource shortages faced by some African countries in implementing digital strategies. Noteworthy examples include planning to launch a parliamentary capacity building program on the digital economy, technology, cybersecurity, and fintech.

In conclusion, digital transformation has the potential to bring about significant positive change in Africa. However, to fully harness its benefits, it is imperative to bridge the digital divide, implement adequate digital policies, establish robust data governance frameworks, address infrastructural gaps and cybersecurity concerns, and promote digital ID and digital trade. The success of digital transformation initiatives also relies on effective capacity-building programs and drawing inspiration from successful implementations, such as the Kenya model. Ultimately, by embracing digital transformation, African countries can strive towards achieving their sustainable development goals and creating a more digitally inclusive society.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Bye. Bye. Bye. Hello. I think we’re about ready to start. I’m just looking at the online. So good morning. My name is Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen. I’m with the United Nations University’s e-government unit in Portugal. This is, I’ll be the moderator for this session. We have three panelists joining online. The session is organized with Uneke and Mactar Seck is here to represent that, and we’ll do the welcome. And then we’ll start the discussion, including with our three online panelists.

Mactar Seck:
Thank you very much. And good morning, good afternoon, wherever you are. To be part of this important workshop, talking on the focus on digital transformation, I think we all agree that digital transformation can play an important role for achieving this sustainable development goal, as well as aspiration of African Union Agenda 2063. And since the beginning, we are in this IGF forum. Let’s start since 2005. Since 2005, we have African country have made a lot of progress on their digital agenda, because we come to around 6% Internet access, and today, we are at 40% people connected on Internet. But also, we have several challenges, because 60% of our population are offline. It is something we need to think about, to pose us a question, to ask us one question, if our digital policy are adequate to the need of African country. Second, this digital divide also remains a big challenge in the continent, between the urban city and the rural area also, because the rural area is connected around 23%. Also, we have this digital gender gap. 45% of men are connected, compared to 34% women. There is a gap of 11%. And still, we have 500 million people without any legal form of identity. Another one, it is cyber security, which also remains a big challenge. As you know, cyber security cost to last year 10% of our GDP, African GDP. It is a lot compared to other sectors. We need also to begin to find how we can develop adequate digital transformation strategy. We have capacity to leverage this digital technology to mitigate climate change, digital technology to assist the youth and women to be part of this foreign revolution. As you know, we have 70% of our population will be youth by 2050, and it will represent 42% of the world youth. And we need to build their capacity on this foreign revolution. Also, we are facing a lot of challenge also on this emerging technology, like this generative artificial intelligence. We need to focus to think about what kind of regulation we have to put in place to take benefits of all opportunity offered by this emerging technology. Our data governance also need to be reviewed with this development, this advanced technology. In the development of AI also, we need to support African countries to implement this data governance framework to ensure this digital sovereignty happen in the continent. It is a key area where we want to have a discussion today with our several partners. We have a lot of partners around this platform. Some are here in person, others are online. And we have also, we acknowledge the presence of the African parliamentary network in this room, as well as GIZ. We have our partner, the U.S. Embassy, as well as UN University, to be part of this interesting discussion, as well as the authority in Gambia and in Cape Verde. And once again, thank you all to be there, and I wish you a fruitful discussion. Thank you.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Thank you, Mactar. So before we start, I’d like to introduce the panel. I’ll start with our colleagues online. We have Joao Cruz, who is the National Director of State Modernization at the Ministry of Modernization of the State and Public Administration in Cape Verde. He is currently eight hours behind us, so he’s up very early. We are also joined by Rose Mainer. I apologize, Rose, for the mispronunciation, I think. Rose is the Deputy Commissioner at the Office for Data Protection Commission in Kenya. With us today, we also have Anant, who is at the U.S. mission to the African Union at Zimbabwe, and particularly also dealing with privacy and security issues in the digital space. We have Mactar, who is from our colleagues at UNECA.Mactar is the Director for Technology and Innovation at UNECA. And then, last but not least, my colleague, Deputy Director Luis Barbosa at UNU-EGOV As Mactar has already hinted at, we have a number of sort of key questions around the digital transformation strategies in Africa in particular, not only around governance and intergovernance, but also the collaboration and coordination of these digital strategies in the domestic context, both in terms of the immediate, but also medium and long-term strategic focus, and not least how to build these whole-of-government digital ecosystems that we hear so much about in order to allow for both service production and service delivery based on data, identities, signatures, et cetera. So asking the audience, and let’s start with you, Joao, first, what are the sort of three key opportunities that Capaverde is currently focusing on in the digital space? And what are the associated challenges that you are tackling at the moment?

Joao Cruz:
First of all, I don’t know if you hear me.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
We hear you.

Joao Cruz:
Okay, thank you. I would like to thank for the invitation first. As you know, Capaverde is an African country outside the continent, and we have specific particularities, but we still have, I think, the same challenges, and we have some opportunities that maybe are different from other countries. So right now, enhancing the service delivery is one of the things that is a big opportunity for us, because Capaverde, since the early 20s start the digitalization of the government, and we have a lot of the office infrastructures and applications. And right now, we have a big opportunity to take advantage of that. We have a lot of data, we have a lot of application, and we just need right now to cross this information across the government and build some service for the citizen in line, in terms of end-to-end services. We have another big opportunity related to the digital identification. Right now, we have a new digital ID based on a mobile, we call it mobile key, based on digital certificates, and Capaverde have a very good system in terms of the identification. The data that we have in our database for the identification of the people is unique, and it’s a big opportunity for us to build and have the services for the people that we have in our country. As an example, we launched three months ago a service that is the criminal hackers online, so the people right now can ask for their criminal hacker. They just need to have this strong digital ID based on digital certificates. So this is another big opportunity for us, I think. And I would say we have another big opportunity based on a digital ecosystem that we are creating here in Capverde. We are finishing our new digital technological park, where we will have a lot of companies, and the government as well will have all the data in this technological park. It’s a very good project that we implemented. With this, we implement as well the telecommunication through the new cable, LLE, we are working with our local regional countries to another cable called Amilcar Cabral. So we created the foundation, this technological park, to have two new data centers to put with the other one that we already have. So we create all the foundations, I think, to build a strong ecosystem and have startups in this process as well. So I think for us, it’s another big opportunity. And in terms of the challenge, we have the digital literacy is first, I think, for us. As I say, we launched new services with the mobile key, but we still have some problems with the use of these new services and these new features. The people need to have more skills to use these tools and to use the internet for more productivity. Most of the people use internet for social media and things like that. So we are working for a program to increase this digital literacy across all our citizens. We have another, the cybersecurity, you talked about this, the introduction, cybersecurity is another big challenge as well. But we are putting strong efforts on this to implement, for example, our system. But it’s still a big challenge for us. In 2020, we have a major attack for our systems because we have a lot of systems in the government. But we deal with it very, very good, I think. But it’s still a very good challenge for us. And to finish, the change management. Implementing the digital transformation will require us a shift in terms of the organizations and the way the organizations talk here. We have some silos, we still have some silos inside the government. So it’s for us a challenge to enforce this digital transformation because we have some resistance in terms of the employees. We know that some of this resistance is related to the skills as well. And this is why this change management, it’s part of our key things that we have to do that is one of our most challenge, I think, in this digital transformation. I think we are a very young country and this is another opportunity, I think. We have a population that is young, but we are not taking that advantage that I think we could take from this population, this young population. So I think it’s enough for now.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Thank you, Joao. We’ll have a couple of rounds on these topics. So Rose, we heard Joao talk about some of the opportunities like technology as an opportunity, data as an opportunity, both in terms of the transformation of how government operates, how government provides services, the internal production, the data delivery. We also hear about how technology can be used in the private sector. From the data perspective and from your perspective in the data commission and in East Africa, are you seeing similar opportunities being discussed and captured? Are you seeing similar challenges? What’s your perspective on the opportunities and challenges, again, from the data commissioner’s perspective, but also the broader Kenyan public sector and private sector perspective?

Rose Mosero Maina:
Absolutely, and thank you for having me here. It is a privilege to be on this panel. Just starting by saying that Kenya has had an opportunity, I guess, to have a digital transformation strategy or have a recognition of the opportunities that ICTs and digital tools can actually have in the economy. So not only is it in Kenya that a digital transformation strategy was established, I think, by way of a blueprint in 2019, but since I think 2012, Kenya had in its vision for 2030, this strategic goal for the period of 2012 to 2030, we recognized that ICTs are crucial in ensuring that Kenya can leapfrog and become a middle income economy. And so this has been something that has been included in every single strategic plan, as well as national goals for the period until today. In the national strategies today, we have a lot of ambitious but, you know, work that is going on where we look at, you know, a digital superhighway, which is enhancing our national fibre optic backbone by 100,000 kilometres. We have digital literacy programs. We currently have over 5,000 services available online to citizenry. Obviously, the usage of data and data governance structures are critical in ensuring that this is actually being rolled out in a ethical, legal, lawful manner. And so one of the things that actually came about from recognising that digital transformation was important for Kenya is there was the enactment of the Darst Protection laws, as well as the establishment of the Office of Darst Protection Commissioner, which is where I work. Now, one of the things that we have seen, even as we go about harnessing the opportunity, so we’ve talked about digital identities, we’ve spoken about, you know, one-stop shop for digital services, digital literacy, infrastructure challenges, so infrastructure opportunities. So we thought the concept of Technopolis that has a cloud service provision in Kenya and a host of other infrastructure developments as well that are happening. One of the things that we’ve seen the Kenyan government actively take on board is ensuring that the Office of the Darst Protection Commissioner in terms of usable or best use for the data that they’re collecting is actually done or involved in that process. So in digital IDs, in terms of ensuring that not only are the opportunities captured, but also the risks are actively managed. This is something that is at the forefront in that respect. And so, whilst there are a lot of opportunities that have been harnessed through this digital transformation, again, as I’ve said, I think Kenya was, in 2019, one of the first countries to develop a blueprint on the digital economy. And this was a blueprint that was launched in Smart Africa and then, I guess, cascaded or shared with the rest of Africa. And I believe that it enabled the AU digital transformation strategy as well and formed part of the material that actually ensured that that was happening. And so Kenya has recognized the opportunities of digital transformation. One of the challenges that we do find, and this is something that is unique not only to Kenya but Africa at large, is a digital divide. So this comes in many forms and is being tackled in a number of ways, but there are still needs. I guess the collaboration, both the private sector aspect and the public sector aspect, is ensuring not only are we connecting people, not only are they literates, but do they have the relevant devices to actually ensure that they’re using the services effectively, that they are taking on board, that they’re really able to participate in the digital economy. So the transformation doesn’t just happen on a government level for the people that can access, but also for, as has been said, for women, youth, as well as people in underserved areas. And that is something that is being tackled through rollout of more fiber optic, finding opportunities, I guess, as well, to ensure that schools, for example, are connected, that actually govern or affect the communities around them. So it’s not just for a particular school, but people can actually benefit from that. There’s also ensuring that there is rural awareness when it comes to education and finding cheaper alternatives, and I think this is an area where private sector has really come in for people to have mobile devices that are capable of enabling individuals that are in underserved economies to also access the services that are provided online, but also the opportunities in terms of work as well, remote work and things like this, financial inclusion, just generally digital business and opportunities that will affect on a private sector aspect to boost the economy and enable individuals to participate in the digital economy and reap the benefits of digital transformation in Kenya.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Thank you, Rose. Joao mentioned the change management challenge in a number of ways, which you also have alluded to. Is that something that you also observe in the Kenyan context, that yes, we want to innovate, yes, we want to change, but the management of that change can often cause a bit of resistance or a few challenges within organizations, public as well as private? Is that something you see? It’s something we definitely see outside of Africa, in Europe or in Asia or in Latin America, that not all organizations are equally open to the positive change or any disruption to business continuity. This can also be a political concern for service delivery, that innovation and change may cause disruption to business processes in a period of time. Is that something you see, particularly when it comes to the utilization of technology and data?

Rose Mosero Maina:
One of the things that we have noted, again, as I said, or maybe I haven’t touched on it, but Kenya prides itself as being the Silicon Savannah. Technology has been embraced in Kenya in a way that it might not be embraced in other countries. And so even as government and private sector, in fact, private sector and government are the ones who are pushing for this digital change, you will see in digitizing lands records and digitizing IDs. This is actually a push that is coming from government and a lot of private sector had already adopted innovative change. And so this makes a easier transition for digital transformation because there is a push, not just outside government, but by the people to embrace technology in a manner that might not necessarily be seen in other, say, for example, in African countries. However, one of the things that we are seeing, and this is not particularly an issue of resistance, but mostly an issue of newness of policies and newness of legislative frameworks. So, for example, when it comes to data governance, when it comes to data protection, unlike in European countries or Asian countries or just Western countries at large, data protection specifically hasn’t been something that is transformed or has evolved over a period of years. We have in Kenya, for example, a data protection law that came in three years ago that has pushed people to actually look at data governance in a different form, in a different way. So the resistance comes from lack of education or lack of, I guess I want to call it indoctrination of principles of data protection and data governance rather than a resistance to actually change. And so one of the things the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner has done is push awareness so that people understand the benefits of data protection, the benefits of data governance, rather than looking at it as another regulatory hurdle that they have to bypass when it comes to usage of information. So this is something that we’re actively working on. To some extent, it is change management, but I think it’s also the sensitization of the benefits comes in as a big contributor in something that is being worked on.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Thank you very much for that, Rose. It actually is a nice bridge to Anand that actually comes from the U.S. Ministry of Justice but is working with the African Union Mission in Addis Ababa on similar topics. How does these two national cases from Cape Verde and Kenya sort of resonate with you when you’re working with the African Union on frameworks with respect to digital transformation or data or cybersecurity? I’m asking about frameworks because a strategy is essentially a framework that is supported by action plan that is then populated by different initiatives and activities. So how does these two national examples resonate with you in the wider AU context and some of the things that you’re doing and also your experience from the U.S. and North America in general?

Anand Ramaswamy:
Thank you. Just a word about our program. I work with my colleague Temeskin Lepiso here. We’re also in Addis Ababa. But we primarily do cybercrime training, and we have chosen to do it on a bilateral level. So I’m aware of what’s going on in Kenya. Cape Verde, as Joao mentioned, was hit with a major attack in 2020. We know that’s the solar winds attack. It greatly affected the United States as well. But we’ve taken the bilateral approach so we can hear the issues from each country, and what we hear is great commonality. If we had gathered, say, people together regionally, we may not get the openness to discuss issues. But what we’ve seen in terms of digital transformation in an overall policy is digital transformation has tremendous potential to advance Africa. I know ECA has its payment system that you’re working on and advancing. But cybercrime, it’s kind of like the brake that’s keeping digital transformation from advancing like it could. And for each country, there is, I think, more victimization than what is reported in any source you might find. It’s vastly underreported. And it’s mainly mobile money schemes, but it’s also every other type of cybercrime that affects other parts of the world. But there are unique challenges within legal frameworks of each country, and that’s part of the overall. So we’re not unique in what we do. We work together in this area. We’ve done programs at ECA. We work with Interpol, GFCE, UNODC, and a number of players to advance all of this. Again, because the digital transformation has such potential for the economic benefit of Africa, that and the free trade within the continent initiative also that we see from AU and ECA. But so long as it’s easy to victimize Africans and African nations, it’s never going to reach that potential. So that’s really our focus, advancing multilateral treaties such as the Budapest Convention. We also formed a cryptocurrency working group. Within Africa, we have 27 members, and most recently met at ECA in November where they discussed their cases and they have further training. Because cryptocurrency saw a greater adoption within Africa than probably most other places, mainly as a hedge against inflation and second, as a hedge against corruption. So we’re happy to work with these people, and we’re going to continue to work with them. We’re going to continue to work with these partners within that framework of digital transformation, but our focus is on the cyber security, cyber crime angle.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
I’m going to ask the Gambian minister to actually join us virtually. No, there’s a technical problem, so we’ll see if we can solve it. But actually, we had the minister for ICT from Gambia to join us virtually, but there’s a technical problem this morning. It is also very early in Gambia. It is the middle of the night. We work a lot with governments globally, including in both North and Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. So how does Joao’s reflections, Anand’s reflections, and also Rose’s reflections resonate with you in a wider African context, considering countries as diverse as Egypt, Uganda, Mozambique, Sao Tomé, and Príncipe that we’ve all been working with to some degree? What are the challenges and what are the opportunities? What are some of the solutions that you see are coming out from different national governments to these challenges?

Luís Soares Barbosa:
Thank you. Thank you very much, Morten. Good morning, good afternoon, everybody. Yes, I think the global challenges are well-known. Beginning at the beginning, the needs for robust, trustworthy digital infrastructure, expanded connectivity, data policy frameworks, as we have been discussing in the previous session, and then all the key enablers for a meaningful digital transition. Digital identity, cybersecurity, interoperability. Okay. All these challenges, I think, are very well-known. What I also think that should be emphasized is that even if challenges seem overwhelming at some point, the experience of some countries, and we have been listening to João and to Rose, the experience of some countries show that, in fact, a lot can be achieved. And this is also our experience at NUEGOV. Actually, Africa has several problems, several weaknesses, but also, obviously, frogging opportunities, less legacy challenge than in other parts of the world, a vibrant youth, and so on and so forth. The point that I would like to emphasize in addressing your question, because it’s also our job at NUEGOV, is the crucial role that digital governance can play in the digital transition processes. And what I think we have been, for example, following very closely the case of Cape Verde, but also others, and I think digital governance actually can play a very interesting role as a kind of a plastic layer enforcing, in practice, an articulation between three different sorts of objectives. First of all, in improving the effectiveness of government and public administration, which is actually crucial as a cornerstone for development. I can mention, for example, things like improving revenue mobilizations or target efficient investments, all these kind of things, so this is absolutely crucial. Another class of objectives relating to bringing the state close to citizens, and for example, our colleagues in Cape Verde have been very, very motivated by this, to their needs, to their expectations, making concrete improvements in concrete lives, and I think this should be stressed. And finally, and this is the case of Cape Verde, this is also the case of Gambia, that I hope the Minister will be able to talk, in articulating digital governance and digital transition in general with broader development objectives, namely to create ecosystems for digital economy to flourish. That is also, I think, the EU vision, and I quote from the strategy, to strengthen the economic sector, enable its diversification and development, and placing African countries as producers and not only as consumers in global economy. So I think these three kinds of objectives and their coordination are really crucial to the success of digital transition seen from the perspective of digital governance.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Thanks, Luís.Mactar, I see you nodding. UNECA has worked also with the African Union on different types of frameworks. One of the more recent ones is the EU Digital Transformation Strategy Framework for 2020-2030. The aim of this is to help countries prioritize their needs. Prioritization is difficult in all governments globally. Resource constraints, human resource constraints, is often a challenge we see in all countries globally. So what are the key components in these frameworks that UNECA have helped develop or they have seen countries apply? in Africa, what are the components that are really beneficial to them, and how has it helped them overcome challenges?

Mactar Seck:
Thank you very much for this question. First on this AU digital transformation strategy, we have several components who can help African countries to use this digital technology to achieve their sustainable development goal. But let’s start when we define, when we implement this digital transformation at the national level. I think we have one challenge, one key challenge, it is at the coordination level at the member state, and now we have noted a lot of progress because in this forum you have the presence of a lot of members of Parliament. It is something we have to highlight, but because government work on silo without involving the Parliament, and at the end of day, the law will be adopted by the Parliamentarian. The involvement of the Parliamentary in the development of the national digital strategy is very important, as well as the private sector. For this national digital transformation has several key pillars. Going to digital finance, digital skills, innovation, development, private sector, capacity building, etc. We have several challenges, and some countries are not at the same level of development of the digital transformation. And this AU digital transformation provides a diagnostic in the gap of digital economy for the country, and define key priority for the country. Some countries, their priority focus more on developing the institutional framework, what kind of institutions they should have at the national level to develop this digital strategy. Because when you look at some countries, they have a ministry in charge of digital economy, and also they have a ministry in charge of ICT. There is a duplication, and science and technology also. And we need to have a coordinated approach at the country level, first to take benefits of this digital transformation. Also, some countries, the issue is they don’t have the manpower or the resources to implement this digital strategy. And we need to focus on building a capacity. As a country, the problem is a gap on infrastructure. Of course, African countries, a lot of African countries have a gap of infrastructure, but some countries the gap is more and more crucial. We need to focus on what kind of policy in this digital transformation we put in place to overcome this deficit, this lack of infrastructure, by revisiting the regulation framework to attract more investment. And we focus more to attract local investment first, before attracting external investment. It is something very important on this digital transformation. Also, for some countries, key success is how to promote innovation. When you have the case of Morocco, of South Africa, of Kenya, the need is to promote innovation, because there is a lot of idea in ground in this country, a lot of development of the ecosystem, and we should adapt this digital transformation strategy in promoting the development of innovation, because we have a lot of things in the ground, and we need to promote this innovation to take more benefits of this digital transformation. And in general, the opportunity is up to the situation of the country, in terms of digital transformation, as well as the market of this country. If the market is big or the market is small, because we can’t compare South Africa and South Sudan in terms of market, and also in terms of capacity building, we need to see which countries are more focused on capacity building to open their system to others. Why is this digital transformation? We can say it is a complete digital transformation, it is a complete framework which can support African countries to achieve their sustainable development from 2020 to 2030. I didn’t forget also the cybersecurity, it’s very important, because if we don’t secure this digital space, all policy we are doing also is not adequate, as well as the issue of digital ID. I think we can come back later on digital ID and digital trade. Thank you.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Thank you, Mactar. As a former civil servant at the Danish Agency of Digitization, which was embedded in the Ministry of Finance at the time, I know all about the financial challenges, and one of the key tools that was applied there was actually these business case return on investments, where the challenge was that a project might be implemented in the strategy and funded, it’s finished on time and on budget, but the benefit of the system only comes when it’s operational, and that happens after the strategy period has closed. So the role was really finding models on how do we ensure that then the systems we have developed, the services we’ve launched actually generates the outcomes, whether or not they’re financial, productivity or usability, user-friendliness actually are achieved, and this is something that we’ve for instance seen that the Botswanas are trying to to work with. On that note, we actually like to open the floor. We’ve been keeping an eye out on the chat online to see if there’s anything, but there’s no questions there at the moment. So any questions, any contributions from the audience around these reflections around the challenges faced and how we can solve these challenges around change management related to the digital transformation, the socio-economic and digital divides we see within society when we are trying to facilitate a more digital-enabled economy and private sector, but also amongst our citizens and residents in navigating these new technical solutions. Any reflections for the audience? Please put up your hand. Yeah, if you can go to the microphone and introduce yourself and your question.

Audience:
Hi, my name is Sam, Honourable Sam George. I’m a member of Parliament from Ghana and the Secretary-General of the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance. It’s interesting listening to the conversation so far on the challenges. We see a lot of digital transformation happening on the African continent and African governments, and listening to the challenges of cybercrime, for example, and how that is acting as a stumbling block to full adaptation of digital technologies. One of the challenges we have is with actually prosecution, because you see, if you’re not able to follow the full life cycle of fighting cybercrime by showing punitive action, people feel that the more I get digitally exposed, there’s very little protection for me from the state. Now, one of the key components I realized is missing in the African Union data policy framework that we’re not really focusing on is digital addressing, because in many African countries, there is no proper addressing system, and so even when you are able to identify that a SIM number, we’ve registered all SIM cards again. Most African countries have asked for registration of SIM cards. Now, even when there’s a crime using a SIM card and you report to the police, the police is able to identify using the database of SIM registry who the individual is, but identifying or tracing that individual becomes a critical challenge. Now, because we have two issues, poor addressing system and then high residence mobility on the African continent, so the person lives in this community today, tomorrow he’s moved to the next community. In Europe and the West, when you change residence, for you to even get at times your salary, you need to update a central database where your current addressing system is, so that’s a critical thing we need to look at on the African continent, where we’re able to put a location on every citizen. This is not surveillance, but to be able to know where every individual lives, because it helps you to provide safety nets, it helps you to also do law enforcement, and as we do this, we also need to look at the capacity building of our judges, because the judiciary most times, it’s fantastic that we’ve added a parliamentary track to the IGF, but we need to have possibly a judiciary track as well, because the full life cycle is the executive bringing the legislation to Parliament, Parliament working with civil society to craft the frameworks and the legislation, but then the implementation of that legislation is by way of prosecutors and the judiciary in interpreting the legislation, so if you don’t have that full cycle, that whole of community approach, we’ll take fantastic steps but we’ll just tick check boxes that say that we have the framework, but implementation is really challenged, because for people to uptake this, there must be confidence in it, and so how we build confidence is critical to seeing a spread of this digital technologies and framework. Thank you.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Thank you very much. Rose, Joao, any observations on this challenge about the whole holistic approach to the digital transformation, both in terms of the example given from Ghana about the value of adequate data to both identify where the individual may be located if there’s a crime happening, but also in terms of actually government planning and budgeting. If we don’t know where our population lives, how can we as decision makers actually ensure that we build schools and hospitals in the right places, that the staffing or call centers or physical service centers for those who do not interact online or who are in a unique situation have an alternative service challenge. Any thoughts on that and any solutions that you have explored domestically or that you know of in the African context or outside the African context that would help address such challenges. Rose, then Joao.

Rose Mosero Maina:
We in Kenya also struggle with that. One of the things that we noted when the digital economy blueprint was being developed is a need to have a national addressing strategy and a national addressing act that looks both at the national level and the county level so that we can have a repository of addresses. It sounds like a very simple thing to have for Western countries because this is something that has been ongoing. But for African countries, Kenya in specific, when you’re directing someone to identify where you live, you say around that big tree and then there is a green gate, which at first is impossible to then narrow down where people live. But there is also an issue when it comes to, I guess, enforcement. There’s an issue when it comes to digital trade and e-commerce and things like this, delivery, postal services, for example, emergency services. So it catches or captures not only aspects of, I guess, enforcement, but very much just service delivery as well. And so if there is a need for enhancement in service delivery, there is a need to identify where everyone is. Now, I think African countries have come up with a roundabout way of knowing where people are, but it’s not necessarily efficient that we rely on census, rely on, I guess, usage of service to understand how many people are in a particular area so that service can be rolled out to them. But I do feel that more and more there is a need for formal addressing services physically, but also the use of digital addressing services, which is something that is ongoing in Kenya as well as part of the strategy, so that we’re emerging the digital and physical worlds to actually enable us to better serve the citizens. So that’s something that Kenya is grappling with and some of the solutions that have been put in to tackle that.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
And Joao, any observations, any solutions to these type of challenges that you’ve been exploring in Cape Verde or that you’ve seen, for instance, in the West African context?

Joao Cruz:
Hi. In Cape Verde, we have this addressing problem as well, but we are a very small country. This is one of big difference from the other countries. So for us to know where someone is, is very easy. It’s not that difficult because when you change, you cannot go far from your home. It’s not for us in terms of enforce the law. It’s not a challenge for us. I think for bigger countries in Africa, the digital addressing, I think, would be better to explore. But there’s some challenges on that as well, because the data protection of the people, it could seem like a surveillance in terms of the, for example, you’re tracking the SIM cards that are registered. Here in Cape Verde, you have to register as well your SIM cards. But we could have some problems in terms of the privacy. So I think the countries, they are big in Africa. They could go in this way, but they have to understand this privacy part, how to manage it.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Okay, Joao. Thanks. We have a couple of other people in the audience that would like to ask a question. We also have one online. If the two gentlemen at the mic would just ask their questions quickly, and then I’ll summarize the one online, and then we’ll raise the panel. We’ll do another round of questions later. So go ahead.

Audience:
Thank you. My name is Oliver Bamundu. I’m a member of parliament from Cameroon. I want to ask my question, but start by thanking Dr. Matta for the engagement with APNIC in reinforcing the capacities of members of parliament. But for a very long time, Africa has been noticed for poor democracy, bad governance, and corruption and all that. So I just wanted to share, I just want to have this opinion on it, whether a judicial transformation can be an instrument that will help maybe advancement of a kind of modern democracy in Africa. I don’t know how to put it better. I just want to know whether a judicial transformation can be an instrument that can actually advance democracy in Africa. Thank you very much.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Then the next gentleman, I’ll summarize the questions.

Audience:
Thank you, Bram from Malawi. So for me, I just wanted to find out if the AU has done a survey in terms of, yes, we’re advocating for digital transformation now, but I think we can gain more if we have more members party to the Malawi Convention, which currently is very slowly adopted in member countries. And so what is the impact of member countries not adopting the Malawi Convention? And as we’re also pushing for the transition in the continent, do we see the imbalance? Are we taking stock of this competing interest? And what is the future looking like with this kind of speed? Thank you. Thank you very much. My name is Honourable Alha Jimbo from The Gambia and also the Vice Chair of the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance. I’m sure we have some issues with the Minister, but I’m also the Chairperson of the Education Committee and I sit in The Gambia. So I’m really familiar with what’s actually happening in the transformation in The Gambia. Now for us, just to make it very, very short, we have a very clear path and we must thank ECA also for the guidance. Also, the first thing is about the National Broadband Network. We had a project called the ECHO-1, which actually put broadband across the country. Then on top of that, also Parliament, also with the Executive, we work on what we call the National Broadband Network, which actually put fibre across the country. And I think maybe in the next year or so, we may be the most connected fibre on the continent, because it’s a very small country as well. Now, then we came up with a strategy as part of… digital transformation, we call it ICT for master plan, which actually have several components. One of them is about capacity development, STI, science, technology, innovation, and also youth and women, and also the human capital, which is the capacity building we actually are doing, and the e-agriculture, and also the national broadband network strategies that we actually have in plan. Now, right now where we are is about the digital addressing system. We have already started, and we have covered the capital and some of the biggest cities we have in the Gambia right now, where we have digital addressing system that’s in place right now. We are moving towards the digital ID, which is also the consultancy was already done with the help of ECA also as well. That’s exactly where we are as far as the transformation actually is concerned. But one thing I would like to also point out also is that along the way, there are several issues, particularly the addressing system, which actually affects many countries in Africa. So again, technology is such a way that you don’t actually have to start from zero. You can take a leap, and that’s exactly what Gambia is trying to do. We are taking a leap to ensure that we catch up with the rest of the world. Thank you very much.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Thank you. So just to summarize the questions, we had a question around how can technology potentially support anti-corruption drives, increase transparency, help embed engagement, accountability, the democratic angles? And if so, how? We had a question online about the technopolitics between the global players in North America, Europe, in Asia, and how these dynamics may actually enable African countries to benefit, multipolar, if you want. And then there were some of the contributions from Gambia around how the frameworks allows them to leapfrog. But it requires that you have some of the key enablers that Luis was also referring to in place. Yes, we need the infrastructure, but we also need it to be affordable, reliable, and have a population and a private sector that have the skills to use it and the skills in the public sector to actually facilitate and drive that transformation. Is there any specific answers or any observations or contributions to those from the panel here in person and then online?

Anand Ramaswamy:
I’m going to go rather quickly because each one of the questions resonated. Sam’s from Ghana talking. We’ve done a lot of work in Ghana, but identity systems and the Western systems of addresses. This came up in a conversation with the AU when I brought up sex offender registration, which is something done in the United States, but in the context of most African nations would not work. But what we might suggest are technical and legal solutions. Technical, we’re talking to our FBI about what’s called cell site triangulation, locating cell phones based on. That’s correct. And also, circumstantial evidence. If someone committed a fraud, at some point they need to withdraw the money. And almost every bank will have surveillance cameras. This is a technique of identifying an individual apart from having an address, physical address related to the IP. Question from Oliver about anti-corruption. Working with IOKO in Ghana and also in Mauritius, their anti-corruption police in Nigeria, EFCC. I’ll say this. We’ve assisted. Many countries have specific anti-corruption units. We’ve assisted them with technical issues. I won’t say which one, but one of them based on several consultations to help them get into a cell phone that removed their number two person in government. In Ghana, there was someone impersonating a high government official online, and we assisted in getting that removed. So there are, I would say, from cybercrime, some technical solutions. I’ll finish with one other thing. You mentioned the need to train judges. We took 12 African judges, prosecutors, investigators to the US. One of them suggested to us from Ghana that same need, but we see it everywhere. And here’s the issue. We have very talented judges. There are two here, one from Tanzania, Eliana. And they do something unique. They take professors who are skilled in tech and make them judges. For other judges, if they don’t understand it, they’re more likely to keep things out. But judges don’t want to be trained with prosecutors and investigators because it hampers their ability to ask questions. So what Temeskin, my colleague, is we’re developing a bench book and separate training for them. Other organizations are doing it, too, because they need their own training. Thank you.

Mactar Seck:
Thank you. I think Zahira has several relevant questions. First, on the localization, I think we need to identify people before to localize them. And we were 500 million people without any legal form of identity. It’s difficult to identify them. It’s difficult to identify them. Why our approach is to integrate this digital addressing system in the digital ID project. It is something now we are going to do in Gambia to integrate these two systems. And maybe it will be helpful to identify and localize people. It is a big issue, not only in Africa, but in several developing countries. Coming to the also, there is a issue very important we have to take into course. There is an issue of disinformation we don’t have now and hard speech. We don’t have any laws in the continent. Why I call upon you as parliamentary to start to think about on how we can have a framework or guideline on this. Yeah, we are ready to work with you to develop some guideline for the continent. Something very important now, because it is linked to the democracy also. It is something we have as an experience in now several countries in the continent. The third point is how digital technology can contribute to fight corruption. It’s clear. Digital technology can promote transparency and fight corruption. But for that, we need a commitment of the high level. I can give you an example. We receive a request from one member state to support them to increase their tax revenue. And we develop a digital taxation system. When we develop digital taxation system, the government can get around 55% additional revenue on the tax. When we present the project at the custom office and also at the Ministry of Finance, they told they are not agree with this project because they are going to get problems with their staff. And the project, they can’t use the project. It’s not using it. Another country, it is the human resource management system at the government level. We find there are 5,000 people who get salary every month without any presence in the ministry. Project closed. Project closed. Why we need? We can talk about a lot on digital transformation. We have a lot of example in the world where this digital transformation promote a lot of things about transparency, fight corruption, a lot of benefits. But without this commitment, this leadership, and this clear guidance, we can’t go far of that. I call upon you, parliament, to discuss with the government to make sure we can use this digital technology. The solution is there for transparency. Something very important. Data governance also, it is very important. We talk about this cybersecurity. We have a lot of platform around the continent, e-commerce platform, digital ID, digital public infrastructure across the continent. We need to have this digital sovereignty. It’s important. Otherwise, we are not going to take benefits of this digital transformation. Digital sovereignty means that the data should be owned by African country. We need this data to create job opportunity for our new generation. We need this data to protect our citizens. Citizens should trust the government. Without that, this digital transformation will be just something we talk about for years and years. And there is no opportunity and benefits for the continent. Thank you.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Thank you, Mactar. Luis, if you’ll contribute, we have the minister online. So OK. So the Gambian minister for communication, digital economy should be online now. The Honorable Ousman A. Bah, I hope you can hear us. We’ve been discussing the national experiences and approaches to enabling the digital transformation. A member of your parliament is actually with us here in person and gave us some highlights as well. But what are the key tools that you’re using in the ministry to sort of drive this whole of government, whole of society, digital transformation in Gambia? We heard about the importance of the infrastructure and the skills already. But are there any tricks up your sleeve that you have found to work better than others? And if so, what are they?

Lamin Camara:
Thank you to all the audience down in Japan. I’m stepping in for the Honorable Minister Ousman A. Bah. I am Lamin Kamara, the parliament secretary of the ministry. And I want to thank Honorable Bo for that intervention. I think he’s quite afraid with what is happening in the ICT landscape in the country and has been the chairman of the educational ICT subcommittee of the National Assembly. So we work very closely with him. So I’m not surprised that he can make that intervention while we were waiting to get the opportunity to come in. Yes, well, the ministry we have, the Ministry of Communication and Digital Economy, is just a year old. And when the minister was appointed, he came with his five-point agenda. And I think we’ve already discussed some of those, which includes addressing connectivity. That is one. And how to ensure our people are connected, inclusive connectivity, and also regional connectivity has been key. We’re working with the likes of Cape Verde and other ECOWAS countries on the America Cabral cable to provide a second submarine cable for the Gambia to create more capacity and also redundancy for the existing submarine cable we have in place. We have also worked on a digital master plan. And after following a digital assessment, we did develop a master plan and also a strategy on digital ID with the support of UNECA. So I want to thank Mactar Seck, who has been very instrumental in that. And digital ID is very important for us to achieve and tremendous efforts in play to ensure we have a quick implementation of a digital ID in the Gambia. Although we know we have challenges of coordination and cooperation, because digital ID entails putting together a lot of data needs that feed into the digital ID of an individual. And some of these things are resident in different ministries or entities that we need to work together with and see how we integrate that. And I think Mactar has given an example how we want to utilize our existing digital addressing system to be part of that digital ID, how the SIM registration platform we have, how we integrate that into the digital ID, the bath registrations, the passport ID, and our bank accounts. So all these need coordination and collaboration. And we’re really working to ensure that it’s done. After that, we’re also talking about fintechs and financial inclusion. And the issue of establishing a national switch is really paramount to be able to promote the creation of payment gateways and the use of those gateways to facilitate financial inclusion, digital financial inclusion in the country. But beyond that, to see how we also facilitate cross-border payments within the African countries, especially under the initiative of the free trade area, these payment gateways would be very useful and cross-border payment. So now with the challenges we have in the area of cybersecurity issues, and what we are doing is that we need to ensure when we put these things in place, the trust and confidence of the people does not wane. And to do that, we are working on a cybercrime bill, which is already on its way to the National Assembly. So I’m sure Honorable Bo will be expecting that bill. We will need his support in ensuring that we get that bill enacted in the quickest possible time. And we also established cybercrime or cybersecurity emergency response teams to be able to respond to some of the threats we may be faced with in the country. Now, when you come to about inclusion, the issue of not only the digital divide where the infrastructure reaches our people, and as already indicated by Honorable Bo, we have the broadband networks that is all around the country. But the last mile is still a challenge. And we are working on strategies to see how we overcome that using different technologies, mixed technologies that would help us achieve that. And even apart from the last mile, the devices, affordability of the devices is a challenge. We’ve identified. And we’re seeing how we work together with providers of devices to see how we can have affordable devices or even to have devices that could be programmed in a way that could be used by our disadvantaged people. So you mentioned about change strategy. I think it’s very important in digital transformation because if we want inclusiveness, we need to make sure everybody participates in this. And to do so, we need to find a way of encouraging and making sure everybody participates. And the digital transformation agenda of the AU by 2030 is met through the full participation of each and every African and every person in the world by extension. So we are also working on e-applications and services. And I think here our consideration at the Ministry is to ensure that we develop applications that suit our needs, applications that suit our needs, that can address our problems, our local problems. We’re working together also to see how we collaborate with other bilateral partners, like technologies that are working in some of our partner countries. We see how we adopt them rather than reinventing the wheel. And in doing so, our minister has signed MOUs with Rwanda, with Mauritius, with Nigeria, and we’re working on adopting the Mag-Off platform of Bangladesh so that we have a quick way of adopting. So, I think it’s very important for us to make sure that we have the right infrastructure and the right technologies, applications and platforms to attain our digital transformation agenda. Thank you.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
≫ Thank you, Lamin, very much. You touched on a couple of topics that have popped up repeatedly. Not only governance, as in who does what, when, who finances what, but also softer elements like coordination and coordination with the private sector. So, we have a lot of work to do with the local, regional, national authorities, but also with the private sector, like the financial sector, for both for data exchange and for facilitating payment systems, regulatory framework standards, and compliance, we know, is traditionally a challenge. We are very good in the public sector, and I talk as a civil servant at writing ambitious, ambitious projects, but also, I think, in the public sector, we need to make sure that all of the camels line up and all of the ducks are lined up in a row. So, with ten minutes left, I would like to throw the question to the panel, and maybe start with Luis, and then go to Joao and Rose, and then back to the panel here. What are the governance and collaboration mechanisms that need to be in place to ensure this holistic whole-of-government strategy that we are talking about, and how do we make sure that this is a public-sector transformation in our countries? Is it enough that it’s just one ministry that does this, or is there tricks up the sleeve in terms of the mandates, the collaboration mechanisms, and the link to these governance and strategy frameworks that you’ve seen work well from your different perspectives?

Luís Soares Barbosa:
Thank you. I would like to start with this other question on democracy that you put, because, of course, the potential of digital technology is enormous, but there are no free lunches, and that’s the point that Morten was trying to make. We know, for example, in terms of digital governance mechanisms, of course, if you go digital, you will enforce a number of formalisation measures, but there are no free lunches, and that’s the point that you put. On the other hand, to make this effective, we need these instances of cooperation. João talked in his first intervention, he mentioned the need for management capabilities of the whole system and articulation of different ministries and different agencies. I also had the relevance of the political will behind this transformation, which is crucial to the development of a more democratic system, and that’s the point that you put, because, of course, the potential of digital technology is enormous, but there are no free lunches, and that’s the point that you put, because, of course, the political will behind this transformation, which is crucial to the development of a more democratic system, and that’s the point that you put, because, of course, the potential of democratic systems. And also other elements, for example, the construction of collective trust, and this is something that if, actually, citizens see their lives being changed by this sort of technologies, the trust in the institutions will, actually, increase in this place, until it’s more certain that our owned citizens are also dealing with accountable issues. A second comment, if I may, I have two very brief comments. One was just to go back to the point of literacy that was also mentioned as kind of a keyneveled in all this. I would like just to stress something that actually worries me when dealing with most African governments, and that is that they are not able to attract and to maintain very specialised, very technical skills that exist in Africa, and that are very easily gone to the private sector, or even aboard. So this is something, it’s a very good resource, a natural resource. And the last comment is about identity, digital identity. That is absolutely crucial as well. And I think it’s a very important issue, and I think it’s something that has more to do with Weneke in the Gambia last month. There was a presentation of something that was called by then the non-authoritative identity, digital identity. That was a project, a pilot project in some African countries to resort to local communities to help in building a digital identity. And I think that’s something that, if you are interested, we may discuss further.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
≫ Rose, on governance, collaboration, any thoughts, any things that you’ve seen work particularly well, or sort of things based on bad examples that you would do differently from your perspective?

Rose Mosero Maina:
≫ I’ll give you things that I think have worked well, and I’ll give you the kind of perspective. So, I think the first thing that I would say is that there is a lot of siloed approach to government agencies, which means that there is duplication of certain projects, duplication of initiatives. How this has been addressed in Kenya is obviously there is a first strategic goal that looks at what everyone must achieve, and in this, there is pillars. Which is digital transformation, there is obviously a need for digital transformation, but also there is a need for digital transformation. And in addition to this, there is a ministry that is given effective control over how to manage that mandate. So, for example, if there is a universal help project that looks at digital transformation, then the ministry of information, communication, and digital economy will then have a say in how that happens, meaning that there is no duplication, there is one area where there is a need for digital transformation. So, there is a lot of work that is being done to make sure that the funds are being allocated to that particular project, there is expertise that has been rolled off from a ministerial level, and also trickles down to, say, for example, if there is a data governance issue, then the office of data protection commissioner will be involved, and so that close collaboration between ministries, knowing firstly what they are doing, and then to carry a project by themselves and they might not necessarily have this expertise is something that I have seen that is actually really beneficial in ensuring that we are moving forward with some of these strategies without unnecessary duplication.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Thank you, Rose. It is actually this matrix of different responsibilities. The ministry of education knows education. The ministry of technology knows technology, and when the two combine, they need to collaborate. So, this is something that we have seen in many countries, both in Africa and elsewhere, in the UNU system, so very happy to hear that this is also something that we see in a place like Kenya. Joao, any thoughts on, again, this sort of division of responsibility? How do you get your ducks in a row? How do you hurt the cats, so to speak? Government is a multi-headed beast sometimes with many different actors, different levels of autonomy, different interests. So, from your perspective in Cap Verde, with your experience, what gets the ducks in a line in your context, and what do you see working when it comes to this?

Joao Cruz:
First of all, the governance, it plays a critical role in all of this. But you have to put these governments in a situation where they are not able to do it. You have to put these governments in such a way that the people see the benefits. So, what we do here in Cap Verde? We create our strategy for digital governance with the UNU-EGOF, with Luís as well. And what we do, we take all the goals that all the sectors have, and we bring it to the strategy. So, what we do, we take all the goals that all the sectors have, and we bring it to the strategy. And right now, they are included in the strategy that we put in place. With this, we provide some regulations as well. So, right now, if you want to have a new project, first, it must send to our cabinet to analyse and validate the integrations, if there are no duplications, and validate the outcome as well. Before the implementation. So, I think we work in two different levels. We work in the level that we bring all the sectors to this digital transformation, but we made some regulations as well in terms of what they can do, how they can do. And we are working as well in terms of the standards of the use of the technology. This is completely regulated, but we work on that as well. And right now, we have some guidance to ensure that what we do today will be sustainable in the future. Someone mentioned the legacy systems in Europe and things like that. We don’t want to have a lot of legacy systems. We have our interoperability framework, but it’s easy if you can integrate it without a lot of different things. So, we try to manage all these things with the regulation and with the proximity to all the sectors.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Thanks, Joao. Any final thoughts? Anything that our audience could contact, for instance, UNECA on if they have questions around frameworks and tools that UNECA provides to help support the national transformation?

Mactar Seck:
Just before I want to highlight the Kenya model, I think I like very well this. It is something we can look at as an example for other African countries, as well as the example of Rwanda. And we have seen the result in Kenya. I think, if I don’t have a mistake, I think the result of Kenya is around 10% of the GDP. It is a good result coming from this coordination mechanism. And also, mobile money, I think we have today 98% of Kenya using mobile money. And 65% have access to Internet. It is some result we can look at. And also, I would like to highlight, at the policy level, capacity building, as well as to raise the voice of Africa. At the policy level, we support African countries to develop their national digital identity. We support African countries to develop their national digital identity. We support African countries in policy related to climate change, also to education, health. As well as we support some African countries to develop their digital identity. And also, in agriculture, we have a big project in Botswana, and we can support African countries to see how we can use digital technology to improve the animal sector, also the agriculture sector. We also focus on capacity building. And also, we are going to launch a program early next year for the parliamentary to build their capacity on digital economy, digital technology, cyber security, as well as fintech. We have another program for the private sector with Alibaba. I’m going to stop there. I’m going to stop there. We have a lot of work to do. We have a lot of work to do. We are doing a lot of activities under the digital ID, digital trade, digital economy. Anything related to the three key sectors, ECA is ready to support you.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
My clock is a little bit advanced.

Luís Soares Barbosa:
We have been investing in Africa in terms of helping countries to design national and sectorial strategies, for example, the justice sector strategy was developed with us. I would like to stress the relevance of these strategies, not just as documents, but as processes that engage people, not just as data, but as processes that engage people. Again, in our website, you can find other information. Thank you very much.

Morten Meyhoff-Nielsen.:
Thank you, Luis. On behalf of UNECA, thank you very much to the audience. Thank you, Lamine, for your patience, and thank you to the audience for your participation. If you have any questions that you may have to us here physically, please catch us after this session. Please don’t hesitate to contact UNECA or UNUIGAV separately. Thank you once again. Enjoy the rest of the day. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

John Tshinseki

The issue of digital sovereignty versus digital cooperation in African countries is prominent, with African leaders often prioritising their own sovereignty over the benefits of digital cooperation. This mindset of protecting their sovereignty for power and control within their own countries tends to hinder progress and collaboration in the region.

One of the main arguments is that African leaders manipulate laws and regulations to suit their needs and maintain their hold on power. This often leads to a violation of human rights, as these rulers tweak laws and regulations to suppress opposition voices. This infringement on human rights is perceived as a means for leaders to maintain their grip on power.

Furthermore, existing laws such as the Cyber Crimes Act in Zambia or the Data Protection Act are designed in a way that grants more control to the ruling government. These laws often contain draconian clauses, which are excerpts from international documents like the General Data Protection Regulation. The intention behind these laws is to suppress opposition voices, undermining the principles of free speech and democracy.

The analysis indicates that the sentiment surrounding this issue is largely negative, as it highlights the detrimental effects of prioritising sovereignty over cooperation. The arguments put forth suggest that the tensions between digital sovereignty and global digital cooperation in Africa cannot be completely eradicated due to the sovereignty-focused mindset of the ruling leaders.

John, who holds this belief, suggests that global discussions and agendas have minimal impact on the local decisions made by African leaders. This further reinforces the notion that the tensions between digital sovereignty and global digital cooperation in Africa are deeply rooted in the mindset and priorities of the ruling leaders.

In conclusion, African leaders prioritise digital sovereignty over digital cooperation, hindering progress in the region. This is reflected in the manipulation of laws to suppress opposition voices and the violation of human rights. The analysis suggests that the tensions surrounding this issue cannot be completely resolved due to the sovereignty-focused mindset of the ruling leaders. It is evident that a shift in priorities and a stronger commitment to cooperation is needed to effectively address these challenges.

Audience

In the digital cooperation landscape, there is extensive discussion surrounding the tension between cooperation and sovereignty. Some argue for the possibility of cooperation between sovereign entities, and the European Union’s initiative to create data spaces exemplifies that cooperation and sovereignty can indeed coexist. The EU aims to foster cooperation while maintaining national sovereignty, particularly in the area of data. This approach suggests that a balance can be struck to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes.

However, the term “digital cooperation” is viewed by some as vague, encompassing complex international digital policy issues. It covers aspects such as digital trade, encryption, online privacy, data protection, online payments, and surveillance. Due to the complexity and diversity of these issues, there is an ongoing debate about whether the term adequately captures the nuances and challenges involved in digital cooperation.

The tension between cooperation and sovereignty also arises from the collision between a country’s desire for control and the need for collaboration. While nations seek to maintain control over digital policies and regulations, there is a growing recognition that collaboration is necessary to effectively address global challenges. This tension becomes particularly apparent in discussions about digital sovereignty and global cooperation, highlighting the struggle to strike a balance between national interests and the collective pursuit of common goals.

Furthermore, the current structure of global governance, including the United Nations, may not be efficiently equipped to handle digital cooperation issues. Some argue for a re-evaluation of the United Nations’ structure, proposing the renaming of the organization to the United People to better focus on the choices and needs of individuals. This viewpoint suggests that there is room for improvement in the global governance system, particularly in addressing the complexities of digital cooperation.

Moreover, there exists a notable rift between global and national level discussions on digital sovereignty and global cooperation. Global discussions may not align with the political landscape and requirements of individual countries. People may adopt a dual stance, expressing support for both cooperation and sovereignty, which can lead to conflicting perspectives between the global and national levels.

The tension between surveillance and privacy also varies depending on the context and perspective of different groups or nations. Within the “Five Eyes” group, comprised of five English-speaking countries with an intelligence-sharing alliance, no tension appears to exist regarding surveillance. However, tensions arise when considering surveillance practices outside of this group. The nature of the tension depends on one’s location or the political stance of the sovereign nation.

In conclusion, the tension between cooperation and sovereignty in the digital cooperation landscape is a complex and multi-faceted issue. While the European Union’s data spaces demonstrate that cooperation and sovereignty can coexist, there are differing opinions regarding the efficacy and comprehensiveness of the term “digital cooperation.” Additionally, the collision between a country’s desire for control and the need for collaboration adds another layer of complexity. The current global governance structures may not effectively handle digital cooperation issues, and there is a significant rift between global and national level discussions. The tension between surveillance and privacy also varies based on context and perspective. Overall, balancing cooperation and sovereignty requires careful consideration of diverse perspectives, locations, and the specific challenges posed by the digital landscape.

Jamal Shahin

Digital sovereignty has become a highly contested topic, particularly within the European context, and its usage has been steadily increasing since 2019. Various stakeholder groups have differing interpretations of digital sovereignty, highlighting the importance of understanding its implications for policy debates.

Engagement and conversation with the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) community play a crucial role in comprehending digital sovereignty. The IGF community has actively discussed this topic, signifying its significance in global discussions.

However, a significant distance often exists between national politics and global agendas in relation to digital cooperation and sovereignty. National leaders in developing nations tend to implement laws and regulations that enable them to maintain power and control, sometimes at the expense of infringing upon human rights. This divergence between national and global perspectives creates a complex landscape for effective digital governance.

To address this complexity, it is essential to break down the discussion on global cooperation versus digital sovereignty into different functional areas. The current broad question allows individuals to take either or both stances simultaneously. Suggestions have been made to create a list of policy fields where global cooperation or digital sovereignty might manifest, in order to provide a more focused analysis. Dividing the discussion based on different functional areas will facilitate more nuanced and productive debates.

Concerns have also been raised about the impact of different governance mechanisms on the digital sphere. There is a fear that these mechanisms may lead to fragmentation, thereby impeding the development of a cohesive digital environment. The importance of specific institutions, products, or policy fields in shaping digital cooperation and sovereignty has been emphasized.

Finally, when discussing digital sovereignty, it is crucial to consider the global, regional, national and subnational dimensions. Different groups hold diverse tensions and perspectives on surveillance and data sharing. Understanding these varied viewpoints is essential for developing effective digital governance strategies.

In conclusion, digital sovereignty has emerged as a contentious and complex issue, with various stakeholders offering diverse interpretations. Engaging with the IGF community and considering different dimensions, functional areas and viewpoints are pivotal in developing comprehensive and equitable policies for digital sovereignty and cooperation. This extended analysis provides deeper insights into the multifaceted nature of the topic.

Justine Miller

During the discussion, the speakers explored the contradiction between digital concepts, specifically digital contradiction and digital compatibility. They noted that while these concepts may seem to conflict on paper, they are not completely exclusive in the digital realm. This suggests that there is potential for overlap and coexistence.

To further understand the dynamics of power balancing within a country, the nature of the country itself was highlighted as a crucial factor. The distinction between a dictatorship and a non-dictatorship was emphasized as it plays a significant role in determining how power is distributed. It was noted that power distribution in a dictatorship may be more top-down, with a strong central authority controlling various aspects of society, including technology regulations. On the other hand, in a non-dictatorship, power distribution may involve more checks and balances to ensure a fair and just system.

The speakers suggested that in order to achieve an effective power balance, certain measures should be considered. One approach highlighted was the need to grant more power to civil societies and companies. By empowering these entities, there is the potential for a more decentralized and diversified distribution of power. Additionally, the regulation of tech companies was deemed as an influential factor in power distribution. This implies that through careful monitoring and control of technology companies, there is an opportunity to shape power dynamics in a way that aligns with societal goals and values.

It is important to note that while the speakers presented a neutral stance on these matters, they provided evidence and supporting facts to substantiate their claims. By acknowledging the complexities of the digital landscape and recognizing the role of different types of countries, the discussion sheds light on the potential avenues for achieving power balance in the digital age.

In conclusion, the speakers highlighted the contradiction between digital concepts and emphasized that they do not have to be mutually exclusive. The nature of a country, such as whether it is a dictatorship or not, plays a crucial role in power balancing. Furthermore, empowering civil societies and companies, alongside regulating tech companies, can be instrumental in shaping power distribution. This comprehensive analysis offers valuable insights into the complex dynamics of power and technology in today’s digital world.

Sophie Hoogenboom

Sophie Hoogenboom, a Ph.D. student, is conducting an in-depth research on digital sovereignty. Her aim is to understand the various dimensions and implications of this topic. Sophie’s research has revealed that there is no universally defined understanding of digital sovereignty. Different individuals have varying interpretations and ideas about its importance. This finding challenges the assumption of a shared perception of digital sovereignty.

Sophie’s research on digital sovereignty is not limited to academic research but also has implications for sustainable development, particularly related to SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure). This highlights the relevance and significance of understanding and addressing digital sovereignty issues within the broader context of fostering sustainable development.

In her research and panel discussions, Sophie has encountered diverse definitions and viewpoints on digital sovereignty. This suggests that digital sovereignty is a complex concept influenced by individual factors such as cultural background, educational level, and professional experience. The various interpretations highlight the need for comprehensive dialogue and collaboration to establish a shared understanding of digital sovereignty.

In conclusion, Sophie Hoogenboom’s research sheds light on the diverse perceptions and lack of a universal definition of digital sovereignty. Her findings emphasize the need for further exploration and collective effort to address this multidimensional issue. By acknowledging and addressing these variations in understanding, we can work towards a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to digital sovereignty.

Jamal Shahin:
Hello, everybody. Thanks for coming to this session. We are here to discuss digital sovereignty and global cooperation. I hope you can see. No, you can’t see my screen. No, no, no, my PowerPoint. There we go. Okay. Thanks a lot. All right. So I have a couple of slides here. They’re done using Mentimeter, and we’ve done that to enable people who prefer to remain silent for the first few minutes of a session to actually get engaged and then get stimulated into participating. And also, it allows us to interact with the people online in a non, in a, well, hopefully an inclusive way. So we have about 55 minutes to network. The topic that Sophie and myself decided to actually want to network about is this tension that we see between the emergent discourse, particularly in, well, but maybe I should introduce myself. We should introduce ourselves. So yeah. So my name is Jamal Shaheen. I’m your on-site moderator for today. I am working at a couple of different universities in Belgium and Amsterdam. The VUB, which is the Free University of Brussels and the University of Amsterdam, and I’m also connected to the United Nations University in Bruges, which holds the Center for Comparative Regional Integration Studies. My research field is digital sovereignty, and I come from this looking specifically at the European perspective, right, on digital sovereignty, and we’re moving from that towards a more global perspective. Sophie.

Sophie Hoogenboom:
Hello everyone. My name is Sophie Hoogenboom. I am a PhD student and my topic is digital sovereignty, so we’re at the right spot. Today we would like to make a, we were thinking about this session and we thought it would be much more interesting if we would talk with each other about what digital sovereignty means for you or how you interpret it, because what we keep finding in almost every research and panel that we do is the varying definitions and also varying ideas about the importance of it. So that’s why I would like to ask you to join us on Mentimeter, because then we can, for those who don’t or are not aware, you can just go to mentimeter.com. You don’t have to log in and you can insert the code. We’d be very appreciative.

Jamal Shahin:
Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Sophie. Right, so if this works, I can move. We also have Justine, who is moderating the session from Bruges, which is where UNU-CHRIS is based. So hi, Justine, and thanks very much for being here in the morning. She says hello on the chat. Okay, yeah, so it’s menti.com and then you use the code 47036161. Okay, 47036161. Okay, everybody in? Good. This is just like the warm-up activity, right? We’re going to put you into, well, we’re going to put you into a big circle in a minute and we’ll have a conversation about the different questions we’re raising. So, at the end of 2021, Mike. We always have to ask this in Washington, D.C. I know you’re broadcasting this, but is there any attempt to make this a Chatham house rule or to block out everything everyone says? I’m afraid it’s not possible because it’s live-streamed, right? So, no, I will be careful. Yeah, and it’s a good point. Okay, and I did actually just give your name out. Makes it a bit difficult. Okay, yeah, this is being live-streamed. This is being recorded, I believe. Yes, so this is being recorded as well. So, however, we can turn the mics off at a certain moment and delete the chat. So, just we will capture the Mentimeter and we will use it for the reporting for the IGF. Okay, so just to get into a bit of the context, digital sovereignty has been a term that’s been used, well, for 20 years in certain areas and it’s becoming more popular in the way it’s used in recent years, particularly since around 2019 in the European context, at least, where we’re seeing use of the term in a very different way to the way it’s maybe used before. We’re seeing that this term has a lot of different angles to it and a lot of different components to it and we started off this research journey by actually trying to understand what was digital sovereignty. So, in 2021, at the end of 2021 and 2022, we launched a process to actually bring people together to actually try and help us get a broader understanding of what digital sovereignty means. So, we organized some webinars where we engaged with, on the one hand, the technical community or representatives, not the entire technical community, representatives from the technical community, representatives from civil society, and representatives from the business side of things. We then organized another series of exercises where we talked to different national policy makers to try and get a broader understanding and all we found was, in fact, that there’s a lot of different definitions, there’s a lot of non-coherence in the way that people are choosing to apply this term to their policies in the digital sphere. So, what we actually felt was really necessary is actually then to go from trying to define digital sovereignty to actually try and understand how and why different stakeholders use this term, right, and to try and unpack that. And as people who work at the university, this was the one thing that we wanted to try and get through. Once you understand how and why people use the term sovereignty in cyberspace, we can then understand what the implications are for the concrete policy debates. And we’ve been doing some of this research over time, we’ve been trying to understand how this actually comes together, and today what we wanted to do was actually reach out to the IGF community because we hadn’t done that part yet, right, and we see that within the IGF this has, I mean, last year it was also a topic, this year it’s very much a topic and it’s been appearing in many different panel sessions and we wanted to get the voices from the community in this space, right. We’re going to start off, I mean, we have input into this session as well, but we wanted to make it a conversation and not give you a lecture. If you want that, you can come to Brussels and you can do my program on this. This is just for Mentimeter people. Where are you right now? Ah, the code. The code is 47… Ah, do I need to repeat the code for Mentimeter? Hey, yeah, open your devices. Oh, you can’t really see it on the screen here, so you need to open your device, go to menti.com, and once you’re at menti.com, the code you need is 4703… I’m looking at Berna. 47036161. Okay, good. So, there’s the first question. Oh, who’s in Amsterdam? That’s great. We have quite a few responses already. Basically, all over. I’ll move to the next slide, because otherwise we’ll fall asleep. A previous exercise looked at different groups or different stakeholders and their expectations in digital sovereignty, and so we thought it might be interesting to see what kind of classifications you give yourselves. Classifications you give yourselves. You can put other… And… We didn’t forget. We wanted that kind of conversation. I will not tweet that one. Okay. Okay, excellent. So, there’s a lot of people in civil… Now, I don’t know, because you were talking to me before when we were talking about visions of digital sovereignty, and you were also saying that there’s this kind of vision towards what Mike had alluded to earlier on, self-sovereignty and the community sovereignty, right, which emerges quite a lot in the civil society field, right? Do you have a question for the next question? What question? Yeah. Yeah, so we’ll get to that later. So, you want to explain the process? I’ll shut up for a minute.

Sophie Hoogenboom:
All right. I’m taking over for now. So, what we are planning to do is we want to create groups of four. I think right now a few people have joined, so we could make a few groups of four. The idea is that we made two questions that we would like for you to discuss among each other, and then afterwards we will bring all the discussions together. That’s, I think, the practicalities.

Jamal Shahin:
And then the first question. So, we do it question by question, right? And since there are quite a few of you online, we’ll also organize an online room. Is it possible to organize breakout rooms online? Um, well, it says there must be about 10 people online, so maybe two breakout rooms, please. Amsterdam? Berlin? There’s only six online? Okay, then just make one breakout room. I think that would be fine. But you don’t need a breakout room, then they can just use the room. Justine will moderate online. Okay. Anyway, right now you can see the question in front of you. The first question. We’ll put you in a group, and Sophie and myself will join in the groups, right? And we want you to address this question. One, two, three. What? One, two, three, four. There’s four at the back. Yeah, that’s what I was thinking. Yeah, just do that side and that side. There you go. Like that. Is that okay? I don’t know. So, I do think we should come back because we have another question which will allow you to continue. But whilst I wait, I don’t know how it went in your group over there or online, Justine, but in my group, we determined to rewrite the question. And Mike is actually now sending me a list which I will put on Mentimeter. But maybe we go around the other groups. I don’t know. Should we start online with Justine? Yeah, maybe first of all, I’ll pass a microphone to group one. This group, the right wing group, to actually hear what happened. Do you want to report back or would one of you like to? Well, I can first start because the start of our discussion was, I think, very interesting. And I would love for them to say it because otherwise I’m repeating their own words while they’re here. But in the beginning, we immediately had the tension present in our group. So, the first person who spoke said, yes, there is a tension or maybe it’s not even compatible. And then someone else was saying, no, that’s actually not. But actually, I think it’s much better if they say it themselves. Don’t you think? That’s what I think. OK, OK, OK. Would you like?

Sophie Hoogenboom:
At least mention your name.

Audience:
Yeah, Alexandre Savnin, Zafri University. So, I was the first person who was saying that there is a tension because from my understanding of cooperation and sovereignty, cooperation is what happens between equal parties somehow. And sovereignty means that there is a sovereign who’s sovereign over something. It might be a state over its citizens. In some hierarchy, it might be citizen over its state or it might be corporation over state or over citizens. And there is another opinion. Yes, so. Yes. So, in response, I said we should differentiate between the relationship between the sovereign and the citizen and the relationship among sovereigns in an international platform. And then I said sovereigns define the actors in the cooperation environment. And so, yes, there is a tension, but it is not something that would stop cooperation from being realized. It’s just defining who the actors are. And then there is a tension. And then you have the platform to cooperate. But in a platform like IGF, you have other actors in addition to the sovereigns, which is the society, private sector. And so, the discussion went on from there. I think to you. So, without wanting to give you a word-for-word replay of what we discussed in our session, my proposition was that they do not have to be in tension necessarily, as illustrated by the idea of the data spaces that the European Union is trying to create, where you’re trying to foster cooperation while maintaining sovereignty. Also, as opposed to a platform model where data, for example, is centralized and pooled, you can still try to create cooperation while protecting sovereignty.

Jamal Shahin:
And whilst you’re doing that, thank you, John, we’re going to make you a co-host so you can speak. Would somebody from our group like to raise some of the issues that we discussed? I’ve put you, I’ve made your thing into a Mentimeter. Thank you very much. Yeah,

Audience:
it’s going to be the world’s most complicated Mentimeter question. We picked on our moderator and said, how in the heck can we answer a question that is so vague when it’s digital cooperation? That could mean anything about anything. And so we made it more complicated by listing 13 really tough digital policy issues, international digital policy issues. And then we went back and asked the question and said, okay, for digital trade, is there attention? For encryption, is there attention? For online privacy or data protection? For online payments? For surveillance? You’ll see the whole list. But we would welcome two or three more or five more suggestions. We went down this list and we did not see any places where there’s a lack of tension. I agree with, I do a lot of work on data spaces and data flows, and I pray every night that somebody will make a data space that works so we can show that this is a solution to these problems. But for our entire list, we haven’t found anyone where there isn’t some collision between the country’s desire to control and this need to get some kind of collaboration, cooperation, consistency. Until we have global government or until we have no government and everybody’s self-sovereign, this is my proposal. Rename the United Nations the United People and let us all focus on giving us all the choice we want. Sorry, I’ll end my campaign now.

Jamal Shahin:
I would vote for you, Mike. Thank you, and I’ll vote for you. Before we go to the topics that you’d raised, Mike, I think we want to go to the online discussions. And John, Justine first. Justine, would you like to summarize a bit the discussion that happened and then we’ll pass over to John.

Justine Miller:
Yes, thank you very much. I’ll try my best because this is not my field, so I hope I’m not mince-construing any of the interesting comments that my colleagues made. So I think the main point was that, yes, on paper, these two concepts can definitely be contradicting each other, but that in a digital sense, they’re not fully exclusive. And then we immediately switched to the idea that it really depends on the countries we’re looking at. So we switched back to nation level rather than a United People type of solution. And then we were saying that depending on whether your country is a dictatorship or not, you might have to give more power to civil societies, companies, but then it would also depend on how you regulate those tech companies. So there we also approached a lot of different topics there. But perhaps then John can jump in and add a bit more to what I’m seeing here.

Sophie Hoogenboom:
All right, thank you so much, Justine. I would like to now give the floor to John, who expressed in a chat that he wanted to share his thoughts. John, are you there?

John Tshinseki:
Yes, yes, I’m here. Thank you. Digital sovereignty, I think we had a nice chat in our session. And digital sovereignty, I think it’s more predominant in African countries than digital cooperation in that African countries know the global communities, I think the European countries and the U.S. and others think of North America and Europe. When you talk about human rights and all those other topics they discuss when they meet at the United Nations and Commonwealth and all those other platforms they meet, they mostly, I think, look at embracing those discussions and implement them for the benefits of the people on the ground. And I think when we talk about in African countries, African countries, our leaders, mostly they are more for clinging on to power. And that definitely will mean infringement on human rights and many other things that I think are going to make them stay in power as long as they want. And even a lot of times they twerk around the laws and regulations to change things around along the way to suit their own needs and to champion the agenda to stay in power. So when you talk about sovereignty, sovereignty, I think it’s something that they really want to so very much protect so that they have power and control over the boundaries of the country they are ruling and give the laws according to how they want. And I think I mentioned in our breakout session that most of the laws that we have, for instance, the Cyber Crimes Act in Zambia, the Data Protection Act in Zambia, it’s an excerpt from the General Data Protection Regulation, I think, given international documents, which I think where they pick a few other things, items, and bring them and localize them in Zambia here, and still pick a few other corners, you know, draconian kind of clauses, which then will make them to have more control and regulate how, you know, how the people in the country should behave and conduct themselves. And most of the time, it’s more on a designed concept to suppress the voices of the opposition and the human rights defenders and other dissidents out there who may be aiming at pushing an agenda to try and question governments’ misgivings and all that. So that’s a problem that we have. So the tension cannot completely be eradicated or gotten rid of, you know, for as long as our leaders, they still just come back from the UN, from AU, and still sit around in their own boardrooms, cabinet meetings, and make decisions which are far away from the global discussion and agenda of the global community. So that’s, I think, something that is disheartening somehow, in a way. So that still extends, I think, to a lot of things that we discussed, I think, in our breakfast session with my team, where Justin was the moderator. And that is why the issue of digital cooperation and digital, you know, digital sovereignty is still going to be born of contention because of the sovereignty of the countries. And that is my addition to this.

Jamal Shahin:
Thanks very much, John. Really interesting to hear about this distance, I think, that you mentioned between what happens at the national level and what happens at the global level in these discussions, and how, on one hand, we can have very nice global discussions, and on the other hand, people have to come back and deal with the politics of their country, and understand that there are certain things that need to be done that are maybe not aligned with those areas. So, in our group as well, I think we discussed things like that this question needs to be broken down into different functional areas. So this question makes no sense, in fact, when you ask it like this, because it pleases everybody at every moment, right? Everybody can either claim that they’re a sovereigntist or a cooperationalist, or they can even say both at the same time in a very George Orwellian kind of manner. And so what Mike had proposed was a list of policy fields in which global cooperation or digital sovereignty actually takes about, and if this works, you will see. I didn’t know how to do this, Mike. I apologize if this is a this is a slider. Okay, good. So I was going to say, and I was thinking about asking you to identify where are the areas that we could actually tell the UN Secretary General, okay, this should be in your report on effective multilateralism, and this should be in your report on the Global Digital Compact. Hopefully you can all see the Mentimeter. There is a second page. So we had a prolific note-taker in our group, so we had a second page where we would like to… You have a question? Sure, I’m going to pass you the mic.

Audience:
So listening to you and Mike, very interesting, but actually, well, if you start looking on this question, and well, you are the UN General Secretary in the context, there is another dimension of this between, for example, between, well, inside Five Eyes, there is no tension about surveillance. And when you step outside, there will be tension. Something like this, yeah. So if we are talking about UN context, there are different groups of something inside which may be tension to other groups, inside which may be no tension, but there is a tension to other groups. So it’s not clearly how to answer this question. It strongly depends on, well, your location or your political opinion of your sovereign in the meaning of the country to this thing. So, okay, let’s now sit and break up groups and start classifying group of sovereigns. I’m joking, for sure.

Jamal Shahin:
You’ve touched on a really interesting point there, which will be covered tomorrow at 8.30 in the morning, if you’re willing to come along, looking at the regional dimensions of digital sovereignty, right, or the regional dimensions of cooperation in this sphere. Because I think one of the things is that there are things that we can work on in global cooperation terms, and there are other things which do by their nature fit very much more into a regional or a specific political type of grouping. However, that’s one of the concerns that if we go too much down those routes, we end up, and I don’t want to use this word, fragmentation, we end up in a number of different types of scenarios where different governance mechanisms are used to interact with the digital media, the digital space that we inhabit. Okay, I think you’re right that there are global, regional, national, and even then subnational, we’ve been talking about those in our group as well. I think everybody has filled in, no, almost everybody has filled in the sheet. Yeah, why is it that there are some people, please don’t mess up my system. That’s good, that’s good. There’s an ethical nature to this research, and you just ruined it for us. I’m going to move to the next group of topics, and then I believe that’s all of them. I hope I copy-pasted correctly. Mike, maybe you could just say, when you talk about government data policy, you’re talking about publicly available data. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Government data policy between different governments. Why? What governments are sharing data sharing is also just a question of do you make your data available? The data flow across borders is different because that’s also corporate data, personal data for Facebook users, TikTok, and all of that. Yeah. And these are one of these areas where when you’re looking at these concepts of digital sovereignty or digital cooperation, you really need to go down into the specific institutions or the specific products or the specific policy fields that we’re working at. And I think that that’s been echoed very clearly here in this discussion. Yeah, I think that’s the point that our colleague was trying to make, that the fact that we have our own belief system or our own understanding of what political institutions can do for us and how they work also make us think about the way we think about cooperation or about sovereignty. And so that’s why I prefaced my insight with I’ve looked at the European field in digital sovereignty a lot. We talked about that, and I said, no, Sophie, let’s not do that. So well done, Sophie. Yeah, no, very clear. It’s now, we had the second question, but I’m sure that in three minutes, given that it took us 45 minutes to unpack the first question and go through it, I think we’ve done enough for today. We will share this. If you wish, you can drop us a business card if you have one, or you can come and get a business card. Do you have business cards? All right. You can come and get one of my… I’ve already got hers. Yeah. Okay. You can come and get a business card. Drop me or Sophie, well, drop me an email because my email is on my business card, and then we’ll send you around the PDF of this Mentimeter, and we’ll continue networking, because that’s the point of this exercise. Thanks very much. Thanks very much, Justine. Thanks very much to everybody online as well. It was very kind of your participation.

Audience

During a panel discussion on internet governance, several speakers presented their arguments and stances. Carlos Vera emphasised the importance of a human-centred discussion and maintaining a multi-stakeholder model in order to promote inclusive decision-making. The panel also highlighted the need for representation and gender equality in internet governance. It was noted that there were six women and only one man in the panel, prompting a call for more diverse representation. Transparent and inclusive processes within the Global Digital Compact were advocated for, with a focus on gender inclusivity. The panel also discussed the challenges of government misuse and shutdown of internet services, and the lack of international internet governance. The need for a United Nations Internet Governance Law was highlighted, along with the importance of education on cyber security. The panelists called for a re-evaluation and change of the existing internet system to ensure fairness for all nations. The involvement of the technical community in internet governance was deemed crucial, and the promotion of digital fluency was seen as an important aspect of internet governance. The concept of the Peace Boat was suggested as a model for the digital age, and the panelists emphasized the importance of celebrating the achievements of the Internet Governance Forum. Gender equality in internet and digital governance was also discussed, with a focus on incorporating gender considerations in decision-making processes. The panelists highlighted the relevance and need for review of the Geneva Principles, which were developed 20 years ago, and the importance of grounding the legal basis of internet governance in widely debated foundational principles like Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Finally, it was noted that Winston Roberts, a former representative of New Zealand at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva, currently works for the NGO IFLA. The panelists provided valuable insights on these topics, offering recommendations and highlighting areas for improvement in internet governance.

Bertrand de Chapelle

The analysis explores the topic of internet governance and highlights various aspects related to it. One important point is that internet governance encompasses both the governance of and governance on the internet. It is described as a complex ecosystem consisting of organizations that have played a crucial role in keeping us connected during the pandemic. However, it notes that internet governance is currently scattered and works in silos, primarily comprising intergovernmental or individual initiatives. This indicates the need for a more comprehensive and cohesive approach to governance in the digital realm.

Another significant aspect discussed is the limited resources allocated to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The analysis suggests that contributions to the IGF are insufficient, barely supporting a staff that is half the size of another organization. This raises concerns about hypocrisy, with governments and individuals complaining about the lack of productivity from the IGF while failing to provide adequate support. This competition for resources within the IGF poses a challenge for effective governance in the digital age.

The analysis also recognizes the IGF as just one building block in the broader framework of internet governance. It emphasizes the necessity of innovation in designing governance systems for the internet. A quote by Kofi Annan is highlighted, stating the importance of being as innovative as the individuals who created the internet itself. This underscores the need to adapt governance structures to keep pace with the ever-evolving digital landscape.

Additionally, the analysis addresses the fundamental question of what the desired digital society should look like. It argues that this question is crucial and requires careful consideration. It asserts that throughout history, there has been a continuous effort to organize in larger and more interconnected communities, and a digital society represents the next stage of this evolution. This observation highlights the transformative nature of communication in the digital age.

In conclusion, the analysis provides a comprehensive overview of internet governance, discussing both the challenges and opportunities in this domain. It emphasizes the need for a more integrated and collaborative approach to governance, the allocation of sufficient resources to support the IGF, and the importance of innovation in designing effective governance systems for the internet. Lastly, it underscores the significance of envisioning and constructing a digital society that aligns with our collective aspirations and values.

Anita Gurumurthy

The analysis provides a comprehensive examination of the crisis in digital governance. One of the main issues highlighted is the geopolitical tensions that arise due to the stranglehold over the digital economy by a small number of large transnational corporations. This dominance leads to concerns about fairness and competition in the global digital landscape.

Moreover, it is argued that public policy in digital governance should be grounded in the principles of public interest and democratic deliberation. The analysis emphasises that effective governance cannot solely rely on dialogue but must also consider the broader public interest. This approach recognises the importance of inclusive decision-making processes and democratic accountability.

The Digital Cooperation Forum, which has a tripartite dialogic mode, is mentioned in the analysis. While the forum aims to improve digital cooperation, caution should be exercised to avoid repeating the flaws of its predecessor, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The analysis suggests that the IGF had issues with confirmation bias and potentially excluded diverse voices and views. Hence, it is important for the Digital Cooperation Forum to address these concerns and promote inclusivity.

In the realm of data governance, the need to humanize this technical concept is emphasised. The analysis calls for the recognition of new rights, such as the right to be forgotten and the right to be represented or not in digital systems. These rights would help protect individuals’ interests and ensure a more balanced and equitable digital ecosystem.

The analysis also stresses the necessity of restraining the power of digital transnational corporations for effective global digital governance. Without mandatory obligations for these corporations, global governance cannot foster innovation, economic pluralism, or environmental sustainability. However, it is pointed out that powerful countries from the global north may resist new arrangements, making it challenging to address this issue.

A system-wide reboot is advocated for global digital governance. This includes reforms in international financial institutions and the international tax regime. Additionally, the conversation needs to shift towards nurturing public digital innovation ecosystems at a global level, which would encourage collaboration and inclusive development.

The analysis laments the current state of digital governance, stating that it falls short of upholding justice, peace, and fundamental human values. The Geneva Declaration is referred to as an articulation of the need to foster justice, dignity, and peace – values that are still out of reach in the digital realm.

The internet is described as a common heritage of humankind, supported by public law. This perspective highlights the importance of collective responsibility and public regulation to ensure that the internet serves the interests of all.

Equitable distribution of benefits from digital resources and data is deemed essential. The analysis raises concerns about situations where countries contribute valuable data, such as pathogen data, but do not benefit from resulting research. It emphasises the need to address this imbalance and ensure fairness in the distribution of benefits.

Lastly, the analysis highlights the necessity of recognising the hybrid nature of existence and reality in the digital society. This observation implies that the digital world is deeply entwined with the physical world and should be approached holistically to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive understanding.

Overall, the analysis provides a thorough exploration of the crisis in digital governance, examining various aspects such as geopolitical tensions, public interest, data governance, power dynamics, international cooperation, and the need for a more just and inclusive digital society. It calls for reform and recognition of the complexities of the digital landscape to address the challenges at hand.

Jordan Carter

In this analysis, the speakers delved into the intricacies of internet governance and digital policy. They expressed the paramount importance of internet governance, noting that virtually all digital technology relies on communication through the internet. It was emphasised that the internet occupies a central position in our lives and, therefore, requires robust governance mechanisms.

One key aspect that emerged from the analysis was the need for multi-stakeholder internet governance. The speakers argued that effective governance should involve the participation and representation of diverse stakeholder groups. They highlighted the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as an essential platform that ensures different stakeholders have a seat at the table and space in the room. By including various voices, multi-stakeholder internet governance can foster better decision-making and address the interests of different stakeholders.

However, the current internet governance system was acknowledged as imperfect. The analysis revealed the existence of gaps in ambition, coordination, and resources. It was noted that these gaps limit the efficacy of internet governance efforts. To overcome these challenges, the speakers called for strengthening the IGF and addressing the identified gaps, such as inadequate resourcing and insufficient coordination.

Interestingly, there was opposition to the movement of digital issues to an intergovernmental forum. It was argued that such a shift could potentially worsen the situation by leading to stakeholder domination and limiting diverse participation. The analysis highlighted the importance of maintaining a multi-stakeholder approach in digital governance.

The issue of resources and funding in internet governance was also raised. It was pointed out that proper resourcing is crucial to ensure the effectiveness of governance mechanisms. The discrepancy between the resource allocation for internet governance and other policy areas was highlighted, with one speaker noting that their own policy team is equivalent in size to the IGF secretariat. This observation indicated the need for adequate resources and investment to adequately address internet governance issues.

The role of governments in digital governance was another important point discussed. The analysis underscored the necessity for governments to reconsider their approach to digital governance. As technology continues to evolve, governments must adapt to effectively address the challenges and opportunities brought about by the digital era.

Furthermore, it was noted that internet governance discussions often receive insufficient attention. The allure of “sexy” issues such as artificial intelligence tends to overshadow important internet governance debates. The analysis posited the need to give due emphasis to internet governance and not let it be overshadowed by other emerging topics.

Lastly, the importance of building upon existing principles in policy-making and creating new solutions was highlighted. The analysis emphasised the importance of incorporating established principles rather than continuously revisiting and inventing new ones. By doing so, policymakers can ensure consistency and avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts.

In conclusion, the analysis underscored the critical role of internet governance and digital policy in our digitally interconnected world. It called for multi-stakeholder participation, addressing gaps in the current governance system, proper resourcing, government reconsideration, and increased attention to internet governance. By addressing these issues, stakeholders can work towards strengthening and improving the governance mechanisms that underpin our digital landscape.

Lise Fuhr

Cross-sector participation in the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is not only important but also critically needed. The IGF brings together a wide range of sectors, including banking, public administration, manufacturing, transportation, and healthcare, all of which are using and creating digital solutions. However, there is a need for more diverse participation from legal professionals in the IGF, especially due to concerns such as data security, workers’ rights, and access to education. This highlights the importance of broader representation and diverse perspectives in the forum.

Efforts should be made to showcase the IGF as a platform for shaping the future of the internet. By emphasizing its role in discussing challenges and opportunities related to digital technology, the IGF can attract more participants. The IGF should be promoted as a forum where stakeholders can come together to engage in meaningful discussions and collaborate on finding innovative solutions. Creating a clear value proposition for participation in the IGF can serve as a strong incentive for individuals and organizations to actively engage and contribute to the forum.

The IGF has proven to be a well-established and well-respected mechanism for monitoring and implementing decisions. It can play a crucial role in setting the framework for the internet we want. Anchoring the Global Digital Compact in the IGF can further strengthen its position and ensure that decisions and actions taken are aligned with the global digital agenda.

Although advancements have been made in terms of internet access, there is still a significant gap. Approximately 2.6 billion people worldwide remain offline, preventing them from fully benefitting from the advantages of the digital era. Closing this internet access gap is crucial in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and harnessing the potential of digital technology for social and economic development.

Transparency, openness, and inclusivity are key principles that should be prioritised in internet governance. Emphasising the inclusion of all genders and the involvement of individuals from all nationalities is essential for creating a more democratic and representative decision-making process. By promoting transparency and inclusivity, the IGF can effectively address the diverse needs and concerns of various stakeholders.

To support its expanding tasks, the IGF Secretariat requires stronger funding. As the role of the Secretariat has grown in complexity and importance, adequate financial resources are necessary to ensure its effective functioning. Adequate funding will enable the Secretariat to fulfil its responsibilities and facilitate the smooth operation of the IGF.

Ambition is vital for the ongoing development and evolution of the IGF. By setting ambitious goals, the IGF can continue to adapt to the fast-paced changes in the digital landscape and effectively address emerging challenges. Maintaining a human-centric approach and upholding the multi-stakeholder model are crucial in ensuring that internet governance prioritises the needs and interests of all stakeholders.

Raising the profile of the IGF and setting the agenda for new participation is an essential step in strengthening its impact and relevance. By increasing awareness of the forum and actively inviting new participants, the IGF can create a more inclusive and representative platform. Setting the agenda allows the IGF to focus on key issues, foster meaningful discussions, and contribute to shaping the future of the internet.

In conclusion, cross-sector participation, diverse representation, and a clear value proposition are crucial in the Internet Governance Forum. The IGF plays a vital role in setting the framework for the internet we want, closing the internet access gap, emphasising transparency and inclusivity, securing adequate funding, fostering ambition, and maintaining a human-centric approach. By raising its profile and setting the agenda, the IGF can continue to be an influential platform for shaping the future of the internet.

Avri Doria

Avri Doria, an influential member of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) since its inception, is discussing the future of digital governance and specifically the future of the IGF. Doria emphasises the need to improve and refine the existing IGF, rather than creating a new platform.

Doria believes that the IGF has the potential to continue evolving and effectively address the emerging challenges of digital governance. Creating a new forum, Doria argues, would incur significant costs in terms of finances, time, and effort. Doria highlights the 18-year history of the IGF, showcasing the expertise and experience gained over its lifetime.

By iterating and improving upon the current framework, Doria suggests that the IGF can adapt to the rapidly changing landscape of digital governance. This approach would not only prevent redundancies but also save valuable resources that would otherwise be needed to establish a new forum from scratch.

Examining the supporting evidence, it is clear that Doria’s argument is based on practical considerations. The 18-year existence of the IGF provides a strong foundation for building upon existing structures and processes. Additionally, creating a new platform would require a significant financial investment, consume valuable time, and demand considerable effort to ensure successful operation.

In conclusion, Avri Doria advocates for the ongoing development and improvement of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a means to tackle the future challenges of digital governance. Doria’s argument is grounded in the extensive experience and expertise of the IGF accumulated over its 18-year history. By avoiding the costly and labor-intensive aspect of creating a new platform, Doria suggests that the IGF has the potential to adapt and evolve effectively, benefiting the global digital community.

Timea Suto

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is a crucial platform for convening various stakeholders to discuss public policy issues related to internet governance. It was born after the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) envisioned a people-centred information society. The IGF involves stakeholders such as telecommunications and tech companies, governments, and development banks, and has led to the global implementation of projects originating from its discussions.

While the IGF has made significant progress, there are areas that require attention. One such area is the lack of awareness about the achievements of the IGF, leading to the belief that new initiatives should be created. Effective marketing and sharing of the IGF’s outputs and success stories are needed, as well as expanding the IGF community to include non-participants.

Multistakeholderism, a crucial concept derived from WSIS, is an integral part of global digital discussions. However, it is not perfect and has room for improvement. The United Nations Secretary General has called for collaboration among multiple stakeholders to prepare for the future summit.

Crucially, the IGF does not set technical standards, cybersecurity norms, or policies for responsible and trustworthy AI. Its main role is to convene all relevant stakeholders to ensure proper implementation and accountability. The IGF aims to evaluate the progress made in achieving the vision set 20 years ago, identify areas requiring further action, and ensure inclusivity.

The persistently unchanging gender divide in internet usage is a pressing issue that needs to be integrated into all IGF discussions to promote gender equality. Additionally, the IGF has evolved to include discussions on digital governance, expanding beyond the scope of internet governance.

Overall, the IGF provides a vital platform for stakeholders to discuss public policy issues related to internet governance. While acknowledging its achievements, it is essential to address the gaps and challenges, including raising awareness, improving multistakeholderism, addressing the gender divide, and publicizing its outputs. By addressing these issues, the IGF can continue to play a significant role in shaping the future of internet governance.

Renata Mielli

The Internet has experienced significant global growth over the past 20 years, becoming more resilient and faster than ever before. It has played a crucial role in economic, social, and cultural development, becoming essential for various aspects of life. Alongside this growth, multistakeholder participation in Internet governance has also expanded, giving more voices and perspectives a seat at the table.

The Internet governance community has shown remarkable growth and diversity, both nationally and regionally. This diversity has led to a wide range of ideas and approaches being brought to the table, enhancing the decision-making process. Hosting the first Elusófono Internet Governance Forum in Brazil is an example of this diversity being celebrated and nurtured.

However, despite its growth and positive impacts, the Internet also faces a range of challenges. These include economic concentration, where a few dominant players have significant control over the online landscape. Misinformation and cyber-attacks on democracy pose risks to the integrity of information and democratic processes. Hate speech is also a concern, as it can worsen social divisions and breed intolerance. Additionally, the environmental impacts of the Internet and the risks associated with artificial intelligence need to be addressed.

The multistakeholder model, while valuable, presents its own challenges due to its diversity. It can be complicated to navigate and reach consensus among the participants with different backgrounds, perspectives, and interests. There are concerns about potential fragmentation in the Internet governance debate, with the creation of competing governance spaces, which could hinder effective decision-making and coordination.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is seen as the definitive platform for discussions and decision-making related to Internet governance. Through this forum, insights from various global stakeholders can be generated, leading to more informed and inclusive policy-making processes. The IGF’s role in generating these insights is widely supported, emphasizing its importance in the governance of the Internet.

Addressing the challenges faced by the Internet requires deeper discussions and the development of effective solutions. The Cybersecurity and Internet Governance Initiative (CGI) has taken steps to advance dialogues and consultations with stakeholders throughout the ecosystem, promoting collaboration and collective problem-solving.

Furthermore, there is a strong call for increased diversity in decision-making spaces. It is not enough to have diverse participation; decision-making bodies should also reflect this diversity. The appointment of Renata Mielli as the first female coordinator of the Internet Theory Committee in Brazil since its creation in 1995 showcases the importance of representation and inclusion in leadership positions.

It is necessary to consider the future and the type of world we want to build. This involves pondering the implications of Internet governance, its role in shaping society, and the impacts it will have on the lives of future generations.

In conclusion, the Internet’s growth and expansion over the past two decades have had a significant impact on economic, social, and cultural development. While the Internet governance community has become more diverse and inclusive, challenges remain, such as economic concentration, misinformation, and cyber threats. The multistakeholder model presents challenges due to its diversity, raising concerns about potential fragmentation in the governance debate. The Internet Governance Forum is seen as the key platform for discussions and decision-making, generating insights from global stakeholders. To address the challenges, deeper discussions and solutions are needed while ensuring that decision-making spaces are diverse and inclusive. Considering the future and fostering collaboration are crucial for building a better world. An event proposed in Brazil in 2024 aims to foster multistakeholder consensus on these important themes.

Ana Neves

The analysis highlights several important points raised by the speakers. Firstly, it emphasises the concern that the rapid evolution of technology can widen digital gaps. This refers to the disparities in access to and adoption of technology, which can hinder development and prevent regions from participating in digital internet governance processes. The need for ubiquitous connectivity, faster speeds, low latency, and high-quality connectivity are identified as factors that contribute to these digital gaps. This sentiment is negative, as it highlights the potential negative consequences of technological advancements.

The next point discussed is the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). This global event brought together heads of state in 2003 and ministers responsible for the Information Society in 2005. The goal of WSIS is to achieve an inclusive and people-centric information society. This initiative is seen as neutral, as it does not have a sentiment attached to it but instead presents a vision and goals for the future of the information society.

The analysis also emphasises the importance of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in identifying gaps. The IGF plays a key role in global digital governance, but current global movements on digital topics may confuse participants. Therefore, the recommended action is for the IGF to identify these gaps to remain relevant and effective. This observation is presented as a neutral viewpoint.

Furthermore, the analysis includes insights from a speaker who highlights the idea that the internet should be used for beneficial purposes for humanity. It asserts that the aim is to make the internet a force for peace and improve the well-being of humankind. This positive sentiment emphasises the positive potential that the internet holds for the betterment of society.

In conclusion, the analysis provides an overview of key points expressed by the speakers. It recognises the potential negative impacts of technological advancements in widening digital gaps and highlights initiatives such as WSIS and the IGF, which aim to address these issues. Additionally, it underscores the positive idea of using the internet as a force for peace and for the betterment of humanity. These insights shed light on the importance of bridging digital divides, promoting inclusive digital governance, and harnessing the internet’s potential for positive impact.

Avri Doria:
was a very quick break. I know it was very quick for people to leave and come back. We apologize. We’re here, we’re now, we’re starting. So this session is the future of digital governance. One of the wonderful things about the future is we really don’t know what it’s going to be like, so it’s a good place to start. So we’ve seen this week, we’ve seen in write-ups, we’ve seen all kinds of suggestions and ideas for new mechanisms, GDCs, new kinds of digital fora, new kinds of mechanisms, and such. And it prompted some of us to sort of start asking the question, well what’s wrong with the IGF? And part of that question came out, well there are lots of gaps, and in fact if you read each one of these testaments that people are putting out about the best idea for the future, there’s a gap. And there’s a saying that, well this gap needs to be filled, it’s important, there are other importance, the IGF, you’ve been around for 18 years and you’ve got these gaps. So one of the things that we started looking at, one of the things I started looking at was, well we’ve been around for 18 years, we’re about to go into that renewal season, and when you go into the renewal season you look at, well what do you need to do for the future? The future that we’re here to talk about, about digital governance, or internet governance, or whatever we call a future governance. And we started to look at, well if something that was started a while back, that was started with great intentions, with great promise, has done good things, is well-formed, took a lot of work, took a lot of money, took a lot of time, and when we talk about starting a new forum, believe me there’s a lot of work to do. I’ve been watching the IGF since it was first first conceived of in the Working Group on Internet Governance and nursed through the original, had the honour of being on the Secretariat, had the honour of being on the MAG, had the honour of being a voice in the wilderness. I’ve done all of those roles quite happily. So one of the questions that we started to look at was, what are the gaps? What are really the gaps? And how is it that the IGF could conceivably fulfil them? Could conceivably fulfil them without having to incur all the expense and bandwidth and pain and suffering of trying to start something new? So we’ve got a certain number of pre-existing questions, but we also yesterday, while talking to the panellists, sort of said, thinking about TUNIS agenda, thinking about what remains to be done, thinking about the gaps, how could we solve those gaps? Could we? And if somebody wants to say the IGF couldn’t possibly fill that gap, why not? So basically that’s sort of the shape of what we’re having a conversation here, both amongst ourselves and hopefully with you all, to sort of try and explore that gap space and see what it would really take to solve the problems of that gap. So with that, I pass it on to my co-moderator, Ana Neves, and please take it away.

Ana Neves:
Thank you very much, Avri. Hello, speakers. Hello to all. Avri, don’t you think that everyone must, maybe they are a bit confused about all these movements that we have nowadays at global level on digital? A little confused? A little confused, and I think that after this… It’s the fourth day of the IGF, including the zero day, of course. And I think that with the people that I’ve been talking to, it was interesting to see that people are becoming some more confused, some more thinking in different things that they were thinking before they came here. But the thing is that topics related to digital are nowadays front and center on the international agenda. And nowadays, we are talking a lot about artificial intelligence. So during this IGF, there was a lot of sessions about artificial intelligence. But my point here is that the fast evolution of technology, new approaches, and the developments, such as the metaverse, and all that include emerging technologies, as well as the web 3.0, decentralization, need for ubiquitous connectivity, higher speeds, low latency, and high quality connectivity requirements, may contribute to widening the digital gaps among regions, countries, and on a local level. So this will cause a major difference in the evolution and development in economy, social, political, and educational areas, as well as reduce the possibility for certain regions of the world to effectively participate in digital internet governance processes. I just would like to remember, and then I will give the floor, of course, to our speakers. But well, I and Ari, we are here trying to make the context and to give you the context. And I just would like to remember that the goal of WSIS, the World Summit on Information Society, that gathered heads of state in 2003. And then in 2005, the ministers responsible for the Information Society. So the goal of WSIS is to achieve a common vision, desire, and commitment to build a people-centric, inclusive, and development-oriented information society, where everyone can create, access, utilize, and share information. The Geneva Action Plan agreed at the first WSIS summit in 2003, identified 18 areas of activity in which government, civil society, businesses, and international organizations So, I will start with the first question. The Tunisian government and the international community should work together and are working together to achieve the potential of ICTs for development. The Tunis agenda for the information society was a consensus statement of Tunis adopted on the 18th of November 2005 in Tunis. It called for the creation of the digital compact, which includes the digital sector, the public and private sectors, the technical and academic communities, and civil society. And nowadays, we have all these processes, including the WSIS plus 20, which includes the summit of the future that will include the digital, through the digital compact, and we have other processes at worldwide level. So, I would like to ask you, as a member of the panel, what do you think about what the IGF is saying, and why IGF is not good enough, or is it good enough, or which are the gaps, as Avery very well said. So, let’s go to hear our speakers, and I will give the floor, first place, to Sloheimer and also Douglas for Q & A and Joel from World quiet.

Jordan Carter:
AU domain administration Australia. John. thank you and good afternoon, everyone . Great to be on this panel, today, joining an interesting group of speakers. I’m just making some personal remarks here, having thought about this stuff for a long time, and I’m going to try and share a few of the things that we’ve been doing in the past couple of years. We’ve been using the internet to our day-to-day lives. If anyone thought that wasn’t the case until 2020, they got a brutal reminder of that in the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. And whether it’s the internet itself or the services and applications that we rely on that run on top of it, this digital realm, this internet realm, is central to our lives, which is why we’ve been doing this for a long time, and I’m is why it is so important, so important that the Secretary General identified it as one of the two major challenges facing the planet along with the climate crisis. So I want to make three main points to you today, because if we get this right, we can support the human flourishing that we should have as our vision for this planet. We can have just, peaceful and prosperous societies, sustainable economies all around the world. So there’s a lot to play for here. And my first point is a simple one that relates to the slightly provocative title of this panel. We cannot separate internet governance and digital governance. They’re intertwined, and they’re intertwined because almost all digital technology relies on communication, and the communication network that we all rely on is the internet. It is true that where digital policy issues stray too far away from an internet aspect, they may need their own institutions and discussions, and me being me, I would say that if they are having their own spaces, they should definitely apply the multi-stakeholder approach to having those conversations. But most of the time, the digital and internet realms are intertwined, and they should stay that way. Because otherwise, we will see a bifurcation of these policy dialogues, increasing complexity, and more and more resources being spent in forums that are very close to duplicating each other. My second point is to say that effective internet governance needs to be multi-stakeholder internet governance. I’ve already talked about the centrality of the internet to our lives, to the information societies that we are building. And that is why the IGF is such an important forum. Its structure and its scope forces the collision of the broad concerns and interests and perspectives from around the world and around the different stakeholder communities. And it does that by making sure there’s a seat at the table and space in the room for all the stakeholder groups, for civil society, for the technical community, academia, businesses in the private sector, and of course for governments. Without this blend, We could end up just having an interesting technology discussion or an interesting policy discussion, but that is not what we need. What we need is internet governance, and nothing could be worse than building a duplicate structure for digital governance issues alongside it. We have the forum already. We’re all right here in it today. But actually something could be worse than that. It would be moving it into a single stakeholder-dominated forum. Around which there are some proposals floating around. A government-preferenced forum. That would be worse than duplication, and it’s something I urge us all to oppose. My third point is to talk a bit about the gaps that the moderators mentioned before, because I don’t want to pretend that the internet governance system we have today is perfect. Put your hands up if you think it is perfect. Yeah, there are no hands up in the room, and I’m not going to ask about the Zoom room. The world has changed a lot since the settlement of the early 2000s, and it’s sad to say that it is not always for the better the ways that it has changed. And so we need to strengthen the IGF and address some gaps, and I just want to propose three for your consideration. Hopefully they’re a little bit provocative and help you start thinking about these and getting ready to engage with the panel from the floor. I think there’s an ambition gap, a coordination gap, and a resource gap. And just to speak briefly, on the ambition side, I don’t have the future vision that the internet needs. But I know that if we want to get the internet that we want, we need to take the daring step of describing it and describing the goals that will get us there. What is our ambition for the Information Society? How will we measure our progress? How will we support the sustainable development goals, support human flourishing? What is the internet we want, and how do we build it? So to close that gap, let’s develop and agree goals to do that. That could focus the work of our Internet governance system, and it could be a way to develop or create a need to develop new working methods here in the IGF to be able to discuss and agree such things. Not to replace the SDGs, not to create a rod for our back, but to focus our efforts. The second is the coordination gap. We have a distributed model of Internet governance with different institutions and different communities all doing part of the job. For that to work, it needs incredibly strong coordination. And the IGF can be the forum to do that coordination, but once again, there are some working methods to do it. In our own technical community, we’ve been articulating a need for stronger coordination. I think it applies more broadly as well. And briefly, the third gap is the resources gap. If you think about the incredible work our IGF Secretariat does with five people, five people, and then you think about the scale of the overall governance systems in individual countries, let alone the global level, you can see that none of us together as stakeholders are putting enough resources into this forum. And we’re also not resourcing well enough the diverse participation that we need, both to make the outcomes of the IGF more useful and to make its legitimacy stronger. So the resources gap is one that needs to be closed. So to recap, in closing, we should not separate digital governance and Internet governance. We must maintain a multistakeholder approach and model in doing it. All key stakeholder groups are required, and nothing could be worse than removing digital issues to an intergovernmental forum. And we must close gaps to strengthen the IGF and deliver the Internet we want. The ambition gap, the coordination gap, and the resources gap. Thank you very much.

Avri Doria:
Thank you very much, Jordan. Thank you for your initial remarks, and then I will the floor to Renata Miele, coordinator of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, for her first comments and remarks, please.

Renata Mielli:
Thanks, Ana. Good afternoon, everyone. I would like to greet my fellow participants, my fellow session participants, and thank the IGF for inviting me to be part of this panel, which encourages us to come together in a main session to address the various concerns and discussions we have followed throughout this event about our future as a governance community. I will bring to this discussion some reflections that stem from the experience of the Internet Steering Committee in Brazil, a multi-stakeholder governance group that has been built with dedication over its 28 years. The first point of this reflection is to look at the journey we have taken up to this point. Today’s Internet is very different from what it was 20 years ago, when the first round of WSIS took place. It has expanded globally, irreversibly, penetrating people’s lives. It has grown technically stronger, becoming more resilient and faster than we ever imagined. It has become a critical infrastructure for economic, social, and cultural development. The layer of applications and content which gives the Internet concrete meaning in people’s lives has also developed. With this expansion, our governance community has also grown. National and regional initiatives now form a global network across different countries, regions, youth, and dams. As an example, I may show the recent hosting of the first Elusófono Internet Governance Forum in Brazil less than a month ago. These spaces have become more diverse and inclusive. The diversity of sectors and actors at this IGF of the Internet and its applications has also brought emerging challenges to be addressed. Increased economic concentration in the ecosystem, an infodemic of misinformation, the use of the Internet to attack democracy processes, an increase in violence and hate speech, the environmental impacts of our infrastructure, and the use of the Internet to increase the vulnerability of the Internet and the possibilities and risks that arise with the evolution of artificial intelligence, another topic that has catalyzed the discussions on this edition. Therefore, to discuss our future, we cannot ignore this trajectory and the current challenges, especially in light of the dilemma that the Internet governance community faces. We have been discussing and participating in various different arenas, and the complexity shows no signs of decreasing. The WSIS Plus 20 and the Global Digital Compact are only two among all the processes being undertaken within the ecosystem, with much of them potentially overlapping in several streams. Concerns about the future have been growing and demand more transparency, support, and meaningful participations in discussions and decisions. In this context, multiple stakeholders are calling for avoiding the fragmentation of Internet governance arenas, splitting discussions about the Internet from those covering digital issues. Those topics are inseparable pairs, like two sides of the same coin. The challenges are intertwined, as Jordan said. Decisions about one impact the other. We all need to revisit the Tunis agenda, which remains extremely relevant in their essence and already addresses these integrated issues. Many of the goals established there are yet to be achieved, and the guiding principles are still fully valid. Our role as members of the Internet governance community community is to review our own mechanisms and institutions based on the principles promoted by the Tunis Agenda. Our current concern can be summarized in two major points. Avoid the fragmentation of the debate and the creation of competing governance spaces that could weaken multistakeholder participation, as we have unfortunately seen in the GDC construction process, which has resulted in uncertainty about its outcome. How to improve the IGF’s model of debate and participation so that it can address the challenges at hand, generate discussions that contribute to promoting insights for decision-making by various global stakeholders. To achieve this, we must fully embrace diversity to improve effective multistakeholder participation, which is essential for the future of the Internet. Cultural, linguistic, gender diversity, and as many other forms of diversity, are critical to driving our governance community. This is the path we have been pursuing in Brazil. The multistakeholder model is challenging because it brings together this diversity, gathering different perspectives, and we don’t always agree. But when we bring our differences to the table, rather than ignoring them, we all grow. Let’s take this opportunity to reflect on the achievements that the Internet governance community has already made, and how we can contribute to charging the paths to address the inequalities that feel exclusion. If achieving multistakeholder participation is crucial for any proposed solution to our Internet-related issues, include the so-called digital ones. And in our perspective, the IGF was, is, and must be the definitive place for these discussions to take place, in order to provide inputs that enable effective outcomes in other forums around the world. Thank you for the opportunity, and we continue.

Ana Neves:
Muito obrigada, Renata. Thank you very much, Renata. And now I will give the floor to Liz Fug, member of the IGF Leadership Panel. Liz, please.

Lise Fuhr:
Thank you, Ana, and good afternoon. First of all, thank you for the invitation to speak on this panel. We speak about many, many topics here at the IGF. We speak about security, innovation, skills, connectivity, sustainability. But exactly this topic that we’re discussing here comes first at a very important time, and it asks a very important question, because it’s the overall question of what is the future of Internet Governance Forum, and Internet Governance as such. But why is this timing important? Well, we’ve heard it both from our moderators and also the two panelists. We have the WSIS plus 20 coming up. But we also have a number of other policy initiatives underway in the UN, such as the Global Digital Compact, which will be a part of a wide-ranging summit for the future, driven by Secretary General Guterres. And we also see that there is now a tech envoy in the UN following developments in technology, but also governance. He’s also an ex officio member of the leadership panel. And here today, I speak as a member of the leadership panel. In my daily life, I am Director General of ETNO, which is a telecom trade association in Brussels. But be mindful, I speak as a leadership panel now. So if we look at IGF itself, we see there have been some innovations in the past year or two. So the UN Secretary General established and gave a mandate to the leadership panel. And you’ve heard from us last year and throughout this week. And as a leadership panel, we will also be serving until the next IGF. This is a panel of experts chaired by Vint Cerf. And we bring together the technical community, academia, civil society, private sector, and governments. And we have been working in our respective constituencies to raise the awareness of IGF and also amplify the messages of IGF. And one of the most important aspects of the leadership panel lately, but it will develop in the coming years, has been to set a framework of the internet we want. And we see this as forming a basis for a series of goals or objectives to support the development of an open, secure, right-respecting internet across the globe. We have set a framework, and that’s not meant that we will have a top-down process on this. We are now hoping that these principles will be unfold by and supported and the goals will be set by the global community. So we will consult broadly, not only as we used to call the internet, the international internet community. To me, we need to consult with the global community, because everyone uses the internet these days. We, as a leadership panel, we have also contributed to the work on the global digital compact by sharing with the co-facilitators the messages that we have seen and agreed with all of you. And it’s vitally important internet governance community. So you gave us input both in Addis Ababa, but also in 2021 in Katowice. So we, as a leadership panel, didn’t take our own position on this, but we tried to condense the input from the last two IGFs and conveyed it to the global digital compact consultation. So if we look at the gaps, we have talked about the gaps, and we see there is a lot of activity on many fronts. But I want to look at what aspects of internet governance need to be. we strengthen, because we as a leadership panel see it as we need to strengthen the IGF, because we see IGF as a part of Internet governance future. So for us, key is the representation and participation. We have seen a huge number of participants as this very IGF in Japan, more than 8,000. I heard numbers of 9,000 across the globe have signed up and followed both online and in person. But the UN reminds us that 2.6 billion people are still offline, and we are actually far from reaching the STGs and from harnessing the benefits of digital, which should get us there, and we think this is a virtual circle. At the same time, we also have to acknowledge that digital and Internet governance is no longer the sole remit of a small part of society and businesses. The uptake and impact of the Internet is now a whole of society matter. To me, the biggest gap is, and this is what should drive our work as a community, is we need a greater and more diverse participation at IGF. We should not be an echo chamber talking to each other of like-minded communities. What does that mean? That means greater industry participation, and not just tech and telecom companies. We need other sectors like banking, public administration, manufacturing, transportation, healthcare. All of them are using the Internet and connectivity in new ways. And I don’t mean only using, but these actors are actually employing high-skilled developers to create tailor-made digital solutions. So we need to see these people at IGF. And it means also more participation from legal professions. The Internet is now fundamental to our lives and economies. And with new challenges from security, to data protection, to workers’ rights, implication of new technologies, inequality, safety in the workplace, access in education, taking out a bank loan, signing up for an insurance, the applications are endless. And with that comes a need for highly qualified legal professionals, from solicitors, to barristers, to judges, and magistrates, to bring their expertise here, but also to learn from us, who are sitting here right now. So we all need to interact and we need to see these people here at the IGF. And it means consistently and constantly increasing participation from the global south. This is the group which needs access to high quality connectivity, devices, and skills. And they’re absolutely, they must be here to shape the internet we want. And again, we need to see these people here at IGF. So how do we get there? This is my last part. Speaking as a member of the leadership panel, I now, I know we have a role at this and an immense challenge. But we need to make a clear value proposition to these groups that I talked about. And this means strong and impactful outreach and showcasing IGF as a place where you can be a part of the process of how we want the internet to be tomorrow. We need to share with the peers and other sectors on the challenges and the opportunities of the internet and digital technology. And reinforcing the multi-stakeholder model. So a final word on the future of the internet governance. The internet we want can and should be an important component. of the global digital compact, and I believe that the GDC should be anchored in the IGF, and the IGF is a well-established, well-respected mechanism to monitor and implement the decisions taken by the multi-stakeholder community for the future of the Internet. Thank you.

Ana Neves:
Thank you very much, Liz, and thank you very much for putting in context all this Internet governance and the digital technologies and importance to reach all these different stakeholders from the healthcare, insurance companies, banking, et cetera, extremely important. So now I’m going to give the floor to our last speaker. No, sorry, not the last. Before the last one, Anita Gurumurthy, Executive Director, IT4Change India. Please, Anita.

Anita Gurumurthy:
Thank you so much. I think that some of the points I will make may perhaps take a note or two that are slightly different from my predecessors. We in our networks and in our organization believe that the crisis of digitality is entirely a crisis of its governance. So how do we reframe global digital governance, and how do we ensure that the future of global digital governance takes into account a world besieged by extreme inequality? The GDC process initiated by the Secretary-General precedes the 20th year review, as has already been mentioned, of the World Summit on the Information Society in 2025. The arrangements forged through the GDC must correspond to the momentous changes providing the normative directions and… key themes to inform the WSIS Plus 20 review process. But where do we begin, and what must we acknowledge? A productive and fruitful engagement with the GDC process requires recognition of a historical fault line, a democratic deficit that continues to mark the technical governance of the internet. Today’s geopolitical tensions are also rooted in the stranglehold over the digital economy of a few large transnational corporations from mainly two countries, the distressing degeneration of the public sphere, and the imponderables around the future of AI governance. With data and AI technologies decisively shaping value chains and market power in a pandemic-stricken world, public policy discussions on digital issues are also now part of the entire multilateral system, from digital trade to biodiversity, health, food, and oceans. So this is a story of contestation, complexity, and uncertainty. Where do we go from here? First, we do not want to be running in the same place as we invent the new institutions of tomorrow. The Secretary General’s July 2023 policy brief conceptualizes two main institutional arrangements, a tripartite digital policy space, which is termed the Digital Cooperation Forum for the short term, and a global commission on just and sustainable digitalization for the long term. The Digital Cooperation Forum and its tripartite dialogic mode seems to bring back echoes of the IGF. Caution is needed so that it does not simply reproduce all the flaws of the IGF with due respect to the strengths of the IGF. We know that dialogue is important, but public policy is more than dialogue. It is based on tenets of public interest and democratic deliberation. It cannot be held hostage to tokenistic representation and diversity optics. The Global Commission for a Reinvented Multilateralism is a worthwhile idea, but both these bodies must derive their mandate from the business plus 20 process built consultatively and democratically with engagement from civil society. Sadly, the most powerful countries from the global north do not want new arrangements. Please read their submissions online to the GDC consultation process. Second, we need to move from a technical idea of data governance to humanize it, to evolve rights adequate to the epoch of homo technicus. That data must flow freely, albeit with trust, is a refrain that strips the real politic of data governance, reducing any contention with the. We need a cross-border flow of data to the singular issue of data privacy guarantees. What we need is a new articulation of rights that accounts for people’s development sovereignty in the digital paradigm. A new narrative of data flows with rights, including the right to connectivity and data public goods, the right to be forgotten, the right to be represented or not in digital systems, data rights for algorithmic work environments, and so on. We need a people’s data and AI constitutionalism at the international level that is an instrument that also legitimizes people’s collective right to A, determine how aggregate data resources are utilized, and B, enjoy their rightful claims in the benefits of data-enabled intelligence. Without a bedrock of principles, the mechanisms to achieve coherence across the multilateral system cannot evolve. Third, without reining in the power of digital TNCs through mandatory obligations in all jurisdictions of their operation, global digital governance cannot encourage innovation, economic pluralism, or environmental sustainability. It cannot respect people’s rights. We are at an inflection point. The planet is not synthetic. We need ambition. Fourth, global digital governance calls for system wide rebooting. We need a reform of international financial institutions and the international tax regime for public finance of digital infrastructure development. The conversation must shift to public digital innovation ecosystems that are nurtured globally so that private enterprise can thrive everywhere and people can be connected on their terms. To conclude, the present of digital governance is not in a good place. This assessment is based on a simple counterfactual. Had we evolved governance institutions and mechanisms that were adequate to our digital coexistence, the information society would have been more like the aspirational values of the Geneva Declaration. It would have, and I quote, fostered justice and the dignity. and worth of the human person, it would have respected peace and upheld the fundamental values of freedom, equality, solidarity, tolerance, shared responsibility and respect for nature. All of this articulated in 2003. We are nowhere close. The test of successful digital cooperation would be in one core idea, the right to flourishing of people and the planet. This would mean public agora built on pluralism and inclusion, economies that thrive on peering and reciprocity, and societies of unlimited creativity and self-actualization. Thank you.

Ana Neves:
Thank you, Anita. Thank you very much. And now I’ll give the floor to our last speaker at this round, Timia Souto. She is Global Digital Policy Lead at the ICC.

Timea Suto:
Thank you, Ana, and thank you, panelists, and thanks for the audience for waiting until the last speaker. I promise we’ll turn it over soon. My name is Timia Souto. I’m Global Digital Policy Lead at the International Chamber of Commerce. For those of you who don’t know us, ICC is a global business organization encompassing members of over 45 million companies of all sectors and sizes all over the world. We are present in over 170 countries. And also, for those of you who don’t know us, ICC was the business focal point back at WSIS time almost 20 years ago. I haven’t myself been there 20 years ago, but I was at WSIS Plus 10, and I can’t believe it’s already been 10 years from then. So I can understand some of you who have been there, as I’ve raised since the beginning of how much has changed since then. And I want to start there today, taking a bit of stock of what has happened 20 years ago and where we are now. And what WSIS, as my fellow panelists said, created was this vision for a people-centered information society and has created also a So, what we did was we created a forum where that vision can be furthered, which is the IGF, as a nondecisional body to discuss public policy issues related to Internet governance, but most importantly, what this has created was this concept of multistakeholderism, coined this concept of multistakeholderism, and, as I said, I wasn’t there, but I’ve heard from many of you how difficult it was to make that happen, how the governmental organizations, civil society, tech companies, the technical community, really bang on the doors of the negotiating room to be let in and have their voice. And what has happened since is, I’m going to quote what is written in our common agenda in paragraph 93, where United Nations Secretary General says, United Nations governments, the private sector, and civil society could come together as a multistakeholder digital technology track in preparation for the summit of the future to agree on a global digital compact. Right? So, it’s no banging on the doors, no asking to be let in, it’s an invitation to commonly come together and create something. So, that is, I think, an achievement on its own. Now, to Jordan’s point, is the IGF perfect? Is our Internet governance world perfect? Is multistakeholderism perfect? No, it’s not. Nothing is. There is room for improvement. There is room to build on what we’ve achieved. There is room to make it stronger. It should be doing that. But I also think we also need to think about, as we think towards the gaps so that I can get to the point of what I want to, what you’ve asked me to answer, we need to think about what the IGF is and what it isn’t, what it was created for, what it is, what it is not, and how we really use it effectively. So, is IGF going to solve universal connectivity? No, it will not. But it will bring together, it does bring together telecommunications companies, tech companies, We are working with the world’s largest digital markets, the world’s largest development banks, governments, to discuss what’s going on and to make it happen. There are projects that were born here at the IGF, they are now running over the world to do just that. Will it set technical standards? No, it will not, but it will bring together the technologists, the engineers, civil society organizations, human rights activists to make sure that the standards that we have in place, the standards that we have in place, will be implemented. Will it set norms for cyber security? No, it will not set norms for cyber security, but it brings together all the actors that can assess if those norms are properly implemented, and it can hold us accountable, all of us, if we’re doing our part or not. Will it set policies on responsible trustworthy AI? No, it will not, but it will bring together the policy makers that do that. Will it set standards for the public? No, it will not, but it will bring together all the stakeholders that can assess if those standards are properly implemented, and it can hold us accountable, all of us, if we’re doing our part, if we’re doing our part. That is what the IGF is. It is a convener for all of us to come together and see have we come far enough from that vision that was set 20 years ago, what else is necessary to do, and are the right people in the room, as Lisa said, is everyone here? Now, yes, there are gaps. There are gaps in the work that we’re doing, and we need to think about how do we create an awareness gap that is very dangerous, because that awareness gap makes others think that new things should be created, that it’s not good enough. We need to also think about what we do achieve. Have we marketed it properly? Have we shared that properly to the people that are not here, and have we made them aware in their own terms so that So I think we have to be very careful about what we say. We have to be very careful about what we say. So I think we have to open up our own IGF community that we have created and go directly and speak to others that are not here to make them part of it, and that only is possible if we properly share what the outputs of this forum are, what they can be, and what the values are, what the success stories are, and I think we have a bit longer way to go to do that.

Avri Doria:
So I think we have to be very careful about what we say and what we do. So thank you all for coming in with your perspectives. I’d like to invite the rest of you, the other participants who are sitting in those seats, to come up. We have, I guess, 38 minutes left on the timer of this, so I’d like to give as much time. Please come to the microphone, introduce yourself, and then comment either on what you heard or your own idea of what you want to say. And then we’ll have a chance to hear from the rest of you.

Audience:
Thank you very much. My name is Carlos Vera, I’m from Ecuador, and I must agree with two main ideas from the panel. A human-centered discussion, and also, as Jordan say, let’s maintain the multi-stakeholder model. This is essential. We have to have a strong, open, and transparent discussion in that panel. Now, there are six women, one man. It’s working. Thank you.

Avri Doria:
Thank you. Please, there are one, two, three, I count four microphones up there. There must be opinions, there must be comments. Otherwise, if you guys don’t have the comments, do you have any? I’m going to ask our online, and where is our online moderator to tell us? Yes, do we have any? No? Yes, we do. So can you please come up? read. Oh, well, please come to the microphone, if that’s okay. We do have a few comments, though. We have two hands up. I don’t know if you want to bring them in, but they’re on the Zoom. Oh, sure. If there are people that wish, yeah. I don’t have that showing on my, so please. There’s Ayalu with his hand up, his or her hand up. Oh, yeah. Please, are you unmuted and able to speak? Yes, please, go ahead.

Audience:
Can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you. Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity to put my question and opinions, and I joined IGF last year in Addis Ababa. My name is Ayalu Shibeshi. I’m born in Ethiopia. I’m working and studying in Australia. My research area is fiat, physical fiat currency or digital fiat currency and CDBC with accessibility and traceability. So if anyone interested, let me know. My question, I have two questions, and I have three proposals. The first question is how the nature of the Internet and Internet technology be inclusive and fairness with practical application while the government shut down and misuse Internet services. That’s one question. Two, is it possible to fully access technology via the Internet as a digital public infrastructure ecosystem while owned by the government or the nations of the country which is without international Internet governance So these are my questions. If you allow me to elaborate, I can propose my, read my proposal, or I have three proposals, or you can read it. It depends. It will take me another two, three minutes. Please go ahead. Okay. Advanced technologies such as AI, blockchain, quantum computing, and IOT, EOT, NFC, and NFT, all these technologies generate huge amount of data or information. These days, data or information is a wealth. The wealth accumulated in developed nations. All these technologies perform activities and services via the Internet. First, the need for United Nations Internet governance law. Dear participants, let us think about the root cause of the current Internet connectivity, major problems such as by the name of freedom of speech and democracy, universal human rights and unrestricted democracy and freedom of inclusive connectivity, EGC, affected local government and countries unable to control the internet and it distracts the country and the country shut down the internet. There is no accountability and also there is no international law to stop them. Second, we need to educate the cyber security because that’s the internet. We must start education cyber hackers to behave as a human nature, a natural human being, behave professionally and ethically, applying natural law rather than natural law with more soft skill rather than using the hard skill and if we all perform any task with integrity, honesty, humanity, kindness, apply responsibility and accountability for equitable benefit of all human beings, all humankind as a global society including all nations and benefit of this earth. The last question, the last suggestion, the third, current existing working system of the internet must be evaluated. We must break the current cycle of the world society governing system which is dominated everything by developed nations, even before the internet. We must build a new system that matches suitable, applicable and rapid advanced technology interest to all nations nationwide fully agreed and signed by the United Nations Internet Governance Forum and the ITU which is a member of all international countries of telecommunication Unless otherwise we don’t have standard regulations to accountable all each countries, we will not be rich and inclusiveness of the internet. I really appreciate it for giving me this time. Thank you so much.

Avri Doria:
Thank you very much. Really appreciate it. Now we have one person at a microphone and And we have another remote. So I think I’ll go with the microphone, and then I’ll go to the next remote, and then I’ll come back to the microphone, if that’s okay. So please, sir, introduce yourself.

Audience:
Thank you. And thank you for the rich discussion and the really hopeful proposals, I think, outlined today. My name is Peter Mysek. I’m general counsel at Access Now. I wanted to actually present the results of a discussion earlier this week. Civil Society met on day zero in a session about scoping of the Global Digital Compact. We had a diverse group inside and outside the room, and we’re able to reach a rough consensus on ways to really strengthen the process of the Global Digital Compact and ensure that it is representative and meets the kind of high and lofty goals that we’ve heard laid out. The three areas that we focused on, if I could present, were around transparency and responsiveness, synergies and coherency, scope, and then a bit of background. So first on transparency and responsiveness, we all have spent a lot of time already. There’s been a lot of opportunities to input into the Global Digital Compact, the deep dives led by the tech envoy office, regional collaborations and convenings, but we don’t know how these inputs are being used. We don’t know what the outputs will look like. We have only seen in the last couple months a very short paper from the co-facilitators of the process that we think doesn’t really reflect the rich discussions. And so getting more meaningful multi-stakeholder processes that are gender inclusive, that include clear, responsive feedback loops and the inclusion. of all stakeholders by design is really key. If there are to be multilateral discussions on the GDC, we need to know the timelines ahead of time. If they’re going to be in person, applying for visas to attend those is going to take time. And member states should take care to include civil society in their delegations. On synergies and coherency, we really echo what you’ve said about rooting the outcomes of the GDC in the IGF. And we are, this week, using the IGF itself to strengthen the Global Digital Compact. And we reach rough consensus that the IGF is an open and inclusive forum, and ever more so every year, we hope, and should not be replaced or duplicated by another forum, especially one based in a global north city that carries environmental costs and very real costs to attend and participate in. Finally, on scope, we want to redouble efforts to involve the technical community. Acknowledging that internet governance is broader than technical discussions, we think those are key stakeholders that really succeeded during the stress test of COVID when systems suddenly went online, and we all depended on the internet for our basic daily work, the horizontal technical governance succeeded. And we wish to kind of re-invoke and involve them in these discussions. So that’s where I’ll leave it. Again, that’s a rough consensus from civil society on Sunday. Thanks.

Avri Doria:
Thank you very much. OK, I just want to point out where we are. I have a Deborah Allen now who’s online. Then I have two people at microphones and one to read. So I think I’m going to call that the cues for now, given the time. So please, Deborah.

Audience:
Thank you very much. Hello, everyone, and thank you for hearing me on this panel. I want to make a couple of real quick comments to amplify the work you’re doing about what you all just said. Get the word out and participation. I mean, the fact that I’m, to introduce myself, I’m in the Hague. I’m from New York City, but I have a nonprofit here in the Hague called Find Out Why to promote digital fluency. We work with the European Internet Forum. And Lisa, I saw you in DC this summer at the Transatlantic Partnership. So this is an example of civil society getting on the mic at the panel. And I just want to commend all of you and say that it’s happening. It’s doing. You’re doing, right? Because here I am. That’s proof. That’s number one. The second comment was get the word out. Because of the fact that you’re in Kyoto, I’m wondering if anybody is familiar with the Peace Boat or peaceboat.org. Everybody should check it out for real because it’s one of the things. It’s phenomenal. It’s been around for quite some time. And it is an organization that, in terms of the digital, OK, let me see. me think how to put this. The digital era is quite young. There’s still a lot to be designed. And there’s a lot of convening that will happen just because of the fact that we’re designing this thing as we go, like one does with peace. And what the Peace Boat does, it carries various projects and campaigns to promote peace, human rights and sustainability, working with partner organizations and individuals in Japan, Northeast Asia and around the world. It uses local grassroots actions, international conferences, global networking, etc. Okay. But it’s an actual giant boat that goes around the world, building friendships for peace. And I think we could do the same. I mean, if there’s somebody that could fund it, obviously, to convene people on a mass, I mean, when you look at peaceboat.org and imagine it, it’s it’s something that we could get the word out we could use to get the word out because we’re in a new stage. And this is a design comment and idea. And my last question is, or my only question is, a lot of times I think in the conferences, we get so general, and I think that we’re all when we convene, we know that we need to do this, we need to do that. I’m super curious about one of the things that you’ve done at IGF, that you’re most proud of that you’ve seen have a big impact, because I know it’s there. And constantly hearing generalizations about what we should do and could do is, I think, less the point and more let’s get psyched about what we are doing. But yeah, thank you very much for giving me time on the mic.

Avri Doria:
Thank you. And I’m going to ask everybody here to remember the questions so that we when we unwind, after the last two speakers, we’ll be able to answer any of the questions that are pending. I think I’ll go to that mic first, because I think I saw you there first. And then we’ll go to Bertrand. And then I’ll read two statements that I’ve received, please. Oh, and there’s a person there. I’m sorry. One, two, three. Okay. Please.

Audience:
Brief to make space for everybody. My name is Emma Gibson. I’m with the Alliance for Universal Digital Rights, or AUDREY for short. And we were part of a number of organizations who launched these 10 feminist principles for including gender in the global digital compact. We did that on Saturday. And one of the principles is around around increasing the leadership of women in Internet governance and policymaking, so it was great to hear one of the contributors talking about the makeup of the panel and the success there. So really my question is around how important do you think the issue of gender is in Internet and digital governance? Thank you.

Avri Doria:
Add it to your questions. Bertrand, can I ask you a favor? I was just told that he had been waiting there forever, and it was my absence, so please. That’s what I thought, actually. Okay, thank you very much. Please.

Audience:
Thank you, Chair. I’ll try to be brief. I’m one of the authors of the Geneva Principles, that is to say, one of the state’s representatives in Geneva in December 2003, one of the many authors, so I have a stake in that. I’d just like to appeal for some recognition of the principles. The whole process has principles. They were developed 20 years ago, and nobody in this forum has actually mentioned principles. We’ve mentioned frameworks, we’ve mentioned action lines, many other processes, but it might be a good thing to go back and review the principles and just tick off what’s been done against those principles, because they took a lot of discussion. You would not believe how much discussion it took to actually agree on what are fairly simple principles. It took us a week to develop principles. Another comment that has been made this afternoon is that we need to have some sort of attention to the legal basis, or maybe the intellectual basis. of the work we’re doing. Well, for a legal basis, there was also, back in Geneva in December 2003, a huge amount of debate on the preamble for those principles, and there was a strong opposition at the summit to including references to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We managed by open debate, strong debate, to overcome that opposition, and we have now, we included the UDHR in the preamble of the Geneva Principles. That is the basis of a fairly good approach to, you know, legal consideration of the basis for the internet. So, take it back a few steps and review that document. It’s like tablets of stone, it’s the beginning, okay? This is the beginning. It’s like tablets of stone, it’s the beginning, okay? This is a suggestion. Thank you.

Avri Doria:
No, thank you very much. And before you wander off, please, because I can’t even really see you, because of the light in my eyes. Could you please introduce yourself?

Audience:
I’m sorry. Winston Roberts. I was, way back 20 years ago, a representative of New Zealand at the WSIS in Geneva. Now, working for an NGO, IFLA representing the global library sector. I love IFLA. That is access to information. Thank you very much. Also, the Nation Line. I’ll stop now.

Avri Doria:
No, I think it’s great, and I did read it once for the classroom, but I think going back to it is great. Thank you for the suggestion. Bertrand, please.

Bertrand de Chapelle:
Good afternoon. My name is Bertrand de la Chapelle. I’m the Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network, and the Chief Vision Officer of the Data Sphere Initiative. A few points. The first thing is, I love the title of this panel, because it’s the future of Internet governance, and we need to make sure that it contains both the future of the IGF, but it’s only a portion of the discussion of the future of Internet governance. And when we talk about Internet governance, I’m sorry to repeat myself, there’s this distinction between between governance of and governance on the internet. And the governance of the internet as a whole range, an ecosystem of organizations, they’re not perfect, but as has been said before, it is what kept us together as an infrastructure during the period of the pandemic. The governance on the internet, however, is a scattered piece of institutions that are working in silos, mostly intergovernmental, but also individual initiatives. And at the moment, it is what Laura Denardis has described as an inchoate system. It’s just an embryonic thing. So when we talk about the future of internet governance, I think there is a third layer, which is we’re talking actually about the governance, internet and the governance in the digital age. And governance in the digital age, and going back to what Jordan was saying, the key question that is in front of us is what is the digital society we want to build? And I like, although I don’t always agree with Anita, I agree that there are fundamental questions that are political questions regarding what is the internet and the digital society or the information society we want to build, and that’s what is in front of us. A more concrete thing to pick on what Jordan was saying, but in the reverse order, the resources for the IGF is a competition in hypocrisy. It is unacceptable that anybody complains, particularly among governments, about what the IGF doesn’t produce when the contributions are barely supporting a staff that is half the size of my own organization. This is unacceptable. That being said, this is one of the reasons why you cannot do more with what we have, and the IGF is just one of the building blocks that we need to build upon, which brings to the second point that he mentioned, which is the notion of coordination, and Timea was mentioning very rightly that the goal is not to make the IGF deal with everything at all levels. We have the dynamic coalitions. their first step towards what could be called issue-based networks that can be catalyzed in the environment of the IGF, where on an issue-by-issue basis the relevant stakeholders in a multi-stakeholder fashion get together to address an issue and report every year on what they’re doing within the IGF, on top of the dynamic coalition so that it’s operational. Finally, on the question of ambition, I said already that this is about the digital society we want to build. I like the reference, and there is a bunch of us in here, we were there at the WSIS, and the question of what is the digital society we want to build is actually a recognition that every single evolution of the communication in humanity, be it language, be it writing, or be it the printing press, has changed dramatically the way society is organized, and history is basically the effort of mankind to organize in larger and more and more interconnected communities. We have the challenge of organizing the coexistence of 7 billion people, 5 billion or 7 billion people connected online, and I want to finish by quoting this expression that has been attributed to Kofi Annan, I don’t know whether it is really him who said it, but at least his reference as having said that, in designing the governance for the internet or the internet age, we need to be as innovative as the people who invented it. We invented this new thing with the IGF, and I carry here the bag from the first IGF in 2006, which shows that it is sustainable by the way, but I think the challenge is what is the governance architecture that we need in the digital age, and this is why the title of this panel is a good one.

Avri Doria:
Thank you. Sir, I had already closed the queue, I think, before you came up, so… The queue was already closed, so I’m sorry. I’m going to read two that were submitted online, and then I’m going to go back to the panel. So please forgive me, but the queue had been closed. Yeah, so. Can I make a very short one? A very short one? Yeah. But I had already closed the queue, and I already chased two people away from the other line. That is only the exception. No. We also have this one. My question, what is the position of leadership panel on the nature of existing internet? Internet is a peaceful, development-oriented, and civilian environment, or internet as new battlefield for cyber warfare and as a weaponized tool against other nations. Do we need a global declaration to recognize internet as a peaceful and civilian-only environment? What would be the contribution of the IGF in this regard? That was a question from Amir Mokaberi. Hopefully, I pronounced the name somewhat close. And this comment from Segun Ulugbile. Again, forgive me. It is time to move from the IGF chambers discussion into action. Considering global efforts of the UN Digital Compact, IGF should start evolving into internet and digital governance forum. Many stakeholders speak to digital governance far more in contrast to internet governance. There can be no internet without the digital, but there can be digital without the internet. Time to converge these two most important critical elements of our modern life. People now interact through a digital sharing system without necessarily being on the internet. The ecosystem needs to be proactive and creative, as well as to transform the global internet and digital ecosystems into a unified space for peace, innovation, and development. So I’ve read those two. Now what I’d like to do is sort of unwind the panel, but basically from one edge to the other. Try and keep it to like two minutes, given that we haven’t much time and we did speak extensively at the beginning. And see if you can catch some of the questions, please. Thank you.

Timea Suto:
Thanks, Aubrey. I’ll try. And we have quite a few questions. I think I want to speak to maybe three of them. One is, what can we do to really address the gaps that we’ve been talking about? I think in this evolving nature of Internet governance, digital governance, is the IGF equipped to do digital governance, et cetera? It already sort of does, in my personal opinion. It has evolved from discussing purely Internet governance in the beginning to basically anything and everything that concerns digital, and that’s fine, that’s okay. It’s evolved organically. It is a bit crowded, though, sometimes. A good friend of mine sometimes says it’s like drinking from a fire hose. So we need to focus, right? We can discuss everything, but we cannot discuss everything at the same time. Look at how the SDGs are discussed at the global community, for example. We have 17 of them. We pick one or two each year, get together, have a political forum. We discuss progress, how it went, go away, take two others next year. We cannot do everything at the same time, and that needs to be, I think, recognized. Two, how important is gender? Extremely. The one thing, I think it was Doreen on one of the panels earlier this week, she said as the digital divides are shrinking in certain areas, as connectivity is shrinking, connectivity divide is shrinking, the gender divide is persistent. So as we get more people online, but as we get more people online, the gender divide remains the same between them. So gender is a critical issue, but it’s not an issue on its own. It’s an issue in everything we do, and we need to have the gender glasses on. We need to mainstream gender into conversations. It’s not something that you have to have a gender session at a conference or you have to have a gender track at the IGF. It needs to be in everything we do organically. And then third, what have we done that is a success? We’ve done this. First of all, we’ve gone very far with the multi-stakeholder model. We still have an IGF that convenes thousands of people every year, but we have dynamic coalitions, as Bertrand said. We have best practice forum. So, I think we have to be very careful about that. I think we have to be very careful about that, because if we don’t know how to produce outputs, what we haven’t done is talk about them so that other people know. So, I think I really don’t want to forget that.

Avri Doria:
Thank you. Anita, please, two minutes, or there.

Anita Gurumurthy:
Thank you. Just a couple of points. I do think that a co-proposition that the technical is also important, but I do think that a co-proposition of the Internet would also require a certain idea that it belongs to, it is a common heritage of humankind that is backed legitimately by some kind of public law. To address Bertrand, I’m very happy that we were able to meet more than halfway on something. The problem, I think, sometimes with a forum like the IGF is there is a lot of confirmation bias. There is a lot of bias, and, in fact, there are a lot of people who research and advocate around the Internet on what confirmation bias means, what a filter bubble means. So, if only you spoke to many like me, maybe there would be many more people who disagree with many people here at the IGF. That’s because there are people we work with on digital sequence information and synthetic biology, where natural resources management is today in huge conflict with data about natural resources in the world. We work with civil society, where you really don’t know what to do when public data sets are taken away from your governments by transnational digital companies, we work with indigenous people whose traditional knowledge and data ownership are two sides of the same coin. These are the majority world, they are 80 per cent of the world. In some ways, they are not present here at the IGF. They are not present in the world. They are not there in the world, but they are not present in the world. So, we need to think about the contributions. The COVID pandemic has been mentioned. Pathogen data is being given by countries from Africa into the corpus of the WHO, but the benefits occurring from pharmacological research from that data set is not going back to Africa. It’s going into the patent system controlled by a few corporations. governance on the Internet and governance of digital society? No. Because all existence is hybrid. And all our reality is hybrid. We are homo technicus, and I will leave that thought with you, because I do agree with Renata that it’s a futile argument to look at this except as two sides of the same coin. Thank you.

Renata Mielli:
Thank you, Avril. I would like to comment the aspect of gender, and I think it’s not enough to simply increase. It’s important, of course, and I’m glad to be here with one, two, three, four, five, six marvellous women in this panel, but I want to put something. It’s not enough to simply increase the diversity of participation. The diversity needs to be reflecting decision-making spaces. My presence here today also reflects the long-term transformations driving by multistakeholder discussions, not only within CGI, but also in the Brazilian community as a whole. I’m only here because I’m the first female coordinator of the Internet Theory Committee in Brazil since its creation in 1995. Another comment briefly is about the challenges we are facing here, about the future of Internet, the future of governance, the Internet and the digital, and the main principle of this effort, what Internet do you want? And I think, oh, my God, what world do you want to build for the future, for our kids, for our children? And I think maybe we have the, we agreed with the problems, with the diagnosis, and maybe we need to profound the solutions to face these problems we have today involving the governance in our community, and that’s why, and I’m going to put this as a commentary, that’s why I think. I think we have to deepen the debate about the gaps we have to fulfill to the IGF, and to address this discussion, as much of you have heard, CGI has recently decided to advance the dialogues and informal consultations with various stakeholders throughout the ecosystem to the opportunity, feasibility, and adherence to a possible event in Brazil in 2024 to discuss and produce a multistakeholder consensus on these themes we are discussing there, just to put this to everybody to think about it. Thank you.

Avri Doria:
Thank you very much. Lisa, please.

Lise Fuhr:
Thank you. We’ve discussed many crucial aspects of the future of Internet governance here today, and I’ve heard the principles that actually we build on are extremely important. I hear transparency of the choices taken by IGFs is important, and I agree, and also the substance of what we discuss is, of course, important, but we need to be open and inclusive. The challenges, again, have all the relevant parties involved. This means all genders to me, and I think gender is still an important one, but we also hear about different nationalities, and people need to be involved, and I completely agree. Funding of the Secretariat, yes, it is a very small Secretariat. We need to have stronger funding for the Secretariat because their task has grown bigger, and there it’s extremely important. Jordan talked about ambition, and I think ambition is a key for us. We need to have an ambition to develop and evolve IGF, but, again, there is a strong support and also in the leadership panel for human-centric Internet, the multi-stakeholder model needs to remain, so one last thing is we need to raise the profile of IGF. We need to set the agenda getting new participation on shaping the Internet for the future. Thank you.

Jordan Carter:
I’m not going to try and tackle specific questions. The first is, if this stuff is so important, we need to resource it properly, you know? There are as many people in my policy and stakeholder engagement team as there are in the IGF Secretariat. Similar story to Beton. The people with the checkbooks, and the biggest checkbooks are the governments, I think we need to take another look at this digital governance question and change the way we think about it. The second thing is, the profound political and governance issues that have been tabled in this panel, themselves could have used a lot more expansion and contest here, because we had an interesting discussion. I’m fascinated by some of what I’ve heard. I’m going to rush off to another session, and it’s the second to last day, and we go. So I wonder whether we’re actually paying enough attention to Internet governance, and I think that’s a challenge that comes here, because, you know, there are sexy issues, there’s the importance of AI, there are a hundred different topics on the agenda, and then we don’t get into the real foundations of the model that we’re sort of just swimming in. So I think that’s an observation that I offer. The third, I guess, is the reminder to look back at the principles that have come before, because you don’t always have to revisit the principles that have come before, you can reinvent or invent new things. Sometimes there are foundations that are out there that can be the basis of what we need to do. So just some reflections back.

Avri Doria:
Thank you, and I really like what’s been said. I really very much enjoy the symphony of provocative voices, and I, like you, wish we had been spent all day on this kind of discussion,

Ana Neves:
going through it, and with that, I give you the last word. Yes, so we are about to finish, but I’d like to emphasise as co-moderator something that was being said here, so I think that all the interventions from our speakers and from the audience, both here and online, they were very rich, very productive, and they will enlighten us for the future, and this future. So the session is called, you know, what is the future of AI? The session is called the future of digital governance. It is something that we reflect together on what we were talking about, and Bertrand said again something that he’s been telling for several years. We are talking about two different things, it’s governance of the internet and governance on the internet, and I think that with that … I think that we understand much better what we are talking about. It’s about the future of the Internet in the digital age nowadays, as it was in the information society age in the 90s, and then in the knowledge-based economies in the 20s, in the cyber in the 10s, and now we are talking about digital. But in two years we will be talking about something else. But one thing that will be always here is the Internet. So we are here for the Internet and to make it a weapon for peace, something for us as a good thing for humankind. Thank you very much. A big applause to our speakers. Thank you. Thank you.

Dulce Soares

The analysis of the given statements highlights several key points and perspectives on various topics. Firstly, it is revealed that Timor-Leste faces limitations in its internet infrastructure and usage. The average download speed is low, ranging from 4 to 4.5 MB per second, and access to high-speed internet is limited in rural areas. Furthermore, only 49.6% of the population uses the internet, primarily for work and social media purposes. This situation indicates a significant gap in internet accessibility and connectivity in the country.

Climate change is identified as a pressing challenge for Timor-Leste. The country has been affected by global climate events such as the El Niño crisis in 2015 and the occurrence of the La Niña event in 2020. These events demonstrate the vulnerability of Timor-Leste to the impact of climate change and the need for effective strategies and actions to mitigate its effects.

In terms of investments in technology for climate change adaptation and resilience, it is observed that these projects tend to be expensive and highly technical, often requiring fly-in-fly-out technicians. Unfortunately, these investments do not always drive growth or long-term development. This finding suggests that there may be a lack of consideration for sustainable and inclusive approaches in climate change adaptation initiatives in Timor-Leste.

On a positive note, the private sector is highlighted as having the potential to contribute to climate change mitigation. By collaborating with grassroots organizations and implementing sustainable technology solutions, the private sector can play an effective role in addressing climate change challenges. For instance, Simili, a company mentioned in one statement, is involved in initiatives such as creating alert systems for local communities to manage water resources and practice better environmental practices. This example exemplifies how collaboration and the implementation of sustainable technology solutions can yield positive outcomes in addressing climate change.

The importance of collaboration and inclusion of diverse voices in internet governance and the sustainable digital society is emphasized. Dulce Soares, who has been working on the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) for over a decade, advocates for integrating more voices from different sectors. This approach encourages a broader and more inclusive perspective in decision-making processes related to internet governance and sustainability.

The structuralist business model in our digital society is criticized for its negative environmental impact. Without substantial changes to this model, it will be difficult to balance the beneficial use of digital technology with its environmental consequences. This observation highlights the need for a more sustainable and responsible approach to digitalization and technological advancement.

From a developing country perspective, there is a focus on learning from best practices in digitalization. By integrating technology with existing best practices, it becomes possible to harness the benefits of digitalization and drive positive change, particularly in areas such as education and capacity building. Additionally, it is argued that promoting user understanding of technology before its deployment is crucial. This approach ensures that individuals can fully comprehend and effectively utilize technological solutions.

Finally, the importance of creating a more inclusive environment among sustainability actors is recognized. Encouraging collaborations between businesses, private sectors, government, and international agencies can foster more effective and holistic approaches to sustainable development. Such collaborations can leverage the strengths and resources of different sectors to address sustainability challenges more comprehensively.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the limitations in internet infrastructure and usage in Timor-Leste, as well as the significant challenges posed by climate change. It underscores the need for investment in sustainable and inclusive technology solutions, collaboration among different sectors, and the promotion of user understanding. These findings provide valuable insights into various aspects of internet governance, environmental sustainability, and technological advancement, and underscore the importance of addressing these issues collectively to foster a more inclusive and sustainable society.

Audience

The analysis consists of multiple arguments and stances presented by different speakers, all discussing topics related to sustainable digitisation and environmental protection. One recurring theme throughout the analysis is the importance of international cooperation for sustainable digitisation. Hanna Bause, representing the Dutch Initiative for Sustainable Digitisation, emphasises the need for global cooperation in this regard. The argument made here is that without international collaboration, achieving sustainable digitisation becomes more challenging.

Another significant point raised in the analysis is the lack of developing standards for sustainability in the global digital system. One speaker questions the present status of these standards and argues that there should be more focus on developing them. The supporting facts for this argument are not explicitly mentioned, but the speaker’s stance suggests that there is a gap in the development of sustainability standards in the digital system.

Standards, however, are not entirely overlooked. Another argument presented is that standards for sustainable infrastructure and the integration of microgrids into larger grids are being developed. These standards aim to create more sustainable infrastructure overall. The argument made here is that standards, when developed for global use, can lead to regulation.

The importance of adopting sustainable standards for accelerating the transition towards sustainable digitisation is another key point in the analysis. The argument presented is that by embracing sustainable standards, the shift towards sustainable digitisation can be expedited. However, no supporting facts are provided for this particular argument.

The need for a standard to measure the carbon footprint of small organisations is also highlighted. The analysis points out that while over 90% of enterprises globally are small or medium-sized, contributing more than 50% of global GDP, there are currently no frameworks for these organisations to participate in the carbon economy. The argument made is that a standard to measure their carbon footprint is necessary.

In addition to the above, the analysis touches on the potential collaboration between organisations working on AI and environmental protection. One speaker expresses an interest in seeing cooperation between Axel’s organisation, which utilises AI for environmental protection, and the AI research centre in Congo, Brazzaville, which aims to mitigate the effects of climate change. The argument suggested is that collaboration between these entities can lead to the effective implementation of AI and emerging technologies to address climate change.

The connection between internet governance and environmental policymaking is another topic of discussion. Chris, one of the speakers, suggests that the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and other internet governance structures should connect more with environmental policymaking. The argument made is that a stronger connection between these domains can lead to better environmental policies for the digital sector.

Sustainable living and education on sustainability are also addressed in the analysis. Limited sustainable living options in cities are noted, suggesting the need for more sustainable alternatives in urban contexts. Additionally, the importance of education on sustainability is emphasised. One speaker highlights the United Nations Staff Systems College, where they attended training on the sustainability of lifestyles.

The conclusion drawn from the analysis is that international cooperation is vital for sustainable digitisation. Developing standards and regulations for sustainability in the global digital system is necessary, and the adoption of sustainable standards can accelerate the transition towards sustainable digitisation. The analysis also highlights the need for standards to measure the carbon footprint of small organisations and the potential for collaboration between AI organisations and research centres. Additionally, the connection between internet governance and environmental policymaking is emphasised, as well as the importance of sustainable technology and standardisation. The analysis concludes by suggesting the need for collective data collection and sharing, as well as the proposal for a platform for information sharing. Finally, the role of industry players in internet governance and the significance of guidelines for appropriate actions are highlighted, along with the necessity for more sustainable living options and education on sustainability.

Kemely Camacho

During the discussion, speakers addressed the intersection of digital technology, the environment, and society. They emphasised the importance of integrating respect for cosmovision into technology development. They mentioned that technology produced for or by white men, known as Okama Sway, should be approached with caution, while technology produced by the air, known as Kama Sway, should be considered. This perspective seeks to acknowledge and incorporate diverse cultural and environmental knowledge in the digital world.

The speakers also highlighted the feminist movement’s emphasis on care for people, collective wellbeing, and the planet when using technology. They argued that digital technology should not only benefit individuals but also contribute to the greater good of society. The social solidarity economic movement stressed responsible consumption and balance in technology usage, advocating for a more sustainable and equitable approach.

Regarding the relationship between digital technology and the environment, the speakers asserted that harm to the environment should be minimized. They emphasized the need for responsible consumption and production in digital technologies to align with the goal of sustainable development. They also called for digital technologies to support community organization and citizen participation, encouraging technology to be a tool for collective action and social progress.

The speakers further emphasized the importance of connecting with other social movements, particularly environmental movements. They argued that collaboration and joint proposals are crucial to addressing the complex challenges our world faces. They highlighted the potential for digital technology to support and strengthen environmental movements, underscoring the need for interaction between digital rights movements and environmental movements.

The speakers also emphasized the need for increased integration, understanding, and dissemination of information about the impact of the digital society on the environment. They stressed that all relevant stakeholders, including different generations and movements, should be included in these discussions to ensure a holistic approach to addressing the challenges. The speakers also suggested establishing a common platform to enhance understanding and raise awareness about the issues at hand.

Finally, speakers advocated for a shift in practices within the digital society to achieve a balance between utility and destruction. They argued for less connectivity for those who are already well-connected and more connectivity for those who are not connected, thereby reducing inequalities and promoting a fairer digital society.

In conclusion, the discussion highlighted the need for a sustainable approach to digital technology, one that integrates respect for various perspectives, prioritizes care for people and the planet, and promotes social solidarity. The integration of environmental and social movements, collaboration between stakeholders, and the dissemination of information were identified as key strategies for achieving these goals. Furthermore, a balanced approach to connectivity and responsible consumption and production in the digital space were proposed as crucial elements in creating a sustainable and equitable digital society.

Maike Lukien

The analysis explores arguments and stances regarding the importance of standards and sustainability. One key argument states that standards developed for global use are not limited to any jurisdiction. This highlights the need for uniform international standards. Regarding sustainability, it is noted that many standards are created specifically to promote sustainable infrastructure, considering environmental and social responsibility.

Another argument emphasizes the need for adopting standards to measure the carbon footprint of small organizations. With over 90% of enterprises globally being small or medium-sized and contributing significantly to the global GDP, measuring and reducing their carbon footprint is crucial for sustainability.

The European product tagging initiative is highlighted as an important argument. This initiative will have a global impact and enable individuals and organizations to make informed choices by “voting with their wallets.” Implementing product tagging allows consumers to support sustainable practices and responsible consumption and production.

The analysis also underscores the importance of policymakers having up-to-date information for evidence-based decisions. Technological advancements and industry growth often outpace policy and regulation development. Policymakers need to stay informed to ensure relevant and effective policies.

Additionally, rapid technological development, especially in the nuclear industry, requires policymakers to reassess and update strategies. Small modular reactors hold potential for clean energy in remote communities, and regulations must keep up with these advancements.

Collaboration and cooperation across jurisdictions, sectors, and civil society are vital for achieving a sustainable biosphere. The analysis emphasizes the need for multidimensional collaboration, as discussed during a sustainability panel. Tackling complex issues requires partnerships and collective efforts.

Accountability frameworks are also highlighted as necessary. Certain large companies lack adequate accountability frameworks, suggesting the need for guidelines and mechanisms for responsible practices.

The analysis also stresses the importance of measuring impact, being accountable, and revising decisions. Ongoing evaluation and improvement are needed to achieve sustainability goals.

Addressing sustainability is a complex problem amid competing interests and urgent issues. Balancing economic, social, and environmental considerations and finding solutions pose challenges.

Lastly, inclusivity is emphasized in relation to sustainability. It is argued that sustainability should be integrated into every project, ensuring no individual or group is left behind.

In conclusion, the analysis presents various arguments and stances on the significance of standards and sustainability. It highlights the need for globally applicable standards, sustainable infrastructure, and measuring carbon footprint. It emphasizes the European product tagging initiative, up-to-date decision-making information, and adaptive policies. Collaboration, accountability, impact measurement, and inclusivity are crucial for achieving sustainability. The analysis recognizes the complexities involved and the importance of comprehensive and inclusive approaches to attain sustainability.

Axel Klahake

The discussion raised important points surrounding the relationship between sustainability communities and digital communities. A key observation was the divide that exists between these two groups, with sustainability communities focusing on environmental issues and climate action, while digital communities prioritize technological advancements and digital systems. The discussion highlighted the need for increased collaboration and understanding between these communities to effectively address sustainability challenges. Cross-sector and cross-industry efforts were identified as crucial for shaping the digital sustainability agenda, with initiatives like the Coalition for Digital Environmental Sustainability (CODES) bringing together environmental agencies to discuss digital issues. Collaboration between organizations such as GIZ, the World Bank, and ITU in developing standards for green data centers demonstrated the importance of joint efforts in driving sustainable practices. The need for specific guidelines and binding regulations in the industry was emphasized, and the initiative on standards for green data centers, developed in partnership with the World Bank and ITU, was seen as a positive step forward. It was also highlighted that greening the digital industry should go beyond individual components to encompass the entire value chain, considering sustainability throughout the lifecycle of digital products and services. Leveraging digital technologies to support economic transformations towards a carbon-free economy was viewed as a positive development, with examples such as GIZ’s Fair Forward initiative promoting AI applications in climate change adaptation. The discussion underlined the importance of bringing communities closer together through forums and intensifying discussions to foster collaboration and mutual understanding. Defining standards, clarifying responsibilities, and monitoring the implementation of sustainable practices, with the involvement of various stakeholders, particularly consumers, were seen as essential. The urgency of taking action for climate protection was consistently emphasized, with a call for immediate action and the realization that climate protection should not be treated as a luxury. Collaboration and partnership were identified as crucial in advancing AI applications for climate change adaptation, with Axel Klahake expressing openness to collaboration and highlighting the potential for exchanging experiences and results in driving further initiatives. The discussion also stressed the need for simplified and clearer communication for decision-makers, as the complexity of sustainability and digital policy issues makes it difficult for them to make informed decisions. Recognizing major trends and their implications, such as changing data center locations and providing internet access to the global population, were highlighted as pivotal for advancing digital sustainability. In conclusion, the discussion highlighted the importance of collaboration, concrete standards and regulations, and greening the entire value chain in promoting digital sustainability. Leveraging digital technologies for a carbon-free economy, bringing communities closer together, and clearly defining responsibilities and standards were deemed crucial. Urgent action for climate protection, collaboration and partnership, simplified communication for decision-makers, and a focus on understanding major trends were seen as vital in advancing digital sustainability.

David Souter

The analysis highlights the urgent need for stronger dialogue between experts in the digital and environmental fields in order to effectively address the complex impact of digitalisation on the environment. It emphasises that digital policies that are not environmentally sustainable will not be sustainable in any terms. It is crucial to maximise the contribution of digitalisation to mitigating environmental harm and reducing the environmental footprint of the digital sector.

One key aspect that is highlighted is the development of a circular digital economy. This approach would require fewer scarce resources, less energy consumption, and the extension of the life of digital devices, while also promoting recycling and reuse. All stakeholders, including governments, businesses, and citizens, have responsibilities in transitioning to a circular digital economy.

The analysis also stresses the importance of considering environmental factors in the development of standards and design. Standard-setting bodies and businesses should integrate these factors in order to reduce the use of energy and scarce resources. Additionally, there is a need for transparent and genuine reporting of businesses’ environmental impacts, with an emphasis on avoiding greenwashing and conducting independent evaluation and analysis.

Furthermore, consistent standards of measurement for the digital environmental interface are necessary to better understand the exact impact of technology on the environment. Inconsistent measurement standards limit the comprehension of environmental impacts from the digital society.

Policies in the digital sector and environmental context should not only consider ideal circumstances but also real circumstances, which are often far from ideal. Discourse and decision-making should take into account the challenges and constraints faced in practical situations, in order to develop effective and realistic policies.

Government structures of regulation and incentives for environmental responsibility are critical. It is vital for governments to establish strong regulatory frameworks and provide incentives to drive environmental responsibility. Similarly, businesses need to develop and promote environmentally friendly products and services, aligning with the principles of sustainability.

Citizens need access to information that enables them to make environmentally responsible choices. It is important for individuals to be aware of the environmental impact of their actions and consumption patterns. Environmental education and awareness are key to fostering behavioral change and promoting sustainable practices.

Notably, there is a need for an ethos of environmental responsibility across the digital sector. All actors and stakeholders in the digital industry should embrace sustainability as a core value and integrate it into their operations and decision-making processes.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the critical importance of bridging the gap between the digital and environmental sectors. Collaboration, dialogue, and a holistic approach are necessary to effectively address the complex environmental challenges posed by digitalisation. Transitioning towards a circular digital economy, integrating environmental factors into standards and design, fostering transparency and accountability, advocating for strong regulatory frameworks and incentives, and promoting citizen awareness and education are essential for achieving a sustainable and environmentally responsible digital future.

Moderator

During the discussion, the speakers focused on the complex relationship between the digital society and the environment. One of the key points raised was the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was noted that due to lockdowns and economic shutdowns, there was a significant drop in CO2 emissions, which was seen as a positive outcome. However, there was also a surge in internet usage mainly driven by remote work, online shopping, and other digital activities. This raised concerns about the carbon emissions from increased internet usage.

Several speakers highlighted the potential of digital transformation and technology in addressing climate change. It was acknowledged that digital technologies have the potential to mitigate environmental damage by streamlining operations and improving efficiency. Furthermore, it was suggested that digital innovation and technology standards could play a crucial role in developing climate change solutions.

The importance of standards in the technical side was emphasised by one of the speakers. They highlighted the role of organisations such as IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) in setting technology standards and promoting ethical practices, particularly in relation to artificial intelligence (AI) and environmental impact. The need for achieving sustainability goals was also stressed, with speakers discussing the importance of addressing global warming, achieving net zero greenhouse gas emissions, and adopting a circular economy approach.

The digital divide and limited internet access in certain regions, such as Timor-Leste, were identified as significant challenges. It was noted that in Timor-Leste, internet speeds were very low and broadband access in rural areas was limited. This highlighted the need for addressing the digital divide and improving internet infrastructure to ensure equitable access to digital technologies.

The role of the private sector in environmental sustainability was discussed, with examples given of collaborations between the private sector and grassroots organisations. These collaborations focused on validating environmental conservation efforts and developing systems to better manage resources and the environment. It was acknowledged that the private sector can play a crucial role in driving sustainable practices and supporting environmental initiatives.

The importance of knowledge sharing and collaboration among different sectors and movements was emphasised. Speakers highlighted the need for inclusive participation and the involvement of communities, particularly those affected by digital technologies and environmental issues. The importance of sharing successes, failures, and solutions for collective learning was emphasised.

The discussions also raised concerns about the negative impacts of digital technologies. It was noted that indigenous women expressed concerns about the waste produced by digital devices installed in their territories and the potential for surveillance and monitoring of their activities. The need to consider data ownership and the rights of indigenous communities was highlighted.

The discussions also touched on the need for accountability, regulations, and policies that consider the environmental impact of digital technologies. It was noted that current regulations and policies do not adequately address the relation between ICT services and the environment. The importance of information accessibility for policymakers was highlighted, as well as the need for communicating the latest information to policymakers to make informed decisions.

In conclusion, the speakers emphasised the need for a holistic approach to address the challenges posed by the digital society and the environment. This requires collaboration among different stakeholders, including governments, the private sector, grassroots organisations, and communities. The importance of setting standards, policy-making, knowledge sharing, and inclusivity were key themes throughout the discussions. It was acknowledged that while digital technologies have the potential to drive positive change, their environmental impact needs to be carefully managed to ensure a sustainable and equitable future.

Mactar Seck

The use of digital technology has both positive and negative impacts on the environment, making it essential to incorporate it into national digital policies. According to studies, digital technology contributes between 1 to 5 percent to greenhouse gas emissions and consumes 5 to 10 percent of energy. However, there is potential for digital technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2030.

Regulatory changes are necessary in the ICT sector to consider the environmental impact. This change would involve addressing the need for a unified approach that includes the impact on the environment. No specific supporting facts were provided in this regard.

The United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) supports African countries in integrating climate change issues into their national digital policies. UNECA supports the development of climate information systems and early warning systems in several African countries. Additionally, UNECA organises annual hackathons for young innovators to develop innovations on climate change adaptation. The positive sentiment towards UNECA’s efforts indicates that these initiatives have been effective in encouraging African countries to incorporate climate change issues into their national digital policies.

Unfortunately, there is a misunderstanding among decision-makers regarding the connection between digital technology and its environmental impact. No specific supporting facts were provided to justify this argument, but it suggests a need for better education and awareness among decision-makers to bridge this gap in understanding.

To ensure the development of effective national digital strategies, it is crucial to involve all stakeholders from different sectors. This approach would ensure that the strategies are comprehensive and inclusive of diverse perspectives and expertise.

Digital technology has the potential to mitigate the impacts of climate change through the creation of effective early warning systems, climate information systems, and applications. Several African countries have already benefited from these systems and applications, demonstrating their effectiveness in addressing climate change challenges.

The need for standardized features in digital technology to mitigate the impact of climate change is emphasized. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is mentioned as a support mechanism for countries in developing their climate change policies. However, specific standards for digital technology are not provided.

International cooperation is essential in facilitating the development of standards for digital technology. The International Telecommunication Union (ITU) provides a partnership for ICT to support this collaboration. Private sector involvement is also considered crucial in driving the development of these standards.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is recognized as a suitable platform for discussions on standards for the integration of digital technology and climate change. The positive sentiment suggests that the IGF is gaining traction and credibility as a forum for these discussions.

In conclusion, despite the positive impact digital technology can have on mitigating climate change challenges, a comprehensive and inclusive approach is required to ensure that digital policies at the national level consider the environmental impact. This would entail regulatory changes, stakeholder engagement, and the integration of standardized features. The involvement of international cooperation, the private sector, and platforms like the IGF can further support the development of effective strategies.

Moderator:
And I wonder if I can get started, is everything ready to go? In any case, good morning and welcome everyone to the main session on sustainability and environment at the IGF 2023 in Kyoto. Sustainability really is now one of the top priorities in every global agenda across all levels from all government, industry and individual level. Like my organization, oh, I forgot to introduce myself. I am Edmond Chung from DotAsia and also currently serving on the ICANN board. So one of the backgrounds in the last few years is that in 2020 when the pandemic hit, the world really witnessed a very significant drop in CO2 emissions on record. And that’s primarily due to lockdowns and economic shutdowns. But alongside that, there was a huge surge in internet usage from Zoom meetings to grocery shopping online and the attention to the carbon emissions from the internet itself kind of grew. But since last year, the lockdowns eased and the carbon emission actually bounced back very strongly to all time highs. But the internet itself, of course, is ever more inseparable and the sustainability of the infrastructure itself becomes an important question. And that’s what this session is going to explore. But what is the appropriate narrative to raise awareness and what are the actions to be taken? Certainly it’s not about using less of the internet, right? Using shorter emails or watching shorter videos really doesn’t quite make sense. And on the flip side also, these digital transformation and digital technologies have great potential in helping address climate change, helping address the issues. And perhaps the question is how we can do more and waste less. A key to both mitigating the damaging and the damage and unlocking the potential probably lies in better understanding complex and sometimes counterintuitive relationships between the use of these technologies and their impact on the environment. Many different organizations are working on the topic at .Asia. We have just launched an initiative which is called EcoInternet.Asia here in Kyoto. We’ve launched it and it is an effort together with APNIC and with the support from HBS and APNIC Foundation, we’ve launched this index earlier this week here looking at measuring the eco-friendliness of internet infrastructures across different jurisdictions. Please check it out at EcoInternet.Asia or come to our booth with the big tiger at the IGF Village. Wearing my other hat actually, the ICANN board. You can also see that ICANN is working on this and you can see it from the CEO goals that have been set forward for 2024, goal 8 especially calls for the development of a comprehensive approach for developing and implementing an environmental sustainability strategy for ICANN. Here at IGF, of course the work and the outputs of the policy network on environment and digitalization and then the subsequent work of the dynamic coalition on environment laid the foundation for strengthening links with the UN’s ongoing work in the SDGs which is what this session we’ll be building on. Joining me on this panel are distinguished leaders in the area including David Suter, an international ICT and development expert, often working with the APC, Mike Lukin at IEEE, chair of the Planet Positive 2030 initiative and a long-time advocate for sustainable development, Xochitl Suarez, a civil engineer and a water sector leader at Simile Tech Company in Timor-Leste, Kemely Camacho, Cooperative Sulabatsu and has worked for 25 years in the development of feminist social solidarity economic alternatives in the context of digital society, Makter Sek, chief of section innovation and technology at the UN Economic Commission for Africa and Axel Klakerhe from director economic and social development digitalization with GIZ. Without further ado, David, please tell us your work and observation about the paradigm gap between the digital and environment policymaking. David, over to you.

David Souter:
Thank you very much for the introduction and my apologies for coming in slightly late to the meeting. I had to rush from another commitment. I got the record about five to six minutes and that’s what we should all be speaking for. That was what we were told yesterday. In his speech on Monday, the Prime Minister of the host country said artificial intelligence was poised to change the history of mankind and that’s also true, of course, of climate change. So what we do in relation to both of these things is crucial to our future and I think we need to think about their relationship with one another. So I’ll start with the fundamental problem, which is that there just isn’t enough dialogue or understanding between the digital and environmental communities of experts, communities of practice. Not enough discussion in environmental fora like IPCC of the impact digital technologies will have, but also not enough understanding in digital spaces like this of the environmental context and how it’s going to affect the decisions we should make. So I’ll start by saying three things. Digital policies that aren’t environmentally sustainable won’t be sustainable in any other terms either. So we should be aiming for what I’ll call an inclusive and environmentally sustainable digital society and achieving that’s not simple and it’s certainly not guaranteed. If we’re to achieve it, obviously we have to maximise the contribution digitalisation makes to mitigating environmental harms in other sectors, but we also need to minimise the environmental footprint of the digital sector itself. It’s not a trade-off. Both of these are fundamental and equally important. I’m going to suggest five reasons why they’re difficult and then five policy approaches. I’ll try to do this quickly, clearly. It’s difficult because it’s complex and it’s much misunderstood. So sustainability is not just about the environment. It’s about the interface between economic prosperity, social welfare and environmental viability and these often throw up different priorities. And environmental impacts from the digital society aren’t just concerned with climate change. There is at least three critical problems. So as well as energy consumption and climate, there’s unsustainable exploitation of scarce minerals and other resources and there’s growing volumes of e-waste with little recycling, much dumping in developing countries. Then impacts are diverse, some positive, some negative, all difficult to measure. So we need to consider not just direct impacts from the way we make and use digital resources, but indirect impacts arising from new types of activity like e-commerce and the rebound effects that arise when efficiency improvements increase consumption. And societal impacts, like the changes in the way we live and work and play. And these impacts differ greatly between countries. So many of the benefits of digitalisation are being experienced in richer countries, more of the environmental burdens are being felt in lower income countries, particularly with scarce resources and e-waste. These impacts are certain to grow with AI and the Internet of Things, some good potentially, some bad, all affecting those three critical areas of resource depletion, energy consumption and waste. So any framework for the governance of AI, for instance, should have environmental sustainability at its heart. Now I said I promised sort of five suggestions for improving governance, so let me make those now. So the first is to build much stronger dialogue between fora such as this and those concerned with the environment. There’s a tendency in fora like this to promise digital solutions that look good to digital insiders but haven’t been tested out on those they’re meant to help. And we need to listen more in fora like this to environmental experts and those dealing with environmental challenges on the ground. And I’d actually like to see a main session here at the IGF that listens to speakers from environmental agencies talking about their priorities before considering what digitalisation has to offer. And my second proposal is to build environmental sustainability into digital policy-making at global, regional and national levels. UNCTAD is looking at how to make e-commerce more inclusive and environmentally sustainable in its next digital economy report. Other international organisations could do the same in their sectors, and governments should audit their digital strategies in pursuit of green goals as well as digital goals. My third proposal is about a circular digital economy, so one that requires fewer scarce resources and less energy consumption, that extends the life of digital devices and data centres, makes them more adaptable, encourages recycling and reuse, reduces waste. And there are responsibilities here for all stakeholders, so governments creating regulatory frameworks and introducing incentives, technologists and businesses designing things in ways that are environmentally responsible, citizens adopting more sustainable consumption. That’s why I tend to call this optimising rather than maximising digitalisation. And I’d recommend those who might want to follow this to look at the digital reset report, which was recently submitted to the European Commission. Fourth point is to do with standards. Standard-setting bodies should include environmental factors in the development of standards. For example, reducing use of energy and scarce resources. And businesses should do the same when designing applications, networks and services. My last point would be to do with monitoring. What’s happening? What’s beneficial? What’s not? So that we have an evidence base to build the inclusive and environmentally sustainable digital society I mentioned. For businesses, I think that means being honest and transparent about their impacts with no more greenwashing. But it also requires much more independent evaluation and analysis, which can and should be multi-stakeholder, can and should involve United Nations and other international agencies, and must cover all countries, not just those in which it’s easy to measure things. So those would be my five proposals, and I hope five minutes.

Maike Lukien:
Thank you, David. And those are really important, I guess, suggestions, and especially about the session here at IGF. And one of them is about standards. And so next, we go to Mike, which will take us through a little bit more on what’s happening at the technical side with the standards. Okay, yes, thank you. Thank you very much. It’s fascinating to be here and a great honor. Let me introduce IEEE with a couple of words. It’s the largest technical professional association with some 420,000 members around the globe in 190 countries. We are well known for many things, and one of them is 2,000 standards. And if you happen to use Wi-Fi, you’re using an IEEE standard, 802.11. As part of its activities a couple of years back, the IEEE Standard Association launched an initiative looking at ethics and AI. That’s not exactly what we’re talking about today, but I thought I’d draw your attention to this document called Ethically Aligned Design, which is, I think, the first time that a technical association looked at ethics and standards. It’s available for download for you. In early last year, we started a new initiative called Planet Positive 2030 with the goal to arrive at pragmatic recommendations to achieve planet positivity. We’re using a multi-stakeholder consensus-based backcasting process with, at this point, around 180 people involved from around the globe, I think 29 countries, if I recall correctly. The first draft compendium, Strong Sustainability by Design, is available for download as well. Then following that, across the organization, another initiative was formed, a SusTech initiative, to further dig into the recommendations from the Planet Positive initiative to arrive at some identification of potential gaps in standards, technology gaps, road-mapping gaps, et cetera. I’m pointing this out because this is an invitation to participate. Let me go then further on to our context. Safeguarding and, more so, achieving a truly long-term, sustainable planetary biosphere, that’s really what this is all about. We have a biosphere that sustains life of all forms 100 years from now, 2,000 years from now, 100,000 years from now. This is a big, shiny North Star that we are aiming for one way or another, maybe slowly, but that’s what we like to see. What do we need to do in order to get there? We need to address global warming, or people call it climate change. That means achieving net zero GHG emissions, and furthermore, reduction of the greenhouse gases that are currently, essentially, imbalancing the composition of our atmosphere. We need to get close to pre-industrial levels. That’s the climate change agenda. Then we have the UN SDG agenda, we do need to achieve the SDGs. Then, harking back to David’s comment, we do need a circular economy because we are resource-bound, and we do need to address the waste that we are producing and leaving around. Ultimately, that means that every widget we build or use needs to be able to be de-manufactured, and if necessary, take the materials down to the molecular level so that new widgets can be built from those materials. I like the term de-manufacturing. We manufacture and we de-manufacture. The fourth point here is the regeneration of ecosystems. We have done a lot of damage, we have to undo this damage. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they will be exactly the same way they used to be, but they have to be healthy ecosystems. Essential to achieving this goal is looking at energy, and that was mentioned by both David and Edmund already. Accessible, clean, sustainable energy is the linchpin to address this problem, or this complex set of problems. That means electrification of industry, different sectors, potentially the use of hydrogen, but ultimately we need accessible, clean energy. We can solve the water problem with energy. Once we have clean water, we can produce food, and so on and so on. This is a global problem, but ultimately we need contextual solutions. One size does not fit all. In some areas we can use geothermal for energy production, clean energy production. In other areas we cannot. That leads me to knowledge sharing. Once we have solutions, solutions and best practices and failures need to be shared so others can learn from it. Ultimately we need what I would like to call a digital knowledge commons that very quickly shares knowledge to other communities to be able to apply it. The fourth point is standards work. Standards have been mentioned. Standards are essential for interoperability. I like to call it standards started out with describing how something works, then led to interoperability, then led to include safety, and today we need to include sustainability consideration in the development of standards. That means environmental pollution, emissions, demanufacturing, etc., including social implications of the use of whatever we are working on in terms of a standard. We could also call that regenerative design or design for strong sustainability from the beginning, from the outset. It also requires system thinking. As I just pointed out, these various aspects to a standard, that’s really holistic and system thinking. What comes next is maybe the most important part, and that relates to where we are here at IGF, is accountability. We need to have metrics, we need to measure, we have to have the data collection, we have to agree on what the data collection is, we need to agree on how we model, we need to be able to audit, we need to be able to validate, etc. And so, that’s where I think this multi-stakeholder environment is absolutely essential to come to agreement on how we move forward on these facets to address this big, complex problem set. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you, Mike. And thank you for bringing up the AI and ethics. Actually, I also participate at the IEEE and one of those standards. And I think Anxar is here somewhere in the audience. But one of the topics that segues into the next speaker, Dulce, is about knowledge sharing. And Dulce, please tell us a little bit more about the underground work on this topic.

Dulce Soares:
Thank you, Edmund. Thank you for having me. As introduced before, I represented a local technical company called Simili based in Timor-Leste. And I’m actually wondering, who are here know where exactly Timor-Leste is? Okay. Only a few. So as I noticed, there’s almost none of Timor-Leste representative here in such an amazing networking event. And I reckon I’m the only one here, and thanks to the APNIC EC Asia that giving me the opportunity to share the knowledge on the ground. So yeah, before I start my session, I would like to briefly introduce a bit about Timor-Leste. Where is Timor-Leste? What are the situation there? In order for the audience to understand the context of my speech today. Timor-Leste is a Southeast Asian country, a small state island situated between Indonesia and Australia, with a population of 1.36 million people. Well, we are relatively small, however our history is quite complex. We have over 400 years of colonialism, and that would mean the process of development take long to come to this stage today. So we only gained our independence in 2002, which is 21 years ago. While we are starting to rebuild our nation, other emerging countries are already moving advanced with the technology and all other things to build the country. So with that, I would like to share a bit of the internet context, or internet situation in Timor-Leste. How does it look like in Timor-Leste? So in Timor-Leste, basically the internet is very low speed. The average download of the internet itself is only around 4 to 4.5 megabytes per second. That’s very low compared to other countries. We have limited infrastructure, including access to high-speed broadband in rural areas. It hinders widespread internet adoption. We also only have 49.6% of the total population using internet. Timor-Leste relies on the mobile connectivity and expensive satellite connection. We have the plan already, the government already have the plan for high-speed internet through submarine fiber optic connections. We’re not sure when it’s going to happen. But in terms of the usage of the internet, mostly around the work, email for work, and then the community focus more on the social media usage. That’s the most popular one. They serve as important communication channels and source of information. So moving on to the topic today about the environment and sustainability, I’d like to focus on the work that I’ve been doing on the ground, more around the water supply, water resource management, and then climate change issue, and how these are linked with the importance of the digital or technology intervention in the context of Timor-Leste situation. When considering the process of rebuilding the nation in the water sector, the initial emphasis was focusing on the water supply infrastructure, major investment on water supply infrastructure. However, in 2015, Timor-Leste got hit by the global crisis, El Niño, and that brought water resource management to the forefront, because there is lack of water resource management in Timor-Leste, and basically all the investments are focusing on the water supply itself. And then in 2020, La Niña happened, so that brings back the importance of the water supply. And how do we think, what are we going to do in order to integrate the water resource management and water supply system itself? I also would like to share a bit of some of the challenges that happened in Timor-Leste around the environment or the climate change issue itself. Most of the time, large and unsustainable investment into technology that only lasted as long as the project life cycle. International agencies provide costly and unsustainable project-based support, and these investments were often expensive and highly technical. That involved fly-in, fly-out technicians, which are often unaffordable by governments. And this technology, especially within the context of the water sector, seemed to keep communities and governments in the same place, meaning they did not foster growth of the further development. At the same time, investment in climate change adaptation and resilience programs often do not foster data sharing and collaboration, as they are focused only on the project-specific activities and outcomes. Now, with the limited resources that we have, international agencies disjointed and project-bound investments as well as unsustainable technology that hinder the growth of the development of the life cycle, this recreating the wheel of the response initiative only focused on the project base itself. So this is where the private sector comes in. Private sector comes in because there is slow process in the government in terms of waiting for the budget allocation, waiting for the intervention of the political intervention, and hardly people involve a private sector in terms of the situation like this. And similarly, as a tech company, we come up with the technology innovation where we collaborated with the local grassroots organization. These local grassroots organization, mainly they’re focusing on the water and land conservation, where similarly the private sector tried to collaborate in order to validate the work that this local grassroots organization has been put over 20 years. The idea is if we can validate the efforts that they do, this could be information that influence the government in terms of the policy decision-making. Some of the examples that we do in practice is when we’re collaborating with the local grassroots organization, the technology that we have, somehow we created the alert system where we inform the focal point of the local grassroots organization to receive the alert system through SMS and email, and then they will then train the community in order to understand when the alert comes, what are these message means, and what are they going to do in terms to respond for the environmental issue. Taking a little example, for example, there is an alert about the water level indicator. If the water level in the tank, after three consecutive days, there is overflowing of the water, the community will receive the alert system, and what they will do is better manage their water system. What they’re going to do is whether allocate the time management for it or find alternative options in order to cater the wastage of water to some other purpose. On the other hand, for information about the weather, normally in Timor-Leste, people cut and burn the soil because they think during the dry season, they will prepare to plant for the rainy season to come, and that actually affecting the climate, the environment itself. With the alert system that we inform to the community, that will help them to understand what sort of action, what sort of behavioral change that they could take in order to change the way they practice usually, and then better manage their environment as well as their water system. I guess I’ll stop here, and then I’ll wait for the later session. Thank you.

Moderator:
Actually, I think you hit on a very interesting point. It’s the sustainability of sustainability projects, and in Timor-Leste, actually, DotAsia has been supporting a project there, and my team was flying there. It’s a beautiful country, so welcome to Timor-Leste as well. The discussion about the sustainability broadening to other aspects of sustainability is really what Kemli, our next speaker, will talk about. Kemli, please.

Kemely Camacho:
Thank you very much for everybody. Thank you for the invitation to share table with all these amazing people and with you also. I’m going to read because we have only six minutes. I would like to contribute to the discussions with some of the reflection about the use of digital technologies for sustainable environment. We have developed with organizations from the three social movements where we, as Sulabhatsu Cooperative, participate, the indigenous women movement, the feminist movement, and the social solidarity economy movement. Because of the time restriction, I had to select one or two of their proposals, demands, or call for action. Cosmovision, or worldview, is going to be the word to identify the proposals from the indigenous women movement. In relationship with digital technologies for sustainable environment, they would like to position the following concerns. Who is going to take in charge the waste produced by these devices installed around their territories? Our Cosmovision, they said, is not connected with this material, this waste produced by Okama Sway, which is how they call the technology produced for or by white men, or the technology not produced by the air, they call it Kama Sway. How is it guaranteed that these devices for sustainable development or for monitoring climate, etc., are not surveilling our daily life if they are related to our natural resources, which are totally part of our practices, sacred places, and others? If they are collecting data from our territories and in our Cosmovision, we can’t separate body, water, and land. These data are our property. We claim ownership. They are talking about our lives. Care is going to be the word to identify the proposals from the feminist movements. In the discussion, they said, care for each person, for the collectives, and planetary care must be in the center of data processes and devices that are being used for environmental sustainability. Digital technologies working for climate change, natural resources, and sustainability must be contextualized. Data model must be correlated with power relationship, land distribution, economic dynamics, citizen participation, women action, etc. We as women and as communities demand for participating in the digital technology for sustainable environment, climate change, natural resources management process that are going to be developed in our context since the beginning, developing collective data models, designing technology solutions together, ideating processes to integrate care as an axe of the digital environment solutions. Solidarity is going to be the word to characterize the social solidarity economic movement proposal and they have said, the possibility for humanity to survive is with solidarity. Digital technology can contribute or destroy the possibility for humanity to live in the planet. We claim for a responsible consumption of digital technology in a special for rich countries, big enterprises, and well-connected population. Digital technology for sustainable environment must be developed and used in the right measure, in the exact balance between usefulness and negative impact, and that is only possible if solidarity is in the center of development. Digital technologies for sustainable environment must not only be data-driven, there is a need to understand them also as technology to organize communities in risk and strengthening citizen participation. With collecting data about climate change, natural resources management, and other, it must be mandatory to strengthening citizen participation and organization. Then from the social movements where we as Sulawesi participate, we would like to ask for an urgent call to integrate respect for cosmovision or worldview, the focus on care, and the prioritization for solidarity as principles to develop digital technology for a sustainable world.

Moderator:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And I think it’s really interesting that actually as all the speakers seem to have touched on changing attitudes and changing behavior from some of the, not only the actors, but the users is a really interesting dimension. So next we go to Makto Sek from the UN Economic Commission for Africa, maybe talk to us a little bit more about how this topic is being discussed there.

Mactar Seck:
Thank you very much. Thank you and good morning, everyone. Thank you for inviting UNECA to be part of this important topic. As you know, the discussion about digital technology and climate change become very important at this stage. Why? Because digital technology has a positive and negative environment effect, and we need to take into consideration this concern in our digital policy. And in general, when we define this national digital policy, the issue of climate change is not very well highlighted in this policy. Why at UNECA in the implementation of the African Digital Transformation Strategy, we support African countries to put the issue of climate change in the national digital policy. Why do we do that? Because when we look at the statistics, when we have the statistics, digital technology contributes 1 to 5 percent to the green gas emission, and to the energy consumption is between 5 and 10 percent, it’s a lot. However, according to several studies, this digital technology can reduce this green gas emission to 20 percent by 2030. Why is it important to take this into consideration? In Africa, what are the key challenges we are facing to take into consideration this dichotomy of digital technology and climate change? We have several challenges. First, at the regulatory side. When we go to the regulatory ICT, we didn’t have really this relation between ICT, service, and impact on the environment. We need to look at this at the regulatory side. And there is also a misunderstanding of several decision-makers on the linkage between digital technology and the impact of the environment. So the rapid advance of the technology can contribute to this misunderstanding because we need to build the capacity to know exactly what are the impact of this new emerging technology like artificial intelligence, blockchain, on the energy sector, on the environment sector, and to overcome with some solution. The other issue also, we need to develop this digital policy by involving all the stakeholders. We can’t develop now a national digital strategy on digital technology without involving the environment sector, without involving the energy sector. We need to involve them and do not work in silo to develop this national digital strategy, which is very important. Now let me go through some initiatives we have at UNECA to leveraging digital technology for climate change adaptation. First, at the policy level, when we support, when we develop national policy, we have an important component on the environment and climate change to promote the contribution of ICT to this environmental sector. Second, on regulatory side also, we support African countries to change the narrative on the new regulation, to have a new regulation including this environment and climate change issue. Yes, we have several awareness initiatives. We organize every year what one colleague, ACATON, on leveraging digital technology for climate change adaptation. This ACATON, we select several young innovators across the continent. They come up for one week to develop key innovation on the climate change, and after that we see how we can build some application around this innovation on climate change adaptation. From this, we support African countries to develop several climate information systems. Some countries also benefit from ECA support to develop some early warning systems. She highlighted some in this country. I think it is something also similar in Africa also. We support a lot of countries to develop this early warning system and climate information system, and this has a positive impact now in the environment sector in the continent. Another issue also, it is when we talk about climate information system, we should have a history on the climate information. Now we are developing one application starting the history of all information regarding climate since 1990, since 1990-20. And also we have another big, very important project now. We are working with DRC to develop a centre of excellence on battery mineral. Also on credit carbon, we support some African countries to fast-track the credit carbon register. We also have another important project. We work on developing online platform, because this online platform can also mitigate the issue of climate adaptation, the smart city also, also some application to reduce the energy consumption. Is that also part of UN’s ECA? Yes. At UN ECA we have established a centre of excellence on digital ID, digital trade and digital economy. As the centre of excellence is to support African countries to use digital technology for achieving sustainable development and the achievement of the Agenda 26-3 of African Union. But we focus on all activity related to this digital technology, we work with digital technology climate, digital technology health, also digital technology, digital economy, digital trade and digital ID also. Platform digital ID will help also to mitigate this environment. So in capacity building we need to use this emerging technology to mitigate this climate change adaptation, while we are supporting, we already established a centre of, an African research centre in Congo on artificial intelligence, and one of the objectives of the mission is to focus on how to use artificial intelligence to mitigate the climate change adaptation.

Moderator:
Thank you, that’s, thank you Mactor, I think it’s a, you know, the topic about not being in silos and bridging that gap between the sustainability side and the digital side is very important, and that I think next we go to Axel Klarachke, sorry I stumbled on your name earlier, but Axel, please tell us more about the work at GIZ.

Axel Klahake:
Yes, thank you very much, I also feel very much honoured and privileged to be here now and to have the opportunity to share a few thoughts. You were just saying that there is still this divide between the sustainability communities and the digital communities, I would say that this is also our observation, that there is much room for bringing these two spheres much closer together, probably on all levels. If you look at the global level, we still see that those communities discussing climate change issues are still a bit separated from us discussing here the architecture of the global digital systems. I think there is a few initiatives though that try to cross that bridge already, I just want to refer to what ITU for example is championing now also for the upcoming COP28, this green digital action track, which I think is a very valuable initiative and I can only congratulate ITU really for this leadership and this initiative. There is also another initiative that has not been mentioned here, but because David was also saying maybe it would be good to invite for the next IGF some leaders from environmental agencies, there is already under the umbrella of the United Nations an initiative called CODES, Coalition for Digital Environmental Sustainability, where there is indeed national environmental agencies and other really very prominent actors from the environment sphere discussing digital issues. So I think there is now some more initiative crossing those bridges, but I think even here in the context of the IGF I would also love to see really more pure climate people maybe and more pure environmental people to tell us actually what they need from us and vice versa. I think this is maybe also my first message I would want to get across, so we need more cross-sector, cross-industry artists that help us really to shape that agenda properly. I think I would also want to agree on what the colleagues have just said on the necessity for more concrete standards. I think what we sometimes shy away from in this debate, that sooner or later we must move from this general conceptual discussion and pilot projects to more binding regulation and to more clear standards the industry would have to follow. I think to me this is very important that we support this idea. I know it’s in the global context always a dream. We don’t have a global regulator doing this for us, but I think really making sure that we talk about the same things, the same standards and the same terminology is extremely important. As he has said, we are from our very nature, we are more an agency that implements projects in individual countries on certain topics, but we have also now recently pretty much engaged in contributing to that discussion, so we had an initiative with the World Bank and ITU on standards for green data centres. I think that is a very useful exercise, so we were sitting together with experts on how we can shape that so the result is a practitioner’s guide for green data centre that has been launched recently in Nairobi on the occasion of the Africa Climate Summit, and I think it was very welcome. That was my impression, and I think really towards this direction I would very much want us to invest more. We have also tried to instill in the GovStack initiative, I think most of you are probably aware of this, that is meant to contribute to this DPI-DPG agenda in a very practical way, also to instill elements contributing hopefully to environmental sound rules for procurement for e-waste. I think those are really, I think more those concretisation what I think are currently really necessary and we would probably want to see more of. I think that there is big potential, I think I was probably without saying. And then in the complexity of the discussion, and this is also probably true for the discussion today, we have some people talking more about the greening of the digital industry, very much important, green data centre I think is just an example, but this should probably also be expanded to develop tools and instruments for the management of the entire value chains of the digital industry, so that would be I think also a good idea to develop it in this direction. And on the other hand, we have also people discussing more the potential and how we can unlock the full potential of the Internet, of digital technologies and tools to support the necessary transformation of the economies towards really a carbon-free economy and really for the end target really to cool down the planet actually. Here of course we also have lots of individual examples, but I think what we might want to add to that in the nearer future again is also maybe a place where we can have that proper exchange of knowledge and really draw proper conclusion that we could all subscribe to. So we have brought forward an initiative that is called Fair Forward, I just wanted to refer to this because also we have through this gained some experience on how we can support partner countries in the global south, we mostly operate in Africa, also in India with this initiative on AI in the realm of climate change adaptation. I think what we have done there looks very promising, we have very interesting examples, so working on watershed management for example, so this is pretty close to what has been introduced here already, so where we work with communities on using the results of AI and working with AI on shaping management strategies for natural resources. We have in East Africa and Kenya initiatives through this Fair Forward initiative on AI on promoting climate adaptation prone activities in the agriculture sector. So what I’m trying to say is there is I think already a good amount of projects and I think our next step should probably be really to draw the conclusions from this and then to push this agenda forward. So my overall message, I think this discussion is extremely important, we are very much committed to contribute to that on those various levels, the global scale, the regional initiatives like in Africa, UNECA or African Union, I think they really have a very important role plus on the national level, but I think what we still have to improve is this cross-sectoral nature and really how to cross that bridge, I think this is still something where we have room for improvement. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you Axel and the theme seems to be really crossing that bridge and I would like to open now to the floor, so please come to the mic and for any questions, I see already a question so I don’t need my first question, so let’s go to the floor first.

Audience:
Thank you so much. Yeah, microphone is working. Thank you all for your very valuable contributions. My name is Hanna Bause, I’m the Secretary of the Dutch Initiative for Sustainable Digitization. I think you cannot emphasize enough international cooperation on this topic and in that context I have a question, especially for Micah, since you were talking about standards, indeed we already have standards for interoperability, safety, but where do we stand today internationally to develop standards for sustainability in our digital system? Thank you so much.

Moderator:
Micah, I guess it’s for you, but I guess others. I think David and Axel might add to it as well, please mic first.

Maike Lukien:
So from the IEEE point of view, standards are developed for global use, they are not limited to any jurisdiction and adaptation of course is the question of whether companies or governments adopt various standards and ultimately it can lead to regulation. Standards are developed at many different levels, so for example there might be a standard on how to integrate microgrids into the larger grids today, there are standards on energy efficient wireless systems, etc. There’s a long list of many detailed standards essentially to have more sustainable infrastructure. Not necessarily referred to as sustainable, it’s referred to as more efficient, etc. Am I getting to your question?

Audience:
Yeah, so thank you for your answer. I think that’s very helpful, but as already said, I think the necessity for the adoption of those standards is crucial to accelerate the sustainable digitization transition we have to make in order to contribute to preventing the climate crisis to get worse.

Maike Lukien:
So there’s work just starting on trying to work towards a standard of measuring the carbon footprint of a small organization, like a farm, a small company. Think of the fact that over 90% of enterprises are small or medium-sized enterprises around the globe, but they bring in over 50% of the GDP around the globe. So we don’t have frameworks for these companies to participate in the quote-unquote carbon economy, carbon credits, etc. So we do need those standards as well, so that these small companies can ultimately participate in a sustainable value chain, sustainable supply chain, that will allow us to practice sustainable procurement. I’m firmly convinced that if we can get to sustainable procurement, we can solve a large part of our problems. And I think the European suggestion of product tagging, which is really the digital product passport that’s committed to but not quite designed yet, is a huge step forward in what Axel was referring to, a global initiative, because it will have global impact like GDPR had, to get us towards being able to essentially vote with our wallets, individually, governments, companies, etc. So I think your question is 100% at the core of the matter. Thank you so much.

Audience:
Just a final remark. I would really love to stay in touch and strengthen our cooperation. So I’ll send you a LinkedIn invitation. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. Adding to that, I guess, enforcement is a big word, right? But implementation of the standards is really the key. And I think both David and Axel talked about furthering this discussion. And I guess IGF is one of those forums that can have this multi-stakeholder discussion, so that implementation of these standards could actually be carried out. I wonder if David or others want to add to it. As David is asking, I, again, invite the audience to come to the mic for the next question. David, please.

David Souter:
Yeah. I mean, I think a phrase which I’ve heard a number of times here and which is becoming more current is responsible innovation. And that’s… That’s something that incorporates standards bodies very importantly, but also encompasses a wider frame of reference. So it’s about the innovation frameworks that take place in academia. It’s about how businesses develop their applications, products, goods, services, and so on. And if you have that kind of concept of an environmentally responsible innovation, you’re unlikely to have innovations such as Bitcoin, which are developed in a way which is not environmentally sustainable, and therefore not economically sustainable either. And the other thing I’d say is that I reiterate the point Mikey made about standards of measurement, that we need consistent standards by which we are measuring all of the things that are happening here at this digital environmental interface. We don’t have those at the moment.

Moderator:
It’s like a common language that we can talk about things as well. Mector, I think you want to add.

Mactar Seck:
Thank you very much. Before I leave, I think you touched on one important point, the issue of the standard. I think it’s a feature on what we are doing now in the digital technology to mitigate this impact of climate change. At the UN level, we already have this United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. To support all countries to develop their policy strategy on climate change, energy. But we need to add this missing piece on the standard. And I think it is a work we can look at at the international level. We have this ITU partnership for ICT. I think it is something we can rise and to see how we can develop standards, as well as we need to have all this private sector to come on board to develop this standard. Because it’s an issue of interoperability become crucial. And IGF is a good forum, platform, to start this discussion on the standard on digital technology and climate change. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. So we go to the line. And I also see a hand up in the Zoom room. But please, go ahead first. Yes.

Audience:
We received a very good question online, so I’ll quickly read it out for you. It was questioned by Izumi Okutani. And she asked, what can we each do to strengthen the collaboration between the environmental sector and the Internet sector? And Megan Richard added to that. And maybe at a personal level, as well. And also, I think that’s mainly aimed at AXL to reply to. OK.

Axel Klahake:
This is a very good question, but it’s also a very broad question, isn’t it? I think what we are doing is already towards this idea. I believe very much in a forum like this one. And I think we really need to bring the communities closer together. I think this is something we have already, I think all of us expressed in the first round, so that we really have to intensify those discussions. And then I think we really have to look deeper into the linkages between those two spheres. This is the technology, the standards, and many other things, the side of the consumers. We have only very briefly touched on the responsibility of consumers. So it has really different levels that lead also the involvement of different actors, and again, also different forms of regulation. And at the end of the day, I really do believe this is not only a matter of talking and bringing people together. It’s also a matter of defining standards, clear responsibilities, monitoring, and really a very responsible follow-up, because the discussion, I think, it’s not a luxury discussion we are having. I even feel very much a sense of urgency, looking in this broader context of where we are in terms of climate protection, and really this acceleration of the current situation, plus negotiations that are not so easy internationally. I would very much admire and very much love this digital community really taking this issue up more prominently and more proactively. So that is something I think I would want to come up with as an answer.

Moderator:
Thank you. And, Kemli, you wanted to add to that?

Kemely Camacho:
Yes, just wanted to complement a little bit on that. I think it’s crucial to connect with other social movements, and especially with environmental movements that they have already a long path in the negotiation about good practices, standards, and others. And in my experience, at least in Central America, it had been very difficult until this moment to really connect and to really have an interaction between environmental movements and digital right movements and digital environment and all of that until now. And I think we need to do the effort to really work together on that. And sometimes the environmental movement doesn’t understand very well our concerns, and we also are sometimes trying to do this path alone while there are other movements that have already advanced the discussions. And we always claim for the connection between movements and develop real interaction and try to build together proposals for the decision-making, but also for the communities. One movement that I always put as an example is the organic agriculture movement, who really have developed some practices that I think it’s important to take a look and have this example for the issues that we are working on. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. And I see a hand up, and so I’ll go there first and then come to you, Chris. Derejé, please go ahead.

Audience:
Yeah, my question is to Axel. So I thank you very much, Axel, that you have the initiative to liberate the potential of AI for environmental protection and management, and as you stated, you have got really different projects on this initiative. So as Magda tried to state, UNEKA is also supporting the establishment of the first AI research center in Congo, Brazzaville, which could have an impact in just mitigating the environment or the climate change. So is there any proper channels that we could leverage so that there would be really a kind of liaise between your organization and the research center we established for further implementing those AI and emerging technologies for climate change? Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. Are you pointing this to a particular center that you would like to ask, or is it – Axel, you want to ask?

Axel Klahake:
I think I have, you know, read your question now in a way that you would want us to explore possibilities for collaboration, and I can just answer that we are more than ready to look into that. I think all of those initiatives can only be successful if we really think it as partnerships, as something we do not just as one, you know, separate institution or organization, and the other institution is also doing something. I was already trying to say that I really think in this discussion of AI application in climate change protection, I do believe there is a need to exchange more on experiences, on results, and how we really want to push this agenda further. So just contact me, and then I will connect you to our teams and our experts, and we are more than ready to discuss.

Moderator:
Thank you. Chris? Yeah. Thank you very much, Edmund.

Audience:
Chris Buckridge. I’m a technical community representative on the IGF MAG, and for full disclosure, I was involved in organizing this session, so I want to thank all of the speakers for their participation. It’s been a really interesting discussion so far. I want to change hats slightly, though, to make a comment and to ask a question, and I think the comment relates to some of the questions we’ve already had about the role of the IGF and internet governance structures and what they can do to connect more with the environmental policymaking and discussion. I wanted to shift the focus a bit to the national and regional initiatives, so thinking in terms of the IGF as a broader ecosystem, which also includes regional and national IGFs, of which there are many, as we’ve heard. So I’ve been involved quite heavily in EuroDIG, and I know there’s been a number of sessions and workshops at that European IGF level on this topic over the last few years. I know APR IGF has also had a number of sessions, and I’m sure there are others in other parts of the world that I’m less aware of. But I think that’s a really useful opportunity to connect, and this is kind of in relation to what Dulce and Kenley were saying, at the more local level, and with those sort of smaller grassroots organisations and private sector organisations that are doing that work, and maybe you’re not going to come along to a big annual IGF event, but might be able to connect with the local communities that are involved in internet governance. So having that connection at that level is really important. In terms of the question, I wanted to build a little on the workshop at this year’s EuroDIG and give a very brief report there, because the topic we were looking at was in relation to do policymakers actually have the level of understanding that they need to be making policy with an environmental concern but towards the digital sector. I think Moctar, who unfortunately had to leave, but made that comment about the confusion that sometimes might exist around the link between ICTs and digital activities and environmental impact. And so in EuroDIG we were looking at a number, we were looking at AI, certainly, and I know OECD presented there, they’ve also done some work, I think that probably complements the work that IEEE has done. We were looking at data centres and streaming, and that’s certainly a very big discussion in Europe at the moment, the link between data centres and increased sort of data throughput and what that means for energy usage, whether there is a sort of direct linkage or whether the linkage is a little bit more complicated. And then also looking very briefly at the quantum internet and how that might impact. So I guess the question I wanted to throw open is, do you, on the panel, see a need for better information for policymakers in relation to environmental impact, and can the IGF, both at the global level but also the sort of more regional and national level, help to foster that? Thanks.

Maike Lukien:
So policymakers, same as us, can never have too much information to base evidence-based decisions on. The other thing that I’d like to point out is, whatever was true 10 years ago is not necessarily the best solution today. So one of the things that we have to deal with in terms of informing policymakers is really to keep people up to date of what today’s ultimate or close to best solutions are. And we have to be willing to re-examine this in a year or two or three, depending on what is going on. And as far as I’m concerned, development of regulation and development of policy is far too slow. Like, it doesn’t keep up what is happening in the industry, what’s happening in technology. In 2007-8, we had dire predictions about how much power ICT would use. Now ICT power use or electricity use has gone up, but certainly not in the way it was predicted way back then. If you look at the nuclear industry, the big strides are being made with small modular reactors that could potentially solve certainly the issue with providing remote communities with clean energy. And like I can go into a big long debate about that, truly exponential strides have been made. And so policy has to be, or policymakers really have to be kept up to date. We actually need a better way to do that. I mean, there’s one, I typically, USA is doing it for the Congress once a year, and sometimes in between. But I think the channels need to be opened up much more. Thank you.

Moderator:
And I think David wants to add, and I’ll add myself to responding.

David Souter:
To firstly reinforce Chris’s point about the NRIs, the UK IGF had a major focus a couple of years ago on environmental issues, which was introduced through a keynote from an advisor to the IPCC, which focused around circular economy issues and so forth. I think there is a scope there. My disappointment with that is that so few people actually take part ultimately in that sort of forum, and it needs to reach out further. On the broader policy issues, I think a lot of discussion around this tends to focus on what can happen in ideal circumstances if the best technologies can be used with the right policy commitments. But actually what matters is what will happen in real circumstances, which are never close to ideal. And so there’s a lot of aspiration for what might be achieved. It needs a healthier dose of realism. And I think a lot of policymakers’ perceptions in the digital sector of what is happening in the environmental context are often outdated, and vice versa. So that’s an important reason for bridging it. CODIS, which Axel mentioned, is I think an important UN initiative in this context. And again, I think the European academic network that built the digital reset initiative is also an important one to look at. Thank you.

Moderator:
I’ll add a little bit and pass to you, Kim Lee. I guess that’s really the—yeah, I see two persons on the mic as well. Just quickly, that’s why we published the EcoInternet Index, and to add to that discussion, we need information. We need to know whether certain ways of measuring the impact is an appropriate way to measure the impact balancing between digital transformation and the, I guess, the digital carbon footprint. So Kim Lee, and then I will go to the two questions.

Dulce Soares:
Very quickly, we think at the local IGF, it’s really, really a need to integrate other voices from other movements to discuss the Internet governance and to discuss these key problems. I have been working on IGF, in the local IGF, I don’t know, for, I don’t know, 10, 12 years, I don’t know, and in the regional one also. And we always try to integrate more voices from other sectors. I think this discussion is not only our discussion. I think we really need to integrate other actors in the discussion, environmental movement, the indigenous movement. They have to be here discussing with us, and that has to begin first in the local IGFs. Then this discussion has to be open, has to be, has to integrate other actors and other voices. This is one thing. I have to say something, because the time is about to finish, and I don’t want to leave this issue. While we have a structuralist business model in the base of our digital society, it’s going to be very difficult to really take a balance in the use of the digital technology between the usefulness and the bad impact on the environment. I wanted to say that, and we had some discussion in this IGF about the structuralist business model in the base. the digital society, and then this is one of the discussions we have had inside the indigenous movement, feminist movement, and social economy movement, yes, while we have this model, and then there is a need to create other business models, and to develop other business models with other references, to really have the possibility to use technology and without such a big impacting environment, and I wanted to say that also.

Moderator:
Thank you. So I’ll go to the ones in the mic first, and I don’t know if Izumi, Okutani, you want to add as well. I’m not sure whether chat or keynote was first, but I’ll go with the keynote, and then Jasmine, and then see if Izumi would want to add, and then we’ll come to, please respond, and then also include your closing remarks, looking at the time as well, so chat please.

Audience:
Thank you. My name is Chat Garcia-Ramelo from APC. So yesterday we had a lightning talk, and we had two people from our network to speak of how, what they’re doing in relation to e-waste, and one of the things that came out, so one from India and the other from the Gambia, and these are organizations that are trying to contribute so that the impact of e-waste is diminished, at least in their communities, and this is really looking at what, for example, what David was talking about, we produced through the network a toolkit on circular economy, working with different organizations or members of the network, and I think this is, I raised this, so one of the points that came up there is that we know that 2.6 billion need to be connected, and 2.6 billion means more gadgets and more resources, so I just wanted to, and that sort of struck me, struck us in the sense that we, there are many different things we can do, and I do think that perhaps one thing that we are able to do is to really maybe highlight more the stuff that works now, and I, to David’s point about it cannot be, you know, it has to be pragmatic or realistic, so things, there are things I think that we can do now and that works now that might have much more impact, and I do think that’s maybe something we can contribute, we can do together, and look at what it is that really works, where we can, you know, collaborate on. Thank you. Thank you, Chad. Kino. Hello. My name is Kino. I’m Vice President of Internet Association Japan. My comment question is about the standard, which I completely concurred importance for in this context. That said, I heard the comments from a couple of speakers earlier that the, with respect to the sustainability and the digitalization, there is a room for two separate domains to converge together, come together, to understand each other. So my comment and the question is that before getting on the actual standardization to be developed, I do see the necessity of developing a practice, how the digital technology will contribute to accelerating the environmental protection and also sustainability. So question to the panel is that do you also see the similar necessity on opportunity to work on the practice development before taking on the initiative on the standards for this matter? Thank you, Kino. I’ll go to Jasmine, and then I’ll go online to Izumi, and then we’ll start from Dolce over for the response and closing remarks. Jasmine. Thank you, Edmund. So this is Jasmine. I’m from technical community and youth from Hong Kong. So I focus more on data collection and center and standards as well. I’m really fond of the idea of system mapping and also seeing the gap of more mapping. So my observation and also my question will be, because we are all like from different regions, we have our own standards and the way we collect data. But the thing is, like when we come on this platform, we need to have, I just feel like we need to have more visualization or really a same centralized platform or database that we could see how we each other reckon on, how we could collectively see the impact that we’re making at the same time. So I just wonder, like, how do you see your role in your circle of influence or circle of concern that you, you know, like measuring data of a technology with its environmental impact? Because I really want to tackle the gap about the roadmap and also the things that we’ve been talking, you know, for a while. So I feel like I see the need of accelerating the discussion and also like the way we share and collect data, share information together as a group. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. And Izumi, did you want to, are you able to unmute and add? Izumi? Is it that you need to, I don’t know, the administrator, please unmute Izumi Okutani so she can speak. If not.

Audience:
Thank you. This is Izumi Okutani and sorry, it took a bit of time for unmuting. Very interesting discussion. And I especially like the point about having some platform for information sharing between different players. And I think in the earlier context, there was more focus on providing information for policymakers. And I would like to add that in addition to that, putting more focus on industry players, what can each of these businesses and internet communities can take actions can also be helpful, not just for policymakers. And in that context, I think having some, like in addition to regulations, I think having some milestones and guidelines on what actions that each industry players can take can be really helpful. So in order to do that, national and regional IGF, I think would certainly be helpful as a place where these players can actually come to obtain information. But I think there needs to be more additional efforts to be put into so that the discussions and information sharing doesn’t just stop at the IGF forum, but it actually reaches the businesses and the technical community as well.

Moderator:
Thank you, Izumi. And one last intervention. Very short, please.

Audience:
Thank you. Given that this is the last one, I’ll make it very brief. My name is Elaine. I’m based in Singapore. I participate in this as an individual today. And as a citizen of the global, around the world, I’d like to make a few points. First of all, we live in a city where there are very few choices and of sustainable living options and all. And second is about education. Now, I attended the United Nations Staff Systems College on sustainability of lifestyles and also digital for sustainability. What I’m trying to call upon is whether we could have policymaker to provide more incentive and education for citizens, because that’s the fundamental of all the people, the population that will embrace that, the way they consume and commute and many more. So thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. Now, I’ll go to Dulce and across to David for your closing remarks. Yeah, please.

Dulce Soares:
I guess my closing remark. As you can hear, probably I’m the one who’s last talking here because I’m coming from all the way from a country, in the developing country, when everybody talking about AI, high technology, policymakers, we’re just talking about digitalization. And when we talk about digitalization back in our country, our focus is more looking at the best practices that are available in the country. And what can we learn from the best practice itself? How do we integrate technology with the best practice that are already available in our country? And then how do we educate our people by providing capacity building, regardless what sort of technology that we have, but how to make sure that the technology that we deploy within the country should or must ensure that the understanding of the user of the technology itself. And on the other hand, I also would like to sort of provide sort of like a comment around maybe in this sort of platform, IGF can help to influence a more inclusive environment among sustainability actors by encouraging, as Azumi mentioned before, like more business people, private sectors, government and international agency collaboration, so we can hear many aspects from different sectors that can provide their inputs around the technology and the Internet, the environment itself. Thank you. I think that’s for me.

Axel Klahake:
Axel, please. Yeah, thank you. There were so many complex questions, so I will probably not answer those now in one minute. I think what I found very obvious in the discussion now, I think when we want to explain that complex issue better to decision makers, I think we have to make it simpler and clearer in terms of priorities. I do believe that this is really something most likely we want to do next, really clearly making the point for, I don’t know, ten points of action or maybe even less, so that really the decision makers can understand what is actually urgently needed. Sometimes we tend in the discussion to add again a new layer of complexity, and for a decision maker, it’s not so easy to disentangle that and to really derive a conclusion that are relevant to their sphere of action. I think that is something I do believe we should work on, making things clearer, also making sure that we all have in mind the same big trends. I think also the trends have been mentioned. So what is coming up in the next ten years? We have heard about still the 30% of the world population being unsafe, not having access. So this is going to change, again, with dramatic consequences for the environment. So we also have currently only a lower percentage of data centers being located in the global south. Again, this is going to change with massive implications in terms of sustainability, and so forth and so on. So this is, I think, just a few examples of what we should follow up on. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you, Axel. Thank you.

Maike Lukien:
Well, thank you. So this was a very interesting panel. I mean, I’ve learned a lot, and it has been a lot of fun. So a little bit of a takeaway. So as we kind of move forward and build and implement a pathway to a sustainable planetary biosphere, and I’ll stick to the term because it’s much more than just the environment, we do need, and we have talked about this, multidimensional collaboration and cooperation across jurisdictions, sectors, civil society. All are essential so that we can agree on accountability frameworks. We don’t even have that for large companies yet today. We need to measure and be accountable and be ready to revise decisions. We need to measure impact, be accountable, and be ready to revise. We also have at our hands what I would like to call a wicked problem, or maybe more than one. It’s very complex, and we have to deal with competing interests, or actually competing needs at the same time. The urgency of today’s problems versus the urgency of tomorrow’s problems. And so this is one of the big items that will require fora like this to debate how we can keep the balance, how we can address those needs. And then I’d like to say that as we move forward and build a sustainability culture, that we take into account for every project, everything we do, what we need to do in terms of sustainability. And we cannot leave anybody behind. And I’d like to say failure is truly not an option.

Moderator:
Certainly not. Please.

Kemely Camacho:
Thank you very much for all the interventions. I think it’s really, really valuable, all the discussion here. We talk about four steps. The first step is integrate more people in the discussion, more movements, more thoughts, more generation, et cetera, in this discussion. The second one, understand better. We think this complex problem, we need to understand better what is happening. The idea about this common platform is very interesting, but another possibility to understand better what is happening, how it’s happening, who is producing all the situations. I think we are beginning with that, to be honest. The third point is disseminate and create movements around what is happening in the digital society with environment. And we prefer to talk about the digital society and environment, not the digital technologies. And the fourth one is change practices. We really think we need to change practices. We need to really put on the agenda the right measure. I don’t know if the translation is good in Spanish. We talk about la justa medida, which is the fair measure between the utility and the destruction. I began to work in all of that 25 years ago, I remember. And 25 years ago, I claimed and worked hard for connectivity, for connection to everybody. And now, 25 years later, I claim for less connectivity for the very well-connected and more connectivity for the ones not connected. Then I think that changed a lot the perspective of the digital society. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. David, please.

David Souter:
Okay, so one of the problems here is that for every individual actor in an environmental context, every individual actor thinks that their own actions make only a marginal impact on overall environmental outcomes. And so they’re not really that important. And that’s a reason why the governance structures around this are critical. So government structures of regulation and to create incentives for environmental responsibility. The ways in which businesses develop products and services and standards are developed and so forth. The way in which citizens can, the kind of information around the overall environmental context that is available to citizens and the information that they can take to make environmentally responsible choices as consumers. So all of those things, I think, what I would sum up as saying, we need an ethos of environmental responsibility across the digital sector. So the decision makers at all levels in government, business, standard setting bodies, data centers, and so forth, are taking into account the environmental impacts of what they do.

Moderator:
Thank you, David. And I’ve run totally over time, but I think there’s a clear consensus that this is a journey. And there is willingness to continue this dialogue. And there is this gap between, this gap that while citizens may not be able to make a big impact, I think it’s still important for each citizen to work on it. And the other thing is, there’s a clear direction, action point as well, is for this community to go back to your NRIs, the National and Regional Internet Governance Forums, and bring those stakeholders that matter, bring the governments, bring the ministers, the right ministers, bring the industry to talk about this issue. And I expect everyone to go back to your national and regional initiatives and do that. And then next year, to come back at this main session and tell us about what further actions we can take on this very important matter that we cannot fail to accomplish. Thank you, everyone. And please join me in a round of applause to the panel. Thank you.

Audience

The analysis examines a series of speeches discussing the issue of internet shutdowns and their implications. The speakers express grave concern over the seriousness of internet shutdowns and advocate for the imposition of sanctions on those responsible. They argue that internet shutdowns violate humanity and have far-reaching consequences on safety, health infrastructure, and access to information.

One speaker emphasises the need for better early crisis warnings and suggests integrating internet shutdown indicators into forecasting procedures for crisis surveillance. By recognising internet shutdowns as crisis indicators, governments and relevant authorities can respond more effectively to impending crises.

The importance of private sector governance in protecting the internet against political pressures is highlighted. The International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which operates as a private corporation with multi-stakeholder representation, is praised for its ability to resist pressures to remove domain names or participate in political sanctions. This private sector governance is valued as a key characteristic in safeguarding the internet against subordination to military and political ends.

The analysis raises concerns about internet access and digital transformation in conflict areas. It highlights the negative impact of the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan, where the digital transformation project funded by the World Bank was halted. Furthermore, the potential problem of the military owning internet service providers is mentioned, as it raises concerns about impartiality and the potential for censorship.

The role of social media networks and platforms in crisis management is discussed, with a call for better coordination with stakeholders and civil society. It is observed that people are more likely to rely on social media apps for reporting incidents or following news rather than traditional websites.

One speaker emphasises the need for clarity on how international humanitarian law should be applied in digital warfare situations where physical force is not involved. The use of cyberspace, spyware, and internet shutdowns in warfare creates challenges in interpreting and applying the rules of distinction, targeting, proportionality, and humanity.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the gravity of the issue of internet shutdowns and advocates for sanctions as a means to address the problem. It calls for better early crisis warnings, the integration of internet shutdown indicators, and recognises the importance of private sector governance in protecting the internet. The challenges surrounding internet access and digital transformation in conflict areas, the potential concerns with military-owned internet service providers, and the pivotal role of social media networks in crisis management are also discussed. Finally, there is a need to clarify the application of international humanitarian law in the context of non-kinetic warfare involving cyberspace, spyware, and internet shutdowns.

Roman Jeet Singh Cheema

Access Now, a renowned digital security organization, receives daily requests for assistance in digital security issues. They prioritize global cybersecurity policy and advocate for the application of human rights law in Internet Governance. Access Now has observed an alarming increase in surveillance-related measures and spyware attacks targeting civil society, posing risks to individuals and communities.

One of Access Now’s key concerns is internet shutdowns. They strongly oppose decisions that lead to blacklisting the internet in specific regions, seeing it as a dangerous precedent. The organization actively works against internet shutdowns, recognizing the potential dangers they bring.

Access Now emphasizes the importance of reaching global consensus on various aspects of internet governance. They argue for the protection of cybersecurity incident response teams during times of conflict, asserting that emergency responders should not be targeted. They believe this principle should be extended to similar teams.

Regarding international governance conversations, Access Now supports the idea, advocating for stricter standards against cyber destructive activity. They express concern about separating and creating different internet standards, preferring a reduction in conflict over a permissive approach. They emphasize the need for preventive measures to address cyber conflict and establish stronger international governance norms.

Access Now highlights the universal unacceptability of internet shutdowns, noting that they are often used to hide impunity, violence, and targeting. They call for consequences for states that consistently perpetrate internet shutdowns and urge member states to demonstrate stronger commitment.

Lastly, Access Now advocates for active prevention of internet shutdowns through international media attention and domestic challenges. They believe the UN system, including organizations like the WHO, should play a more active role in addressing and preventing internet shutdowns.

In conclusion, Access Now, as a digital security organization, assists with digital security issues and pushes for global cybersecurity policy. They emphasize the application of human rights law in Internet Governance and oppose decisions that blacklist the internet. Their goal is to establish stricter standards against cyber destructive activity and prevent internet shutdowns through international governance conversations, media attention, and domestic challenges.

Mauro Vignati

During armed conflicts, the internet infrastructure often experiences disruptions, which have negative implications. The ICT infrastructure is frequently targeted or taken down, causing significant disruptions in communication and information flow. This poses challenges for civilians, as their ability to receive relief operations and maintain contact with their families is severely affected.

Furthermore, the absence of specific technologies in conflict zones hampers the work of international organizations. These organizations need to operate on both sides of a conflict to provide critical assistance and support. However, the disruption of technology makes it difficult for them to coordinate and execute relief operations effectively.

One of the underlying issues is the lack of distinction between civilian and military internet use. The internet architecture was not originally built to differentiate between these two categories. Consequently, during conflicts, civilian infrastructure often becomes disrupted, as it is not protected or prioritised. To address this, there is a need to establish clear guidelines and mechanisms to distinguish and protect civilian infrastructure from military targets.

Addressing this issue, it is recommended that the state takes measures to segment data and communication infrastructure used for military purposes from civilian ones. This segregation would help protect civilian infrastructure and ensure a more efficient and secure digital environment during conflicts. Additionally, tech companies should also consider implementing segmentation when providing services to military or civilian entities to prevent unintentional disruptions or compromise of civilian infrastructure.

Looking towards the future, it is vital to carefully consider how the digital infrastructure should be structured. As conflicts continue to evolve and technology advances, it is crucial to establish a robust and resilient digital framework that ensures the smooth operation of critical communication and information systems.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) plays a significant role in conflict management and humanitarian efforts. They work in more than 100 countries and are devoted to upholding International Humanitarian Law (IHL) during conflicts. This includes the protection of critical civilian infrastructure and refraining from targeting civilian objects.

The ICRC also advocates for the consideration of data protection within IHL. They aim to convince states to include data protection as an essential aspect of international humanitarian standards. Recognising the importance of data as an object to be protected aligns with the increasing reliance on digital infrastructure during conflicts and the need to safeguard sensitive information.

In conclusion, during armed conflicts, the internet infrastructure is often disrupted, impacting civilian access to vital services and hindering the work of international organizations. The differentiation between civilian and military internet use, along with the segmentation of data and communication infrastructure, is crucial to protect civilian infrastructure and ensure an efficient and secure digital environment. As conflicts continue to unfold, it is essential to consider the future of digital infrastructure and uphold International Humanitarian Law to safeguard civilian lives and maintain connectivity in conflict zones.

Moderator – Regine Grienberger

Global internet governance is facing significant challenges due to conflicts occurring between different groups and nations. These conflicts include the ongoing Ukraine war, terrorist attacks in Israel, and military coups in the Sahel region. The competition between authoritarian and liberal systems further exacerbates these conflicts, along with the global north-south divide concerning justice issues.

Regine Grienberger highlights the negative impact of these conflicts on global internet governance. This sentiment is supported by the fact that these conflicts impede the stability and functionality of the internet. In response, Grienberger emphasizes the importance of protecting the global, free, and open internet. Governments often intend to preserve internet freedom, but their actions can inadvertently undermine these efforts. Additionally, interfering with the architectural characteristics of the internet poses significant dangers.

Regarding potential solutions, it is noted that sanctions should not be the first response against internet shutdowns. Sanctions are viewed as a complex diplomatic instrument and not the primary course of action in addressing this issue. Instead, it is crucial to integrate internet shutdowns as a crisis indicator in early warning and forecasting procedures. By incorporating this information into crisis management protocols, social upheaval, riots, and civil wars can be prevented.

In the context of the digital divide, it is revealed that nearly 12 percent of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have regressed rather than progressed. Despite this, collaboration between countries through digital partnerships remains a viable solution. Estonia, for example, actively engages in digital cooperation with almost every country, including initiatives in Afghanistan. This showcases the potential of digital cooperation to address global challenges in an increasingly divided digital landscape.

In conclusion, conflicts between groups and nations pose a significant threat to global internet governance. The need to protect the free and open nature of the internet is emphasized, alongside urging governments to be mindful of unintentional interference. Furthermore, while sanctions should be approached cautiously, integrating internet shutdowns as crisis indicators and fostering digital cooperation contribute to mitigating the challenges presented by conflicts in the digital realm.

Nele Leosk

The analysis examines the role of cyberspace and technology in modern conflicts, focusing on the war in Ukraine. It highlights the negative impact of cyberattacks on Ukraine’s telecommunication infrastructure and their ripple effects on other countries. These attacks disrupted telecommunication services, and they often preceded physical attacks during the war. The analysis also emphasizes the importance of digital society and secure infrastructure in combating cyberattacks, citing Estonia’s secure digital identity system as an example. It stresses the need for collaboration between the private sector and governments to maintain data and services during conflicts. The analysis further addresses the increasing targeting of everyday services, like hospitals and schools, by cyberattacks and their detrimental effects on individuals. It highlights the significance of public goods and digital public infrastructure in democratizing and making states more accessible. Estonia’s collaboration with Finland and Iceland on digital solutions is also discussed, emphasizing the benefits of global collaboration. Overall, the analysis underscores the urgent need for robust cybersecurity measures in modern conflicts and advocates for cooperation and innovation to address these challenges effectively.

David Huberman

The functionality of the internet on a global scale is attributed to the adoption of common technical standards, which guarantee interoperability. These standards are developed by engineers around the world who contribute their expertise to ensure the quality and efficient operation of the internet. The internet’s infrastructure relies on a system of routing and domain name system (DNS), which everyone voluntarily adopts. This system enables the internet to work uniformly across different regions.

Another crucial component that supports the functioning of the internet is the root server system. This system ensures that all DNS queries work smoothly, allowing users to access websites and online services. Even during times of conflict, if regional root servers are taken down, it does not significantly impact internet users. This resilience is a testament to the robustness of the root server system and its ability to maintain the internet’s accessibility.

The governance model of the technical layer of the internet plays a pivotal role in keeping the internet online for everyone, even when individual systems go offline. This governance model is particularly effective during times of conflict, ensuring that the internet remains operational and accessible to users. It provides a framework for coordination and cooperation among various stakeholders to address challenges and maintain the internet’s functionality.

Building and securing the internet is no longer solely an engineering endeavor. It requires a collaborative effort involving multiple stakeholders, including civil society, government, academia, and engineering. The internet has become a matter of national security for countries, and the preservation of its public core must be achieved with neutrality. Recognizing the real-world implications, stakeholders from different sectors come together to ensure the security and stability of the internet.

Economies in transition or remote areas prioritize the construction and development of the internet to connect their people and share information with the rest of the world. Once initial construction is complete, securing the internet becomes a crucial focus to prevent vulnerabilities that may compromise the economy and infrastructure.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is tasked with ensuring the security, stability, and resilience of a part of the internet through its multi-stakeholder model. This model has proven effective in maintaining the internet’s functionality during times of conflict, as acknowledged by David Huberman when appreciating Dr. Mueller’s explanation of its efficacy.

In conclusion, the internet’s functionality and continued accessibility are made possible by the adoption of common technical standards, the resilience of the root server system, and the effectiveness of the governance model of the technical layer. The collaboration of multiple stakeholders and the recognition of the internet’s security implications play a vital role in building and securing the internet globally.

Moderator – Regine Grienberger:
So welcome, everybody, to this session with the title Shaping Internet Governance in Times of Conflict. My name is Rekine Grimberger. I’m the German Cyber Ambassador, and I’m going to moderate this session. One of our panelists is still missing, so let’s see how we manage. But we will start with somebody else anyway. So when we look at what we have now, a global internet, the question that we are going to pose in this session is, just let me look up my notes. Where is it? So we live now in times of conflict, and this conflict is both imminent, sometimes even violent, a violent conflict, like the Ukraine war, like the terrorist attacks that we’ve seen in Israel these days, like the military coups in the Sahel. But there is also a strategic competition between authoritarian and liberal systems. And there is also, I would call it a redistribution conflict or a conflict over global justice issues between the global north and the global south, and also within societies. In these conflicts, people take sides. They are forced sometimes to take sides. They want to protect what they regard as theirs. And sometimes they lash out to push back others who are threatening their interests. Even institutions and conversations, sometimes also conversations that we have here at the IGF, are becoming increasingly politicized. You have seen or heard and remember, of course, that Ukraine, in March 2022, requested from Ike. can to block Russian internet domains. There are also requests from governments in a more general way to take back control of the internet to shield societies. Here he is, Roman. To shield societies, for example, from disinformation, from hate speech, from fake news. And sometimes governments do these even in good faith, unintentionally breaking what they actually want to protect, which is the global free and open internet. In this conversation that I’m going to have with my four partners here on the panel is we want to describe the pressure on internet governance in times of conflict and the dangers of fiddling with the architectural characteristics of the internet. But we would like to also highlight what keeps us together. What are the elements that help us to maintain this global internet? Which tools can we use to stabilize cyberspace in times of conflict? I would like to start to my right with David Huberman from ICANN. I would like to ask you to please introduce yourself first so that we know where you are from, your affiliation. And then perhaps share your experiences with what happens to internet governance in times of conflict from your point of view. What is the issue? What is the tissue that keeps us together? And what does ICANN do to protect this tissue? Thank you.

David Huberman:
Thank you, Dr. Greenberger. So good afternoon, everybody. My name is David Huberman. I work at ICANN. I am based in Washington, DC. And I have spent the last 25 years of my life, 24 years of my life, building internet and ensuring that people around the world and societies around the world, from the richest to the poorest to the newest and the oldest, have functioning internet. And what do I mean by that? Well, when you pick up your phone and you pick up your mobile device and you launch TikTok and you watch a video, to me, that’s not the internet. When you open up your laptop and you send an email, to me, that’s not the internet. What we are talking about is two very different layers. There is the layer where all these platforms exists, where your social media walled gardens exist, where your government ministries have their internets and their information and the information for the society exists, where your email and where your videos exist. But all of these run atop a different layer. And this is the technical layer that underpins the entire internet. You mentioned a global internet. And that’s very important because the entire world, the entire internet works because it uses common standards. Every time you do anything in an application, any time you do anything on your computer, underlying it is a system of routing and a system of the DNS, the domain name system. They’re a system of protocols that everybody in the world has chosen to voluntarily adopt. And they’ve adopted the same standards. And what that buys us is something called interoperability. Your internet in your country, in your home, works the same as my internet in my home and the same internet everywhere around the world because of common standards. A very smart person told me yesterday that it is this system that is designed to unify the world in times when conflict tries to divide us. And I want to give you a really interesting example of it. There is a system on the internet that pretty much none of you have ever heard of that is the most important system on the internet, or one of the most important things on the internet. You rely on it every time you do anything, and you don’t even know it. It’s called the root server system. And it is essentially what allows every DNS query to work. And even if you don’t know what it is, a DNS query is what allows you to get to every site you visit and allows your application to get to the places where it wants to deliver the data that you’re asking. And everybody in the world relies on this root server system to work 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, for the 40 years that it has existed. So here’s the thing. It’s in a time of conflict where if you think about a region, chaos has erupted. Violence has erupted. People are being killed. And you think, OK, between the bombs and the sabotage, we can take systems like this down, right? If the root server system here in Japan were to completely disappear, all of the different servers in the root server system in Japan disappeared, or in the Middle East right now, there’s a lot of chaos. There’s a lot of war. If all of the root servers in the Middle East were to go away, do you know what happened to all of the internet users still connected? Nothing. Nothing would happen. They wouldn’t notice it at all. And that’s because the governance system behind this technical layer has been designed, has evolved, and has been hardened to ensure that jurisdictional concerns, no. Application concerns, data concerns, no. It’s about the engineering, the interoperability, and the promotion of open standards that every developer can use to create whatever it is they want on the content layer, on the second layer. At the technical layer, the internet is not fragmented. The internet works because engineers. in China, and engineers in Japan, and engineers in South Africa, and engineers in Israel, and engineers in Palestine, and engineers in Ukraine, and engineers in Russia, all come together on mailing lists and sometimes at face-to-face meetings to create these standards upon which the internet is built. And they do so with an emphasis on quality engineering, openness, and interoperability. And so I’d like to close by remarking that in times of conflict, this is when the governance model of the technical layer actually shines, because the output of this governance model is what keeps the internet online for everybody, even as systems go off.

Moderator – Regine Grienberger:
Thank you, David. I would now turn to Roman from Access Now. Please first introduce yourself. And then what are your observations from your professional experiences with internet governance in times of conflict? And what do you do? What does your organization do to maintain this open, free, global internet that is an important means for the civil society?

Roman Jeet Singh Cheema:
Thank you so much, Ambassador. And I’m very happy to introduce myself partly, because I think it relates to this conversation and what the organization does. My name is Roman Jeet Singh Cheema. I am Senior International Counsel and Asia Pacific Policy Director at Access Now, where I also coordinate our work on global cybersecurity policy. Access Now is an international civil society organization that seeks to defend and extend the digital rights of individuals and communities at risk. And we are born from this basic understanding that tech can empower. Tech is critical to enabling human rights online and offline. But technology can also place people at risk. And that’s a very important reason why we believe this community needs to engage in this conversation and why we exist. Access Now was, in fact, born as a digital security organization. In 2009, Access Now’s co-founders during the Iranian Green Revolution protests and many other moments after that realized that technology was helping activists, mobilizers, this wide civil society sphere that many of us depend on in autocracies, democracies, and everywhere in between, that tech was enabling them but also putting them at risk. People’s devices were being attacked, compromised. People were being monitored. So that requires digital security assistance, but also public conversation around what is acceptable when it comes to recognizing how to prevent tech from doing harm. And what that means is today is we are a global digital security provider. We run a 24 by 7 digital security helpline that receives every day, as I speak, requests from civil society, journalists, and others, requests for assistance from basic things on what sort of device should I use to prevent myself from being attacked, or I believe I’m seeing something malicious here, or my friend who’s an activist or journalist has been detained, I’m worried about the information they may have on the device or in their online accounts, to many more complicated requests. Alongside that, we do public policy work and advocacy, and we also convene. I work in the advocacy arm that tracks and manages this. But why I mention this is that it’s therefore important to recognize that if tech empowers, and it also puts people at risk, how do we approach the question of the internet governance questions that we look at or the internet governance architecture? How does it address issues of contestation and times of conflict? And I think it’s very important to recognize that we specifically are so clearly aware that technology can be used to oppress and attack people, whether it’s in moments of general peacetime in terms of political contestation within countries, but also during moments of protest, of activism, but also conflict, whether it be internal armed conflict or cross-border situations. We particularly have been just interested in the rapid growth in the number of surveillance-related measures and spyware attacks that we have seen and this global hack-for-hire industry that exists, but also the more weaponized usage of cyber attacks more generally. And I know that some of my other panelists will go further into this in detail, but I did want to talk about this very briefly. It’s very important in the internet governance space as well to sometimes bridge it to the cybersecurity conversation, a conversation that you, Ambassador, and many others are at very often about what rules apply when it comes to human rights generally. And many of us are very intimately aware on how human rights law already applies to what governments and corporations and other actors do every day when it comes to technology and the importance of internet governance coming from a human rights framework. But also, how does humanitarian law apply during peacetime, internal armed conflict, and moments of general warfare? And why I mention this is that it leads to interesting moments. We’ve had such an interesting, robust conversation in the UN system when it comes to what sort of cyber norms should apply and the work of the UN Open-Ended Working Group on state-related ICT behavior. as well as other processes, but you still see those interesting moments pop up in the internet governance space, for example. I think it’s important to address the sort of conversation that came up in relation to the Russian invasion of Ukraine and then the conversation around the role of ICANN there, where many actors, including actors that we work with on digital security, actors directly involved in the situation, said it’s important for groups to take a stand. And it is our belief there, for example, that the internet governance ecosystem should not be making those sorts of decisions of taking entire entities out. And part of that comes from our own existing human rights work. We work on the issue of internet shutdowns, working together with the global community, the Keep It On Coalition, and we know the danger that happens when you decide to try to black out the internet. And if these decisions go into the technical administration of internet resources, we believe that was a very dangerous precedent that would cause problems. That does not mean that internet governance should not be accountable or should not be having conversations around who is in these spaces and what takes place. And I thought I would share this based on my experiences in the Asia-Pacific region, where society groups in countries which have gone through coups, which have gone through dramatic moments of transition, have asked which government bodies, for example, would ICANN recognize as legitimate or not? If officials are there who have sanctions or human rights measures applying or human rights claims against them, should they be allowed into meetings or not? And this is an important conversation that we think can happen further because conflict and human rights violations, unfortunately, are growing day by day. I just did want to end with noting this. It is very, very crucial for us to recognize that when it comes to these conversations, they are based on what is happening every day. So the ultimate reality is that we see a massive increase in the number of attacks targeting civil society when it comes to the use of cyber weapons and tools. And I know others may also speak to this. Why I mentioned this is that it’s therefore critical to recognize that there are certain areas that we should even more strongly say so. The work of cyber policy experts to say that the public core of the Internet, including the domain name function, should not be targeted is something that we must apply here. And I would end with noting this, that there are certain things we can agree upon further. Cyber security incident response teams within government, in civil society, or those who work in technical administration should not be targeted during times of conflict. That sort of idea that there are emergency response actors who should never be targeted, you don’t try to target the fire service, is something we need to understand more. And these basic understandings that are there between these different communities need to be synthesized further, which is why I’m very happy that we are having this conversation here. Thank you, Roman.

Moderator – Regine Grienberger:
I would like to turn now to Nele, my dear colleague from Estonia, Digital Ambassador. Please introduce yourself, and then I would like to ask you, because you are working closely with Ukraine, and Estonia has itself also experiences with attacks on the internet in cyberspace, I think it was in 2007. So that would be one aspect I would like to hear from you about. And then the other one is, you’re also looking at the bright side of digital technology, and all the possibilities and opportunities that governments with government applications can build on the internet, and the potential of digital cooperation also with your partners. So I would like to hear from you, what do you think should internet governance bring also as a contribution to this kind of overcoming of conflicts and providing for opportunities for, for example, achieving the sustainable development goals in the long run?

Nele Leosk:
Hello everybody, and thank you, Regina, for a nice introduction. So I’m a digital ambassador from Estonia, and indeed, when I started in my position, I thought I would only deal with the bright side of digital technologies, because we also have a cyber ambassador, whose task is to deal with all the dark sides of the internet and technologies. But over time, unfortunately, some of these grayer and darker issues have also, I would say, merged on my table, and increasingly so. So I would say that this has become also part of my everyday job to make sure that the technology is used for the good and for the bad, and there are several, I would say, global and multilateral and multi-stakeholder processes. One of them is why we are here, IGF. There are several others that are merging, so our task as tech ambassadors is to make sure that internet remains, as it was stated, open, free, interoperable, and accessible to everybody. But also that the technologies wouldn’t be misused. But before I go to the second part of Regina’s question, I would really perhaps point to some of the takeaways or something that we have seen in the current war in Ukraine and also beyond. And I guess we can conclude that actually both layers that you referred to, the technical layer and what is on top of it, is actually under attack, and is also very fragile. And we can see that clearly that digital or the cyberspace has become part of the war. The war in Ukraine did not start with physical missile attacks. It actually really started with cyberattacks at Viasat that really affected telecommunication in Ukraine and actually had a huge spillover effect to several other countries, including in the European Union. We also saw that data centers in Ukraine were attacked, and also the internet service provider Triolan was also attacked during the very first days of the war that started on the 24th of of February. So what has resulted, we of course also know that the connectivity has been vital and has been actually dependent on very few actors in Ukraine, if not to say currently mainly only one actor. And this brings in also other players in our, I would say, our diplomatic fora that perhaps used to be mainly focusing on the negotiations with states. Now the private sector and the big tech, of course, is a big part of it because they have an enormous power over both layers. But of course, we have also seen several good practices coming out from this unfortunate war. Both governments and private sector have actually also joined their forces to help Ukraine to keep the data, but also to keep the services running. But the other takeaway from the war in Ukraine is that when we, and this is what we have seen also in Estonia, when years back the cyber attacks were mainly targeted at critical infrastructure, government databases, perhaps government websites and services and so forth, this is changing. So increasingly, regular people’s services that they use every day are being under attack. Is it data attacks to hospitals, kindergarten, schools? And this means actually that the cyberspace is no longer actually about cyber security per se, but it’s also about how we digitalize our society. So for us in Estonia, it has been really useful that every single person in Estonia uses, for example, a secure digital identity, because it would be almost impossible to protect every single medical practice from these attacks if they were not using a secure digital identity. And I think this now finally comes to Regine’s second question about the importance actually around digital cooperation. So we have had indeed a long-term cooperation with Ukraine over the past 14 years, building their digital infrastructure, building data governance, data centers, helping to introduce a secure digital identity, helping it to be incompatible also with EU regulations and standards. And this has also very clearly helped Ukraine to provide services to people under very extreme circumstances. People in Ukraine can access their documents even if they live somewhere abroad and so forth. So this, I would say, long-term cooperation and really focusing on your digital society has become actually more crucial in times of conflicts than perhaps we would have thought before. I have some other comments, but I guess we can keep them for the second round.

Moderator – Regine Grienberger:
Thank you. And now to Mauro, here to my left. You’re from ICRC. I’d like to ask you also to introduce yourself. I wanted to have you on this panel because I wanted to highlight another element or another means that helps us to keep the world together and unified also in times of conflict. And in my understanding, that is also the role of international law and especially international humanitarian law, which are basically rules of the road for societies, for governments, to minimize harms to civilians in times of war and to perhaps also solve conflicts in peaceful ways. So please, could you explain a little bit where you stand, what you observe as threats to the global internet, and what can be done to prevent this harm or this damage done to the internet?

Mauro Vignati:
Thank you, Regina. My name is Mauro Vignatti. I’m a senior advisor on digital technologies and warfare at the International Committee of the Red Cross. I’m busy at the HQ in Geneva. I think there is no need to introduce the ICRC. So I would like to start with two remarks. First one, what you said, Regina, at the beginning. So we have armed conflicts from one side, and then we have political and economical tensions that are going to impact internet. So what we see logically is that the two are influencing each other. So we have armed conflicts that are increasing the polarization of political and economical tensions, and we have also the opposite situation. This is the first comment. The second one is about what David said in the introduction. So we should talk about internet governance, and we should talk about digital governance. So we should talk about what is the infrastructure and what is built on top. So referring to the infrastructure. So what we see at the beginning of each conflict, one of the first infrastructure that is disrupted is the ICT, Information Communication Technology infrastructure. So it could be antennas, it could be cables. So those are the first piece of the infrastructure that are taken down and disrupted. And here we have a first consideration. So internet has never been built with the idea to split what is to be used for military purposes and what is to be used for civilian purposes. So when we talk about that, we receive immediately a reaction. Say, hey, internet is like that. You want to modify internet. It’s not our goal to think of having two internets, but we have a consideration on that. So internet is not just a bubble. Internet is 77,000 autonomous systems that are connected to each other. So those are autonomous because they can work without interconnection to the other. If they want to connect to the other, OK, and then we create the internet. But just to be aware that we are talking about independent systems that are connected to each other, and with the fact that the military armed forces are using more and more civilian infrastructure, we have a situation where, logically, the civilian infrastructure will be taken down because it’s used by armed forces. So this is the first consideration in terms of international military law. There is a principle that is called the principle of distinction, that every time civilians and civilian objects must be distinguished to competence and military objectives. So in this case, we have an intermingling situation where the infrastructure is not clearly defined and split among competence and civilians. This is the first part for what we can call internet governance for the part of the digital. So what we see is that during armed conflict and even before the armed conflict are starting, we have a disruption of what we call the global digital supply chain. So this disruption of the global supply chain is done through sanctions, restrictions. Even we see lately self-exclusion of companies from territories that are in conflict. And this has a huge impact on civilians and also on the relief operations that are taking place. an international organization like ours is doing. So when we talk about self-exclusion, we see companies that are exiting specific territories and not providing any more services that civilians are used to use for several reasons. So for keeping contact with families, to be able to understand and receive information about relief operation that we deploy in the territory. And by them, they will be isolated in term of information. So they will not receive any more information coming from outside the territory of the conflict. So this is the first consideration about the disruption of global supply chain. So international organization like ours, we have to work on both side of the conflict. If the technologies that we are used to use in those territories are no more there, how we can operate in the two territories and being able to coordinate our relief operations if those technologies are no more available in those territories. And this increase the difficulties for NGOs or for international organization like the ICRC to operate in conflict zone.

Moderator – Regine Grienberger:
Thank you. I would like to put now a second round of questions to my panelists, but while I do this, please think about questions that you might want to raise. And my first question goes to David. You’ve heard about the roles that other players in the game take for themselves. So like governments, international law organizations, in civil society. What do you make of this burden sharing for maintaining the global internet? And perhaps you can also give us a little bit your take on the role of international law in this because we were having a conversation about that before and it was interesting what David said about that.

David Huberman:
Thank you, Regina. For 30, 40, 50 years, when we were building the internet in the 1960s and the 1970s, the 1980s and the 1990s, this was an engineering endeavor, okay? These were smart men and women from engineering backgrounds pursuing an engineering pursuit. But it’s 2023 and the internet is a matter of national security for countries. Just like you said, the intermingling of both military and civilian purposes over the same wires, over the same routers. My friend from Access Now talked very pointedly, very passionately about the public core of the internet and how we must maintain this neutrality, right? We can’t do this as an engineering endeavor anymore because there are the real world implications of what happens and how we build and how we evolve internet and internet standards. It’s too much part of our lives today. And so it’s never been more important that civil society, that government policy makers, that engineers work together to develop standards, to build internet. And today, equally important, more important, I’m not sure, harden the core of the internet to help prevent attacks from state actors, from bad actors, from terrorists, from whomever it is who wants to lower the quality of our lives by interrupting our digital lives. It is so important that we now start securing or better secure what we have built and what we are building. This is what ICANN does. The actual mission of ICANN is to increase the security, stability, and resilience of the part of the internet that we are in, the unique identifier system. And we do so through this multi-stakeholder model. And the multi-stakeholder model is only enriched through the spirit of collaboration, cooperation, and the shared expertise of governments, of civil society, of academia, and engineering to better build this internet that we all rely on. As for international law, she’s making me uncomfortable. uncomfortable on purpose. You can see her smiling. ICANN is an organization. It’s based in the United States. ICANN respects international law. The ICANN ecosystem is made from stakeholders all around the world. Of course, we hope they respect international law. But that’s really easy for us to say, because I’m an American, and you’re a German, and you’re an Estonian, and you are Swiss. And we live in this global north in very advanced societies where we believe in and want to progress our values that comport with what our idea of international law is. But the truth is, when I go into countries, economies in transition, many of which are in the global south, many of which are remote, many of which are found in remote corners in oceans, what we’re trying to do is build internet that works for their people so that they can connect and get information and share information with the rest of the world. And in these economies, the priority is on the initial construction, the initial development. And then the focus becomes on securing it. So these do not become vulnerable islands on the internet. And these discussions about international law, that’s not in the discussion. It’s not part of it, because we’re just trying to get connected, stay connected, and build connectivity that is secure. So it’s a very north-centric, it’s a very, very Western and European-centric type concept. And while ICANN strongly believes in these precepts, we have to understand that in the end, we are building this public core and trying to make it good for everybody.

Moderator – Regine Grienberger:
Thank you. And of course, Mauro has to respond to this.

Mauro Vignati:
Thank you. So the ICRC had during two years a so-called global advisory board of high-level person worldwide. And we’re going to publish in a week a report, the final report of the consultation we had with those persons. And one of the recommendations, so we have prepared a recommendation for combatants, for states, for tech companies, and for humanitarian organizations. So one of the recommendations that we have for states that the state should, to the maximum extent feasible, segment data and communication infrastructure used for military purpose from civilian ones. So I fully understand the argument that you are doing everything. The principal goal is the connectivity and guarantee the connectivity. But the connectivity is subjective. to a state on voluntary basis of the state. If the state decided to disrupt this connectivity, they can do it. So what we recommend to state here is to start to think about segmenting and segregating the communication systems and the data that they are providing on their territory. The same we ask to tech companies to start to think about it. When satellite companies, when cloud infrastructure are providing services to military or to civilians, they should start to think how to segment those. How we would like to have the internet in the future. How we would like the digital being structured in the future. Do we want to go on with the non-distinguishing what is a military from what is civilian or we would like to think now to evolve on a new level where data and infrastructure are separated between what is civilian and what is military.

Moderator – Regine Grienberger:
Thank you, Mauro. I saw Roman nodding and you were mentioning the cyber norms in your initial statement. So I would like to hear from you what role do you see for the international law in comparison to the other elements of the connective tissue that we have mentioned?

Roman Jeet Singh Cheema:
Thank you so much. I think it’s important when you go into this conversation to just recognize governance and law are linked but not the same topic. So for example, when you mentioned that many countries in the majority world may not want international law, I would dispute that some do, but many of them do want international governance conversations. In fact, the IGF in a sense exists because they brought up these conversations through the WSIS process and elsewhere. And why I mentioned that it’s very important to recognize where that imperative comes from. So that’s the first part. I just want to note that. So I think that’s what we also see in many of these cybersecurity conversations. We see many countries, sometimes countries that may not always be fully informed or maybe asking for something counterproductive to other elements of national strategy, but say we want it discussed in the UN system, we want more clarity. And I think it’s been useful that the cyber processes have been slow, very evolutionary, but have outlined certain things that there is an applicability of the UN Charter and international law to cyber behavior. It’s not a blank slate. There are elements there that are further clear and more clear than perhaps other parts are, including some of the conversation on the public call, which I acknowledge is not a fully recognized principle by every actor in the UN system, which is unfortunate. And perhaps we need more clarity there. But I think what’s really important there to recognize is that fundamentally, we do need to acknowledge that we need more evolution of this. I’m a bit cautious on the idea of saying that we need to separate and create different standards. Then I want to step back a moment to the conversation we see domestically in many countries are on internet shutdowns. When many countries have conducted internet shutdowns, and the position from Access Now and many of our colleagues in civil society is that internet shutdowns are never acceptable full stop. They are not legal, in our view, under international human rights law, and they ethically and principally in terms of efficacy are also ineffective. But the argument that some governments have taken is, look, we know that internet shutdowns disrupt public services, access to critical care. Maybe let’s create different layers. We’ll have government systems that are not shut down during the internet, and other systems that are shut down. And I was just thinking about it when we’re discussing this now in the context of conflict, and I recognize very importantly the principles that the ICRC is proposing here about careful targeting. But in a sense, the main principle we actually have is that this nature of cyber conflict, per se, is never acceptable. And just thinking about that, Regina, I know that that’s the tension we see in the UN processes itself. Many states, they are saying, we actually do not want cyber conflict to regularly take place. We do know that it’s already happening. And if we don’t acknowledge certain rules of the road, operators will go and conduct all sorts of problematic behavior. But this is why I was just thinking when it comes to this concept of internet governance and separating layers and doing other parts there. The basic principle is we want to reduce conflict rather than encourage more of it. I think we therefore need stronger standards saying that all sorts of cyber-destructive activity by states or by state-linked actors or non-state actors is problematic. I think one of our challenges as we apply traditional humanitarian law in this space is we are trying to make sure that when conflict takes place, it is very limited and targeted, but it’s also giving a permissive nature to certain actors. And I acknowledge that when states sometimes say this, they don’t always mean it. There are other political reasons why they’re saying this there. But this is the tension I see. Because, for example, I’ve seen so many actors within global South countries that say, we know shutdowns are problematic, but we can never stop doing them. So can you let us say that, OK, certain government systems will always be accessible. The rest will shut it down. So I just thought that parallel that came in. And I know it’s a crude parallel. It’s perhaps, in many ways, does not recognize the sophistication of many of the conversations. the RCRC and others have had. But I thought I’d just mention that as a sort of challenging reality check of how many governments may actually take these rules and apply them.

Moderator – Regine Grienberger:
Thank you, Man. I would like to touch briefly on something that Nelly mentioned before, and that is what is built on the internet is, you know, public infrastructure. And I would like to invite you to elaborate a little bit on digital public goods and digital public infrastructure, digital commons perhaps also, as elements that could also be seen as connective tissue

Nele Leosk:
on the basis of the internet. Thank you, Regina. Now you opened a very entirely new and big conversation. I don’t know how many of you are familiar with these terms that have merged over the past years, digital public goods and digital public infrastructure, and in the EU we use mainly the term digital commons. But I would perhaps summarize it from two different angles. One I would say is more philosophical, and the other is a little bit more practical. And actually the first one is really related to how we see the role of governments, but everybody, in building a digital society. And it started actually in Estonia really with rebuilding our state, with really democratizing our state, where we were in the understanding that whatever the government does, it does not do it first alone, and it does not do it for itself, or just serving certain stakeholders in a society. It started more with access to information. It moved then, I would say, to open data movement, reuse of data, but ultimately also to the technological sphere, to open standards, interoperability, and so forth. But the other part of this is actually very practical. We really realized, for example, in Estonia that the needs that governments have, but also civil society has, and the private sector has, are quite similar. For example, in digitalization, we would all need to authenticate ourselves virtually at some point, either to provide a service, either it’s a bank, it’s an electricity company, or it’s a Ministry of Interior. So what we did, we sort of combined our forces, and there are some aspects of this, I would say, digitalization that we really do together as a government, as a private sector, as every other participant in our society. And this, in a way, has also helped us first have a habit to work together and share what we have done and reuse what we have done. So ultimately, it comes back to actually to resources. But I think it is now maybe related also to creating a global good that the Internet allows us, but also digital technologies allow us to create and for everybody to use. So there are several examples from different countries around different solutions or products that have been made available for everybody for use. We have several of these products from Estonia that are used globally, also in Ukraine, that actually help us to save resources. And this is something that we would actually like to see perhaps more taking place. We have some systems created in Estonia, for example, we are working together with Finland and Iceland. There are some digital solutions that we develop together, we maintain them together. It allows us to save not only money, but increasingly actually human capital. It’s very challenging to find data architects or specialists, but surprisingly we don’t see that much yet. But we are starting to talk about it. I think the movement on DPI, the public goods, commons, is another push towards this. So I am a little bit positive to perhaps start sharing more of the good things we do.

Moderator – Regine Grienberger:
Thank you, Nelly. So now the floor is open for your questions. We have two microphones at both corners and also a hand mic here. And ask your questions. Who’s first at the mic? Okay, then it’s your question first. No, Milton, let the gentleman ask first and then you are.

Audience:
It’s your turn. Hi, thank you. My name is Gerald James and I have some questions just specifically on governance and actual action. I think there’s been an attempt to try and get some kind of discussion going on this, but I think there’s just a lot of fear around it. And I think that that’s kind of doing a disservice to those of us in the room who have lost family members or friends due to Internet shutdowns, which I’m not sure if there’s anyone else in here, but I have. And so I do think that there’s not a seriousness that’s taken to account with the idea of an Internet shutdown. And I think that they are often like an ancillary feature to society for a lot of different cultures. And it’s often something that we don’t actually necessarily give to everyone. It’s certain countries, like we mentioned Ukraine, we mentioned Iran, where we have interests from a global Western perspective, those people we drop internet to. We get them satellites and we make sure to take care of that. But I wonder where do we actually see governance action around sanctions on internet shutdowns? If you shut down the internet, why is that not a sanctionable offense? And especially if you are a UN member state or an IGF major stakeholder country, why would we endorse in any capacity your shutdown? And so I think that would be my first question and the bulk of my question. And then going forward, I guess the next part is how do we relate the actual damage that’s done to women’s safety, to family safety, to health infrastructure, and show the whole world that that is something that’s kept in place by the internet and by freedom of access to information. And when it’s turned off, people freely abandon their humanity. That is something that I’m very curious to hear about, and I don’t necessarily think that there’s a lot of parallels being drawn between the actual dangers to people and the way that the internet is used to ensure those dangers.

Moderator – Regine Grienberger:
Roman, would you like to talk about internet shutdowns once again? And I can then add something on sanctions.

Roman Jeet Singh Cheema:
So I just want to acknowledge firstly that I think I complete agreement on the fact that internet shutdowns are period not acceptable. I think the problem is we have outlined that international legal or human rights position. The follow through and application of that from member states in the international community is incredibly lacking. The purpose, for example, the Keep It On Coalition has to exist is not to track the number of internet shutdowns, it’s to prevent internet shutdowns from happening at any point of time. Because any internet shutdown is normally not just disproportionate, it is used, as you mentioned, as a cloak for impunity, for violence, for targeting, and very often in fact the claims made for internet shutdowns to prevent violence or for some other state purpose are actually exactly the opposite reason. They’re actually conducting problematic things. I think the challenge is that as we’ve discussed and recognize the shutdowns unacceptable from comments from the Freedom Online Coalition, from the UN Human Rights Council and elsewhere, we don’t see enough consequences. And being very honest here, I think we also say that even like-minded states, whether in the West or across Western alliances with colleagues in the majority world, there needs to be a much, much stronger position taken on this, which means that there should be consequences of discussions around digital public goods, around people’s participation in the internet governance ecosystem, if they are consistent perpetrators of internet shutdowns, not just in terms of numbers, but in terms of intense active effect. So it’s definitely a conversation where we’re seeing changes. But I’d say, in fact, sometimes the best prevention of shutdown has been international media attention, domestic challenges, not enough, of course, in, say, multilateral processes. And we do sometimes need to see more of that happen. In fact, I’m worried sometimes in a cyber context where people have said disinformation is a cybersecurity problem, because I can see that legal argument being constructed to say shutdowns are therefore a defense against disinformation, which they aren’t, by the way. And I’m happy to share more data on that. But we do now need to go from defensive conversation on shutdowns to actual action, literally a consistent, I hesitate to use program of action, because that means something very specific, but a clear political action plan from strong states taking positions on this. We say there will be consequences if you consistently shut down the internet, and it’s just not acceptable. And I do want to just note that the tracking of violence and impunity due to shutdowns, the initial steps being made, but there is much more that, in terms of political mandates or resources, could be given, even in the UN system, to the WHO and other actors to do more of that. They’re right now trying to do their best with a very limited set of resources and no actual mandate to track the effect of shutdowns.

Moderator – Regine Grienberger:
I would like to give you also an answer also from my government’s point of perspective. Sanctions, of course, are part of the diplomatic toolbox, but they are a rather complex instrument. And it’s certainly not the first thing that we are going to use. But for example, the German government is both part of the Freedom Online Coalition that Rahman mentioned, and also of the Declaration for the Future of the Internet, and both initiatives, alliances, contain this commitment to go against internet shutdowns in the diplomatic relationships with countries who use this instrument. And I can assure you that I do not, I’m not timid about speaking about that with partners, with my interlocutors about this issue. But what I wanted to add to this is that what we also have to understand is that there is a need to have an understanding as internet shutdowns, not as an isolated event. But we would like to integrate it in our early crisis warning in the forecasting procedures that we use to take information that we get from organizations like Freedom House, for example, on internet shutdowns as a crisis indicator for a specific country or region, so that we can step in earlier with the diplomatic measures, and not only after, you know, after the social upheaval, the riots, or civil war, or whatever has happened. So this is also something that I’m working on to kind of bring these informations to the people who should hear it. But now to here. Oh, I thought I was next. Let him be. Yeah, go ahead. Okay, Milton.

Audience:
So I do want to contribute something very important to the discussion, which I think has been overlooked. And it really relates to this business of why aren’t governments who shut down things sanctioned? And that is, to put it bluntly, there is no such thing as international law. There is international anarchy. Governments are sovereign, and there’s no world government that can impose sanctions upon them, although powerful governments try, such as the United States. And how is this relevant to ICANN and to the so-called public core of the Internet? Well, what we’ve done in order to get global governance of the public core, we have removed that whole governance problem from nation-states, and we’ve put it in the private sector. And that’s extremely important to understand. This is how we have internationalized governance of the domain name system. So David described ICANN as a multi-stakeholder organization, and everybody likes that term, so he’s probably trying to make ICANN look good. But the point is multi-stakeholderism is not the key characteristic of ICANN. The key characteristic is it is a private corporation that has multi-stakeholder representation and participation, and that gives it the ability to do things like say to Ukraine, sorry, we’re not going to remove .ru from the root, or we’re not going to participate in U.S. sanctions on countries that the U.S. doesn’t like, or we’re not going to make the Iranians, you know, succumb to their particular political agenda. So I think it’s really important to understand the role of private sector governance in this kind of protecting the Internet against subordination to military and political ends.

Moderator – Regine Grienberger:
Thank you. other question and then I’ll give you a possibility to answer yeah. Thank you my

Audience:
name is Farzana Badi, Digital Medusa. So I wanted to ask the panel about how do we how can we actually approach conflict so that we leave no one behind so we talk a lot about Ukraine but Afghanistan I have not heard a lot about Afghanistan and the situation that is going on there and Sudan is in conflict as well. In Afghanistan the digital transformation project that was funded by World Bank stopped after the Taliban took over. Taliban is a sanctioned entity and if they become government then there will be a lot of problems providing internet access to them. So how can we actually come up with an approach that we do we have a more inclusive approach that we do not leave anybody behind because they are struggling and they have nowhere to go to and then another thing that I just wanted to mention in a lot of the times in various countries the internet service providers are owned by the military so if you want to like divide this and kind of like maybe sanction the military later on then it will be a very very difficult task to do so I suggest thinking and also another point and that’s the last one using sanctions and I think we need to come up with better mechanisms for resolving conflicts especially when it comes to internet governance. Sanctions just cannot be so targeted on the internet and I have done some research on that especially at the infrastructure layer we need to have measures so that they can be they can function and they can

Moderator – Regine Grienberger:
operate. Thank you. Thank you. Let’s take the other two questions and then close and give the panelists an opportunity to answer. Please be brief. Yeah Dan Arnotto

Audience:
from the National Democratic Institute. I guess it’s kind of an extension on the private sector point you know just looking at the role of kind of social media networks and platforms I’d be curious to hear from the panel but you know we’ve developed guidance around crisis management a key component I think is actually working with different stakeholders civil society coordinating with say a meta or a X in terms of you know that aspect of dealing with critical situations and I mean for better or worse you know these platforms have become a component of the infrastructure people are going to the app they’re not going to a website anymore to report something or to follow the news or to communicate with someone about a critical issue so I think we have to consider the specific role of the platforms and those specific elements of the private sector in these considerations so I would be curious on your perspective there. My name is Chantal Joris, I’m with Article 19 Freedom of Expression organization and we’ve also been looking into into many of these issues and where the gaps are and one of the things I would be curious to hear your perspectives on is with international humanitarian law in terms of a gap in international law it still seems very much more clear when it comes to attacks in terms of involving kinetic force, involving physical force, but many of the methods of warfare now involve again the cyberspace, use of spyware, internet shutdowns, and there seems to be like much less clarity around whether the rules of distinction apply in the same way, the rules on targeting, or how proportionality and humanity principles can apply in this context. So perhaps also question to the representative of the ICRC on the process to further clarify also how these rules should be applied to also by digital companies and

Moderator – Regine Grienberger:
states. Thank you. We start with David and then you pick the questions you would

David Huberman:
like to answer. Thank you. Well I mean we’re just about out of time, so I really just I wanted to thank Dr. Mueller for very eloquently stating what I was trying to get across about how the governance model at ICANN really shines during these times of conflict.

Mauro Vignati:
Yeah, I want first to give a brief answer, the person that talked about other conflicts, so at least from the ICRC perspective, so we are working on more than 100 countries and working in so many conflicts that we take care of all the conflict where we are working in, we are not focusing specifically in one or the other conflict, so and this is something that we are working on. We opened a delegation for cyberspace in Luxembourg to research and develop and doing research and development exactly in this respect to understand if we are able as the ICRC to develop technologies and capabilities that can be deployed in conflict territories and provide connectivity to population that is no more able to have this connectivity or to safeguard the information that they are transferring because privacy is very important for for the beneficiaries of the ICRC, so this is something that we are working on. We started this R&D last year and about the sanction that are not the right method, I’m not saying that I agree or disagree, I mean we are neutral but what I say is that among the recommendations that we are delivering next week, one of the recommendation for the tech companies to understand that they have this major role in managing the infrastructure and and the digital solution on top of that and what we recommend to them is to understand if they are not under a sanction of a state and they want anyway to do their own decision to consider to keep up the fundamental functioning and maintenance of the network and the communication, so this is something that we strongly try to advocate with tech companies, so we reach out to them and we would like to stress the fact that we are working also with them in this regard. Apropos of the intervention of the representative of article 19, so I already consider some of the points that you raised in the way that even with the recommendation to follow IHL that we’re going to publish and re-stress next week, so for the states is to respect IHL. IHL already foreseeing the respect of critical infrastructure of civilian not taking down them, keeping up and not targeting civilian objects that are fundamental for the operation of the ICRC and for the civilians in this regard, so we think IHL is already covering these aspects even though there is not a common understanding about the data. If data is protected, we think it is in terms of international maintenance law. Some positions of other states do not go in this direction, so what we try to go is including data in this respect, so if data could be considered also by all the states as an object to be protected, we gonna reach out what we would like to have with in respect to shut down another another another new let’s say new topic that are not the classical cyber operation for disruption. But we think also an exfiltration information that can cause harm to civilians or accessing those kind of information. So the work that we are doing is that we try to convince states to recognize recognize

Moderator – Regine Grienberger:
data as an object to be protected. I just would like to respond and and maybe have a little bit positive note also at the end but still starting with negative it’s it does not only what you mentioned is not only of course the issue of a conflict zone we divide is increasing and not decreasing and and in 12 percent of SDGs we have gone backwards not not forward. But regardless of everything I do believe that digital is actually one of these areas where we can cooperate with almost every country because it brings so many similar issues but also similar solutions. So from Estonian side we do cooperate in digital with almost every country through different partnerships with UN, EU, different banks and and so forth and including actually also Afghanistan where we have some digitalization initiatives going on. So I end with a more positive note. Thank you. So time is out. We have to conclude this session. I thank you very much people on the panel for your contributions. It was very interesting and also for your questions some of which we will also take have to take home to think about it more thoroughly and I hope to see you again outside of this room. Thank you.

Michael Kelly

The analysis explores two main topics: the importance of defining digital human rights and the roles of big tech companies ahead of the AI revolution, and the preference for a multistakeholder approach to internet governance over a multilateral approach.

Regarding the first topic, it is argued that as human rights transition from physical to digital spaces, regulation is needed to protect and promote these rights. The AI revolution necessitates a paradigm shift towards creativity-based AI platform regulation, and defining digital human rights and tech companies’ responsibilities is crucial in this evolving landscape.

The analysis emphasises the proactive definition of digital human rights and the roles of big tech companies to establish clear regulations governing the interaction between technology and human rights. This approach is essential to ensure responsible and ethical use of evolving technologies.

Regarding the second topic, the analysis supports a multistakeholder approach to internet governance. This approach involves involving various stakeholders, including governments, tech companies, civil societies, and individuals, in decision-making processes. It aims to ensure diverse perspectives and interests are considered for balanced and inclusive governance.

Concerns are raised about a multilateral approach that may exclude big tech companies and civil societies from decision-making processes, hindering effective internet governance. The analysis also identifies a draft cybercrime treaty proposed by Russia as a potential threat to digital human rights, potentially limiting freedom of expression and privacy online.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the importance of defining digital human rights and the roles of big tech companies in the AI revolution. It emphasises proactive regulation and creativity-based AI platform regulation. It supports a multistakeholder approach to internet governance and raises concerns about exclusions and threats to digital human rights. This comprehensive analysis provides valuable insights into the challenges and considerations at the intersection of technology, human rights, and internet governance.

Peggy Hicks.

The discussion centres around the relevance of human rights in the digital space and the potential impact of government regulations on online activities. It is acknowledged that the human rights that apply offline also extend to the online realm. However, there is ongoing deliberation regarding their practical implementation.

The significance of the human rights framework in the digital space is highlighted due to its universal applicability and legally binding nature. This framework encompasses obligations that the majority of states have committed to. Additionally, a multistakeholder and multilateral approach plays a key role in addressing human rights in the digital realm.

There are concerns about potential government overreach and its negative impact on free speech. Many legislations globally are viewed as hindering human rights rather than protecting them, raising apprehensions about government interference and censorship.

The responsibilities of companies in respecting human rights, particularly within their supply chains, are recognised. Companies are urged to understand and mitigate risks associated with human rights violations in their operations. The UN Guiding Principles on Human Rights outline the role of states in regulating the impact of companies on human rights and establishing accountability and remedy mechanisms.

However, there are also concerns about legislation on content moderation, which is seen as often leading to the suppression of free speech. The push for companies to take down excessive content can result in the repression of opposition or dissent. The Cybercrime Convention is highlighted as an area where potential overreach is observed, which can curtail rights.

The implications of legislative models, such as the German NetzDG statute, in different global contexts are discussed. It is noted that exporting these models without considering the varying contexts can lead to problems and conflicts with human rights principles.

Furthermore, worries are expressed about regulatory approaches in liberal democracies that could potentially compromise human rights and data encryption. Measures such as client-side scanning or undermining encryption are viewed as problematic, as they could have adverse global impacts.

The breadth and severity of punitive measures under the Cybercrime Convention also raise concerns. Instances where individuals have been imprisoned for a single tweet for three to four years prompt questions about the proportionality and fairness of these measures.

While negotiation processes are still ongoing, there is a recognised need for continued dialogue to address concerns and improve the Cybercrime Convention. Multiple states share the concerns expressed by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

In conclusion, the discussion highlights the importance of upholding human rights in the digital space and cautions against excessive government regulation that can impede these rights. The responsibilities of companies in respecting human rights are emphasised, along with concerns about the negative effects of content moderation legislation. The need for careful consideration of context when enacting legislative models and the challenges posed by regulatory approaches in liberal democracies are also brought to light. Ultimately, ongoing negotiations are required to address concerns and enhance the Cybercrime Convention.

David Satola

The analysis explores the importance of upholding equal rights in the digital space, irrespective of an individual’s identity. It stresses the need to establish virtual identity rights prior to the impending AI revolution. The fast-paced progress in AI technology adds a time constraint to defining these rights, making it crucial to formulate and establish them promptly.

One of the key arguments in the analysis emphasizes that while everyone theoretically enjoys the same rights in physical spaces regardless of their identity, the emergence of a new front in the digital space necessitates extending principles of equality and non-discrimination to the virtual realm.

Another aspect highlighted in the analysis concerns the rights of avatars and posthumous social media accounts, raising questions about the legal framework and rights that should govern these virtual identities, particularly in the context of the AI revolution. Addressing these issues in advance becomes essential to safeguard individuals’ virtual identities within a legal framework that ensures equal rights and protections as in the physical world.

Furthermore, the analysis underscores the potential challenges to the universality of rights brought about by the migration of our daily lives into cyberspace. As our activities and interactions increasingly occur online, it becomes crucial to ensure the preservation of fundamental human rights in this digital domain as well.

Additionally, the incorporation of national or regional laws without adequate context may pose a threat to online rights. This observation underscores the importance of crafting carefully designed and globally aligned legal frameworks governing the digital space, to prevent discrepancies and inconsistencies that could undermine the universality of rights.

In conclusion, the analysis emphasizes the need to guarantee equal rights in the digital space, highlighting the significance of defining virtual identity rights in anticipation of the AI revolution. It also discusses the challenges posed by the migration to cyberspace and the potential threats to online rights in the absence of cohesive global legal frameworks. Given the rapid advancements in AI, it is essential to act swiftly in establishing these rights to pave the way for a fair and inclusive digital future.

Joyce Hakmeh

Joyce Hakmeh, Deputy Director of the International Security Programme at Chatham House, moderated a session focused on the Internet Governance Task Force. This task force was established following a report by the American Bar Association’s Internet Governance Task Force, co-chaired by Michael Kelly and David Sattola. Michael Kelly, a professor of law at Creighton University specializing in public international law, and David Sattola, Lead Counsel for Innovation and Technology at the US Department of Homeland Security and Director of the International Security Programme at Chatham House, co-chaired the task force.

In the session, the speakers discussed the complexities of internet governance, stressing the need to find the right balance of responsibilities. They highlighted concerning practices of some autocratic countries that suppress dissent and violate human rights. They also drew attention to regulatory approaches proposed by liberal democracies, which raised human rights concerns, such as breaking encryption for legitimate purposes.

Peggy Hicks, Director of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, participated in the session as a discussant. She raised questions about the responsiveness of countries at both national and global levels to the concerns raised by the speakers. Her inquiries covered issues related to autocratic countries and potential human rights implications of regulatory measures proposed by liberal democracies.

The session also touched upon the Cybercrime Convention, with Peggy Hicks noting that the OHCHR has been actively engaged in publishing commentary and providing observations on the content and progress of the convention. Although specific details of the convention’s progress were not explicitly covered, they discussed its complexity and potential for abuse, particularly regarding procedural powers and broad criminalization.

In conclusion, the session emphasized the importance of raising awareness about the complexities of internet governance and the potential for human rights abuses. The discussion shed light on various perspectives and challenges related to this issue, contributing to a better understanding of the topic.

Joyce Hakmeh:
I’m going to turn it over to Joyce Hakmeh, who is the Deputy Director of the International Security Program at Chatham House. Good morning, everyone. May I please ask you to take your seats? We’re about to begin. So good morning again. My name is Joyce Hakmeh. I’m the Deputy Director of the International Security Program at Chatham House, and I have the pleasure of moderating this short but very important session looking at the Internet Governance Task Force. And this is the result of a report done by the American Bar Association’s Internet Governance Task Force that is co-chaired by Michael Kelly, who’s sitting on my left, and David Sattola, who is joining us online. So Michael is Professor of Law at Creighton University in the U.S., where he specializes in public international law, and David is Lead Counsel for Innovation and Technology at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. And David is the Director of the International Security Program at Chatham House, where he specializes in connectivity and cybercrime prevention strategies. In addition to the two speakers who will be presenting the findings from their research, we also have a discussant with us today, Peggy Hicks, who is the Director of the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. So welcome to all of you. So we have half an hour together. So the way we will do this is we will hear first from Michael and David about the research, which has been just published in Volume 26 of the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change. And then we will hear some reactions from Peggy and perhaps a question to the speakers, and then we’ll end the session. So without further ado, I will now turn to Michael. And just a quick reminder that this session is being recorded and can be downloaded from the IGF website. So over to you, Mike.

Michael Kelly:
Okay. Thank you, Joyce. And if we could bring David Sotola up online. He is also presenting with us. Christina, please advance the slide. We want to start with a New Yorker cartoon because they can mean anything. In 1993, you see the famous cartoon of the dog saying to the other dog on the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog. That was 1993. Today, in 2023, this cartoon was updated. Remember when on the Internet no one knew who you were. That’s a paradigm shift. And we’re going to talk about another paradigm shift in the field of digital human rights that’s coming up with the advent of AI and the revolution that is on the fringe of happening. Christina, please advance. Why are we interested in which human rights are manifesting online? Well, because that’s where we spend most of our time. This Pew Research Center poll from 2019 demonstrates that daily over 80% of us are online almost all the time. This used to be a generational format. But as the generations go forward, we see that that is compressing at the far end. You can just look around the room and see who’s on devices of one type or another. So you live your daily life in physical space, but you also live your daily life in digital space. And that’s not always or even mostly work space. Human rights manifest in both sides of this equation. The question is, which ones follow us from physical space into digital space? How do they manifest? How are they regulated? How are they defined? And then, of course, the other end of that is how are they enforced? Christina, next slide, please. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as you all know, recently celebrated its 75th birthday. Which is a huge passage to mark. It’s made up of both freedoms and rights. And these come about in multiple contexts. Freedoms you’re familiar with, speech, movement, assembly, religion, freedom from discrimination. Rights you’re also familiar with, equality, privacy, security, work, liberty, democracy, education, property, fair trial and national security. But in digital space, these rights really are rendered meaningless or less useful if you don’t have core rights that exist to actually animate them. And by core rights, we talk about connectivity and net neutrality. What good are digital human rights to you if you’re not online? Not much. What good are digital human rights to you if you’re not online meaningfully? And that, of course, is the net neutrality discussion. Again, not as much. And that certainly implicates the equality prong right out of the box. The other thing that we look at from a framework perspective is whether the normative equivalency paradigm is the right paradigm. To think about the transference of human rights from physical space to digital space. The normative equivalency paradigm is basically moving the rights into a digital format without really altering them much. Other paradigms have been proposed out there. Probably the one that has gained the most attention is actually according human rights to digital entities themselves. But you get into all kinds of definitional issues in that regard. And I’m not sure that we’re there yet. I don’t know that we’re going to be there soon, but it could be on the horizon. Nevertheless, we don’t take a stand on this, which paradigm is the appropriate paradigm in our research, because our research basically creates a matrix. And so it is a mapping exercise that hopefully will be useful to policymakers, human rights advocates, and jurists as well. Christina, next slide, please. Exhibit A is the right to be forgotten. This in our physical space is the right to privacy. And it’s confirmed by the European Court of Justice to exist in digital space much at a higher level than it is in physical space. And it exists in digital space much, at least in 2015, to Google’s consternation. This was a case that was brought by an individual in Spain who wanted some content delisted from search results about him, because he had already served a criminal sentence for fraud. Spain, of course, has a very forward-looking social justice mechanism for rehabilitation, and people are supposed to get a fresh start after they emerge from the criminal system. But people kept looking up the one article about this individual that tainted his ability to do that. This was litigated all the way up to the European Court of Justice. The ECJ said yes. Google, you are required to effectuate and moderate this human right on your platform and delist material that is irrelevant, no longer useful, or mistaken. Google’s argument, of course, was, well, this is censorship, and shouldn’t that be the job of a government, not a corporation? The ECJ confirmed, no, actually, Google, it’s your job, because we’re telling you it’s your job. And so Google found itself not only in a moderation role, but an enforcement role throughout the EU or throughout the global Google reach was later litigation that I don’t have time to go into today. But the internal corporate process that Google had to set up to actually have a company moderating human rights in digital space was one where they had to figure out what is the interplay between humans and algorithms. And we haven’t even inserted AI into the process at this point. But review committees for each EU member state were set up. Now there are over 5 million web page delisting requests since the advent of this process. And the vast number of them implicate content on social media, specifically YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. So now you’re in a situation where you’ve got a company not only defining, moderating, and enforcing a digital human right on a space it owns in cyberspace. It’s actually moderating other companies’ content, right? Because when Google takes down, delists an item on Twitter, Twitter’s affected. So now you’ve got cross-pollination happening. And is conversation happening across those platforms and across those corporations? Not at the level that it should be. So this raises, obviously, a larger question on the propriety of corporate enforcement. Which, of course, is by terms of service. You agree when you read every line of those terms of service before you click accept, which I know everyone in this room does, that you will comply with what the corporation thinks about your content that you’re uploading onto its platform. Christina, next slide please. We selected here a half dozen articles from the UDHR. You can look at the University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change article for the complete matrix of all 30 articles just to give you a bit of a comparative perspective. Article 1, freedom and equality, manifests usually as connectivity and net neutrality. Codification is in progress in some states, not in others. Regulation is in progress in some states, not in others. In the United States, you see this going back and forth in a bit of a ping-pong ball fashion between administrations. The Obama administration moved forward on this. The Trump administration moved backward on net neutrality. The Biden administration is now moving forward again, not unlike some other areas of law. Article 12, which I just covered, the right to privacy, manifests as the right to be forgotten. It’s codified as an EU regulation. EU member states enforce it per the European Court of Justice, but Google is the actual arm. It’s under court order, though, to do so, so there’s an interplay between the state and the company. Freedom of movement we’ll come back to. There’s an asterisk there. Article 17, the right to property, digitally manifests as property in lots of different ways online. If it happens to be intellectual property, well, there’s a treaty framework for that through TRIPS, and so this is regulated by states and enforced by states, but if you look at speech and assembly, Articles 19 and 20, with speech, it’s access to social media platforms, and the regulation is via the tech corps and your terms of service, and it matters whether or not it’s a public corporation or a private corporation. If it’s a public corporation, there’s likely to be a process. If it’s a private corporation, well, Elon Musk decides whether or not you get your speech rights on his platform. With assembly, it’s access to groups, again, via terms of service. The reason we marked Article 13, and there are a couple of other articles, is that there are no positive regulations in this area yet. There’s no positive digital manifestation of this as a right or a freedom yet, frankly, because it’s assumed you have freedom of movement across the Internet. Well, that assumption is incorrect, and what it does is it leaves a gap. My British colleagues are familiar with the term mind the gap. Yeah, mind the gap, because in the absence of this, that leaves room for negative regulation, and authoritarian regimes can wall you off from certain areas of the Internet and restrict your freedom of movement in digital space. So we have to look at these gaps as well as where regulations are positively manifesting. Next slide, please, Christina. Okay, here are your corporate protectors of Internet human rights, and I’m just going to kind of pause this here for a minute for you to take a look at these guys. Google, of course, we saw resisted its role as an enforcer and definer of digital human rights, but it is doing so, and I think it’s doing so effectively under court order. But I think, you know, the Microsoft approach, where the company actually embraces something about human rights. You all remember a few years ago Brad Smith calling for a digital Geneva Convention. That voluntary embrace of their new role, policing cyberspace, I think is where we need to go if we’re going to get effectively at the 20 to 25% of human rights listed in the UDHR that have corporate fingerprints on it. Next slide, please. Maybe we trust those guys more than we trust this guy. The broader context, if we back up a few paces and we look at the back and forth between multistakeholderism versus multilateralism as the effective paradigm for Internet governance, and we’re all here in a multistakeholder environment, authoritarian regimes want that replaced with the multilateral approach, where only states are sitting at the table, not companies, not civil society. I’m civil society. I’m with the American Bar Association. Although I don’t represent their views at this conference, I would not have a seat at this table if the authoritarian multilateralists had their way. Why should big tech care? Because they will lose their seat at the table. The conversion of them from objects to subjects of international cyber law will have a profound impact on them and on their bottom line. Russia’s draft cybercrime treaty, which some of you were in the room prior to this, listened to for an hour and a half when it was first introduced, was criticized as the beginning of the end for multistakeholderism. It wasn’t really so much about cybercrime as about possibly repressing human rights. it undermines the Budapest Convention and whether or not it could suppress digital human rights, the valiant people working on this through the UN process are discussing in New York City and Vienna every few months, and although the prior panel struck an optimistic note on that, I’m not sure I completely share it. And so this opens up all kinds of other issues, the broader issues, and that’s why now is the time to crystallize what these digital human rights are, and secondly, what big tech’s role is in defining, regulating, and enforcing them ahead of the coming AI revolution, because that will change everything. There will be a paradigm shift when AI actually matures to the point that creativity-based AI platform regulation replaces logic-based algorithmic platform regulation. Let me say that again. When creativity-based AI platform regulation replaces logic-based algorithmic platform regulation, that’s the sea change, and we have to get ahead of that. We have to get ahead of that for defining digital human rights, and we have to get ahead of that for defining the roles of companies in this process and convince them that it’s in their interest to do so. Just as an example, a policing example, AI will be a more effective cop for companies policing their platform, because it’s much more difficult to get around. You can get around a logic-based algorithm, but the bad side of that, if you just flip it around, is it also can be a more effective tool for authoritarian regimes to repress your digital human rights. Just like everything else, this is a double-edged sword. I should pause and let David chime in, Joyce, I think, if there’s … Yeah.

David Satola:
Thank you, Mike. Thank you, Joyce, and thank you, Peggy. I think in the interest of time, we should probably move ahead to the commentary and hopefully leave some time for questions at the end. The only remark I would underscore that Mike already made is the multi-stakeholderization of the enforcement of human rights that we’ve seen. It’s on our slide seven, where we see that actually the human rights are being examined and enforced by private actors. This was something that I don’t think anyone anticipated back when the Internet Governance Forum started. With that, I’ll turn it back to you in Kyoto.

Joyce Hakmeh:
Thank you. Thank you very much, David and Michael. Now, we turn to you, Peggy, since I messed up your introduction. Why don’t you introduce yourself and share your views on what’s been said? Thank you.

Peggy Hicks.:
No problem. Thanks so much. Yes, I’m Peggy Hicks. I work at the UN Human Rights Office in Geneva, where we’re focusing on many of these issues and very grateful to Michael and David for taking this look at digitization of human rights and their scholarly work. It’s a theme that we talk about quite a bit in Geneva. It’s been many years now since the Human Rights Council first said that the human rights that apply offline apply online. What that means in practice, of course, has yet to be worked out. It’s really interesting to look at this mapping approach that goes through the different articles and really looks at what are some manifestations of how that is developed in real terms. Part of the reason we talk about the human rights framework as being so relevant in the digital space, I want to emphasize, and that’s because you focus, Michael, on the battles between a multistakeholder and multilateral approach. Part of what we think is crucial about the framework of human rights is its universality and the fact that it involves legally binding obligations that the vast majority of states have ascribed to already. We avoid using it at our peril. It’s part of what can help us work through some of these challenges that are presented by the analysis that we’ve heard. It also already includes accountability mechanisms. One piece of it I really want to emphasize, which I think is quite relevant to the research here, is, for example, frameworks like the UN Guiding Principles on Human Rights, which really link up the company responsibilities to the legal obligations that states have. Under the guiding principles, you have three pillars. One looks at how states have a responsibility to regulate how companies impact on human rights in their actions, and then, of course, it has the chapter that’s best known goes through what do companies need to do to better respect human rights, including understanding and mitigating risks that are within their supply chains in different ways. And then the third pillar relates to accountability and remedy on those sites. And one of the things we’ve been really working on within our office is there’s been a lot of work done on how those principles apply in industries like extractive industries or the apparel industry. What does it mean in the context of the digital space, software applications that are mass marketed and used by millions of people globally? What does a tech company have to do with how that software might be misused at some point in time? So we’ve been working with a community of practice of a number of the largest tech companies to really work through some of those issues and figure out how we can better have them take on some of these responsibilities that are outlined in this report more effectively. But I think it also goes to this tension that the mapping shows of, you know, how much responsibility do we want at the corporate level, and what do we want states to do to better tell companies how they ought to handle things? So a good example is the terms of service that you referred to. It is the case that companies set those terms of service, but there are things that they are legally required to do within them in terms of unlawful content that might be on their platforms. So you know, how far do we take those relationships and what are we looking for from governments in terms of content regulation I think is a big question. Before I close, I have to say that one of our big concerns is that governments go too far in that regard, and that’s what we’ve seen playing out when we look at content moderation related legislation globally. The vast majority of legislation that’s been adopted across the globe tends to overreach and do more to undermine human rights than to protect them. So it allows and almost pushes companies to take down too much speech because they want to repress opposition or dissent or free speech in various ways. So we have to be very careful about what we ask governments to do and what we’re expecting of companies. But in both places, we have a lot of work to do to make sure that that digitization process goes forward as we’d like to see. And I agree, the Cybercrime Convention is an interesting area in which some of these issues are playing out. We see some of the potential overbreath in some of the work that’s being done under the Cybercrime Convention is similar to what we’ve seen in other efforts to legislate online speech in areas like counterterrorism efforts, where sometimes those statutes as well are used in an overbroad way to repress rights. So those are just some initial comments, and thanks again for the efforts.

Joyce Hakmeh:
Thank you very much. We have five minutes, maybe a little bit more, to have maybe a quick discussion. But maybe sort of like a follow-up question to you, Peggy, and maybe, Mike, if you want to respond, and David as well. You talked a lot about, first of all, you sort of both outlined the complexity of this issue and the very big importance of getting the balance right in terms of who should the honest fall on and how do you get to a place where the responsibilities are clear. And in the context of what you described, you talked about some of the practices that some autocratic countries are following in terms of suppressing dissent and not respecting human rights. But we also see some regulatory approaches and initiatives coming out of liberal democracies suggesting some human rights-concerning approaches from breaking encryption for obviously legitimate purposes and so forth. So how concerned are you about that, and how responsive do you find these countries to the concerns that you raise with them, whether in a kind of national context or more globally?

Peggy Hicks.:
I think it’s a really good question and one that not only our organization, but I think many of the civil society organizations that are here today are really looking at that. I think part of what tends to happen is that governments naturally and understandably rightfully want to adopt legislation that works in their context. But the reality is that those models are then exported globally in contexts that can be very different, where there is not the same infrastructure to support and ensure that those laws are interpreted and used in a human rights-respecting way. The example that’s always given is the German NetzDG statute, which was replicated in a variety of ways in a variety of places. But we worry about that now, and the point that you made on legislation that will potentially allow for client-side scanning, for example, which we see as incredibly problematic, given the importance of end-to-end encryption, is a really good example where we understand the concerns that are leading to that type of legislation, but feel very strongly that adoption of measures in that direction could have really deleterious impacts globally and could lead to a much broader problem with the limitations or undermining of encryption.

Joyce Hakmeh:
Thank you. Mike, if you can answer this question while also addressing what could be done in order to sort of understand and avoid those unintended consequences.

David Satola:
Right. Well, at base—and this, of course, is hand in glove with the policy approach from the United Nations—by virtue of the fact that you’re a homo sapiens, you get the same bag of rights. It doesn’t matter what your race is, your gender, your religion, or whatever, and everyone is theoretically bound by that in physical space. Now, we know that’s not always true, and that always doesn’t play out, but what about in digital space? Does everyone get the same bag of rights by virtue of the fact that you’re a digital homo sapiens? Well, what is a digital homo sapiens? Is your avatar, Peggy, going to get the same rights that you do, or Joyce, or does your Facebook account go on after you die, and does it continue to have the rights that you enjoyed while you were alive? We’re in a new frontier here, and it is a huge balancing question, but it also is a definitional question. Where are we? And that’s why the definitions need to be nailed down before the AI revolution comes, and it’s coming very quickly. So there’s a temporal component to this that we really have to be mindful of.

Joyce Hakmeh:
Thank you. David? David, are you still online?

David Satola:
Yes, I am. If I could just add one very quick comment, and it hopefully relates back to something that Peggy mentioned about the universality of rights, and I think one of the things that intrigued Mike and I when we went into this research was, does the migration of our daily lives into cyberspace in any way challenge that very basic concept of the universality of rights? And while we recognize that context matters, and again, to Peggy’s point about the Brussels effect and other national or regional laws that have been exported and incorporated out of context, does that also pose a threat to the universality of rights online? So we don’t have the answer to those questions, but I think they’re worth thinking about. Thank you.

Joyce Hakmeh:
Thank you, David. And maybe one final question to you, Peggy. You mentioned the Cybercrime Convention, and the OHCHR has been quite active on that front, you know, publishing sort of commentary and making some observations on the content and how the convention is proceeding. Can you share with us sort of your latest view on where the process is? I don’t know if you yourself covered that specifically or not, but maybe sort of share with us what you think about where we are at the moment and what sort of, you know, where do you think we might be heading?

Peggy Hicks.:
Oh, thanks. It’s a good question, but I smiled only because I don’t think it’s a one-minute question. It’s a bit more complex than that. We do still have some issues. We’ve been raising consistently some concerns over how the convention might have the same sort of overbreadth problem, the fact that the types of offenses that are included are those that are punishable by three to four years. For us, for example, is something that raises questions, because we see people being, you know, put in prison for a single tweet for three to four years. So, you know, I think there are some concerns that are still there in terms of criminalization and in terms of the breadth of investigative powers and the effective safeguards that need to be there. But, of course, as has been said, the process is still ongoing, and there’ll be lots of opportunity for those who share with us those concerns, including a number of states, to put them on the table. And, you know, hopefully the negotiation process will continue in a way that moves the convention in the right direction.

Joyce Hakmeh:
Brilliant. Thank you. And I guess maybe the silver lining from all of that is that the process has raised awareness about the complexity of the issues and the kind of, you know, the potential sort of for abuse when it comes to not just the procedural powers, but also like a very broad scope of criminalization. So I think with that, we will end the session. It was a short session, but very important. Thank you, Michael, David, and Peggy for joining us today. And thank you for everyone who attended. And, yeah, we’ll see you later. Thank you.

Elena Plexida

The internet is currently not fragmented at a technical level, thanks to the presence of unique identifiers such as domain names, IP addresses, and Internet protocols. These identifiers play a crucial role in keeping the internet connected and functioning smoothly. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an organization dedicated to ensuring the stable and secure operation of these identifiers. They work in cooperation with other organizations like Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) to maintain the integrity of the internet.

However, concerns have been raised about the potential for internet fragmentation due to political decisions. It is feared that politicians could decide to create alternate namespaces or a second root of the internet, which would undermine its uniqueness and coherence. The increasing politicisation of the world is seen as a factor that could influence the unique identifiers of the internet. If political interests begin to shape the internet’s architecture, it could lead to fragmentation and potentially hinder global connectivity.

It is important to distinguish content limitations from internet fragmentation. Content limitations, such as parental controls or restrictions on certain types of content, are related to user experience rather than the actual fragmentation of the internet. Referring to content-level limitations as internet fragmentation can be misleading and potentially harmful. Such a misinterpretation could create a self-fulfilling prophecy of a truly fragmented internet.

The preservation of what is needed in the internet is considered crucial. Mentions of data localisation, islands of secluded content, and shutdowns are seen as threatening to internet freedom. These issues highlight the need to protect the openness and accessibility of the internet. Adverse effects can also occur at a technical level due to legislation aimed at addressing content issues. While the technical community acknowledges the necessity of legislation, it is important to ensure that unintended consequences do not disrupt the basic functioning of the internet.

In recent years, there has been a trend towards attempts to apply sovereignty over the internet. This raises concerns among those who advocate for a global and open internet. The application of sanctions over IP addresses is used as an example to illustrate the potential negative impact of applying sovereignty over something inherently global like the internet. Maintaining the global nature of the internet is seen as essential to foster innovation, enable collaboration, and promote peace and justice.

In conclusion, while the internet is currently not fragmented at a technical level, there are concerns about potential fragmentation caused by political decisions or misunderstandings about content limitations. The preservation of what is necessary in the internet and the resistance against the application of sovereignty over its inherently global nature are key issues to consider in order to maintain a stable, secure, and open internet for everyone.

Javier Pallero

The main purpose of the Internet is to connect people and facilitate global communication, as well as providing unrestricted access to information across borders. It serves as a platform that allows individuals worldwide to interact and exchange ideas, irrespective of their geographical location. This positive aspect of the Internet promotes connectivity and enables access to knowledge.

However, the perception of Internet fragmentation is not solely influenced by technical factors but also by policy decisions and business practices. These factors contribute to the fragmentation and create barriers to the free and open exchange of information. Government policies and business practices shape the functioning of the Internet, often resulting in restrictions and limitations on access.

While these factors are significant in understanding the overall landscape of Internet fragmentation, they may not fully define it from a technical perspective. It is important to consider different aspects of Internet governance, such as protocols and policy levels, which have their own areas of discussion and involve various stakeholders. However, there should be more attention and engagement specifically in the technical aspects of internet governance to mitigate the issues related to fragmentation and ensure a more cohesive and inclusive Internet experience.

One of the main threats to internet fragmentation is posed by governments. Governments sometimes seek to control the Internet and have the power to limit access or manipulate content. The multi-stakeholder model, which involves the participation of various stakeholders, including governments, businesses, and civil society, can be an effective approach to counter these governmental threats. By revitalising this model and denouncing government advancements in controlling the internet, valuable contributions can be made towards maintaining an open and inclusive internet governance structure.

Furthermore, informing users and promoting their participation play a crucial role in putting pressure on governments to uphold internet freedom. When users are aware of their rights and the potential negative impacts of government control, they can actively voice their concerns and strive to protect their online freedoms. By empowering users with information and encouraging their active participation, the internet community can collectively work towards preserving an open and accessible internet.

In conclusion, while facilitating global communication and access to information remains the primary purpose of the Internet, the challenges of internet fragmentation must be addressed. This requires considering not only technical factors but also policy decisions and business practices. By focusing on the technical aspects of internet governance and reviving the multi-stakeholder model, as well as promoting user awareness and participation, progress can be made towards a more unified and inclusive internet structure.

Sheetal Kumar

During the discussions regarding the challenge of preserving the core values and principles of the internet while allowing for its adaptation and evolution, it was noted that both intended and unintended actions have affected internet properties and user autonomy. Government regulations and corporate decisions have played a significant role in shaping the internet landscape. The growth of internet shutdowns has particularly impacted the principle of connectivity, causing concerns about maintaining a free and open online environment.

Sheetal Kumar, a strong advocate for preserving and evolving the internet, emphasized the importance of compliance with the original vision and user experience. To address the issue of internet fragmentation, the Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation was established. This network aims to navigate the future of the internet by developing a comprehensive framework that covers the technical layer, user experiences, and governance of the internet. One of the network’s key recommendations is the need for coordination and communication among non-inclusive bodies to tackle the challenges posed by internet fragmentation.

The speakers agreed that we are currently on the wrong path and moving away from the original concept of the internet. This disruption to the internet has raised concerns about its future, emphasizing the need for collective understanding and implementation of recommendations to improve the current state. Recommendations from the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the multi-stakeholder policy network have been put forward to address these concerns. Implementing these recommendations could not only ensure the preservation of the core values of the internet but also contribute to achieving Sustainable Development Goals 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

In conclusion, the discussion highlighted the challenge of preserving the fundamental principles of the internet while adapting to its evolving nature. It is crucial to address internet fragmentation and promote coordination and communication among non-inclusive bodies to ensure the internet remains a free and open space. By collectively implementing recommendations, we can work towards improving the current state and realizing the original vision and user experience of the internet.

Moderator – Avri Doria

Internet fragmentation is a contentious and intricate topic that invites diverse opinions and definitions. It is an important subject to understand, particularly with the fast-paced advancements in technology and the increasing interconnectedness of the world. However, experts and scholars continue to study this matter to gain a more comprehensive understanding of it.

Avri Doria, an advocate for open participation, brings attention to the significance of involving all individuals in the discussion on Internet fragmentation. Doria emphasizes that fostering dialogue and collaboration can lead to a better comprehension of this phenomenon. This inclusive approach aims to generate diverse perspectives and broaden the scope of analysis.

Internet fragmentation refers to the division or separation of the internet, resulting in distinct networks or restricted access in different regions or countries. Several factors contribute to this fragmentation, including government censorship, technological barriers, and varying policies and regulations across jurisdictions. The consequences of Internet fragmentation can range from limitations on freedom of expression and access to information to hindrances in international cooperation and economic development.

The ongoing study of Internet fragmentation signifies the collective efforts towards understanding its implications and finding solutions to mitigate its negative effects. Researchers and policymakers are exploring ways to address the challenges posed by fragmentation while preserving the open nature of the internet. This requires a multi-stakeholder approach involving government bodies, civil society organizations, and private sector entities.

In conclusion, Internet fragmentation remains a topic of great importance and interest due to its wide-ranging implications. The existence of divergent definitions and opinions highlights the complexity of the issue and the need for further research. Avri Doria’s emphasis on inclusive participation provides a valuable framework for fostering dialogue and collaboration, ultimately enhancing our understanding of Internet fragmentation. By working together, we can strive towards a more open and globally connected internet that benefits societies worldwide.

Umai

Discussions surrounding internet fragmentation have primarily focused on the technical layers of the internet. However, there has been a noticeable oversight of the social layer, which encompasses network engineers and their informal communities. This neglect is concerning because it fails to recognize the vital role that these individuals play in the maintenance and sustainability of internet networks.

The social layer of the internet is made up of network engineers who are responsible for the day-to-day operations and upkeep of the internet infrastructure. They work diligently to ensure the optimal functioning of networks, addressing issues, and implementing necessary updates and enhancements. Their efforts are often supported by informal communities where knowledge sharing and collaboration take place.

It is worth noting that discussions on internet fragmentation often overlook the social layer. This is particularly significant given the ageing community of network engineers, sparking concerns regarding the future capabilities of this workforce. As these engineers retire, it may become increasingly challenging to find skilled replacements with the expertise required to effectively maintain internet networks.

To address this issue, further research is required to explore the capabilities and potential of network engineer communities in maintaining internet networks. This research should not only focus on technical aspects but also consider broader factors such as industry, innovation, and infrastructure. Additionally, considering the role of education in nurturing skilled professionals, the research should emphasize the importance of quality education in fostering a new generation of network engineers.

In conclusion, discussions on internet fragmentation need to widen their scope to include the social layer, comprising network engineers and their informal communities. The ageing workforce of network engineers raises concerns about the future maintenance of internet networks, highlighting the need for further research in this area. By examining the capabilities of these communities and addressing the challenges posed by an ageing workforce, we can ensure a sustainable and resilient internet infrastructure for the future.

Dhruv Dhody

Internet fragmentation is an important issue that has attracted attention from experts and policymakers. The main concern is its impact on interoperability, which refers to the ability of different systems and devices to effectively communicate and work together. One argument suggests that not all forms of fragmentation pose the same threat, and therefore, a more nuanced approach should be taken to address the issue. It emphasizes the need to differentiate between various types of fragmentation before finding solutions.

While the negative consequences of fragmentation have been widely discussed, it is important to consider the positive aspects as well. Certain forms of fragmentation can enhance privacy, security, and local autonomy. Understanding this dual nature of fragmentation is vital for a comprehensive analysis of the issue.

However, there is an opposing viewpoint that argues against grouping together different forms of internet fragmentation. This perspective suggests that examining each form individually would provide a better understanding of their unique implications. Although supporting facts are not provided, this argument implies the importance of considering the specific characteristics of each type of fragmentation.

In conclusion, internet fragmentation is a complex issue that requires careful consideration. While interoperability is a major concern, it is crucial to recognize the varied nature and potential consequences of different forms of fragmentation. By taking a more nuanced and targeted approach, policymakers and stakeholders can effectively address this multifaceted challenge.

Michael Rothschild

During the early development of the internet in 1983, it was composed of separate fragments of networks in various countries. This meant that there was no cohesive internet as we know it today; instead, there were isolated segments of services and networks. To overcome this fragmentation, gateways were introduced to interconnect these fragments.

However, using gateways to connect the different networks had its drawbacks. It became clear that gateways could be inefficient, posing challenges to the smooth flow of information and communication. Additionally, there were concerns that gateways could potentially filter or restrict certain data or content.

Furthermore, it is important to note that the use of gateways carries implications for several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Specifically, SDG 16, which focuses on Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions, is relevant in this context. The inherent risks associated with filtering and potential restrictions through gateways could hinder the principles of justice, transparency, and freedom of expression.

Despite these challenges, there is optimism that technological advancements will provide solutions to address internet fragmentation. It is believed that future technical innovations will overcome the limitations of gateways, allowing for more efficient interconnections between networks and reducing the risks of filtering or restrictions.

In conclusion, the early stages of the internet consisted of fragmented networks that required gateways for interconnection. However, gateways proved to be inefficient and carried the risk of filtering. Nonetheless, there is hope that technical solutions will emerge to solve the problem of internet fragmentation and pave the way for a more interconnected and accessible internet.

Aha G. Embo

Internet fragmentation refers to any factors that impede the free flow of the internet and can occur at various levels, including technical, governmental and business. One of the concerns of legislators is avoiding ambiguous legislation that may hinder innovation. They strive not to stifle innovation with any kind of legislation.

Efforts are ongoing to streamline internet governance legislation globally. The objective is to develop a cohesive framework that ensures a safe, secure and integrated connectivity across different jurisdictions. Fragmentation is viewed as an impediment to this objective, as it disrupts the seamless flow of information and inhibits the integration of different parts of the internet.

On the other hand, internet shutdowns are seen as a form of internet disruption, where specific applications or services are intentionally halted. This practice is perceived as a roadblock to the free flow and integrated connectivity of the internet. It restricts access to information and inhibits communication and collaboration on a wider scale.

The conclusion drawn from the analysis is that maintaining an open, interconnected internet is crucial for enabling innovation and fostering global communication and collaboration. Fragmentation and internet disruptions pose threats to the free flow of information and the integration of the internet. Therefore, efforts are being made to address these challenges and establish a safe, secure and integrated internet connectivity worldwide.

It is worth noting that while the sentiment of the sources is generally neutral or negative towards internet fragmentation and shutdowns, there is a positive sentiment towards the importance of ensuring a safe, secure and integrated connectivity in the context of the internet. This highlights the need to find a balance between regulation and innovation to achieve the desired outcomes.

Nishigata Nobu

In his discussions on internet fragmentation, Nishigata Nobu acknowledges the challenges that this issue presents. He emphasises the problems that exist within the current internet system, particularly with regards to user interface type fragmentation, such as echo chambers and filter bubbles. These issues are detrimental to the online experience as they limit exposure to diverse opinions and information.

Furthermore, Nishigata highlights the importance of government intervention in addressing internet fragmentation. He reveals that the Japanese Government is actively following up on internet fragmentation issues, underscoring their recognition of the significance of this problem. Nishigata also points out that government intervention is often necessary to ensure public safety, economic development, and national security.

In advocating for government accountability, Nishigata stresses that governments should take responsibility for their actions in relation to internet usage. He insists that governments need to be held accountable for upholding open and free internet principles, which are essential for promoting peace, justice, and strong institutions. Nishigata supports the Declaration of Future Internet, published by the U.S. government, as a means to guide and govern internet usage.

Additionally, Nishigata recognizes the limitations of government intervention alone in solving internet-related issues. He believes that collaboration between the government and technical experts is crucial in finding solutions. Nishigata advocates for partnerships and emphasises that the collaboration between the two parties will yield better outcomes than government intervention alone. He acknowledges that technical expertise is necessary to address complex internet challenges effectively.

To conclude, Nishigata Nobu’s discussions highlight the challenge of internet fragmentation and the problems within the current internet system. He acknowledges the efforts of the Japanese Government in addressing this issue, supports the Declaration of Future Internet, and advocates for government accountability in internet usage. Nishigata emphasises collaboration between the government and technical sector as a key approach in finding solutions to internet-related problems.

Jennifer Chung

Internet fragmentation can occur at different levels, including technical, user experience, and policy. This phenomenon has implications for the development and accessibility of the internet. At the technical level, fragmentation refers to the division of the internet into separate networks or platforms with limited interoperability. This can result from differences in protocols, standards, or infrastructure. User experience fragmentation, on the other hand, refers to the divergence in user interfaces, applications, and available content, leading to an uneven online experience.

One argument suggests that internationalized domain names (IDNs) may contribute to internet fragmentation. While IDNs allow users to utilize native scripts and characters, promoting inclusivity, there is a risk of fragmentation if their implementation is not effectively managed. Ensuring compatibility and consistency across different networks and platforms is crucial for the integration of IDNs.

Policy decisions also play a role in internet fragmentation. For example, government-imposed internet shutdowns or restrictions on access to certain websites or services can disrupt the interconnected nature of the internet, negatively impacting its functioning.

Mitigating the risks of internet fragmentation requires dialogue and coordination among stakeholders. Engaging in conversations and collaboration can help address the challenges. Furthermore, it is important to avoid silos in discussions by incorporating diverse perspectives and actors to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive approach.

In summary, internet fragmentation can occur at different levels, including technical, user experience, and policy. The implementation of internationalized domain names and policy decisions, such as internet shutdowns, can contribute to this phenomenon. To overcome these challenges, dialogue, coordination, and inclusive approaches are essential to ensure a connected and accessible internet for all.

Julius Endel

The analysis reveals a prevailing negative sentiment towards the current system of running the internet and providing data. Critics argue that while the costs for running the internet and providing data are socialised, the profits generated from these operations are largely privatised and benefit only a select few companies. This has raised concerns about the fairness and equity of the current system.

Furthermore, the privatisation and socialisation effect of the internet and data provision has led to a form of fragmentation. This fragmentation is seen as a consequence of the unequal distribution of profits among a handful of companies, which further exacerbates existing inequalities in the industry. The negative sentiment towards this system stems from the belief that the benefits and advantages of the internet and data provision should be accessible to a wider range of stakeholders, rather than being concentrated in the hands of a few powerful entities.

Another issue highlighted in the analysis is the practice of data scraping. It is argued that companies are actively collecting and utilising user data to their advantage while reaping significant profits, while the public does the majority of the work in generating and providing this data. This raises questions about the fairness and ethics of such practices, as well as the need to address the disparities in profit distribution within the industry.

Overall, these issues are seen as contributing to inequalities in the industry and a lack of justice in the current system. The analysis suggests that efforts need to be made to address the socialisation of costs and the privatisation of profits, as well as reevaluate the practices of data scraping to promote a more equitable and fair system.

An interesting observation from the analysis is the connection between these issues and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specifically SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). It suggests that the current system of running the internet and providing data is not aligned with these goals, and calls for a more inclusive approach that takes into account the wider societal impact and benefits.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights a negative sentiment towards the current system of running the internet and providing data, with concerns surrounding the socialisation of costs, privatisation of profits, fragmentation, and data scraping. It underscores the need for a more equitable and fair system, considering the wider societal impact and goals of reducing inequalities and promoting sustainable industry practices.

Robin Green

In a positive stance, Robin Green argues against the belief that content distribution networks (CDNs) contribute to internet fragmentation. She asserts that CDNs effectively connect people to services globally and ensure the resilience and fast access of internet services. Green’s argument is supported by the notion that CDNs play a crucial role in creating a robust and interconnected internet infrastructure.

On the other hand, Green defines internet fragmentation as a negative phenomenon that occurs when the user experience becomes segmented and prevents individuals from exercising their fundamental rights. This definition highlights the importance of a unified and inclusive internet experience, where all users can freely access and navigate digital content without facing barriers or restrictions.

Furthermore, Green addresses the regulatory implications associated with internet fragmentation. She identifies data localisation requirements, restrictions on cross-border data flows, encryption, content takedowns, and geoblocking as potential components of fragmentation. According to Green, these regulatory measures not only impinge on the user experience but also hinder peace, justice, and strong institutions, aligning with SDG 16.

Green’s observation is important as it emphasises the need to address both technical and user experience aspects of internet fragmentation. She suggests that regardless of the nature of the restrictions, be they technical or user experience-oriented, they should be examined and resolved to promote a more unified and inclusive internet.

In conclusion, Robin Green offers a positive stance on the role of content distribution networks and their impact on internet fragmentation. She argues that CDNs contribute to global connectivity and internet resilience. Additionally, Green highlights the negative effects of internet fragmentation on the user experience and the infringement of fundamental rights. She advocates for addressing regulatory measures associated with fragmentation to achieve a holistic solution. By considering both technical and user experience aspects of internet fragmentation, a more inclusive and connected online environment can be realised.

Jorge Cancios

A recent analysis explores the impact of geopolitical tensions on the unity of the internet. It reveals that, as global tensions intensify, the focus has shifted from digital interdependence to fragmentation. This shift is a response to the charged atmosphere of the current global landscape.

The analysis stresses the importance of trust and network effects in achieving internet interoperability. It explains that the internet consists of numerous networks that rely on trust to stay connected. However, increasing geopolitical pressures may undermine this trust and erode the network effects, potentially leading to fragmentation.

The analysis also highlights that the maintenance of internet unity depends on binary decisions made by various stakeholders, including individuals, networks, companies, and governments. These decisions can either promote unity or contribute to fragmentation. Therefore, the report underscores the significance of thoughtful decision-making at different levels to foster unity and prevent the erosion of the internet structure.

Overall, the analysis advocates for careful and well-considered decisions by all parties to promote internet unity and prevent fragmentation. It suggests that authorities should invest in the right direction to hold the internet together, rather than contributing to its erosion. By doing so, the internet can continue to serve as a platform for collaboration, innovation, and progress.

In conclusion, the analysis sheds light on the impact of geopolitical tensions on the unity of the internet. It highlights the shift from digital interdependence to fragmentation and emphasizes the importance of trust and network effects for internet interoperability. The report underscores the role of binary decisions made by stakeholders in either promoting unity or contributing to fragmentation. Ultimately, it calls for careful decision-making to preserve internet unity and prevent erosion.

Ponsley

The discussion centred around the concept of internet fragmentation, highlighting that it is not simply a technical issue, but also encompasses other factors. Speakers pointed out that internet fragmentation is not only related to technical disruptions, but also to human rights abuses, harmful internet use, and political aspects. This means that it goes beyond connectivity problems and involves potential violations of digital rights and freedoms online.

Additionally, it was argued that specific political situations can contribute to internet fragmentation. Ponsley provided examples of how internet services can be intentionally disrupted or shut down for political gain or to create unrest. This demonstrates the link between political motivations and the fragmentation of the internet. Manipulation of the political landscape using the internet by leaders can result in the shutdown of internet services and limited access to information.

Overall, the discussion highlighted the significance of internet fragmentation from both a technical and a human rights and political perspective. By exploring these different aspects, it is clear that internet fragmentation is a complex issue that requires attention and consideration. These issues raised during the discussion are particularly relevant to SDG 16, which focuses on promoting peace, justice, and strong institutions. The internet plays a crucial role in achieving these goals, and any form of fragmentation can hinder progress in these areas.

An important observation from the analysis is that internet fragmentation poses significant challenges to achieving an open and inclusive online environment. It underscores the need for robust policies and international collaboration to effectively address this issue. Additionally, the discussions draw attention to the impact of political instability on internet connectivity and availability, highlighting the importance of maintaining a stable political environment to ensure uninterrupted access to the internet.

In conclusion, the discussion on internet fragmentation emphasises its multidimensional nature, including human rights abuses, harmful internet use, and political considerations. Political situations can contribute to internet fragmentation, leading to disruptions and even shutdowns of internet services. These issues have implications for SDG 16, which aims to establish peace, justice, and strong institutions. Addressing internet fragmentation requires a comprehensive approach that takes into account technical, human rights, and political dimensions.

Raul Echeverria

In this analysis, the speakers delve into the complex issue of internet fragmentation and government interference. They highlight that, in some countries, there are disparities in access to certain applications, leading to a fragmented internet experience. This is considered problematic as the internet should ideally function uniformly across the globe.

Furthermore, laws passed in many countries have had negative impacts on the way the internet operates. These laws are seen as detrimental to the overall functionality and accessibility of the internet. The supporting evidence provided showcases specific examples of the negative consequences of such laws on the user experience. It includes the impact on certain applications and restrictions on online activities.

However, a different viewpoint emerges, arguing that the internet should operate uniformly worldwide, aligning with SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure. This positive stance emphasizes the importance of a consistent and accessible internet for all users, regardless of their geographical location.

On the other hand, there is a negative sentiment towards government interference in internet activities. The speakers express the belief that interference from governments in deciding what users can or cannot do on the internet should be minimized. This perspective suggests that users should have greater freedom and autonomy in their online activities. The negative sentiment is also supported by the observation that some policymakers prioritize political decisions or industry protection over the potential negative impact on the internet user experience.

Additionally, it is argued that measures taken by governments to restrict access to certain types of information should be proportional and reasonable. This stance aligns with SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions, highlighting the importance of policies that safeguard user rights and promote transparency.

Moreover, the analysis points out that new laws and public policies in democratic countries can significantly affect user experiences on the internet. The supporting facts emphasize that certain measures aimed at protecting intellectual property or as a result of taxation have adverse effects on users. Furthermore, the lack of understanding by policymakers regarding the potential negative impact of these policies is seen as a significant concern.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the consensus that governments, both democratic and otherwise, pose a threat to the consistent user experience due to implemented policies. The speakers argue that policymakers should prioritize the needs and rights of internet users, and policies should be informed by an understanding of the potential negative consequences on internet functionality and accessibility. It is evident that internet fragmentation and government interference are complex issues that require careful consideration to ensure that the internet remains a free and accessible platform for all users.

Tomoaki Watanabe

The debate surrounding the splintering of the internet, commonly known as the “splinternet,” has raised concerns about the potential impact of political or democratic motivations driving internet regulation. This issue is particularly relevant as even democratic countries face challenges such as terrorism and civil unrest which may necessitate some level of internet regulation. While it is crucial to find a balance between freedom and regulation, the argument emphasizes that the splinternet can be alarming when driven by political or democratic reasons.

The nature of the free and open internet is also a focal point of the discussion. On one hand, proponents highlight the achievements of an open internet, recognizing its capacity to facilitate global connectivity and promote the exchange of ideas and information. However, it is also acknowledged that the free and open internet can have negative consequences. It is important to reflect on these characteristics and consider potential drawbacks and implications.

Another argument put forth asserts that a unified internet has the potential to bring about social change. Advocates argue that a unified internet can empower individuals and communities to drive positive transformations in society. However, it is essential to note that even countries that support a unified internet and advocate for democracy face their own set of issues. To better comprehend the impact of a unified internet on social change, a more comprehensive investigation of these issues is required.

Artificial intelligence (AI) also benefits from a unified internet. AI systems, particularly large language models, heavily rely on a massive training dataset, made possible by the unified internet. This enables AI to continuously develop its capabilities and offer advanced services and solutions.

In the realm of communication, AI can provide advanced translation abilities and overcome challenges. This highlights the positive impact a unified internet can have on enhancing communication capabilities and bridging language barriers.

Interestingly, the debate suggests that while technical layer fragmentation is considered significant, the ability of governments to heavily regulate online communications may diminish the impact of such fragmentation. In other words, if governments possess the capability to regulate online communication extensively, the effects of technical layer fragmentation may be less significant.

In conclusion, the debate surrounding the splintering of the internet, or the splinternet, raises concerns about how political or democratic motivations may drive internet regulation. The nature of the free and open internet is discussed, revealing both its achievements and potential negative consequences. Supporters argue for a unified internet, as it has the potential to bring about social change and benefit artificial intelligence. However, it is important to acknowledge that even countries supporting a unified internet and advocating for democracy face their own set of issues. Additionally, the impact of technical layer fragmentation may be mitigated by governments’ strong ability to regulate online communications.

Paul Wilson

The analysis provides valuable insights into the fragmentation of the internet and the significance of preserving its integrity. One aspect examined is the role of Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) in the internet ecosystem. While CDNs facilitate access to specific services and content, it is important to note that they do not encompass the entire internet itself. This highlights the need to distinguish between accessing services and maintaining overall internet connectivity.

Another crucial point discussed is the lack of interoperability between similar services, such as instant messaging (IM) or social media platforms. The analysis reveals that there is generally a dearth of interoperability among these services, which can contribute to the fragmentation of the internet. To address this issue, it is suggested that service companies should be required to change their interoperability behavior. This would involve encouraging and enforcing interoperability between different services, ultimately enhancing the connectivity and usability of the internet as a whole.

Furthermore, the analysis underscores the importance of end-to-end internet connectivity. The COVID-19 crisis has served as a reminder of the necessity for seamless connectivity to ensure efficient remote communication and access to vital services. Point-to-point video communications during the pandemic have demonstrated the imperative need for maintaining the end-to-end model of the internet. The argument put forth by Paul Wilson promotes the preservation of the internet layer’s integrity, emphasizing that the end-to-end model is fundamental to the internet’s functioning.

One significant observation made in the analysis is the potential over-fragmentation of the internet if proactive measures are not taken. The quality of the internet varies, and it is crucial to undertake ongoing work to prevent excessive fragmentation. This highlights the importance of maintaining a balance between the diverse services and content offered on the internet and ensuring seamless connectivity and interoperability.

In conclusion, the analysis provides an in-depth understanding of the fragmentation of the internet and calls for concerted efforts to preserve its integrity. It emphasizes the distinct role of CDNs, the importance of interoperability between similar services, the need for end-to-end internet connectivity, and the significance of preventing over-fragmentation. By addressing these key issues, it is possible to maintain a high-quality and interconnected internet ecosystem that supports innovation and provides reliable access to services and information.

Tatiana Trapina

The analysis of the discussion on internet fragmentation reveals two main perspectives. The first perspective argues that the technical layer of the internet remains fully global and capable of providing connectivity, even in the face of censorship. This position is supported by the fact that TCP/IP, the system of unique identifiers, continues to dominate and has not been challenged by any alternative. Furthermore, technical tools, such as the compatibility between IPv6 and IPv4 IP addresses, have been developed to ensure global connectivity. The argument is that the internet’s technical layer is not fragmented and continues to function globally.

Contrarily, the second perspective raises concerns about the potential for real internet fragmentation due to government regulations and control. There is a belief that government restrictions, whether intentional or unintentional, could impact the technical layer of the internet. These restrictions may be motivated by political preservation or the protection of citizens. It is argued that such regulations could erode trust or disrupt the technical underpinnings of the internet, leading to fragmentation. The sentiment towards this argument is negative, suggesting that the looming danger of government regulations could pose a threat to the global connectivity of the internet.

It is worth noting that the discussion also touches upon the labeling of government censoring as fragmentation. Some argue that this labeling is inaccurate and that it should be more appropriately described as human rights abuses. The concern here is that by labeling it as fragmentation, it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy and create further division. Therefore, caution is advised when using the term “fragmentation” to describe government censorship.

The proposed solution to preventing internet fragmentation lies in upholding global connectivity and trust. It is emphasized that the technical layer of the internet operates based on trust and the commitment to global connectivity. This is supported by the fact that the technical layer was adopted by a multi-stakeholder community. It is believed that if the foundations of trust and commitment to global connectivity are preserved, any problem that arises can be solved. The sentiment towards this solution is positive, suggesting that maintaining global connectivity and trust is essential for preventing internet fragmentation.

Another noteworthy observation is the importance placed on the preservation of what makes the internet unique and interoperable. This uniqueness includes technical identifiers, protocols, and other aspects that ensure the internet’s smooth operation across different platforms and devices. This preservation is seen as paramount to uphold the internet’s integrity and prevent fragmentation.

Additionally, the multi-stakeholder model of governance is highlighted as a key aspect of managing the technical layer of the internet. The sentiment towards this model is positive, as it recognizes the importance of involving multiple stakeholders in decision-making processes. It is argued that commitment to this model is crucial for preserving trust and effectively managing the technical layer of the internet.

Finally, there is a belief that feasible fragmentation may occur due to regulations specifically targeting the technical layer of the internet. The concern here is that the erosion of trust and the introduction of different governance frameworks could lead to a scenario where fragmentation becomes a reality. The sentiment towards this argument is neutral, suggesting a cautious acknowledgment of the potential risks associated with regulations that specifically target the technical layer.

In conclusion, the analysis of the discussion on internet fragmentation highlights two main perspectives. One viewpoint argues that the technical layer of the internet remains fully global and provides connectivity, while the other expresses concerns about government regulations potentially leading to fragmentation. The proposed solution emphasizes the importance of upholding global connectivity and trust, preserving the unique aspects of the internet, and committing to a multi-stakeholder governance model. To prevent internet fragmentation, the key lies in maintaining the global nature of the internet while addressing potential risks posed by government regulations and control.

Timea Suto

The Internet is not currently fragmented, but there are real dangers of it becoming so due to pressures at the technical and policy governance layers. Decisions made at political, content, and policy governance layers can affect the technical layer, potentially causing fragmentation. Concerns about the potential fragmentation of the Internet are driven by the crucial role of the digital economy, which relies on the free movement of data across borders. Barriers to these data flows present a form of Internet fragmentation. There is strong opposition to data localization and the fragmentation of the upper layers of the Internet. Data localization and fragmentation can hinder the benefits of the Internet, and concerns about trust leading to data localization are seen as risky. It is important to handle policy matters with care to prevent unintended consequences that could hinder the open and global nature of the Internet.

Dušan

Dušan expresses frustration over the misinterpretation and misuse of the term ‘fragmentation’ in the context of internet governance. He argues that this catch-all term encompasses a broad range of issues, such as filtering, balkanization, and IDN domain names. According to Dušan, the technical layer that connects everything on the internet is still protected, and governments have been granted the right to legislate within their respective jurisdictions.

In response to this, Dušan suggests that discussions on internet governance should focus on specific issues, like filtering and blocking, rather than relying on the vague concept of ‘fragmentation’. He believes that the current high-level discussions lack substance and cautions against engaging in them without a specific focus. He advocates for a more targeted approach, particularly emphasizing the need to explore filtering, blocking, and other similar specific topics in greater detail.

Overall, Dušan’s main argument revolves around the importance of addressing specific issues in internet governance, rather than using a general term like ‘fragmentation’ that can lead to ambiguity and insufficient understanding. By focusing on individual topics, he suggests that policymakers and stakeholders can engage in more meaningful and productive discussions on the subject.

It is noteworthy that Dušan’s stance aligns with SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, which aims to promote resilient and inclusive infrastructure development, increasing access to information and communication technologies (ICTs). By addressing specific issues within the realm of internet governance, it becomes possible to strengthen and enhance the overall infrastructure and accessibility of the internet, thereby contributing to the broader goals of sustainable development.

In conclusion, Dušan’s frustration stems from the misuse of the term ‘fragmentation’ in discussions on internet governance. He advocates for a shift towards addressing specific issues such as filtering and blocking to bring substance and clarity to these debates. By focusing on targeted topics, policymakers and stakeholders can work towards developing more effective and inclusive internet governance frameworks that align with the broader goals of sustainable development.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
the bottom of the hour, so I guess we should start. So welcome to this session on, what is the exact title? It’s on Internet Fragmentation, Perspectives and Collaboration. So that’s a good clue as to where we’re heading. It’s been an interesting topic to watch being talked about this week. Lots of opinions, lots of definitions. The beginnings of a new framework for how to understand it and discuss it, which is still growing and still being thought of. So there’s really a lot of really interesting people, knowledgeable people on this roundtable, and we really wanna get a discussion going of all the people around the table. And also, as we move on, all of you that are sitting back here. So anybody that’s gonna wanna talk is gonna have to come. There are only a few microphones, so you will have to come up and get a microphone when you wanna talk. But anyhow, so I want to welcome you all, and I really wanna get started. And as opposed to me saying a lot more, because you all have a lot more to say. So Elena Pleksiga from ICANN, would you like to start us off with a view?

Elena Plexida:
Okay. I’m on. Hello, everyone. Thank you, Avi. Yes, I can kick off with some more opinions and some more definitions, which I’m sure that you’ll be very happy to hear. So as you know, I work for ICANN, representing a technical organization. And therefore, if you will, what I will come here with. And in my personal experience, I believe if the Internet is to work the way that work the way that I would have hoped it to work, it’s wonderful. But if your goal is 100%, I don’t believe you can do it. It’s about doing everything to get your goal through to that one extent he is the challenge. And if the goal is 10%, let that be the challenge, but never let that be the challenge. So, what is it that binds it together to what we call today global Internet? And this is none other than the unique identifiers, the main names, the name space, the IP addresses, and the Internet protocols alongside. Okay, I’m not a technical person, so I think of it as some sort of common technical language that all devices speak and they can find each other on the network. So, what is the global Internet? It’s this uniqueness that gives us the global Internet. As long as different networks and devices connected on the same unique set of identifiers, we have one Internet. And that’s, of course, ICANN’s mission, one Internet to ensure a stable and secure operation of the Internet, unique identifiers, we do that together with our sibling organizations, the RIRs, the ITF, et cetera. So, what is the global Internet? It’s the Internet that’s created to do. But what is, what would be Internet fragmentation? At the content level, there are already limitations. Content is not available to everyone, everywhere. That’s been happening for years, and it’s even desirable in some cases. Think of parental controls. Of course, it’s not desirable in other cases. But that’s not Internet fragmentation. It’s not Internet fragmentation, it’s actually user experience fragmentation, if you will. But it’s not Internet fragmentation, and it’s actually confusing. And I think it’s also a good point. The internet is not just a thing that is a little bit inflammatory, it’s actually to my mind dangerous to keep referring to content level limitations as internet fragmentation. Because people leave a discussion with the impression that the internet is already fragmented. And that can become, if you will, a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. I’m talking of my own experience. I’ve been discussing with parliamentarians about internet fragmentation, and they say, well, the internet is already fragmented, so why would we, what is there? That’s why I’m saying it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The internet is still there, it’s not broken. Fragmentation would be, if we take an example of the Postal Service, would be if the Postal Service stops being there. If I tell my postman that I don’t want to receive letters from Avri, that’s not internet fragmentation. I don’t want a specific part of the content. Fragmentation is when the internet breaks at a technical level, when you don’t have interoperability. So, is the internet fragmented today? No. A technical layer? Absolutely not. Can it be fragmented? Yes. I think it might. It might. Alternative namespaces. If we have that, the uniqueness is gone. A second root of the internet. The uniqueness is gone. I will not go into the technical side of it, because, first of all, I’m not technical. And second, and most importantly, because I think that, although fragmentation, fragmenting the internet is a technical issue, it will not come, if it comes, from the technical world. It will come from the political world. Deliberately or by accident, with the latter, the accident being what concerns me the most. The million dollar question, if you will, is will the global internet survive the fragmented world? So, you know, we live in a world that is not the same as it used to be before. There’s a lot of politicization around a number of issues. And we start to see this politicization over the unique identifiers as well. Them getting drawn into the geopolitical agenda. And that can be dangerous for the very global nature of the Internet. I’ll stop here. I hope.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. Thank you, Elena. The next person I have is Jennifer Chung from DotAsia. To basically give her impressions, definitions, et cetera. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung:
Thank you, Avri. My name is Jennifer Chung. I work for DotAsia organization, which is obviously DotAsia is a registry operator of the DotAsia top level domain. I guess from my point of view, whether or not I can add to the definition or add to the controversy of this discussion that hopefully we’ll have here is DotAsia is a registry. We, of course, sit on the application layer of the technical part of the Internet. And I think perhaps we are quite clear on the fact that, you know, what technical fragmentation might be, you know, if we start with the baseline, you know, when we’re looking at where are we starting this assessment from? If the assumption that the primary benefits of the core features is to be able to have universal connectivity and to have the interoperability, I’m really bad with this word, between these consenting devices, then I think there’s that very baseline that we can agree upon. I don’t think a lot of people are really confused about it or would argue against this part. I think where we’re coming from now is I think many different definitions try to bucket fragmentation into different categories. I see a lot of papers and research and also opinions. saying that first, there’s a fragmentation of the technical layer, which hopefully is not controversial. Secondly, there’s a fragmentation of the user experience or more on the end user or how we experience, how we navigate. And thirdly, it’s a fragmentation mainly on the policy level, which is more governed by places in where decision making is made there or in governments where there’s decision making on policy regulations, legislations that could aim to destabilize or could fragments the internet as we see it. I think what is really important that we should also remember is what isn’t fragmentation. I think the word fragmentation is now used. It is very important to use this word, but if we use this word to describe every single thing that is different, I think it behooves us to actually pull back and realize no, this is actually something that is good for the development of the internet. One example I’d like to bring out from the .asia point of view is a lot of people see internationalized domain names as hey, this is, what’s going on here? Could there be a threat of fragmentation? Is this actually already a fragmentation? And I would like to pause it to say actually internationalized domain names, which means domain names that can be seen in scripts such as Urdu or the Han script, which is Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, also use the Han script. These scripts allow you to see the domain name in the native script, and the threat here really is if this is not implemented well, then we have the possibility or the danger of having a fragmented internet, not the fact that we are implementing this becomes a fragmentation of the internet. So that’s one thing I’d like to really bring up first. And the second thing is when we’re looking at a different part of fragmentation. When we’re looking at, and now I’m talking more about the policy level, when we’re looking at where we’re sitting right now at the Internet Governance Forum, we’re talking about these things. But when we’re looking at bodies that decide regulations, upcoming legislations, what we really have to remember is that when these actions and legislations aim at this content and user layer, and this causes Internet fragmentation, that it also threatens the technical layer because then the implementation then comes down, that effect, there’s a knock-on effect where things like Internet shutdowns come down from any kind of policy level, or things like when people ask certain bodies to shut down portions of the Internet. So those are the geopolitical concerns and pressures that we have to resist when we talk about fragmentation as well. And I think I want to end a little bit more with, at least for my first intervention, to mitigate these risks really requires a lot of, first of all, conversation and coordination, but also not duplicating all this conversation into different silos where nobody’s talking to each other and not quite getting the part where we need to coordinate well. So I’ll stop right here.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Okay, thank you. It was interesting to me to hear IDN included in the list of possible fragmentations. So thank you for bringing that up, and I’ll be interested to hear more about the whole notion of implementation being something that could cause that. The next person on the list is Timié Souto, ICC basis.

Timea Suto:
Thank you, Avery. Thanks, everyone. Yes, Timié Souto, Global Digital Policy Leader at the International Chamber of Commerce. For those of you who don’t know us, we’re representatives of global industry. We have around 45 million members in over 170 countries across all different sizes and industries. What does fragmentation mean to me from this perspective and to us? And I have to react to what the others have said before because I think that’s the whole point of this conversation. On that baseline layer that Elena, you were talking about, is the Internet fragmented? No. No, it’s not. It’s working. But attempts have been made and were sort of successful to disconnect and prove that it can, it really can. And I think I need to agree with Jennifer, your last point there, that certain pressures that come, not at the technical layer, but at the top of all of that, at the content layer, at the data layer, at the policy layer, governance layer, have very real impacts on that technical layer and the Internet way, this network of networks. And I think disregarding that and saying the Internet works, it’s not fragmented, is putting our heads in the sand. Because there’s real dangers of the Internet fragmenting if we buy into the fact that we can fragment the top of it. Because it’s really easy for that to then go down. That is my maybe a bit controversial view, but I think we cannot disregard this. Especially when we are at forums like this and others that don’t have the technical expertise, maybe this forum has because it’s multi-stakeholder, but other forums that make decisions at the political layers, at the content layers, at the policy governance layers, might not have all that really technical background. So it’s easy, first of all, for them to confuse things. And secondly, thinking that if it can be done at the top. Why not do it elsewhere? What is there to lose? And I think those are very dangerous questions to ask. So for us on the business side, to bring it back to my official talking points. For us, what matters here is the digital economy that was built on top of the Internet and digital technologies and everything that the Internet enables. And when I talk about the digital economy, it’s not just about GDP or the bottom lines of business, but the society, the development goals, the growth, both personally, both for communities and for economies, that was fueled by the Internet. And that really depends for us on the ability to move data across borders, to make sure that data supports global trade, information exchange, commerce, health care, medicine, research, everything that is built on the top of data being able to flow across borders. And there are barriers to those data flows, for me, are real examples of Internet fragmentation. Maybe I don’t have a better word to call it, so we can put that challenge to the audience here if you have better ways to call it. But if barriers to data flows coming from various concerns, concerns mostly about trust on the Internet, whether it is I don’t trust my data to go outside my region because the privacy protections are not the same, or the IP protections are not the same, or the consumer protections are not the same, or just because I think I can create more value by keeping it here and not letting others share it, access it, process it, I think those are very dangerous thoughts and thoughts to data localization and fragmentation. this layer, I think, first of all, hamper a lot of the benefits of the Internet, even if it works technically, the benefits don’t come. And it’s not a user choice, right? It’s not Avri saying I don’t want to receive letters from you. I cannot receive letters from you because others have made that choice for me. And that’s also another question that we might want to delve into later. So I’ll leave it at that. And I hope I answered your question.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. Yeah. You’re all starting to answer the question. And we’re also all starting to have a little bit of the discussion, though all these people talking about not sending me letters is going to get sad. But anyhow, next, I’d like to go to Javier Parlero, who’s a consultant, digital rights, tech and culture. So Javier is remote. So is he available to talk? Yes, please. Go.

Javier Pallero:
Oh, fantastic. Thank you so much. Thank you for the opportunity for being there. I am connected from Argentina. So hi to everyone there. So let me go with my attempt at responding at this very difficult and specific question. What I would say is that I have to agree with all of that was said before. I think this is a very complex issue that starts with a very specific definition that is technical. Right. And listening to Jen, I have to agree. Right. About thinking about what makes the Internet one. Right. Which is this unique identifiers, protocols and the common language that is spoken. But one of the aspects that I would like to bring up from a civil society perspective is not only what makes the Internet unique or one, but also why that happens. What is the reason to be that the Internet has, at least for most of us as users? And that’s actually the ability for us to be able to communicate. and to connect with everyone, right? So that’s, I think, what is at the core of this confusion or this idea, right? That for example, politicians would say, oh, the internet is already fragmented, right? Because there is this perception that the reason that the internet has to be has been changing fast. It has become more closed, more seemingly or perceived, you know, in perception, it has become more disconnected, more unable to provide that sensation of connection and, you know, the ability to express yourself without borders and to access information and so on. So I would dare to go a bit further and say that it’s actually not a confusion, this idea that intertwines the political application, technical and protocol levels of the discussion. It’s not a confusion, it’s something that happens because the thing that goes across all of these dimensions is the reason of the internet to be, right? And the reason to be of the internet is for connection and for, you know, it’s technology that enables the enjoyment of rights and so on. So that apparent confusion is actually a part of the problem and also as the last speaker before me, Tamiya said, many of these situations, these decisions in the policy level or the application level as well, when a private company becomes a dominant actor in one area of internet services, for example, all of that ends up affecting somehow technical decisions, right? So for example, politics can mandate shutdowns or data retention or national gateways, right? But also certain companies, for example, can exert more and more influence into certain protocols, for example. A key example that comes to mind is. the DRM protocols that have been added to the W3C discussions about web protocols, for example, right? And many of that comes from private parties, not necessarily governments, right? Also, another example when it comes to government that goes beyond the extreme example of shutdowns could be the censorship attempts that are done through, you know, mandating changes to the DNS resolvers, right? Or putting pressure into DNS servers, right? So all of that is just a way of saying that this dimension, even if it is not part of the technical specific concrete definition of fragmentation, which I share is more of a technical specific discussion that maybe can be benefited, you know, by being correctly framed and limited. But all of these aspects that I’ve just been mentioning are also important. They may not be part of the definition, but they are part of the problem. And then a part of the perception that has to do with the idea that we have about the internet and how we think that we want to use it. I think that when it comes to working on this, we will have to make a big effort to make a distinction about these different dimensions, maybe focus on some of them, like the protocols one, but, you know, because the other ones tend to have their own areas of discussion, right? The ones about censorship of applications or the ones about bad policies, right? All of those are properly covered, let’s say by some other actors that have activity, discussion, regulation, civil society actors that are actually very active on that. But on these other areas, there’s not that much engagement. And maybe that’s where a more narrow definition of the issue can be of service, right? Just to inspire more attention to the underrepresented dimension, if you may. But the fact is that everything is important and should be considered. So I would stop there for the initial intervention. And thank you again for the invitation and for the opportunity to be there virtually. Thank you.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you, Javier. And thank you for saying it was virtual when I said remote. That was an old-fashioned word that we’re not really supposed to use anymore, so the virtually or the online. So I really appreciate the correction. The next person I’d like to go to in this initial set of discussions is Nishigata-san for a Japanese government to give us a, where’s the microphone to go? Okay, it was going to go there. So please, thank you now that you have a microphone, please.

Nishigata Nobu:
Okay. Good afternoon, everybody. My name is, thank you for the kind introduction. My name is Nobu Nishigata from the Japanese government. I’m working at the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications who host this IGF event. So thank you for coming. And we do appreciate everybody’s participation and contribution which made this event good, really good. Thank you very much again. So getting back to the point of the internet fragmentation, since I’m the government official and I’m not a tech person either, I can write the registration though, not the quote. But, you know, it’s confusing matter to me, right? So just some people already mentioned, it’s many, many different definition. Then there’s a nature of the government person. We need a definition before starting talk, right? But I tried my best today. And then maybe, you know, this is a part of my job to just following what is happening in the internet every day. Then I do recognize some or maybe most of the recent issues is just following up on the category of the internet fragmentation. And then, you know, I refrain to speak that particular names of countries, but I do recognize that there is some frustration in the tech community, particularly, you know, among the several kinds of the fragmentation. And from the government perspective, then I would understand. frustration, particularly against the government intervention and its forceful type of fragmentation, for example, like internet shutdown during the election period, that kind of thing. However, from the government perspective, this is not a job of our ministry, but some other part of the government. We have to do some jobs, particularly for our public safety perspective, particularly within the border, you know, that the government has to solve. You know, internet is global, this is great, but on the other hand, the border matters to the government, you know. So then, not only for the public safety, but the government may make some actions that frustrates you guys in the tech community, and for the sake of the other high-level policy agenda for like economic development or national safety, et cetera, et cetera. So this could be maybe today’s one of the discussion points, how far the government can do or allow to do these jobs, and I understand that some communities hate even the single government intervention to the internet, however, but we do understand that we have to be accountable for these actions, and in Japan’s case, fortunately, we don’t see the severe cases yet, and of course, the government of Japan respect the open and free internet. You can see many evidence, like we support the declaration of the future internet published by the US government, or like Japan chairs this G7 meetings this year, and the G7 agreed the support to DFI, and it’s our chair’s leadership, and Japan and the US both government get together and then just finished our day zero session on the declaration of the future internet to the evangelized people in the IGF venue here. So I understand that some of the government action in general may frustrate the internet people, but on the other hand, it is not only the internet people that get frustrated, the government also sometimes gets frustrated, or I would say at least not satisfied with the current internet, and there are some issues that do be solved. For example, there are issues, I would say, regarding the fragmentation, maybe that goes upon a user interface type of fragmentation, like the filter bubble, or echo chamber, or these kind of things. And this is not only the phenomenon, but these things bring more some bad side effects brought by these internet services, right? So this is the issue that we are not satisfied and we have to tackle, but on the other hand, the government cannot solve these things by ourselves. We need particular technicians and technical people, and maybe other part of the society, but we need some other help to tackle and solve these problems. And in the intervention, maybe let me say that we had our Prime Minister Kishida came into the IJF meeting, if you are aware of, and he just committed to our effort to maintain open free internet, and particularly the reason is that we shouldn’t leave anyone behind from the benefit of the internet that brought for like 30, 40 years. Thank you.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. It’s been an interesting first set of comments in that it started very low with a very precise, we’ve added nuances as we’ve sort of moved up the scale, and then it’s almost flowered to the point of anything that interferes with an open and free internet can perhaps be seen as a fragmentation. And so that is a very good representation. of sort of the blossoming of this conversation, the blossoming of the differences that many of us have. I’d like to now go and call on some other folks. We’ve got really an amazing number of folks around this table that have probably good things to say, and dig a little deeper. Perhaps there’ll be other nuances and other extensions that’ll get added, but also to dig a little deeper into some of what’s been said. And next, I’d like to go to Aha G. Embo, who’s a member of parliament of the Gambia. So you, okay, you got that one, okay.

Aha G. Embo:
Thank you very much for the introduction. I’m Honorable Aha G. Embo from the Gambia, member of parliament, and also the vice chair of the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance. I think we are discussing a very important topic, a topic that is actually confusing some people because of definition, but I quite agree that anything that can actually interface with the free flow of the internet, actually you can actually call it internet fragmentation. I’m a lawmaker, but I came from the tech community, so we will be okay with that. Now, as we try to have a stable and integrated internet, this fragmentation, whether it’s at the technical level, or whether it’s at the government level, or whether it’s at the business level, because these are the three areas that you can actually see the fragmentation may happen. So we may have an issue at the level of legislation because legislators don’t want to legislate anything that’s ambiguous. We want to be very clear on what we are trying to legislate. And again, the internet is such a way that you don’t want to put in any kind of legislation that would actually hamper or stifle innovation. And again, when you have these fragments of the internet, like these little islands that actually are not talking to each other regularly or optimally, then we may have an issue. The cost is, you know, it could be political by our own governments, but at the side of legislation I think there could be an issue here, because we are trying to have a free flow and we are also trying to streamline our legislations across the world. That’s the reason why here you see that we have African parliamentarians, we have some from the European Parliament, and we’ve been talking, what can we do together to ensure that we have a safe, secure and integrated Internet. So bringing these splinter groups would cause us actually more problems, because we already have issues in terms of legislation, now bringing actually more divisions on this area is actually going to cause us more problems. So I think this is something we really need to discuss to see what we can do together to ensure that we leave it the way it is and then to ensure that we promote a more secure and integrated connectivity. In that case we can work together as legislators or as policy makers to ensure that we can streamline what we do. Now you just mentioned sometimes about the Internet shutdown, but personally I will actually call it Internet disruption, because what is happening right now is they are trying to stop particular applications from running, not the entire Internet. So that is actually disruption. So you’re not really shutting down the Internet completely, but you are just actually stopping particular applications from actually running, and I think all those things actually is something that we really need to look at to see that this disruption of the Internet actually stops, and this fragmentation actually would actually propel that more than actually just. So the side of legislation I think it’s better we leave it the way it is and support it more to ensure that we have free flow and we also have integrated and we also have it more secure for everybody to live. Thank you.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
sort of the different behaviors and the different problems. And that perhaps is helpful. Next I’d like to go to Tomoaki Watanabe, who’s from the Center for Global Communications in Tokyo. And by the way, thank you everybody for helping play the game with pass the microphone. So please.

Tomoaki Watanabe:
Thank you. My name is Tomoaki Watanabe. I’m an academic based in Tokyo. So the way I thought about this issue is when is splinternet bad or bad enough? And I kind of agree, or I kind of resonate with the idea that the democratic or politically motivated splinternet is the one we should get most concerned about. But then maybe we should be aware of the fact that democracy, even in some of the most democratic countries, is these days a challenge to an extent or another. I think things like war against terrorism or measures against rioting or civil unrest, those things are not that foreign to some of the most democratic countries. And I’m sure that some level of internet regulation is desired by governments of those countries. So I don’t, and also let me add. One more thing, having a free and open internet, in principle, I tend to think that’s a good thing. That’s a condition for a better society. But also, I think these days, a lot of questions are asked. How good it is, or is this enough to bring about good changes? Or, sometimes, as many people have already mentioned, it causes really serious adverse effects. And in light of those things, I think we really have to think carefully how to proceed, in a way. Because I think it’s not really so simple as to say, only certain countries are problematic, and these countries are more pro-freedom, pro-unified internet. Because I think, upon closer inspection, even in those countries which are pro-democracy, pro-unified internet, there are serious problems and concerns. And maybe studying those things more closely, discussing about those things closely, might give us a better way to think about, maybe, a more comprehensive package. Maybe the unified internet is just one of, or part of the package, that would bring about good social changes. Maybe I spoke long enough. Thank you.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Okay, thank you. So, it actually starts to get even more a little confusing, in terms of free and open. and is not always free and open and certainly not always good. And we’ve certainly heard that before. And I’m sort of starting to feel that it’s starting to cover a lot and not cover much at the same time. So it’s becoming actually a more and more interesting conversation. Next I have Tatiana Tropina from Leiden University who needs a microphone. And please, can you sort of help bring it in a little bit?

Tatiana Trapina:
It’s working now. Thank you very much, Avri. And I was listening to everybody and thinking about these 100 flavors of fragmentation, as Avri put it, or 50 shades of fragmentation. And I think the confusion comes from the fact that we place our belief, our faith in global connectivity on different layers of the internet. And I’m taking here purely technical, purely technocratic approach. For me, from this perspective, from the perspective of technical layer, nothing has challenged the global dominance of TCP IP, the system of unique identifiers. And if something has challenged it, for example, the incompatibility of IPv6 and IPv4 IP addresses, this has been fixed. The technical tools have been developed for the global connectivity to win. So for me, the glue that brings all these layers together and provides us, fulfills this promise of global connectivity is still there. But I do understand that different speakers put faith and definition of global connectivity somewhere else, below the technical layer. Then internet shutdowns become internet fragmentation, or above technical layer. Then various content regulations, restrictions, censorship. to also become internet fragmentation, because their promise of global connectivity is somewhere else. And this is where this debate gets confusing. To me, internet is not fragmented exactly because the glue that keeps us together, the technical layer, it’s still interoperable, it’s still global, remove censorship, you will have connectivity. But once this layer is gone, everything is gone. So yes, it’s not fragmented, but, but, the question is, is there no danger? There is a danger. And to me, the danger is that by trying to regulate, by trying to territorialize information flows, by trying to exercise control for various reasons, be it preservation of political system or legitimate concerns about protecting their citizens from various threats, governments start imposing restrictions that might intentionally or unintentionally impose regulation that might intentionally or unintentionally tackle the technical layer. And here I have to go away from my technical technocratic approach and say one thing. We like to think about technical layer like unique identifiers, TCP, IP, so it’s all connected, it glues it together, it’s working. But we have to think that this doesn’t exist on its own. It exists not because the government’s imposed it, not because regulation imposed it, it exists because the community, technical community, multi-stakeholder community put faith in it at some point by adoption of these protocols, by adoption of this system of unique identifiers. And it runs purely based on trust. And away from my technical technocratic approach, if regulation destroys either technical underpinnings or this trust, this is where internet is going to fragment. And I do believe that this is a danger here. And I would like to circle back to what Elena said about self-fulfilling prophecy. We talk about definitions a lot here. I do believe that at some point we start talking about solutions. And to me, one of the solutions would be to be very careful saying that Internet is fragmenting or fragmented because it’s some sort of perpetuating debate. What we have to do, we have to start thinking about basics and basic commitments. I know that it’s hard to fix government censoring the Internet. And sometimes we have to stop labeling it as fragmentations because sometimes it would be just purely human rights abuses. And it’s much fancier to say fragmentation, right? But we have to look into the core. And at the core would be global connectivity and trust. And if this session can start any debate about steps forward, I would say that it would be commitment by governments, by technical community, by anybody else to these basics. And once we preserve these basics, we can solve any other problem because the global connectivity will prevail. Thank you.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. So we get to a point where we really are starting to overload the term and we’ve overloaded it with all of our frustrations and unhappinesses and everything else and get in trouble. Next I want to move to, and I’ve got a couple more before we’ll come back around, so many good people to talk to here, with Sheetal Kumar from Global Partners. And please pass the microphone. No, that way. Thank you.

Sheetal Kumar:
Hi, everyone. I’m sorry I’m late. But I’m really glad I got to catch Tatiana’s input there because I think it was very helpful. And the more I listen to these discussions, the more I feel like we are actually getting somewhere as long as we’re happy to navigate a choppy water. I think one of the challenges that we’re facing is that we’re talking about something we’re trying to preserve and also evolve. And so we’re trying to figure out perhaps, as you were saying, Tatiana, what we need to preserve. And I think that’s very helpful to identify and agree on, and how we evolve that, considering we need to preserve that. The issue is that whether through unintended or intended actions, and as you mentioned, a lot of those can come from regulation, there are challenges to preserving what we have. When it comes to the internet, those critical properties, the values and the principles of openness and connectivity, and indeed user control and autonomy, those are being impacted or could be impacted by regulation and decisions and the normalization of actions like shutdowns, for example. So that, to me, is the challenge. And then how specific we are, or how broad we are, I think that comes from, yes, perhaps identifying what we need to, and agreeing on what we need to preserve, identifying what the challenges are to that, and then ensuring that we can continue to evolve the internet according to that. So just quickly on where I think we’ve come to, I co-lead the Policy Network on Internet Fragmentation, and we have developed this framework, which was, I think, probably referred to before, and there we have some recommendations under each of the elements of the framework, which are the technical layer, where we refer to the critical properties of the internet, but also user experience, which combines sort of the impacts of government regulation and also corporate actions on user experience, and develops recommendations based on those, and then governance as well. So the challenge of having duplicative mandates or bodies that are not inclusive and therefore don’t coordinate and communicate with each other. Now, if we, I believe, we could take any of those and if we did some of that, that would be helpful to ensure that we are both preserving and evolving the internet in a way that preserves its original vision, but it is also possible to do part of that and still go along the pathway. So I think what we’re trying to figure out here is what is the pathway and to have some sort of compass for that, and what I hope is that the Policy Network’s contribution, which builds on the contributions of many others who have worked on this topic, whether it’s the World Economic Forum paper or the work of the Internet Society, helps to form that compass and to both preserve and evolve what we have so that we can move along the right pathway. Thanks.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. I just wanted to mention, we’ve got two more in this initial list. Then we have an online comment, and then I want to move into a more organic conversation, and I’ll mention to the people there, there are empty seats around the table. So if you’re going to want to say something, find yourself a seat, because it’s really easy to pass. Next, I have Raul Echeverria, and the microphone should start moving towards him from Asociación or something, I’m pronouncing it wrong, Latinoamericano de Internet. So Raul, please. I tried.

Raul Echeverria:
Excellent pronunciation. Okay. That’s a very interesting discussion. I think that I said yesterday in a meeting that we have to escape from the issue of definitions, because this is where we are stuck. But we are clear about how we want the Internet to behave and what are the things that we don’t want to happen on the Internet. One of the things we have is that people have the same experiences on the Internet. the internet around the world, and it is not happening. I have experienced that, as other colleague said before, let’s not put names on the countries. But I have been in countries where I have not had the same access to the same applications that I use often in my country or in most of the world. So there are others, as Tatiana pointed out, there is risk in many policies that create negative impacts in the way that the internet works. So I think that we can be two years discussing what is fragmentation and what is not fragmentation, and probably we will not get a consensus. So I will not spend time saying if the internet is fragmented or not. We have problems. That’s the point. And we know what the problems are. And OK, we can say, OK, don’t say that the internet is fragmented, because it’s like to create that idea that if it is already fragmented, so what’s the problem? But we have to be careful, because in fact, there are policies that have already been adopted in many countries that create a negative impact that have a huge risk on fragmentation. So for not saying that, we can create also the opposite spirit, the idea of saying, OK, people complain when we pass this law and nothing happens. Everybody now is saying that the internet is not fragmented, so what’s the problem? So let’s focus on what are the things that we don’t want to happen. We want the people to have the same experience and the the Internet, anywhere in the globe, to take advantage of all the powerful of the connectivity. We don’t want interference from governments in deciding by us what we can do or what we cannot do. And also, there are legitimate interest and right in the governments to take care about some things that are proportionally, that we know that there is a common understanding that in the world about child pornography, terrorism and other things, but also the measures that are taken to avoid the access to this kind of information should be proportional and reasonable, and not to use a big wig bomb to kill an ant, you know? There are problems. This is the point. And we have to focus on that instead of, say, discussing if Internet is fragmented or not.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. So we move from quibbling over the definitions and the multiple definitions towards, and I really like the notion of combining two things, sort of the pathway to solutions almost, the finding the actual problems and then working on solving them. The next person I have, and it’s the last one of this first round, as it were, is Paul Wilson from APNIC. Do you have a microphone? I can give you this one or that one’s coming.

Paul Wilson:
Hello, I’m Paul Wilson from APNIC. We’re a member of the technical community, one of the regional Internet address registries. I think when we’ve spoken about fragmentation at all these nuanced and high levels, I’m not sure that we want to get back down into the nitty-gritty of the Internet layer. I just do want to say that the purpose of what happens at the… that we have an internet layer in that technical sense, the underlying layer that supports everything else, that is unfragmented, that can continue to grow, it can continue to operate without fragmentation that can happen in various kinds. It’s continuous work that needs to be done. It, as I tried to say in yesterday’s panel, it’s something that shouldn’t be taken for granted, because it can be eroded. I think looking at fragmentation as a whole and even at an individual layer and individual case, I think we’re all learning that fragmentation is not just a condition of the internet, it’s a quality that varies, that comes and goes, it varies by layer, by context, by geography and so on. And so that goes at the internet layer as well, and what we’re continually trying to do is to make sure that we’re not over-fragmenting the internet layer as well and what we’re continually trying to do through policy making, through the IPv6 transition, through the management of the last suppliers of IPv4 is to preserve the integrity of the internet. So if anyone wants to talk about specific aspects of that, like IPv4 versus IPv6 for instance, then we can, but I feel like we’re past that. I wanted to make just one observation that is about the changing nature of the internet and how really these things do need to be tracked and observed and analysed as the internet grows and changes. There’s been a huge trend to a kind of fragmentation of the internet over the last decade towards CDNs, so content distribution networks which take copies of content and move those copies close to the consumers in order that they can be accessed quickly. That’s a type of fragmentation because it kind of breaks the model where the user is accessing a service which somehow exists somewhere on the internet and that service doesn’t anymore, even though it looks like one service, even on one IP address, it actually doesn’t exist in one place according to the classical model. it’s distributed, it’s fragmented, the original end-to-end model is kind of fragmented by that situation. So that’s a huge trend and a huge amount of the traffic on the internet has been, is these days delivered through CDNs. To the extent that the APNIC scientist Geoff Huston asked recently whether we were seeing the death of transit on the internet, that is the ability of the internet to negotiate a connection from any one point to any other point through transit networks. And it’s a good point because if you are no longer demanding transit, if you’re no longer demanding genuine end-to-end connectivity, then it may well fade. But then along came COVID and I think the fact that we had this incredible plethora of end-to-end, point-to-point video communications that became a necessity of everyday life sort of pointed out the necessity, the real importance of that end-to-end internet, the ability of any end point to effectively connect to any other end point. I was struck actually by the remote, the virtual participation by Javier before, from the other side of the world on this HD connection, absolutely beautiful, perfect. We have a point-to-point, end-to-end, unfragmented internet that’s allowing that kind of connectivity to take place. So I think that should be still pretty remarkable to all of us and something not to take for granted. Thank you.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. You’re right. It is rather miraculous that we can do that and that we assume that it’s going to work and get kind of flustered when it doesn’t. Okay. We’re going to sort of move in the next. We’ve used about an hour. We’ve basically had a fair number of people give a fair number of good views that have sort of boiled the ocean a little bit for us. Adam’s going to read a comment. comment that was online, and then I’d like to basically, up to now it’s been just talk until you got said what you wanted to say. Now with a half hour left, sort of, if you’ve got brief points to make vis-a-vis what other people said, and Adam will carry around a microphone, and also I wanted to ask if there’s other participants here who weren’t the assigned speaking participants who but would like to speak and have something to say, please let us know so that we can get a microphone to you and you could speak. Either sit here or Adam will bring you a microphone. So please, Adam.

Dhruv Dhody:
Thank you. Yes, this is on. I do need the exercise, so please call for the mic. I’d love to rush over and give it to you in a second. Just, there is an online comment. It actually covers something that Tanya also mentioned. It’s from Dhruv Dhodi, and he says, while all of these can be called internet fragmentation, would you agree that they are not all equal and fragmentation at the technical layer that does not allow interoperability at all is a bigger threat than content moderation. Thus, is there a need for us all to be more nuanced when talking about internet fragmentation and sometimes, rather than sometimes clubbing them all together, which does not serve us well? So that was the comment, and I think Tanya touched on some of those issues. Who would like a microphone and get me moving? Yeah, keep putting her hand up, and then, yeah. Okay, all right.

Ponsley:
Okay, thank you. Ponsley speaking, Gambia NRI. I just want to go back to Elina. She raised something on, and all the other speakers have really talked more about it, that it’s not really a technical issue, which we know, and even when you try to put fragmentation, you try to package it down, you discover that most of what people are actually talking about is really. There are thousands of ways that internet is harming people, online. There are hundreds of ways that the human rights and digital rights have been abused, whether it’s short-term or whatever. My question on this political stuff, that’s likely what will break the Internet, what type of political situation are you seeing because people might interpret them differently. I’m not sure what the political scenario is. I think there are a lot of people who are using the Internet, later he’s overthrown, when there was elections, he started crying about using the Internet to make some noise to get him released. Some people will consider that in a way, in some parts, especially in Africa, that shutting down the Internet is a fragmentation. You are depriving some people, but actually, it’s not actually that. It’s a matter of different way that political characteristics, political points of view that affect a breakdown in fragmentation, cutting off a whole continent or a whole sector. Thank you.

Sheetal Kumar:
Start . We’re on the wrong path. And we’re moving away from something that maybe isn’t perfect, but we’re moving away from it. And so I think my question would be, or provocation would be, do we know, we all know we’re not taking it for granted, but do we know what, perhaps to Raoul’s point, like what we need to do? Do we agree on what the main issues are? And as I said, you know, some of us have been putting together recommendations, including from this IGF, from the multi-stakeholder policy network, for what can be done. Is that useful? Is that helpful to say that if we implemented those recommendations, things would get better? Do we have that common understanding? Because we are all clearly concerned about something.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. Thank you. Did you want to address anything directly? It seemed, and then I have the gentleman there, and then I have, no, he’s already got a microphone.

Julius Endel:
Yeah, I’ve got one. Thank you very much. I’m Julius Endel from the W Academy in Germany, and I’ve maybe, I forgot your name, sorry, the lady in the black and white, you. So, I don’t know who wants to answer it. So, how would you connect the discussion about fragmentation and AI? Because what I see is that all the costs are being, for running the internet and providing all the data on all the servers and into the cloud is socialized, and all the profits are privatized on a very few, a number of companies. And so, we are kind of doing all the work, and they are scrapping all of our data, and sucking in the profits, so isn’t that also a kind of fragmentation? So, how would you connect these two, or don’t you want to see this kind of connection? Okay, trying to keep track of the hands and

Moderator – Avri Doria:
the order in which I see them. I did have Jorge, but if somebody wanted to respond to

Elena Plexida:
what was just asked, yes. Yeah, please. I wanted to respond to what was asked previously, not right now. Okay. And thank you very much for the question. I was actually taking notes of what the other people were saying and trying to react to that. I was going to get to that point, anyway. So, but let me get it from the beginning. We can keep debating on how to define things, of course, and by the way, you know we do it because we were asked to do it. I’m not sure if I’m going to be able to be here, but I really like Tanya’s speech here. Let’s look at what we need to preserve, okay? The issues that Temea or Xavier online brought up are very, very important. We do have issues with data localization, islands of secluded content, shutdowns, what have you, all that. I guess I’ll try to put it in perspective in order to get to what we need to preserve. I think we need to preserve what we need to preserve, okay? So, if we are going to be able to isolate the Internet, isolate the Internet into two, three, four different Internets, then I think the problem becomes of a whole other magnitude. And the frustration that we’re talking about that we’ll all be feeling will be of a whole other level. And you said before we assume it just works. So, I think we need to preserve what we need to preserve, which is the Internet. And Temea also mentioned and other people mentioned while we were discussing legislation to address content issues that can have an adverse effect at the technical level. I agree, that happens. I also see and no one in the technical community will say that legislation is not needed. But I think it’s important to understand that the Internet is not a tool that can have an adverse effect on the technical level. It’s usually unintentional and when you discuss with legislators and you explain, they fix it. The trend, and that is what worries me and goes back to the question that was asked by the gentleman over there, is although so far it has been unintentional and unintentionally touching on the basics of the Internet, the fundamentals, the identifiers, there are huge challenges with IT. And so, from my perspective, we again have created an environment that I don’t want anyone but different behaviors that are not common at all and what is not common is the internet has actually invested enough money in time. And as I said, a decision that can have an adversarial effect on the technical level is much we have now an effort to apply sovereignty over something that is by definition global. An example I can give is sanctions over IPs as an action that goes into that direction. So yeah, therefore that is something that we need to avoid in order to preserve what we need to preserve. Going back to Tania. Thanks.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. Okay, I’m starting to build up a queue here. I’ve got you at the microphone there, then I’ve got Jorge, then I’ve got Raul, then I’ve got Michael, and then I’ve got Tatiana. So that’s the order I’ve managed to build. If I didn’t get it quite right, I apologize.

Robin Green:
It’s on. Thank you. My name is Robin Green. I work with Meta on internet fragmentation issues as well as a range of human rights issues tied to encryption and surveillance law enforcement access. I thought this is an absolutely fantastic discussion. Thank you for hosting it. One of the things that I’ve heard a few times over the course of this IGF and the many internet fragmentation conversations that we’ve had is this idea that content distribution networks are fragmenting the internet. And I want to push back on that a little bit because those networks are ultimately oftentimes necessary to actually connect people to services all over the world to make sure that those services are resilient, to make sure that people have access to fast internet service. And at the end of the day, when we’re talking about internet fragmentation, in my view… One of the things that we’re really focused on is what is the effect, right? So whether you’re talking about regulatory fragmentation of the Internet that has technical implications or a core technical fragmentation of the Internet like some folks have talked about The thing that we actually care about is what is the user experience is the user experiencing fragmentation? And if the goal of the Internet what which at least is the goal in my mind is for people to be able to exercise their Fundamental rights and whether those are economic rights expressive rights You know accessing information engaging in assembly and things like that At the end of the day if their user experience is becoming fragmented in a way that they can’t fulfill those goals Then to me that is internet fragmentation that needs to be addressed And so we can sort of have this larger umbrella of internet fragmentation While still looking at things from a technical perspective and then a user experience perspective But I think it would be a mistake to step away from the concept of internet fragmentation because something isn’t you know directly Mandating a technical fragmentation even where the user experience still winds up being fragmented And so that’s where I do see things as data localization requirements or other other kinds of restrictions on cross-border data flows Restrictions on encryption that would be implicating people globally users globally and then similarly implications on Content takedowns and geoblocking and other restrictions of free expression. Those are all elements of internet fragmentation They’re just you know, whether they’re technical or user experience oriented You know, there’s a difference there, but there’s still things that I think we all need to consider

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. Okay. Now next I had Jorge and I also want to I was reminded that there was a pending question in the air So if any of you have it about the connection between AI which has been a favorite subject Oh, you’re gonna have one fantastic. Well, we’ll get there. I just want I was reminded I’m reminded that I had not made sure the… I want to respond directly to that question. Okay, so we’ll get there. Oh, you want to do it now? I can. Okay.

Tatiana Trapina:
So just, it doesn’t get lost because it was asked. I wrote it down. How would you connect the discussions on fragmentations and AI? And I would say I would not connect them. I’m sorry. So that’s my answer. Thank you. But I’m still in the queue for other issues.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. Jorge, please.

Jorge Cancios:
Okay. After this commentary. Jorge Cancios with government. So on this question, so many things have been said. It’s difficult to add something, but I couldn’t resist. And I think here, as we are in the UN, in the IGF, we have to connect this also to the discussions we are having at the global level, what’s happening at the global level. And if you look at how the situation is evolving, just four years ago, we had a report from the high-level panel on digital cooperation, which was called The Age of Digital Interdependence. So really the focus was made or laid on what unites us on how dependent we are with each other and through the digital tissue that unites many things. And I just wanted to mention that because the situation today is a completely different one. I guess that even if such a panel would try to name its report, the same way it would be criticized as being completely out of the reality where we live with very fundamental geopolitical tensions. So I just wanted to share that and also recall that we are in the midst of this process towards a global digital compact where internet fragmentation is one of the topics to be considered. And going back to something that Paul said before and others, the internet interoperability at the technical level is not a given. It’s not really something that we should take for granted. It really relies, apart from this history of trust, of building this network, it relies on huge network effects, on incentives and benefits for everyone connecting to this unique network. But really the pressures are mounting at this geopolitical level. So there may come a time where those pressures, perhaps also joined by alternatives at a standards level, at other levels, become so important that this delicate fabric of trust, which holds the tissues together, built by millions of networks, begin to erode. So this is something that I think is really the fundamental level of internet fragmentation. And the same way that this is a fabric of millions of millions of networks, it is also in the hands of those millions of people taking decisions with their networks, with their companies, with their governments, who can take decisions going into the right direction or into the wrong directions, and can decide to invest into holding that tissue together or to really continue eroding that tissue into a direction that may end up with a fragmentation. So perhaps this decision or this recommendation of investing into the right direction, which is something in the hands of many of the people coming here, could be something for the policy network on internet fragmentation and for some good recommendations, useful recommendations coming out of this IGF and flowing into the GDC. So hope that was helpful after so many thoughtful inputs.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. Starting to have a very long list here in a very short amount of time. I’ve got Raúl next.

Raul Echeverria:
Yes. The colleague that raised the point of political situation left the meeting, but I wanted to come back to that point, because of course we are accustomed in countries that are not democratic or with weak democracies, we are accustomed to see that it’s normal to impose restrictions to access to content. But so it’s something, by the way, something that we not realize in the… And we should not. But it’s not the only problem, and this is something that we expect, but now we are facing problems in democratic countries and strong democracies that are passing laws and developing public policies that are really affecting the user experiences. And sometimes it’s based on measures that try to protect intellectual property in the networks, or because of some taxation or other things. But sometimes, because for lack of awareness and the effect that the policies could have on the internet, those things are adopted. I’m sorry to say that my experience from policymakers is not only as successful as the colleague from ICANN say, that many times we explain to policymakers and we are not successful in changing their mind, because they have, as I said yesterday in another meeting, the incentives of policymakers are diverse. Sometimes they have political decisions to protect an industry or protect from disruption. So they have commitments. They have to move ahead with decisions, even knowing that they are creating a negative impact. As a friend of mine usually says, sometimes when policies don’t fit with reality, some policymakers who try to do is try to change the reality instead of changing the policies. I wanted to come back to the political situation, because it’s not only a problem. with dictatorships or authoritarian regimes is a problem. The risk is really big of having this fragmented experience that is what matter because nobody care about the rights. We care about what the people do on the internet. So this is what really matter.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. Next, I’ve got Michael Rothschild.

Michael Rothschild:
Thank you. Hi, my name is Michael Rothschild. I’m from the Association of the Internet Industry in Germany. I’m working with the internet since 1983 and when we started, there were only fragments. The whole, there was no internet. It consists only of fragments in the various countries, fragments of services, fragments of networks, everything. And what we did at that time was building gateways. Of course, that may not be efficient and there is a risk of filtering, I admit, but I’m pretty much sure if fragmentation on the technical level goes on, someone will find a technical solution for that one and then we only have to deal with the political stuff. Thank you.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. I think I come from that same generation where, for me, the internet’s constantly becoming. Tatiana.

Tatiana Trapina:
Unfortunately, the gentleman who asked the question about feasible scenario for fragmentation left, but I did, I wanted to say that we can think about technical scenario, like, I don’t know, some alternative route or alternative standards or alternative system of unique identifiers. I do not believe in this, strictly speaking, exactly because I think that the technical community has enough experience of connecting things by coming up with technical solutions so the connectivity wins. And plus, if this is imposed by the governments, it will. I don’t think that this is completely unrealistic. Maybe in the future if one region, like the European Union, decides to go with absolutely different technical standards, it might happen. Where I see the feasible scenario, and this is, I think, where it becomes very important, is when regulation which is imposed targets technical layer in a way that what Jorge called fabric of trust or the kind of regulation called fabric of trust is eroded. When something on the technical layer, be it root zone service, be it unique identifiers, IP addresses in certain regions have different frameworks for governance. When the multi-stakeholder governance does not cover it all or there are competing frameworks with what we have now. And here it brings me to the point what we want to preserve. I think we want to preserve essentially what makes the internet the internet. We want to preserve this uniqueness, this glue, technical identifiers, protocols, and ensure that any developments will make them still interoperable. But I think much more important in terms of feasibility of any, I reluctantly say this word, fragmentation scenario, we need to preserve this trust. We need the firm commitment to the multi-stakeholder model of governance. Not of engagement, not of discussion, but of governance, because this is how the technical layer has been governed. And this is what we have to constantly recommit ourselves to. Thank you.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. As we come closer and closer to the end with seven minutes, please, Tomaki.

Tomoaki Watanabe:
Yes, thank you. So I wanted to answer two questions. One, the split internet discussion, how it relates to AI. I think I have slightly different take. And there are two relations that I can think of. So I would like to make a few comments on this. So I would like to make a few comments on this. So number one, AI, especially the current, like, large language model kind of AIs, they are built up on a massive training data set, which is enabled in a way by the unified Internet. So if we wanted to leave some benefits for the AI, we would have to have a more advanced capacity to be able to communicate and be as connected as they are right now. And also, more to the political domain. I think it’s good that some of the AIs can provide at least some advanced capacity to translate and overcome the challenges that we face in the world. So that’s my take on the relationship. The other question I wanted to address was if the technical layer fragmentation matters more than the content layer. I think the answer, basically, is yes, but not in a simple way. So the second question is that if suppose if all the world’s government had very strong granular and very speedy capability to regulate online communications of any kind, then the government doesn’t really care about shutting down the Internet connections, because such a measure is always a blunt assertion and you know that too much people are going to use that for providing help to communicate. internet is connected to each other. Thank you.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. Okay. I think I have four people left. The next one is Javier online, then I’ve got Paul, then Dushant, then Uta, and if I get all those in, we’re really doing great. That means you’re speaking briefly. So Javier, are you ready?

Javier Pallero:
Yes. I hope you can hear me. So one thing that I would like to add is more into the side of solutions, right? Just to try to move into something different. When it comes to what we have identified as the core fragmentation threats in terms of what happens with the protocols and identifiers, we have heard that the main threats on that front come from the governments, right? Governments that are feeling sometimes impotent in when it comes to try to control the internet in order to execute some of the public policies or priorities. So maybe isn’t then a reinvigoration of the multi-stakeholder model, more attention to that, maybe an active denunciation of those advancements by governments, extreme advancements by governments and also getting more information to users or to those who can exert pressure onto their own governments, a way of offering a solution. Maybe we should be doing that. Just thinking about, you know, like what’s the main threat to the more specific technical aspect of this and maybe, you know, with more participation and active denunciation of that advancement by governments, we can make a valuable contribution to that. Thanks.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. Paul, please.

Paul Wilson:
CDNs are useful and I didn’t mean to indicate they aren’t, but they don’t help people to access the internet. They help people to access specific services and content of specific CDNs and nothing more than that. If we’re talking about user experience, fragmentation to me as a user is a lack of inter-operation between similar services and to that end, I think it’s really important to make sure that we’re not just talking about and to that end, end, I want to have a single instant messaging account like I do an email account and still exchange messages with others who choose to use different services, whether they are WhatsApp or Signal or anything else, and I’d say the same about social media. Those services could interoperate and they don’t, they generally don’t, and that’s a choice of the company’s concern. I think that will continue and that will continue to me to represent a fragmentation of my experience on the internet. Service companies will continue to do that until they’re required to change that behaviour and I wouldn’t mind seeing that day come. Thank you.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you. Please, Dušan.

Dušan:
I’ll sit here. Dušan, for the record, from Serbia. So I would like just to express one frustration that I have about fragmentation. So we call everything fragmentation. We call filtering fragmentation. We call, I remember and I agree with previous talks that when I was involved in internet, it was fragmented. Later on, we were talking about balkanisation, if you remember, to 2014, 15 and 16. IDN domain names, for example, are still fragmenting the internet. So technical layer is still the protected layer, as I would say, and it is connecting everything. But we have given governments to legislate in their part of the internet. So that part of the internet can be and should be fragmented. On the other side, we are fragmented with filtering, don’t call it fragmentation. We are blocking or something like that. Let’s talk about those particular topics, not call it fragmentation. So, we will have a high-level discussion on everything without substance. Thank you.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Uta, you get the next to last word, because mine will be last.

Umai:
Oh, my. So, since we’ve been collecting indicators for fragmentation, sort of been writing up a research agenda about this, I’d like to put one more point next to this, and that is that we’ve been focusing very much on the technical layers. And while that, of course, is very important, I now find it important to mention that there, if we will, is this social layer underlying the internet as a network of networks. And that consists of network engineers who maintain these systems and have a huge, an informal community with informal values and forms of coordination that may be aging. And so, if we are looking at this in the future, then we may be wanting to look at this community as well and their capabilities of actually keeping things together.

Moderator – Avri Doria:
Thank you very much. And thank you all for a great conversation. And I’m certainly not going to sum it up, because that would take forever. But this simple mind of mine walks away with fragmentation as a four-letter word with lots of nuance and lots of use. So, thank you very much. Thank you.

Veronica Ferari

The analysis explores a range of important points discussed by the speakers. One significant topic highlighted is the importance of multi-stakeholder engagement in shaping Internet policies. Both APC and FOC support and encourage people to use and shape the Internet. This involvement ensures that policies are representative and inclusive, taking into account the diverse needs and perspectives of different stakeholders.

Another key point raised is the significance of incorporating the voices of marginalized groups in decision-making processes. APC, FOC, TIFER, and the Digital Equality Task Force are actively working towards this goal. They have made commendable efforts to include and amplify the voices of marginalized communities who are often underrepresented or marginalized in decision-making arenas. Recognizing that decision-making should be inclusive and inclusive of marginalized voices is crucial for reducing inequalities and promoting gender equality.

The discussion also highlighted concerns regarding AI and emerging technologies. APC draws attention to the fact that these technologies have the potential to create or exacerbate existing inequalities. It is crucial that norms and frameworks governing the use and development of AI and emerging technologies take into account the potential societal implications, ensuring that they do not reinforce inequalities or promote discrimination.

FOC’s role in coordinating international discussions on cybersecurity and cybercrime is recognized as pivotal. The importance of taking a human-centric approach to cybersecurity, one that prioritises human rights and builds on international human rights frameworks, is emphasised. The Joint Statement on the Human Rights Impact of Cybersecurity Laws, Practices, and Policies from 2020 underscores this need. It is suggested that FOC could build on existing language and positions where consensus already exists, further strengthening its role in promoting cybersecurity while safeguarding human rights.

The speakers also touch upon the significance of prioritising cybercrime treaty negotiations. It is agreed that this should be considered a key priority, given the growing threat of cybercrime and the need to ensure effective international cooperation to combat it. Furthermore, concerns are raised regarding the weakening of human rights language in cybersecurity negotiations. This observation highlights the importance of maintaining strong human rights principles within the context of cybersecurity discussions.

The need for multi-stakeholder and civil society participation in the GDC (Global Digital Cooperation) negotiations is strongly advocated. It is argued that inclusive participation from different stakeholders, including civil society, is essential to ensure that decisions and policies are informed and representative of global perspectives. A civil society meeting held on day zero of the GDC is mentioned, indicating efforts to coordinate and include civil society voices in the negotiation process.

Visa issues are identified as a barrier to global majority voices participating in the conversation. The inability of staff from APC and others to attend the event due to these issues highlights the need for more inclusive and accessible processes to allow for the equal representation of all voices in global discussions.

The analysis also reveals support for regional inclusivity in multi-stakeholder representation. The experience with Canada during the chairship, which involved organising regional consultations, is cited as evidence of this support. Regional representation ensures that the perspectives and needs of specific regions are taken into account when formulating policies and making decisions.

Another important observation made during the analysis is the need for better coordination between different forums and initiatives. The presence of numerous organisations following similar processes suggests the potential for duplication and inefficiency. Improved coordination can enhance collaboration and avoid unnecessary overlaps, enabling more effective and streamlined progress towards common goals.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the significance of multi-stakeholder engagement, the inclusion of marginalized voices, the potential inequalities associated with AI and emerging technologies, the importance of a human-centric approach to cybersecurity, the prioritisation of cybercrime treaty negotiations, concerns over weakening human rights language in cybersecurity negotiations, the need for multi-stakeholder and civil society participation in the GDC negotiations, the impact of visa issues on global majority voices, support for regional inclusivity, and the necessity for better coordination between different forums and initiatives. These insights underscore the importance of inclusivity, representation, and cooperation in shaping Internet policies and digital cooperation globally.

Audience

The discussion highlights the importance of including diverse voices in decision-making processes, emphasizing that it is crucial for creating inclusive and fair outcomes. The audience member, who works at the U.S. Department of State and has experience in chairing discussions and decision-making processes, stresses the significance of diverse perspectives in shaping policies and initiatives.

However, challenges arise in bringing together global majority voices due to the presence of multiple forums and processes. The audience member’s experience at the U.S. Department of State reflects these challenges. Hence, it is essential to address these challenges in order to effectively listen to and represent the voices of the global majority.

During their chairship year, the Dutch government is advised to adopt a focused approach and actively engage with the existing global majority voices. By doing so, they can ensure a more inclusive and representative decision-making process. The example of the Canadian government is cited, wherein consultations were conducted with every region to gather comprehensive and diverse input.

Moreover, it is emphasized that strengthening the existing voices in the coalition is crucial for encouraging new members to join. By supporting and amplifying the existing voices, the coalition can attract a wider range of perspectives and enhance its impact. The value of collaboration and partnership is also highlighted as a means of strengthening the coalition.

Overall, the discussion underlines the significance of inclusivity in decision-making processes and addresses the challenges in bringing together global majority voices. It suggests adopting a proactive and focused approach to engaging with and strengthening existing voices while attracting new members. In doing so, decision-making processes can become more equitable and representative.

Alison Petters

The US government’s chairship of the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) has played a pivotal role in bolstering international engagement and coordination in technology-related issues. Through collaborative efforts with global partners, the US has effectively addressed key technological challenges and promoted a rights-respecting approach to technology-related policies. This positive sentiment is reinforced by the fact that the US government has shown strong commitment to the FOC, with both presidential commitment and the active engagement of the Secretary of State in the coalition’s activities.

One of the notable achievements of the FOC under the US chairship is its successful response to new issues concerning human rights online. The coalition has issued a statement on the threat of surveillance technologies and has developed guiding principles on the government’s use of surveillance technology. These efforts demonstrate the FOC’s dedication to safeguarding human rights in the digital space.

However, there are challenges that the FOC needs to address. Integrating human rights perspectives with digital sectors and increasing the visibility of the FOC are two issues that require attention. It is crucial to consider diverse perspectives when making decisions and to ensure that the FOC’s activities are visible and impactful.

To achieve a holistic impact on governments worldwide, there is a need for more diversity in the FOC’s member countries. The challenge lies in bringing more countries from the global majority into the coalition. By including a broader range of countries, decisions made by the FOC will have a more comprehensive impact on governments globally.

The FOC also has potential as a key voice in the ongoing negotiations of the UN’s cybercrime treaty. Alison Petters, an advocate for a tight scoping of the treaty, supports the FOC as a mechanism to coordinate perspectives among like-minded partners. This demonstrates the value of the FOC in shaping global discussions on cybercrime.

Additionally, the FOC recognizes the importance of protecting human rights and marginalized groups online. Alison emphasizes the need to not undermine existing human rights frameworks and highlights the importance of continuous consultation with stakeholders to represent their perspectives.

The FOC supports the multi-stakeholder model in online governance processes, recognizing the need for meaningful engagement from various stakeholders. Alison emphasizes the importance of getting the modalities right so that multi-stakeholders can effectively contribute to the decision-making processes.

Adapting to address new threats to human rights online is crucial for the FOC’s continued relevance. Surveillance technologies and artificial intelligence pose new challenges, and the FOC must stay ahead to effectively protect human rights in the digital realm.

While expanding the diversity of the advisory network is crucial, efficiency should not be compromised. Balancing the inclusion of diverse voices with maintaining productivity is essential for the effective functioning of the advisory network.

The FOC has demonstrated successful engagement with global majority governments and has actively included non-FOC members in discussions about technology and human rights. This intensive dialogue and ongoing engagement contribute to the FOC’s mission of promoting global cooperation on these critical issues.

Furthermore, the FOC recognizes that governments with limited resources can still be involved through support and by understanding the benefits they stand to gain. This approach ensures that all governments have the opportunity to participate and contribute.

Lastly, civil society plays a crucial role in supporting the FOC’s mission. Beyond providing additional support, civil society organizations should also help expand networks and contribute to consultations. The advisory network serves as a key source of support for the FOC, and the coalition has actively consulted civil society in key countries to gather diverse perspectives.

In conclusion, the US chairship of the FOC has strengthened international engagement and coordination in technology-related issues. The coalition has successfully addressed new challenges concerning human rights online but faces obstacles in integrating human rights perspectives with digital sectors and increasing its visibility. There is a need for greater diversity in the FOC’s member countries to ensure a comprehensive impact on governments worldwide. The FOC can also play a significant role in negotiating the UN’s cybercrime treaty and advocating for the protection of human rights and marginalized groups online. The multi-stakeholder model in online governance processes is supported, and the FOC must adapt to new threats to human rights in the digital space. The advisory network is essential but expanding its diversity should be balanced with maintaining efficiency. The FOC’s engagement with global majority governments has been successful, and governments with limited resources can still participate with support. Civil society’s involvement goes beyond additional support and should contribute to network expansion and consultations.

Ernst Norman

The analysis focuses on the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) and its efforts to promote human rights and digital cooperation. Various speakers expressed their support for the coalition and highlighted specific aspects of its work.

Ambassador Ernst Norman expressed his support for FOC’s initiatives in training policymakers on complex technical topics related to artificial intelligence. For example, Canada has trained FOC policymakers and applied this knowledge in diplomatic negotiations. The FOC’s Joint Statement on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights was praised for its continued relevance.

The United States was commended for energising the coalition and bringing important issues to the table. They played a significant role in including FOC in the Summit for Democracy and updating the coalition’s terms of reference, preparing it for the next decade.

The Netherlands emphasised the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance, with a strong focus on human rights. The diverse membership and multi-stakeholder structure of the FOC were highlighted. The Netherlands aims to coordinate its positions in future digital governance forums through the FOC.

Ambassador Ernst Norman also advocated for expanding digital equality and connectivity. He proposed broadening the FOC’s membership, particularly with like-minded countries from the global majority. The FOC’s global representation and network can support this endeavour.

Enhancing engagement with all stakeholders was deemed crucial. The FOC’s advisory network involves stakeholders providing advice on governance aspects. Ambassador Ernst Norman aims to ensure widespread support and realistic positions for the FOC in negotiations for Global Digital Cooperation (GDC).

The importance of agenda setting and internal coordination in addressing human rights and digital threats was highlighted. It was suggested that the agenda for discussing human rights and digital threats should involve not only the presidency but also all stakeholders, including member states and the advisory board.

Inclusivity and the reduction of civic space were viewed as important topics that require extensive discussion. There is concern about the diminishing civic space and the marginalisation of NGOs in many countries.

Furthermore, the decrease in online civic space was considered crucial given the digital threats to human rights. It was observed that the FOC needs to strike a balance between embracing diversity and maintaining its effectiveness in addressing these issues.

However, it was suggested that the FOC should avoid trying to mimic the United Nations. Including all countries and engaging in impossible negotiations were viewed as an undesirable approach. Instead, the FOC should focus on maintaining meaningful exchanges and taking effective positions.

Overall, the analysis presented the support and opinions of various speakers on different aspects of the Freedom Online Coalition. It highlighted the importance of training policymakers, energising the coalition, upholding human rights, expanding digital equality, and engaging stakeholders. It also underscored the need for agenda setting, internal coordination, inclusivity, addressing the decrease in online civic space, and maintaining a balanced approach within the FOC.

Irene

During the discussion, the speakers highlighted the significant role played by the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) in coordinating multi-stakeholder discussions on AI and Human Rights. The FOC served as a crucial platform for connecting various communities with differing levels of capacity and knowledge, facilitating the sharing of information and experiences. The speakers emphasized the importance of inclusivity and a proactive approach in organizing these discussions, despite the challenges they presented. The process of organizing the multi-stakeholder discussions often took longer than expected due to the complexity of the issues involved. However, it was acknowledged that although inclusivity can sometimes lead to discomfort, it is a necessary aspect of the process.

The speakers also discussed the tendency of governments to not naturally adopt a consultative approach. One speaker, Irene Xu, observed that governments often do not have a natural inclination towards being consultative. This observation highlights the need for deliberate efforts to foster consultation and engagement between governments and various stakeholders.

The rise of digital technology has brought technical issues to the forefront of political discourse. It was noted that even developed countries like Canada find it difficult to track all digital and tech initiatives. The complexity and ever-changing nature of these initiatives require continuous efforts to promote awareness and understanding.

Furthermore, there was a call for more specific guidance to engage with global majority countries and civil society. The importance of two-way communication and understanding the specific engagement requirements of these groups was emphasized. It is crucial to develop strategies that take into account the unique challenges faced by these communities.

The speakers also discussed the value of capacity building, technical expertise, and understanding of international systems in engagement efforts. An improved understanding of international systems like the UN in New York can provide valuable insights and contribute to more effective engagement. Efforts should be made to provide capacity-building opportunities and technical expertise to strengthen engagement and ensure meaningful and productive interactions.

It was suggested that being more creative with multi-stakeholder collaborations and multilateralism can help address capacity issues efficiently. Collaborative initiatives such as the FOC, International Idea, and Media Freedom Coalition were cited as examples of successful partnerships that have enabled the development of important initiatives like the Global Declaration on Information Integrity.

In conclusion, the speakers expressed their overall support for multi-stakeholder collaborations as they lead to efficient outcomes. The FOC, along with other collaborations, has shown that productive results can be achieved through such partnerships. These collaborations have facilitated the exchange of knowledge and the development of initiatives that contribute to the promotion of AI and Human Rights.

Boye Adekoke

The analysis emphasises the importance of inclusivity and multi-stakeholderism within the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC). It showcases the diverse range of expertise that the FOC has within its membership, which greatly contributes to the development of digital rights and effective governance. The involvement of stakeholders from various backgrounds, including governments, civil society organisations, and private sector actors, ensures that a wide range of perspectives are considered in decision-making processes.

One notable aspect of the FOC is its strong accountability demonstrated through the statement development and engagement process. This process involves rigorous consultations with stakeholders and ensures that decisions are made collectively, thereby enhancing transparency and legitimacy. As a result, the FOC’s outputs are seen as reliable and trustworthy due to the inclusive and participatory nature of their development.

In contrast, the analysis raises concerns about the over-reliance on multilateralism as a solution to global challenges. It highlights the potential for inequitable power dynamics in multilateral forums, which can lead to disproportionate influence by powerful nations. This imbalance may result in the limited ability of small or less powerful countries to shape global norms that align with their interests and needs. Additionally, the complexity and sometimes contradictory nature of multilateral rules can make it challenging for countries to navigate and adhere to them effectively.

However, the FOC is presented as a potential solution to mitigate the challenges associated with multilateralism. Due to the diverse range of stakeholders involved, the FOC is capable of providing a more balanced perspective on digital rights and governance issues. The coalition’s strong accountability system ensures that decisions and actions are held to high standards, further enhancing its credibility. Moreover, the FOC’s active involvement in global processes has proven beneficial, as it leverages the inputs and expertise of its diverse members.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the importance of inclusivity and multi-stakeholderism in the FOC for effectively addressing digital rights and governance challenges. It acknowledges the strengths of the FOC, such as its diverse expertise, strong accountability, and legitimate outputs. While caution is warranted in heavily relying on multilateralism, the FOC can serve as a valuable platform for mitigating the risks and complexities associated with it.

Maria

The discussion held at the IGF focused on leveraging the experience of collaboration and multi-stakeholder engagement to shape global norms and advocate for the rights of human rights defenders, civil society journalists, and other stakeholders. The importance of the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) as a valuable platform was emphasized, with recognition of its capacity to progressively enlarge and welcome more diverse participants. The discussion highlighted the need for interoperability and the use of existing frameworks, instead of establishing new regulations, to shape FOC priorities. Incorporating the inclusion agenda was seen as a key area for FOC to make an impact, promoting reduced inequalities and partnerships for the goals. The FOC’s role in coordinating international discussions on cybersecurity and its commitment to inclusivity through diverse stakeholder engagement were also emphasized. The use of sub-entities within the FOC to shape priorities, improving diplomatic network coordination, and government coordination for capacity building and inclusivity were identified as critical. In summary, the FOC’s work should be prioritized and improved to enhance inclusivity, ensure the implementation of global norms, and promote the rights of all stakeholders.

Maria :
We are starting the last day of IGF of 2023 with this very relevant conversation about how we can leverage the freedom of online coalition at international organizations for the work and support the exercise of rights. So for this conversation I am Maria Paz Canales, I am the head of legal policy and research at Global Partners Digital and I have the pleasure to be the moderator and be joined by a distinguished panel of representatives from the governments of Canada, United States and the Netherlands that hold the chair of the freedom of online coalition in the previous periods, in the current period and it will be taken over for the following one in the case of the Netherlands. And also for distinguished members of the advisory network of the freedom of online coalition that represent civil society organizations and also bring their perspective to this very important conversation about how we can discuss more about the opportunities and challenges of using the FOC to shape global norms and advocate for human rights defenders, civil society journalists and other stakeholders in multilateral institutions and processes. So very relevant conversation for all the moving parts that we are confronting in this moment. And because of that, my opening remark, I want to concentrate in this idea of like the interoperability that we usually associate with more technical concept, but today we are seeing like more than ever the need of like ensuring interoperability also regarding frameworks and regarding efforts. So how we can leverage the experience of collaboration at the multilateral level, but also with all the experience and the richness that come from the multi-stakeholder engagement. which is the natural strength of the Freedom Online Coalition. So in that sense, it’s very important to remind that for achieving the true interoperability that we need to have common objectives, and the Freedom Online Coalition precisely has championed the identification of common goals, common objectives of the like-minded states that are united in this coalition, and also have championed the idea of progressively enlarge and welcome more diversity in that participation with recently new states joining the Freedom Online Coalition. One of those very relevant common objectives is the approach to protect and promote human rights that unite all the members of this relevant coalition, and make it through this slogan that many of the human rights advocates in the digital sphere, we pursued for many years ago, make the same rights valid online and offline. And for this, it’s not necessarily imperative to establish entirely new regulations. Sometimes we need to take advantage of what already we have developed in many frameworks. And for that, consistently, the advisory network has been supporting also the work of the government in trying to leverage all the advocacy work and experience and the interpretation that comes from the international human rights system in order to enhance this collaboration and promote more effective protection of rights. With that note, I want to give the floor to the relevant people in this conversation, the ones that represent, as I mentioned at the beginning, the past experience in leveraging the value of this network. the ones that represent the present experience, and the one that come with a lot of new plans and hopes and new brand possibilities continuing this very fruitful collaboration. So first, we will welcome Miss Irene Xu, who is the representative from the Canadian government, to give her a little bit of her thoughts in terms of the experience of the Canadian government leading the efforts of the FOC. Please, Irene.

Irene:
Great, thank you, everyone. So I’ll speak a bit about Canada’s experiences. So we were the chair during the 2022 year, and before that, in the lead up to the UNESCO recommendation on the ethics of AI, we were the chair of the Tax Force on AI and Human Rights. And before the negotiations really started, we thought that we had to take a proactive and deliberate approach to having a multi-stakeholder discussion that would inform all of our engagement in the negotiations. So we had started with a briefing from UNESCO to the FOC Paris Diplomatic Network, which our mission to UNESCO also leads, the diplomatic network. The benefits of the FOC is that, even though we’re very like-minded in terms of values and principles, it is fairly cross-regional with differing levels of capacity and knowledge on these issues. So that first briefing was really important to get everyone on the same page about what was at stake and the main issues, and UNESCO’s goals for the recommendation. And then really from there, it was very much an iterative and sometimes messy process. We had regular meetings within the task force. involving countries, society and tech companies and the advisory network. And really, it was really helpful because these issues aren’t necessarily multidisciplinary. And we’re used to that when we’re formulating national negotiating positions, having to talk to different departments, society, industry. And so you had to bring together people with policy experience, with multilateral experience, with the technical expertise and very few people who know all three and could try to bring those together. Even in the negotiations themselves, which were unfortunately all virtual due to COVID, some delegations, it was very much a multi-stakeholder negotiation. Even some delegations represented by professors with expertise in AI. And so you had to do a lot of translating between the different communities, but that’s why the FOC was such a valuable place to do that coordination, bringing all those communities together. And then just maybe some lessons learned. Like I said, to be inclusive and multi-stakeholder really needs to be a deliberate and proactive decision from the start. It’s not gonna happen on its own. Plan that it will take more time than you think it will take. The issues are complex. There’s always going to be tensions. And as we like to say, if you’re not uncomfortable, you’re probably not being inclusive enough. And we also all just need to, I think it’s not, as governments, it’s not always our natural tendency to want to be consultative, but that’s why it needs to be a deliberate decision to kind of step out of normal practices to make that happen. Thanks.

Maria :
I would like to invite Veronica Ferrari from APC, Association for Progressive Communication, who is a member of the advisory network, to comment a little bit about the benefits of the multi-stakeholder engagement. Thank you very much, Irene. And on that note, about the value of the multi-stakeholder engagement and even the value of feeling a little bit uncomfortable, which is something that I think is very important. I would like to invite Maria Paz, who is a member of the advisory network, to comment a little bit about the benefits of this multi-stakeholder dialogue and what had been the experience of championing this through the work of the advisory network in collaboration with the FOC.

Veronica Ferari:
Great. Thanks, Maria Paz, and thanks for the remarks from Canada. I would like to thank the FOC for incorporating the inclusion agenda and putting that at the center of the FOC. That was continued under the U.S. chairship, and we hope it will be continued in the next chairship. So, again, thank you for the opportunity to speak today, for the invitation. I’m glad to be here. As Maria Paz was saying, I am a member of the advisory network, where I represent APC. APC is a multi-stakeholder network. We have over 40 countries located mostly in the global majority. So we are a network committed to creating a just and sustainable world by supporting people to use and shape the Internet. So APC advocates and works towards more robust and meaningful multi-stakeholder collaboration, where those who are affected by digitalization and digital policies, particularly marginalized populations, have a voice in the decision-making process. And I think this has been really important for us to have a national vision and international level. So in this sense, APC sees the FOC as a valuable platform to advance this goal of multi-stakeholder collaboration. So as I just said, the increased emphasis at the FOC on digital inclusion, on incorporating the voice of marginalized groups, we think it’s a really positive step, where engagement with community-based programs like Fcar所, where we’re learning how, and, how are we replacing models that have been required? So there is more to be done in that sense. So, I think I wanted to highlight the role of the task forces and the sub-entities as good examples of multi-stakeholder collaboration within the FOC in addressing specific focus areas and also in translating principles and statements into practical actions. So, for example, in the case of AI, we believe that when discussing norms related to artificial intelligence and emerging technologies, from our perspective, from APC, the focus should be on the implication of these systems for human rights, for social justice, also for sustainable development. So, the norms discussion should not be only around technology but also about the inequalities that these technologies can create or even exacerbate. So, from the FOC, working on decisions on new emerging technologies and AI is key to work with the TIFER but also with the Digital Equality Task Force to incorporate perspectives from marginalized groups. So, the role of the sub-entities has been key in shaping FOC priorities, the program of work, also informing discussions on these issues through learning opportunities, and also serve as a mean to engage other groups that are not necessarily part of the FOC and the advisory network. And I wanted to bring an example of which we believe in terms of setting norms that build on multi-stakeholder collaboration. I wasn’t part of the FOC at that moment, but my colleagues from APC were really involved in this. It’s the FOC Joint Statement on the Human Rights Impact of Cybersecurity Laws, Practices, and Policies from 2020. So, that statement contains recommendations for national cybersecurity practices and international processes and draws on the input of a multi-stakeholder FOC working group on that topic. So, that statement underscores the importance of a human-centric approach to cybersecurity, the need to build on international human rights frameworks when shaping international cyber norms. So, this leads to my final point. We believe that the FOC could play a key role in coordinating international discussions, for example, on cyber security and cyber crime, because particularly at the UN and some of the processes there, building on language and positions that are already there, that exist, and there is consensus about that, so that was one of the points that I wanted to mention. I know that we are talking about more processes and connections, so I may stop here, but I just wanted to highlight the importance of multistakeholder collaboration, how FOC has proven as a key platform for that, and how we can still do better and more in that sense. So thank you, Maripaz.

Maria :
Thank you very much, Veronica, for those remarks. Now I’m going to give the floor to Alison Petters, who is the representative of the U.S. government, that have held in this period the chairship of the FOC, to also share a little bit more about this engagement through diplomatic efforts and how you have tried to provide more efficacy also to this coordination, which is always a challenge when a group starts and it’s small, it’s easier maybe, but when you need to accommodate and welcome new members and new realities and new contexts, there are challenges in the coordination itself, and I’d like to also share a little bit of the U.S. government leading that experience during the last chairship of the FOC.

Alison Petters:
Well, first, good morning, everyone. Thank you so much, Maria. It’s really a pleasure on the last day of IGF to be joined by two very close friends, partners in crime, the government of Canada and the governments of Netherlands, as well as our friend Veronica from the advisory network of this global coalition focused on human rights online. The United States has been really just tremendously thrilled to be the chair of this global coalition this year. We set out at the first Summit for Democracy to bolster both our engagement and work through the Freedom Online Coalition, but bolster the work of the coalition as a whole in terms of impacting multilateral processes, multi-stakeholder processes around the globe focused on technology-related issues. I think we learned a lot of hard lessons. We saw both challenges and successes. I think perhaps the most important lesson learned for us is the need to have very strong political will at the top of our leadership chain as the chair of this coalition. We had a presidential commitment to chair the coalition. We’ve had engagement from our Secretary of State. We recently hosted a ministerial-level conversation at the UN General Assembly High-Level Week. We’ve been able to bring in more members into the coalition as a result of that strong engagement and political leadership at the top of our chain. Advancing a rights-respecting approach to technology-related issues is central to the Biden administration’s approach on technology policy. And so that has really helped us as the chair make sure that we are continuing to sort of hold ourselves accountable and getting a lot done this year. Certainly, we saw a lot of successes in terms of building the capacity of the Freedom Online Coalition during our chairship. Perhaps most importantly, building up our diplomatic networks both in Geneva and New York and working to expand those in other cities as well in order to coordinate in advance of some really key multilateral processes. So we’ve coordinated through the Freedom Online Coalition in New York around the UN Cybercrime Treaty negotiations, for example, working closely with the advisory network to bring in their perspectives in those treaty negotiations. We’ve coordinated through the Freedom Online Coalition in advance of an emerging technology resolution being considered in the Human Rights Council, making sure also that we’re talking through what priorities and perhaps threats to human rights are most critical in terms of addressing in any such resolution in the Human Rights Council. There’s been coordination in UNESCO around the guidance for digital platforms, making sure also that we’re bringing in the perspectives of the advisory network there in particular as there’s been very strong views amongst multi-stakeholders on that process in particular. The second piece I think that we’ve seen in terms of successes is really making sure that we are giving opportunities for members to facilitate coordination not just in capital cities but also through our embassies in countries around the globe. There perhaps is most critical when we’re talking about responses to threats to human rights online, so particular cases of internet shutdowns or particular cases where we’ve seen human rights defenders be targeted by digital attacks. Making sure that we are strengthening our coordination in those countries directly with our diplomats that are serving at our embassies has really been perhaps a key success of ours in our chairship this year. And then third I’ll just say in terms of a success, I think we have been successful in bringing in new issue sets into the Freedom Online Coalition continuing to evolve. We had the entire Freedom Online Coalition issue a joint statement in the Human Rights Council most recently looking at the threat of surveillance technologies. We were able to gain a host of additional governments. We’re so pleased. I think the number is nearly 60 now that have joined on, so we’ve taken this issue set, we’ve coordinated in this coalition, and then we’ve taken it out to other governments to join us. Similarly, we issued a set of guiding principles on government use of surveillance technologies. There are, of course I don’t need to tell many of you in this room, a suite of surveillance technologies that are front and center in terms of the threats to human rights defenders, journalists, political opposition figures. years, dissidents, you name it, this is a particular threat when we talk about artificial intelligence systems embedded in those surveillance technologies and we have been successful in developing these guiding principles and government use of surveillance tech that really sort of establishes what our rights respecting use would look like when it comes to these technologies. We were pleased that the whole FOC joined on to these guiding principles and then again, we were able to take that into the Summit for Democracy context and gain additional support. Certainly though, we’re not without challenges and rooms for improvement. I think one of the biggest challenges that we have is just linking human rights folks up with cyber and digital folks in each and every one of our governments. I’m sure we would all agree. Sometimes we can be siloed and so the need to bring in both of those perspectives when we’re making decisions and developing outputs of this coalition has really been a challenge for us and I think every government at this table and in the FOC. Second challenge of course is visibility of the Freedom Online Coalition. There are a lot of coalitions out there. I’m engaged in a number as I’m sure both of you are as well and Veronica from the Advisory Network and so making sure that we are keeping the Freedom Online Coalition sort of front and center and a lot of these policy discussions has been really a place where I think we continue to feel like there’s room for improvement. And then last I’ll say, we continue to see room for improvement in terms of diversifying our membership, bringing in more countries from the global majority. This is something that has been a critical priority for us. To your point Maria, not to grow this too large of a size where coordination just becomes near impossible but really to grow this. with diversity of perspectives in mind. So we are not just making decisions that impact governments in one region or another, but we’re making decisions that are holistic of the entire globe. There, this continues to be a priority and we look forward to working with the government of the Netherlands to bring in more members of the global majority into the conversation. So I could probably go on with the challenges and areas for improvement, but we wouldn’t be able to have achieved the successes that we did without the support of you all at the table and so many in this room in particular. So thank you very much.

Maria :
Thank you very much, Alison. And with that, I think this is the perfect sea way to Ambassador Ernst Norman, who represent the Netherlands, the new chairship of the Free Online Coalition for the following year. Precisely with all these relevant learns and experience that have been shared by your colleagues that previously hold the seat of the chairship. What are your views and your perspective in terms of the challenges and the opportunities and the plans that you bring as the new leadership of this coalition? Thank you very much for being here.

Ernst Norman:
Thank you very much, Maria. And so glad to be invited at this table as a newcomer. And it’s fascinating to attend this internet governance forum and to meet so many people. And it’s all this interesting discussions like we have this morning as well. And one to have a special mention on this subject, who’s sitting in front of me, being responsible actually for all the work on the Freedom Online Coalition from our side. So thank you for that. And I want to thank Erin and Alison for sharing your lessons learned on the Freedom Online Coalition. Now, Canada has shown us how Freedom Online Coalition policymakers can be trained on difficult technical topics like artificial intelligence. and how then this knowledge can be used in diplomatic negotiations. Although written two years before the public launch of generative AI, the FOC Joint Statement on Artificial Intelligence and Human Rights still holds up. This is due to the fact that Canada organized, during the pandemic, virtual classes for the policymakers, where they were informed by experts in academia, tech companies and NGOs on AI and machine learning. This knowledge base ensured that the FOC had an excellent position to coordinate this position around the UNESCO negotiations on AI and ethics. The US has done magnificent work on further energizing the FOC and Alison mentioned a number of issues that have been brought to the table. Like you have brought the FOC to the Summit for Democracy and underlined at the highest level that digital human rights is one of the biggest challenges of our time. Also, the US has done some important housekeeping on the coalition. With a new and updated terms of reference, the coalition is ready for the next 10 years. Although this might not be the most sexy subject from a PR perspective, it is most difficult for a diplomatic network. Getting everyone to agree on these changes was no small feat. So thank you very much for doing this important work. And it makes our work easier again. Thank you. Now it’s up to us to continue these important lines of work and that in a key year for digital governance. The GDC, as we all have been seeing in the last few days, will be the internet governance event for next year. Followed quickly by the WSIS plus 20. The next 18 months will be pivotal for the future of the internet and to make sure that we will be the internet we want. The Netherlands aims to keep the Internet multi-stakeholder organized, with a strong focus on human rights as a cross-cutting theme. For us, the FOC will be a key coalition to coordinate our positions in this important forum. For three good reasons. First, the FOC has played a key role in earlier processes and has proven to be an essential force in protecting the multi-stakeholder model of the Internet. And secondly, and possibly more important, the FOC is a global, inter-regional coalition with countries from all continents. As we have heard in the last few days, digital equality and expanding connectivity are still a challenge not sufficiently addressed by the past IGFs. If we want to move forward on Internet and AI governance, we must include a global majority perspective. We will therefore seek to broaden FOC’s memberships, I would say further expand, because you have done excellent work already on that topic, but especially with like-minded countries from the global majority, and have them engaged actively in the discussions. Having the FOC presidency, we want to make sure that the FOC’s position in the GDC negotiations is widely supported and realistic. And thirdly, with the FOC we have a long history of engaging with all the stakeholders. They are involved through the FOC advisory network and provide us, governments, with solicited and unsolicited advice on these important governance aspects. These elements of the FOC, our history, our expertise, our diverse membership and multi-stakeholder structure make the FOC an excellent coalition to coordinate our positions on the important themes such as Internet governance and AI, but also I would like to thank all the countries who have supported this important declaration. Thank you.

Maria :
Thank you very much, Ambassador. And I think that with that final remark in terms of the value of the multi-stakeholder engagement for digital technologies governance, I would like to bring also someone from the advisory network that will join us online for making also more inclusive this conversation. So we have Boye Adekoke from Paradigm Initiative that will provide some additional remarks and thoughts about how we can think about the multi-stakeholder model in terms of like the digital governance. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. are for this model and the switching to multilateralism and how the value of this model, multi-stakeholder model supported so strongly as we have heard by the Fe assists, by the past, by the present, will be enhanced and could be an opportunity to continue to advocating and advancing the mission of ensuring human rights-based approach in all the digital technologies governance. So, Boye, can you hear us and can you bring your perspective? Thank you.

Boye Adekoke:
Yeah, thank you very much. I hope I’m audible. You can hear me over there. Thank you very much for the opportunity for me to contribute to this conversation. And thanks to the FOS3 support unit for putting together this session and for asking me to, you know, share perspective. I think a lot has been said. Again, congratulations to the government of Netherlands for assuming the chairmanship and great work to the United States government for the amazing work that they’ve done in the past one year. A lot has been said during this conversation and some of the things that I was going to mention are already been mentioned. So I will just gladly skip those so that I can make the other point. I think the point about inclusivity has been stressed and that of multistakeholderism in terms of the power of FOC to bring all of these to the table. But I also want to say one of the importance of the FOC and one of the benefits that the globe can benefit from leveraging what the FOC has done in the past year is that the FOC is also a platform with diverse expertise. So apart from the fact that the FOC has done a great job in ensuring inclusivity, in ensuring multistakeholderism, what you would also find within the FOC is a diverse kind of expertise. So even within different stakeholder groups, you find different people coming with different expertise. For example, I’m a member of the Advisory Network. I represent an organization, but I would say, tell you for free, that even while I represent an organization, even as an organization, we also represent a network of a number of other, you know, civil society organization focusing on different kinds of expertise within the digital inclusion and digital rights space, you know, across the globe. So I think this is also one of the benefits of, or one of the value that the FOC can offer, you know, some of these global processes in terms of setting global norms and all of that. But I also think something that I’ve seen, you know, working to the FOC is accountability. I think that the FOC also has a very great level of, you know, accountability system in terms of how the Advisory Network and the FOC itself as a coalition in terms of how we engage in developing, you know, statements, in developing comments on many processes that the FOC have been engaged in. And I think this is very great for, you know, for in terms of setting, you know, very reliable global norms in terms of creating very effective system. It can help prevent abuses of power and ensure that global norms are implemented, you know, effectively. I also think that one of the benefit that I see within this context is also legitimacy. A lot of the, you know, statements that the FOC have put out have gone through a lot of rigorous process, you know, involving Advisory Network member and the FOC countries and all the FOC nations themselves. So at the end of the day, what we have a lot of times is we have legitimate outputs. And I think that this principle can also, you know, be mainstreamed to how, you know, global norms are set in terms of getting that, you know, legitimacy from various, you know, diverse group of stakeholders. So. These are a few points that I think that are, you know, kind of very, very relevant or valuable in terms of how the L4C operates that I think that a global norm can benefit from. And, you know, very quickly before I keep quiet, I also like to say that it’s very important that I say that we have to be very careful in terms of our system of the digital policy or the digital norms that are being set in this age and time to avoid the mistakes of the past. There might be that temptation, you know, to absolutely resort to multilateralism. I just come back from the ad hoc session, you know, on the cybercrises that the UN is currently working on. And I see that temptation a lot of times to overly, you know, resort to multilateralism, you know, by not giving to society voices enough opportunity to make contribution during some of these sessions. I was in the room, so I see this happen practically. So I think that’s something that we need to be very careful of. And I think that’s where L4C can also come in again, because whether we like it or not, within the multilateralism set up, there is always inequitable power dynamics in multilateral forums. Powerful nations may have disproportionate influence, you know, potentially leading to norms that primarily serve their interests. Similar, smaller or less powerful nations may have very limited ability to shape, you know, global norms to their advantage. And I think the L4C provides some sort of, you know, platform whereby this can be mitigated to very large extents. I already mentioned accountability the other time, but I also want to mention what I also call the problem of fragmentation and complexity, because over time, multilateralism can lead to proliferation of agreements, treaties, and norms, creating a complex and sometimes contradictory web of rule that can be challenging to navigate and implement. So I also think that the FOC can really, really come handy in terms of helping to mitigate some of these challenges with multilateralism and also making sure that the mistakes of, you know, assuming that nations can just come together and develop norms and develop, you know, rules to guide, you know, behaviors within the international context. It can be very problematic. And the FOC in that instance, I think is also a very great platform that can help in terms of mitigating those types of challenges. Because as a member of the FOC, I’ve seen how many of the processes that we’ve been involved in, many of the, you know, many of the involvement of the FOCs even in global processes has benefited a lot from inputs of the different members of the FOC, inputs from, you know, from diverse groups, input from representation of diverse communities, et cetera, that, you know, the FOC embody. So I think this is very important. And I think that it’s just a great opportunity for the world to benefit or for the world to leverage the amazing work that is being done by the FOC. And I also see the FOC as also an evolving, emerging, you know, platform that continues to improve, that continues to expand. So it’s at this point, I’ll just put a stop to here. Thank you very much.

Maria :
Thank you very much, Boye, for being part of this conversation today. And I think that with your remarks, we have also a good seaway in opening a little bit more, also a conversation to the ones in the table, but also in the room and even participants online, if there are someone that want to jump in the conversation. Exploring a little bit more, like Ambassador have reminded us, the importance of the housekeeping. We have heard from each one of the chairships, the past, the current and the future about how important it’s like to address the issue of coordination, because even when we can… in terms of the values and being like-minded in terms of the goal of promotional protection of human rights related to digital technologies. This need an operational layer. And that’s the challenge that is up to the coalition to figure out every year for continue developing the great work that had been doing. So in that sense, in a more operative way, how we can think about what are the key subject matters or the processes that you identify as the one that will need to be prioritized in the following year for the improvement of diplomatic network coordination ahead of any relevant negotiation of any of these identified processes. And in that same line, how can the FOC leverage its previous work and upcoming work to enhance the ability that governance processes have a meaningful inclusive approach of majority world voices and this multi-stakeholder nature that we have discussed is the essence of really have a process that can be fully aligned with the best protection of human rights. So I invite anyone around the table to react, but also from the audience. I don’t know. You want, yeah.

Alison Petters:
Well, I think this is kind of the heart of this discussion today we’ve had several days now of IGF. And I think all of the processes that probably every single one of us would list have been on the agenda for IGF sessions this week. So we do have right now an ad hoc committee that is going between Vienna and New York negotiating a UN cyber crime treaty. This is critical that we have a tightly scoped criminal justice instrument that protects a rights respecting approach to the investigation of. cyber crimes, and they’re having the Freedom Online Coalition be a key voice and mechanism in which we can coordinate our perspectives amongst like-minded partners is going to be really critical. We’ve heard a lot of discussion about the global digital compact process. We have also, of course, looked ahead to WSIS Plus 20 as one of the central processes where internet governance issues are going to be on the agenda. And then we have other processes that have been discussed, things like the High-Level Advisory Board and artificial intelligence. I think the key to each and every one of these processes is it’s going to be mission-critical, the most important thing that this coalition does, to make sure that we are focused on protecting human rights online, and that means protecting the existing human rights insurance that we have that guide all of our work in the UN system and multilateral institutions, and not taking us backwards. So that’s first and foremost, not undermining the existing frameworks that we have. Second, I think, is going to be mission-critical, that we’re focused on protecting marginalized and vulnerable groups. There continues to be efforts in multilateral fora, multi-stakeholder fora around the globe to undermine protections for women and girls and all their diversity, undermine protections for LGBTQI plus individuals, undermine protections for other marginalized and vulnerable groups. And we can use this coalition to make sure that we are continuing at every turn to make sure that we are putting those groups at the heart of the human rights agenda, and that we are also making sure that we are consulting with those stakeholders to make sure that we’re representing their perspectives. Third, we heard a lot of discussion, and I think Boye also talked a lot about this, and the need to make sure that we’re protecting them. multi-stakeholder model. We have processes in the United Nations that in some ways are inherently governmental because the United Nations is a composition of member states. But it is very critical that we are protecting efforts to ensure that multi-stakeholders can engage. And that means getting the modalities right for a number of those processes so multi-stakeholders are able to not just be there at the table, but actually meaningfully engage. And I’ve heard a lot of discussion here this week about that as well. And then last, I’ll just say I think it’s going to be really critical that we are evolving as a coalition, that we are not just focused on the traditional threats to internet freedoms that we’ve been looking to protect since this coalition was founded over a decade ago, but that we are putting on the table new threats to human rights online. So I spoke about some of our efforts on surveillance technologies. Certainly when we look to issues around artificial intelligence governance, both the opportunities and threats that we see there to human rights. And so continuing to make sure that we are really evolving as a coalition and putting the most critical priorities on the table in these processes is going to be really important. And we can’t do that without the advisory network in this room and beyond here at IGF to make sure that they’re holding us accountable to actually doing so.

Maria :
Thank you very much, Alison. I don’t know if any of the other representatives want to react. And also, Veronica, I think that maybe it will be very relevant to hear from you about particularly this challenge of being truly inclusive and have a really effective way to engage these marginalized communities. It’s a challenge. It’s not easy. We know as civil society organization that we work. We are representative in so many cases. of this marginalized community’s interest and perspective, but truly inclusive means to bring the affected people to the conversation, and that’s itself a challenge. So, Veronica, your take on that.

Veronica Ferari:
Yeah, yeah, thanks, Maripaz. Yeah, I was listening to Allison. I just wanted to say plus one to some of the things she just mentioned. So, yeah, in terms of priorities, cybercrime treaty negotiations, I agree with that. Again, UN cybersecurity-related processes like the Open Ended Working Group, we are seeing language on human rights being weakened in negotiations, so that would be a good space for coordination, and the FOC could be a key platform for that. And we’ve been hearing during these days how the next years are critical for internet governance. So, again, as Allison’s saying, which is plus 20 as a key and foundational process for internet governance, as the IGF, as one of the main outcomes, as a symbol for multi-stakeholder model, and things that we need to protect as a community. So, another key process is the GDC and the negotiations. We had a civil society meeting on day zero for coordination around the GDC, and it was raised the need for multi-stakeholder and civil society participation in the GDC negotiations, and we also believe that the FOC can play a key role in facilitating that. Again, as Allison was saying, there are too many forums and initiatives to follow, so connections and a bit more coordination, or knowing a bit more what’s happening in all these coalitions and spaces. So, I was thinking about the FOC, but also Tech for Democracy, the global partnership, so how we can better coordinate around these efforts, since a lot of the organizations are following these same processes. And I wanted to raise a point connected with the idea of meaningful inclusive approach, and the idea of majority voices being heard, and their perspectives being taken into account in the conversations. So, I also heard during this week the need for. inclusion thinking at the regional level. So multi-stakeholder reason is not only about different stakeholders, but also different regions being represented. So I remember like, and we discussed that a lot, like Canada during the chairship organized regional consultations, and that’s a good experience that it could be good also to see that in the FOC and in different processes. And I wanted to take the opportunity also to raise one main obstacle for meaningful inclusivity and presence of global majority voices, which is the visas. So a lot of staff from APC and also people from our members couldn’t come to Japan because of visa issues. We experienced the same with negotiation of the UN in New York and in Europe too. This is not like an isolated thing. We see this as a, of course, as a product of a systematic issue, but it’s important to address that when we talk about inclusivity and majority global voices in this conversation, how that’s a barrier and how to think alternatives, but also how to address this structural problem. Those were some of the points I wanted to raise. Thank you.

Maria :
Thank you very much, Veronica. And I invite you, anyone else want to jump in on this question, but also bring new questions to the conversation. Ambassador, please. Thank you.

Ernst Norman:
But what Ellen was already mentioned, the number of subjects, I mentioned them too, but what Alison also said was relevant that the agenda must be evolving. And on the agenda setting, it’s not only the presidency who’s responsible for that, that’s indeed to discuss it with all involved, not only the member states in the coalition, but indeed the advisory board as well. On the human rights, I would like to stress that it’s important also for us governments at home to coordinate with your own other human rights departments because human rights. the digital threats to human rights is a vehicle, but it’s happening also in the real world. And we may have to be sure that it’s connected in our offices as well, that we don’t have a separate discussion. So please involve all your colleagues who are addressing this issue on human rights. And on inclusivity, that’s actually a topic which is widely discussed also in our ministry, the reduction in civic space. And I think that’s maybe should also be discussed. We can, I mean, we talk about meaningful inclusivity, et cetera, but it’s a wider problem that in many countries, there’s a reduction in civic space in the possibility of NGOs to work, they’re being kicked out, et cetera. So that’s also a serious threat. We can work on inclusivity and in the coalition, but we have maybe also to address this reduction in civic space also online. Thank you.

Maria :
Thank you very much. I don’t know if anyone want to take the floor from the audience for commenting or bringing new issue. If I may also a comment from my side, I think that is very relevant in that inclusivity also that something that you mentioned in your intervention, Alison, related to the coordination of different bodies inside the government, as you were mentioning in the case of like human rights protection in different fronts, but also different level of expertise, because for inclusivity also, we need to create capacity and one key role that the collaboration that is coordinated and created through FOC is like to bring more information about where are the right places in society. It’s difficult to figure out what is the most appropriate interlocutor for having some conversation inside the government. So the role that also the coalition can have like in facilitating that coordination internally in their own governments or across government is also related to facilitate that information for the… more effective action of the advocacy of the civil society in this issue. So, a really interesting point on that. I don’t know if anyone else wants to add something in those lines? Or maybe Irene, do you want to jump in?

Irene:
Sure. So, the only other thing I wanted to mention is, even for Canada, it’s hard to keep track of all the different digital and tech initiatives. These used to be mainly technical issues with some political implications, and now they’ve become political issues that happen to be facilitated through tech. And I think if we want greater participation from both global majority countries and civil society, we need to be much more specific about what we want from them, the kind of engagement we want from them, and also to bring something of value to them. So, whether that’s greater capacity building, better understanding of, I mean, how does New York UN work? I don’t think anyone really knows. And also the technical expertise. So, I think it’s not just about what we want, but it needs to be much more of a two-way conversation between those who are trying to engage and what our goals are.

Maria :
Super important point. Like, how to bring people in the process, but in something that is valuable for everyone around the table. So, we have one comment or question from the audience. Please go ahead and introduce yourself.

Audience:
Sure. Hi, Nikki Muscati. I’m from the U.S. Department of State. I work on the FOC. I have both a question and a comment kind of together. You know, we spend a lot of time in our chairship thinking about how to include various voices in the decision-making process for the priorities that we had in our chairship. And as our deputies and Secretary Allison Peters noted, You know, there is a challenge for how you can bring these voices together, particularly within the global majority, because of the sheer amount of forums and processes that are happening that our governments are all engaged in. And so, I guess, I don’t want to put you on the spot, Ambassador, but, you know, I am curious if you’ve thought a little bit about how you want to maybe narrow your focus during your chairship year next year, and in that, how you’re hoping or planning to engage with some of the already existing global majority voices that are within the coalition to bring them into these processes and these conversations, and then, not to put my own leadership on the spot, but also the Canadian government, you know, what advice might you have for the Dutch government in terms of how to engage these other voices? Of course, you know, we spent a lot of time thinking about this this year, and, you know, as it was noted, the Canadian government did consultations with every region, so maybe if they’re interested in maybe a little bit of a back-and-forth there, if you all would indulge me in the last few minutes, because it is really important that we bolster the existing voices that we have in the coalition, or else, why would someone join?

Ernst Norman:
I would like first to listen to the recommendation of others, because, like I mentioned, I mean, I’m here to learn, and I can say very strong things, but without the experience within the coalition.

Alison Petters:
We heard the advice first. Well, I’m happy to start and turn it over to my colleague from the Government of Canada. I mean, this is the heart of the challenge, right, in terms of expanding the tent, not expanding too large, where we can’t get anything done, making sure that we are expanding the diversity of the advisory network. It would be near impossible to bring in every single voice into the advisory network, so getting that right as well is kind of a key challenge that we have. I don’t think hope is lost. I think some of it, first and foremost, in terms of engaging global majority governments, we have seen successes in bringing additional governments into the fold. Some are not full members yet, but may be joining, but we have already been in very intensive dialogues with them about their priorities as it relates to technology and human rights. So there, I think we learned a good lesson, which is bringing them into the discussions with other FOC members as partners, as equal footing. So at our event in the UN General Assembly recently with the Secretary of State, we invited non-FOC members, some key countries that have important perspectives to bring into the fold as it relates to technology policy, some which are strong democracies, strong records on human rights, but maybe have not engaged with the FOC previously. And so bringing them to the table to add their voices and perspectives has been really important to just get them interested in the work in the FOC, to familiarize them with the FOC’s work. And then following that up with capital level engagement. So as you know well, Nikki, we have really enlisted the support of our ambassadors and our diplomatic corps in these key countries to continue the dialogue. It can’t just be a one-off ministerial level event in the UN and then we say, thanks so much, please join us. It really needs to be a constant dialogue. Third, I would just say a recognition that resources are scarce, I mean, in every government, but some governments have more resources than others. And so, continuing to work with those governments that may feel like they don’t have the resources to engage to both support them and help them perhaps have those resources, but also making the case of what’s in it for them. Like, what are you gonna get out of this if you prioritize this over something else? I mean, we heard a lot about the… proliferation of different processes here. Second, I would just say, you know, in relation to not just governments, but expanding the work that we’re doing with civil society, the advisory network is a key source of support to us, but it certainly, and I’m sure you would agree, it shouldn’t be the only source of support, right? So, for example, the Freedom Online Coalition, our close friends and partners in the U.S. A.I.D., our development agency, has recently launched this week a set of donor principles in the digital age. Not only did we consult the advisory network, our multi-stakeholder component in the Freedom Online Coalition, but we went way beyond that in terms of consulting with civil society in key countries, building out, you know, broader networks of stakeholder voices from global majority countries in particular, and I think that was another example of how we can do this, starting with the advisory network and then sort of building out from there. I would say they’re also leveraging the fact that we are 38 governments and we all have our own networks, and so it shouldn’t just be the chairs’ networks in different countries that we’re consulting, but coming to the government of Canada or coming to the Netherlands and saying, you know, who do you know that we should talk to in these countries is really important, but this is, you know, the heart of the question that we’ve been asking all year, and I’m sure for the Canadian government, the heart of the question they were asking themselves as well, as chair.

Maria :
Thank you so much. Final thoughts on that from the ambassador from the government of Canada? You can go ahead. Okay. We have three minutes. Yeah. Okay.

Irene:
Okay. I’ll try to be quick and talk about a couple of examples. So during last year’s UNGA High Level Week, we organized an event between Freedom Online Coalition, International Idea, and Media Freedom Coalition. I think, like, being more creative with our multi-stakeholders and multilateralism would also help with the capacity issue of different countries not having to join four or five different coalitions outside of the UN processes. And also, when we recently developed the Global Declaration on Information Integrity, we used both International IDEA and Freedom Online Coalition to try to get agreement among democratic and rights-respecting countries on what that would look like. So different ways of trying to be creative with how we approach these things to make things easier for everyone.

Ernst Norman:
Just I think what I just realized is that the FOC is not the IGF, where there’s lots of like-mindedness, but there’s no text to be negotiated or whatever. And you hear some countries being very like-minded with us on subject of human rights, and you wonder, OK, but what’s happening at your home? So it is different. We truly want to be like-minded, and at the same time, we don’t want a copy to be the UN, in the sense that you want to include all countries and have impossible negotiations there. You want to have a meaningful exchange with each other, that we are able to take positions in the end to convince the broad majority, the global majority, and that we indeed are effective in our work. And that’s a balance we have to find, also in enlarging the group. And that’s a challenge, because maybe you want to have some countries, but at the same time, it can be more complex. So indeed, it’s a delicate balance we have to find with each other, and to make sure that the FOC will stay effective in the coming years. Thank you.

Maria :
Thank you very much. Thank you, all the speakers, for being part of this relevant conversation today. I think we have captured relevant learnings, and particularly reinforced that there are clarity in the main values that stick together this coalition, the promotion and protection of human rights, the commitment with inclusive and meaningful stakeholder engagement. and the need of effective coordination and be creative and continue expanding and deepening the action that already have been developed in terms of like all the interoperabilities that I was mentioning at the beginning of the conversation, the interoperability inside different government bodies between different governments that are coming and enlarging the coalition with the challenges that the ambassador just pointed out of like being more diverse, being mindful and accommodate different contexts but without sacrificing the basic values. So on that note, thank you very much for being part of this conversation and have a good final date of IGF. Thank you.

Audience:
Thank you. Thank you all for having me. Yeah, be good. Thank you all. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you all. We are done. We are done. Yes. Now you can go. Now you can go. Everyone is going to have a chance to leave for the group event. So thank you to all of you for being here. Thank you all very much. Thanks for being here.

Audience

During the discussion, multiple speakers expressed concerns about the need to protect children from bullying on social media platforms like Metta. They raised questions about Metta’s efforts in content moderation for child protection across various languages and countries, casting doubt on the effectiveness of its strategies and policies.

The discussion also focused on the importance of social media companies enhancing their user registration systems to prevent misuse. It was argued that stricter authentication systems are necessary to prevent false identities and misuse of social media platforms. Personal incidents were shared to support this stance.

Additionally, the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) in identifying local languages on social media was discussed. It was seen as a positive step in preventing misuse and promoting responsible use of these platforms.

Responsibility and accountability of social media platforms were emphasized, with participants arguing that they should be held accountable for preventing misuse and ensuring user safety.

The discussion also highlighted the adverse effects of social media on young people’s mental health. The peer pressure faced on social media can lead to anxiety, depression, body image concerns, eating disorders, and self-harm. Social media companies were urged to take proactive measures to tackle online exploitation and address the negative impact on mental health.

Lastly, concerns were raised about phishing on Facebook, noting cases where young users are tricked into revealing their contact details and passwords. Urgent action was called for to protect user data and prevent phishing attacks.

In conclusion, the discussion underscored the urgent need for social media platforms to prioritize user safety, particularly for children. Efforts in content moderation, user registration systems, authentication systems, language detection, accountability, and mental health support were identified as crucial. It is clear that significant challenges remain in creating a safer and more responsible social media environment.

Babu Ram Aryal

The analysis covers a range of topics, starting with Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its impact on different fields. It acknowledges that AI offers numerous opportunities in areas such as education and law. However, there is also a concern that AI is taking over human intelligence in various domains. This raises questions about the extent to which AI should be relied upon and whether it poses a threat to human expertise and jobs.

Another topic explored is the access that children have to technology and the internet. On one hand, it is recognised that children are growing up in a new digital era where they utilise the internet to create their own world. The analysis highlights the example of Babu’s own children, who are passionate about technology and eager to use the internet. This suggests that technology can encourage creativity and learning among young minds.

On the other hand, there are legitimate concerns about the safety of children online. The argument put forward is that allowing children unrestricted access to technology and the internet brings about potential risks. The analysis does not delve into specific risks, but it does acknowledge the existence of concerns and suggests that caution should be exercised.

An academic perspective is also presented, which recognises the potential benefits of AI for children, as well as the associated risks. This viewpoint emphasises that permitting children to engage with platforms featuring AI can provide opportunities for growth and learning. However, it also acknowledges the existence of risks inherent in such interactions.

The conversation extends to the realm of cybercrime and the importance of expertise in digital forensic analysis. The analysis highlights that Babu is keen to learn from Michael’s experiences and practices relating to cybercrime. This indicates that there is a recognition of the significance of specialised knowledge and skills in addressing and preventing cybercrime.

Furthermore, the analysis raises the issue of child rights and the need for better control measures on social media platforms. It presents examples where individuals have disguised themselves as children in order to exploit others. This calls for improved registration and content control systems on social media platforms to protect children’s rights and prevent similar occurrences in the future.

In conclusion, the analysis reflects a diverse range of perspectives on various topics. It recognises the potential opportunities provided by AI in various fields, but also points out concerns related to the dominance of AI over human intelligence. It acknowledges the positive aspects of children having access to technology, but also raises valid concerns about safety. Additionally, the importance of expertise in combating cybercrime and the need for better control measures to protect child rights on social media platforms are highlighted. Overall, the analysis showcases the complexity and multifaceted nature of these issues.

Sarim Aziz

Child safety issues are a global challenge that require a global, multi-stakeholder approach. This means that various stakeholders from different sectors, such as governments, non-governmental organizations, and tech companies, need to come together to address this issue collectively. The importance of this approach is emphasized by the fact that child safety is not limited to any particular region or country but affects children worldwide.

One of the key aspects of addressing child safety issues is the use of technology, particularly artificial intelligence (AI). AI has proven to be a valuable tool in preventing, detecting, and responding to child safety issues. For example, AI can disrupt suspicious behaviors and patterns that may indicate child exploitation. Technology companies, such as Microsoft and Meta, have developed AI-based solutions to detect and combat child sexual abuse material (CSAM). Microsoft’s PhotoDNA technology, along with Meta’s open-sourced PDQ and TMK technologies, are notable examples. These technologies have been effective in detecting CSAM and have played a significant role in safeguarding children online.

However, it is important to note that technology alone cannot solve child safety issues. Law enforcement and safety organizations are vital components in the response to child safety issues. Their expertise and collaboration with technology companies, such as Meta, are crucial in building case systems, investigating reports, and taking necessary actions to combat child exploitation. Meta, for instance, collaborates with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NECMEC) and assists them in their efforts to protect children.

Age verification is another important aspect of child safety online. Technology companies are testing age verification tools, such as the ones being tested on Instagram by Meta, to prevent minors from accessing inappropriate content. These tools aim to verify the age of users and restrict their access to age-inappropriate content. However, the challenge lies in standardizing age verification measures across different jurisdictions, as different countries have different age limits for minors using social media platforms.

Platforms, like Meta, have taken proactive steps to prioritize safety by design. They have implemented changes to default settings to safeguard youth accounts, cooperate with law enforcement bodies when necessary, and enforce policies against bullying and harassment. AI tools and human reviewers are employed to moderate and evaluate content, ensuring that harmful and inappropriate content is removed from the platforms.

Collaboration with safety partners and law enforcement is crucial in strengthening child protection responses. Platforms like Meta work closely with safety partners worldwide and have established safety advisory groups composed of experts from around the world. Integration of AI tools with law enforcement can lead to rapid responses against child abuse material and other safety concerns.

It is important to note that while AI can assist in age verification and protecting minors from inappropriate content, it is not a perfect solution. Human intervention and investigation are still needed to ensure the accuracy and effectiveness of age verification measures.

Overall, the expanded summary highlights the need for a global, multi-stakeholder approach to address child safety issues, with a focus on the use of technology, collaboration with law enforcement and safety organizations, age verification measures and prioritizing safety by design. It also acknowledges the limitations of technology and the importance of human interventions in ensuring child safety.

Michael Ilishebo

Content moderation online for children presents a significant challenge, particularly in Zambia where children are exposed to adult content due to the lack of proper control or filters. Despite the advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI), it has not been successful in effectively addressing these issues, especially in accurately identifying the age or gender of users.

However, there is growing momentum in discussions around child online protection and data privacy. In Zambia, this has resulted in the enactment of the Cybersecurity and Cybercrimes Act of 2021. This legislation aims to address cyberbullying and other forms of online abuse, providing some legal measures to protect children.

Nevertheless, numerous cases of child abuse on online platforms remain unreported. The response from platform providers varies, with Facebook and Instagram being more responsive compared to newer platforms like TikTok. This highlights the need for consistent and effective response mechanisms across all platforms.

On a positive note, local providers in Zambia demonstrate effective compliance in bringing down inappropriate content. They adhere to guidelines that set age limits for certain types of content, making it easier to remove content that is not suitable for children.

Age-gating on platforms is another area of concern, as many children can easily fool the verification systems put in place. Reports of children setting their ages as 150 years or profiles not accurately reflecting their age raise questions about the effectiveness of age verification mechanisms.

META, a platform provider, deserves commendation for their response to issues related to child exploitation. They prioritize addressing these issues and provide requested information promptly, which is crucial in investigations and protecting children.

The classification of inappropriate content poses a significant challenge, especially considering cultural differences and diverse definitions. What might be normal or acceptable in one country can be completely inappropriate in another. For example, an image of a child holding a gun might be considered normal in the United States but unheard of in Zambia or Africa. Therefore, the classification of inappropriate content needs to be sensitive to cultural contexts.

In response to the challenges posed by online child protection, Zambia has introduced two significant legislations: the Cybersecurity and Cybercrimes Act and the Data Protections Act. These legislative measures aim to address issues of cybersecurity and data protection, which are essential for safeguarding children online.

To ensure child internet safety, a combination of manual and technological parental oversight is crucial. Installing family-friendly accounts and using filtering technology can help monitor and control what children view online. However, it is important to note that children can still find ways to outsmart these controls or be influenced by third parties to visit harmful sites.

In conclusion, protecting children online requires a multifaceted approach. Legislative measures, such as the ones implemented in Zambia, combined with the use of protective technologies and active parental oversight, are essential. Additionally, close collaboration between the private sector, governments, the public sector, and technology companies is crucial in addressing challenges in policy cyberspace. While AI plays a role, it is important to recognize that relying solely on AI is insufficient. The human factor and close collaboration remain indispensable in effectively protecting children online and addressing the complex issues associated with content moderation and classification.

Jutta Croll

The discussions revolve around protecting children in the digital environment, specifically addressing issues like online child abuse and inappropriate communication. The general sentiment is positive towards using artificial intelligence (AI) to improve the digital environment for children and detect risks. It is argued that AI tools can identify instances of child sexual abuse online, although they struggle with unclassified cases. Additionally, online platform providers could use AI to detect abnormal patterns of communication indicating grooming. However, there is concern that relying solely on technology for detection is insufficient. The responsibility for detection should not rest solely on technology, evoking a negative sentiment.

There is a debate about the role of regulators and policymakers in addressing these issues. Some argue that regulators and policymakers should not tackle these issues, asserting that the responsibility falls on platform providers, who have the resources and knowledge to implement AI-based solutions effectively. This stance is received with a neutral sentiment.

The right to privacy and protection of children in the digital era presents challenges for parents. The UNCRC emphasizes children’s right to privacy, but also stresses the need to strike a balance between digital privacy and parental protection obligations. Monitoring digital content is seen as intrusive and infringing on privacy, while not monitoring absolves platforms of accountability. This viewpoint is given a negative sentiment.

Age verification is seen as essential in addressing inappropriate communication and content concerns. A lack of age verification makes it difficult to protect children from inappropriate content and advertisers. The sentiment towards age verification is positive.

Dialogue between platform providers and regulators is considered crucial for finding constructive solutions in child protection. Such dialogue helps identify future-proof solutions. This argument receives a positive sentiment.

Newer legislations should focus more on addressing child sexual abuse in the online environment. Newer legislations are seen as more effective in addressing these issues. For instance, Germany amended its Youth Protection Act to specifically address the digital environment. The sentiment towards this is positive.

The age of consent principle is under pressure in the digital environment as discerning consensual from non-consensual content becomes challenging. The sentiment towards this argument is neutral. There are differing stances on self-generated sexualized imagery shared among young people. Some argue that it should not be criminalized, while others maintain a neutral position, questioning whether AI can determine consensual sharing of images. The sentiment towards the stance that self-generated sexualized imagery should not be criminalized is positive.

Overall, the discussions emphasize the importance of child protection and making decisions that prioritize the best interests of the child. AI can play a role in child protection, but human intervention is still considered necessary. It is concluded that all decisions, including policy making, actions of platform providers, and technological innovations, should consider the best interests of the child.

Ghimire Gopal Krishna

Nepal has a robust legal and constitutional framework in place that specifically addresses the protection of child rights. Article 39 of Nepal’s constitution explicitly outlines the rights of every child, including the right to name, education, health, proper care, and protection from issues such as child labour, child marriage, kidnapping, abuse, and torture. The constitution also prohibits child engagement in any hazardous work or recruitment into the military or armed groups.

To further strengthen child protection, Nepal has implemented the Child Protection Act, which criminalises child abuse activities both online and offline. Courts in Nepal strictly enforce these laws and take a proactive stance against any form of child abuse. This indicates a positive commitment from the legal system to safeguarding children’s well-being and ensuring their safety.

In addition to legal provisions, Nepal has also developed online child safety guidelines. These guidelines provide recommendations and guidance to various stakeholders on actions that can be taken to protect children online. This highlights Nepal’s effort to address the challenges posed by the digital age and ensure the safety of children in online spaces.

However, ongoing debates and discussions surround the appropriate age for adulthood, voting rights, citizenship, and marriage in Nepal. These discussions aim to determine the age at which individuals should be granted certain legal landmarks. The age of consent, in particular, has been a subject of court cases and controversies, with several individuals facing legal consequences due to age-related consent issues. This reflects the complexity and importance of addressing these issues in a just and careful manner.

Notably, Ghimire Gopal Krishna, the president of the Nepal Bar Association, has shown his commitment to positive amendments related to child rights protection acts. He has signed the Child Right Protection Treaty, further demonstrating his dedication to upholding child rights. This highlights the involvement of key stakeholders in advocating for improved legal frameworks that protect the rights and well-being of children in Nepal.

Overall, Nepal’s legal and constitutional provisions for child protection are commendable, with specific provisions for education, health, and safeguarding children from various forms of abuse. The implementation of the Child Protection Act and online child safety guidelines further strengthens these protections. However, ongoing debates and discussions surrounding the appropriate age for various legal landmarks highlight the need for careful consideration and resolution. The commitment of Ghimire Gopal Krishna to positive amendments underscores the importance of continuous efforts to improve child rights protection in Nepal.

Babu Ram Aryal:
somewhere around the world and good afternoon, maybe late evenings somewhere. This is Baburam Aryal. I’m a lawyer by profession and I’m from Nepal and I lead Digital Freedom Coalition in Nepal and moderating this session for today and I have a very distinguished panel here to discuss artificial intelligence and child protection issues in contemporary world. Let me briefly introduce my esteemed panelist, my next to me, senior advocate Gopal Krishna Gimire. He is the president of Nepal Bar Association and he brings more than 30-35 years experience of litigation in Nepal and Yuta Kral is a very senior child right protection activist and she is leading her organization and contributing through dynamic coalition on child rights and Sarim Aziz is policy director for South Asia at META and having long experience on platform issues and protection of child rights and other issues as well and next to Sarim, Michael is there and Michael is directly dealing with various issues. He belongs to Jambian police and senior official at Jambian police and especially focusing on cybercrime investigation and digital forensic analysis. So introducing my panel, I have my colleague Ananda Gautam who is moderating online participants and I would like to begin with a very brief concept that what is the objective of today’s discussion. Just right inside I am seeing two kids, coincidentally they are my kids as well. They are very passionate with the technology, they are very keen on using internet and we have a big discussion whether we allow our kids to give access to technology and the connectivity and our experience shows that allowing them in the platforms are opportunity for them. They are growing themselves with new regime, new world and they have created their own set of world in their own way. I see sometimes I fear whether I’m leading my kids to very risky world or not and this leads to me to engage at this issue, technology and the risk and technology and the opportunity. Now artificial intelligence has taken over most of the human intelligence in various area of work like education, law and other area of profession and artificial intelligence is giving opportunity, lots of opportunities are there but simultaneously there are some risk as well. So in this discussion we’ll take the artificial intelligence issues and the child protection issues and harnessing child protection through artificial intelligence. There are various tools available around the world and these are accessible to all the segment of people including child and elderly people. So I’ll come to at the beginning I’ll go to Michael whose responsibility is dealing with this kind of issues regularly. I’ll go to Michael, what is your personal experience from your department, what are the major issues that you have experienced and once we hear from you then we’ll take this discussion at further level.

Michael Ilishebo:
Michael. Good afternoon, good morning, good evening. So as a law enforcement officer dealing with a cyber crime and digital forensic issues moderating of content online from the human side and from the AI side has posed both a challenge to our little ones in the sense that speaking from somebody from the developing world is that we are mostly consuming news or any other form of entertainment or any other form of content online that is not generated in our region. Of course we’re not generating our own content but the aspect of like being a gatekeeper as parents or using technology to filter that content which is not supposed to be shown or exposed to the little one has become a little bit of a challenge. I’ll give you like a simple example. If you are working, you are analyzing a mobile device from maybe a child who can do a child who is maybe 16, the content that you find in their phones, the data that they’ve in terms of the browsing history, like there is no control. So whatever is exposed to an adult ends up being exposed to a little one. As a result it has become a little bit challenge in terms of addressing issues of content moderation on both fronts. Of course there could be some aspects of AI that could help moderate some of this content but at the end of it or if we remove the human factor out of it, AI will not be able to address most of the challenges that we are facing right now. Further on in terms of combating crime or combating child exploitation incidences, you will find that most of these sites that host most of the content, despite them having clear guidance and policing on gatekeeping in terms of age, our children still find their way in places online that they’re not supposed to. Of course there’s no system that will detect the use of a phone to indicate their age or their gender as a human being would. It still remains a challenge in the sense that once a phone is in the hands of a minor, you don’t have control over what they see, you don’t have control on what they do with it. So basically it has become a serious challenge on the part of the little ones and us enforcing cyberspace to ensure that the little ones, the minors, are protected from content that is not supposed to be exposed to them. Thanks Michael. I would like to know your experience. I hope I belong to Nepalese society and Zambian society might be similar from education and all these things. What are the trends of abuse cases in Zambia? Do you remember any trends? So basically in terms of abuse, Zambia like any other country has those challenges. So basically I’ll give an example. Of late the talks on child online protections have been gaining momentum. There’s been some clear guidelines from government to ensure that issues of child online protection, data privacy, issues to do with the safety and security of everyone including the little ones online has been gaining momentum through the enactment of various suggestions. Like we have the Cybersecurity and Cybercrimes Act of 2021 which clearly has now outlined the types of cyberbullying which are outlawed. So basically if you go on social media platforms such as Facebook, Tik Tok, Instagram, Snapchat and all those, most of the bad actors who are engaging in these bad activities of either sending bad images to the children or any other content that we deem is inappropriate, most of them have been either arrested or talked to depending at times it’s there within their age range. They share these things among their minors. If it’s a minor of course you talk to them, you counsel them, you try to bring them to sanity in terms of their thinking. But if it’s an adult you have to know their intentions. So one of our experiences that the law itself is slowly addressing some of these challenges that we are facing. But again that does not stop there. There are a lot of cases or scenarios that remain unreported. So it is difficult for us to literally address those challenges. But in a nutshell I would literally tell you that the challenges are there, the problems are there, but of course addressing them is not a one-day issue. It’s about continuous improvement and continuous usage of the law and technology based especially from the service providers to address some of these challenges.

Babu Ram Aryal:
Thanks Michael. I’ll come to Utah. Utah, you have been engaged in child protection since long. You have good experience. We are seeing each other in IGF for several times and then shared the discussion as well. You also belong to, you are also member of Dynamic Coalition on Child Rights. So what is your personal experience from protection issues and ethical legal issues on protection of children online especially when AI is significantly contributing and intervening on these platforms? Utah.

Jutta Croll:
Yeah, thank you so much for not only inviting me but posing such an important question to me. First of all I would like to say you introduced me as an expert in child protection issues and you may know that the Dynamic Coalition even changed their name from Child Online Safety Coalition to Children’s Rights Coalition in the digital environment. I think it’s important to put that right from the beginning that children have a right to protection and to provision and to participation. So we always need to look for a balanced approach of these areas of rights. And of course when it comes to artificial intelligence I would like to quote from the General Command Number 25 to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. You may know that the rights of the child have been laid down in 1989 when although the Internet was there it was not designed to be used by children. And the UN Convention doesn’t refer in any way to the Internet as a means of communication, of access to information and so on and so on. So that was the reason why four or five years ago the Committee of the United Nations, the Committee on the Rights of the Child decided to have such a general command in regard of children’s rights in the digital environment to give more a closer look into what it means that children are now living in a world that is mainly affected by use of digital media and look into how we can protect them. And in one of the very first articles of this general command it says explicitly that artificial intelligence is part of the digital environment. It’s not only a single thing, it’s woven into everything that now means the digital environment. So it’s therefore necessary to have a look whether artificial intelligence can be used or is able to improve digital environment for children, whether it can help us to address risks that have already been mentioned by Michael, whether it can help to detect content that is on the one hand harmful for children to be watched on the Internet, but also for content that is directly related to the abuse of children, which is where we are talking about child sexual abuse imagery. But nowadays, and that is also due to the use of artificial intelligence and new functionalities and technologies that the Internet is used to perform online live sexual abuse of children. And that is also where we have to have a look at what artificial intelligence, how it can be beneficial to detect these things, but also where it might pose additional risks to children. And I stop at that point and I’m pretty sure we will go deeper into that. I’ll come to on detection side on next round. Jutta, can you save me some more issues from ethical and legal side, if you can say some lights on this. You mean the ethical and legal side of detection of harmful of child sexual abuse imagery in general? Ethical issues of use and misuse of technology and platforms. Okay, I do think that the speaker on my left side has much more to say about the technology behind that. What I can say so far from research is we need both. We need to use, to deploy artificial intelligence to become, yes, to monitor the content, to find and detect the content for the benefit of children. But still I’m pretty much convinced that we cannot give that responsibility to the technology alone. We also need

Babu Ram Aryal:
human intervention. Thanks. Initially in my sequence, Mr. Gopal was next to you, but as you just referred, I’ll go to Sarim first and then come back to Gopal. So Sarim, now you have two very significant opinions on the plate and to respond on that and again the same questions that I like to ask. Meta platforms are significant for not only for kids, for all of us, but kids are also coming to various platforms and not only meta platforms, we neutrally discuss as platforms. So what is your thoughts on this? What are the major issues on the platforms, including meta platforms, about the opportunities? Of course, as you rightly mentioned, first comes rights and then only if any violation, then production is there. So, Sarim, can you share some of your thoughts? Thank you,

Sarim Aziz:
Babu, and honored to be here to talk about this very serious issue and humbled, obviously, with the speakers here. I think, as they’ve previously said, I just want to just reiterate that this is a global challenge that requires a global response and a multi-stakeholder approach, and I think law enforcement alone can’t solve this, tech industry alone cannot solve it. So this is one where we require civil society. We need families. We need parents. So that’s how we have, as META, have approached this issue. And so we work on all those fronts in terms of industry. I think this is also a good example where the child rights and the child safety industry actually can be an example for many other areas, actually, like terrorism and others, because we are part of a tech coalition, which was formed in 2014. Microsoft, Google are also part of that. That’s been in an excellent forum for us to collaborate and share best practices and come together to address this challenge. And we’re actually, in 2020, as part of Project Protect, we committed to expanding the scope of that to protecting kids and thinking about child safety, not just preventing the most harmful type of stuff, which is the CSAM and other things, but also keeping kids safe. So I think if I were to summarize the META’s approach, we look at the issue in three buckets. So the first would be prevention. And this is important, because this is where AI has a role to play in all of these three areas. So when you think about prevention, we have something called, for example, search deterrence. So when someone is going out there on platforms and trying to look for such content, I think Michael, at one point, talked about pre-crime. So I think we actually do AI and type of heads use is based on AI as well, in terms of what people are typing. We prevent searches coming up within Facebook and other Instagram and other search mechanisms to prevent such content from surfacing. And if people are intentionally trying to type this stuff, we actually give them warnings to say, this is actually harmful and illegal content that you’re trying to look up, and divert them towards support mechanisms. So that’s pretty important for prevention. Also, if you think about the bad behavior, sometimes kids are vulnerable, and they might get friend requests from people who are adults, or they’re not even connected to, strangers. So now we actually have in-app advice and warnings popping up to them to say, you shouldn’t accept people, accept friend requests from strangers. This person is not even connected to your network. So those are things that AI can actually help and detect and just surface, like in-app advice, safety warnings, notices, and also preventing unwanted interactions. So we actually do intervene and disrupt those types of suspicious behaviors when we detect that using AI. So prevention is that one bucket where we are optimistic and excited about what AI can do to prevent harm from occurring. The second bucket is the large part of the discussion that we’ve seen already around detection. Detecting CSAM has been a large, I think, for over a decade, it’s been a large focus for the industry, using, obviously, technology like PhotoDNA, which was initially built by Microsoft, and we’ve actually built on top of that, where we now have photo and video matching technology that Meta has open sourced, I believe, just recently. That’s called PDQ, as well as TMK, which is for video matching. So that’s been open sourced on GitHub. So now, yeah. A bit of clarification about PDQ and TMK. You know, the audience may not know. Yeah, I mean, those acronyms are easier to Google, PDQ. And these are basically, it’s like built on top of PhotoDNA, but it’s been open sourced so that any platform, any company. So we want to make sure that this is something that Meta truly believes in open innovation, that bad actors, they will use technology in multiple ways. I think our best defense is to open source and this technology, make it accessible to more safety experts and more companies out there. You don’t have to be as large as Meta to be able to implement child safety measures. Now, if you’re an emerging platform in Zambia or in any other country, you can take this technology and ensure that you prevent both sort of spread of this type of CSAM content, but also detection and sharing of hashes and digital signatures to detect CSAM. So that’s where it helps for both photos and videos. So it’s called PDQ for photos and TMK plus PDQF for videos. That’s been open sourced on GitHub for any developers and other companies to take. And this also helps for transparency. And Ampreet talks about ethics. Like, you know, this shows the tech that we use so we can be externally audited on what’s the kind of technology that we use to detect this. This is also technology we use internally for, obviously, training our algorithms and detection, you know, and machine learning technology to ensure that we are able to detect these kinds of contents. And lastly, the most important issue where AI is also helping is response. And that’s where law enforcement comes in and other civil society and safety organizations like the National Center for Missing and Exploitative Children, they’re a very important partner for Meta and other companies, where, you know, anytime we do detect CSAM content, we actually even help them build a case system using the same technology that I mentioned. So if it is youth, for example, that are dealing with non-consensual imagery issues, you know, that they’ve put up themselves. And so there’s a project called Take It Down that’s been launched by NECMEC, which helps. And that’s cross-platform. It’s Meta’s on there. TikTok’s part of it. Other companies are part of it, where those images can be prevented from spreading. So those are important initiatives. And that response and closing that loop with NECMEC that works with law enforcement around the world, they have a cyber tip helpline that helps law enforcement in their responses is really critical. So I think I’ll just pause there. But I think that’s sort of the three areas where we see technology as well as AI is playing a very important role in preventing, detecting, and responding to these child safety issues. Thank you.

Babu Ram Aryal:
Thank you, Sharim. One very interesting issue that governments in the developing world are complaining about the platform operators, that platform operators are not cooperating in the investigation issues when, from a developing country, when they don’t have much technology to catch the bad people. Michael, I’ll come back to Gopal again. You just sparked that question. That’s why I’m going to Michael. Michael, what is your experience while dealing with these kind of issues, especially what are the response from platform providers on child abuse cases online?

Michael Ilishebo:
So basically, that depends on which platform that content is on. Facebook has been a little bit responsive. They are responding. Instagram, they’re responding. TikTok, being a new platform, we’re still trying to find ways and means of engaging their law enforcement department, liaison department. Also, we’ve seen an increase in terms of local providers. Those ones, it’s much easier for them to bring down the content. It’s much easier for them to follow the guidelines of putting an age limit to whatever they are posting. If it’s a short video, if it contains a bit of some violence, contains some nudity, or any other feature we can deem to be inappropriate for a child, they are required to do the correct thing of either block the age in terms of it being accessed on Facebook. Because if I joined Facebook and I entered my age as 13, so that content will not reflect on my timeline or on my feed because of my age. But as I’ve said earlier on, it’s difficult to monitor a child who’s opened their own Facebook account because they’ll just make themselves 21. You’ve seen on Facebook, there are people who are 150 years old. You check on their birthday, they say this person is 120 years old. Because this platform themselves, like Facebook, does not actually help us in addressing the issues of age-getting. So basically, as a way of addressing most of these challenges, I’ll restrict myself to META because they can answer to the question, to any issue I’m going to raise, because they are part of the panel. I can’t discuss about Google, I can’t discuss about any other platform, which is not here. So META has been responsive, though in a way, at times it is slow. But based on their law enforcement portal, issues of child exploitations are given priority. Issues to do with, probably, freedom of expression, those ones may be a little bit slow. But on META’s part, I would still give them 100% because within the shortest period of time, when you request either for a takedown of data or for information behind this account in that, they will still provide you within the shortest period of time. So my experience with META so far has been OK. Thank you.

Sarim Aziz:
Thank you for that. That was not pre-scripted. I had no idea what Michael was going to say, but thank you for that feedback. I did want to just comment on the age verification issue. I think that’s something that’s obviously in discussion with experts around the world in different countries, lots of discussions going on. But we at META, we are testing some age verification tools that we started testing in June in some countries. And based on initial results, we see that we have about 96% of teens who tried to change their birth date. We were able to actually stop them from doing that. And so again, I don’t think any tech solution is going to be perfect, but there are attempts being made to figure out what is. This is on Instagram, by the way, this age verification tool that we have. And we hope to, based on those results, expand it further to prevent minors from seeing content that they shouldn’t be seeing, even if they’ve tried to change their age and things like that. Just wanted to comment on that.

Babu Ram Aryal:
Thanks, Sarim. Now, finally, I’ll come to Mr. Gopal. So we have discussed various issues from technical perspective, some direct enforcement perspective as well. And Utah has discussed certain issues. And NC also referred child rights convention as well. As a long practicing lawyer, what do you see in your country perspective from Nepalese context? What are the major legal protections for children, especially when we talk about the online protection over the online platforms? Yeah, please.

Ghimire Gopal Krishna:
Thank you, Babu. Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to say something first about my country. Of course, I am representing Nepal Bar Association. That means the human rights protector, the institution of human rights protector. Basically, we have four subjects we are just focusing on. Just first is we are human rights. We deal with human rights. Secondly, the democracy, the rule of law, and the human this. The fourth issue is the independent of judiciary, the issue of independent of judiciary. Of course, being a human rights protector, we have to focus on the child right issue too. This is our duty, that we are focusing on the human child right issue. You know, in our present constitution, Article 39 explicitly says that we have right to child. Every child shall have a right to name, birth, and recognition along with his or her identity. Every child shall have a right to education, health, maintenance, proper care, sports, entertainment, and overall personality development from the families and the state. And every child shall have the right to elementary child labor, elementary child labor, child development, and child participation. No child shall have engaged in any factory. This is the important right for a child in Nepal’s constitution. Mine or similar other hazardous work, no child shall be subjected to child marriage, transported illegally, and kidnapped or taken hostages. No child shall be recruited or used in the army, police, or any armed group, or to be subjected in the name of culture or religious traditions to abuse, exclusion, or physical, mental, sexual, or other form of exploitation or improper use by any means or any manner. And no child shall be subjected to physical, mental, or any other form of torture in home, school, or other places, and condition, whatever. So this is the constitutional right. You mean a very clear protection of child and abuse of children online as well. That reflects in the constitution, you mean? Yes. In our constitution, we have clear provisions for protection of child rights. And we have Child Protection Act also. The Child Protection Act, it criminalizes the child abuse and activities, online and offline. Child abuse activities, online and offline both. And we have a child, this pedophile cases. And the courts in Nepal is very strictly, very strictly prohibit such type of activities. It is clearly our court is in practice. And we have this online child safety guidelines also. Online child safety guidelines explicitly told that this provide recommendations of action to the different stakeholders. And though we have not gone through AI, and not even think about it, I would like to say not even think about it, but our constitution, whatever we have the legal provisions, and whatever we have the legal constitutional provision, the child right is in this phase. It’s especially our constitution and our legal framework, especially very close to the child protection issues, what would I like to say. And this, I can say that child right is our focus. And child right is the core issue for our legal provisions, constitutional and legal provisions too.

Babu Ram Aryal:
Thank you. I’ll go to the next round of discussion of this session. Basically, when we propose this workshop, our workshop is harnessing AI to child protection, right? So I’ll come to Sarim first. How technology are leveraging production of child online, especially when AI tools are available? What are the tools? What are the models? And how this can leverage on protecting child online?

Sarim Aziz:
Thanks, Babu. So yeah, I think I’ll connect a bit deeper into sort of my overview I mentioned. So as I mentioned, AI has been a critical component of online child safety, prevention, detection, and response for a very long time. So this is actually, even though I think the gen-AI discussion has sort of maybe hyped the interest around AI for child safety, it’s been a very critical component of that response, as I mentioned. So the most obvious one, as I mentioned, is the CSAM, child sexually abusive material. And it started with Microsoft 10 years ago with the photo DNA technology, which has evolved and we’ve open-sourced our own since then and you know that work on detection is the most crucial because that also helps with prevention, detecting things at scale, especially we have a platform of 3.8 billion users so you know we want to prevent such content from people even seeing it, from people from even uploading it and then also that involves a lot of, still requires a lot of human expertise, that’s important. I don’t think it’s completely like humans are not involved because you know making sure you’ve got a large high quality data sets of CSAM material to train the AI to be able to detect this is sort of requires a lot of human intervention and you know and we still need human reviewers for things that maybe AI cannot detect so that there’s definitely a challenge with gen AI in terms of maybe on the production side where you know people might be producing more of this more easily but I don’t think, I think we are you know on our side we’ve got the defenses ready to build on and improve on to make sure that we’re able to leverage AI to also detect those kinds of things. I think there’s a lot more work to do in that space but we have a good, the industry has done well in terms of leveraging AI on the detection side. I think the prevention side is to us is more exciting because that’s something new that we’ve focused on in terms of for user education, youth education, preventing them from interactions that are suspicious that are you know with strangers and adults that that they shouldn’t be having. I think this issue of you know the parental supervision is an interesting one we obviously have parental controls built into our products into Facebook and Instagram do we we believe that parents and guardians know best for their kids in terms of but at the same time you know there are there are obviously privacy issues that we also have to consider so those are some of the ethical discussions that are ongoing but yeah I think though so I think prevention detection are excellent I think the response side this child safety is one of the few areas where we the partnerships like neck back and multi-stakeholder responses are so critical to ensure that you know we’re able to work with safety partners all around the world law enforcement around the world we have a safety advisory group as well of 400 experts from around the world that advise us on these sort of products and our responses. A very quick follow-up question sorry you just mentioned that we have safety partners and how it works especially while protecting protecting child there are various community standards and then you know there are even some countries they their age of though CRC has very specific age group on minority and majority and and certain even in my country there are some debates in recent past that though it’s the CRC says 18 years and and our local child legislation also says 18 years but it’s still even in Parliament there was some discussion that we should reduce the age of minority majority threshold so so how dealing with a different legislative regime platform operators work on combating these kind of issues. Yeah I think those discussions are ongoing as we speak in many countries on terms of what is the right age to you know at what age do you require parental consent and so those I mean I everyone will have a different opinion on that I think what we’re trying to really focus on is that of course on Metas platforms for most products you need to be at least 13 to create an account in some jurisdictions it’s different so we obviously respect law wherever we operate however I think our focus is really on regardless of whether you’re 13 or 14 like is it’s the is the the nature of the interaction and making sure that you are safe and same that whether if there’s violent content we have something you know what we call like marked as disturbing so we you know as well even for for adults actually so I think there’s making sure that minors don’t even see the content like that but also if even if adults see it the day you know AI actually helps us to make sure that this might even make someone who’s 18 uncomfortable so we have technologies on that as well so I mean age is obviously a number but at the same time you know we need to make sure the protections are in place the systems are in place to protect youth in general whether they’re 13 or 14 or 17.

Michael Ilishebo:
thanks Michael you’re like you want to respond on this year I’m just adding on to what he has said among the issues that is a little bit challenging is a classification of inappropriate content I’ll give an example mmm under meta platform 13 years is the minimum age one can join Facebook but based on our laws and standards in the countries that we come from 13 years is deemed to be a child who can’t even probably own a cell phone the second part is the content themself an image of violence probably in a cartoon form or music with some vulgar violence content or anything that may be deemed inappropriate for Zambia might actually be deemed appropriate say for the u.s. a child holding a gun in Zambia or in Africa either through the guidance of the parent or without it’s literally something that is unheard of but in the u.s. we’ve heard of children going with guns in schools doing all sorts of things we’ve seen images where if you look at it as a parent you’d be worried but that image is there on Facebook and he’s been accessed by another child in another jurisdiction where it is not deemed to be offensive so issues of clarification themselves they’ve played a challenging role up just to add what is he said thanks Michael Utah yes thank

Jutta Croll:
you for giving me the floor again I I would like to go a bit more into where a I can be used or probably also where it where it can’t be used and some of you may know that there is already a new draft regulation in the European parliamentarian process on child sexual abuse which differentiates between three different it’s not different types but it’s three things to be addressed one is already known child sexual abuse imagery which Sarum has described very well it is possible to detect that with a very low false positive rate due to photo DNA and the improvement that already matter and other companies have made during the last years have led to all also being able to detect video contact with which was quite difficult some years ago it’s it has become much better then the second part is not yet known sexual abuse imagery so the new products and they are coming in in a huge amount in huge numbers of images and videos are uploaded every day and of course it’s much more difficult to detect this imagery that have not been classified as being child sexual abuse imagery and the false positive rate is much higher in this regard and then the third part which is the most difficult is detection of grooming processes where children are groomed into contact to a stranger in order to be abused either online or to produce self-produced sexualized content of some themselves and sending that to to the grooming person so we we know that these different areas react to different artificial intelligence strategy in a different way and the most difficult is the part in grooming where where obviously if you haven’t the means to look into the content because the content of the communication might be encrypted then you would need to use other strategies to to detect patterns for example of the type of communication one sender addressing a thousand different profiles to get in contact in the in the expectation that at least maybe 1% of these of these addresses will react to the grooming process and getting in contact with the person so and that’s I think it’s where talking about shared responsibility that could not be done by the regulator it could not be done by the policymaker but it could be done by the platform providers because you have the knowledge I do think you have the resources to look deeper into these new developments and try to find a technological way based on AI to address these issues and I push the ball back to you because I’m pretty sure you can answer to that.

Sarim Aziz:
Thank you actually that’s exactly I think the area of focus for us in recent times is to focus on preventing grooming and that’s where AI is playing a very key role as I mentioned on just preventing that in you know unwanted interaction between an adult and a teen you know so we’ve changed things like for example just preventing the default settings of a youth account would not be able to message you know like a stranger so that and also even on comments of public information so if a comment that’s done by a youth for example it will not be visible to an adult so we’re actually trying to kind of reduce that sort of unwanted interaction it’s still early days for this but I think we’ve taken measures already we haven’t waited to know we know this is the right thing to do in terms of you know ensuring that adults are not able to discover teen content so in the in Instagram for example in our discovery reel you won’t see any youth content there that’s you know and same with whenever we detect this sort of any attempts a friend request as I mentioned that was an example where it’s someone who’s not in your network we do give warnings to teens just and that’s an opportunity to educate to say like shouldn’t be this person is a stranger you shouldn’t be accepting a friend request to discourage them so I think you’re right this is the the right focus for us to kind of continue using technology and AI to prevent sort of grooming and and protecting sort of unsuspicious interactions and unwanted interactions between you know teens and adults very very a significant issue Utah just referred that detection of grooming process of a child and in platform I have myself dealt with certain cases in Nepal as well so it’s also Michael raised is classification of use of platforms and and there are various categories of you is who gets the connected with the platforms as a business or platform providers one of platform providers maybe my question could be a law enforcement issue but from accountability perspective if if it is seen that a platform is used for a long grooming of child and and leading of significant abuse to child then do you see the as you rightly mentioned that share accountability do you see the platform also should share the accountability of that serious incident not only the matter of law enforcement or you’re not clear my question sorry I think platforms definitely have a responsibility to keep their users safe and and I think as Michael alluded to it we you know as I said this is a global issue requires a global response we have to do our part in that and we do that by using that making sure we create the product by having safety by design and some of these changes we’re making is literally safety by design like when we’re developing these these these features to make sure that how would how would you you know use this and how could they how could we keep them safe you know even even like you know when you’re we don’t suggest for example adults and your people friends you know like things like that so these are this is safety by design right in the product but beyond that when something bad happens absolutely we you know we do work very closely with law enforcement from around the world including with NACMEC through NACMEC as well when we see a situation where you know a child is in danger and and many times I mean you won’t read about it in the paper but platforms do cooperate and they they reach out to law enforcement with the information that they see to ensure that you know child’s again and or anyone can can be kept safe at least that’s that’s my view I obviously can’t speak for behalf of every platform but that’s how we operate at Meta.

Babu Ram Aryal:
I have two questions for the panelists but before going to those questions it’s my questions in future will be there with privacy and the future strategy before that I’ll take a few questions from the audience as well and I open the floor for your questions if you have any questions from the floor I would like to welcome yes so thank you so much for the conversations the question about please introduce me oh yeah sorry my

Audience:
name is Sumana Shrestha I’m a parliamentarian from Nepal when it comes to protecting children one of the other thing we also need to protect them from is bullying right so you’ve got so many different languages what is what are what is Metta for example doing about content moderation in different countries in which it’s used it’ll be great to know thank you thank

Sarim Aziz:
you for the question and for joining this discussion yeah we have very clear policies against bullying and harassment on our platform across all our surfaces it’s the same policy on Facebook and Instagram and others so we have the same policies applied everywhere so we want to protect people same protections to all all youth all adults as well of course our threshold is much much lower when it comes to kids and youth when we see the type of you know bullying if a minor is involved in that type of situation that we our policies are much more harsher in terms of the the enforcement action that we take as well as like the the strikes against individuals who might be engaged in that behavior we we do a variety of enforcement actions not just sort of stopping the behavior but also some restricting sort of additional sort of abuse from that those types of accounts but of course we have we rely on bullying is a difficult one where I have to say I don’t think I mean it has made progress but I think it’s a difficult one where I compared to CSAM and other areas in terrorism where AI has not been you know completely successful in sort of you know like we don’t have a 99% sort of action rate on that because of the nature of bullying can be so different right and it may be it may not be obvious to a stranger that there’s bullying going on because context is so important you know between the two individuals involved the cultural context so I think the policies are clear we do enforce and we do remove any type of and prevent such kind of content but we largely rely on our human reviewers we have people from around the world including people experts from Nepal who sort of review content in local language and and help us enforce against that but but that type of kind of we do rely also on the community to report because if no one reports it then platforms are not going to know that this is bullying and this is why that that context and intervention including safety partners and civil society partners we have partnerships in many countries with local safety organizations including in Nepal where you know victims of bullying can report such content to local partners who can ensure that meta services take action quickly against that.

Babu Ram Aryal:
More questions? Audience? Online question? Okay we have got one online question. There’s a

Audience:
question from Stacey. What are the current accepted norms for balancing human rights with privacy and security? Are we good at it?

Babu Ram Aryal:
Any specific research person? No, they did not mention. So Sarim and Jutta?

Jutta Croll:
Okay I’m going to take that one first. I wanted already to refer to privacy of children, because I think it’s part of the UNCRC that is the most ambivalent paragraph of the Convention of the Rights of the Child, because children have the right to a privacy of their own. So that also means, and it’s very made very clear in the General Command Number 25, because with digital environment, with digital media, it has become more difficult also for parents to strike that balance between keeping the privacy of the children on the one hand, and that would mean not looking into their mobile phone like Michael had been talking about before, but on the other hand parents also have, it’s their task, their duty to protect their children. So it’s very difficult in the social environment of the children, in the family, to have a balance between their right to privacy and their right to be protected. But also when we look into that regulation, for example, that I’ve been quoting, the EU regulation that is underway, but also in other regards, that it is quite difficult, because at the moment that we are asking for monitoring content, we know that is always an infringement of the privacy of the people that have produced that content or that are communicating. So looking into the private communication of people would be an infringement of their right to privacy, and that would also mean an infringement of the rights of children and young people, because they have that right to privacy as well. And on the other hand, if we don’t do that, how could a platform like Meta or any other platform follow their responsibility and accountability for protecting their users? That is quite, and I do think it’s an equation that doesn’t come to a fair solution. We need to tackle it from different directions to try to find a balance in this way.

Sarim Aziz:
Yeah, just to add to that, I think this is a really important one. I think when you asked the question, it reminded me of the Google case where I think there was a parent who took a sort of a nude photo of their child to send to a doctor during COVID, and I think Google’s AI sort of marked that as really harmful content and reported that situation to law enforcement. So I think there is definitely that balance and the rights of the child versus rights of parents, and that’s an interesting one. But I think I do want to say that Industry’s View also is quite, I think, against this scanning private messages situation, because all the numbers seem to indicate that we don’t need to actually do that. If you look at all the things that I mentioned in terms of prevention and detection, it is based on behavioral patterns. It’s not based on necessarily content. CSAM aside, yes, of course, that requires that to be… I think if we focus our energy on just public surfaces where users come and the kinds of behavior that we are trying to prevent, grooming behavior, I think there’s plenty of opportunity for technology and civil society and experts to focus there. At first, then, you don’t need to break, get into a private messaging. In fact, a good statistic is a Q1 of this year, and I’m only quoting meta numbers. I think the global numbers from platforms is even more. This is just matters number. In Q1 of this year, we sent 1.2 million reports to NECMEC of child-related CSAM material without invading anybody’s privacy. That’s a staggering number. That’s just meta. Again, if you add the other numbers, I think it’s even higher for other platforms. I don’t think we need to go there. I think that it gets into a lot of unwanted side effects that you don’t want. I think if you focus our energy on behavioral patterns, public surfaces, there’s enough opportunity to prevent grooming behavior and keep kids safe.

Babu Ram Aryal:
In previous conversations, Michael mentioned about the privacy, and I said before opening the floor, I said I have a separate question on privacy. Let’s discuss more on privacy. I would like to ask more on privacy. In USA, there was big debate on COPA and CHIPA, Child Online Protection Act and Child Internet Protection Act were largely debated, and those debates went to the Supreme Court and clearly discussed about the child protection is one side, and freedom of adults are different side. So how we can meet the better position, especially from talking from development country perspective like Nepal and Zambia, what kind of legislative framework could be more efficient? Because lots of countries, they don’t have a specific legislation on online child protection. There might be certain provisions on the regular Child Protection Act, but not a very clear position on child protection online issues. Michael, I’ll come to you first to respond on this. What is your experience in Zambian legal regime? How Zambian legislative framework is addressing this kind of issues?

Michael Ilishebo:
So basically, as I wrote earlier on, in 2021, there was a split in terms of amending our Electronic Communication and Transactions Act, which contained both the aspect of cybercrime, cybersecurity, electronic communications, and other legislative issues on ICT. So now, it was more like, I would say, we came up with two more legislations that we separated from the ECT Act. One of them is Cybersecurity and Cybercrimes Act. The second one was the Data Protections Act. So basically, the Data Protections Act covers matters and issues to do with privacy. But of course, privacy is a generic term. At the end of a day, a child who’s 10 years, what privacy do they need when they are under the control of a guardian or a parent? They may not know that which is good, that which is bad, because of their stage of their age and state of mind. Also, coming back to the issues of security and safety, they become vulnerable the moment issues of privacy comes in. If you ask a child to say, let me have your phone, let me see whom you’ve been communicating to, a child would say, I have the right to privacy. What do you do? It’s true, as long as you’ve deemed that child to own a phone, you’ve allowed them to have a bit of some privacy. But again, it also depends on which platform they are using. I will give an example of my kids. My kids back home, for their YouTube channel or any product from Google, I use a family account. That allows me to regulate what app they’re installing. Even if I’m not there, I will receive an email to say, this one wants to install this application. It’s me to either allow it or block it. The same happens to YouTube. So basically, I’ve taken that step because the human oversight, I will not always be there to see what they are doing, but somehow technology will help me through AI to filter and probably bring to my notice on certain things that technology feels like this is above their age. There are some games online that would appear innocent in the eyes of an adult. But as a child keeps playing those games, a lot of bad things, a lot of images that may be of sexual expectations will be introduced in the middle of the game. But when you look at it as an adult, you won’t even see anything. So these providers, like in the case of Google, has a way of knowing which application, either on Play Store or any other platform, which is appropriate for a child. So as a step to protect my kids, I’ve allowed them to use only a child, a family-friendly account where, despite me being in Japan, I’m able to know if they viewed this video, which I may deem to be inappropriate. I will either block it from here or probably talk to them that never ever visit this page. Of course, Microsoft also may come up with their own policies through their browser on blocking certain sites and probably pages or another thing that they may be doing online using their platform. But again, it comes back to the issue of human rights and privacy. To what extent are we able to control our kids? Are we able to control them based on the fact that they are using a single device in a house where this one uses in the morning, this one in the evening, or they’ve got single devices? Or alternatively, we’ve allowed them to use single devices based on the fact that we’ve installed a family-friendly account which enables you as a parent to monitor it. But of course, it’s not always the case because a child is an adventurous person. They always find ways and means to bypass every other control. They seem to know more than we do. The same also applies to crimes where a child is a victim. A child may be groomed by somebody they’re chatting with. They may be told, you place that, place this, place that. They’ll bypass all the controls that you’ve put in place. As much as you’ve put your privacy protections and probably safety laws to how they navigate their online space, there’s a third party out there who is taking control of them and making them do and visit certain things that they’re not supposed to do.

Sarim Aziz:
question. I think this comes back to the prevention aspect of it. I think the last example that Michael just mentioned, we’ve changed our default settings for youth accounts exactly that to prevent any kind of interaction. I think prevention is really a good strategy and focusing, making sure we’re having safety in there by design. This is where AI is helping. On the ongoing debate, as Michael said, I think kids are digital natives in this world. They are good at circumventing all this stuff. But if there’s safety and design into products and services that we use, and we have parental supervision tools as well on Meta’s platforms so parents are aware who they’re communicating with and things like that and what type of content are they interacting with. By default, kids don’t see any advertising on Facebook. Obviously that’s important. At the same time, any content that might be violent or graphically violent or inappropriate is not visible to them. As I said, even for adults it’s disturbing. We do mark that as disturbing for adults so they don’t have to see such content by default. It’s an ongoing discussion, I think, where the solution is safety by design and youth safety by design in products because the kids are sometimes early adopters of these things that come in and making sure that it’s keeping them safe. If we keep them safe, we actually keep everyone safe as well, not just kids.

Jutta Croll:
Yes, I have to respond to one thing that Saurabh said and that is when you say kids don’t see advertisement on Meta, it’s when they have been honest with their age. But when they have been lying on their age, they might see advertisement. We have already been talking about age verification or age assurance. I would just say that it’s key to solve the issue. As long as we don’t know the age, I would say of all users, it’s not only that we need to know whether a child is a child. We also need to know whether an adult is an adult to know that there is an inappropriate communication going on. I’m pretty sure that in the near future we will have privacy saving methodologies to make sure that we know the age of the users to better protect them. But coming back to that question that you raised and posed also to Michael, I could say it’s one sentence. Talk to each other. Parents as well as children have to talk to each other. It’s always better to negotiate what is appropriate for the child to do than to regulate. I do think that the same applies to policy and to platforms and to the regulator. Talk to each other and try to find a constructive solution between the two of them. Yuta, I don’t know whether this is proper to ask you or not. Before you mention about the upcoming legislation of European Union Parliament, can you share some of the domestic practices of European member state about online child protection? Because I wanted to ask that question before but the sequence developed differently. Sorry for that. But if you can share any member state perspective on online child protection. So do we have two more hours to talk about all the strategies that we have in Europe? Of course it’s different in the different countries. We see that, and I think that’s for several years, that countries that start right now or have started to legislate two or three or five years ago have much more focus on the digital environment and how to legislate child sexual abuse in a way that is appropriate to the digital environment. While countries that have longer-standing child protection laws that did not address the digital environment, of course they need to amend their laws, but that takes time. So the newer the legislation, the better. It is fit for purpose to address child sexual abuse in the online environment. What we did in Germany was in 2021 we got an amended Use Protection Act that refers much more to the digital environment than it did before, and that has kind of that approach that I just have been talking about before. It’s called dialogic regulation. It’s not that it poses obligations on the platform providers, but it asks for a dialogue with the platform providers to try to find the best solution. And I think that is much more future-proof than regulating, because you always can regulate only the situation that you are facing in the moment that you are doing the legislation. But we need to look forward, and again I’m referring to the platform providers. You’re in the position to know what is in the pipeline, which functionalities will be added to your service. So if you do safety by design, then as Sonja Lewitt put it just in another session, it should be a child rights-based design, then probably the regulator would not have so much work to do.

Babu Ram Aryal:
Gopal, you want to say something on this?

Ghimire Gopal Krishna:
Though before some time, just what is the right age of adult? This question is now debatable in our context, in Nepalese context. We have now the marriage age is in debate, though before some time we have our parliamentarian, I think she has gone. What is the correct age for marriage? We have a provision that when a child completed 16 years of age, we provide him or her citizenship certificate. That means a type of adult certificate. Citizenship certificate is provided in 16 years of age when he completed, she completed. And a child can be voted for their representative in Nepal when he or she completed 18 years of age. The voting right is to be provided to the person. And third one is, what is the age of marriage? The age of marriage is 20 years. And many cases now in my practicing life, many cases are laws before the court. The rape cases are laws before the court. When, what is the consented age? What is the age of consent? That is in debate. And many people are in jail nowadays. Many people are in jail when they are, if they are consenciously, they indulge themselves before the age of 18. And it is the matter of questionable. That is why it is very important. And our civil society, this matter is now in debate in civil society too. That is, it is very important for we, what is the proper, interestingly, though we have set principles, we have examples. And what is the proper age for marriage? And whether it could be, whether it could be internationally settled, the similar age or not. This is a very important question for we now. That is why I just raised this question to our fellow.

Babu Ram Aryal:
To link this issue, I’ll go to Sarim very briefly. Sarim, especially when the litigation comes and the law enforcement agency see the different age, age group, actors, content, especially like sexual relationship or any kind of other similar kind of content. As he was referring, there are some different legislation that allows relationship between people and there could be use or as an evidence. So this is the debate at different societies. So how easy to deal with this kind of odd situations for platform providers and what are the platform providers response on this kind of issues?

Sarim Aziz:
Yeah, I think these child safety issues are definitely top of mind for our trust and safety teams at Meta and I’m sure for other platforms too. And I think the NECMEC number that I shared earlier is a good sort of proof point of how we cooperate with civil society and law enforcement. Of course, there are some cases where we don’t wait for NECMEC. If it’s a child in imminent danger, we believe that we have child safety teams that look at this stuff and these cases and law enforcement teams that directly reach out to law enforcement in the country. And there’s been cases where we busted sort of these child rings as well. So I think that’s an ongoing effort. I wouldn’t say it’s easy. I think it requires a lot of, I mean, AI has helped in that effort but it still requires human intervention investigation. I think the age verification piece is interesting. As I mentioned that that’s where we are doing some tests and the AI does help because one of the solutions that they’re testing is like, where the youth has to send a video of itself for verification. So I think you can rely on IDs to a certain extent but there are other questions of data collection on that. How many, how much private citizen data are you gonna collect? And then there are other suggestions where you link into government systems but then there are other surveillance sort of concerns on that. So I don’t think there’s a silver bullet here and I don’t think any solution is going to be perfect. We are doing tests with age verification as I said on Instagram. I think we’ll wait and see what results say. There’ll be some level of verification but again, I don’t think anything will be perfect and certainly, but we do need to sort of figure out as I said that we need to figure out whether an adult is an adult and whether a child is a child and especially we have other behaviors that we need to detect of like suspicious behaviors and fake accounts and things like that as well. So that’s where AI is also helping us definitely quite a bit.

Babu Ram Aryal:
Thanks. Follow up, very brief question. You frequently mentioned we report to NECMEC, we send report to NECMEC. NECMEC is based in and are not perfect organization based in the US, right? So what could be your response if other jurisdictions wanted to collaborate with you?

Sarim Aziz:
NECMEC collaborates with law enforcement around the world. So if you are a law enforcement agency in any country, you can reach out to them. I think there’s another organization called ICMEC that they also partner with which is international and they work with law enforcement to set up their cyber tip helpline. So that gives local law enforcement access to that information.

Babu Ram Aryal:
Jutta.

Jutta Croll:
Yes, I just wanted to add something because I’m very grateful for you to bringing in the question of consent because the principle of age of consent has also come under pressure pretty much in the digital environment where the question is what has been consensual and what wasn’t. And the general comment that I have been referring to before says in article 118 that self-generated sexualized imagery that is shared in consensus between young people should not be criminalized. So I think that is a very good provision for young people also need to experience their sexual orientation to learn about each other. But when it comes to these images, AI would not be able to understand whether it was a consensual sharing of images or whether it was not in consent. So that makes it very difficult to apply such a rule like, okay, what is consensual and what is not consensual? And that’s also, as I said before, we can rely on artificial intelligence in very much aspects and I’m pretty sure it will get better and help us better to protect children but there are certain issues where artificial intelligence cannot help and we need to have human interventions. Thank you.

Babu Ram Aryal:
Thank you. Any questions from audience if you have? We have very less time for the session. If you have any question, please.

Audience:
Just for the protection of the right of the child, the companies or the social media groups should be responsible enough for the registration as well as the content and the use of AI to identify the local language so that there will not be any kind of misuse of the word or something else. Just like I would like to give my own example. It was about eight years ago, I got a friend request by putting the name of the one beautiful child. She was about, the picture was seen about 13 or 14 years old and I didn’t accept. She frequently called me at the evening and I ignored that one. And then what happened? I thought that oh, I should tell, I should note that call and then I should tell their parents that what, that your child is doing this thing. Then I asked her to give her, do you have your private number or phone number, something else? I don’t like to talk in the social media. Then what happened that she was not the child. She was some woman that she wanted to have some informal relation with me or someone else. Then I asked her why? Why did you put the name of, picture of the child and the name different thing? And then she said oh, if I put the picture of the child then I would like that one. This is the case I face by myself. Similar things may happen for others also. So that the registration systems in the social media should have some authentication mechanism. Without that there might be some similar cases that might happen to others also. So that my request to the social media agency is to be more accountable, responsible and intelligent enough that our platform is not misused. That is my suggestion as well. Thank you very much.

Babu Ram Aryal:
Thank you. Asirbad.

Audience:
Thank you, Barbara. So I’ll move a little bit to the human side while we’re talking about AI. Very briefly, okay, time is very brief. So young people have been very much experience a lot of peer pressure and in digital area social media has caused it even more. For example, the increasing level of anxiety, depression, body misconcern, disorder, eating and suicidal thought. And so when we look at the root cause of peer pressure, the need to fit in, the fear of rejection and looking at the sense of belonging, those are needed, those are the human aspects. So, and due to that they are very much vulnerable to online exploitation, right? So what is a social media company doing in terms of the human aspect as well along with the technical one? Thank you. Just a short one. My question is also for Sarim. I’m Binod Basnet from Nepal. So recently there has been some message that is circulating in the Facebook messenger that you have been infringing some child protection policies of Facebook. So if you don’t follow some instructions your account will be suspended and stuff like that. And when you go into that message there’s a photo of Meta with the Meta logo and it’s very panicking for young users and they tend to give in their contact details and their ID and the password and stuff like that. But I think in reality they are phishing sites that are seeking your passwords. So my question is what is Facebook doing in regards to those phishing hackers? What is the retaliating or what is the policy that Facebook takes against those phishing sites? Thank you.

Babu Ram Aryal:
Thanks. Though our original time is almost about to conclude but questions are coming. So Sarim, directly to you.

Sarim Aziz:
I mean the question’s all directed at me. I’m happy to continue the conversation after this discussion. But look, on all fronts. With your concluding remarks. Yeah, concluding remarks would be, I think I’m gonna go back to my introduction to say this is not just a platform that can solve all the solutions. I think we have technology that can assist. Technology still requires human expertise both from the platforms but also expertise from civil society, law enforcement and government and parents and families. So phishing is a longstanding issue. I think the smartest people in this room have been phished and it has, whether that’s from Meta or some other logo that they recognize. I think it’s a matter of like when you’re short of time and your attention span is shorter you could be phished very easily. So I think that’s an issue where we need to increase digital literacy and education and actually from a systems perspective the way you fix that is you have authentication. One time authentication so that even if someone does get phished that they’re not able to, your credentials don’t, one time authentication will prevent phishing attacks from getting access to the system. So that’s, I think systemically needs to change. So that’s a separate issue. Absolutely, I think in terms of safety we Meta cannot alone solve these issues. I think in terms of the human aspect we work with the 400 safety advisors we have but there are other organizations that we’re members of the We Protect Alliance as well and other organizations where us with along with industry we want to protect kids and I mentioned earlier on how we are using our platforms and using AI to detect and educate kids on when there’s potential grooming or potential unwanted interactions to prevent kids from interacting with adults. So those are some efforts but there’s a lot more that we can do and we’re open to ideas. The gentleman who mentioned that I think he was maybe phished or maybe there was some other attempt to connect with him. Of course, I mean, we also rely on community. I think some of the challenges we have is people don’t report. I think they think that platforms have the manpower or the ability to just know when something’s wrong. We won’t until people, civil society and users report things to us and that’s where we rely on our partners so that’s really key when these kinds of situations happen to protect yourself but also your community.

Babu Ram Aryal:
Very closing one minute, less than one minute response from Michael.

Michael Ilishebo:
So basically, we will not address any of the challenges we’ve discussed here if there’s no close collaboration between the private sector, between the governments and the public sector and also the tech companies. So in as much as we can’t put trust in AI to help us policy cyberspace, the human factor and close collaboration will be the key to addressing most of these challenges. Thank you.

Babu Ram Aryal:
Thank you, Jutta.

Jutta Croll:
Yes, thank you for giving me the opportunity for one last statement. I would like to refer to Article 3 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child that states the principle of the best interest of the child and in any decision that we may take, that policy makers may take, that platform providers may take, just consider whether this is in the best interest of the child and that means the individual child if you are talking about a case like we have heard of some of these cases but all children at large. Also, consider whether the decision that shall be taken, the development that shall be made, the technological invention that shall be made, is it in the best interest of the child and then I do think we will achieve more child protection.

Babu Ram Aryal:
Thank you. Closing.

Ghimire Gopal Krishna:
We are the part of Child Right. We already signed in the Child Right Protection Treaty so being the part of very responsible part of society, being the president of Nepal Bar Association, I am committed to always in favor of Child Right Protection Acts and its amendments, its possible subject, I mean positive amendments and so on. So I’m very thankful to Bauram to give me this opportunity.

Babu Ram Aryal:
Thank you very much. Thank you very much. We are running out of time. I’d like to thank my panelists, my team of organizers and all of you who actively participated on this and of course for the benefit of a child, dedicated to these childs. I would like to thank all of you and I close this session. We hope we’ll have a good report of this discussion and we’ll be sharing the report to all of you through our channel. Thank you very much.