Uncategorized

Mr. Lagodinsky

The European Parliament’s approach to artificial intelligence (AI) and generative AI focuses on regulation rather than a complete ban. The regulation primarily targets high-risk applications and generative AI to ensure responsible and safe use of these technologies.

One of the driving forces behind this approach is the recognition of citizens’ unease regarding AI technology. There is growing concern among the public about the potential risks and implications of AI, leading to a closer examination of the European Union’s regulation strategy. This scrutiny extends beyond European borders, with Africa also closely observing these developments.

The Parliament emphasizes the importance of striking a balance between protecting small and medium-sized enterprises and safeguarding fundamental rights and environmental standards. While there is a need to avoid overregulation that could stifle innovation and burden businesses, it is equally crucial to establish regulations that prioritize human rights and environmental sustainability.

By taking a supportive stance towards the regulation of AI, the European Parliament acknowledges the need for a careful and measured approach. It recognizes the concerns of small and medium-sized enterprises that prefer to avoid excessive regulation while understanding the value of protecting fundamental rights and environmental standards.

Overall, the European Parliament aims to establish regulations that create an environment where AI technology can thrive while ensuring its responsible use that promotes individual well-being and environmental preservation. This approach aligns with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice & Strong Institutions). It demonstrates a commitment to addressing the ethical and societal implications of AI technology and sets an example for other regions and countries grappling with similar challenges.

Nathalie

In order to address the emerging online threats and vulnerabilities affecting children, there is an urgent need for a comprehensive online risk assessment. This assessment can provide valuable insights that will inform policies and industry standards aimed at protecting children online. By understanding the specific risks and vulnerabilities that children face in the digital world, stakeholders can develop targeted measures to safeguard their well-being.

It is crucial to recognize that the online landscape is constantly evolving, with new risks emerging all the time. Therefore, a comprehensive assessment is necessary to ensure that policies and industry standards remain effective and up to date. By identifying and analyzing these risks, decision-makers can better understand the scope and severity of the challenges faced by children in cyberspace.

To successfully protect children’s rights online, it is essential for governments, companies, academia, educators, and civil society to collaborate. Each stakeholder brings unique expertise and perspectives to the table, making multi-stakeholder collaboration studies vital in reducing online risks. By working together, these different entities can share knowledge, resources, and best practices, and develop comprehensive strategies to safeguard children and promote their digital well-being.

Moreover, this collaboration is not just limited to protecting children’s rights, but also contributes to the global partnership for sustainable development. The need for a safe and secure digital environment is aligned with the Sustainable Development Goal 17.16, which aims to enhance global partnerships for sustainable development. By engaging in multi-stakeholder collaboration, stakeholders can collectively work towards creating a safer online space for children, supporting the broader goal of sustainable development.

In conclusion, a comprehensive online risk assessment is crucial for addressing the evolving online threats and vulnerabilities faced by children. It provides the necessary insights to shape effective policies and industry standards. Additionally, multi-stakeholder collaboration studies are of paramount importance in reducing online risks and protecting children’s rights. The involvement of governments, companies, academia, educators, and civil society is essential for enhancing the global partnership for sustainable development and ensuring a safer digital environment for children.

Brando

Brando emphasises the need for the involvement of young people in the design and governance of AI policies. He recognises that young people bring a unique perspective and understanding, which is essential in shaping policies that are relevant and effective. Brando is actively working on the AI Act which includes a clear reference to the importance of stakeholder involvement, including young people.

In addition to his focus on youth involvement, Brando also recognises the crucial issue of understanding and handling the tension between democracy and new technologies. He believes that this issue requires more engagement from young people, similar to the global mobilisation they have shown for climate issues. Brando commends the efforts of young people in advocating for climate action and sees a need for similar engagement in addressing the challenges posed by new technologies.

Brando’s work extends beyond mere recognition and advocacy. He is actively involved in negotiating for the inclusion of stakeholder involvement in the parliament text of the law. By doing so, he aims to ensure that the perspectives of young people and other stakeholders are considered and integrated into the decision-making process.

Overall, Brando’s stance highlights the significance of youth involvement in shaping AI policies and addressing the tension between democracy and new technologies. His recognition of the global dimension in legislative work and the need for stakeholder engagement reflects a comprehensive and inclusive approach. By actively working towards these goals, Brando aims to create policies that are democratic, equitable and responsive to the challenges of our rapidly evolving technological landscape.

Peter

The involvement and interests of the youth community have greatly enhanced the Declaration for the Future of the Internet (DFI) process. A successful half-day workshop, held on the first day of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), had youth IGF rapporteurs participating as animators and reporters. This workshop emphasised the importance of the DFI and highlighted the critical role of youth in shaping the digital future and the governance system of the DFI.

The main objective of the DFI is to integrate governments that are already part of the multi-stakeholder process into various communities. This approach aims to bridge the gap between the government and other stakeholders, including civil society, academia, the business sector, and most importantly, the youth. By involving diverse stakeholders, the DFI ensures that concerns from different communities, particularly the youth, are considered.

It is argued that the DFI provides an opportunity for governments to become more aware of concerns raised by various communities, including the youth. By actively involving governments in the multi-stakeholder process of the IGF, the DFI aims to make them more engaged and informed decision-makers. This facilitates a democratic approach to internet governance by incorporating diverse perspectives.

Furthermore, governments that believe in democratic principles and a human-centric nature of the internet are encouraged to support and sign up for the DFI. By participating in the DFI, governments can engage with like-minded countries and have meaningful interactions. Additionally, the DFI plays a significant role in the Global Digital Cooperation (GDC) process and the World Summit on the Information Society Plus 20 (WSIS+20) discussions.

In conclusion, the active involvement and interests of the youth community have positively influenced the success of the DFI process. The DFI seeks to bring governments closer to the multi-stakeholder process of the IGF and raise awareness about the concerns of different communities, including the youth. Governments that value democratic principles and a human-centric internet should actively support and participate in the DFI. By doing so, they can engage with like-minded countries and play a significant role in shaping the future of internet governance.

Regina Fuxova

Regina Fuxova, a member of EURID, recognizes the Youth Committee as an integral aspect of the company’s corporate governance. This committee serves as a platform for inspiration and the dissemination of information concerning EURID’s activities, providing members with new opportunities to enhance their future careers. The involvement of young people in the committee is testament to EURID’s commitment to youth inclusion.

EURID goes beyond youth involvement solely within the Youth Committee and extends it to activities for smaller children, such as Code Week.eu. This inclusion emphasizes the importance of involving young people in various aspects of EURID’s work. By engaging young individuals in activities such as Code Week.eu, EURID demonstrates its dedication to fostering a sense of inclusion and inspiring young minds.

EURID’s commitment to raising awareness about cybersecurity and Internet governance is demonstrated through initiatives like the ‘Safe Online’ art competition. This competition, designed for high school students, aims to start conversations about these vital issues with teachers and, indirectly, with parents. By organizing such events, EURID actively spreads awareness about the importance of cybersecurity and Internet governance, contributing to the UN’s sustainable development goals of Decent Work and Economic Growth and Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure.

Regina Fuxova further showcases her support for EURID’s youth inclusion initiatives by suggesting that the organization shares its best practices with other peers in the field. This proposal highlights her belief in the strength of EURID’s approach and suggests that other organizations could benefit from implementing similar strategies. Through sharing its best practices for youth inclusivity, EURID can inspire and guide other entities in their own efforts.

In conclusion, Regina Fuxova’s perspective on the Youth Committee as a vital component of EURID’s corporate governance, EURID’s commitment to youth inclusion through activities like Code Week.eu, its efforts to raise awareness about cybersecurity and Internet governance, and Regina’s suggestion to share best practices all reflect EURID’s dedication to youth involvement and inclusive practices. These initiatives contribute to the achievement of the sustainable development goals of Quality Education, Reduced Inequalities, Decent Work and Economic Growth, and Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure.

Collegue

The discussion centred around the Hiroshima process, which aims to enhance global cooperation among G7 countries in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI). This process complements the AI Act introduced by the European Union (EU), which seeks to ensure AI systems undergo a risk-based security analysis.

The EU places significant emphasis on developing AI that is human-centric and aligned with fundamental rights. It actively works towards legislation addressing the ethical concerns of AI, aiming to establish regulations that guarantee responsible and accountable AI use.

The EU encourages a multidisciplinary approach to AI, recognizing its complexity and the need for input from various sectors and stakeholders. Discussions have taken place on establishing a multi-stakeholder forum to foster collaboration and knowledge sharing. These initiatives demonstrate the EU’s commitment to engaging the international community and avoiding isolation in developing and regulating AI technologies.

Overall, participants supported regulating AI while promoting innovation. They advocated for a framework for AI regulation akin to the regulation of medicines, ensuring appropriate scrutiny and oversight while allowing room for advancement.

The analysis primarily focused on the positive sentiment surrounding AI regulation and innovation, indicating a widespread recognition of the need for responsible and ethical AI development. The emphasis on risk-based security analysis, human-centric AI, and the multidisciplinary approach highlights a strong desire to align with international standards and respect fundamental rights.

In conclusion, the discussion underscores the importance of global cooperation, multidisciplinary collaboration, and ethical considerations in AI regulation and innovation. The EU and participating countries are committed to creating a regulatory framework balancing innovation and safeguarding individual rights and well-being.

Yulia Mournets

The Youth Internet Governance Forum (Youth IGF) has actively contributed to shaping the future of internet policies, with a particular emphasis on involving young leaders in decision-making processes. Yulia Mournets, a key figure in the Youth IGF, stressed the importance of dialogue between the youth and the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in influencing the policies that will shape the future of the online world.

The European Parliament delegation has shown potential support for a working group focused on the IGF. This is a positive development, as it indicates that the youth’s perspective and participation in internet governance are being recognized and valued by influential stakeholders.

The Youth IGF has made significant recommendations for a digital compact, one of which is the establishment of youth advisory committees within private sector structures. This recommendation aims to ensure that young people have a voice in decision-making processes related to internet policies. Notably, the Youth Advisory Committee created by EURID serves as a successful example of implementing such recommendations.

Under the presidency of the Czech Republic, the Youth IGF actively participated in several meetings, which demonstrates their dedication and commitment to advocating for youth involvement in internet governance. This involvement extends beyond Europe, as the Youth IGF has established more than 10 safe internet committees in African countries, highlighting their global reach and impact.

The Youth IGF has also played a significant role in the child online protection initiative of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). Their contribution to this initiative underscores their commitment to ensuring a safe and secure internet environment for young people.

Furthermore, the Youth IGF’s recommendations have led to the establishment of a special category for the .EU award, which focuses on recognizing the achievements of young entrepreneurs. This acknowledgement of young entrepreneurs’ contributions aligns with the Sustainable Development Goal 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and further solidifies the Youth IGF’s influence in shaping policies that support economic opportunities for the youth.

In conclusion, the Youth IGF has actively participated in shaping internet policies, with a particular focus on involving young leaders in decision-making processes. Their efforts have been acknowledged and supported by entities such as the European Parliament delegation, and their recommendations have led to the successful implementation of initiatives such as youth advisory committees and the .EU award category for young entrepreneurs. The Youth IGF’s impact extends beyond Europe, with their involvement in meetings under the Czech Republic presidency and the establishment of safe internet committees in African countries. Ultimately, their dedication to advocating for youth participation in internet governance has made a positive contribution to the future of the internet.

Muhammad

The analysis discussed the importance of including youth in the digital governance sector and cooperation sector. It emphasized that youth are not only current stakeholders but also future leaders in digital transformation. Their active involvement in digital governance is crucial for shaping policies and strategies that will have a long-term impact on the digital world.

One noteworthy individual mentioned in the analysis is Muhammad, who serves as the Generation Connect Youth NY for the Asia-Pacific region with the International Delhi Communication Union. His interest in digital governance further underscores the importance of youth engagement in this sector. His involvement brings valuable perspectives and insights that can contribute to the development of effective digital governance mechanisms.

The argument put forth is that youth, as the ones who embrace digital transformation most passionately, should be included in the digital governance infrastructure. This inclusion is seen as essential for ensuring the continuity of digital knowledge and skills to future generations. By actively involving youth in decision-making processes, their unique experiences and perspectives can be leveraged to develop inclusive and sustainable digital policies.

Furthermore, the analysis highlighted that including youth in digital governance and cooperation aligns with several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These include SDG 4 – Quality Education, SDG 9 – Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, and SDG 17 – Partnerships for the Goals. Involving youth in digital governance not only supports their educational development but also promotes innovation and fosters collaborations that drive positive change.

The sentiment towards the importance of including youth in digital governance is consistently positive throughout the analysis. It is clear that all speakers recognize the value of youth contribution in the digital governance sector and believe in their potential as agents of change. By creating an inclusive and youth-centered digital governance ecosystem, societies can harness the immense talent and creativity of young individuals to shape a future that is technologically advanced and socially equitable.

In conclusion, the analysis and observations made strongly advocate for the inclusion of youth in the digital governance and cooperation sector. Youth are not just passive consumers of digital technologies but active participants and drivers of digital transformation. Their perspectives and insights are vital for creating sustainable and inclusive digital policies that benefit present and future generations. By involving youth in decision-making processes and fostering collaborations, we can harness their potential to shape a technologically advanced and socially equitable digital future.

Herman Lopez

Herman Lopez, a member of the standing group of the Internet Society, has expressed concern regarding Latin America’s limited participation in global Artificial Intelligence (AI) discussions. Lopez highlights the absence of Latin America in AI talks, while noting the active engagement of India and Africa. He advocates for the inclusion of Latin America, emphasising the importance of reducing inequalities and promoting representation.

Lopez’s concern arises from the fact that Latin America has seemingly been excluded from AI discussions, despite the potential contributions the region could make and the need for diverse perspectives in shaping AI policies and implementation. He argues that this exclusion prevents Latin America from influencing the development of AI systems that address its specific needs and challenges.

By highlighting the active involvement of India and Africa in shaping global AI discussions, Lopez provides evidence of other regions’ participation. This highlights the importance of Latin America having a voice in these discussions, to ensure its interests and perspectives are considered in the development of AI technologies.

Lopez’s call for the inclusion of Latin America in global AI discussions is driven by the goal of reducing inequalities. He believes that AI has the potential to exacerbate existing inequalities if it is driven solely by the interests of powerful countries or regions. By including Latin America, with its unique socio-economic context and challenges, in these discussions, Lopez argues for a more inclusive and equitable approach to AI.

Furthermore, Lopez emphasizes the importance of representation in AI discussions. By including Latin America, a region with diverse cultural, social, economic, and political contexts, decision-making processes around AI can be enriched. This diverse representation can lead to a comprehensive understanding of the implications of AI on different communities and ensure that the development and deployment of AI technologies are fair and inclusive.

In conclusion, Herman Lopez expresses concern regarding Latin America’s limited involvement in global AI discussions, while noting the active participation of India and Africa. He advocates for the inclusion of Latin America, highlighting the need to reduce inequalities and promote representation. By giving Latin America a voice in shaping AI policies and technologies, Lopez believes that a more inclusive and equitable approach to AI can be achieved, mitigating the potential adverse effects of unchecked AI development.

Irena Joveva

The speakers in the European Parliament discussed several important topics related to youth and digital literacy. Irena Joveva, the youngest elected delegate from Slovenia, emphasised the need for greater inclusion of the younger generation in the European Parliament, expressing appreciation for their involvement. This aligns with SDG 16, which aims to promote peace, justice, and strong institutions.

One speaker highlighted the importance of media freedom and the fight against disinformation. They mentioned their role in the recently adopted Media Freedom Act and the initiation of inter-institutional negotiations, taking a positive step towards protecting media freedom and democratic principles. This promotes transparency, accountability, and informed decision-making, all crucial for SDG 16.

The undervaluation of digital literacy, especially among young people exposed to the digital world, was also discussed. The speakers emphasized the need to give digital literacy the recognition it deserves, as it plays a significant role in achieving SDG 4, which focuses on quality education.

Furthermore, the speakers called for increased efforts from schools and politicians in promoting digital literacy. This raises questions about the responsibility of educational institutions and policymakers in ensuring that young people have the necessary digital skills. This argument aligns with SDG 10’s goal of reducing inequalities, promoting digital inclusivity, and bridging the digital divide.

In summary, the analysis highlights the importance of youth involvement in the European Parliament, the need to protect media freedom and combat disinformation, and the undervaluation of digital literacy. It also prompts further exploration of the responsibilities of schools and politicians in promoting digital literacy. By addressing these issues, policymakers and stakeholders can work towards building a more inclusive and digitally empowered society.

Ananya

Three key arguments related to youth participation in digital technologies were presented. Firstly, it was emphasised that young people should be involved as stakeholders in any process related to digital technologies. This was supported by the fact that Ananya is a youth advisor to the USAID Digital Youth Council and is actively involved in the design and implementation of the Digital Strategy. The significance of this argument is underscored by the statement that digital technologies influence young people’s aspirations, ideas, and lives right from birth. By involving young people as stakeholders, their unique perspectives and insights can be incorporated into the decision-making processes, ensuring that the digital technologies being developed and implemented meet the needs and aspirations of the youth.

The second argument put forward was that young people from diverse backgrounds must be provided with a platform to share their inputs on policies that influence their lives. This argument was justified by Ananya’s suggestion to host consultations, youth summits, site events, networking sessions, conferences, exhibitions, and educational programmes. This inclusive approach recognises the importance of enabling participation from all segments of society and the value of diverse perspectives. Ananya further emphasised the significance of local, national, and international level fora to make the policy-making process more accessible, inclusive, and globally relevant. By actively involving young people from diverse backgrounds, policies can be better informed, resulting in reduced inequalities and stronger institutions.

Finally, it was highlighted that leveraging digital platforms and social media can be effective in engaging young people. Ananya emphasised the creation of interactive online spaces and the use of social media campaigns, hashtags, and online events like webinars to raise awareness and mobilise support from and with the youth. This approach recognises the increasing influence of digital platforms on young people’s lives and the ease with which they can connect and engage on these platforms. Utilising digital platforms and social media provides a powerful tool to reach and involve young people in discussions and decision-making processes related to digital technologies.

In conclusion, the arguments presented highlight the importance of involving young people as stakeholders in the development and implementation of digital technologies, providing a platform for their inputs on policies, and leveraging digital platforms and social media for effective engagement. By adopting these approaches, there is potential to create a more inclusive and impactful digital ecosystem that meets the needs and aspirations of young people from diverse backgrounds. It is vital to recognise the value of youth participation and ensure their voices are heard and incorporated into decision-making processes to build a digital future that is equitable and relevant for all.

Levi

The analysis of the provided information highlights several significant points raised by the speakers. Firstly, there are concerns about the impact of AI, misinformation, and disinformation, especially when perpetrated by certain government officials. This raises questions about the reliability and potential consequences of information in today’s digital age. The speakers have a negative sentiment towards this issue and stress the need for vigilance and measures to combat the spread of false information.

Secondly, the role of youths in internet governance and decision-making is emphasized. As three-quarters of internet usage is by the youth, their involvement becomes crucial in shaping policies and decisions related to the internet. The speakers acknowledge the innovative ideas and perspectives young individuals bring to the table. This underscores the importance of including young voices in discussions surrounding internet laws and regulations. The sentiment towards this point is positive, indicating the recognition of the valuable contributions young people can make.

Furthermore, the analysis reveals a questioning sentiment towards the European Union’s efforts to ensure the sustainability of youth engagement in policy and governance, particularly in the realm of technology and the internet. Levi, one of the speakers, raises doubts about the deliberate actions taken by the European Union to promote youth participation and inclusion. This observation highlights the need for further examination of the European Union’s initiatives and their effectiveness in bridging gaps and fostering sustainable youth engagement.

Lastly, the analysis reiterates the importance of equality and inclusion of youths in decision-making processes to pave the way for a sustainable future. There is a need for deliberate engagement of young individuals to create a sustainable future. This sentiment aligns with the principles of SDG 8 (Decent work and economic growth) and SDG 10 (Reduced inequalities), emphasizing the necessity of empowering and involving young people in shaping policies that directly affect them.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights concerns surrounding AI and misinformation, the significance of youth involvement in internet governance, questioning of the European Union’s efforts in promoting youth engagement, and the necessity of equality and inclusion in decision-making processes. These insights shed light on the complex landscape of internet governance, youth empowerment, and policy-making, prompting further examination and consideration of these issues.

João Pedro

João Pedro, a member of the youth advisory committee, is a strong advocate for the inclusion of youth voices in both private and public institutions. He believes that involving young people in decision-making processes has positive outcomes for all parties involved. João Pedro has found the collaboration between the youth and businesses, such as EURID, to be mutually beneficial.

One area where João Pedro sees potential for improvement is in evaluating strategies such as promoting the .eu domain in different regions of Europe. He suggests that EURID, the organization responsible for managing the .eu domain name, should assess the effectiveness of these strategies within their own structure. This comprehensive approach would provide a deeper understanding of how the .eu domain can be utilized across Europe.

The youth committee, including João Pedro, has been actively contributing valuable insights and feedback to EURID’s activities within the Internet governance ecosystem. Their advisory role positions them to provide guidance and recommendations to EURID, enhancing its decision-making processes.

Overall, João Pedro’s experiences highlight the importance of involving young people in decision-making within institutions. By incorporating youth voices, institutions like EURID can benefit from fresh perspectives, innovative ideas, and a better understanding of the needs and preferences of younger stakeholders.

This case study also emphasizes the significance of youth participation in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities and SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions. By including young people in decision-making, we can work towards a more equitable and just society.

Christian-Sylvie Bouchoy

The European Parliament, led by Christian-Sylvie Bouchoy, is actively involved in internet governance forums and is committed to supporting the activities of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Bouchoy, a member of the European People’s Party and President of the Industry Research and Energy Committee, introduced the members of the European Parliament Delegation to the IGF.

The European Parliament is strongly committed to supporting IGF activities. They have participated in most of the IGF forums and have initiated a letter to President Roberta Metzola to form a permanent working group on IGF in the European Parliament. Additionally, members of the European Parliament are involved in different legislative dossiers on various areas related to internet governance.

In the digital area, the European Parliament is actively developing legislation. They have already adopted legislation on data governance, Digital Markets Act, Digital Services Act, Cyber Security, and the Artificial Intelligence Act. The Parliament is currently engaged in inter-institutional negotiations with the Council and the European Commission to finalize the legislation. These efforts demonstrate the Parliament’s commitment to addressing the challenges presented by AI and ensuring responsible use of technology.

The European Parliament strongly believes that artificial intelligence should not be used for mass surveillance. They are working on a position on artificial intelligence and are particularly concerned about the ethical issues surrounding biometric AI usage. The Parliament advocates for responsible and regulated use of AI.

Youth involvement and consultation in decision-making processes are encouraged by the European Parliament. They recognize the need for stronger and clearer involvement of young people in decisions related to digital legislation and future artificial intelligence. Some young people who are members of the European Parliament are actively connected to the youth and support their participation.

The European Parliament acknowledges the importance of dialogue and cooperation in internet governance. They have strong ties with Latin America and Africa and believe in working closely with them on issues related to internet governance and digital artificial intelligence. They have also suggested the possibility of establishing a similar network in Latin America.

Youth participation, particularly through the European Youth IGF and the public consultation phase, is deemed critical in shaping legislation on internet governance. The European Parliament commends the consultation process with Director O’Donohue and encourages the youth to take part in it.

In conclusion, the European Parliament, under the leadership of Christian-Sylvie Bouchoy, is actively engaged in internet governance and is dedicated to supporting IGF activities. They are actively developing legislation in the digital area and are advocating for the responsible use of artificial intelligence. Youth involvement and consultation are encouraged, and strong partnerships are being established with Latin America and Africa. The Parliament believes in the importance of constructive dialogue and recognizes the vital role young people play in shaping the future of internet governance.

Stefanets

Stefanets actively advocates for the organization of special events at the European Parliament to promote cooperation and involve young people. These events provide a platform for individuals to exchange ideas and establish regular cooperation. By drawing inspiration from the perspectives of the younger generation, senior members of the Parliament can benefit from their insights.

One significant event Stefanets supports is the Youth Forum, where young individuals present their ideas and contribute to discussions on important issues. Stefanets actively participates in the Forum, fostering an inclusive environment that values and encourages young voices. They recognize that many innovative concepts originate from the Youth Forum, highlighting the importance of engaging with young people and leveraging their fresh perspectives.

In addition to youth involvement, Stefanets prioritizes quality education and supports SDG 4. By fostering idea development, Stefanets empowers young individuals to contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals.

Stefanets also focuses on the digital decade, addressing issues such as addictive design and online child protection. They actively engage with children to understand the dangers they face in the digital world, allowing them to shape policies that safeguard their well-being.

The arguments presented by Stefanets reflect a positive sentiment towards promoting youth involvement, idea development, and prioritizing the well-being of children in the digital realm. By encouraging cooperation and engaging with young people, they aim to create a more inclusive and progressive future.

Overall, Stefanets’ commitment to organizing special events, supporting the Youth Forum, and addressing digital challenges showcases their dedication to cooperation, empowering youth, and safeguarding children’s well-being. Their actions align with SDG 16 and SDG 17, focusing on peace, justice, strong institutions, and partnerships for the goals.

Nadia Chekhia

During a discussion on youth participation in internet governance, two speakers shared their perspectives. The first speaker, who is responsible for coordinating the youth activities of the European Regional IGF, expressed doubts about how meaningful participation should be defined. They emphasized the need to reflect on this matter and to gain a better understanding of what meaningful participation truly entails. The sentiment of their argument was neutral.

On the other hand, the second speaker strongly advocated for integrating more young people from across Europe into the system of internet governance. They believed that it was crucial to provide youth with leadership positions to enhance their involvement. This approach aligned with the positive sentiment of the second speaker’s argument.

Both speakers highlighted their commitment to comprehending the concept of meaningful participation. They emphasized the importance of exploring this notion in depth and working towards implementing it.

The first speaker’s argument raised questions regarding the definition of meaningful participation, indicating a potentially critical analysis of the current understanding of the concept. The second speaker, on the other hand, firmly believed in the necessity of promoting youth involvement in internet governance and assigning them leadership roles.

This discussion on youth participation in internet governance sheds light on the varying perspectives within the field. It portrays the complexities involved in defining and implementing meaningful participation and highlights the importance of involving young people in decision-making processes. Such efforts can contribute to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, including SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

Yulia Mournets:
All right, so good afternoon and probably good morning from the very early Europe. I will be, as I said, moderating this session online together with you. We do have our colleagues on side, namely Levy, in case if something happens, he will be able to help and to jump on that moderation. So I’m Yulia Mournets. I’m the founder of the Youth IGF, and it’s an absolute pleasure and a privilege to have this open forum together with the EU delegation to the IGF and the members of the European Parliament. I would like to welcome them. We do have other speakers present in the room as well. So I would like to say hello to Christian-Sylvie Bouchoy. You are the head of the European Parliament delegation to the IGF. Mr. Bouchoy, maybe you can introduce the members of the Parliament present in the room and with you, so we can see and we can know who is present and who we can address. We also have with us a few young people and leaders from the Youth IGF, together with the representatives from the EU present on stage. And I believe we do have also the European Commission present in the room. Mr. Piers O’Donnor, I don’t know if Piers O’Donnor could also join the stage so we can have this conversation. Mr. Christian-Sylvie Bouchoy, please, maybe you can introduce the delegation.

Christian-Sylvie Bouchoy:
Good morning for Europe. Good afternoon in Kyoto. We are very honoured to be here today in a, I would hope, very interesting discussion with the Youth IGF. We had also last evening a bilateral discussion with a few of the young people very much involved in IGF activities and we understood a little bit better some particularities in some parts of the world. But for the moment I would like just to introduce the colleagues. So I’m Christian Bouchoy, I’m a member of the European People’s Party, President of the Industry Research and Energy Committee coming from Romania. I have also from the EPP Party also and coming from Slovakia, Mr. Stefanets. Thank you very much. I have from Renew, coming from Denmark, together with us today, Mr. Lokegard. Also from Renew Party, coming from Slovenia, Mrs. Irena Eleva. From the left, coming from Cyprus, Mr. Niazi Kizilure. And coming from France, a member of the ID group, Madame Marie Doshi. Madame Kumpula Natri, member of the Socialist Delegation, will be here in five minutes maximum. Maybe I will not have the chance to introduce her then, but I’m sure that for our colleagues, because they are involved in different legislative dossiers on different areas, if there will be some specific questions, please allow me to invite at some point each of my colleagues to intervene to give brief answers or brief comments to the issues that we are supposed to discuss. I will finish by saying that the European Parliament is strongly committed to support IGF activities. We participated in most of the IGF forums. For me, it’s the second time, but for Mrs. Kumpula Natri, for instance, it’s the sixth time. And there are colleagues also that are veterans in participating on behalf of European Parliament to IGF forum. Also, together with some other chairs of different committees involved, I initiated a letter to President Roberta Metzola to have a permanent working group on IGF in European Parliament, with colleagues not necessarily part of different delegations, but to have a permanent working group on IGF. We are very committed to the multistakeholder approach. We would like to understand better the realities and particularities of some parts of the world. Apart to have the best legislation, as you know, European Parliament already adopted legislation on data governance, on Digital Markets Act, on Digital Services Act. Also, cyber security, we have strong cyber security legislation, not also institutions, but also critical infrastructures. And now, European Parliament in June adopted its position on Artificial Intelligence Act. I know that is a lot of interest for many participants to IGF, and it was also mentioned in some speeches, the European model on looking on the risk assessment. And now we are in the inter-institutional negotiations with the Council, with the Member States, and the participation of European Commission, and I see here a Director in European Commission and his team, to upgrade, to improve, and to have the final legislation on Artificial Intelligence. And of course, we are looking forward to develop other legislation on digital area and Internet, and this is something that could be discussed in the coming moments. Thank you once again for having us here.

Yulia Mournets:
Thank you so much, Christiane Sylvieux-Bouchoy, for this introduction, for the introduction on the European Parliament delegation priorities for this IGF, but also for the information about this working group on the IGF. And we do hope, actually, that this working group that potentially could be approved by the President Metzola can have a channel also of communication with the youth IGF and with the young leaders. And by saying that, I would say that you practically made the introduction to the subject of our discussion today, because what we would like really to discuss in a very tangible manner, it’s a kind of framework, why not this group might become that framework, or part of that framework, on the sustainable participation of the young leaders in the discussion and in Internet governance. So we would like to propose you this very short open forum to be structured in the following way, to have three parts of it. So to discuss practically the recommendations the youth IGF and the young leaders made to digital compact, but also which is based on tangible examples. Namely, we would like to discuss the examples on how actually one of the recommendations was able to be already implemented. This second part, we would like to discuss about the declaration for the future of the Internet and the participation of the young people in this process. And the third one, it’s the Hiroshima process, and also what will be the say of the young people in it. So by saying that, the youth IGF made these six recommendations to digital compact, and one of the recommendations that was part of that, and we discussed the previous years, and I believe your colleagues from the European Parliament were present with us. Kumpula Natri was the chair last year and present, and where we discussed this recommendation. So one of the recommendations was to establish a kind of youth advisory committees within the private sector structures. So to advise and really work together, advise on the young leaders and the youth views on different policies within the corporate structures. So by saying that, the same year, the EURID, which is operating the .EU, together with us, took this opportunity and we established together with the .EU, the youth IGF and EURID, the youth advisory committee. And that’s quite unique, I think. We do know about another example, which is in the Russian Federation, and another example probably is in Australia. So that’s quite unique, and I would like to call very quickly on João. João is present in the room, I believe, or even on stage, I see him. So he was a member of this first youth advisory committee. He’s still a member of this youth advisory committee to the .EU, to EURID. And I would like, João, to ask you a very straightforward question. And please be short, because we have a very limited time today with the subject we would like to discuss. So could you share with us your experience in terms of what you were able to bring to EURID and what actually EURID brought to you? Very shortly, João, please.

João Pedro:
So good afternoon, everyone. I’m João Pedro, I’m coming from Portugal. Hi, Julia, online. So I hope things are not too early there. About EURID and about the youth committee. I think it’s actually, as you mentioned a little bit, so the idea of having diversity is always good, and including the voice of the youth and including it even within private and other institutions, it’s important. But I think it’s relevant to think about how can this be a value proposition for both sides. It’s been the challenge of many other projects I’ve participated, but I think it’s something that works at the youth committee for EURID. So the idea, and so far, we’ve been able to pitch and present opportunities of Internet governance to EURID. So the idea from the beginning was to advise and provide feedback on the Internet governance ecosystem to EURID. I think there’s a lot of things that we could continue and start doing. Moving forward, maybe taking a look at policy from within the EURID structure, evaluating, for instance, strategies in terms of the dissemination of the .eum in the different regions of Europe. Contributing to the activities of EURID that are not really part also from a business perspective. It’s been in the end where we’ve been providing more value, I would say.

Yulia Mournets:
Thank you, João, and thank you for being actually indeed short. Thank you for this statement. We will ask the members of the European Parliament to comment on that initiative, what they think, how it can be implemented in general. But I would like to turn to Regina Fuxova. Regina, you do work with the .eurid. You arrived at, probably when you arrived to .eurid, but maybe I’m mistaken, when the Youth Advisory Committee was already established. So I wanted to ask you, what is the impact for EURID, for .eu, of this Youth Committee, and how can we make this idea of establishing Youth Committees, and particularly the Youth Committee within EURID, working in a sustainable manner?

Regina Fuxova:
Thank you very much. Yes, I will try my best. Thank you very much, Julia. My name is Regina Filipová Fuxová, and I work for the .eu registry. Actually, my inventory number in the company is quite low. I arrived already in 2007, so well before the Committee was established. But due to some changes in our company, I ended up as an Industrial Relations Manager last year. And happily, in my portfolio, I also got this honor to be the liaison for the Youth Committee. We have now a year of change. We are now in the process of onboarding new members, and we will be present, among others, also at the .eu Day, which takes place on the 16th of November in Brussels. So those of you who are going to participate, and we would really be pleased to see you there, you will have also the opportunity to speak not only to long-year members, but also to new members, and they can share their impression. The Youth Committee is a very, let’s say, well-established part of our corporate governance. We are trying to include the youth and young people not only in this committee, where the aim is to inspire each other and spread the word about the activities for us to get a fresh view for the members, hopefully, to get new impulses for their future careers in and beyond the Internet governance field. But we also offer activities for smaller children at basic school within another activity of the European Commission, the Code Week.eu, which is happening now in October. And we make always use of our presence in different member states. We have four offices, so we are reaching to local communities, at least in those countries. And then for high school students, we have an art competition called Safe Online. Those of you who visited our booth could see the very nice artworks. I just brought an example of one of them, taking into account, or not only taking into account, they were created by teenagers 15 to 20 years old, and you would not get better results from professional designers. We were really amazed. And we use this as an opportunity to start discussion at the school with the teachers, but also indirectly with the parents about cybersecurity, Internet governance, what does it mean for them. We offer an introductory presentation to start this discussion. So from our perspective, it’s very enriching also for our further development, and even though it’s not directly connected to generating, let’s say, some growth or hard numbers, the spreading of awareness is an important part. And we try, because we are a member of a technical community, so it’s not very typical, and we spread these best practices among others on a central level with other peers and try to inspire them to go this way as well. Thank you.

Yulia Mournets:
Thank you, Regina. Thank you for sharing the experience and updating on the activities of the Youth Committee. And for a number of people, I can imagine, present in the room and online, also just bringing the information that that exists. I do like to call on the members of the European Parliament, Mr. Bushoi, or someone else from the delegation who would like to actually comment very shortly on what you just heard, on the experience, and also to maybe raise a question on how can this be implemented at the largest scale, but also why not globally. That’s a great example, great example coming from Europe, from the EU. So what is your opinion on that, Mr. Bushoi, or someone else from the delegation?

Christian-Sylvie Bouchoy:
Maybe the youngest member of the delegation, of the European Parliament delegation, Mrs. Irena Joveva, as I said, from Renew Group from Slovenia. And I would also like to welcome, he joined immediately after I made the presentation, Mr. Sergei Lagodinsky from the Greens from Germany. Mrs. Joveva, please.

Irena Joveva:
Thank you very much. It’s okay if I stand here? Or do I? Okay. So hi, once again. I’m actually also the youngest one who was elected in Slovenia, which is a little bit sad because it took such a long time. And I was 30, you know, I wasn’t even that young. So I’m really very, very happy every time I have a chance to speak with younger generations. And I’m also very happy that the European Parliament as such is getting younger, if I may say so, because it’s always a nice mix to have experienced members, but also, of course, the younger ones have to be involved and included. So I really appreciate everything that you told and the examples and experiences. It’s very nice to hear that. I think that the younger ones could be more included regarding the European institutions or their work as such. I try to include them as much as I can, you know, regarding my work or the fields that I cover, if I may say so. I also, I mean, this is my first IGF, so I have no idea how it, I have nothing to compare it with the previous ones, but it’s really nice to have also the young IGF, you know, emphasizing or being part of it like so, so concretely. I have maybe, I mean, my main, I was a journalist before, before I came into politics. So my main topics are actually the last few weeks or even months, the Media Freedom Act that we prepared. We actually adopted the European Parliament stance. I think it was on this last October plenary session. Yeah. Okay. Did long days in the timeframe and everything. Yeah. So we are also starting with the inter-institutional negotiations here. So it’s also, you know, connected with the internet, obviously, especially the disinformation and misinformation that we are all, you know, dealing with more or less. So maybe here a question or a comment from you guys would be helpful, because of course the younger generation is the most exposed since being the most also on the internet or the digital world is the most, is the, I mean, the physical and the digital are the same more or less now, I think in these times. So I feel that the digital literacy as such is underestimated. I’m not feeling that we are all aware how important this is. So maybe I would have a question here. How do you think or how do you feel about it? Do you think that the schools should do more or the politicians? should do more. I mean we try to do as much as we can but of course at the end of the day we have limited, I mean we are limited with the member states or whatever. So this is my question and if you have any questions regarding the media freedom or disinformation or something I will be happy to answer. Thank you. Thank you. If you allow also a short intervention from

Christian-Sylvie Bouchoy:
Mr. Stefanets, EPP Slovakia, one of the senior members of the delegation but very close to the youth movement. Thank you, Chair. Great to be with you today.

Stefanets:
Also senior people have to take inspiration from young ones definitely and digital future is about young people so it’s great to be with you. But if the question is how to make our contacts more regularly, how to establish our cooperation, I think it’s possible to organize even special events on different topics at the European Parliament so we are welcome. So that’s the part of the answer, number one. Number two, we have already regular meetings which are organized also by our European People’s Party. It’s so-called youth forum. It is in September. It’s one week where young people can come to the European Parliament, they can present their respective ideas and there is most ideas about digital future, I can assure you. So there is a lot of inspiration talking about new legislation so we can get also more inspiration from you. So you are welcome to participate at youth forum, you are welcome to come with new ideas which we can develop at special events and also the answer number three is we can organize also special event between us and between youth IGF. So that’s possible also to do it relatively soon in two, three months in the European Parliament. In terms of contents, particularly I’m working on the digital decade development, I’m working also on the addictive design right now and also on online children protection. So if you are also working with children maybe we can get more inputs also how they see, what is dangerous from their perspective and all the inputs also are welcome. So looking forward to participate with you and to cooperate with you. Thank you very much. Back to the

Christian-Sylvie Bouchoy:
moderator, I think maybe someone would like to intervene from the youth

Yulia Mournets:
participants. Thank you, Mr. Mbesho. We will maybe just follow and we will give the opportunity to the young people to intervene in a couple of minutes. I would like just to thank you, thank the interventions from the members of the European Parliament and indeed the youth IGF. We do work with children and on the question of child protection because we were one of the organizers and founders of the child online protection initiative of the ITU. And as well, the youth IGF established more than 10 actually safe internet committees outside of Europe. So mainly in African countries working with our African friends. And so that’s the information we’d like to share with you. And indeed, will be very interesting to organize this topic based debates. But I would like just to be back to the EURATE example and to follow what Regina Fuxova mentioned, the .EU days and actually what we established as well together with the .EU. It’s a special category of the .EU award, which is going for and it’s focused on young entrepreneurs. And that’s also a second achievement, I would say, in a very tangible manner that came from one of the recommendations of the youth IGF to the digital compact. But let’s go to the second topic, which is the declaration of for the future of the Internet. And as you know, as you might know, the youth IGF also actively participated in a number of meetings, namely in the Czech Republic under the presidency of the Czech Republic. And I would like to turn to Peter Sedona from the European Commission. And Peter Sedona is the director of the Future Networks Directorate at the European Commission. Peter, what is your opinion about the what are the priorities, first of all, of the European Commission on the day five? But also what actually what is your opinion in terms of the impact that the young people brought to the day five during these, you know, different meetings where we took part and participated on site with the European Commission and, by the way, invited by your colleagues? Thank you. Is this on? Thank you. Good afternoon.

Peter:
Hello, Julia. Thank you very much. Thanks for this opportunity. Indeed, on day zero of IGF, we had a very successful half-day long workshop on the Declaration for the Future of the Internet, and successful from several points of view, partly because we had a number of countries that had not previously been closely associated with the process who were present for the plenary session, but also for a breakout session among governments, and who then brought that back into another session at the end, where it was clear that there was strong support for the principles. There are five principles in the DFI, but that process was also aided by the fact that we had rapporteurs from the youth IGF, who acted as animators and reporters back to the plenary session, who showed the involvement of youth, but also the interest of the youth community in what is being done in the DFI. If I could, without going into too much detail, if I could summarize it as follows, is that while it is a track which is led by governments who sign the Declaration for the Future of the Internet, the purpose is to pull them more closely into the multi-stakeholder process of which they are already a part, and specifically into the process of the IGF, where we see all of the other communities already working hard, in order for them to be made aware of the concerns and to be guided by civil society, academia, but of course the other members, including of course the business segment, so that when they come as member states of the United Nations to negotiate the GDC, they will be fully aware of that input. And the input from the youth IGF is actually very much what has been said by the members of Parliament here, is that we’re talking about digital future, so we are talking about what is of most concern to the young people today, and where we, and I speak as one of the greyheads in the room, we have an obligation to ensure that we make a governance system that works and that answers, responds to their concerns, to your interests, because you’re here in the room and online, and we want that process to continue, so that when we talk about human rights, for example, or when we talk about more process-oriented things such as internet governance itself, that you are fully aware of what’s going on, and using the network which youth IGF represents, you can actually inform your members as to why it is important that they are, at national level, talking to your governments to convince them that they should sign up to the Declaration for the Future of the Internet. If they are to state that they believe in democratic principles, if they believe in maintaining human rights and the human-centric nature of the internet, then clearly this is a forum which will allow them to speak with like-minded countries, but also to influence the outcome of the GDC process and the WSIS plus 20. I’ll stop there, thank you very much.

Yulia Mournets:
Thank you, thanks. Thank you, Per Seudonor, for giving us your opinion, the opinion of the European Commission and the EFI, and a note taken on how we can help and assist more with the EFI and the implementation of the EFI as the youth IGF. I would like now to turn to Nathalie, we have Nathalie Terkova, I think, apologies for mispronouncing your name, from the Czech Republic, and I would like to ask you, you know, in the EFI we can find the recommendation on the collaborative research, you’re a young researcher from in the Czech Republic, so what kind of opportunities you would like to see for you within this EFI as a young researcher? Very shortly, Nathalie, please.

Nathalie:
All right, thank you so much for the question. It’s actually surprising that I’m also a PhD student focusing specifically on digital literacy and digital skills of children and adolescents, so it would be a pleasure to also have more conversations later on, but to keep it short and to answer the question, I would like to maybe highlight a few research opportunities that I personally believe would be very much needed. Firstly, it would be the need for comprehensive online risk assessment, because we, I believe, we must delve into the emerging online threats and vulnerabilities affecting children to inform policies and industry standards to really help protect their child rights online. And secondly, as we are just highlighting this a lot, the multi-stakeholder approach, and those like collaboration studies, I would say are vital, because governments, the companies, academia, and educators as well, and civil society, they must work together effectively to reduce online risks for children. And research can really help us to assess the impact of these collaborations. Thank you.

Yulia Mournets:
Thank you, Natalie, and thank you for being so short in it. That’s appreciated, so that allows us to have a discussion afterwards. I would like now to go to our third point. But before, I would like to quote the Member of the European Parliament, Brandon Bénéfé. I don’t know if Brandon Bénéfé is with us in the room. If not, we would like to quote him from yesterday, actually, and he said on stage, if you do not engage, they do not care. And it is also the duty of institutions and society to give them instruments to be involved. But if they refuse to do, then others will do in their place. And I think that’s actually a good summary of what we are trying to reach and discuss here today. Really, what are the instruments that the European Parliament is that the young people can have in order to be fully involved and bring you the tangible examples? And I would like to go with that to the third point of the Hiroshima process that has been discussed a lot during this IGF 2023 in Kyoto, we’re following online, and Levi, present from the Youth IGF from our team, was following on site as well. So I would like to ask the members of the European Parliament, you know, the vision of the year, well, to ask the question on the vision of the European Parliament on the Hiroshima process on the generative AI, but also how do we how do you see the role of the young people globally to be involved in this Hiroshima process and its potential implementation? I don’t know, Mr. Boucher, who would like to maybe yourself or other members of the delegation would like to… Yes, I will just say two sentences and

Christian-Sylvie Bouchoy:
then I will invite two colleagues very knowledgeable on this, Mr. Lagodinsky, who’s a shadow and he will be involved also in the negotiations, and Mia Petra Kumpula-Natris, who was vice chair of a standing committee on artificial intelligence, so I will kindly ask them to briefly comment and explain a little bit European Parliament vision. As I said in the introductory remarks, I’m very happy to see interest, a lot of interest about European initiative on artificial intelligence, the risk-based assessment, but also what European Parliament issued as position. The most important is the fact that we will not accept that artificial intelligence should be used in mass surveillance. We have issues about biometric, using biometric artificial intelligence usage, and in the same time, of course, not banning generative AI, trying to regulate. Of course, we looked mainly to the safety, to the ethical aspects. ITRE committee, the committee that I’m chairing, also gave an input related also to the business case, to the growth that artificial intelligence could bring to economies, to companies, to individuals, also some benefits, but in the same time, we’re looking to the challenges and how it can tackle these challenges, and if I’m not mistaken, we are the first continent regulating in a way, or starting to regulate, because I’m sure that this will evolve a lot in the coming years, the artificial intelligence processes, and I know that there are other approaches. Yesterday, we met the US delegation to the IGF. We understand a little bit better the vision in the United States. With the members of the African Parliament, we understood a little bit how they look and how they could be inspired by what the European Union is doing. You mentioned the Hiroshima process in Japan, and even the Prime Minister of Japan mentioned the interest and the concern, and also the vision of the great nation of Japan related to this. So clearly, participation in IGF also inspired us a little bit more on how we can address artificial intelligence legislation. But two short interventions from colleagues. I start with Mr. Lagodinsky. You have a microphone here, and then I kindly invite

Mr. Lagodinsky:
for a short intervention, Miapetra. Thank you. It’s great to be here, and a great question. We are now, as you know, in the middle of a trilogue, which is a negotiation between European Parliament, European Commission, and the Council, so the member states. The position of the Parliament is clear. We do not want to ban artificial intelligence, as some were misled to think. We do not want to ban foundation models or generative AI, whatever term you want to use. We would like to regulate them, and most of AI is not regulated at all. We have a high-risk approach where the regulation only is on special high-risk applications and on generative AI. We can discuss about how this regulation takes place. We, of course, understand that we will not advance if there is no international cooperation, and from that perspective, Hiroshima process is a great step forward. However, for many of us, the concern is that by using Hiroshima process to place our dialogue with providers and with developers, solely on the basis of code of conduct, we will distract us from the real regulation of this technology, and this is something that citizens expect. There is a lot of unease, and you know the letters about banning AI or putting moratorium on AI. We do not want to go that far, but we want to give people and to give our partners in Africa, for example, who are watching very closely what we’re doing, to give them orientation that would be in the realm of regulation, not over-regulating, leaving room for innovation, but also innovating in laws, and this innovative approach is something that the Parliament presented. As I said, and we can discuss this if you’re interested, we are in the process of meeting together and kind of balancing out our view with the view of Member States who would like to be very careful. They want to protect, of course, small and medium enterprises from Europe, who would like not to be regulated, understandably. Well, we’re saying we have to walk a middle ground, because it’s not just about industry, and it’s not just about businesses, it is also about fundamental rights, it’s about environmental standards, and it’s about our view of how we place human being in the center of this innovation. I will stop here, happy to discuss this, and I will pass the word to the colleague. Thank you, thank you Chair, and thank you all young participants.

Collegue:
Very short also, the Hiroshima, I think, links well with the AI Act that European Union is doing, because we are not isolating ourselves from the world. We will look forward to having the multidisciplinary approach, and also enjoy discussing here on the multi-stakeholder forum. I must say that also in AIDA, the AI in the digital age, the special committee we had, we worked for one and a half years, with all the possible stakeholders, more than 100 specialists were talking to us, European parliamentarians, and then Commission gave the proposal, we were mature to look what we want, and it is to continue the trails that we have had in the Europe, that we want Internet to be human-centric, what is built on the Internet should be human-centric, and respect to fundamental rights. And sometimes, coming from this innovation and industry committee, and I did also work for this legislation, there we are not innovating out, we are giving some quadrilles, like a framework, because then often somebody said, why are you regulating anything on AI? I said, what are you planning to do with AI, if you are scared that high rates might have some rules? So make a comparison, like medicines, if you doctor say that take that medicine, do you want to first sign consent? Maybe, your risk, but if you swallow the bill. So we are kind of wishing that AI systems on the market have some risk-based security analysis, and keep it globally open, so that we can have interoperable systems, and so on. So this is one more aspect on that. So Hiroshima having more G7 countries to work together, we have been using OSCD, and whatever, UNESCO, all other defining how, what is the AI actually, do we try to give some framework legislation on. So I welcome on that sense, that there are more countries taking it seriously, and looking for the better future with less threats. Thank you very much. Back to the moderator.

Yulia Mournets:
Thank you, and thank you for helping us with the moderation. Yes, we feel that you are here with us, but sometimes it’s good to… The sun is coming, we have the morning and the sun coming, so we are with you right now. So thank you so much to the members of the European Parliament for briefing us and bringing the detailed information on the processes going on, on AI, from the legislative and policy perspective. I would like to turn now to Ananya. Ananya, you are on the stage. You are from India. You are the young leader. You participated in a number of different programs, capacity building, and et cetera. And Ananya, your interest is on AI. One of your interests is on AI. And I would like to ask you, how would you like to see young people to be involved in the implementation of different regulations all over the world, or at least to have your say, but to have your say on a sustainable manner, I would say. Ananya, you have the floor.

Ananya:
Thank you very much for inviting me today. I am Ananya. I am the youth advisor to USAID Digital Youth Council. As a young person who is very closely involved in the design and implementation of the Digital Strategy of an international agency like the USAID, here is how I think young people could be and should be involved in the implementation of the Hiroshima process. First of all, I want to emphasize that it is crucial that young people are involved in any process related to anything digital. As a generation of young people who are born into a digital age, digital technologies influence our aspirations, ideas, and lives from the very moment we are born. Hence, I strongly contest the usage of the word future stakeholders for us young people, because in the digital context, young people, due to the ubiquitous penetration and presence of technology in their lives, are nothing less than equal and current stakeholders. Therefore, they must be provided a platform right now to share inputs on processes and policies which will massively influence their lives, like the Hiroshima process. And I will very briefly enlist three things that I would want to happen. The first one is to ensure that young people from diverse backgrounds, socially, educationally, and geographically, have a seat at the table, like you see right now, because I’m not from the European region. So thank you very much for walking the talk. We should make young people parts of decision-making bodies, like I heard about the EURID body, committees or working groups related to the Hiroshima process. I would also suggest hosting consultations, youth summits, site events, networking sessions, conferences, like IGF, exhibitions, educational programs, and other such community engagement activities, which enable the youth to share their ideas, their experiences, thoughts, suggestions, projects, and initiatives that align with the goals of the Hiroshima process. But I would insist that any such fora be held at local, national, and international levels. So as to make the process more accessible, inclusive, and glocally relevant. Second, as young people tend to be one of the biggest consumers and producers of social media content, it would also be a very good and feasible idea to indeed leverage digital platforms and social media to engage young people in the Hiroshima process. We could do that by creating interactive online spaces and use social media campaigns, hashtags, online events, like webinars, to raise awareness and mobilize support from and with the youth. And finally, it is always important to acknowledge, just because we are young does not mean that our contribution was not instrumental enough. Hence, we must recognize and celebrate the contributions of young people to the Hiroshima process by highlighting their achievements, stories, and initiatives through awards, scholarships, or media coverage. This will also inspire any other such future processes to include more young people in the dialogue. I’ll just briefly end this by saying that there is nothing for us without us. And thank you, Yulia, again for inviting me.

Yulia Mournets:
Thank you, Ananya. I think we have to thank you for a strong message that probably has been taken. And thank you for this strong voice and for tangible proposals, I would say, to what can be done. To continue on that strong and positive, but I mean, our open forum, it’s generally positive. But to continue on this strong youth voice, I would like to give the opportunity to other young people to raise their questions. And maybe afterwards, turn to our leaders, to the members of the European Parliament, and the European Commission, and the private sector to comment and to answer their questions. Would you have Levi on stage? Levi, you’ve been very patient. Thank you for staying with us. You are from Zambia. Levi, do you have a question? Or maybe you would like to raise an issue to the members of the European Parliament and other senior leaders present in the room? Levi.

Levi:
Thank you, Yulia. So, let me make a comment and then I will pose a question to the European delegation and people in this room. I’m Levi Siansege from Internet Society Zambia chapter, but I also head the Zambia Youth IGF. Now, there have been concerns about AI, misinformation and disinformation. And quite honestly, to some extent, misinformation sometimes actually has been perpetrated by certain government officials. In my region, in Africa, I don’t know about the European Union, but I’d like to believe in certain cases it’s been so. Misinformation or disinformation, right? Now, three quarters of the internet is used by the youths. They have a lot of innovations. And one of the European delegate made mention that it’s also nice to get inspiration from the youths. Them being majority of the users of the internet, I think they have quite a number of solutions to some of the world’s problems. And having less interaction or involvement in making decisions or policies about internet governance and internet laws, to some extent, I feel it becomes unfair. And if we’re talking about the future of the internet, then what future are we building if we don’t get their involvement to the most? So, just building up on what Ananya said, my question then would be, how deliberate is the European Union in terms of ensuring sustainability of youth engagement in policy and governance related issues, especially when it comes to technology and the internet space? How deliberate is the European Commission ensuring that there’s sustainable engagement in as much as they are learning from the youths in the European Union, but across the entire continent or across the entire globe, how is it deliberate about being sustainable in engaging the youths to make these decisions? Because youth internet governance forums are one of the platforms where you can actually get to see what the youths are thinking about and some of the innovations they have regarding how they envision the future of the internet. But if we are creating a sustainable future for the youths, how about being deliberate in engaging them? I end there. Thank you.

Yulia Mournets:
Thank you. Thank you, Lenny. Thank you for the question and statement. We’ll be going in two minutes sharp to the European Parliament delegation for their comments and discussion. Just would like to take another question online because we try to be inclusive as much as possible. And indeed, we need to encourage this online participation. We have a question from Muhammad from the Pakistan. Muhammad, you have one minute, please. You do have a question. Please do raise your question and be in camera. Thank you, Muhammad. You have the floor.

Muhammad:
Hello, and thank you so much for having me. I hope I’m audible. You do. Please continue. Yeah, so I’ve been listening to the discussion for a while now. And I’ve seen that the honorable members of the European Parliament, as well as the fellow… As for my impression, first of all, my name is Muhammad Amarali and I’m the Generation Connect Youth NY for the Asia-Pacific region with the International Delhi Communication Union. My question has been that the members of the committee have been discussing about the artificial intelligence and the cybersecurity. And the youth fellows have been discussing about the inclusion of youth in the overall process. One particular aspect of the internet governance, and that has been my core area of interest as well, has been the digital governance and the cooperation sector. And the question here would be that how do the stakeholders look into the participation of youth within the digital governance and the cooperation sector? Because as Ananya mentioned that the youth are the current stakeholders. And of course, they are the future stakeholders as well. They are the ones that are going to embrace this change of digital transformation in the first place and then passing it on to other generations. So is there a mechanism in place or in the pipeline where youth would be included in the digital governance infrastructure as well? Thank you.

Yulia Mournets:
Thank you, Muhammad. Thank you for your question. Thank you for being short. Now we would like to turn to the members of the European Parliament for your comments. Kristian Silviu Besoi, the floor is yours and the floor is in the hands of the members of the European Parliament. If you want to comment.

Christian-Sylvie Bouchoy:
Thank you so much. The two questions are very much related and they’re about the main issue discussed today, the need to stronger and more clearly involvement of young people, of youth, when decisions are made related to digital legislation, but also to future artificial intelligence. So how sustainable is the youth participation? You heard Director O’Donoghue, you heard colleagues, the will is very clear at the EU institutions. Youth were very much involved until now via the consultation processes, via the participation in different formats and initiatives of political groups in the European Parliament. Of course, some of the members of European Parliament, as you saw today, are young people very much connected to the youth, but I think we should do more. We should do more in order to have maybe a better coordination and formal consultation and formal dialogue and IGF youth could be permanent and formal stakeholder for European legislators. Very short intervention, if you allow, because Mr. Brando Bonifay, the colleague that also was quoted and our reporter for artificial intelligence joined us. He was in other meetings here because there are many meetings, very interesting for our colleagues. Just also to comment on this, if any other colleague that did not have the chance until now to take the floor, would like to say something also very shortly, please make me a sign. Brando, please, you can use that microphone or you can come here. It’s how you would like to come there.

Brando:
So I think this topic has been quite relevant for you. I’ve seen that from my speech on the first day, UIGF took exactly that excerpt for the social media when I mentioned the need for the involvement of young people in the design of these policies and also in their governance and enforcement. That’s exactly what we are trying to do with the AI Act because we have included a clear in the AI legislation at European level that we are negotiating. We included a clear reference to the need for a permanent involvement of stakeholders, not just academia and business, but also civil society, including young people. This is, I mean, we are still negotiating, but in the parliament text that we are defending in the negotiations with the member states to get the final text of the law, it is quite extensive because it’s considered to be needed to do this kind of consultations for many steps of the application of the law, but also for its update. Also, and I hope this can be a model that we continue in this direction. I agree with what colleague has said that UIGF should be an important permanent interlocutor for this work because more and more, it came clear also in these discussions in these days that the international dimension is crucial. Also, our work, more legislative, domestic European work as a necessary international global dimension, it comes very clear. Hiroshima process was mentioned earlier. We are working, thinking of it, of this global effort. And so it’s crucial that we have a global youth involved. In fact, and I conclude on this, I must say as a politician on a broader reasoning that it has been extremely important, extremely helpful that young people have mobilized so much for climate issues. They have driven the debate in a way that I think was very important. I think we need to find the ways, so it might not be the same, but the ways to mobilize more young people, more youth associations, also around the, we can say the tension and the possible outcomes, possible outcomes of the tension between democracy and the new technologies because I think this is the point. Thank you.

Christian-Sylvie Bouchoy:
Thank you so much, Brando. I know that we are almost done with the time and I see, I think someone from the organizers coming and maybe reminding us that, yeah. We have three minutes. We have three minutes, but we have two people queuing, if the moderator allow me just to, because maybe she doesn’t see them in the room, queuing to the microphone.

Yulia Mournets:
Let’s try to take one question maybe. Maybe we have two youth in the room to take the presentation. Two short questions. We can take them together and maybe address them. Please ask the question without making a statement because we don’t have any more time. So please be very, very short where you have one minute.

Herman Lopez:
Yeah, state your name also for the record. No, well, thank you very much. This is Herman Lopez from the standing group of the Internet Society, part of the board. It’s great to see that also India and Africa are involved in the discussion, but how can we from Latin America also get involved into these discussions about AI? Because we, like you see people from all over the world, but Latin America, so thank you very much.

Yulia Mournets:
Thank you. Let’s, shall we answer this question first or not? So we take the both and then I will, yeah. Good afternoon. Very short.

Nadia Chekhia:
My name is Nadia Chekhia and I, I’m short. And I represent the European Dialogue on Internet Governance. I coordinate the youth activities of the European Regional IGF. And my question to the MUPs is, what is your definition of meaningful participation? At YouthDIC, we’ve been working on what does that mean and working with youth stakeholders to understand how are their activities. And we are asking you to reflect on this. And for this, we do have a publication that we would like to invite you and also to invite you to EurDIC to reflect on how we can have more youth participation of youth around Europe and allowing them to integrate into the system and take on leadership positions. Thank you very much.

Christian-Sylvie Bouchoy:
Thank you. Yulia, if you allow me just to give two short answers to the questions and I will stand because maybe it’s, on Latin America, clearly there is a lot to be done together, to work together, to be inspired by each other. You know that European Union, European Parliament have strong ties with countries from Latin America and also with Africa. We are happy to meet yesterday members of the African parliaments. I’m not sure if there is a network also in Latin America comparable that could be a interlocutor on the internet governance and digital artificial intelligence issues. If there is so, it will be good once we have a permanent working group in European Parliament to start working. And the youth dimension, of course, could be extremely important. On involvement of European Youth IGF, and I see that you made the first excellent step. You discussed with the Director O’Donohue because European Commission is the key player and I kindly invite you and encourage you to take into very much serious the consultation process of legislative acts. You know that European Commission is doing that. It’s a public consultation. The stakeholders are very much involved and the Parliament only asked European Commission and we saw there is a strong commitment there and a strong will to take into serious, to take on board the relevant and important comments and of course, inputs on this. So this would be when the legislation is prepared, the public consultation phase. Then of course, talk to the co-legislators when we amend, modify, improve the proposal of European Commission. You saw the openness of colleagues. Go directly to the rapporteurs, to the coordinators of the political groups in the relevant committees and also once again, once we have the permanent IGF working group together with other initiatives and other interest group or intergroups and of course, the relevant committees. You have many interlocutors and I’m sure that will be very open to your participation and contribution, which is indeed very valuable.

Yulia Mournets:
Thank you, Christian, Silvio, Ushuai for answering these questions. Thank you. We have to thank you for all your interventions. We would like to thank all members of the European Parliament present in the room. We will probably once again, quote Mr. Benfeh afterwards with his proposal to have the permanent youth IGF legislative work together with the parliament as well as other members of the delegation on precise topics. With that, we have to end our session. I would like to thank all young people from the Czech Republic, India, Portugal, Zambia, Pakistan, Europe, other countries present in the room for your statements and questions. We’d like to thank the European Commission, Piers O’Donoghue for being with us today. And of course, .EU present in the room and all other participants. Thank you. Until next time, we’ll continue the discussions with you online or offline.

Christian-Sylvie Bouchoy:
Thank you. A special word of thank you for Julia, our moderator. Actually, I was the first to make in the proposal of the permanent representation. I’m joking. It is good that- Apologies, miss. Yeah, we are very committed to permanent dialogue and a special thank and appreciation for the moderation. During COVID times, I chaired the ITRE committee with colleagues in different European capitals with different presidencies. I know how challenging it is to moderate from distance and the moderation organization was excellent. And on behalf of European Parliament delegation, I would like to thank youth IGF and young people present today here or online. And we are really inspired by what we heard today and by their commitment to be part of the best solutions for the future of internet governance. Thank you.

Dian

During Indonesia’s presidency in the Digital Economy Working Group (DWG) 2023, they placed a strong emphasis on the importance of digital skills. As part of their efforts, they launched three output documents aimed at improving digital skills and digital literacy. These documents include the Compendium of Framework of Practices and Policies on Advanced Digital Skills and Digital Literacy, the G20 Toolkit for Measuring Digital Skills and Digital Literacy, and a collection of policies and recommendations to improve meaningful participation of people in vulnerable situations in the digital economy. These initiatives demonstrate Indonesia’s commitment to equipping its citizens with the necessary skills to thrive in the digital era.

Indonesia also actively participates in the BUD Forum, led by the Ministry of Communication and Informatics. They carry out priority deliverables in this forum, further highlighting their commitment to the development of the digital economy.

One of the key priorities of Indonesia’s presidency in the DWG 2023 is to bridge the digital divide. By prioritising digital skills, Indonesia aims to bring economic prosperity and social inclusion on a global scale. They recognise that the digital divide hinders progress and are committed to ensuring that all individuals have access to the necessary resources and opportunities to thrive in the digital era.

Furthermore, Indonesia places great importance on developing a robust digital infrastructure. They understand that reliable and high-speed internet is the backbone of digital information and plays a crucial role in supporting economic growth and development. As such, Indonesia actively engages with international fora, including ASEAN and ITU, and seeks support from multinational entities to build and maintain a robust digital infrastructure.

In addition to these priorities, Indonesia also focuses on promoting e-governance and the digitalisation of government services. By involving the public sector in these efforts, they aim to streamline administrative processes, enhance transparency, and make it easier for citizens to access essential services.

Indonesia also recognises the importance of cybersecurity and data protection in the digital age. They collaborate with both the public sector and international organisations to establish data protection laws and enhance cybersecurity measures. This reflects their commitment to create a secure and trustworthy digital environment.

Another area of focus for Indonesia is digital education. They understand that digital skills are crucial for preparing the workforce of tomorrow. To facilitate this, they actively engage in public-private partnerships to develop and implement digital education programmes that train individuals in necessary digital skills.

Lastly, Indonesia emphasises the importance of inclusivity and cultural diversity in the digital space. Being a country with diverse cultural entities, Indonesia recognises the need for content in local languages and subsidising access to digital services. They strive to ensure that everyone, regardless of their background, has equal access to the benefits of the digital world.

In conclusion, Indonesia, under its presidency in the DWG 2023, is committed to advancing the digital economy by prioritising digital skills, bridging the digital divide, developing reliable digital infrastructure, promoting e-governance and cybersecurity, providing digital education, and fostering inclusivity and cultural diversity. These efforts demonstrate Indonesia’s dedication to harnessing the power of digital transformation for economic growth and social development.

Audience

During the forum, the individual made multiple requests to leave, expressing gratitude several times by saying “thank you.” The person also indicated their intention to say goodbye multiple times, using the phrase “bye-bye.” This suggests a polite and appreciative attitude toward the audience and participants. Although the reasons for wanting to leave were not explicitly stated, it can be inferred that the individual has completed their participation or has other commitments to attend to. Overall, their repeated expressions of gratitude and farewell indicate a respectful and appreciative departure from the forum. The individual’s gestures and words demonstrated a gracious and courteous exit, leaving a positive impression on the audience and participants.

Mr. Amano

Mercari, a popular peer-to-peer trading platform, is actively promoting a circular economy and expanding its global reach. With a customer base of over 20 million and gross merchandise volume (GMV) reaching 100 billion yen last year, Mercari is dedicated to reducing the disposal of items and encouraging sustainable consumption practices. Their initiatives include equipping high school students with digital skills and digital marketing skills through project-based learning programs. They collaborate with local educational institutions in places such as Wakayama and Kyoto, providing opportunities for students to sell local products on their platform. In addition, Mercari supports IT education and aims to increase the number of female engineers by donating to Kamiyama Tech College and conducting workshops for engineers and local communities. They also recognize the importance of hands-on interaction and dispatch specialist engineers to local schools and companies, facilitating real-life learning experiences. Furthermore, Mercari understands the global significance of implementing digital skills in local and developing countries, emphasizing the importance of communication and collaboration with top-tier engineers. Overall, Mercari’s commitment to sustainability, education, and inclusivity sets an inspiring example for companies seeking to make a positive impact.

Yamanaka San

The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) is playing a significant role in capacity and infrastructure building across the ASEAN and Pacific regions. Last fiscal year, they had funding of approximately 1.2 to 1.3 trillion dollars for projects, demonstrating their commitment to supporting development initiatives in these regions. Moreover, JICA’s efforts go beyond financial support. They have trained 13,217 individuals and employed 9,163 experts and volunteers from around the world, showcasing their dedication to capacity building and knowledge transfer.

JICA is also intensifying efforts to integrate digital components into existing infrastructure. They aim to enhance cybersecurity measures and have partnered with the ASEAN-Japan Cybersecurity Capacity Building Centre (AJCCBC) to develop and strengthen cybersecurity capabilities across the ASEAN region, ensuring a secure digital environment.

Additionally, JICA is actively working to expand technological connectivity. They plan to lay fiber lines for the New Urban Information Infrastructure (NUI) project, a digital initiative to enhance connectivity in urban areas. To achieve this, JICA is collaborating with partners such as the United States and Australia, highlighting the importance of global cooperation in driving technological advancements and promoting connectivity.

Partnerships with private sectors are considered crucial in achieving technological solutions and supporting connections between companies. JICA recognizes that private sectors have valuable technological solutions and expertise that can contribute greatly to development projects. Collaboration between Inazians and Japanese companies is particularly emphasized to facilitate knowledge-sharing and innovative solutions.

Furthermore, the importance of having appropriate policies in place to support and foster innovation and ecosystem development is highlighted. The speakers argue that countries need a comprehensive approach that encompasses not only technology skills but also policy areas and digital skills to connect technology skills with the private sector and ensure a conducive environment for growth and progress.

In conclusion, JICA is playing a crucial role in capacity and infrastructure building across the ASEAN and Pacific regions. Their substantial funding, extensive training programs, and efforts to integrate digital components into infrastructure exemplify their commitment to sustainable development. Additionally, their emphasis on partnerships with the private sector and the need for effective policies underscores the importance of collaboration and a holistic approach to foster innovation and drive ecosystem development. Ultimately, JICA’s initiatives are contributing to the advancement of the regions and paving the way for a prosperous future.

Dr. Ran

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is recognizing the potential of a single digital economy, as it is currently the fifth largest economy in the world, with a market worth $3,000 billion USD. The region has a significant consumer base of 300 million people, which has been further amplified by the pandemic’s acceleration of the digital transformation in ASEAN.

Despite this positive development, there are challenges in the journey of digital transformation in the region. One major challenge is the varying levels of digital readiness among ASEAN countries. Some countries are better prepared for the digital transformation than others, which creates a gap in terms of embracing the digital economy. Another challenge is the issue of cybersecurity, with a significant divide between the lowest and highest performing nations in terms of cybersecurity measures. This poses a risk to the stability and security of the digital ecosystem in the region. Additionally, emerging technologies like AI and Cloud Computing are having an impact on the labor market, further complicating the challenges of digital transformation.

Another pressing concern in the ASEAN region is the urgency for skill development and training. It is estimated that 10-20% of jobs will be displaced by digital technology in the coming years. However, there is a shortage of digitally skilled professionals in ASEAN, resulting in a need for about 50 million additional digital professionals. This highlights the need for comprehensive measures to bridge the digital divide and upgrade skills in the region.

ASEAN is taking proactive steps to address these challenges. Various ASEAN bodies, such as SME, Science Technology, and Education, are setting up facilities to enhance digital knowledge and skills. The aim is to make currently unskilled workers relevant and train higher-level professionals to meet the demands of the digital economy.

Inclusivity in the digital economy is a priority for ASEAN. Efforts are being made to equip micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with digital knowledge through initiatives like the ASEAN SME Academy. This will enable these enterprises to participate more actively in the digital economy and benefit from it.

Additionally, ASEAN is actively working on improving the logistics system and developing a digital payment system across the region. An agreement has already been secured to enhance cross-border e-commerce and digital payment using QR codes. These efforts aim to promote seamless integration and efficiency in cross-border transactions.

Addressing digital security is also a priority for ASEAN. Plans are underway to develop a system for digital ID or digital business ID, with the goal of creating an interoperable platform for businesses and consumers. This will enhance digital security and facilitate trustworthy digital transactions in the region.

In conclusion, ASEAN recognizes the potential of a single digital economy and is actively pursuing measures to accelerate the digital transformation. However, challenges such as varying levels of digital readiness, cybersecurity, and job displacement persist. The urgency for skill development and training in ASEAN is apparent, and initiatives to bridge the digital divide and upgrade skills are being implemented. Inclusivity in the digital economy, improvement of logistics and digital payment systems, and the development of digital ID systems are also key areas of focus. By addressing these challenges and embracing digital advancements, ASEAN aims to thrive in the digital age.

Daisuke Hayashi

The digital economy has great potential and is experiencing faster growth compared to the traditional economy. A 10% increase in internet adoption leads to a 0.5 to 1.2% growth in income, while a 1% increase in adoption of digital technology is associated with a labor productivity growth of 1 to 2.0%. The size of the digital economy is rapidly increasing and now accounts for between 5 to 7% of GDP. However, there is a disparity in company growth across regions, with GAFA and Microsoft dominating the market. Companies in the East Asia and Pacific (EAP) region have experienced slower growth, possibly due to a lack of knowledge and skilled workers. To address these challenges, discussions and partnerships involving multiple stakeholders are necessary. Daisuke Hayashi advocates for a diversified approach that involves both the public and private sectors in enhancing digital skills. Efforts are being made to address the digital skills gap, particularly among the younger generation, and support the development of skilled individuals in local areas. There is a shift in focus from cybersecurity to the development of digitally skilled individuals. It is necessary to improve digital skills and foster digitalization through public-private collaboration. International exchange is also encouraged to drive innovation in the digital economy. Overall, it is essential to improve digital skills and ensure equitable growth in the digital economy.

Rika Tsunoda

During the G7 Hiroshima Summit 2021, Japan emphasized its key focus areas in digital infrastructure and capacity building in developing countries. One of the main areas of focus is the need to bolster security and resilience in digital infrastructure. Japan recognises the importance of having a secure and robust digital infrastructure to support economic growth and development. To ensure supply chain resilience, Japan promotes the use of open 5G architecture and vendor diversification.

In addition to infrastructure, Japan is also working to address the knowledge gap in digital skills and literacy. The government of Japan offers capacity-building programmes in the digital field, aimed at improving digital skills and literacy in developing countries. Examples of these programmes include the ASEAN-Japan Cybersecurity Capacity Building Centre and cyber defence exercises. These initiatives are steps in the right direction towards improving digital skills and literacy, paving the way for greater digital inclusion.

Another area where Japan is actively promoting is the establishment of a 5G Open RAN architecture. The Open RAN approach promotes supply chain resilience and transparency, as well as encourages healthy competition. The Quad leaders have even announced cooperation with Palau to establish the deployment of Open RAN. Japan plans to hold a symposium on Open RAN through the ASEAN-Japan ICT Fund, further demonstrating its commitment to this technology.

The importance of variety in capacity-building programmes tailored to the needs of different countries is also emphasised by Japan. Each country has different requirements and needs when it comes to capacity building, and it is important to cater to those specific needs. Already, there are institutions and programmes such as APT (Asia-Pacific Telecommunity) and AJCCBC (ASEAN-Japan Cybersecurity Capacity Building Centre) providing capacity building. The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) has been instrumental in helping Japanese telecom companies expand their ICT solution services overseas, catering to the diverse needs of different countries.

Furthermore, Japan aims to promote its ICT companies to share solutions for cross-border payment and digital ID with developing countries. Japanese ICT companies possess the technical abilities required to achieve secure cross-border payment and digital ID systems. The government of Japan sees the potential in using capacity-building initiatives to share these solutions and contribute to reducing inequalities and improving infrastructure in developing countries.

In conclusion, the G7 Hiroshima Summit 2021 highlighted Japan’s commitment to digital infrastructure and capacity building in developing countries. Japan aims to bolster security and resilience in digital infrastructure, address the knowledge gap in digital skills and literacy, and support the establishment of a 5G Open RAN architecture. The emphasis on variety in capacity-building programmes, as well as the promotion of Japanese ICT companies to share solutions for cross-border payment and digital ID, further demonstrates Japan’s dedication to fostering inclusive and sustainable development.

Daisuke Hayashi:
you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you you Thank you very much for coming to the session on enhancing the digital divide for the development of the digitalization in the region. My name is Daisuke Hayashi from the World Bank and I’m a moderator of this session and once again, thank you very much for coming. Firstly, I’d like to start with my presentation, a bit short, a brief, so that I would like to share with all of you what is the background and what we are going to discuss about. And today’s speaker is composed of five people from the government of Indonesia, ASEAN Secretariat and Japan. Those three speak online and the two tech specialists from JICA, Japan International Cooperation Agency, Mr. Yamanaka-san on your right, and from the Japanese commerce company Mercari, Mr. Amano-san will join us as well. And just to say the background of the digitalization, it’s not so very familiar with all of you, so just skip the details, but we all share that the digital economy has a lot of potentials and grows faster than the traditional economy and of course, they have generated considerable benefits, like 10% increase in internet adoption with 0.5 to 1.2% income growth, or the 1% increase in adoption of digital technology is associated with labor productivity growth of 1 to 2.0%. There are so many examples, but we can already know that kind of potentials. And also on your right side, the digital economy size is still modest, but increasing rapidly, now between 5 to 7% of GDP, and notably in the EAP areas like Indonesia, there’s a lot of increase in recent years. But at the same time, we are facing some challenges. Of course, not only the digital divide, but also the digital leaders and lack of digital leaders in the region. For example, in the United States, what we call the GAFA, plus Microsoft has a lot of dominating the market. And also the Asian Pacific region, you see that so many companies are growing, but compared to the United States, and the United States, it’s not so big. And of course, increasing the companies in the EAP region is so rapidly like, for example, the Tokopedia, Glove, or some sort of apps like the car ride sharing system or e-commerce services are growing, but it’s not so huge as Google or other giga tech companies. So I think we think that these kind of differences or lack of the growth of the companies are due to that lack of the knowledge, lack of the skilled people, or other things. So I’d like to deepen this discussion, deepen those kind of perspectives, so that how we could evolve the digital development in the region in the context of the digital skilled people. And this is a main point of the discussion, but of course, I’d be happy to elaborate other aspects as well. So I’d like to invite the ASIC, Dr. Ran, to, by, of course, introduction, and as well as the regional access, sharing the regional situation of digitalization, and what the challenges they are facing. So Ran-san, please.

Dr. Ran:
Thank you. Thank you very much. I hope that you can hear me okay.

Daisuke Hayashi:
Yes.

Dr. Ran:
Okay. All right. I very quickly to share on the screen, my presentations. First of all, I would like to thank the organizer, World Bank, and Hayashi-san for the opportunity for me and my colleague, Deanne, from the Indonesia, the chair of the ASEAN this year to update and share our perspective on how ASEAN moving forward the digital agenda. Now, first, I just want to quickly give you an overview that ASEAN is very much aware of immense potential of the single digital economy of the regions. ASEAN is now the fifth largest economy in the world with 3,000 billion US dollars, and with significant 300 million consumers across the region. Now, the pandemic given a lot of impact on the economy, but it’s actually a good accelerator for the digital transformation in ASEAN. And as you may see on the screen, there are more than 400 million people, actually 460 million people are very much connected to the internet. And over the last two years, there are more than 100 new internet users actually joined the internet setting. So having said that, ASEAN is ready to embrace the digital transformation as a new driver for growth. And as you may be aware that last year, ASEAN has launched the ASEAN Digital Economy Framework Agreement, or in short, DEFA. And it estimated that the DEFA agreement would further accelerate the digital transformation of ASEAN. And it estimated that the DEFA would contribute up to 2 trillion US dollars to the regional GDP. So the DEFA mostly shed a new light for the ASEAN Digital Economy agenda in ASEAN. And there are comprehensive nine key elements of the future ASEAN DEFA that I would like to share with you like digital trade, e-commerce, digital ID and authentication, the online and cybersecurity, the digital payment, the cost borders, data flow, the competition policy and cooperation for the emerging topic and also the talent mobility. So now, but having said that, I must want to say that the journey of the ASEAN toward the digital transformation is not without challenging. In fact, we have a lot of challenge that we need to overcome in order to really move forward the digital economy agenda. First and foremost, that ASEAN is a collective, is a collection of a country with a very different level of readiness or digital readiness and level development. And while we are sharing the same objective, we acknowledge that within and among ASEAN, some of the ASEAN member countries are actually the top performers of the digital transformation, while other countries are very much at the lowest performance in the region. And you can see on the screen that there is a quite significant gap between the lowest and the highest and the top performance within ASEAN. in terms of trade, payment, digital payment, digital ID, cybersecurity. So that actually is an inherent disadvantage that ASEAN needs to overcome in order to realize the so-called ASEAN digital economy. Now, another challenge that ASEAN needs to deal with, which is quite significant, is about cybersecurity. And the gap remains in the establishment of a coherent legal framework for cybersecurity is very large. And the level of maturity among ASEAN is still very significant. The digital divide, not only between ASEAN member countries, but between or among the players within the ASEAN digital is also very large, between micro, small and medium size, and also a big company. So as you may see on the screen, the micro and small enterprise is far below in terms of digital readiness to adopt in order to fully benefit the digital transformation of ASEAN. And also, we acknowledge that there are emerging challenges with regard to the emerging technology like AI, like cloud computing technology. In fact, it creates a lot of impact on our labor market, on the bias and fairness of the market. So we need to address it to ensure that the environment, the digital environment is truly sound and favorable to everyone. Last but not least, it’s about the digital scale. And according to the estimation that about 10 to 20% of the job will be displaced by the digital technology in the next few years. So there are about 28.1 million jobs will be displaced by the digital technology. But at the same time, we are dealing with a lot of scarcity in terms of digital talent. So as you may see on the screen, that ASEAN needs about 50 million additional digital professionals in this area. And we need to address it sooner than later. So there are two challenges that we need to overcome. First, we make those who are unskilled to be more relevant. And we also need to train a higher professional to actually empower ASEAN to really benefit the digital transformation. Now, I just want to turn to my last point, that ASEAN is aware of our challenges. We know that we need to do a lot, particularly in terms of digital skill. And across the sector body of ASEAN, like ASEAN SME, ASEAN Science Technology, ASEAN Education, we all set up a facility to ensure that we open more opportunity for those who need to equip with digital knowledge. While at the same time, we want to support the education system and the science technology in ASEAN to really make ASEAN to be more adaptive to the new environment. So thank you very much. And Aseesan, I just want to stop here and open for further questions. Thank you very much.

Daisuke Hayashi:
Thank you, Ransom. Thank you for your comprehensive explanation. And of course, now we understand what the challenges we are facing as ASEAN whole. So I’d like to now invite the Indonesia Ms. Ransom, sorry, Ms. Ransom, for sharing with us your priority. Notably, you know, Indonesia has experiencing the presidency of the G20 and ASEAN last year and this year. So would you please share with us what are your priorities and what kind of background as well?

Dian:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Hayasi. So thank you also for the opportunity to speak in this prestigious panel discussion that you convened today. And as you say that this year, Indonesia is no longer the presidency of G20, but we are part of Troika countries in the Digital Economy Working Group or DWG 2023, as well as the chair of ASEAN in 2023. At the same time, we actively contribute to the BUD Forum and our ministry, the Ministry of Communication and Informatics of the Republic of Indonesia, or MCI-RI, involved and carried on priority deliverables in BUD Forum. As Troika in DWG, Indonesia supports the three priorities of DWG 2023 proposed by India’s presidency. They are digital infrastructure for digital inclusion and innovation, building safety, security, resilience, and trust in digital economy, and digital skilling for building a global future-ready workforce. The last priority, the digital skilling for building a global future-ready workforce aims to enhance the G20 members’ collective efforts to promote digital skill and digital literacy with a focus on addressing digital divide and skill gaps, including gender skill gaps, true skilling, reskilling, and upskilling, and other capacity-building initiatives. This digital skill initiative is a continuous effort made by China in 2016, Germany in 2017, Argentina in 2018, and Indonesia’s G20 presidencies in 2022. During Indonesia’s DWG presidency 2022, we emphasized on digital skills and launched three output documents. We launched Compendium of Framework of Practices and Policies on Advanced Digital Skills and Digital Literacy, and then G20 Toolkit for Measuring Digital Skills and Digital Literacy, together with a collection of policies and recommendations to improve meaningful participation of people in vulnerable situations in the digital economy. Moreover, as the chair of ASEAN 2023 MCI Indonesia overseeing the digital sector under ASEAN Economic Community Pillar and information sector under ASEAN Sociocultural Community Pillar, therefore, we propose three priority deliverables. Under the digital sector, we propose two priority deliverables. The first one is regulatory pilot space to facilitate cross-border digital data flow self-driving car in ASEAN, or we call it ASEAN RPS. The ASEAN RPS is supported by government of Japan as one of the dialogue partner of ASEAN. And the second one is ASEAN Framework on Logistics for Digital Economy Supply Chain Indonesia Presidency during G20, especially in DWG in 2023 tool. And during the ASEAN chairmanship in 2023, we demonstrated a strong commitment to advancing digital skill and technological development in the region. And under its leadership, Indonesia aim to harness the power of digital transformation as a driver of economic growth and social development. The Indonesia government implemented various initiatives to foster digital literacy, innovation, and entrepreneurship. We actively promoted digital skill development to educational program, vocational training, and partnership with the public and private sector. And then by prioritizing the digital skill, Indonesia sought to bridge the digital divide and ensure that its people as well as the broader Southeast ASEAN community are prepared to thrive in the digital era, contributing to economic prosperity and social inclusion on a global scale. Thank you, Mr. Ayase.

Daisuke Hayashi:
Thank you very much, Rian-san, for your very continuous work from the G20 to ASEAN and to concretize and of course deliver some more projects in the region. So now let’s go and move to a bit different perspective because I recognize that this year is Japan and ASEAN has 50 years friendship year and I think that Japan has been contributed to the region as well. So I’d like to invite Mr. Tsunoda from the Ministry of Communications of Japan for sharing with us some of your priorities and your contribution to the region. Thank you.

Rika Tsunoda:
First of all, thank you for the question. I’m Rika Tsunoda from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication. I work mostly on promoting digital infrastructure globally in International Digital Infrastructure Promotion Division. So this session is very relevant. So I’m so delighted to join this session. And as Hayashi-san mentioned, Japan hosted the G7 this year as a presidency. And I’d like to today share the priority of digital development with developing countries. And I think the first priority of Japan is to ensure economic resilience and economic security, including in developing countries in Indo-Pacific region. So to that end, promoting to deploy open and resilient digital infrastructure in developing countries is indispensable. So first, I’d like to reflect on the G7 in Hiroshima Summit, which Japan hosted as a presidency. And I’d like to focus on free and open Indo-Pacific and economic resilience and economic security part. And in Hiroshima Summit, G7 member states reiterated the importance of a free and open Indo-Pacific and underscored its commitment to strengthen coordination with regional partners, including ASEAN and its member states, and also reaffirmed the partnership with Pacific Island countries. And when we look at G7 leaders’ statement on economic resilience and economic security in building resilient critical infrastructure part, it emphasized the importance of cooperating on enhancing security and resiliency in critical infrastructure in digital domain. And also we welcome the supplier diversification efforts on 5G open RAN architecture. So from that point, the Japanese government has been promoting open 5G architecture and vendor diversification in radio access network through multiple approaches, including intergovernmental dialogue and government and industry collaboration, including capacity building. So open RAN is a radio access network that encouraged multiple vendors to share 5G networks through open interface. And as you know, currently 5G serves as a basic infrastructure for our social and economic activities. So 5G should be developed in secure, open, and robust ways through competition by multiple vendors. And 5G open RAN architecture have some benefits like ensuring supply chain resilience by making telecom operators procurement more flexible and helping increase network transparency and also promoting competition of base station market. So with regard to digital development with developing countries in 5G open RAN, in Quad leaders’ meeting this year, that Quad leaders’ statement announced cooperation with Palau, one of the Pacific Island countries, to establish deployment of open RAN so that regional countries are not left behind as telecommunication markets. And also there are government industry engagement cases to enhance knowledge of 5G open RAN. For example, USAID launched Asia Open RAN Academy in Philippines, which is the human resource development program targeting in the Pacific region to enhance knowledge of open RAN. And we call it AURA, and AURA has partnership with government, business, and civil society, including Japanese telecom companies. And so the MOIC is also willing to cooperate with AURA, with USAID. And next example is that this year marks 50th year of ASEAN-Japan friendship and cooperation, and Japan will be holding a symposium on open RAN on November 1st and 2nd by using the ASEAN-Japan ICT Fund, which was established by Japanese contributions. In the symposium, we are going to hold panels to share private companies’ open RAN promotion efforts and digitalization by 5G networks. And also, second priority is that I’d like to highlight that filling the knowledge gap in digital skills and digital literacy as well as developing network is also a high priority. And because internet is borderless, so one country is having high technologies, knowledge isn’t enough to achieve digital inclusion in the free and open in the Pacific. And to fill the knowledge gap, the government of Japan has been enhancing capacities in digital field, not only 5G area, as I mentioned, but also in other telecom areas. So I’d like to share the Japanese government activities. I’d like to quickly share my slide. Here we go. I hope you see my slide as well. So this is the capacity building programs to API. And the fund provides extroversial contribution to API to support ICT training and international collaborative research and private project. And ICT training programs are targeted for officials from APT member states and provides lectures by experts and have discussions on broadband and cybersecurity. And also, there are official visits to ICT companies. For example, in 2022, the Japan Telecommunications Engineering and Concerting Service, JTEC, provided a training program in FIZI for monitoring natural disasters and climate change by wireless network. And also, there are international collaborative researches and projects, including internet quality assurance and security, and also development of an app. And in terms of cybersecurity, Japanese NICT, National Cybersecurity Training Center, develops training programs to deal with cyber attacks, such as cyber defense exercise. And the government, the Japanese government has been working on human resource development in cybersecurity field in cooperation with private operators in Asia-Pacific region. For example, this is ASEAN-Japan Cybersecurity Capacity Building Center, and we call it AJCCBC. And this, it was established based on the agreement of seven tiers ASEAN and Japan telecommunications and information technology ministers meeting in 2017, and it started its operation in Bangkok in September 2018. AJCCBC has helped uplift cybersecurity capabilities in ASEAN region. So the main activity includes conducting multiple cybersecurity exercises with private sectors, including CIDR, cyber defense exercise recurrence, and also digital forensic exercise and malware analysis exercise. And also, the AJCCBC holds annual competition of cyber tech called ASEAN Youth Cybersecurity Technical Challenge, we call it Cyber SEAGAME, to promote the ability of young engineers and students selected from ASEAN member states. And as of April 2023, AJCCBC holds approximately 1,200 participants in total and contribute to improving cybersecurity capabilities in the Asia-Pacific region. So I’ll stop here, and thank you for listening.

Daisuke Hayashi:
Hi, Tono-san. Thank you very much for your explanation. Very, very fruitful and, of course, comprehensive in terms of Japanese contribution. And now, I’d like to invite Jaica’s Yamanaka-san to ask you about some your contribution, because Jaica has been contributing a lot, not only supporting the infrastructure building, but also the capacity building as well. So I’d like to ask you what you brought to the region, and also, I think you have a lot of lessons learned from your experiences, so in terms of the digital scaling up project. So I’d like to ask you for these questions.

Yamanaka San:
Thank you so much, Hayashi-san, and thank you so much for World Bank to organize this session. It’s very, very interesting for us as well, because ASEAN, or Asia-Pacific region, is actually a priority country for us as well. In terms of actually, just before I go, I think just to say who we are, I think it’s very important to talk about. We are a bilateral organization, so donor organizations from Japan, Japanese government. We currently, last fiscal year, we had about 1,700 ongoing projects, with one point. It’s very difficult to say because Japanese yen is weakening, but fiscal year in 2022, we had about 1.2 trillion, 1.3 trillion dollars of funding for the projects. And then last year, we actually had 13,217 actually trainees actually trained. So in that respect, as Hayashi-san mentioned, we’re doing a lot in terms of capacity building areas as well. And we also have like 9,163 experts and JICA volunteers fielded all over the world. So in that also respect that we actually are working in more than 150 countries, and ASEAN, and as well as Asia-Pacific regions. Pacific region is also the region where we work very closely. So in terms of actually infrastructure development, we have been doing quite a lot in the past. But currently, in the digital technology per se, we are not really doing a lot in the Asia-Pacific regions. Rather, we actually use it utilizing the infrastructure that we have contributed to support, and then trying to actually have the digital components into it. Except maybe we are doing projects such as like geospatial electrical reference points that we’re doing this project in Thailand. That’s a very important point where it’s going to actually help, for example, mobile-based services. Because reference point is very important for the mobility service to use, such as like automated cars and so on, or even like automated combines where they can actually do the fieldwork automatically. So we’re doing a lot of POCs based on these reference points that we’re helping them. Apart from that, we have supported quite many actual infrastructure development in like water, roads, and other areas, and where we see a lot of actually digital technology needs. So we’re actually trying to incorporate a lot of digital technologies, as well as incorporating how can you use the data to support these initiatives as well. So that’s what we’re doing. And then the previous panels, actually, we have mentioned quite a lot in terms of cyber capacity buildings. We actually, and then I think Director Tsunoda was mentioning about AJCCBC, in the Asia-Japan Cyber Security Capacity Building Centers. We are actually utilizing centers, cooperating with the centers to provide different actually capacity building initiatives in ASEAN regions. And then we are trying to actually expand that centers to be a center of excellence on creating the cybersecurity human resources. So that is something that we’re doing very closely, as well as other sort of technical assistance projects or initiatives in ASEAN, specifically in ASEAN regions, in terms of cyber securities. If you don’t stop me, I’m going to continue. So in terms of actually a significant, for example, Pacific Island initiatives, we are currently in talks with our partners like United States and Australia to actually have fiber lines actually to be built to the NUI. It’s another sort of alternative route, routings for the critical sort of fiber backbone. So that’s what we are doing. So in short, not short, I guess, we have been doing a lot in terms of capacity buildings right now, specifically utilizing a lot of support that we have done in the infrastructures in ASEAN

Daisuke Hayashi:
regions. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much for sharing your experiences. And now I’d like to invite Mr. Amano from the Mercari company to share with different perspectives of the digital skills. And because I think that kind of in Japan and also the ASEAN’s contribution is not mainly, but principally on the kind of public sector’s point of view. So I think not only the public sector, but also private sectors, the scaling up is so important to be innovative in the region or kind of globally speaking. So I’d like to ask you, Amano-san, to share your experiences and how you contributed to the kind of, I think Mercari has a lot of experience to support the scaling up to digital skilled people in the local areas in Japan. So I’d like to ask you about that.

Mr. Amano:
Thank you. Just thank Hayashi-san for the invitation to this invaluable opportunity and the other participants for the fruitful discussion and the information sharing. I’m from the private sector. I mean, I’m working for Mercari Inc. We, Mercari, provide the smartphone application named Mercari, the same to company name, which is a peer-to-peer trade platform of the second-hand items and handmade items. By reducing the disposal of items by individual trades, we aim to accelerate the circular economy into the society with our apps. Now, we, Mercari, have broadened our business, not only Japan, toward the U.S., and ready to promote the further expansion in the world. In Japan, we have more than 20 million customers, reaching 100 billion yen in the GMV last year. I mean, growth market value. Now, we, Mercari, support the local students by giving a project-based learning program and donation to a local technological college, Kamiyama Kousen, using our Mercari app. Through our PBR program, high school students sell local products on our Mercari site, which is very difficult for undigitized local companies or traditional industry. We had a program in Wakayama, Kyoto, and so on. There, we teach digital skills, as well as digital marketing skills, including data analysis to the local students. And based on needs, they sell the local food and traditional products in Kyoto in the real easy business. They are expected to acquire useful digital knowledge and experience in the real situation and the ability to survive and commerce in the difficult era. On the other hand, the Kamiyama Tech College is an educational institution which gives IT education utilizing regional features, such as agriculture and so on. Mercari gives the support in the form of donation and cooperation agreements. In particular, as the majority of Japanese engineers are male, we aim to increase the number of female engineers in the school. And in that, we give the workshop for engineers and local people in the Kamiyama Kousen. And in this way, for the growth of engineers in the countryside, it is very useful to utilize the local resources, which facilitates the students utilize what they learned in the school in the real situation. But the lesson that we learned from the kind of educational activities is a lack of human resources, which can give technological and real experience in the local area. It is quite difficult. I mean that through internet, you can learn digital skills and how to use data analysis on YouTube or etc. But the most important feature for younger generation is the kind of situations or kind of communication with real people. So by dispatching specialist engineers from Mercari to kind of local schools and local companies, we try to kind of not educate but deepen the understanding of digital skills in the region.

Daisuke Hayashi:
Thank you. Thank you very much, Amano-san, for your sharing your very different experiences that we had and a kind of public sector’s point of view. And I think, you know, from the Yamanaka-san’s point, the indication and Amano-san’s indication that, you know, that we are focusing mainly, we have been focused on mainly on the cyber security, you know, capacity building, and of course Japan supported for a long time for this cyber security matters. But at the same time, we are not ignoring but, you know, we don’t know how, what to do with kind of more digital skilled people to be innovative, right? And cyber security is a point of more, you know, protective way from the attack, cyber attacks or something like that. But I think the digital skill, you know, creation of the digital skilled people is a more positive, to me should be more positive way to do that. So, I think, you know, from the Lan-san’s presentation that he, I think Lan-san, you made a presentation on, you know, some sort of, you know, the sectors that you are going to do or kind of ASEAN is now focusing on. So, would you please share with your experience a little bit more? What is the sectors do you think that most important or kind of more important to be skilled up? And also, how to, what is the best way to create the ways for the creating the people? And this is the question for you.

Dr. Ran:
Thank you very much for the opportunity. And now in ASEAN, we very much focus on the inclusive participations of the players in the digital economy. So, the small, the micro, So, the small, the micro, small and medium size, the household deserve to be equipped with sufficient digital knowledge in order for them to actively and effectively participate in the future digital economy of ASEAN. And that is our top priority for the digital era. And I’m thankful for a lot of support, including those in the private sector and in the donor, including Japan. ASEAN has established a very proactive facility. We call it ASEAN SME Academy, which is an online platform to enable everyone, especially those who are small and medium size and participate and enjoy the upskilling, reskilling program. And the second thing that we also encourage the business to visit matching so that we can encourage more small and medium size household to participate in the future or in the digital economy of ASEAN. So, that is the first part of it. The second priority that ASEAN is very much focused is we want to promote the cross-border, the cross-border e-commerce throughout the region. And that also enables a lot of good initiatives, like how to promote the e-commerce transition by having a better logistic system across the region. And the second, we need to develop the so-called digital payment system throughout the region. And last year, we have secured a good agreement among the member states of ASEAN to enhance the so-called digital payment network using the QR code. So, there are six member countries of ASEAN already a part of that network. And we want to do more so that the banking sector, the banking sector can actually collaborate with each other to enable a cross-border digital payment. And we are going to develop a new system where a new system for the digital ID or digital business ID to enable the interoperable platform for business and consumer who actually can confidently participate in a digital environment of ASEAN. Now, on top of that, I believe that ASEAN has a lot of things to do in order to train our people and to train unskilled worker to become more skilled in the digital environment. And then a lot of things we need to do, and we are happy to work closely with our donor, a partner, World Bank, Japan, and then in order to address the issue or the challenge in the digital scale in the years to come. So for that, I stop here.

Daisuke Hayashi:
Thank you very much. I thank you, Lancel, for your thoughts and very, very comprehensive thoughts. Yes, I think the more and more the digitalization expanding that kind of more and more cross-sectoral approach is very important, like a banking system, payment system, all the systems are to be composed of the many aspects, not only cybersecurity, but also the how to involve the banking sectors and also the taxation, et cetera, et cetera. So this is very important that the many actors or should be involved for creating the one system, which means that the many aspects of the knowledge should be integrated to create one or two systems. So I think this kind of the integration of the knowledge is key for the foundation of the next years, the innovation, digital innovation. So let’s go forward to the sector, the further for the futures, perspectives, and I’d like to invite Dian-san to share with us what is the role expected to the public sector. I mean, the ASEAN’s view or the, of course, not only the regional organization, but also like the World Bank or other international or the multinational entities can do for deepen this kind of knowledge sharing system.

Dian:
Okay, thank you, Mr. Hayasi for the question. So I would like to address it in the role that Indonesia expect from the public sector and other multinational entities. Dian-san, I would like to focus only on the digital and information sector that’s because that’s my area scope of work. So I will focus to answer your question on that area. In the age where digital information and technology are transforming societies, economies, and government, Indonesia, like many other nation, has high expectation for collaboration and support in this reality, in this new reality for the development of technology and its rapid growth. So Indonesia with its growing population and emerging economy is believed to harness the potential of digital and information sector for the betterment of its society. However, to fully realize the opportunities and mitigate the challenges, the country looks to the public sector and multinational entities for cooperation and collaboration. Of course, we are a member of many international organizations such as International Telecommunication Union and then ASEAN, and we actively engage with ASEAN and also the other dialogues partners, which also includes Japan, of course, in it. And we are actively engaging G20 and other multilateral and international fora. But first and foremost, for Indonesia, expect cooperation is in building a robust digital infrastructure. The reliable and high-speed internet connectivity is the backbone of any digital information. I think this is a promise of digital information, digital transformation. And then for the public sector, in collaboration with multinational entities, can support Indonesia expand and improve its digital infrastructure, ensuring that even remote area have access to the internet. This is not only support economic growth, but also empower citizen with valuable information and resources. Indonesia also anticipates support in nurturing its burgeoning technology and startup ecosystem. The digital sector presents an opportunity to foster innovation, create jobs, and drive economic growth. Collaboration with international technology companies and investor can help Indonesia startups gain access to capital, mentorship, and global markets, accelerating their development and contribution to the economy. Moreover, in e-governance, Indonesia expect public sector cooperation to play a pivotal role in digitizing government services. This can streamline administrative processes, reduce bureaucracy, and enhance transparency, making it easier for citizens to access essential services. A multinational entities can also provide expertise and technology to support the digitalization of government function. Next is about data privacy and cybersecurity. Both are critical concern in the digital age. So Indonesia has several cooperation with public sector and international organization in establishing robust data protection law and cybersecurity measure. Collaboration is essential to guard against cyber threat, safeguard sensitive information, and build trust in digital ecosystem. Additionally, Indonesia expects support in the education sector to equip its citizens with digital skills and literacy. In a world driven by technology, digital education is crucial to prepare the workforce in tomorrow’s. Public-private partnership can facilitate program that train individuals in digital skill, ensuring that there are no one left behind in this fast-paced digital revolution. Inclusivity is another vital aspect of Indonesia expectation from the public sector and multinational entities. The nation seeks to bridge the digital divide, ensuring that all citizens, regardless of their location and socioeconomic status, can benefit from the digital age. This may involve subsidizing access to digital services and ensuring that the content is available in local languages. As with many sector, Indonesia expects cooperation that respects its national sovereignty and values. We are the country with a very diverse cultural entities, so we should acknowledge and preserve the digital space. In conclusion, Indonesia recognizes the transformative power of digital and information sector. The nation looks to the public sector, including its own government, as well as multinational entities, to collaborate in building a digital infrastructure, nurturing innovation, improving government services, protecting data, fostering education, promoting inclusivity, and respecting cultural diversity. We can harness the potential of digital age, which benefit to all, not only Indonesian, but also contribute to the nation and regional growth and development. Thank you, Mr. Hayase.

Daisuke Hayashi:
Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, just, okay, we have five minutes left, so just briefly asking the Japan and JICA for just from your views on the how to promote these, you know, to promote digitalization through the, you know, scaling up the digital, the digitally skilled people, right? Increase the digital skilled people. So maybe Japan, MIC first, just briefly, please.

Rika Tsunoda:
Just briefly with my comments. I think building on what Hayase-san said and Dr. Ran said, I think although there are already institutions and programs that have been providing capacity building, such as APT, Asia Pacific Territory Community, and the AJCCBC, and I believe it’s meaningful to provide variety of programs by multiple channels, by multiple organizations, including World Bank is really meaningful because each country has different needs and we should meet their needs as much as we could. And with regard to the contents of the capacity building, as Hayase-san said, I think not only in cybersecurity, but also ICT solutions and utilization services are important areas to focus on, as Amano-san shared, Merikari in this session. And the MIC has been helping Japanese telecom companies, which provides digital services to solve global issues, such as climate change and inequality and expand its ICT solution services to overseas by using its budget. And as Dr. Ran said, there that nature focus, I think our focus on the cross-border payment and digital ID, there are also the Japanese ICT companies that have such kind of techniques, technicals like cross-border payment and digital ID. So through these capacity buildings, and I think the government of Japan could share these ICT solutions to developing countries, in addition with digital infrastructure and developing countries could get to know these solutions. These are my points. Thank you.

Yamanaka San:
Thank you. And then Yamanaka-san, please. One minute, right? Yes. So thank you so much, actually. So building onto Tsunoda-san’s actually comment, I think partnership with private sectors, I think that’s gonna be critical, I think. Because they actually have the technological solutions, so they know it. So how can you actually support the connections between the companies like Inazians with the Japanese company? I think that’s also gonna be very, very critical. And in terms of content, not only in the digital skills side, but I think the policy is very important. So how can you actually have the countries actually have the right policies to support and to foster innovations and the ecosystem development as well? So in that respect, we also support the digital policies, actually skills trainings as well. So we need to actually have this double-prone approach, not only the technology skills important, but the content or the policy areas, as well as digital skills in terms of technology skills connecting with the private sectors.

Daisuke Hayashi:
Thank you. Thank you very much for your comprehensive and very conclusive comments. Just finally, I invite Amano-san from your private sector’s point of view. I mean, as Yamanaka-san mentioned, the collaboration with the private sector is so important. And becoming more and more important from the now on to the innovation. So please say some conclusional words from you.

Mr. Amano:
Well, it’s quite difficult to say conclusional words, but I hope that in order to implement digital skills to local or developing countries people, it is quite important not only educate digital skills, but also that communication with kind of top tier engineers with local people. From this viewpoint, and the promotion of movement people from the urban side to local side is very important by the government, but also lowering the barrier of the cross-border movement of engineers are quite also very, very important because including Japan, even in the developed country, we have a scarce of engineers and we also need the top tier engineer even in the urban area, but also the local area. So we hope that the government try to lowering the barrier kind of taxation or visa issuing. So for doing that, the digital skilled people will kind of disperse over the world. I think that this is quite important for implementing digital skills into the people.

Daisuke Hayashi:
Thank you. Thank you very much, Amano-san. Yeah, I think from this session, I believe that we understand what we are facing, the challenges we are facing, but at the same time, we had a lot of experiences on some sectors like cybersecurity and infrastructure technologies, et cetera, et cetera. So from now on, I think it’s very important to kind of improve or develop or foster the digitalization by creating a more innovative people, which means that a lot of skills and of course, this is very impressed by other sectors expertise and also the mixture of this culture. So I think it’s kind of private and public-private collaboration is very important. So I think it’s very important to create some sort of discussion place or the venue for exchanging knowledge or the exchange point for further scaling up the digital skills from the region to the world. And that might be bringing more exchange globally and not only the regionally or country level, but also the global exchange. And that would lead to the more further the innovation, which leads to the AI or AI innovation that we are discussing mainly in this IGF 2023. So I’m sorry, but it’s run on time. And so I’m sorry that I cannot take the question from the floors, but thank you very much for your cooperation. And I hope that, of course, from the World Bank side, I’d be happy to work with all of you, our clients to develop the digitalization in the world. And of course, with the Japanese, as well as the ASEAN and private sectors collaboration. So thank you very much for your participation. Thank you.

Dian:
Thank you, Mr. Hayashi.

Audience:
May I leave the forum? Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Bye-bye. Thank you. Bye-bye. Bye-bye.

Martin Boteman

The discussion delves into the significance of identity in the realm of security and the crucial role that AI can play in safeguarding identities. It is acknowledged that with the advancement of AI, data has become more frequently personally identifiable than ever before, leading to a need to address the complex relationship between identity and privacy.

One argument put forward is that security will require identity. The increasing personal identifiability of data, facilitated by AI, has made it imperative to establish and protect individual identities for the sake of security. This argument highlights the evolving nature of security in the digital age and the need to adapt to these changes.

On the other hand, a positive stance is taken towards the potential of AI in enhancing security with the identity factor. It is suggested that AI can aid in securing identities by leveraging its capabilities. The specifics of how AI can contribute to this aspect are not explicitly mentioned, but it is implied that AI can play a role in ensuring the authenticity and integrity of identities.

Furthermore, the discussion recognises the necessity to address the dichotomy between identity and privacy. While identity is essential for security purposes, safeguarding privacy is equally important. This creates a challenge in finding a balance between the two. The analysis raises the question of how to deal with this dichotomy in future endeavours, emphasizing the need for a thoughtful and nuanced approach.

Legal measures are acknowledged as an important consideration in the context of AI. However, it is argued that relying solely on legal frameworks is not enough. This underlines the complexity of regulating AI and the urgent need for additional measures to ensure the responsible and ethical use of the technology. The mention of the Algorithmic Accountability Act in the USA and the European Union’s AI Act serves to highlight the efforts being made to address these concerns.

Overall, there is a positive sentiment regarding the potential of AI in enhancing security with the identity factor. The discussion reinforces the significance of ethical principles such as security by design and privacy by design when implementing AI solutions. It asserts that taking responsibility for AI and incorporating these principles into its development and deployment is essential.

It is worth noting that the expanded summary provides a comprehensive overview of the main points discussed. However, more specific evidence or examples supporting these arguments could have further strengthened the analysis. Nonetheless, the analysis highlights the intersection of identity, privacy, AI, and security and emphasizes the need for responsible and balanced approaches in this rapidly evolving landscape.

Amal El Fallah Seghrouchini

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has emerged as a powerful tool in the field of cybersecurity, with the potential to enhance and transform existing systems. By leveraging AI, common cybersecurity tasks can be automated, allowing for faster and more efficient detection and response to threats. AI can also analyze and identify potential threats in large datasets, enabling cybersecurity professionals to stay one step ahead of cybercriminals.

The importance of AI in cybersecurity is further highlighted by its recognition as a national security priority. Organizations such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have emphasized the significance of AI in maintaining the security of nations. This recognition demonstrates the growing global awareness of the role that AI can play in safeguarding critical infrastructure and sensitive data.

However, the use of AI in cybersecurity also raises concerns about the vulnerability of AI systems. Adversarial machine learning techniques can be deployed to attack AI systems, potentially compromising their effectiveness. It is crucial to regulate the use of AI in cybersecurity to mitigate these vulnerabilities and ensure the reliability and security of these systems.

Furthermore, AI is not only a tool for defending against cyber threats but can also be used to create new kinds of attacks. For example, AI-powered systems can be utilized for phishing, cyber extortion, and automated interactive attacks. The potential for AI to be used maliciously highlights the need for robust ethical and regulatory considerations in the development and deployment of AI systems in the cybersecurity domain.

Ethical and regulatory considerations are necessary to strike a balance between the power of AI and human control. Complete delegation of control to AI in cybersecurity is not recommended, as human oversight and decision-making are essential. Frameworks should be established to ensure the ethical use of AI and to address concerns related to privacy, data governance, and individual rights.

Initiatives aimed at differentiating between identifier and identity are being pursued to strengthen security and privacy measures. By avoiding the use of a unique identifier for individuals and instead associating sectorial identifiers with identity through trusted third-party certification, the risk of data breaches and unauthorized access is reduced.

In addition to data protection, ethics in AI extend to considerations of dignity and human rights. It is essential to incorporate these ethical principles into the design and implementation of AI systems. Furthermore, informed consent and user awareness are crucial in ensuring that individuals understand the implications and potential risks associated with using generative AI systems.

Preserving dignity and human rights should be a priority in all systems, including those powered by AI. This encompasses a continuous debate and discussion in which the principles of ethics play a central role. Educating the population and working towards informed consent are important steps in achieving a balance between the benefits and potential harms of AI.

Accountability, privacy, and data protection are recognized as tools towards ensuring ethical practices. These principles should be integrated into the development and deployment of AI systems to safeguard individual rights and maintain public trust.

Overall, AI has the potential to revolutionize cybersecurity, but its implementation requires careful consideration of ethical, regulatory, and privacy concerns. While AI can enhance and transform the field of cybersecurity, there is a need for comprehensive regulation to address vulnerabilities. The differentiation between identifier and identity, as well as the emphasis on dignity and human rights, are important factors to consider in deploying AI systems. Promoting informed consent, user awareness, and ethical use of AI should be prioritized to maintain a secure and trustworthy digital environment.

Audience

During the discussion, the speakers delved into the implementation of ethical AI in the field of cybersecurity and raised concerns regarding its potential disadvantages when countering unethical adversarial AI. They emphasised that adversaries employing adversarial AI techniques are unlikely to consider ethical principles and may operate without any regard for the consequences of their actions.

The audience expressed apprehension about the practicality and effectiveness of using ethical AI in defending against unethical adversarial AI. They questioned whether the application of ethical AI would provide a sufficient response to the increasingly sophisticated and malicious tactics employed by adversaries. It was noted that engaging in responsive actions by deploying ethical AI to counter unethical adversarial AI might place defenders at a disadvantage, highlighting the complexity of the issue.

Given these concerns, the need for a thorough review of the application of ethical AI in response to unethical adversarial AI was acknowledged. There was specific emphasis on active cyber defence, which involves proactive measures to prevent cyber attacks and mitigate potential harm. The aim of the review is to ensure that the use of ethical AI is optimised and effectively aligned with the challenges posed by unethical adversarial AI.

These discussions revolved around the topics of Ethical AI, Adversarial AI, Cybersecurity, and Active Cyber Defence, all of which are highly relevant in today’s digital landscape. The concerns raised during the discussion reflect the ongoing tension between the desire to uphold ethical principles and the practical challenges faced when countering adversaries who disregard those principles.

Furthermore, this discussion aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 9 and 16, which emphasise the importance of creating resilient infrastructure, fostering innovation, promoting peaceful and inclusive societies, and ensuring access to justice for all. By addressing the ethical challenges associated with adversarial AI in cybersecurity, efforts can be made towards achieving these SDGs, as they are integral to building a secure and just digital environment.

Overall, the discussion underscored the need for careful consideration and evaluation of the application of ethical AI in response to unethical adversarial AI. Balancing the ethical dimension with the practical requirements of countering adversaries in the ever-evolving digital landscape is a complex task that warrants ongoing discussion and analysis.

Anastasiya Kozakova

Artificial Intelligence (AI) plays a crucial role in enhancing cybersecurity by improving threat detection and intelligence gathering. However, concerns have been raised regarding the autonomous nature of AI and its potential to make impactful decisions in everyday life. It is argued that AI should not operate solely autonomously, highlighting the importance of human oversight in guiding AI’s decision-making processes.

A major issue faced in the field of AI is the anticipation of conflicting AI regulations being established by major markets, including the EU, US, and China. This potential fragmentation in regulations raises concerns about the limitations and hindered benefits of AI. It is important to have uniform regulations that promote the widespread use and opportunities of AI for different communities.

The challenge of defining AI universally is another issue faced by legislators. With AI evolving rapidly, it becomes increasingly difficult to encompass all technological advancements within rigid legal frameworks. Instead, the focus should be on regulating the outcomes and expectations of AI, rather than the technology itself. This flexible and outcome-driven approach allows for adaptable regulations that keep up with the dynamic nature of AI development.

In the realm of cybersecurity, the question arises of whether organizations should have the right to “hack back” in response to attacks. Most governments and industries agree that organizations should not have this right, as it can lead to escalating cyber conflicts. Instead, it is recommended that law enforcement agencies with the appropriate mandate step in and investigate cyberattacks.

The challenges faced in cyberspace are becoming increasingly sophisticated, requiring both technical and policy solutions. Addressing cyber threats necessitates identifying the nature of the threat, whether it is cyber espionage, an Advanced Persistent Threat (APT), or a complex Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack. Hence, integrated approaches involving both technical expertise and policy frameworks are essential to effectively combat cyber threats.

Ethical behavior is emphasized in the field of cybersecurity. It is crucial for good actors to abide by international and national laws, even in their reactions to unethical actions. Reacting unethically to protect oneself can compromise overall security and stability. Therefore, ethical guidelines and considerations must guide actions in the cybersecurity realm.

The solution to addressing cybersecurity concerns lies in creativity and enhanced cooperation. Developing new types of response strategies and increasing collaboration between communities, vendors, and governments are vital. While international and national laws provide a foundation, innovative approaches and thinking must be utilized to develop effective responses to emerging cyber threats.

Regulations play an important role in addressing AI challenges, but they are not the sole solution. The industry can also make significant strides in enhancing AI ethics, governance, and transparency without solely relying on policymakers and regulators. Therefore, a balanced approach that combines effective regulations with industry initiatives is necessary.

Increased transparency in software and AI-based solution composition is supported. The initiative of a “software bill of materials” is seen as a positive step towards understanding the composition of software, similar to knowing the ingredients of a cake. Documenting data sources, collection methods, and processing techniques promotes responsible consumption and production.

In conclusion, AI has a significant impact on cybersecurity, but it should not operate exclusively autonomously. Addressing challenges such as conflicting regulations, defining AI, the right to “hack back,” and increasing sophistication of cyber threats requires a multidimensional approach that encompasses technical expertise, policy frameworks, ethical considerations, creativity, and enhanced cooperation. Effective regulations, industry initiatives, and transparency in software composition all contribute to a more secure and stable cyberspace.

Noushin Shabab

Kaspersky, a leading cybersecurity company, has harnessed the power of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning to strengthen cybersecurity. They have integrated machine learning techniques into their products for an extended period, resulting in significant improvements.

Transparency is paramount when using AI in cybersecurity, according to Kaspersky. To achieve this, they have implemented a global transparency initiative and established transparency centers in various countries. These centers allow stakeholders and customers to access and review their product code, fostering trust and collaboration in the cybersecurity field.

While AI and machine learning have proven effective in cybersecurity, it is crucial to protect these systems from misuse. Attackers can manipulate machine learning outcomes, posing a significant threat. Safeguards and security measures must be implemented to ensure the integrity of AI and machine learning systems.

Kaspersky believes that effective cybersecurity requires a balance between AI and human control. While machine learning algorithms are adept at analyzing complex malware, human involvement is essential for informed decision-making and responding to evolving threats. Kaspersky combines human control with machine learning to ensure comprehensive cybersecurity practices.

Respecting user privacy is another vital consideration when incorporating AI in cybersecurity. Kaspersky has implemented measures such as pseudonymization, anonymization, data minimization, and personal identifier removal to protect user privacy. By prioritizing user privacy, Kaspersky provides secure and trustworthy solutions.

Collaboration and open dialogue are emphasized by Kaspersky in the AI-enabled cybersecurity domain. They advocate for collective efforts and knowledge exchange to combat cyber threats effectively. Open dialogue promotes the sharing of insights and ideas, leading to stronger cybersecurity practices.

It is crucial to be aware of the potential misuse of AI by malicious actors. AI can facilitate more convincing social engineering attacks, like spear-phishing, which can deceive even vigilant users. However, Kaspersky highlights that advanced security solutions, incorporating machine learning, can identify and mitigate such attacks.

User awareness and education are essential to counter AI-enabled cyber threats. Kaspersky underscores the importance of educating users to understand and effectively respond to these threats. Combining advanced security solutions with user education is a recommended approach to tackle AI-enabled cyber threats.

In conclusion, Kaspersky’s approach to AI-enabled cybersecurity encompasses leveraging machine learning, maintaining transparency, safeguarding systems, respecting user privacy, and promoting collaboration and user education. By adhering to these principles, Kaspersky aims to enhance cybersecurity practices and protect users from evolving threats.

Dennis Kenji Kipker

The discussions revolve around the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and cybersecurity. AI has already been used in the field of cybersecurity for automated anomaly detection in networks and to improve overall cybersecurity measures. The argument is made that AI and cybersecurity have been interconnected for a long time, even before the emergence of use cases like generative AI.

It is argued that special AI regulation specifically for cybersecurity is not necessary. European lawmakers are mentioned as leaders in cybersecurity legislation, using the term “state-of-the-art of technology” to define the compliance requirements for private companies and public institutions. It is mentioned that attacks using AI can be covered by existing national cyber criminal legislation, without the need for explicit AI-specific regulation. Furthermore, it is highlighted that the development and security of AI is already addressed in legislation such as the European AI Act.

The need for clear differentiation in the regulation of AI and cybersecurity is emphasized. Different scenarios need different approaches, distinguishing between cases where AI is one of several technical means and cases where AI-specific risks need to be regulated.

The privacy risks associated with AI development are also acknowledged. High-impact privacy risks can arise during the development process and need to be carefully considered and addressed.

The struggles in implementing privacy laws and detecting violations are mentioned. It is suggested that more efforts are needed to effectively enforce privacy laws and detect violations in order to protect individuals’ privacy.

While regulation of AI is deemed necessary, it is also suggested that it should not unnecessarily delay or hinder other necessary regulations. The European AI Act, with its risk classes, is mentioned as a good first approach to AI regulation.

The importance of cooperation between the state and industry actors is emphasized. AI is mainly developed by a few big tech players from the US, and there is a need for closer collaboration between the state and industry actors for improved governance and oversight of AI.

It is argued that self-regulation by industries alone is not enough. Establishing a system of transparency on a permanent legal basis is seen as necessary to ensure ethical and responsible AI development and deployment.

Additional resources and stronger supervision of AI are deemed necessary. Authorities responsible for the supervision of AI should be equipped with more financial and personnel resources to effectively monitor and regulate AI activities.

The need for human control in AI-related decision-making is emphasized. Official decisions or decisions made by private companies that can have a negative impact on individuals should not be solely based on AI but should involve human oversight and control.

Safety in AI development is considered paramount. It is emphasized that secure development practices are crucial to ensure the safety and reliability of AI solutions.

Lastly, it is acknowledged that while regulation plays a vital role, it alone cannot completely eliminate all the problems associated with AI. There is a need for a comprehensive approach that combines effective regulation, cooperation, resources, and human control to address the challenges and maximize the benefits of AI technology.

Jochen Michels

During the session, all the speakers were in agreement that the six ethical principles of AI use in cybersecurity are equally important. This consensus among the speakers highlights their shared understanding of the significance of each principle in ensuring ethical practices in the field.

Furthermore, the attendees of the session also recognized the importance of all six principles. The fact that these principles were mentioned by multiple participants indicates their collective acknowledgement of the principles’ value. This shared significance emphasizes the need to consider all six principles when addressing the ethical challenges posed by AI in cybersecurity.

However, while acknowledging the equal importance of the principles, there is consensus among the participants that further multi-stakeholder discussion is necessary. This discussion should involve a comprehensive range of stakeholders, including industry representatives, academics, and political authorities. By involving all these parties, it becomes possible to ensure a holistic and inclusive approach to addressing the ethical implications of AI use in cybersecurity.

The need for this multi-stakeholder discussion becomes evident through the variety of principles mentioned in a poll conducted during the session. The diverse range of principles brought up by the attendees emphasizes the importance of engaging all involved parties to ensure comprehensive coverage of ethical considerations.

In conclusion, the session affirmed that all six ethical principles of AI use in cybersecurity are of equal importance. However, it also highlighted the necessity for further multi-stakeholder discussion to ensure comprehensive coverage and engagement of all stakeholders. This discussion should involve representatives from industry, academia, and politics to effectively address the ethical challenges posed by AI in cybersecurity. The session underscored the significance of partnerships and cooperation in tackling these challenges on a broader scale.

Moderator

The panel discussion on the ethical principles of AI in cybersecurity brought together experts from various backgrounds. Panelists included Professor Dennis Kenji Kipker, an expert in cybersecurity law from Germany, Professor Amal, the Executive President for the AI Movement at the Moroccan International Center for Artificial Intelligence, Ms. Nushin, a Senior Security Researcher from Kaspersky in Australia, and Ms. Anastasia Kazakova, a Cyber Diplomacy Knowledge Fellow from the Diplo Foundation in Serbia.

The panelists discussed the potential of AI to enhance cybersecurity but stressed the need for a dialogue on ethical principles. AI can automate common tasks and help identify threats in cybersecurity. Kaspersky detects 325,000 new malicious files daily and recognizes the role AI can play in transforming cybersecurity methods. However, AI systems in cybersecurity are vulnerable to attacks and misuse. Adversarial AI can attack AI systems and misuse AI to create fake videos and AI-powered malware.

Transparency, safety, human control, privacy, and defense against cyber attacks were identified as key ethical principles in AI cybersecurity. The panelists emphasized the importance of transparency in understanding the technology being used and protecting user data. They also highlighted the need for human control in decision-making processes, as decisions impacting individuals cannot solely rely on AI algorithms.

The panelists and online audience agreed on the equal importance of these ethical principles and called for further discussions on their implementation. The moderator supported multi-stakeholder discussions and stressed the involvement of various sectors, including industry, research, academia, politics, and civil society, for a comprehensive and inclusive approach.

Plans are underway to develop an impulse paper outlining ethical principles for the use of AI in cybersecurity. This paper will reflect the discussion outcomes and be shared with the IGF community. Feedback from stakeholders will be gathered to further refine the principles. Kaspersky will also use the paper to develop their own ethical principles.

In summary, the panel discussion highlighted the ethical considerations of AI in cybersecurity. Transparency, safety, human control, privacy, and defense against cyber attacks were identified as crucial principles. The ongoing multi-stakeholder discussions and the development of an impulse paper aim to provide guidelines for different sectors and promote an ethical approach to AI in cybersecurity.

Moderator:
the meeting to order. Let me maybe just start by introducing all the speakers from the panel that we have today. We’ll start with my left. We have Professor Dennis Kenji Kipker from the University of Bremen. He’s an expert in cybersecurity law from Germany. And I have on my right Professor Amal, who is Executive President for the AI Movement, the Moroccan International Center for Artificial Intelligence, Morocco. And then on my far left would be Ms. Nushin, who is Senior Security Researcher, Global Research and Analysis Team from Kaspersky in Australia. And of course, on my far right, last but definitely not the least, Ms. Anastasia Kazakova, Cyber Diplomacy Knowledge Fellow from Diplo Foundation, flown in from Serbia. And myself, I am Jeanne Sujin Gan, Head of Government Affairs and Public Policy for Asia Pacific, Japan, Middle East, Turkey, and Africa regions from Kaspersky. Well, today’s workshop is titled Ethical Principles for the Use of AI in Cybersecurity. And of course, by way of a background and setting of the context, we basically are currently witnessing a rapid development of AI around the world for some time now. And it really has the potential to bring many benefits to the world as we have all probably experienced on a day to day basis, including enhancing the level of cybersecurity. AI algorithms help with rapid identification and response to security threats, and automate and enhance the accuracy of threat detection, for instance. And this is something that we experience in Kaspersky because we are a cybersecurity company. But of course, While numerous of these general ethical principles and foundations for AI have already been developed by various stakeholders, for example, in 2021, the UNESCO actually adopted the recommendations on the ethics of AI. However, the growing use of AI and machine learning components actually in cybersecurity makes ever more urgent the need for ethical principles of AI development, distribution, and utilization in this domain. Due to the particular opportunities, but also risks of AI in cybersecurity, there is a need for a broad dialogue for on such specific ethical principles, which we felt today is a good opportunity for us to sort of discuss that. And also for this reason, we at Kaspersky actually has developed initial ideas regarding aspects that should be taken into account there. And of course, these will be discussed in today’s workshop. So just to sort of run you through the structure of the workshop and what we plan to do in terms of our agenda today, we’re gonna start in a moment to run some survey with our audience today, including those who have dialed in online with two poll questions, which I’ll ask my colleague, Johan, to pull out in a moment, followed by, you know, our speakers being asked the first round of questions, and then we’ll take some questions from the floor as well. And before we end the session today, so I promise, you know, our panel of speakers are really experts in their respective domains, and put together, we’re gonna expect some very good discussions. So without further ado, let me just invite Johan, who is joining us online, and we should be able to see him to run the first online poll question. Yes, Johan, we see you. Thank you.

Jochen Michels:
Yeah, I spotted the poll.

Moderator:
Yes, and we can hear you too. Very good. So the first question, Johan will put up, is, in your opinion, is the use of AI in cybersecurity more likely to strengthen or weaken the level of protection? In your opinion, is the use of AI in cybersecurity more likely to strengthen or weaken the level of protection? Of course, we have got options for people who are participating in the poll. Of course, the first option is that it will strengthen protection. Second, it will weaken protection. And the third one is, in the name of democracy, we allow you to say you don’t know. So let’s just give this a moment and I will wait for Johan to… Ah, looking good. Okay, in your opinion, is the use of AI in cybersecurity more likely to strengthen or weaken the level of protection? I think we have got 62% who have said that it will strengthen protection. Let me just write this down. 20% say that it will not, it will in fact weaken. And 20% have exercised their right to say that they don’t know. That’s good. And I think this is something that we will flesh out in a little bit with the presentations from our speakers. I would also want to just invite Johan to put up the second poll question. I think we are ready to close this poll. Let’s pull out the second poll question. We only have two to start off before we get into the panel discussion. So let’s call up the second poll question. The second poll question. of the technique, but I will do so soon. Yeah, I will do so. The second poll question is what should prevail? Yeah, we see it. Thank you. The second question is what should prevail in AI regulation specifically for cybersecurity? Of course, the answers include, number one, it should be regulated as heavily as generative AI. Second, there is no need for regulation. Voluntary adherence is best. Ethical principles would do just good. And of course, the third option would be existing cybersecurity regulation need to be updated to account for AI technologies. I’m not sure if the poll is working well off with the online audience. Let’s hear from Johan. It’s working, yes. Fantastic, thank you. I will wait some further seconds and then I will end poll. Thank you. Okay. Interesting, interesting. What should prevail in AI regulations specifically for cybersecurity? Only a single choice was allowed and I think we’ve got 38% of our audience saying that it should be regulated as heavily as generative AI. Nobody selected, no need for regulation. So I think we have, well, at least some agreement there. And 63% are saying the existing cybersecurity regulation need to be updated. That’s interesting. Let’s just park that aside for a while. I think, thank you, Johan. We’ll have you back with us later on in today’s session. We can close the poll. Thank you, Johan. Now, I think I’m going to be opening up some questions later on to our panelists, but I would first call on Nushin to perhaps, she’s got some slides for us also. Some slides, yeah. And I’ll just invite Nushin to please deliver some short remarks, her impulse speech on opportunities and risks of AI and cybersecurity and what ethical principles she feels should be developed to promote the opportunities and mitigate the risks. Nushin, please.

Noushin Shabab:
Okay, thanks, Jenny. I’m not sure if the slides, okay, great. So as my colleague perfectly stated and most of the audience agree, AI and in particular machine learning has actually helped to strengthen cybersecurity in a lot of ways. We have been using machine learning techniques in our products at Kaspersky for a long time. So it’s not something new for us, but as we have always had this concern about the ethical principles of using AI and machine learning in cybersecurity, we thought to use this opportunity to share a little bit about some of the basic principles that we believe that are important in, sorry, in the use of AI in cybersecurity. And we want to have a discussion today and yeah, maybe develop these principles further. Let me start with the first principle. So the first one is transparency. We believe that it’s important and it is the user’s rights to know if a cybersecurity solution has been using AI and machine learning and the companies, the service providers need to be transparent about the use of AI. We have a global transparency initiative. And as part of this initiative, we have transparency centers in different countries in the world. And the number is actually growing. We are opening more centers and in these centers, stakeholders and customers, enterprises, they can go and inspect and visit the centers and look at the code of our products, including how AI and machine learning has been used in our products. So we commit to being transparent and making sure that users know and consent to their data and their contribution to our network is transparent. And they are aware of that machine learning techniques are used in the products. Number two, safety. So when it comes to the use of AI and machine learning in real world, there are actually a lot of ways that these systems can be misused by malicious actors to make them make mistakes deliberately. So there are various techniques that the attackers can use to try to manipulate the outcome of machine learning systems and algorithms. That’s why we believe that having safety of the AI and machine learning systems in mind is very important. And towards this principle, we have a lot of security measures in place, like auditing our systems with machine learning, reducing the use of third party data sets for the training for machine learning systems. and also a lot of other techniques, such as making sure that we favor the cloud-based machine learning algorithms to the ones that are actually stored and deployed on the user system. Number three, human control. So we all agree that AI can help a lot in a lot of areas in cybersecurity. For example, in improving detection of malicious behavior, in anomaly analysis, and so on. But when it comes to sophisticated malwares, especially with advanced persistent threats, it’s very important to understand that these type of malwares, they mutate, they adopt different techniques, encryption, obfuscation, and so on, to actually bypass machine learning and AI systems. Because of this, we always have human control over our machine learning systems. And we believe that it’s important to have an expert that has good knowledge and understanding, and is backed by a big data set, big data of cyber threats, to supervise the outcome of machine learning algorithms. That’s how human control has been always there for the systems that we use machine learning for. Number four, privacy. When we talk about big data, and data from cyber threats, it always comes with some sort of information that can be considered as personal identifier data. So we believe that it’s users’ right to have privacy on their personal data. That’s why we have a lot of measures to make sure that the privacy of users are considered when it comes to machine learning algorithm, and the data that is used to train these algorithms. By many ways, like pseudonymizing, anonymizing, reducing the data collection from users, removing personal identifiable information from URLs, or other data that comes from user systems. Number five, develop for cybersecurity. So as our mission to create a safe world, we are committed to only use and provide services that work in defense. So along with this principle, we have the services that use machine learning and AI developed only for defensive practices. And we encourage other companies to join us in this principle too. Last but not least, that’s actually why we are here, and we have this discussion here. We are open for dialogue. We believe that it’s only through collaboration between various parties, and between everyone in the industry, and in government sector, that we can truly achieve the best result, the best protection for users and user data against cyber attacks and cyber threats. So that was it. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Dushan. I think that sort of, I hope, sets the stage and sort of sets the tone to today’s discussion, because we really are focusing For those who’ve just joined us, we are focusing our workshop today, really discussing the ethical principles for the use of AI in cybersecurity. And also, I think I just want to take this time to sort of hear from a more technical scientific perspective from Amal on how can the microphone be. How can AI or machine learning techniques contribute to cybersecurity and which issues can emerge while using AI techniques for cybersecurity and how can we solve these issues? I think you also have some slides, if we can put up some slides. Yes, we see them.

Amal El Fallah Seghrouchini:
Hello, everybody. I am very happy to talk about AI in cybersecurity. And I think that there is a need of regulation like most people voted earlier. So, my presentation will be very short, even if there are a lot of points. But mainly, I would like to emphasize where AI can be used in cybersecurity, because the ethical problems comes from the way we will use AI in cybersecurity. So, the context is that, as you all know, cybersecurity is a very huge problem for all software around. And in this presentation, as Jeannie said, I will address some points related to how AI is included in cybersecurity systems. So, as you know, Kaspersky detects like 325,000 new malicious files every day, and this comes from a report FireEye in 2017, so I think today there are much more. The problem with classical methods for cyber security is that there is slow detections and also slow neutralizations. And what we expect from AI is to enhance and transform cyber security methods by providing predictive intelligence and long life cycle of the software. So the role of AI more specifically in cyber security is twofold. The first thing is that AI can automate common cyber security tasks like vulnerability management, threat detections, et cetera. And also thanks to AI, we can identify threats in large data sets that have not been analyzed manually. So as you can see, cyber security and AI is a national security priority by the NSF, NSTC and NASA today. So what I want to present is that there are two kinds of AI. The first boxes in the left represent what we call a blue AI. And in the right, you have the red AI. The blue AI presents some opportunities for cyber security. For example, AI will help to create smart cyber security. For example, effective security controls, automatic vulnerability discovery, et cetera. And also in the fourth point, by using AI, you can fight cyber criminals. For example, for fraud detections, analysis, intelligence encryption, fight against fake news, et cetera. And this is the good news for using AI in cyber security. But as you know, cyber security, these techniques or these AI systems are also vulnerable and raise a lot of challenges like robustness, vulnerability of algorithms, of AI algorithms, and also some misuses of AI. For example, by creating fake videos, AI-powered malware, smarter social engineering attacks, et cetera. So AI for cyber security, I will go very fast, don’t worry, AI in the domain of cyber security will help in all these steps. And this is the NIST-CSF framework, how to identify, understand your assets and resources, protect by developing and implementing appropriate protection measures, detect by identifying the occurrence of a cyber security event, respond by taking action if a cyber security event is detected, and finally restore activities that aim to maintain resilience plans. So this is the lifecycle of cyber security, defensive cyber security, and AI can be used at all the stages of this lifecycle. So I can say that the ethical issues of using AI in cyber security can be studied through these five steps. For example, if you identify your asset and you should be sure that your resources are resilient, are not vulnerable, to protect also and detect, et cetera. So how do we implement all this by using AI techniques? I will not detail all the phases. But for example, in identification step, we will use some tasks. If I address some tasks of cybersecurity like fuzzing, pen testing, et cetera, the techniques of AI that I will be able to use and they are used in practice today are deep learning, reinforcement learning, deep learning and reinforcement learning for classification of bugs, and also some NLP and methods of machine learning. This means that all the problems that come with AI techniques will be found again in dealing with cybersecurity. So this is only a one step identification and we can deploy, I don’t have time, this is why I cut, but we can do the same for all these phases in cybersecurity. System. So now we can use also techniques from cybersecurity to securize or to make AI system more robust. And this is a challenge of real AI. Robustness, vulnerability of AI algorithms. For example, there are very well known adversarial machine learning techniques that can be used to secure or to attack AI systems and algorithms. Also, this is why I say that adversarial AI attacks AI systems. AI cannot be made unconditionally safe like any other technology. So we have to take care that our AI system used in cybersecurity will not be attacked by malicious attacks or something else. This is a very famous example in computer vision. If you look at the pictures, they are similar, but the AI system will detect different things. It’s just a question of changing one pixel sometimes in picture, and you can have a different output. For example, you have the right one, the left one, you can see a car, this is correct, but in the left one, you can see ostrich. The system will recognize, but people cannot, I mean, human being cannot see the difference, but machine learning algorithm will make the difference. Okay, so last thing is misuse of AI, for example, by creating fake videos, they are very famous today, and AI-powered malware, smarter social engineering attacks, and so on. And I will end with this. So we know today that AI can create new kinds of cyber attacks for phishing, cyber extortion, automated interactive attacks, etc. For example, using generative AI in cyber extortion is something very common today. So the need of regulation is crucial, I mean, it’s very important. We inherit all the problems, the issues coming from software, but we have also some very specific problems for cyber security domain. And AI will bring major ethical and regulatory challenges also in cyber security. So my conclusion is that I we need ethical and regulatory consideration for cybersecurity systems. Delegations of control, we have to find a consensus between human total control and total autonomy of AI systems. Delegations of control will be granted with this sole objective and not towards total autonomy of the AI in cybersecurity. And cybersecurity actors are still looking for an adequate legal basis to conduct their daily testing practices for privacy and data governance, for example, in cybersecurity. Thank you for your attention.

Moderator:
Thank you very much. That was wonderful. And I’m already, I’m madly taking notes because I’m gonna have to synthesize all of this. But before I do so and really do a full-on panel discussion with perhaps some questions from the floor, I’d like to just pass the time over to Anastasia who will be talking with us about some of the current trends and reflections on AI policies in particular in the field of cybersecurity. And maybe an impulse statement by Anastasia on the chances and risks and the value of ethical principles.

Anastasiya Kozakova:
Thank you very much. It’s a pleasure to be here. I represent the civil society organization. I work on a policy before I work in the private sector as a cybersecurity expert also focuses on the policy. And in my current work, we do also discuss with the multi-stakeholder is how the cyber norms for responsible behavior could be implemented. And while we are not solely focused on AI, we largely focus on the norms for responsible behavior in the context of international security and peace in the context of overall cyber stability. AI policy is definitely. getting more and more attention. So thanks so much for the previous speakers. I think we’ve seen indeed that AI already entered the world of cybersecurity. I think quite many years ago, it helps to enhance detection and helps to collect intelligence for better analysis of the cyber threats. And I think many, if not all cybersecurity companies these days, especially advanced companies do apply to some extent AI in the methods, how they deal with the threats and what the intelligence they produce for the customers. The big question though, how does it work? What kind of a data do the companies use for this? How actually the AI, which still quite unknown for many even who develop AI in terms of the mysterious black box, what happens there? If it makes decisions, how it made a particular decision? So all this really important questions, I think one of the key fundamental challenges that not only on the minds of the policymakers but on the minds of the users, but also on the minds of those who develop AI and AI based solutions. And in this regard, yeah, the human control and retaining human control, I think all the speakers have said already, it’s really fundamental. AI should not be autonomous because we cannot allow something that we don’t know exactly or completely to allow it to somehow make so much big impact on our human life. And we see that humans are afraid of this, right? But even though the policymakers already have started talking and discussing how to make AI more predictable, transparent, ethical, the question is still if, okay, we retain the human control, we give back the control to humans, those who develop, who sort of academics who would like to see what are the algorithms. I use that, the question is still quite challenging. How this control will be split up between actors and which actors would be sort of on the table? Who would, in the end, retain the biggest control among humans? Would it be the developers of the AI or the policymakers of the academia? How to ensure that actually the data that has been collected on a massive scale for the AI is not monopolized by one actor or just a few actors in the market? How to make sure that academia, again, civil society has access to analyze what kind of a data and under which policies, which processes it’s been used and data protection, security are properly mitigated. So these are really, I think, open questions. It’s really difficult questions. They are very contextual questions. It will speak about the AI in terms of the impacts for society, for economy, for security, for international security. All of these questions will be, I think, decided on the particular context and it’s really important and it’s really challenging, therefore. One of the other challenges, I think, in all the emerging policies or even the regulations to make it more transparent, more ethical is, of course, to define AI. There’s, I think, no universal definition so far what’s the AI is. And the policymakers, I think, have really struggled to carefully scope future laws to pin down what AI exactly entails in a particular context. So one of the aspects that’s really important for policymakers and for legislators to make sure that the laws focus on the outcomes and expectations but not the technology itself. It will help actually to make this laws more future-prone and it will focus on what actually concerns people. People, I think, users, we as just ordinary users. we don’t want to know how the code is reading for that. We do want to know how this code will impact our lives, how this will impact our security, how this will impact our jobs, or the community or society, or the broader scale. The other aspect that I also wanted to mention that even though currently we kind of, I think, name lots of policies or regulations narrowly in the field of cybersecurity, in terms of AI and cybersecurity. And here, I would actually agree with the audience that participated in a poll. And I think most of the people said that it’s rather the existing cybersecurity regulation needs to be strengthened rather than new regulation on the own AI cybersecurity needs to develop. And I agree with this. I think that it’s really important to see broadly on a more on a horizontal level, how AI is a one more technology, is a one more piece of code in the end, even though it’s really complicated, fascinating, and it’s difficult piece of code. But still, how is actually produces, which impacts it produces for different stakeholders. And in this regard, they are already emerging in existing laws to regulate the security of data in particular contexts, to regulate the security of the critical infrastructure, and so on. And AI, I believe, complicates the picture, but doesn’t require a new approach from scratch. So yes, it complicates a lot the current picture and it requires innovative, probably discussions, but still we need to look at the, again, at the impacts, what the technology gives to us. I also wanted to say that we do see the emergent discussions in terms of the. the impacts that we’re on the international security and peace likely within the UN and within the regional fora, but still they’re not that extensive as they should be. The problem is that still, I think the international community and those who engaged in this discussions, including diplomats, still lack substantial evidence how many advanced AI tools, if they exist, can be used for both defense and offensive purposes. There’s still the knowledge is very limited. There’s a lot of secrecy about this. It’s the knowledge that is not accessible to a broader public, to a broad public, or to even a limited group of the academics, unfortunately. So there are at the same time growing interests and calls of the international community to produce the sort of the rules of the road, how to regulate AI in terms of cybersecurity, especially where AI can be used in the military context on the battlefield. And I think it’s really important, but hopefully we will see more probably dynamics. But so far, again, I highlight, to have this discussions more evidence-based and more substantive, we need to understand what kind of the tools already out there and to increase the transparency in terms of the different types of the actors that are involved in cyber activity. And I would probably conclude to this question saying that overall speaking of the regulations, I think it’s already evident that the large markets such as the EU, US, China, other countries probably will pass conflicting regulations concerning AI quite soon. I think we heard yesterday from the US diplomat that US is preparing the executive order on the artificial intelligence soon. And the G7 leaders, they also have committed to establish a set of the guiding rules for the AI. So, we see the appetite, we see the appetite to actually split, to define the roles. Who will have the ultimate power to define the impacts of the R in the future? Will it be the governments? Which governments? Will it be the vendors, the companies? And how to make sure that it’s just the one and a few companies? The problem is that if it happens, and if more fragmentation happens in this field, how it happens overall in cybersecurity and in cyberspace, unfortunately, it will make, I think, less opportunities for different communities to truly benefit from learning what the AI could bring to us as the international community, as a society. There are still beliefs, I think, and hopes that vendors or organizations or companies could take a lead and organize sort of the consortium and to make a self-voluntary approach, a self-regulation approach to be more transparent. And what we just heard from Kaspersky, I think it’s a good initiative. We hear more and more initiatives, especially companies involved, extensively involved in AI to be more active and saying that what kind of the data they use, how they process this data. And I think there’s still a hope, optimistic hope that if this conversation continues, a bottom-up approach would lead. And in this regard, there will be more opportunities to avoid the risk of conflicting laws, of the fragmentation in this field, and probably to make sure that still the access to this technology, to the research, to the discussion will be much broader than just within the borders of one particular country of a few countries. But I think that’s still the open questions. There’s many open questions and all of the, to some extent, all the emergent policies try to address this in terms of the result. what conclusions will come, I think that’s an open question. So let’s see how humans will be optimistic or pessimistic solving this. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you, Nastia. I would just want to finish off this, you know, preliminary round of remarks with inviting Dennis to sort of speak about, you know, can AI be legally regulated at all, given the current political and technical difficulties with the AI Act in Europe, for example, and aren’t we destroying innovation through legal, through over-regulation? So maybe I’ll just hand the time over to Dennis.

Dennis Kenji Kipker:
Yeah, thank you very much, Jeannie, and thank you for the possibility to speak here today. As a professor for cybersecurity law, I definitely have a legal perspective on the whole topic and in regulating AI. We definitely need to draw a clear line, as it was already noted by the previous speakers, because we are not talking just about general AI regulation here, but about a very specific use case. And that means an example, just a piece, a slice of a broad use case scenario. And in my opinion, AI and cybersecurity are two topics that have already come together a long time before use cases like generative AI became public in the recent month. And for example, AI is used with regard to cybersecurity in automated anomaly detection and networks. And I already wrote some publications about that six years ago. And this, of course, begs the question regarding this very specific use case, do we need a special AI regulation for cybersecurity in the future? And my answer with regard to that is quite clear. I would say, no, this might be interesting, but to justify this, in my opinion, we need to differentiate again, because there are three different use case scenarios that we will have to talk about and that we’ll have to take a closer look onto. So the first one is AI is used to improve cybersecurity. The second one, AI is used to compromise cybersecurity. And the third one, AI in general is being developed. And the first two scenarios are from a legal perspective, quite easy to answer. So when AI is used to improve cybersecurity, is technically one of several possible measures that can improve cyber resilience. For example, European lawmakers, who in my opinion, currently lead the world in cybersecurity legislation, for example, with the new network information security directive. that became effective in the beginning of this year or, for example, also a draft version of the Cyber Resilience Act. We have a lot of upcoming cybersecurity regulation and the point is regarding this cybersecurity-specific legislation, the European lawmakers have so far avoided exclusively naming specific technologies to realize an appropriate level of cybersecurity and have instead of that used the general term state-of-the-art of technology, which is a general guideline in many legal regulations of technology, such as cybersecurity as well. So it means, for example, private companies, public institutions that implement cybersecurity have to fulfill the state-of-the-art of technology to be compliant with the legal rules. And this, in my opinion, as a lawyer, is very fitting because a law will never be able to conclusively map all the technologies that will be developed in the future that are needed, especially here for cybersecurity in a casualistic sense, due to all the rapid technological development that we have. And we have very fast development cycles, not currently, but also in the future. And this is also widely accepted as opinion by the scientific community. The second use case scenario that I would like to mention, so that means when cyber attackers use AI to compromise IT systems, this is also not a specific AI cybersecurity scenario, because again, as with defending against cyber attacks, attackers may well use different technologies to successfully attack IT systems as well. And these are typically criminal offenses. And in many countries, in various countries all over the world, we have also cyber criminal law. And these criminal offenses in the national cyber criminal legislations are being interpreted. And as a part of this legal interpretation, They already cover the use of AI as a technical means of attack without the need for explicit regulation. And now we come to the third point of this very short statement. The third aspect is not directly related to cyber security, but to the development of AI. We already heard some statements about development of AI, of how keeping AI secure when it is being developed. And of course, this is an important question that we also have to address from a legal perspective. But this development issue of AI cannot be considered a cyber security specific issue. So it requires a focus. And of course, it must be ensured, for example, as Amal mentioned, that AI systems are not themselves compromised at this very important stage. And that’s something that we’ve talked about in several panels during this conference. And this is also what the European AI Act, as a regulation that has also been mentioned already for several times, for example, seeks to achieve. When it explicitly in its draft version, that was made public last year, stipulates that AI itself must be cyber secure. Therefore, developers of AI must provide safeguards to prevent, for example, manipulation of training data sets or to prevent hostile input to manipulate an AI’s response. And this is also something I guess Amal mentioned. But this, in my opinion, is just one facet of secure and safe AI development and not really a use case for implementation of AI and cyber security. So to come to a conclusion as a result, in my opinion, the regulation… of AI and cyber security must clearly differentiate between scenarios in which AI is only one of several possible technical means and the regulation of AI specific risks themselves. I think this is an important point which has to be taken into the policy debate and into the future legal debate as well. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you very much, Dennis, for that. So, I think so far what we have heard beginning with the ethical principles that were sort of put forward by Nooshin on transparency, safety, human control, privacy, defensive cybersecurity, and being open for dialogue have pretty much been also agreed upon in various different ways. First of all, of course, we heard from Amal about the framework, the five steps to defensive cybersecurity, the lifecycle, identifying, protecting, detecting, responding, and restoring, which also, of course, sort of dovetails with various aspects of those ethical principles which were put forward by Nooshin on safety, human control, privacy, and defensive cybersecurity. And then, of course, also we heard from Nastia about transparency, elements of transparency as well as, of course, the multi-stakeholder cooperation perspective to things, amongst other things, of course. And, of course, Dennis had also highlighted some of the limitations of regulation and the need for some ethical principles that overlay. And we’ll talk a little bit more about all of these in a short while. But I thought I wanted to take this time to open the floor to some possible questions because otherwise I am going to ask a round of questions. I see that there are no… I’m just going to ask Johan if you have got any questions from the online participants. Otherwise, I would be quite ready to launch into my round of questions. Yes, there is a question there in the room. Can I just ask you to take the mic? Yeah. Ah, you have… Okay. You have to turn on the mic. Push the button up. Thank you.

Audience:
All right. Thank you for the presentation as well. So, the question from my side, although the ethical question is more philosophical approach for sure. When I look at the cybersecurity, because the adversary is going to use adversarial AI and they don’t care about ethics. Now, for us to defend, and I see that… Detection might be where we might imply the ethical approaches, but when we are talking about response, especially about active cyber defense and engaging in responsive actions, implying ethical AI to counter an unethical adversarial AI actually might put us in a disadvantage. Maybe I would like to hear your approaches or your thoughts on this as well.

Moderator:
All right, maybe I’ll ask Nastia to take the question. Thank you for that question, first of all.

Anastasiya Kozakova:
That’s a good question. I think this question already exists before the AI right overall. If the organization that being is attacked, if the organization has the right and if it has a possibility, if it’s still the organization has the right to hack back, right? There’s all the discussions of the hackbacks. If they’re illegal, if they are lawful, if they could be legitimate a particular situation, I think in most of the countries, the governments and industry came to the conclusion that organizations probably shouldn’t have this right. So the law enforcement that have the mandate per law should step in and actually if the organization asks for this help, so the law enforcement or other specialized agencies can investigate and then decide how to do, depending on what type of the actor, the organization dealing with, whether it is a cyber espionage, if the APT, it’s of course the matter of the international security of the relations of the two of the more countries, it’s really getting more critical, but if it’s a sort of really advanced complicated DDoS or it’s sort of deficient with the AI, right? So whether organization has this right, I think it will be really risky to go into this direction. But overall, as you said, it’s a really philosophical how we define ethics in this regard and why we… as a good actress need to be ethical? Was a lot of bad actress that behave unethical? Well, again, I think it’s a really risky conversation that might take because we need to define what’s our goal. Our goal is to enhance sort of security for all, some sort of optimal collective security. And our goal is to enhance stability. Whether if us as a good actress behaving unethical to protect, even to protect ourselves is a part of the security and stability in the end. I think not likely. So we still need to, well, abide to international law, domestic law, national law, and overall sort of the rules to make sure that if there’s a bad actress that acting as a bad actress, we sort of stay on the side where we do understand the limits of our actions. But I don’t want to conclude on a pessimistic note, but still on a hopeful note, the challenges that we see in the cyberspace, they of course getting more and more sophisticated and it’s not purely technical thing, right? And this is what makes it really difficult. If that’s technical, so the technical people will solve it. The problem is with much more nuanced, sometimes policy solutions with the international security solutions. So in this regard, I think we need as a humans who try to protect ourselves be, I think even more creative. Yes, that’s difficult, but we have to do so. Be creative in terms of focus on what we already have for centuries. It’s international law. Again, it’s the national law, but also be creative how the new types of responses could be developed. in this regard, how we could enhance cooperation between communities, between vendors who could share the knowledge with the outputs of the research, or even the government despite the current geopolitical situation, how could we increase our chances to develop those creative solutions to address the threats that are getting more and more complicated to us. Again, that’s difficult, but I think there’s a lot of hope that it will be developed more and more, because I think we all want, in the end, security for us all.

Moderator:
Thanks for that. I thought I’ll also pay some attention to the questions from our online participants. There was one question from Yasuki Saito, and I think I’d like to ask Nushin to take this question. It says, what do you think of using LLM or a chat GPT to deceive human users and force their PCs to be infected by malwares? Is there any good way to avoid such things? Nushin?

Noushin Shabab:
Okay. I guess we heard from Amal about this particular type of attack, like advanced social engineering enabled by AI, and this is a perfect example to use an AI system to make a more convincing social engineering conversation or an email or a message that looks very benign and doesn’t raise any suspicion. This is just one example of how AI can be misused by malicious actors, but I would say still with an advanced and sophisticated security solution, obviously having machine learning techniques implemented into the solution can also help to identify a spear phishing email or even a social engineering attack. But also, apart from having an advanced solution to address and to protect users against such attacks, I would say that talking and raising awareness about such attacks, because they, I mean, I’m sure that the attackers, especially with the use of AI, they can bypass a lot of services. It’s much easier, it would be much easier to understand if the victim was the target environment and how the environment is, what are the softwares, what are the security measures in place in their target environment, and try to figure out a way to bypass that. So I would say something to complement an advanced solution would be just education for common users and also for employees in organizations to understand the risks and understand how AI can help in making a more convincing conversation or a more convincing spear-phishing email, and make sure that users are aware and they don’t fall victim.

Moderator:
Thanks for that. So I think just taking stock of what we have so far, from the poll, from the survey results, and also from the discussion, I think first of all, what we’re hearing is that obviously AI and cybersecurity has produced a lot of benefits, and we can’t run away from the use of AI and cybersecurity. But second of all, of course, it comes with costs, right? There are impacts, there are unintended consequences. And just now Amal actually brought up some statistics from Kaspersky several years ago about the number of new malicious files that were detected on a daily basis. And just thanks for bringing that up. I thought I could also… So give an update on the statistics as of today, actually Kaspersky uncovers and finds on a daily basis more than 400,000 new unique malicious files every day. And that’s not, that’s astounding. And when I talk about new malicious, unique malicious files, we’re talking about maybe one malware that infects 10,000 computers, let’s just say, does not count as 10,000, that’s considered, that’s counted as one, if it’s the same malware. So if we’re here, all of us sitting here in this room for an hour and a half for this workshop, we’re essentially talking about what, 27,000, 30,000 new unique malicious files uncovered by a single company like Kaspersky. So that’s astounding. So there are costs and there are benefits, to the use of AI in cyber security that we need to be concerned about. And that brings me to the third point, which is that, which is the reason for our discourse today that we’re having this, what we’re all talking about. And we discussed then, what are the role, what’s the role of laws and regulations and all that, right? And then we also hear that, we then start thinking about not just regulation, but what exactly are you regulating and why are we regulating? And then we also hear discussions about conflicting regulations, which are beginning to surface, right, globally. And so then what that brings us to would be that there are limitations to regulations. There are limitations to regulations. And as a lawyer, I’m saying this, that anything that is legal may also not be ethical. So do we then, right, take a step forward and then start thinking about ethical. principles beyond just legal frameworks. And that is, I think, where we are today. And I think we have a question from the floor. Sir, can I just ask that you take the mic and introduce yourself and give us a question? Thank you.

Martin Boteman:
Hi there. This is Martin Boteman. I’ve been talking with the DCIoT today as well. And one of the complexities that comes up when you talk about AI and cybersecurity, I agree with what has been said. But a complication is that security will require identity. And I can see specifically with AI that has a dual impact. One thing is that data, thanks to AI, become even more often personally identifiable than before. But the other thing is that AI can also help secure, as has been pointed out, but maybe also with the identity factor. So how do you deal with the dichotomy between identity need in the future going forward? There’s no way around it. At the same time, also privacy. And this is part of your legal considerations, of course, as well, and ethical. Thank you.

Moderator:
OK. All right. I will leave Dennis to take this question.

Dennis Kenji Kipker:
Yeah, of course. When developing AI, we have high impact privacy risks. And I think this is quite clear. From the European Union perspective speaking, we have a general data protection regulation of personal data also when AI is being trained. But as I mentioned, when it comes to the possibilities and also the problems of AI regulation, I think in general, we need to move away from trying to regulate every conceivable scenario and risk. We have risk, definitely. But this is not a typical thing of AI. So this is a thing that addresses the whole technology sector. And on one hand, full technology regulation will, in my opinion, never be possible. And on the other hand, administrative practices also raise the question, for example, of who should control and implement all these laws. Because you will need a lot of resources. And we see it with regard to data privacy authorities. I think not only in the European Union, but all over the world, that they have problems, that they are struggling in implementation of laws. There are always companies that are not compliant. And this is, of course, a question that is not AI. AI specific, legally, it has long been proven that what matters is not the severity of sanctions after a certain kind of violation, but the likelihood of detection of a violation. And I think this is where we need to work. So what this means, in my opinion, for AI in the wake of the current hype that we’ve seen since the beginning of this year, that we should not fall into a mindless, in my opinion, mindless regulatory debate that possibly ends up even delaying or even torpedoing the really necessary regulation. So we need definitely a core regulation, but we have to distinguish between things that are necessary and that are not necessary for the first start. And in my opinion, the European AI Act, and of course its draft version with its different risk classes, is a good first approach for the time being. Even, of course, it needs to be revised again, because we have seen this year that there have been some new upcoming risks. And since AI is also mainly not developed by states, but currently in the hands of just a few big tech players, mostly coming from the US, the cooperation between the state and the industry actors really needs to improve. And this is where we need to work on as well. So self-regulation by industries, in my opinion, alone, not enough. We need a system of transparency. We need more cooperation that needs to be established on a permanent legal basis. And when we talk about ethical principles, and this is also a part of the session, I think ethical principles can help, of course, but the authorities for supervision of AI, they must be stronger. So that means they need more financial resources. They will need more personnel resources in the future so that we can tackle all these problems.

Moderator:
Thank you. I think I’ll ask Professor Amal to also add on, and then Astier can do so as well. Thank you.

Amal El Fallah Seghrouchini:
Thank you for the question. I’m trying to answer the question about identity and security. And I think, in fact, when we talk about security, we are naturally interested in the identity of the person we try to secure, for example. But there are some initiatives around the world where we can, the purpose is to try to make a difference between identifier and identity of person. And this is very interesting because you can rely on. a trust third party to certify that, for example, that person is associated to that identifier. So we don’t have access to the identity of the whole identity of the person. And another very nice initiative is to avoid to have unique identifier of a person. This allow to not have access to 360 degree of the person itself. So it’s sectorial identifier that is associated with the same identity, which is associated through a third party trust to some person. You add all these layers to avoid the direct access to a person with all data of the person because anonymity of data is not enough today.

Anastasiya Kozakova:
I don’t know if this already answers your question, but I’m also curious to know what you think as well. The question that you ask is really, well, they are very specific, but they’ve really critical of course. And I would probably say not the most popular opinion, but I believe that regulations are not the only solution. Quite often I think regulations could be really slow and not that effective to address the challenges that we face, especially with AI. We still don’t know how the AI will impact us in a week. It’s really rapidly developing. While regulations are important in terms of the nudge developers, manufacturers of the products, tech companies to move in the right direction with the legal and the regulatory actions to put the incentives, right incentives on the market for them. I still believe that the industry has the capacity. and has the ability to do lots of really important things without policymakers and regulators being in the room. So for software, there’s a lot of initiatives going on sort of the software bill of materials as BOM. The idea is to increase transparency of the composition of the software that you’re using. If you take a cake, you need to know what kind of the ingredients there to make sure that it will not make any harm to you given your dietary specifics. So the same logic applies to software. Even if you’re the bigger company, you need to have a detailed documentation, updated, automated documentation that could be actually machine readable to understand what types of the co-components there, how could you use and if there’s a vulnerability, you could easier to find the co-component could be exploited. So I think the same logic could be applied to those who develop AI-based solutions, increase transparency of the components that you use, increase also the data documentation, document what type of the data sources, collection methods, processing techniques that you apply. Yes, it probably will be useful only to the most advanced customers and the large corporations, but these companies also do have their own users. And I think that will have indirect positive security back for us all. So hopefully it takes time, but I think it’s maybe more agile, rougher than weight, extensive regulation to be passed on.

Moderator:
Thank you for that, Nastia. And I think your point about the software bill of materials is really something that resonates with me because that’s also something that at Kaspersky we practice for our software. I think it is important to know the ingredients to the cake that you’re about to eat. I think Professor Amal wants to add on something and perhaps you wanna also give a response later on.

Amal El Fallah Seghrouchini:
Yeah, Professor Amal, maybe just go ahead first. Yeah. Because we are talking about ethics from the beginning and we don’t specify what do we mean with ethics. And I think ethics is not limited to data protection, but also we have to consider dignity to protect human rights. For example, when you detect some malicious attack, for example, you should be careful with the origin of that attack, fairness, privacy, and also informed consent. And my point is, what do we mean by informed consent? When people give some data, some information, interact with the system, like for example, in generative AI systems, people are not aware of the consequences of the tool they use. And they give consent, they think that they are informed, but in fact, they are not informed because most of people are very far from technology. And most of them have no idea on cyber systems. So what. What do we mean by informed consent? How do we protect dignity in these situations?

Martin Boteman:
Thank you for that. What we ended up with, it’s not emotions, it’s just my throat dry. What we ended up with this morning in the discussion was very much that of course legal isn’t enough. Legal is the last resort in a way. So, whereas we’ve been talking a lot about privacy and security by design, I think it’s important to realize that in AI context that is an extra challenge. But it’s a challenge we’re also facing, for instance, thank you to the reference to the European Union’s AI Act, but we’re also aware that of course the Algorithmic Accountability Act is coming up in the USA. And you see that that is ways where we may end up with AI not being just this magic, but something real and concrete where we can take responsibility for. I think that that’s an important element. So, thank you for your answers. And it’s just, we don’t know all the answers yet. I very much realized that. But the old principles of security by design and privacy by design remain important. We realize we live in a world where in some countries, identity is there to protect you and some others, it may make you a victim. So, thank you very much for your thoughts.

Moderator:
All right. I think, thank you for that. I think I am going to, I’m mindful of the time we have about 11 minutes left and I’m trying to economize the time left that we have because not forgetting that we also still have one more survey for our online participants before we conclude today’s discussion. So, I sort of just want to go down the row and maybe begin with Nushin. It’s the same question for all our speakers actually. So, I’m going to ask the question for each of you. Maybe just try to keep your remarks short, one minute, two minute max. Yeah. Which of the, which are the two most important principles in your view that definitely need to be followed in cybersecurity? The two most important ethical

Noushin Shabab:
principles. Yeah. That’s actually a very good question. The most, the two most important principles for me, I think, that there are the two main points that’s been discussed more than other principles today. So first one, transparency, so being transparent to the users and also to the rest of the community and world, what we do with the user data and how we implement detections and how we protect users, be it through a machine learning technique, an algorithm or more like traditional ways. And the second one is obviously privacy. We are in cyber security industry and we deal with targets and victims of cyber attacks. For us, it’s one of the most important aspects to protect users. And obviously, if we don’t take care of the privacy of user data ourselves, it doesn’t make much sense to try to protect them from cyber attackers, right?

Moderator:
So I would say transparency and privacy for me. Thank you very much, Nushin. I’ll just go down the room with Fadenis. I’m hoping you, I’m secretly hoping you will touch on some other principles,

Dennis Kenji Kipker:
but there’s of course the democratic… Yeah, that’s really a difficult question. So to make a long story short, as a scientist, I can say that even with paradigmatic events like AI, we should move to the level of factual argumentation. So this is something I mentioned several times also in my opening statement. We do not eliminate problems just by regulation alone. And this is my opinion and illusion, even if legislators and politicians might see it differently. And in cyber security, we need to clearly align ourselves with the three scenarios of AI. that I have also been mentioning in my opening statement. And in terms of the principles, I find it very difficult to just say we have two principles that are relevant because the use of AI, not only in cybersecurity, but everywhere has so many facets and different risks that we do not have approached yet. And I think one of the most important thing is that we have human control about decisions. And this is something which is also clearly described and this is also described with regard to the use of personal data, for example, or with regard to decisions of authorities, official decisions, or any kind of decisions of private companies that might have a negative impact on individuals that these decisions cannot be made only based on AI. And in my opinion, the second important principle, I would say is that safety comes first. We have to distinguish between security and safety. I think this cannot be done here in a few minutes, but when it comes to AI, we have a lot of use cases for the use of AI. And that means that security is connected very strongly with safety. And we should take a strong look onto all these safety issues because when the AI is not developed securely, we cannot have safe solutions as a result of the AI. So in my opinion, these would be the two most important principles putting on top of the principle of the one new machine set. Thank you.

Moderator:
That’s great. Amal, would you like to give us your two most important principles in your view?

Amal El Fallah Seghrouchini:
If we are talking about principles of ethics, I think. Yes. Okay. Because we are talking about ethics like if it’s a stamps we put on product and ethics is not that. Ethics is continuous debate and discussion about how things. will go ahead. So from my opinion, the first thing we have to take care of is how to preserve dignity and human rights in all these systems. And the second is to work to reach informed consent with population that use these systems. And this means that we have to be very didactical to explain things. For example, we have talked about accountability. Those are tools, accountability, privacy, data protection. All these are tools towards principles of ethics.

Anastasiya Kozakova:
So I guess I’m also expecting to answer this question. I think none of these principles alone do help to, as the users or as the overall sort of those who live in cyberspace, to have sufficient degree of security, right? Transparency alone, well, we know about the particular technology, what type of the code it’s used and all of that. We do have the policies, but what actually, how can this help us to be more secure and to feel more sort of secure and stable in cyberspace? So none of this principle alone actually helps to achieve what we want to achieve, but altogether, and many more, could increase our chances to have this optimal security. But overall, I think we as humans need to be guided with the principle that we should avoid producing harm to each other, to to others with any type of technology and AI is of course my exception here.

Moderator:
Thank you, thank you for that. I think my secret wish sort of came true and everyone sort of touched on the different principles but now I think it leaves us to sort of hear from our online audience as well. I’m just gonna invite my colleague Johan to pull out the final survey question because I think it’ll be interesting to hear what we have from the online audience. Basically the question is, please mark from one to six because we have six ethical principles. Please mark from one to six the significance of each ethical principle of AI use and cybersecurity. Six being most significant, very, very, very significant and of course, one being well to you the least significant of all six. But I do agree with Nastia also, everything sort of comes together. It’s, yeah, depends on how you formulate the principles. Amal is whispering to my ear. Let us wait some further minutes, seconds please for the poll. In the meantime, I just thought I’ll like to say, what are we gonna do about the ethical principles that are in, well, currently in a sort of draft proposals stage, right? So today we have heard ideas that were discussed. We have had some new suggestions that were made and the proposals will be further developed. It doesn’t just stop. Of course, the goal is to develop a basis that can serve as a guideline for industry, for research, for academia, for politics and civil society and developing individual ethical principles. So after this session, we will be publishing an impulse paper on ethical principles for the use of AI and cybersecurity, and it will also reflect the discussion results and will be made available for the IGF community as well. In addition, of course, the paper will be sent to our stakeholders to gather complementary feedback, and of course, Kaspersky will also further develop our own principles based on this paper and provide the best practices for the cybersecurity industry that we’re in. So now, thank you for putting up the results from the poll, Johan. So please mark from 1 to 6 the significance of each ethical principle of AI use in cybersecurity. I think we have… Johan, would you like to interpret these results for us, because there are many colors?

Jochen Michels:
Yes, there are many colors, and it reflects that all of the six principles are important, so there is no priority. All of them are mentioned by the different attendees, and it makes clear that what you said, Nushin, and also Dennis and Amal and Nastia, it is very important to take into account all the different principles and to start further multi-stakeholder discussion on that. So that’s the result of the poll.

Moderator:
Thank you very much for that. I think we can close the poll, and I will just take one minute to sort of wrap up. I think the key takeaways really are that the ethical principles all sort of come together as one and complement one another, and they need to be further developed beyond today’s discussion. And of course, like Amal had said, it really depends on how you frame it also, and that is something that we need to further develop. So when it comes to transparency, safety, human control, privacy, defense of cybersecurity, and being open for dialogue, these are by far, I think, equally important principles that even our online audience have also agreed. And I think the call, well, it remains for me to state then that the call for action would be that we need further international multi-stakeholder discussion on these ethical principles that we have developed and sort of designed. They’re not exactly rocket science, but I think it’s about collating all of them into one document that is coherent and makes sense for everyone. And of course, because we are, you know, a player in the cybersecurity field, then we’re of course particularly interested in developing such ethical principles for AI in cybersecurity. So I just want to take this time to thank all of our audience today and people who have asked questions as well. I hope, you know, it has also furthered this discourse, and also to thank all of our speakers, starting from Nastia, Amal, Dennis, and of course, Nushin, and myself. I’m Jeannie from Kaspersky signing off here. Thank you very much, and I hope you have a successful rest of your time in IGF. Thank you. You You You You You You

Audience

The discussion surrounding Europe’s influence on Latin America’s policy decisions is of great interest. While the sentiment towards this topic remains neutral, it is acknowledged that everything discussed in Europe has a significant impact on Latin America’s policy agenda. This highlights the interconnectedness between the two regions in terms of policy-making.

The development of the interconnection ecosystem has been a notable achievement for the internet technical community. Previously, all the interconnections between ISPs and content providers used to happen in Miami. However, a significant effort has been made to develop a completely new interconnection ecosystem. This development has been positively received and is seen as a step forward in enhancing access for people and supporting industry, innovation, and infrastructure, in line with SDG9.

On the other hand, the adoption of new policies by countries like Brazil can have negative consequences. When a country adopts a particular policy, companies are required to pay and comply with the law, which may result in additional costs. As a result, companies may choose not to bring their caches and peerings into exchange points. This policy change can disrupt the existing system and have an adverse effect on telecommunications companies and content providers. The smaller stakeholders, such as small ISPs, small platforms, and small internet companies, will be particularly affected by such changes. The disruption caused by this policy change is expected to be significant, with results similar to the current scenario.

The European telecom sector is facing several challenges, with a major concern being the cost involved. The sector has experienced a decrease in revenues by 30% since 2011. Furthermore, the returns on investment for the capital employees have been lower than those in the US. This negative trend highlights the need for attention and potential solutions to address the financial health of the sector.

Investment in networks is considered of utmost importance. The focus remains on the quality of networks, along with the need to improve coverage, especially regarding 5G networks. The current adoption rate of 5G in Europe stands at 15%, underscoring the room for growth and the importance of investing in network infrastructure. These investments align with the goals of SDG9, which include industry, innovation, and infrastructure.

Another suggestion put forth during the discussion is the idea of redistributing funds from over-the-top (OTT) platforms to support telecommunications services, particularly in rural areas. This proposal aims to utilize the funds obtained from OTT platforms as a source for a Universal Service Fund, which can be dedicated to strengthening telecommunications services in areas with limited connectivity. This concept resonates with the focus of the SDGs on reducing inequalities (SDG10) and industry, innovation, and infrastructure (SDG9).

In conclusion, the discussion on Europe’s influence on Latin America’s policy decisions provides valuable insights into various aspects of policy-making, interconnection ecosystems, the impact on small stakeholders, challenges faced by the European telecom sector, the importance of investment in networks, and the potential of redistributing funds for rural telecommunications services. While some of these points have positive implications, others highlight concerns and challenges, making it a diverse and multifaceted discussion.

Maarit Palovirta

The telecommunications market in Europe faces limitations in investment for infrastructure due to its unique market structure and intense competition. Compared to the United States and Japan, Europe has a more fragmented market with 38 telecom operators serving over 500,000 customers, creating challenges in securing investment for vital infrastructure like 5G networks.

Additionally, heavy sector-specific regulations and restrictions on mergers hinder the growth of European telecom operators. Pricing regulation further limits their flexibility in pricing services. Limited investment in telecommunication infrastructure impacts service quality, trust, and sustainability, leading to decreased customer satisfaction. Efforts are being made to measure the environmental sustainability of the sector.

Despite these challenges, the European Commission deems the existing open internet principles valid and not in need of revisiting. However, operators in Europe face a one-sided obligation to deliver any traffic regardless of size or form, limiting their ability to manage data traffic.

Investments in private networks are applauded, despite creating regulatory asymmetry. The impact of these investments needs evaluation in relation to access network investment. Addressing the lack of coverage and capacity in some areas requires investment and enhancement.

The European Commission aims to deliver a new regulatory framework to tackle industry challenges and supports open discussions with stakeholders. They advocate for a check-up of the internet ecosystem and regulation framework. In conclusion, the telecommunications market in Europe faces limitations in infrastructure investment due to its unique market structure and competition. Sector-specific regulations and pricing restrictions further hinder operator growth. Limited investment affects service quality, trust, and sustainability. However, the existing open internet principles are deemed valid. Investments in private networks are praised, and efforts are being made to address coverage and capacity issues. The Commission aims to deliver a new regulatory framework and supports open discussions to address challenges in the industry. A comprehensive evaluation of the internet ecosystem and regulation framework is advocated.

Kamila Kloc

The issue of concern over internet fragmentation due to the practices of telecom companies and big tech companies is gaining significant attention. These practices have the potential to create a division between users and services, ultimately leading to increased inequality. The original intention of the internet was to be an open and interconnected environment, but certain practices have disrupted this ideal.

Limited internet access poses a significant drawback, especially for economically disadvantaged individuals. In Brazil, for instance, many people rely on public Wi-Fi or have limited access to home Wi-Fi. Towards the end of the month, when data allocations are nearing their limit, accessing the internet becomes challenging. As a result, individuals are left with restricted access to only a few apps or websites, exacerbating existing inequalities.

Additionally, limited internet access can contribute to the spread of misinformation. When people are unable to verify the information they receive due to restricted access, it becomes easier for unverified or false information to circulate. This situation leads to an increase in disinformation, undermining the goal of an informed and educated society.

The practices of zero rating and fair share also adversely affect consumers, particularly in economically disadvantaged regions. Zero rating is often presented as a way to provide free and unlimited access to specific apps or services. However, in practice, it can restrict individuals’ choices and tie them to specific apps. Furthermore, fair share practices, aimed at increasing revenue for telecom companies, may result in increased prices and reduced service quality. These practices further disadvantage consumers, especially those in economically vulnerable communities.

When discussing open internet access and methods to expand access, it is crucial to prioritize the well-being of consumers. The focus should be on finding solutions that ensure equal access to the internet for all individuals, irrespective of their socioeconomic status. Addressing the distortion of the telecom market, whether through existing or potential practices, is essential to prevent further inequality.

To summarize, the concern over internet fragmentation and limited access resulting from the practices of telecom companies and big tech companies is of growing importance. These practices can lead to a digital divide and increased inequality among users and services. Limited internet access exacerbates this inequality and hampers individuals’ ability to verify information, facilitating the spread of misinformation. The practices of zero rating and fair share also harm consumers, particularly in economically disadvantaged areas. It is crucial to prioritize consumers’ welfare when discussing open internet access and explore equitable approaches to expand access for all.

Artur Coimbra

The internet architecture has significantly changed over the past 15-20 years, with content now being located closer to users. This transformation has led to the emergence of micro data centers, content delivery networks, and caching infrastructures, revolutionizing the way content is delivered. Additionally, there has been a remarkable reduction in data storage costs, with prices decreasing by as much as 98% or 99% during this period. These changes have not only made the service more affordable and efficient but have also resulted in cost savings for IP transit contracts.

While these developments have brought benefits to users and content providers, telcos are facing pressure from large digital platforms to provide content for free. Previously, telcos charged both content providers and users through IP transit contracts. However, due to pressure from big tech platforms, telcos are now compelled to provide content without charge, leading to a shift towards a one-sided market. This transition has placed telcos in a challenging position as they are unable to increase charges for users due to legal restrictions on data caps and other market factors.

A market solution is seen as a positive approach to address the pressure telcos face from big tech platforms. Creating a healthy and sustainable network is an incentive for both telcos and big digital platforms, emphasizing the need for a market-driven solution.

It is important to differentiate whether the pressure telcos experience is a result of bargain power or market power exerted by big tech platforms. If the pressure is due to bargain power, it is considered a norm within the business environment. However, if it is a consequence of market power, then it becomes a structural issue that necessitates intervention from regulators and legislators. This distinction is crucial in determining the appropriate course of action.

In Brazil, regulators are adopting an evidence-based approach to define the problem before seeking a solution. Gathering evidence and understanding the issue better is seen as essential for achieving the objective of increasing funds available for network investment.

When designing the concept of a fair share, careful consideration must be given to ensure sufficient funds are allocated to network investment. If the fair share results in pricing competition among users, the available funds for investment could be depleted. Therefore, striking a balance between fair treatment and maintaining adequate investment funds is vital.

In conclusion, the evolution of internet architecture has brought about positive changes, including cost reduction and improved services. However, telcos now face challenges due to pressure from big tech platforms. Finding a market solution and distinguishing between bargain power and market power will be crucial for maintaining healthy networks. Regulatory intervention may be necessary in cases involving market power. The regulator in Brazil is adopting an evidence-based approach to addressing the issue at hand. Designing a fair share concept that enables investment without depletion of funds is of utmost importance.

KS Park

The standard payroll rule implemented among internet service providers (ISPs) in South Korea has had several negative consequences. This rule has resulted in inflated internet access fees, which have put a financial strain on both ISPs and content providers. Content providers have been required to pay more as their host ISPs send more data to other ISPs. Consequently, South Korea’s transit IP fees have become significantly higher than those in Frankfurt and London, reaching ten times and eight times the respective fees in those cities in 2021. As a result, public interest apps, such as the COVID location announcement system, have been unable to fully function due to the exorbitant internet transit fees.

Furthermore, the presence of paid peering has caused confusion and violated network neutrality. A significant portion of internet traffic goes through paid peering points, which has led to concerns about unfair share violation and the lack of network neutrality. The confusion surrounding whether network share and unfair share violation are a result of paid peering persists.

Regulations from both the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) do not explicitly condemn paid peering, leaving room for uncertainty and complications in enforcing network neutrality.

The concept of mandatory paid peering is also met with negative sentiment. Implementing mandatory paid peering would likely lead major companies such as Google and Netflix to disconnect from the network rather than pay access fees. If content providers burdened with peering fees disconnect, regulators would have limited options without fundamentally altering the nature of the internet.

Despite these issues, the principles of freedom to connect and not charging for data delivery remain positive aspects of the internet. These principles are considered the foundation of the global product of the internet and enable users to connect freely without being burdened by data delivery charges.

On a positive note, despite a five-fold increase in data traffic, the cost of network maintenance and development has remained constant over the past five years due to technological advancements. This demonstrates the efficiency and progress made in maintaining networks and supporting the growing demand for data.

Turning to the topic of 5G, Korean telecoms have faced challenges in delivering good connectivity despite forcing consumers to purchase 5G phones. This has resulted in consumer dissatisfaction and the filing of class-action lawsuits against telecoms. Additionally, the government in Korea has taken away the 5G bandwidth license from certain telecoms, further complicating the situation.

European telcos, on the other hand, have managed to maintain profits despite falling revenues, thanks to the decreasing cost per unit of data. They have been able to offset the declining revenues by reducing the cost of data delivery.

However, it’s important to note that declining profits of telcos do not guarantee the maintenance of privacy. The Korean case, for example, indicates that despite falling costs and sustained profits, privacy has not been adequately protected.

In conclusion, the standard payroll rule among ISPs in South Korea has had negative effects on both ISPs and content providers, causing financial strain. The presence of paid peering has raised concerns about unfair share violation and violated network neutrality. Despite these challenges, the principles of freedom to connect and not charge for data delivery are key pillars of the internet. Technological advancements have enabled the cost of network maintenance and development to remain constant despite increased data traffic. Challenges with 5G connectivity and lawsuits have arisen in Korean telecoms, while European telcos have maintained profits through reduced data delivery costs. However, the declining profits of telcos do not guarantee the protection of privacy.

Konstantinos Komaitis

Applying old telecoms rules to the internet is widely regarded as detrimental, as it would result in unanticipated barriers to entry. This approach is seen as nonsensical, considering that telecoms rules operate under the pretext of the Internet Governance Forum. The argument against these rules is based on the belief that they would hinder competition and impede innovation in unpredictable ways.

It is also argued that the internet infrastructure is not solely dependent on telecom operators. A diverse range of actors, including technology companies, contribute significantly to the development and maintenance of the internet ecosystem. Content and application providers play a vital role in supporting internet infrastructure, as exemplified by their contributions through CDNs, data centers, and cloud services. Therefore, portraying only telecom operators as the sole contributors to internet infrastructure is inaccurate.

The issue at hand also revolves around network neutrality, and concerns have been raised regarding the potential discrimination against certain applications and counterproviders. These cases highlight the violation of network neutrality principles, not only from a technological standpoint but also in terms of economic fairness.

The debate around Universal Service Funds (USFs) has garnered criticism from various perspectives. Telefonica, for instance, suggests that Europe should not replicate the USA’s approach to USFs and instead advocates for direct payments as a more suitable solution. Additionally, Komaitis questions whether telecom companies genuinely desire a discussion centered on USFs, suggesting a misalignment of interests.

Criticism is also directed towards Europe’s telecom model, which is deemed as setting a poor example. Komaitis specifically points out flaws in Europe’s approach and highlights the need for a more effective model.

Notably, over 20 organizations globally, including Brazil, India, Europe, and the United States, express similar concerns about the infrastructure issue, indicating a widespread and significant global concern. This highlights the need for a global dialogue and deliberation on infrastructure, led by civil society organizations.

Komaitis stands firmly against the current method of discussing infrastructure and believes that it needs fundamental changes. He argues that the current conversation around infrastructure is primarily driven by telecom operators, neglecting the perspectives and interests of other stakeholders.

In conclusion, applying outdated telecoms rules to the internet is widely seen as detrimental and likely to create unforeseen barriers. The internet ecosystem relies on diverse actors, including technology companies, and portraying only telecom operators as contributors to infrastructure is misleading. The issue at hand encompasses concerns over network neutrality, technological and economic discrimination, universal service funds, Europe’s telecom model, and the need for a more inclusive and global discussion on infrastructure. Komaitis takes a stance against the current infrastructure dialogue and calls for a change in approach.

Thomas Lohninger

In the discussion surrounding the telecom industry, several key points emerge. Firstly, the practice of zero-rating, which allows users to access certain online content without incurring data charges, is prevalent in many nations. This practice controls how users experience the internet by incentivising them to use certain services for free.

Concerns have also been raised about the shift in the telecom industry towards prioritising profit over quality. Some argue that this focus on profit optimisation may lead to a deterioration in the overall user experience. Critics suggest that this approach could result in the elimination of local caching services, potentially increasing costs for consumers.

The concept of net neutrality is also a contentious issue. It is argued that network fees are inherently incompatible with the principles of net neutrality. Those who support net neutrality argue that all users should have equal access to the internet, without any discrimination or preferential treatment based on payment.

Opponents of a proposition that violates net neutrality predict that it would be harmful to society and the internet ecosystem as a whole. They argue that such a proposition would violate the principle of net neutrality and would primarily serve the profit margins of telecom companies. Instead, they suggest that the concerns and needs of society should be the deciding factor, rather than simply focusing on telecom companies’ profits.

Commissioner Thierry Breton has faced criticism for not upholding due diligence standards. His previous role as CEO of France Telecom has led to accusations that he broke his promise in the European Parliament. In response, some countries, such as Germany and the Netherlands, have issued letters to the European Commission, urging it to uphold due diligence standards.

Furthermore, when it comes to network investment, there is evidence suggesting that simply investing more money in improving the network infrastructure may not necessarily result in better quality for users. This challenges the notion that money is the main bottleneck in network rollout.

The influence of corporate interests on the decision-making process within the European Commission is also a point of concern. The appointment of the former CEO of France Telecom to the commission is seen by critics as an example of corporate capture. This has led to the promotion of potentially damaging ideas that have been rejected by stakeholders other than telecom companies.

Additionally, the creation of a major telecommunication oligopoly in Europe is viewed by some as an unfavorable outcome. Instead, it is argued that a more desirable model for the telecom industry would involve competition and cooperation among multiple players, rather than domination by a few.

There are also diverging opinions regarding the nature of telecommunications. Some argue that it should be treated as a public utility, prioritising public access and welfare. On the other hand, there are those who disapprove of market deregulation in the industry, likely due to concerns about inequality and the integrity of the market.

In conclusion, the telecom industry has sparked various debates and concerns. The practice of zero-rating, the shift towards profit optimisation, net neutrality, corporate influence, network investment, market deregulation, and the nature of telecommunications as either public utilities or market-driven entities are all key topics of contention. Clear arguments have been presented from different perspectives, each supported by specific evidence and rationales. The discussions highlight the complex challenges faced by the telecom industry and the importance of carefully considering the potential consequences of various policy decisions.

Jean Jaques Sahel

The analysis of the speakers’ views on the internet ecosystem and its impact on consumers, innovation, and infrastructure provides valuable insights. One of the key points emphasised by the speakers is the need to enhance the open internet to drive innovation and foster digital transformation. They argue that strong emphasis should be placed on preserving the open nature of the internet, as it has been a game-changer in providing access to information for people globally. They also highlight how the internet has become an essential tool for everyday life and the economy as a whole.

Efforts to improve internet connectivity should not only focus on urban areas but also on reaching the last 5-10% of the population in hard-to-reach areas. The aim is to bridge the digital divide and ensure that everyone can benefit from the opportunities offered by the internet. In this regard, it is important to facilitate the easier deployment of internet infrastructure, making it more accessible to remote communities.

The analysis also recognises the significant contributions made by content and application providers in the internet ecosystem. These providers play a crucial role in driving innovation and creating products that attract customers. Additionally, they fund infrastructure such as subsea cables, which help transport traffic more efficiently and save costs for internet service providers (ISPs). The speakers argue that content and application providers should be acknowledged for their massive contributions and the positive impact they have on the network infrastructure.

Regulatory frameworks and market evolution were also discussed as important factors in shaping the internet landscape. The speakers suggest that improvements can be made to regulatory frameworks, both in Europe and worldwide, to accommodate new technologies and seize emerging opportunities. They highlight the need for a forward-thinking approach that embraces the positive aspects of the evolving market.

Stakeholder inclusion was another aspect that was emphasised. The speakers argue that all stakeholders, including consumer organisations, civil society organisations, industry, academics, and the technical community, should be invited to speak at internet governance events. This inclusive approach ensures a well-rounded and diverse perspective in decision-making processes.

Evidence-based decision-making was also highlighted as a crucial factor in internet governance. The speakers emphasised the importance of utilising expert analysis from organisations such as BEREC, telecom regulators, OECD, and the German Motor Police Commission, among others. This approach promotes informed decision-making that considers the implications and potential challenges related to internet governance.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the need to enhance the open internet, extend connectivity to remote areas, recognise the contributions of content and application providers, improve regulatory frameworks, embrace market evolution, foster stakeholder inclusion, and prioritise evidence-based decision-making. These actions will ultimately contribute to a more accessible, innovative, and inclusive internet ecosystem.

Luca Belli

The analysis examines three perspectives on zero rating and the increase in internet traffic. The first perspective asserts that zero rating is less common in the global north, but prevalent in the global south. In the global south, large platforms have been subsidised through zero rating for the past 10 years, resulting in these platforms generating most of the internet traffic. This prevalence of zero rating has created a new kind of poverty known as “data poverty,” whereby users quickly exhaust their data allowances, similar to running out of money. This perspective presents a negative sentiment towards zero rating and its impact on internet access and digital rights, thereby emphasising the need for fair share.

The second perspective critically examines operators who claim to promote fair share. It argues that these operators are responsible for implementing business models that have led to the exponential increase in internet traffic. Therefore, their assertion of fair share appears self-serving and contradictory to their own actions. This viewpoint highlights the negative consequences of these business models and expresses a critical sentiment towards operators’ claims of fair share.

The third perspective focuses on the shift in telecom operators’ perspectives on increasing internet traffic. It points out that, until the pandemic, telecom operators, especially in countries like Germany, encouraged high video consumption through schemes like BingeOn. However, it is now intriguing that these very operators consider the increase in traffic problematic. This observation indicates a change in their perception and raises questions about their motivations and inconsistencies in their approach.

Overall, the analysis emphasises the negative impact of zero rating on internet access and digital rights, highlighting disparities between the global north and south. It also critiques operators for claiming fair share while implementing business models that contribute to the surge in traffic. The shifting perspectives of telecom operators further highlight the need to scrutinise their motives and actions. These insights underscore the importance of addressing the issue of zero rating, promoting responsible consumption and production, and reducing inequalities in global internet access.

Luca Belli:
is a member of the Brazilian Consumers Pacific Information Policy Lead and Global Telecoms Policy Lead at Google. Then we will have K.S. Park, who is Professor of Regulatory Affairs at Aetno. Then we’ll have Thomas Loninger, who is Executive Director at Epicenter Works. And last, but of course not least, Konstantinos Komaitis, that is non-resident fellow at why we are here and what is the aim of today’s session. We want to discuss the emerging tensions on the fair share or unfair share, as K.S. was reminding us, debate, and also which kind of connection exists with the previous debates that we have been discussing over the past years, especially zero rating debate, net neutrality debate. Over the past year and a half, especially, we have been witnessing that the proposed solution may not be so effective. So the reason why we have today such diverse panel is precisely to try to understand what are the different standpoints in this debate and try, ideally, to come to some common ground and maybe even policy suggestion for the future. Now, without further ado, I would like to give the floor to our first speaker, Artur Coimbra, from the ANATEL, the Brazilian Telecoms Regulator. Artur, you have been working a lot on telecoms over the past. I don’t want to reveal your age, so I’ll just say that you have a certain experience in this. So please, Artur, the floor is yours. Thank you, Luca.

Artur Coimbra:
Good morning, everyone. I’m here representing ANATEL, the Brazilian regulator. And let me just start by saying, to disappoint you, and say that as the so-called fair share or unfair share, I mean, network fee, is an intended solution to a supposed problem that we’re still assessing, I’m not here ready to say whether it’s fair or unfair. But I just want to provoke the debate with some elements. ANATEL, for example, has just disclosed this night the results, the mapping results of arguments of its call for subsidies that it made three months ago. And we had 627 individual contributions on this topic that were mapped and disclosed a few hours ago. And now we’re going to dive into the arguments and provide an outcome of all the contributions that we received. Let me just start by saying that internet architecture has changed a lot in the last 15 or 20 years. So in the golden age of internet, we had the users, we had the content, which was present in big data centers, expensive infrastructure, located in a few places in the world. And between them, connecting users to the content, they were just the network itself through IP transit contracts, bringing content to the user. So the point is that in the last 15 years, data storage costs reduced by 98% or 99%. So it was a great revolution on micro data centers, content delivery networks, caching, and other kinds of infrastructure that brought the content near the user and changed the landscape of internet architecture. So today, you not necessarily need a full set IP transit contract to bring the content to the user. And instead, many, many providers are getting the content just across the street in a micro data center and bringing it to do. It’s better for everyone because it’s cheaper. The service is better. You save money on IP transit contracts. So theoretically, everybody wins. But alongside that phenomenon, we’ve seen the growth of some gatekeepers that are gaining more and more economic relevance and adding value to the network, in fact. And people want to access internet to get to that specific content. That brings a lot of negotiating power over big digital platforms. So when there’s a CDN and the content’s near the user, and the operator has to deploy its own network to get that content without receiving nothing for the traffic, instead of using an IP transit contract by which the operator used to receive the payment from the content provider and, in the end, by the user, well, there was a two-sided market that has become a one-sided market. So that’s what it is, the plea that telcos say. And there’s another issue. The other issue is that, in many cases, telcos plea that they cannot charge the user more for the consumption of a huge amount of data due to legal restrictions on data cap or to other market factors. So in the end, the argument is that you had a two-sided market by which you charged the content provider with the IP transit contract. And then you also charged the user. Of course, he’s the user. And this two-sided market is becoming a no-sided market. So this pressure, which could be a competition pressure, it’s certainly a negotiation pressure. So this pressure raises the question, which is necessary to be answered before we decide if the fair share is fair or not. And the question is, is this pressure that big tech, big platforms are putting on telcos, is this pressure the result of a bargain power or of a market power? This is the main issue. If it’s bargain power, it’s part of the game. Just go ahead. If it’s market power, then there’s a structural issue that must be tackled by regulators and by legislators and so on. So this is the main question that should be answered before we decide what to do with this. Anatel is working on it. But my final line here, and I think that the great takeaway of this discussion is that they’re both on the same side of the boat. Telcos and big digital platforms, they both depend on healthy, sustainable networks. Otherwise, it’s bad for everyone. So that is an incentive for them to try and find a market solution, which would be great for everyone. And I really trust on that happening. And we hope that. We just hope for the best.

Luca Belli:
OK, so thank you. Thank you very much, Artur, for these initial points. Very well explained. And now let’s stay in Brazil, but from a consumer perspective to understand a little bit more the complete picture of this evolving discussion. Please, Camila, the floor is yours.

Kamila Kloc:
Thank you so much, Luca, for the opportunity, and also for you that are here in this time of the morning. In Brazil, we have this context of this public consultation made by Anatel. But we have also a bigger context in Brazil in discussions about the neutrality, zero rating. And it involves not only the telecom authority in Brazil, but other several authorities. For example, zero rating practices were already analyzed by the competition authority in the past. And now the Ministry of Justice has been pressured also to analyze these practices in terms of consumer law. And this pressure was made by civil society. So to present myself, I am a specialist in digital rights and telecommunications in the Brazilian Institute of Consumer Protection. And we are part of a network on digital rights, including access to internet. And we are trying to raise these issues from more of a consumer perspective. And I think that this is the biggest challenge on that. Because when we are talking about fair share or unfair share, we are talking about big companies. We are talking about big techs versus big telcos, the new companies, like the traditional companies. And the ones that suffer the most are consumers in the end. So to answer directly the question, yes, for most part of the Brazilian society, definitely for EDEC and from the Coalition Networks in Brazil, it is unfair share if we have to fee companies to these kind of services. We are very concerned of internet fragmentation. And we are very aware that the motive, the reason that the internet is successful is that internet was created to be an open environment, an internected environment. And once we do practices like this, we separate. We created more of second and first class users, first and second class services in the internet. Since the commissioner have already talked a little about the consultation in Brazil, I would like then to focus on how the unfair share connects to zero rating. And for this, in the last few years, we’ve been working so hard to present not only these critics and these arguments against this kind of practices, but also to bring data on that. In Brazil, we have a strong organization that makes internet connectivity research every year, which is CETIC, which is related to the Internet Brazilian Steering Committee. But we also have been developing a research in EDEC to bring this data. And nowadays, we are also developing research with Anatel. But to focus on this research that EDEC conducted in 2021, pandemic time, sorry, if I’m not mistaken, one of these two years. But we’ve been interviewing the Brazilian poorer classes to understand how do they use internet and how these kinds of limitations, for example, the zero rating ones, affect their lives. So we found out that people with lower classes may have mobile phone internet just for 21 days a month. So 21 days of 30 days. What this means? This means that in the last days of the month, people are depending on Wi-Fi, public Wi-Fi, or home Wi-Fi, which not everyone have. And people rely more on mobile phone access. And this kind of access is limited. It’s not based on speed. It’s based on data franchise. And once the internet is over, you have some kind of access. But which kind of access do you have? You have access just to some limited apps, some limited companies, which in Brazil are the big techs in the end, especially meta. This brings some issues that I know that I’m expanding a little the scope of this lookup. But it’s important to say that when we are talking about telecom, when we are talking about access, we are talking also about other rights. So disinformation is also a huge issue that is a consequence on all of that. Because once people do not have access to confirm the information, they receive some information, for example, in WhatsApp or Facebook, and they share it without confirming it. So we have to talk about these issues, not only talking about net neutrality, not only talking about internet access, which would be in the center, but to talk how this affects several other rights. So thank you so much, Luca.

Luca Belli:
Thank you very much, Camila. So to start stressing this connection between the fair share and zero rating, and actually to add a little bit of element of complexity, I think that maybe for people in the global north, if we can say so, where zero rating is not that common, this does not sound evident. But in global south country, observers are a little bit puzzled when they hear this debate about platforms contributing more to network fees, because platforms have been subsidized, basically, with zero rating for the past 10 years. And I think we have been speaking about this issue several times over the past years, the fact that zero rating actually would have created this kind of situation where large platforms are responsible for most of the traffic, precisely because they have been subsidized, sponsored for free with zero rating in most global south countries. So it’s interesting to see that nowadays, after having offered this traffic, and as Camila was saying, in some parts, some weeks, the last week, is a new kind of poverty in many countries. At the end, you finish your data allowance, like you finish your money. And then as you don’t have more money to go to the supermarket, you only have data allowance to have social media, basically. But that is not something that has happened, because the internet is like that. It’s a result of a specific business model. And many of us have questioned that business model. But now it’s surprising to see that, on the other hand, we see operators that may claim fair share when this, if you want to say, large use of the network is the precise result of this business model that has been enacted over the past 10 years precisely by operators. To understand a little bit more of the complexity, let me give the floor to Jean-Jacques, that has been also dealing with these issues for, I don’t want to reveal again your age, but for a lot of time. Thank you. Thank you, Luca.

Jean Jaques Sahel:
Good morning. I mean, I’ve been dealing with the open internet since I first tried the internet in 1993, because it’s always been open, although it was very, very slow, I have to admit, in 1993. Certainly from where I connected at the time in Marseille, it was like a 56k modem connection linking three universities. That was the only one connection. Now we have 12 subsea cables arriving in Marseille. We have fantastic connectivity. Although I’ve been actually hearing people complain that we have too much, too many cables arriving at the city. So we need to know what we want anyway. But that’s kind of part of the discussion in a way. I think generally speaking, it’s great to be at the IGF and in forums like this, where among stakeholders across different parts of the ecosystem, we can look at the concerns that there are. And we can try to look at the evidence, share ideas for what could be improved. And I think what we all care about here is, at the end of the day, how can we get a good internet tool? An internet that’s affordable, that’s got good speed, good capacity. And why do we want that? Because, well, it’s enjoyable for people, hopefully, but it also can support digital transformation. It can help our societies. It can help our economies. It can help us as people every day. That’s really the end goal. So connectivity as a means to support wider benefits to the economy and society. And that’s the end goal. And so when we get to this debate of network usage fees, as they are referred to in some places, I actually think it’s a false debate. And it was a false debate when it was first mentioned in something like 1999. You can see the quotes. They were pretty much the same as what’s been said by some people, actually sometimes the same people then. It was a fake debate 10 years ago. Not to say we shouldn’t have the debate, but I think we need to move on. I think the reality is that, and I think most of us in the room know this, we are an ecosystem in the internet, starting with users and encompassing essential elements in this virtuous cycle that we have. And these essential elements are the telecom operators, network operators, and the content and application providers. There is a virtuous dynamic where there is innovation, there are content and services created that appeal to customers or to consumers, users, and then they subscribe to the internet. And I think that’s been working well for 40 years. It’s still working well today. That’s what the open internet is about. It’s innovation without permission that boosts this whole ecosystem and supports the benefits that the internet has been bringing us. And when we think about this from a business perspective, when we, as a company, look at ISPs, telecom operators, we see them as essential partners, both indirect partners in the sense that we create content and applications for our users. They provide that connectivity that users want to access our content services. So there’s a nice indirect element, indirect dynamic. And then we have direct relationships. We partner with telecom operators on a huge amount of things. And it’s been like that for many years. We do it for commercial reasons. They might resell our cloud or add bundles of YouTube premium, for instance, perhaps in their own subscription packages. But we also do some infrastructure work with them. So for instance, increasingly, we help them with storing some of the network aspects, elements in our cloud. They use some of our data analytics to optimize their networks and make cost savings. Or indeed, we look at much more innovative things. For instance, we have a joint 5G research center with one of the large operators in Europe. So we have all sorts of direct partnerships as well. It’s a very dynamic and generally very fun way of doing things. and fruitful environment and I think that’s the sort of thing that we’d like to focus on, this virtuous ecosystem. So going back very briefly on network fees because there’s been some great points made, I think it’s been shown already, the introduction of these fees would be very unhelpful to consumers, to competition and also to the technical workers of the Internet, to the efficient routing of Internet traffic. Many stakeholders have said that, including a number of governments, telecom and competition regulators and efforts. We need to focus instead on real problems, thinking about how we can get the open Internet to really favor innovation and encourage users to use it, to enjoy the Internet and support digital transformations. I think we need to join forces together and look at the genuine issues. Think about things like how do we reach the last five or ten percent of the population that live in difficult to reach areas? How can we use a mix of interesting new technologies perhaps to reach them as an example? How can we continue to facilitate making it easier to deploy infrastructure like to lay fiber or to lend submarine cables or to make more spectrum available for instance on an unlicensed basis so that we can facilitate things like Wi-Fi offload which take the strain off the networks. How can we bring basically resiliency and diversity to connectivity and support the use of the open Internet for the good of society, the economy and us as users people. Thank you.

KS Park:
Excellent. Thank you very much Jean-Jacques. And actually now I would like to give the floor to KS Park because South Korea is actually what the only example of a country where this kind of fees have been introduced and so it would be interesting to understand what is the result of the concrete result in the Internet ecosystem of this of the implementation of this model. So standard payroll obviously works like tax on Internet to be exact taxation on speaking online because to speak online you have to push out data onto the network so the more you speak the more you have to pay somebody. Just like in the days of you know snail mail and telephony to send a letter out you have to buy a stamp to make a phone call you have to pay the telecom company. So this has made this created now the rule was instituted only among ISPs and using that as an excuse the policymakers did not consult with the consumers and content providers. So the standard payroll applies only among ISPs but the economic impact of that of course trickles down to content providers because ISPs hosting popular content providers will end up pushing out more data to other ISPs because users on other ISPs will want to access that popular content and you know accessing the content means the data files made up of HTML will have to be pushed out to the users. So that creates this incentives across the board among ISPs to host popular content or any content and that has increased you know that basically removed the competition among ISPs in selling their services to in hosting good content on their network and that has increased the internet access fees. Well I mean it didn’t really increase what happened was up you know that because of the technical advancement that Arturo talked about the internet access fees are falling by 20% every year but Korea it didn’t happen so that continued for about the rule was instituted like 2016 and now it’s almost seven years now over seven years the what actually immediately even 2017 the internet access fees or in technical terms is transit IP transit fees in South Korea was clocked at what was measured to be eight times that of Paris five six times to Los Angeles in New York and the trend worsened in 2021 the internet access fees or IP transit fees became ten times Frankfurt eight times London. You can see the the financial a very hostile financial environment that startups have to domestic startups I say domestic because the domestic ones have to buy internet access from local telcos and like 2021 Korea’s answer to Netflix called the watcher video streaming service was paying 10% of its revenue as internet access fees. In 2020 public interest app like COVID location announcement system it’s also app the the operator complained that because of high internet transit fees they cannot fully function they cannot meet all the demand so that’s what’s happening with the domestic content and overseas content providers they also have a problem because because of this you know this this incentive this the this incentives among ISPs from hosting popular content applies both overseas content when they are on the cache servers I mean I should have talked about how data storage has become cheap and then now the content is coming across the street so a lot of content is being served through cache servers on the network of Korea’s ISPs but even hosted a cache server has become you know unpopular among ISPs because they have to bear the center pay burden so they are charging increasing the you know what is technically paid peering fees that they have charged the overseas content so twitch which is a popular gaming platform they could not continue making the payment so you know they could do two things they could charge the uploaders from Korea for uploading right because it is because of them or they could charge the contents that are popular among Korean eyeballs right it is those contents that are generating more payment burden on twitch they couldn’t do that because I mean you know making people pay is a very unfair so what they did was they intentionally degraded that service they lower the resolution to to 750 so only in Korea you know users are watching at a lower resolution than other parts of the country so a lot of users are leaving a lot of gamers are also leaving because you know Korean gamers video will be watched more by Korean eyeballs and that is and if Korean eyeballs are you know getting lower resolution Korean gamers will leave and this I mean we can we can extrapolate that to like Netflix I mean you know squid game is popular Korean titles they are yes world popular but they are yes the word popular but they are also initially popular with the Koreans too right it’s it’s a Korean eyeball heavy contents and if Netflix is required to pay Korean ISPs for accessing Korean consumers they’ll have to reduce investment in Korean heavy Korean eyeball heavy titles so that is the situation in Korea I hope you guys don’t learn this lesson or learn the lesson either way and I hope I have a few minutes later to talk about some of the general yeah thank you very much KS for this insight and actually I think I propose we finish with the all

Luca Belli:
the presentation so that we then have a good moment for discussion because I’m sure there will be a lot of remarks comments and occasions to discuss more this let’s move now to Europe that is now the center has been the center of the attention of the past year at least for a consultation from the European

Maarit Palovirta:
Commission so Marit Etno has been one of the main proponents of this fees so please marry the floor is yours thank you look and thank you to the organizers of the panel it’s very nice actually to hear global views as you know we’ve been discussing this in Europe a lot mainly amongst ourselves but it’s really really I think fruitful to also have this global exchange and just to go to the title of the workshop so many of you know that zero rating is is no longer a reality in Europe so I will focus my comments on the on the fair contribution as such and perhaps for the sake of well the audience today who maybe you haven’t followed all the discussions in Europe I will start with a few few thoughts on on how do we see the telecoms market at the moment in Europe and I already heard some of the keywords from from the different interventions namely to do with the kind of market structure and competition and the different dynamics that are related regarding consumers of course and and society as a whole so I’ll try and give you a bit of a background here as a kind of a starting point so indeed we do have been now for nearly two years advocating and have tried to bring some well kind of describe the context around this fair contribution issue from our perspective and the markets in Europe as we see today is and many of you puppies saw that the European Commission published the summary results of the public consultation just two days ago so I’ll use one of the quotes that they put into that which came from the ethno GSM a reply and is with regards to the competition so in Europe when we look at the number of operators in the EU markets the number of operators that are serving more than 500,000 customers so more than half a million customers in Europe is 38 in the US that is 7 in Japan that is 4 so the market structure in the EU is significantly different that it is in many other parts of the world that could be comparable to Europe that means that as we are in an industry of heavy capex investment so digging fibers into the ground building towers for 5g etc that requires a lot of money a lot of effort by by many people and it means that simply this current market structure does not allow for proper investment into these infrastructures that actually our society wants our consumers want that’s our policy makers and politicians want that and also we want that but the current market structure simply doesn’t allow for that the return on investment doesn’t allow for the investment. We have some regulatory specific circumstances in Europe so we have competition policy that restricts mergers so telecom operators are not encouraged or allowed really to merge with each other for the moment just to simplify things we have still some heavy sector specific regulation for the telecom sector for example on pricing so we have pricing regulation you have all heard maybe about the roaming rules in Europe wholesale prices they are all fixed prices so flexibility to price services is limited and just to give you an idea that also the competition in the market due to the fact that well there is this kind of sticky prices situation but also the fact that there are so many players is that despite the very heavy inflation that we also I think in our country’s last year the telecom sector in Europe was the only industrial sector where the price growth was negative so the prices went down despite the inflation and this is because of the heavy competition pressure on the industry and the pricing elements that I just described so there are some real pain points in the European telecom market that may not necessarily exist in other parts of the world. Now when we look at the consumer impact of course the main point of operators is to provide good services for the consumer and affordability certainly is a key issue and I think I just provided some elements why Europe has the most affordable some of the most affordable internet services in the world but also other important factors are things like quality so if we don’t invest sufficiently quality eventually will suffer trust if we don’t invest you know and update security and make sure that we are you know bringing the new layers into the networks also this factor will suffer and this will at the end we believe will start well making our consumers unhappy as well so it’s not only a question about prices in Europe it’s about these other factors so we are really looking at this from this kind of more holistic perspective and maybe a third factor I would like to raise because we talk a lot about societal welfare at the moment so you know security is certainly one thing but sustainability environmental sustainability is also important so we are now developing different kinds of KPIs in Europe to try and make sure that all industry players including operators and networks are as sustainable as possible and that of course means that we do not only measure but we also again invest in networks to make sure that in always possible we try and make them as sustainable as possible so that’s a little bit where we come from in Europe and so you know I’ll kind of we see that our hands are at the moment a little bit tight and I would like to maybe touch on the net neutrality point as well you know very well that Europe is is one of the very few well countries or regions in the world where we have net neutrality open internet regulation and you may also know that the European Commission evaluated this regulation I think it was earlier this year and asked many stakeholders including us if we should reopen this regulation if we indeed reconsider it perhaps and as the Commission has also many times said publicly that no stakeholder came forward asking for reopening of the regulation and indeed so etno together with again the GSMA so representing really 80-90 percent of the European telecommunication markets said we are happy with the open internet principles the regulation the text okay you may argue if it’s you know the best as we kind of look at the developments in our industry today but it is not worth opening it because we still believe that the principles are valid and this of course from our perspective also then I’m going to enter a little bit to the market asymmetry that we see related to the contribution it means that we as operators have a must carry obligation just again to simplify things so operators will carry any traffic how big how small in whatever shape or form coming from whoever to the end user today in Europe or if they don’t then they of course risk going to the court which you know some operators might want to do but in general I don’t think this is the case and so there is a one-sided obligation to deliver traffic and again this then gives us very limited possibilities to manage and try and optimize the data traffic and this is as and as we know that this is something that has again gone up quite a lot so we are in a situation we have where we have pressure on investment but we also have them pressure on on this kind of increasing digitization of our society which of course we all welcome but we need to make sure that you know we have a balance between the networks that are supposed to deliver this and our key part of our internet ecosystem and then this kind of services and content part so maybe I’ll just stop there and happy to then chip in later. Thank you very much Mariette for providing your time.

Luca Belli:
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be here, and I would like to thank you, Luca, for providing us a very good overview of the telecom market in Europe, and speaking about the consultation, I know that also Thomas has been very active into participating in this, and might have also a different perspective on it, so please, Thomas, the floor is yours.

Thomas Lohninger:
Thank you very much, and I would like to thank you, Luca, for the opportunity to be here, and representing the telecom industry in this round, it might not be easy, and I think it’s always a pleasure if we get to have this exchange, and these honest exchanges are necessary for moving the debate forward. Martin and I had a very similar debate, actually, last IGF, in Ethiopia, and I’m a little bit saddened that we always need to have these debates in other corners of the world, and while I’m not a big fan of the idea of zero rating, and I don’t know if that’s happening in Brussels, it’s very rarely that voices from consumer protection or civil society are present there, so maybe that’s a good reason for having the IGF, I think. Anyway, I would also like to touch on the issue of zero rating and network fees, because, yes, we have no more zero rating in Europe, but still, those two things are very much connected. Zero rating by the IGF is a very, very common practice in many nations, and here you have to hit theero rates as the free market is in control how the user experiences the internet. If you look at the political statements, zero rating was a very common practice happening in all but one member states and it is, as Lucas described, incentivising the user to use the internet for free. So the free market is now becoming the problem, it is now cluttering up the pipes. And I want to also maybe focus in a little bit on why there is such a drastic shift that we are discussing here. Internet connection used to be something altruistic, it is something where nerds put cables together in order to make the internet whole, to allow global end-to-end connectivity, and that’s usually done and then the user is able to use the internet for free. And the free market is now becoming a place where we are optimising quality, and with this proposal we will drastically step away from that. We will optimise for profit, we will maybe no longer have local caching service. We would need, like we see in South Korea now, make a far longer travel in order to get to the data that we want. And it would become more expensive, ultimately, either the prices that we as consumers have to pay or the quality we have to pay for it. And I think this is a very important point, because maybe that’s not clear for everyone, why net neutrality is inherently incompatible with network fees. Everybody agrees that even in the oldest version of net neutrality, you cannot have paid fast lanes. You cannot have one railway for everyone, and then a faster railway where you have to pay in order to be on it. And in fact, you only get good quality with Deutsche Telekom, a big German provider right now, if you pay them. You will suffer every night, every peak hour, with your service, if you don’t have a paid connection into their network. And, yes, technically speaking, they are not slowing down the traffic within their network. They’re just ensuring that the entrance to their network is a bottleneck that’s always congested. And funny enough, their prices to have these interconnections are 10, 20, 30 times more expensive than everyone else’s. It is very important to make a pause here. We are now one and a half years into this debate, into the 2020 iteration of it. For the first time, we have a public record from the consultations in Brazil and in Europe on what happens. We have a public record from the consultations in Brazil and in Europe on what happens. And we have a public record from the consultations in Europe on what everybody has said. I only had time to look at the European one, but I think it’s interesting to just list the people who have contributed, the organizations and what they’ve said. We have the conglomerate, the body of all Telekom regulators that say this violates net neutrality and is dangerous for the Internet ecosystem. We have the private organizations who have the logic and provide consensus. We have multiple organizations that went on to their statement. And it’s not just the regulators, it’s the public broad casters, it private broad casters, the journalistic associations. We have the ITF community from the ITF downwards. We have the ITF from the ITF upwards. We have the ITF from the ITF downwards. And, of course, the copyright industry. Disney is on the same side as Google and as consumer protection organizations. So this is a coalition of unlikely allies. And to conclude, maybe, I think actually we don’t have a problem with the market structure in Europe. We have a problem with the market structure in the EU. So, I think, it’s important to say that, yes, telecoms are making profits. Just not big enough profits, but if whole society is complaining and saying, stop, this will hurt us, maybe the profit margins from telecom companies shouldn’t be the deciding factor if everybody else gets hurt by such a proposal. And, lastly, I also want to say that now almost five months ago, the European Commission on Telecommunications, the EPC, announced that it would be giving up on this proposal, funny enough, on the same day when it was announced, that Commissioner Breton is giving up on this proposal for this legislative term. To remind you, Commissioner Thierry Breton used to be CEO of France Telecom. And as a European, I have to say I’m shamed by the way he has broken every word in the European Parliament, but I am shamed by the way he has broken every word in the European Parliament. So, please, Germany and the Netherlands issued letters to the Commission saying exactly the same. Please uphold due diligence standards, and at least when Europe influences a worldwide debate like in India and Brazil where everyone is referencing Europe, we should set ourselves to a higher standard. Thank you.

Luca Belli:
Thank you very much. I think it’s a very good point, and I think it’s also on one of the points that you mentioned about the very large and diverse spectrum of stakeholders that participated to this consultation, raising some concern with the effectiveness of this proposal. And I think that, honestly, if we had the same consultation with the European Commission, we would have had a much better result. And I think it’s a very good point, and I agree that it is, with all due respect for Google, of course, there is a need, maybe, to have a better regime, a more effective regime of taxation, but I think the fundamental question here is that maybe the goal, the way forward is not really to tax the traffic that is injected in the network because consumer demanded, but they also demanded that the network be redistributed in a more effective way so that then the benefits can be redistributed socially, right? So I think that we, virtually everyone would agree that a fair share, some kind of fair share is not a bad idea, but maybe this type of fair share is not really the solution that, for the problem, right, if you want larger redistribution of wealth. So I think that, again, it’s a good point, and I agree that it’s a good point, and I agree that there are a lot of international elements, maybe also shared by Constantinos that has been working a lot on internet policies, infrastructures, for the past decades, again, not revealing anyone’s age here, so please, Constantinos, the floor is yours. ≫ Thank you, Luca, good morning, everyone, and thank you for showing up, I really thought that this would be an empty room.

Konstantinos Komaitis:
So I think that one of the things that has happened in the past 20 years is that we have been attempting to think of the internet, which is a new medium, by applying old rules, and telecoms rules have been one such rule that we have been trying to apply ever since I remember starting in this field, and this is really a bad idea, because telecoms rules operate under the pretext of the Internet Governance Forum, and it doesn’t make any sense, and it doesn’t make really sense, because it will create, really, barriers to entry in the most unpredictable of ways. We are at the Internet Governance Forum, and all of us are talking about how to support the open, global, and interoperable internet, and there’s really no question that if we apply this policy, the open and global and interoperable internet, we will be able to do that. We will be able to do that. In the internet, the great thing about the internet is that really there is no network that is more important than another network. The more networks connect with one another, the bigger the value for the networks themselves, and also for their customers. And this also creates more resilience, because the more networks you have, the more decentralized the system is, and you are avoiding single points of failure. So, the Internet Governance Forum has created a system that works, that doesn’t require regulatory intervention, and it, of course, has allowed to have low barriers to entry. And, of course, it has fostered all these very collaborative relationships, which I’m sure collaboration is very challenging in the best of times, but so I’m sure that collaboration is challenging in this instance, but let’s not forget that the internet, the open internet, is an outcome of collaboration amongst many different and diverse actors. So, that was my first point. The second point is about the infrastructure and the idea that currently, or at least that’s the way the policy, this policy idea has been framed, is that there is only one actor contributing to infrastructure, and these are telecom operators. And this is not necessarily true, right? Technology companies, content and application providers, are contributing heavily in the internet ecosystem and its infrastructure, CDNs and data centers, and cloud services being clear examples. And the OECD is actually working on a report, which hopefully will be released next month, but the scoping paper made a really, really strong case about the diversity of infrastructure, and that it comes from the most unpredictable places that we can imagine. Municipalities. Contribute in internet and broadband infrastructure. Pension funds. HEDS funds contribute in infrastructure. Of course, telecom operators. Technology companies. Tower companies. So, we see a whole huge ecosystem where different players contribute to make sure that we have a reliable, secure, and sustainable infrastructure that can support the increasing demands on the internet. And, of course, we see a whole huge ecosystem where different players contribute to make sure that we have a reliable, secure, and sustainable infrastructure that can support the increasing demands of users, because the fact of the matter is that there is an increasing demand. Right now, everybody wants to stream video, and that is what it is. But there is this collaboration, if you want, that is happening. People are coming all together in order to make sure that networks can actually support this. So, I think that, in the end, the ECJ has been, has tried to ease the concerns that this is not a network neutrality issue. But I would bet, well, not a lot of money, because I don’t have them, but I would bet money on it that if that case were to go before the ECJ, it would have been a very, very different outcome. In Europe, I think we’ve heard it from everyone, we have the open internet regulation, and between 2020 and 2020, we have the open internet regulation, and between 2020 and 2021, there have been four cases that, and two of them actually said that the, it’s not just the technology discrimination that violates network neutrality, meaning that, you know, when you’re blocking or you’re throttling traffic, but it’s also economic discrimination. And two in particular cases focused specifically on that, on the idea that if you choose certain applications and counterproviders to making those deals and not apply those deals to everyone else, this is also against the open internet regulation and network neutrality. So we have to be clear about this, that this is predominantly about internet neutrality, and, again, I appreciate the effort to try to make it less so, but that is not really the case. And I will stop there.

Luca Belli:
Thank you. Thank you very much, Konstantinos. And actually, one of those cases, the Telenor case, was precisely about also zero rating, and it’s good to see, to hear from Marius that Europe now has abandoned this policy that many of us have criticized over the past year, but it’s also good to remind that until the pandemic times, in countries like Germany, there were, like, models like BingeOn that were literally, as the name suggests, it was an invitation to binge on video, and so the fact that now the telecom operators consider this increase in traffic as something problematic may be curious for those who were used to see the very same telecom offering for free video traffic, and encouraging users to use it as much as they can carelessly, actually, through BingeOn models. I think we have had a lot of very interesting suggestions so far, and I would like to hear from you. Thank you. Thank you very much, and I’m very happy we still have half an hour for debate, because I’m sure there will be a lot of debate. Now, let me start by opening the floor, because I know that you are not only very brave to be here at AFPA State in the last day, but I see a lot of people that may be interested in sharing comments or asking questions. So if you want to ask questions or share your ideas, please, you can line up and use this mic. Otherwise, we can, I think, go on. I think we may have, I’m sure we’ll have reactions here from the panel. If you have any questions, just raise your hand or line up there. Otherwise, we can start with the reactions here. Yes. Okay, yes. I think one confusion on whether network or fair share and unfair share violation of network neutrality is because of the presence of paid peering. Although it doesn’t account for a lot of traffic, I mean, well, it doesn’t account for a lot of connections. Most connections, more than 99.99% are settlement-free peering. But even through that small number of connections, a lot of traffic goes through that.

KS Park:
So if you look at the data from RCEP, the French regulator, although the number of connections is mostly settlement-free peering. In terms of volume of traffic, sizable portion of internet traffic go through paid peering points. But that does not ‑‑ and then, you know, FCC has not clearly, FCC in the U.S. or even BEREC have not clearly said, you know, that this is not the case. So I don’t think it’s a problem. I think it’s a problem. But I also think it’s a problem. I think, you know, the US government and the French government have not clearly said, you know, open internet regulation applies against paid peering. So what Telcos ‑‑ I mean, Telcos are not really saying it, but, you know, to be a Telcos advocate to make their arguments more reasonable, they may be saying that, oh, you know, this is a paid peering that has existed before, and, you know, Google has paid orange, paid peering fees, and Netflix has paid, Comcast paid peering fees before. So we just want to make it rule to make it more fair, and this does not violate net neutrality. But what they are forgetting is that this will, number one, will not be enforceable. Well, actually, it’s the same point. There is no number one or number two. It’s the same point. This will not be enforceable, because it will be mandatory paid peering, but what has really supported the information revolution is two rules. Freedom to connect and net neutrality. Okay? So freedom to connect and no freedom to charge for data delivery. These two rules are actually, you know, they are not enforceable. So freedom to connect and net neutrality. Freedom to charge for data delivery. These two rules are actually the two sides of the same coin. It is because the network participant, it is because ISPs are bound to this rule that they cannot charge for data delivery. They can charge only for connection capacity, not for data delivery. It is because of this what Mary called one-sided obligation, although I don’t think it’s obligation, it is more like an obligation. Thank you. exchange of promises over between ISPs to sell this global product to the Internet. It is not really an obligation imposed externally. But anyway, it is because of this one-sided obligation that all ISPs have a freedom to connect or not connect. And if a mandatory paid peering is imposed, what’s going to happen is Google, Netflix, they can say, oh, you know, we don’t want to pay fees to access customers in your network. And then they’re going to just connect. And the eyeballs in that country will no longer access Google. If all these content providers burdened with peering fees don’t connect, what are the regulators going to do? I mean, there’s really not much we can do if we want to keep the Internet as it is. So I think it’s unenforceable, and I think it is really pulling the rug under the fundamentals of Internet architecture, which is freedom to connect or not connect and remover of data delivery fees. Mary talked about how prices are falling. I want to ask whether your costs have been falling also. Because of the advancement of technology, putting together KPEX and OPEX, even with the catapulting of data traffic like five times, the network maintenance cost and development cost have remained the same in the past five years. So I thank you very much for the very extensive points, KS.

Maarit Palovirta:
And now, Merit, please, the floor is yours to reply. Yes. Maybe just on immediately on that question, the costs, no, they’re not falling. And if you read carefully the summary of the consultation, actually, there was some general language around that as well. They are not, of course, able to quote numbers because these are commercially sensitive, but the costs are not falling, no. I wanted to comment on the IP interconnection market because there is this, in Europe and much globally as well, still this very old-fashioned way to think that IP interconnection means peering and transit. And that’s the market, and that’s the base for competition. Now, in the last years, we’ve seen reports, including by BEREC, including by Analysis Mason, that, in fact, CDNs should now be considered a substitute to transit and peering. So in fact, the market definition has effectively changed, and we should be looking at a market that also includes the CDNs. Now, if you look at the CDNs that, for example, many tech players have in Europe, these are, of course, often proprietary infrastructures, and they’re also infrastructures where these owners and the operators of these CDNs, they sell capacity at a price to whoever needs capacity, so whoever needs their content to be delivered. And these prices, because they’re proprietary networks, are not publicly known. They are not considered in a market analysis when we look at the peering markets. And we actually are very happy to see that BEREC now, in their program for next year, have quite an ambitious kind of a task. So they will be reassessing the IP interconnection market, and very much also taking into account the CDNs, the role of CDNs, and how have they contributed to the IP interconnection market, because this is, of course, a development that has substantially changed the scene in the last five years. And the last assessment that BEREC did was five years ago. So I think that when we talk about the regulatory asymmetry, this is one example of such asymmetry. And if you look at the internet ecosystem a bit more widely, we recently were with Jean-Jacques in the same BEREC workshop talking about submarine cables, undersea connectivity. And there we see a little bit the same phenomenon. So we have these public cables where you sell capacity to others. Some of them are in consortia, including with European operators, consortia with some of the big tech companies. But there is a substantial amount of cables that are purely private. And for example, European operators don’t have the investment capacity to be running many private cables like that. But then, of course, we hear that about now, about 70% of, for example, the traffic between the US and EU goes through these private cables. So not actually being in the public best effort internet. And we are again here observing that the telcos who in consortium are now operating these cables that are publicly available and sell capacity. We should also think about what does that do to neutrality? So some content gets a real highway in a proprietary network, whereas other content has to go through these operated publicly available channels at a kind of best effort level. And we really applaud, I think it’s great, I mean, this is not a regulated market. So I think it is great that, of course, that companies find that you invest and there’s good things. But again, going back to the regulatory asymmetry, then when we look at the positioning of how this traffic then comes into, in our case, Europe, and is then divided and goes through the national networks, we need to look at the market power. What does it do in this kind of bigger picture? And hence, we are very much also then welcoming the BEREC’s upcoming work on this. They will do work on the entry of caps into the ECN market in European language, so content providers into the telecom markets. They are also going to be analyzing the role of cloud computing in this context. And also then doing a kind of a holistic mapping of the submarine connectivity scenario. So I think that that will give us a bigger picture. And I understand that the fair contribution, it’s very difficult sometimes to define because it is a very specific point in that ecosystem. But we need to look at the bigger picture and then see what is the impact of this interconnection point vis-à-vis the access network investment in Europe. Thank you very much for this. And actually, it will be very useful also then to study the methodology that BEREC will develop to this kind of study that could even be used as a good practice exported, maybe globally. I’m sure that Jean-Jacques has a reaction to your reaction, so please, Jean-Jacques.

Jean Jaques Sahel:
Thank you. I want to pick up on both Mariette and KS’s points, and I want to start by thanking Mariette because I think it’s been a debate that’s really interesting where there have been these accusations flying about fair contributions saying that content and applications providers do not contribute. But as Mariette has just explained very extensively, there are pretty massive contributions by content and applications providers. Of course, as Konstantinos was saying before, I think it was you, content and application providers help this ecosystem by providing the content and services without which, frankly, no one would pay telecom operators for an internet subscription. The only revenue that a telecom operator would make if it weren’t for the content and applications that we invest in would be telephony and SMS. If they want to go back to that, that’s fine. They don’t have a must-carry obligation for the internet. They can stop being internet providers because the internet is about a network of network. Once you connect to one endpoint, you have access to the global network. That’s what the internet is about. But you don’t have to provide that service connecting to the global internet, the global unique open internet. You can provide private networks. That’s a very profitable business. Or indeed, you can invest in new types of technologies that are related, like CDNs. You can be a CDN operator, and in fact, a lot of telecom operators have developed great CDN services, which they’re making a lot of money on. So going back to the contributions by content and application providers, so there’s that massive investment by content and application providers in innovating, in creating products that will delight customers and encourage them, therefore, to subscribe to internet service provider services and upgrade their subscriptions to things like 5G, for instance, or Fiber. Then you mentioned CDNs, and I think that’s really important. Yes, there are CDNs. What do CDNs do? They help to transport traffic much more easily, and so that’s another payment that content and application providers can make in order to deliver the traffic to end users with better quality, another form of contribution. And then you mentioned things like subsea cables, and the great thing about that is that whether they are private or public, or a mix of public and private networks, again, they help to bring traffic much faster, more efficiently, and save massive costs for ISPs, because instead of ISPs having to fetch the content from another part of the world, the traffic is brought by those content and application providers, 99% of the way to the user, and the telecom providers can do the last mile. That’s a huge cost savings for the operators. Cloud service is the same way, and when we look at how the cloud and associated services and some of the data analytics and AI can help to optimize network to support operators, which is what is happening today, again, it’s saving costs for ISPs, and it’s providing new avenues for monetization for the telcos. So as a summary, we’re in a situation where there is absolutely zero point in claiming that there is no contribution by the content and application providers sectors, because there is enormous contribution, as just exposed by Marit, and more importantly, I think we should look to the future, we should look at new technologies, we should look at the evolution of this market, as BEREC and OECD and others are doing, and look at the positives of how we can move forward together. There are improvements we can make to regulatory frameworks in Europe and elsewhere, in Brazil, etc. I think we should focus on that, on the real problems, look at the evidence, look at how we can help each other as an ecosystem, focus on that, rather than some people trying to instigate fights and fake battles when there’s none to be had, and that would do a disservice

Luca Belli:
to everyone. Excellent. Thank you very much for this. I see there are questions, and I also see there is one, at least, from the audience, so let’s start with the question from the online… So let’s start with the question on site, and then if we can have some of these online participants speaking, we can do it, otherwise we will only stay with the… Otherwise, the online participant can type the question and we will read it. Okay, thank you, Luca. Good morning, everybody.

Audience:
My name is Raul Echeverria, I’m from Latin America Internet Association, and this is… I don’t know if you know, but everything that is discussed in Europe has a huge impact in the policy agenda in Latin America, and this is not the exception. So it would be very funny that Europe abandoned the idea of moving ahead with this, and we will have probably some decisions, policy decisions, in some countries in the region. Some years ago, all the interconnection between ISPs and content providers used to happen in Miami, and in the last few years, the Internet technical community has done a huge effort to develop a complete new interconnection ecosystem, and has had a very positive impact in the access for the people. So what would happen if, for example, we are discussing this now in Brazil and also in the Caribbean, and that is very interesting, because it’s a kind of paradox, because Brazil is probably the country that has invested more in exchange points in the world, maybe. And the Caribbean is probably one of the places who more needs improved interconnection. So it doesn’t make sense that those are the two places that we are discussing this. But so what will happen? Who will win with this? As the colleague pointed out, 99 percent of the people are informal and for free. Why this? Is it because the content providers are ISPs and telecoms are stupid? No. It’s because all of them understand that they are adding value to each other. And so the market already spoke. So what will happen with that? What will happen, in my view, is that if a country like Brazil adopt a policy on this, obviously, companies will pay what they have to pay, and they will follow the law. But so they will not have incentives to bring their caches and do peerings in the exchange points and to bring the caches into the telcos infrastructure. So they will say, OK, we will pay what we have to pay, but now you have to pick our contents in Miami. So we are going 15 years back. And they will say, ah, and don’t forget. Obviously, it will not be informal. Now we will have to sign some contracts. So we will involve our legal departments, and it will take one year to have the contracts in place. Ah, and it will not be for free. We will have to negotiate that. At the end of the day, the situation will be the same than now. They will pay exactly what they have to share, to have a zero sum in the agreements. So there will not be winners, but there will be losers. Who are the losers? Small ISPs, small content providers, small platforms, small Internet companies. That will be the end of the tale at the time of starting negotiations with the other parties. So I think that the disruption will be huge, and at the end of the day, the result for telcos and content providers will be probably the same. Thank you very much, Raul, for providing these additional points. Do we have our remote participant, participant speaker? Can he or she speak? I don’t see any satisfactory reaction from the technical team. Hello? Oh, yeah. Oh, Gonzalo. We meet again. Hello, Luca. Hello. I don’t see you. Hello. Please. Hi. This is Gonzalo. I work for Telefonica, an ISP present in Europe, an ETNO member, so working with Marek on the first issue. I just wanted to address a few of the comments that have been raised during the session regarding the cost of the networks are going down and related to revenues, and also related to how this virtual cycle is benefiting all of us. I would like to stress that the telecom revenues have been decreasing for the European telecom sector 30% since 2011, where, for example, in the US, those same revenues have been increasing 18%. And at the same time, the returns of investment of the capital employees, which actually takes into account the revenues, the cost and investment, has been lower to 6% in Europe, where in the US, for example, that’s at the level of 14. And actually, that means that in Europe, the returns are lower than the cost of capital. So the money that we have to pay to get the funds for those investments is costing us more than the returns that we make on those investments. So that means that this is not really a virtuous cycle. It is not a situation where we all benefit. In fact, it was the case at the very beginning of the internet, but it is not the case anymore. It seems that when telecoms returns are lower than the cost of capital, we are losing money on every investment that we do. So basically, what we aim with FairShare is actually trying to foster the investments and to keep up the investment for the quality of the networks that the European needs. And for example, we can see that even though investments have been at levels of 20% over revenues, which is similar to the rest of the world, in terms of investment in euros per capita, in Europe, we have been at levels of 100 euros, where in US, that’s 200 euros per capita. And that has meant that, for example, the coverage of 5G networks, the take-up of 5G in Europe is 15%, whereas in Korea, it’s 50%, or in the US, it’s 40%. So Europe is already falling behind in the development of networks, and that’s why we want to change the situation. And one last comment on the comment from Mr. Bertone, I think that we have read a different publication, because what I see that Mr. Bertone has commented is that he wants to go ahead with a Digital Network Act. And the fact, I have not seen any place that it has been delayed till 2025. If you see how a legislative process works in Europe, it is impossible to implement a legislative process in one or two year time. So actually, even though the process might be starting, the proposal might be coming up in early 2024, it’s impossible. to have this passed through the European Parliament before the general elections for the parliament taking place in June. So actually, I don’t see any delay there, but being realistic and taking into account that the processes in Europe take two years the least and in some cases, as you have seen with privacy, DMA and so others, it takes more than three, even four times. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Gonzalo, for these elements.

Luca Belli:
I think we have less than 10 minutes left, so I would ask all of the panelists to have a last chance to provide a final remark, some food for thought, because we have already had a lot of very interesting comments, discussions. Sorry? This was not the question. Okay, I thought there is another question. What is the question? But maybe this question from the, so let me also thank Shilpa Singh from the University of Melbourne, who is our remote moderator. So do we have a question from the online participant? Can you take a mic? Can we pass a mic? So this question may inspire your last thoughts. And yes, you.

Audience:
Please, Shilpa. Yeah, my very rough understanding for contribution is to redistribute the money from OTT to telecoms. My question is to share what. In the previous session that this person organized, this person shared the same opinion, and is it okay if it is treated as this particular money is used as a universal service fund for rural areas?

Luca Belli:
To improve the whole balance sheet to telecom is not adequate in her opinion. Okay, excellent. So I think the question is whether if this money would be used to improve universal service funds or for other uses. You can reflect on this question while you think about your final thought.

Kamila Kloc:
So I would like to start maybe with Camilla, and so we follow the order. Let’s say one minute per person. I’m gonna be quick. I can see like a battle of titans in here of different industries, which is also important to understand all of the arguments, but beyond of these arguments and beyond of the argument that we’re mostly focused also in the global north, like I can understand that Europe has a different context, but we are talking about two practices that harm consumers. Zero rating, which continues to affect the global south, favoring tax, by alleged the free and limited access, which in practices is a bundle, like it obliged people to use some apps. And fair share that might favorize telcos and potentially increases the prices and reduce quality as we were talking about Korea. So in both cases, we are talking about the distortion of telecom market, of present practices or future practices, but in the end, we are talking about, we are not focusing on how this affects consumers in the end, we’re talking about industry’s interests. So let’s focus on consumers when we’re talking about this on open internet access, on meaningful connectivity and how to increase access, not only on how we can impulsionate companies. So thank you.

Luca Belli:
Thank you.

Maarit Palovirta:
So just to the question that we said, yes, of course, from our point of view, these funds would be going towards investment and especially in those areas where we don’t have coverage, but also in capacity. But going to my final comment, I would like to say that Thomas was saying that it might be difficult for us to be here, but I would like to say it’s actually a real pleasure because we took a decision early on in this discussion, actually, before we published the very first report, that we want to have the discussion with everybody, with all stakeholders openly ourselves and not hiding behind think tanks or consultancies. I think that we are trying to live true to this intention that we had. And I think I will provide one personal thought and one political thought. Personal thought, I think this is a very healthy checkup of the internet ecosystem to see where we are today. And in the case of Europe, where we have a kind of intense regulatory framework to see what needs to be done there. And a political message comes from our friend, all of our friend, Thierry Breton, who in the LinkedIn post two days ago, says that we need, quote, a bold, future-oriented, game-changing Digital Networks Act to redefine the DNA of our telecoms regulation, unquote. And I’m just really pleased, and we put a statement out at non-GSMA that the commission has this ambition to actually deliver a new regulatory framing for us. And this, we hope, means that there will be fair contribution, but we also hope very much that they will address some of the pain points on competition, on scale, on sector-specific regulation

Luca Belli:
that I was describing earlier. So thank you. Thank you. So my final message would be, as a regulator in Brazil, that we really should assess and define precisely the disease that we want to heal before prescribing the medication.

Artur Coimbra:
So you have a commitment of regulator in Brazil of having an evidence-based approach. And well, if the problem is lack of money for investment in networks, we should design a model that allows more money for investment in networks. And for example, depending on the way you design a fair share, you may or may not reach that objective. So if there’s a competition between prices and you create a fair share, there’s a great chance that this money runs away by lowering more and more the prices, because there’s competition overpricing for the user, and so no money is left for investment. So this should be designed in a way to get what we really want, which is money for investment. So that’s the final message that I bring, that the commitment of Brazilian regulator that we’ll make all the effort to gather evidence to try and define the disease before prescribing the medication. Excellent. Indeed, evidence-based policy should be based on evidence. And we are very happy that this panel is providing a lot of very good thoughts on how to collect this evidence. Final round of…

Luca Belli:
Thank you, and thanks again for having us.

Jean Jaques Sahel:
We’ve been trying to organize a workshop at the IGF. We did a proposal, really balanced panel, et cetera. It wasn’t accepted, so I’m really glad that Luca and team organized this. Really, really glad that we were able to be together and here as representative of all stakeholder groups. And I think that’s one of the things that’s come out here. All stakeholders should be invited to speak. I hope that we can see that across all those discussions, that we can have consumer organizations, civil society organizations, alongside industry, academics, technical community being regularly and proactively invited to speak at these events in Brussels, in Brasilia, and elsewhere. I think that would be fantastic to see in the future. And then I think what we’ve also heard is that there’s clearly, from all the speakers, including Etno, that it’s quite clear that there are massive investments, contributions by content and application providers, including to network infrastructure. And so CAPS can contribute fairly. And I think that’s quite a clear conclusion here. Yeah, I think just going back to what Arthur was rightly saying, this should be about evidence. I think there’s just a lot of lobbying arguments that are flying around, quotes from this, from that. I think we should focus on expert analysis, BEREC, telecom regulators, OECD, German Motor Police Commission, and others who are studying this. And indeed, as Marit was saying, it should be taking a broad, holistic perspective on the market and its evolution, absolutely. So we look forward to further analysis of what’s already been produced by these expert organizations and also what they’re already starting to work on next. And just to finish up, I think really important what we’ve heard already, just starting with the Global South perspective, let’s remind ourselves what this is all about. This is about access to information at the end of the day. This is what the global and open internet brought us. We did not have such an amazing access to the internet globally through a simple connection to one network just 30 years ago, or indeed 20 years ago, or indeed 10 years ago in many parts of the world. And it’s thanks to the work of many telecom operators, content providers, local communities that have developed this, et cetera, et cetera, and the technical community in this room and in this venue are to be thanked for all of that. And so let’s be really careful in these debates that we don’t tinker with the foundational open nature of the internet that means that we have access to all this information and this utility that is good for consumers, for us as users, for our everyday lives and our everyday economies, and it has and will continue to boost those economies and benefit our societies in the future. Let’s not tinker with that. Let’s not end up with information winners and losers, whether it’s in the global south or the global north. This is about the global internet, whether it’s north, south, west, or east, and we shouldn’t tinker with this basic open foundations.

KS Park:
Thank you. Correction. I think somebody said Korean telecoms are profiting a lot from the standard pay model so they could afford to increase the 5G coverage to what? 50%? Well, that is because only Korean telecoms with their oligopoly hold on the market, they sold the new phones only with the 5G features. So consumers are forced to buy 5G phones, but the connectivity is, 5G connectivity is so bad that there are 5G consumers filing Class X and lawsuits against telecoms right now, and so bad that 5G bandwidth license was taken away by the government. So, you know, no rose picture there. And I think this answer is the last question that just came in. Will telcos use the new revenues from standard pay model for developing more network? I don’t think so. I mean, monopoly, when it becomes profitable, it becomes self-perpetuating. They want more profit. Korea case shows that’s not the case. I mean, we are in Japan. Internet penetration rate, both Japan, Korea at the top, that’s just penetrate, like where the internet is. In terms of connectivity, if you use a, I’ve never used a Wi-Fi this fast in Korea. The difference between Japan and Korea, big telcos in Korea are not participating in internet exchanges. There is no internet exchange in Korea. Big telcos in Japan, they are all participating in big internet exchanges in Japan. In terms of connectivity across the country, Japan is much better. When I said cost is falling, I meant cost per unit of megabyte that is delivered. That is definitely falling. Somebody’s lying. If somebody’s saying that it’s not falling, therefore, you know, despite the falling revenues, because of the falling cost, that’s why the profit is being maintained by European telcos. But the final question, it’s unfair, right? I mean, if it’s becoming so unprofitable that, you know, profitable that you cannot maintain privacy,

Luca Belli:
maybe we should turn telecoms into public utilities. A lot of interest in those. Yes, go ahead. I see applause in the room. Yeah, I want to go back to the question again. So as Spark has perfectly outlined, even if that money were to be invested in the network,

Thomas Lohninger:
the quality that we as users would experience would still be worse than we have today. And there’s also ample studies and evidence that money is actually not a bottleneck in network rollout. So very often, there are other factors at play. And so, particularly in the context of Europe, it would not really help us solve the problems in rural areas that we still have. And to me, really, I want to close on what I deem to be the most shameful thing as a European here, talking about this issue with now this ludicrous idea having become picked up by so many other world regions. And there’s only one reason for that, corporate capture of the European Commission. I mean, a former CEO of France Telecom has managed to make his way into the commission, warmed up a 10-year-old idea that at its face is just crazy for everyone. And now we have a public consultation with everybody’s voices proving that it is crazy, proving that it is refused by everyone except the telcos. And what is the response that we hear today from Telefonica? Oh, we don’t make enough money. Sorry. But if that is your sole argument, then yeah, maybe we should really rethink business models. And ultimately, what Digital Networks Act or whatever it is called, there will be something. I mean, Breton has to deliver for his cronies at least something that will deregulate the market. And I fear that, again, that this will go against the success recipe for telecoms, which is competition and cooperation. We don’t need like the US, an oligopoly of a few very big mafia-like telecom companies. And yeah, I think I’ll leave it at that.

Luca Belli:
The final word to Cosentino. Oh, great. Thank you so much.

Konstantinos Komaitis:
So very quickly, to the last question about USFs, we were having a conversation yesterday. I don’t think that we could discuss USFs, but I don’t think that this is what telcos want. Here I have, it’s a blog post from Telefonica saying why Europe shouldn’t copy the USA’s Universal Service Fund. So, and why the direct payments is actually a better option. And Europe really is setting a very bad example. And this is why, and this will be sort of a pitch, there is a global concern from civil society. There was a statement that was released yesterday. More than 20 organizations from around the world, civil society organizations, co-signed it. Brazil, India, in Europe, the United States, they express the same concerns about the same issue. And I think that it is time that if we want to have a conversation about infrastructure, let’s have it. But this is not the way to do it. Because obviously, no one really wants this conversation to happen apart from telecom operators. All right, I think what we said today

Luca Belli:
that there is also other ways of having the conversation. And I’m very happy we had a lot of different views represented. I would like to thank everyone for their effort, not only to be here at AFA SAIT, to fly here, or even to contribute as Gonzalo did while in Europe. So a lot of very good ideas, a lot of food for thought. I think that everyone here now has the sufficient element to form its own opinion independently.

Audience

In marginalized and conflict-ridden areas like favelas in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, telecom operators do not provide internet or telephony services due to security concerns. This lack of connectivity has become even more pronounced during the pandemic, making it increasingly challenging for residents to access vital resources and opportunities. However, community networks present a potential solution to connect these marginalized communities and offer alternatives.

Building antennas for community networks was initially considered as a viable option for providing internet access in favelas. Nevertheless, due to security risks and potential threats to life, it was decided not to proceed with this approach. This reflects the complex challenges and constraints faced in these areas.

Digital inclusion goes beyond simply implementing community networks. It also involves educating communities about the numerous opportunities that connectivity provides and how it can empower them to change their realities. This comprehensive approach aims to bridge the digital divide and ensure that everyone has access to the benefits brought by the internet.

Concerns about digital sovereignty have also been raised in the context of community networks. While community networks can foster independence and self-determination, some worry that emphasizing digital sovereignty may hinder cooperation and collaboration between different stakeholders. Striking a balance between digital sovereignty and collaboration is crucial for the success of community network initiatives.

Another important consideration is the lack of clarity regarding the definition and representation of the “community” in community networks. Understanding who constitutes the community and their role is essential for effective and inclusive decision-making and resource allocation. This issue highlights the need for greater transparency and inclusivity when implementing community network projects.

Moreover, there is concern about the reliance on mainstream platforms like Zoom and YouTube, which can contradict the ideals of digital sovereignty. While these platforms provide connectivity, their centralization compromises autonomy and control over digital infrastructure.

Community networks, while not a complete solution, can complement other initiatives and bring culture and communication to marginalized communities. They have the potential to act as intranets, providing connectivity and safeguarding those already connected.

Community networks can also be seen as an expression of digital sovereignty and self-determination. By allowing local communities to master their own digital destinies, community networks enable them to shape their digital experiences and use technology as per their preferences and needs.

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and the IOMEC coalition on community connectivity provide valuable platforms for discussing community connectivity issues and finding solutions. These initiatives facilitate collaboration and knowledge sharing among stakeholders interested in bridging the digital divide and promoting community networks.

In Nigeria, community networks have been successfully used for citizen science projects. Through community networks, internet connectivity was provided to monitor air pollution and oil spills. This example showcases the potential of community networks in addressing community issues and delivering value-added services.

In conclusion, connectivity remains a significant challenge in marginalized communities, especially in conflict-ridden areas. Community networks offer a potential solution to address this issue and provide alternatives to traditional telecom operators. However, building and sustaining community networks requires addressing security concerns, promoting digital inclusion, balancing digital sovereignty with cooperation, ensuring representation, and expanding partnerships and collaborations.

Carlos Baca

The analysis reveals several important points made by the speakers regarding the relationship between capacity building, sustainability, and community networks. Firstly, it is highlighted that national schools of community networks have been established in several countries to teach, implement, and support community networks. One of the key focuses of these schools is to educate communities about sustainability and e-waste management. Through these capacity-building processes, communities can develop a critical understanding of technology and strategies for sustainability. As a result of participating in these initiatives, sustainable strategies have been developed, such as the creation of bamboo towers in Indonesia and the use of AI for efficient fishing and farming practices. These examples demonstrate how capacity building can lead to innovative and sustainable solutions.

Secondly, the speakers emphasize the significance of peer-to-peer learning and technical know-how in contributing to environmental sustainability within community networks. The analysis highlights community networks in Kenya and South Africa that have effectively transmitted technical knowledge among community members. This knowledge exchange has resulted in improved equipment usage and reduced waste. By harnessing the power of peer-to-peer learning, the need for external technical assistance is reduced, leading to decreased travel and waste. This indicates that empowering communities with technical skills and knowledge can lead to more sustainable practices and self-sufficiency.

Furthermore, the analysis underlines the transformative power of travelling and visiting other territories in inspiring communities to reevaluate their own territories. Notably, participants in South Africa who had never left their communities began to rethink their own territories after observing different ways of living in other areas. This insight suggests that exposing communities to diverse perspectives and experiences through travel and learning can foster the development of sustainable cities and communities.

The analysis also highlights the importance of local content and production in the context of community networks. It is asserted that local content production is integral to the development and sustainability of community networks. By promoting local content and production, community networks can enhance local ownership, creativity, and cultural preservation. This observation underscores the significance of involving local communities as active participants in the design and operation of community networks to achieve sustainable outcomes.

In addition, the analysis addresses the concept of digital sovereignty and argues that it should not be viewed as a black and white concept. Rather, it should be understood as a process that involves understanding risks and making informed decisions. The speakers highlight the need for communities using platforms such as Zoom or Facebook to understand the implications of their use and make autonomous decisions. This argument suggests that digital sovereignty is contingent upon communities’ independent and informed choices regarding the use of digital tools and platforms.

Furthermore, the analysis delves into the complex and necessary element of negotiation with violent elements in rural areas. In particular, the involvement of Narcos in Mexico is acknowledged as they assist in developing infrastructure due to personal benefits. The speakers convey that while negotiating with violent elements is challenging, it is an essential aspect of working in rural areas, particularly when seeking to establish community connectivity in these regions.

Lastly, the analysis highlights the essential role of capacity building in achieving digital sovereignty. It is emphasized that autonomy in digital decision-making requires communities to have access to sufficient information and understanding of associated risks. With capacity building, communities can develop the skills and knowledge necessary to make informed decisions and navigate digital realms effectively. This observation underscores the importance of quality education and increasing access to digital infrastructure to empower communities in the pursuit of digital sovereignty.

In conclusion, the extended analysis sheds light on the interconnections between capacity building, sustainability, and community networks. It highlights the transformative impact of capacity-building processes on community networks, resulting in the development of sustainable strategies. Peer-to-peer learning and technical know-how within community networks are shown to contribute to environmental sustainability by reducing waste and promoting self-sufficiency. Additionally, the importance of travel and exposure to different perspectives in promoting sustainable cities and communities is highlighted. The significance of local content and production, autonomous decision-making in digital realms, negotiating with violent elements in rural areas, and the indispensable role of capacity building in achieving digital sovereignty are also explored. Overall, the analysis provides valuable insights into the critical elements required for the success and sustainability of community networks.

Senka Hadzic

During the session, the speakers focused on community networks and their role in digital sovereignty. The first speaker, an Internet measurement and data expert from the Internet Society, provided an overview of ISOC’s work on community networks and the significance of digital sovereignty.

ISOC’s work in community networks highlights the importance of empowering local communities to take control of their own digital infrastructure and services. By building and managing their own networks, communities can enhance their connectivity, bridging the digital divide and ensuring reliable and affordable internet access for all. This approach promotes digital inclusivity and helps overcome dependence on centralised telecommunications providers, fostering a sense of ownership and autonomy within the community.

Moreover, the first speaker emphasised the role of community networks in promoting digital sovereignty. Digital sovereignty refers to a nation’s ability to exercise control and maintain authority over its digital infrastructure, policies, and data. Community networks play a crucial role in achieving digital sovereignty by placing control of the network infrastructure in the hands of the community rather than relying on external companies or service providers. This shift gives communities the power to shape their own digital ecosystems, enabling them to protect their data, privacy, and interests.

The second speaker, Pedro Vilches from GrifiNet in Catalonia, focused on their flagship community network, which has been operational for almost 20 years and boasts over 37,000 active nodes. GrifiNet not only provides connectivity but also actively promotes circular economy principles and the reduction of e-waste.

GrifiNet’s emphasis on the circular economy involves encouraging the community to reuse and recycle electronic devices and reduce electronic waste. By doing so, GrifiNet aims to minimise the environmental impact associated with e-waste and create a more sustainable and environmentally friendly approach to technology.

Overall, the session highlighted the multiple benefits of community networks in achieving digital sovereignty. By empowering communities to build and manage their own networks, individuals gain access to reliable and affordable internet connectivity while also fostering a sense of ownership and control over their digital infrastructure. Additionally, the emphasis on circular economy principles by networks like GrifiNet showcases the potential for community networks to drive sustainability in the digital realm.

Nils Brock

In a recent publication titled “Can Environmental Practices Foster Community Network Sustainability?”, the challenges, benefits, and future prospects of community networks were discussed. The publication highlighted the difficulties that community networks face in managing the various technologies involved and ensuring the successful transmission of signals for local networks. These challenges emphasize the need for effective management and technical expertise within community networks.

However, the publication also noted that community networks can operate in a complementary or alternative manner to standard internet providers. This suggests that community networks have the potential to offer unique advantages and fill gaps in connectivity that traditional providers may not address. It is important, however, to consider the potential for external providers with different business models to undermine the efforts of community networks.

Another noteworthy point raised in the publication is the potential use of bamboo as a sustainable resource for building infrastructure in community networks. An example was given of a successful project in India, where bamboo was used for construction purposes. This highlights the potential for bamboo to provide both an eco-friendly and cost-effective solution for building and expanding community networks.

Moreover, the publication stressed the significance of solar energy as a critical resource for network functioning. This is because without energy, there can be no networking, including digital networking. The publication showcased an example from Brazil, where a community set up online courses to promote knowledge and understanding of photovoltaic systems. This initiative aimed to improve energy efficiency and promote the use of solar energy within community networks.

Furthermore, the publication emphasized the importance of providing local servers as a means to promote ownership of data and infrastructure in community networks. Local servers not only make services more sustainable to organize but also reduce environmental impact. It was also noted that capacity building efforts are necessary to support the implementation and management of local servers within community networks.

Lastly, the publication highlighted that the future of community networks extends beyond simply providing connectivity and access. The importance of local services, such as agriculture, education, and content creation, was stressed. These services can cater to the specific needs of different communities, both rural and urban, and contribute to their overall development and well-being.

In conclusion, the publication provided insights into the challenges faced by community networks but also highlighted their potential benefits and future prospects. By addressing the challenges of managing technologies, exploring alternative resources like bamboo, harnessing solar energy, promoting ownership of data and infrastructure, and focusing on local services, community networks can make significant contributions to sustainable and inclusive development.

Raquel Gatto

This comprehensive summary explores the state and challenges of community networks in Brazil, emphasising the importance of an evidence-based approach to understanding these networks. The analysis highlights that long-term sustainability is a significant concern, with half of the community networks failing to survive beyond the first year of operation. Additionally, the regulatory environment poses challenges for community networks.

To address these issues, a policy brief was created by APCZ (Association for Progressive Communications) and Anatel (Brazil’s National Telecommunications Agency). This brief not only identifies gaps in telecommunications for community networks but also resulted in the development of a technical toolkit for establishing these networks. Notably, the policy brief includes several recommendations for Anatel and the Ministry of Communication to tackle the challenges faced by community networks.

Recognising the importance of collaboration, a Community Networks Working Group has been formed in conjunction with Anatel. This working group comprises community network leaders and organisations dedicated to fostering the development of these networks. Its aim is to provide a common goal and vision, as well as maintain continuous interaction with government actors.

In terms of Brazil’s global agenda, as the host of the G20 in 2024, the country demonstrates a strong focus on the digital pillar, specifically emphasising the importance of achieving universal and meaningful connectivity. This indicates Brazil’s commitment to promoting digital inclusion and ensuring that all individuals have access to the benefits of the digital world.

The analysis also underscores that meaningful access extends beyond mere internet connectivity. It stresses the significance of considering the entire connected environment and the skills necessary to navigate it effectively. This insight highlights the importance of addressing the digital divide comprehensively, focusing not only on infrastructure but also on empowering individuals with the relevant digital skills.

Furthermore, the analysis emphasises the need to recognise and acknowledge the voices and concerns of local communities, both in rural and urban areas. It dispels the notion that only remote and rural areas face connectivity challenges and underscores the importance of listening to and considering the unique needs of different communities.

The analysis also identifies concerns regarding the trade-offs in collaborative arrangements and the awareness of what is relinquished in the process. This insight serves as a reminder that careful consideration should be given to the potential consequences and compromises involved in collaborative initiatives.

Regarding community networks, caution is advised in the consolidation of services and connectivity within these networks. The analysis suggests that community networks should not be conflated with traditional internet service providers. This cautionary note aims to ensure clarity and prevent misunderstandings regarding the role and scope of community networks.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the need for an evidence-based approach to understand and address the challenges faced by community networks in Brazil. The efforts made by APCZ, Anatel, and the creation of the Community Networks Working Group signify positive steps towards overcoming these challenges. Brazil’s focus on universal and meaningful connectivity in its G20 agenda further underscores the country’s commitment to digital inclusion. However, it is crucial to consider the entire connected environment and the skills necessary for meaningful access. Local voices and concerns should be acknowledged, and careful consideration must be given to the trade-offs involved in collaborative arrangements. Moreover, community networks must be clearly distinguished from traditional internet service providers to avoid confusion.

Atsuko Okuda

Connecting the unconnected remains a pressing global issue, with approximately 2.6 billion people still lacking access to the internet. However, there have been notable advancements in internet connectivity. For instance, the Asia-Pacific region has made significant progress, with 4G mobile networks now covering more than 96% of the population. Furthermore, the introduction of approximately 265 commercial 5G networks worldwide signifies the ongoing efforts to improve connectivity and bridge the digital divide.

Addressing this challenge requires a holistic approach involving multiple stakeholders. By adopting a whole-of-society approach, meaningful partnerships can be forged, and silos can be overcome. This approach has shown promise, as evidenced by the successful implementation of the International Telecommunication Union’s (ITU) Smart Villages initiative. The initiative serves as a prime example of how a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach can contribute to enhancing connectivity.

Moreover, community networks, such as telecenters, play a crucial role in achieving both digital and environmental sustainability. A recent joint study by the ITU and the Internet Society (ISOC) highlighted the significance of telecenters and community networks in promoting sustainability. The study identified six dimensions of sustainability, including environmental sustainability, emphasizing the critical role that community networks play in expanding access to information and communication technology and contributing to broader sustainable development goals.

In conclusion, while connecting the unconnected remains a global challenge, progress is being made in improving internet connectivity. The widespread deployment of 4G and the launch of 5G networks demonstrate significant advancements in this regard. Additionally, a whole-of-society approach has proven effective, as seen in the successful implementation of ITU’s Smart Villages initiative. Furthermore, community networks, such as telecenters, are instrumental in achieving both digital and environmental sustainability. These insights highlight the importance of continued collaboration and innovative approaches to address the global challenge of connecting the unconnected.

Amreesh Phokeer

The Internet Society is actively involved in expanding community networks worldwide, with a particular focus on areas in Africa, Asia, and the Himalayas in Nepal. Their initiatives aim to support and enhance over 100 complementary connectivity solutions, while also providing training to over 10,000 individuals to maintain their own internet infrastructure. This commitment to expanding community networks reflects the Internet Society’s dedication to bridging the digital divide and promoting equal access to the internet for all.

A crucial aspect considered by the Internet Society is digital sovereignty. They recognise the importance of ensuring that countries have control over their own digital infrastructure and are not overly dependent on external entities. By supporting community networks, the Internet Society helps empower communities to establish their own internet connectivity, creating a sense of ownership and independence.

Furthermore, the Internet Society also places emphasis on environmental sustainability. In several African countries, issues concerning electricity access and affordability persist. To address these challenges, the Internet Society actively works towards reducing the costs of accessing equipment required for off-grid community networks. This approach promotes the use of renewable energy sources in these networks, aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals of affordable and clean energy and climate action.

In addition to addressing digital sovereignty and environmental sustainability, the Internet Society also advocates for the importance of maintaining local content and connectivity. They promote connectivity to local infrastructure, such as Internet exchange points, which facilitates the exchange of data within local communities. Additionally, community networks have started hosting their own services, such as local caches or video conferencing, particularly during the ongoing pandemic. These efforts not only enhance connectivity, but also contribute to responsible consumption and production, aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals of sustainable cities and communities.

Overall, the Internet Society’s involvement in expanding community networks demonstrates their dedication to promoting access to the internet and bridging the digital divide. By empowering communities, supporting digital sovereignty, striving for environmental sustainability, and maintaining local content and connectivity, the Internet Society plays a significant role in creating a more inclusive and connected digital world.

Pedro Vilchez

In the first argument, the speaker proposes a solution to reduce e-waste by making users responsible for the way Wi-Fi routers are used and allowing these devices to enter the circular economy. The argument is made in light of the fact that Wi-Fi routers are typically designed for a limited purpose and timeframe, leading to a significant amount of e-waste. The suggestion is to allow Wi-Fi routers to be modified and reused, similar to computers, which would prolong their lifespan and reduce the overall waste generated.

Moving on to the second argument, the speaker highlights the importance of community networks in Europe for maintaining telecommunications infrastructure and meeting societal needs. It is noted that both the public and private sectors are facing challenges in maintaining the telecommunications infrastructure efficiently. The speaker emphasizes that community networks can serve as a common resource model, enabling participation from both sectors. This approach can alleviate the burden on individual entities while ensuring the smooth operation of the infrastructure.

Furthermore, the speaker highlights that community networks go beyond just delivering internet access; they also foster mutual aid and knowledge sharing within communities. This aspect further strengthens the case for community networks as they not only provide essential services but also promote collaboration and community development.

To support the effectiveness of community networks, the example of GrifiNet is presented. It is mentioned that GrifiNet, an ISP spin-off, managed to earn 30 million Euros in 2022. This success serves as evidence of the efficacy of community networks and their potential to thrive in the telecommunications industry.

In conclusion, the first argument focuses on reducing e-waste by making users responsible for the proper use of Wi-Fi routers and integrating them into the circular economy. The second argument highlights the significance of community networks in Europe for maintaining telecommunications infrastructure and meeting societal needs. The evidence presented demonstrates the positive outcomes and potential benefits of embracing community networks. Overall, both arguments provide valuable insights into sustainable practices and innovative approaches in the technology and telecommunications sectors.

Luca Belli

Community networks play a crucial role in building digital sovereignty and environmental sustainability. These networks are driven by communities themselves and provide a model of digital sovereignty that is not defined by states, but driven by the communities themselves. They enable self-determination and self-governance, allowing communities to understand and regulate technology effectively. Notably, community networks have successfully been doing this for the past 20 years.

Moreover, community networks manage their connectivity infrastructure as a commons, which supports environmental sustainability. They understand and mitigate the potential negative environmental impacts of technology, ensuring that their actions align with environmental goals. This demonstrates their commitment to building sustainable communities.

Additionally, a multi-stakeholder model is suggested as an effective approach for building and implementing connectivity networks. This approach involves different stakeholders coming together to not only discuss but also actively create and execute plans. By involving various stakeholders, including community members, organisations, and government bodies, this model ensures a diverse range of perspectives and expertise. This can lead to more comprehensive and inclusive connectivity networks.

Community networks also create an entire ecosystem of content and services that are developed by and for the community. This empowers local communities and fosters a sense of ownership and pride. It allows communities to determine their own digital destiny and use technology for their specific needs, contributing to digital sovereignty.

While community networks are not a solution to all the world’s problems, they do bring significant benefits to underserved areas. They can provide access to culture, communication, and education, bridging the digital divide and empowering those who were previously left behind.

It is worth noting that successful community networks can perform like large telecommunication companies but with lower costs and community governance. Some community networks have been successful in creating self-sufficient intranets, allowing information and services to be shared within the community. This demonstrates the potential of community networks to rival traditional internet service providers and bring connectivity to underserved areas in a sustainable and cost-effective manner.

In conclusion, community networks are a powerful tool in building digital sovereignty and environmental sustainability. They empower communities, enabling self-determination and fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility. By adopting a multi-stakeholder model, community networks can create comprehensive and inclusive connectivity networks. They bring culture, communication, and education to underserved areas, bridging the digital divide. Although community networks have their limitations, their positive impact on communities and their ability to change lives is undeniable.

Luca Belli:
5, 4, 3, 2, 1. All right. So welcome to everyone to this annual meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity, DC3, that has been working on community connectivity issues for the past seven years. And so we are now at the seventh annual report. You can find here hard copies, or also on the web page of the DC3. They are already available in PDF for you to download. And the theme of this year that we have chosen, and some of you have helped us develop in this report, is community networks building digital sovereignty and environmental sustainability. And the idea behind this is that community networks offer us a very good example of an additional conception of digital sovereignty, and how also environmental sustainability can be achieved through a community-driven effort. So not necessarily only through policies and governance system that are defined by states, but also by through policies and governance models that are driven by the communities themselves. And that is an important conception in the debate of digital sovereignty. We have been speaking a lot about this over the week. The fact that digital sovereignty is not only about authoritarian regimes, controlling is not only about protectionism. It’s also very much also about understanding the technology to be able to develop it and regulate it in an effective way. And this is very much what community networks have been doing over the past 20 years in terms of self-determination, in terms of understanding how the technology works, developing it, and creating their own governance models, self-governance model to manage the connectivity infrastructure as a commons. And this is actually, it’s very good also to unleash forces that support environmental sustainability as when you understand the technology, understand also not only the good benefits of the technology, but also the potential negative impact in terms of negative externalities in environmental externalities. And you also try to understand how to develop it in a way that is more green, if you want. And also you can use, you can leverage connectivity at the local level to support initiatives that promote sustainability. And this, in a nutshell, and what we are going to speak today with a lot of very distinguished panelists. Let me first also thank my colleague, Senka Hadzic, who has been developing this work over the past years together, including the addition of the reports together with me. She has been the force behind the organization of the panel. And she will only speak lightly today because she is involved in intense karaoke yesterday evening. So let me also introduce our distinguished panelists, starting from Atsuko Okuda, that is joining us remotely. She is the director of the ITU Asia-Pacific Bureau. Then we have Raquel Gatto from CGI.br, the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. We have Amresh Phukir from ISOC, that also is joining us online, together with Pedro Vilcets from Giffinet, also joining us online. And then back here in person, we have Carlos Baca, who is from SITSAC, and Nils Broek from Rhizomatica. Without further ado, I would like to ask Atsuko Okuda to provide some introductory remarks to understand also the kind of vision and interest that an organization like ITU may have in this kind of initiative that we are discussing and analyzing here. Atsuko, can you hear us?

Atsuko Okuda:
Yes. Excellent. And I hope that you can hear me too. Very well. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Good morning. I would like to start by thanking the organizer for inviting ITU to today’s session, Dynamic Coalition Session on Community Networks, Digital Sovereignty, and Sustainability. This topic is very close to my heart and is also a core area of ITU in Asia and the Pacific that we are undertaking in partnership with communities, UN agencies, governments, civil society, academia, and financial institutions. Let me first start with the connectivity part, where we have good and bad news. According to the latest estimate of ITU, which is released in September this year, 2.6 billion people still remain unconnected globally. It is good news as there is a decrease by 100 million from the previous estimates in 2022. It is bad news because the pace of connecting the unconnected may be decelerating. Under the COVID pandemic, almost 800 million people were estimated to have joined the cyberspace for a short time span between 2019 and 2021. In Asia and the Pacific, more than 96% of the population is covered by 4G mobile networks, according to the ITU statistics. Furthermore, the GSMA, Global Mobile Suppliers Association, reported that around 265 commercial 5G networks have been launched globally and 62 in Asia and the Pacific. But universal and meaningful connectivity where everyone can enjoy a safe, satisfying, enriching, productive, and affordable online experience remains a challenge in the region. Recognizing the important role that digitization plays in meeting the SDGs, ITU and the Office of the UN Secretary General’s Envoy on Technology have established a set of aspirational targets for 2030 across internet connectivity, achieving gender parity, addressing digital skills, broadband speed, and its affordability, which is measured as less than 2% of GNI per capita by 2025. These remain a high priority for governments across the globe, and various policy measures are being put in place to achieve the targets. In order for us to make significant and accelerated progress towards the targets and SDGs by 2030, we need a qualitative transformation. In the way we approach the digital divide and we connect the unconnected, we learned that a siloed approach may not work any longer, and strengthened partnership is a must to create synergies and impact. More importantly, we are gaining ground in building consensus on the need for a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach to overcome the silos and build stronger partnerships. ITU Smart Villages and Smart Islands initiatives is an initiative designed on the whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach. It is being rolled out in 15 countries in Asia and the Pacific, and is aimed to deliver connectivity, digital skills, and priority digital services to rural and remote communities. It is being delivered in close collaboration with various line ministries, UN agencies, private sector, and civil society, and academia. And it has generated tremendous support, including that of G20 members during their meeting under Indonesia’s presidency in 2022. On the sustainability part, I’m very happy to see our ISOC colleague here in the session, as we recently conducted a study jointly. The reports are entitled, From Telecentres, Community Networks to Sustainable Smart Villages and Smart Islands, which is under finalization. The study identified six dimensions of sustainability. Of course, financial, sociocultural, organizational, operational policy, as well as environmental sustainability, based on the good practices and lessons learned from telecentres and community networks, and provided suggestions for smart villages and smart islands to look at while looking at the 10 case studies. I’m also very happy to see such a distinguished list of speakers today, who would be sharing their thoughts on this important aspect. And through our discussions and partnerships, I hope that we can accelerate our efforts to connect the unconnected and ensure that no one is left behind and offline.

Luca Belli:
Thank you. Back to you. Thank you very much for the very good overview of all the initiatives and also the ambition of ITU of leading this effort, also as a hub for various stakeholders to interact and promote a more sustainable connectivity. Now, let’s try to narrow down from the global to the local and see what is happening in Brazil. And Raquel has been leading several efforts about this over the past couple of years. So please, Raquel, the floor is yours.

Raquel Gatto:
Thank you very much, Luca. And I’m very happy to join you in this meeting. I see some familiar faces and new faces that I’m glad to interact with. I had a lot to cover, as usual, so I’m trying to keep it short and bring you at least three highlights that I think are important covering the past two, three years since 2020 when more of this movement on community networks landed in Brazil concretely. So first of all, I want to start talking about CGI’s study on the community networks. So this was a study undertaken as more of a statistical approach. So there are some qualitative interviews, but then the idea was really to bring this evidence-based approach to what are the community networks, how they are being organized, and what are the challenges, the state of art of the community networks in Brazil, and really understand those and bring into more of the numbers and indicators that could guide some of the policymaking. I’m not going through all of this study. I can point you, and certainly this has circulated already in the dynamic coalition, but I think it’s important to start with this as an angle where the study showed, for example, that some of the gaps that we have in terms of community networks that are not a surprise for some of you here, most of the community networks, they don’t survive the first year. And the other half, they don’t know if they’re going to survive for another year. So those are kind of the mapping results that we have in terms of the sustainability of the community networks itself and where we need to bring the efforts. It’s not only about the resources in terms of money. Of course, funding is one of them, but it’s also the resourcing in terms of the technical requirements, the registration requirements, and how the regulatory environment is also not helpful for the community networks to continue to survive and blossom. So that’s one of the key takeaways I want to bring in from this study. And then, of course, a major piece, and it was really what moved, let’s say, Brazil government into more the community networks friendly side, is EPCs conducted a study together with Anatel and the UK FDCO funding that had this massive work on a policy brief. It has a lot of recommendations on how, well, it also brought all this historical telecommunications overview in Brazil and how it evolved, and then what are the challenges for community networks itself, explaining what the community networks are and where are the gaps in the regulatory space. But it really landed into these recommendations for Anatel, for the communication ministry, for all those decision makers, what they need to do or that need to be done, right? Not a personal thing, but what needs to be done to help the community networks to grow, well, to be created, and then to grow and evolve. And so that’s among the recommendations. So the work that was done was the policy brief, but also a technical toolkit to show how community networks could be created and, of course, based on many of the materials that the members of the dynamic coalition have already circulated. So this would not be new in terms of content. But it’s new that it’s landed into the telco regulator website. So Anatel is promoting it also as part of their work. And this is an important shift in the telco regulator approach to community networks. And among the recommendations, so I’m not going through all of them. I think there are other valuable recommendations that we can discuss at some point in terms of universal funds and so on. But I want to focus on one that is about the creation of a local committee to interact more in depth with Anatel and the internet service providers group and the community network leaders. And this recommendation has been taken on by Anatel. And this group was created early this year. It’s called the Community Networks Working Group within Anatel. It had the mandate to August. It was postponed to end of this month to the end of October. And I just got the confirmation this morning that it’s going to have an event hosted by Anatel on November 22nd. So for the Brazilians in the room, please take in your calendars. And so the purpose of this group, so first let me go one way back. When the APCZ study was being done, there was this creation of a local group with experts. So not only the community network leaders itself, but also the organizations that were the intermediaries that were fostering the community networks development. And so this local group provided advice on the materials that were done and submitted. But also it has evolved from 10, 12 people and organizations that were involved to now 40 or 50 that are really, and it’s a really growing number. We are calling the local community networks group in Brazil that held weekly meetings. And this group has three seats in Anatel’s working group, so the more official working group. And the way I’m saying all of that, why is this valuable for everyone listening, is the importance of keeping first this connection with the local actors, to keep it lightweight at some point, but also to keep it ongoing. And to have kind of this major goal and common goal, to have everybody on board with the same outcome and vision. And this was really important to bring us more strongly and to show that somehow we are organized within and to interact within the government actors. And this is part of the change that is ongoing right now in Brazil. Of course, there are still a lot of challenges. I mean, even within and now talking about the working group, from Anatel working group, the interaction with the other actors and how still community networks can be misunderstood is there. This is a risk, right? It’s not a local ISPs for remote areas. So the understanding that community networks is community-based and it’s not about the service itself, I know, one minute, is still a challenge. But it’s being broken down into these smaller opportunities to showcase. So the event and the continuous network with the local decision makers is important. And lastly, because I only have one minute or 30 seconds, according to Luca here, I just want to say that also in Brazil we have an opportunity for 2024 with the G20. And I think I too was mentioning that. So Brazil is the host for G20. And it has already announced its agenda with a pretty heavy digital pillar, including universal and meaningful connectivity. So that’s going to be, again, an opportunity to be taking on and to strengthen all these opportunities and tackle not only the policy changes that need to be done, but also the funding and the resources that need to be put in place for community networks. So thank you very much.

Luca Belli:
Thank you, Raquel.

Senka Hadzic:
We’ll make sure to circulate these materials in the mailing list, like both the CGI study, as well as the I’m going to introduce our next speaker, who is going to give us an overview of what is going on in the community networks and also give us an overview of the APC policy brief. Now I’m introducing our next speaker, who is joining us online from Mauritius. He is an Internet measurement and data expert at the Internet Society. He will tell us about ISOC’s work on community networks and also about the role of community networks in the digital sovereignty.

Amreesh Phokeer:
Thank you, Sankar. Good morning, everyone. It’s a pleasure for me to be here today in your panel. As Sankar mentioned, I work at the Internet Society. Not so much involved in community networks, but I can talk about the aspects, some of the aspects such as digital sovereignty or even how it impacts positively community networks, basically. First of all, I would like to remind the audience of the vision of the Internet Society, which is about how the Internet is for everyone and how we are working towards making this vision a reality. One of the projects that we are really involved in is expanding community networks around the world. We hope that by 2025, we will support more than 100 complementary connectivity solutions and also be able to train more than 10,000 people to maintain their own Internet infrastructure. The Internet Society itself has supported a couple of community networks around the world, from Africa to Asia. One recent intervention was a deployment of community networks in the Himalayas in Nepal. The issue of digital sovereignty and environmental sustainability is key. First of all, as you know, there are many places where access to electricity, especially in some African countries, is still an issue. Not only the issue is affordability, but even the stability of the network is a problem, as you can witness about how bad electricity supply is in South Africa for the moment. So having access to renewable energy sources is important, and at the same time, bringing down the costs of access to electricity and at the same time, bringing down the costs of access to equipment that would allow community networks to operate without being on the grid. Another point I wanted to touch upon is also access to content. As we know, even if you are a community network, your customers, your constituents, they still have the same needs as any other Internet user. So they would still want to watch the latest news or the latest YouTube video, and we work as hard as we can to connect community networks to the mainstream Internet. And at the Internet Society, we also try to promote the connectivity to local infrastructure, such as Internet exchange points. So usually what we found is that a community network will rely on an Internet provider, Internet service provider, and as much as possible, we tend to promote Internet service providers that are themselves connected to the local fabric, the local ecosystem. The more Internet service providers are connected to an Internet exchange point, it means that local traffic is going to stay local as much as possible. And as much as this local fabric is maturing, there is also a higher chance for content providers to host themselves locally because the customer base is also increasing. And this is what I would call collateral benefit to the community networks. Even if they are in remote places, they are still connected to the same local fabric, and eventually they would also benefit from having local connectivity. Local connectivity means that it is adding up to the equation of environmental sustainability because, of course, if you’re not using international bandwidth to access faraway content, it means that you’re using less energy to access content which is local. But I would also stress on the very singular characteristic of community networks. We talk about determination and things like that. On the opportunity for community networks to actually even host their own services. So we have seen during the pandemic where people couldn’t really have freedom of movement, how important it was for them to have affordable, even free, and unlimited access to technologies. And we have seen a lot of networks installing local caches or local services for video conferencing. So these are services that we should promote as much as possible on community networks. And obviously this would increase local use and, therefore, having less dependency on external services or paid services and allowing people to use services that are already local and close. And, therefore, they would also benefit from low latency services, higher quality, and so on. So I would really like to stress that sustainability is really broad. First of all, because sustainability can also mean giving the power to the people to create their own type of network. The network that really resembles the community itself and what they think is important. So having the ability to create their own content and upload content at very low cost and hopefully at high bandwidth and high quality is really important. So this increases, to some extent, sustainability of the community in terms of strengthening the community itself. And, of course, bringing content closer to the user and, as I mentioned, creates this environmental sustainability because it uses less energy elsewhere. So, yeah, these are my posts that I wanted to bring up today.

Senka Hadzic:
Thank you. Thank you, Amrush. That was a really great overview. Our next speaker is joining us from Spain. Pedro Vilches has been involved in GrifiNet, which is a, you can say, flagship community network in Catalonia. It has been operating for almost 20 years and has over 37,000 active nodes. And apart from providing connectivity, GrifiNet is also promoting circular economy and reduction of e-waste. And Pedro is going to tell us more about it in his presentation. Welcome, Pedro. Pedro, can you hear us? Hi. Yeah. We can hear you now. Yeah. Okay. So I want to raise two topics for this session.

Pedro Vilchez:
One is a proposal on reducing e-waste, and the other one is remarking why community networks are relevant in Europe. So, well, here is my relevant volunteer activity. So 10 years, more than 10 years of experience in GrifiNet through EXO, that is a non-profit operator from Barcelona with 100 members. But I’m also holding a position in a governing council, holding a position in a governing council of a telecom cooperative called Sunconexio, which is also part of GrifiNet, and it’s giving service to 9,000 members and 20,000 contracts. I also professionally work in that research group, this one, and I’m involved in tech projects with strong involvement of small-scale communities. The proposal on reducing e-waste is very simple. So the root problem is that manufacturers are becoming responsible on how Wi-Fi routers are used. I put notes at the end. This is called an EU radio directive from Free Software Foundation Europe. So the e-waste problem specifically is that Wi-Fi routers are generally designed for a very limited purpose and short timeframe. They cannot be changed or modified, and that eventually produces e-waste. And the proposed solution is do the same as with computers. Make its users be responsible on what they do. Allow these devices to feed and enter the circular economy and be part of, for example, the area use ecosystem we have here nearby Barcelona. Why are community networks relevant in Europe? First, let’s present the problem, problem maintaining telecommunications infrastructure. So it started with the public sector, and at some point, they stopped maintaining it, maybe because it was a business and not just an expense. With the 90s liberalization, the private sector captured it, but it’s struggling maintaining it. Recent discussion in Europe about big telco, they say too many operators is unsustainable, and that the solution is the United States model, hence be less actors in the market. But, for example, from the New York Mesh community network, they complain, but in New York City, far too many people don’t have internet access. Solution, invest on community networks. Community networks really solve society needs. Being a pool resource, common pool resource model, means that public and private sectors can still participate, as the other colleagues were saying. Financial institutions, academia, government, it’s a non-excludable model. Even if the model fails, it could behave as an accelerator, delivering a more competitive private sector. And here we have a proven experience in Giffin. An ISP did a spin-off called Sunbeta, and from nothing, they got 30 million euro on annual turnover in 2022. So, but community networks is not only about delivering internet access. They can also help in mutual aid, international cooperation, sharing knowledges. Here from the perspective, I would recommend apc.org, battlemesh.org. We also have an xrcb.cat project that is a community radio. That also means bridging with the arts and with the neighbors and their concerns. Community radio could be understood as a podcast platform. We also have a project called Plataformas, and these could be understood as a pilot that explores server-side resources, usage by cooperatives from solidarity economy. Or other projects like shoik.coop, which is an open network for the internet of things on top of Giffinet. Given on the comments you did in the previous presentations, yeah, we are also serving real-time traffic, and that reduces international bandwidth for services, such as GT and BigBlueButton, instead of using Zoom, which makes also more sobering on what we use. So here are the sources I use it, and thank you. Fantastic.

Luca Belli:
Thank you very much, Pedro, also for being so sharp in the time management. I think there are a couple of points that emerge that we can connect between what Pedro and Amrish were saying, which resonates a lot with what we have been doing over the past years in terms of community networks, on the one hand, as multi-stakeholder partnerships. So we really speak a lot about multi-stakeholder model during the IGF, but the multi-stakeholder model is not only about having different stakeholders discussing things, but it’s also about having different stakeholder building things, implementing things, defining a governance model that allows them to operate even connectivity networks, but also then implementing them and creating a whole digital ecosystem out of it. And that is the other point that is something, again, that we have been stressing a lot over the past year, that to me is the core of what some years ago I was calling network self-determination, which is really the basis of the digital sovereignty conception of the community networks, the fact that you create not only connectivity, you create an entire ecosystem of content, of services that are created by the community for the community. So the community understands the technology, develops the technology, and they regulate the technology. It’s really the essence of digital sovereignty, not, again, in terms of authoritarian control, but in terms of empowerment and self-determination of the local community. We have been speaking and discussing and writing a lot about this with Carlos Vaca since several years. So Carlos from Chitsack, you have been doing amazing work, not only starting community networks, but also building them with your friends. So please, the floor is yours. Hi, everyone.

Carlos Baca:
Thank you for having me and thank you for being here in the last day of the IGF. So I know this is a big effort, so I’m very happy to have the possibility to share with you. And I want to address one question, and it’s how we can relate or if there is a relation between capacity building and environmental sustainability. And we will share with you some of the lessons that we learned in the process of developing the National Schools of Community Networks. So the National Schools of Community Networks are processes that have been in place since three years ago. We started in the beginning of the pandemic, we started this project, and it’s part of the LogNet initiative that is led by Rizomatica and APC, and is with the support of FCDO from the Digital Access Program from the UK. And these national schools have been taking place in five countries, in South Africa, in Indonesia, Nigeria, Brazil, and Kenya. And in each of these countries, we work with big allies, big organizations that implement the process of these national schools. And each of them are very different. There are no single curriculum. They are very different between each other. And they share only one thing, that it is the methodological way in which we develop these national schools. We depart from this participatory action research methodology, so we begin with the analysis of the context. We conform in each of the countries an advisory committee made by specialists and also from people from the communities and organizations, et cetera. And they start to develop this design and then implement the school. And in each of the countries also, we have seven micro-organizations, seven community-based organizations who took part of the training. And they were involved since the beginning in the design, but also in the implementation of the school, the workshops. They take the workshops. And then they have the opportunity to develop some small projects to benefit or to strengthen the process in the communities. So this is the last part. And in this part is when we realized a lot of the knowledge on how to build a community network and what are the needs that they faced and how to address it. So one of the problems, and I’m sure you all know, that we have this problem of e-waste. And this is from Mexico. This is not from the countries of the national schools. But it is a rupture of the municipality presidency in one of the indigenous communities in Mexico. And only one of these antennas or this infrastructure work. So you know this is a very, very big problem. And it’s related not only to the public policy that is implemented, but also the lack of capacities in the communities to maintain the equipment. So one of the first lessons we have in this process is that if we, through capacity-building processes, we strengthen or we develop the critical vision about the technologies, about the choosing of technologies, we have different ways to get results that are related with the care of the environment and the territory. I’m sure Nils will talk more about it. But for example, we developed in Indonesia, they started to develop these bamboo towers, so are more sustainable and also that are beautiful. Because they made their own houses with this architecture and they took the same artisanal work to develop the towers. But also in the school, some other organizations developed. use artificial intelligence to develop projects. Two projects are beautiful. One of it is, you know, the fishermen to try to know where are the fish bank and to travel less, you know, to go where the fish are, but also to know what banks have more fish and have less. And so they made a strategy, a sustainable strategy of this fishing. And the other one is the shrimp farms that are led by the women in the communities. And now they have these tools in their cell phones who can let them know the temperature, all the things that they need to know to maintain these farms working. So they have the time to start another project, and they are joining and start different projects that are not related, actually, with the need to be all day taking care of the farms. So it is very interesting and it is important. And in other countries, like in Brazil and Nigeria, they use a lot of solar energy for the network. As I said, each of the schools was very different. The other, the second point is that peer-to-peer learning and the technical know-how also help with this, no? Because if the people know how to maintain the equipment, how to look for common failures, and no, it implies less travel for the people who live in the city, who need to go to, no, the technical people who go to repair the things, there are also better handling of the equipment and less waste. And this process was very, very evident in which the National School of Community Networks was led by a community network, no? Not in all cases, the organization had a community network, now almost all have it. So in Kenya and South Africa, they have this experience, so the technical knowledge was very, very, I don’t know, but good transmission to everyone. And the third one is the way in which in these training programs, in this process, the people wave their learning communities, no? How to interact with each other, how to be an encounter point, so they start doing different projects. And one of the things that we learned is the importance of the people to travel to other places. For example, in South Africa, almost all the people who participate in the national school never get out from its communities. So when they start seeing other territories, see how other people live, how the things are doing in other ways, they start to rethink also their own territory and the ways they need to take care of it. And of course, as someone says in this session, the local content and the production is very important in this process, too. So it is a part of this territory and care of the things. And just to finalize with inviting you to visit the CN Learning Repository. You will find a lot of materials soon, I think today you will find also this.

Luca Belli:
And so thank you very much. Thank you very much, Carlos, and also for appointing the Community Network Repository, which is an incredible source of material for anyone wishing, willing to learn more or to build even community networks. Speaking about building community networks, no one better than Nils can provide us a little bit more of insight on the challenges and opportunities of developing them. Thank you, Luca. And hi, everyone.

Nils Brock:
My name is Nils Brock from Raisonmatica. And stepping in today for our colleague Shabani Belur from ISEA and APC due to connectivity issues, she cannot participate, unfortunately. So we see there’s still need to build a better and resilient internet. So the work that we proposed for this publication here was titled, Can Environmental Practices Foster Community Network Sustainability? So we would say yes, and I would like to tell you a bit what was our approach to this, which is kind of a complementary methodology to the work that Carlos Baca has just presented. So community networks, as we learned also before, they have challenges in terms of managing all the technologies that are involved and to transmit a signal or to put up a local network besides the regulatory challenges that we heard so far. And so there is a need for complementary internet solutions as we also heard earlier. So how could a community network do this and also in an efficient way and in a collaborative way? And the LogNet project, the local community network initiative that was already mentioned by Raisonmatica and APC, was working for several years on innovation and technology basically also through peer contacts but also on sub-granting. And in effect, in side effect, another good one of sub-granting is that each grantee works often very much on his or her own and sometimes there is a lack of collaboration but there are shared challenges for the networks and we have tried to engage with the community network ecosystem and the community in a different way, putting up a space that we call communities of practice. So it’s an approach where we brought in not only community networks but also other practitioners, engineers, experts on certain topics, also educators that were able to explain and build capacity for some issues. And so we worked along a concept of emerging technologies, so to say, what does a community network need to really work but also to be sustainable for itself in economical terms but also for the planet. So I will just pick out two examples and happy to dive a bit deeper in later discussions. So there was the question of bamboo and so if we talk about what does bamboo have to do with a tech network, so where does this come in, but there is always a need for infrastructure, so to say, to build up mass structures, they need concrete, they need steel and it’s not resources that are locally available. So bamboo is a plant that is in many countries available as a resource that can be grown or that is already there and so the question is how to treat it, how to select this bamboo. And so we were looking to build a community of practitioners there from India who had already done some work on this. They provided the knowledge of how to plant bamboo if someone really wants to put up a bamboo garden and in a couple of years have its own grown resources there. And there were other examples like the community around the science of towers, so how can we imagine towers that are also easy to replicate and one nice example was the tower that we saw on the image earlier from Indonesia, then a community network from Uganda, Bosco, they said we want to try to replicate this and then online they were tutored and they put up the tower so it’s possible and this is kind of traveling solutions that were created and we are still exploring more about how far can this go and where to take the bamboo approach. Solar energy is another critical resource, so without energy there is no networking, no digital networking and again here there was a capacity gap and a knowledge gap we would say and together with experts but also persons as physicians that are involved in community networks in Brazil setting up online courses to see okay how can we translate photovoltaic systems and the building blocks that are there on the market, how can we make them available that people can use them safely so that the equipment will be there for a good while, how can they calculate what they need and this was something ongoing. Also there are some kind of new technologies, some building blocks emerging like an open maximum power point tracker, so making the energy use more efficient, this is open hardware and open software so very much aligned also with the needs of communities and a last point maybe to just to put out local services is something that really stroke a chord also with the community networks to work on this because there are different solutions when it comes to e-learning and also content production and to have those as it was explained before by Giphynet, to have those available on local servers is a great contribution because then there’s really an ownership on the data, on the infrastructure, of course it is a capacity building needed for this but having those local servers again they make those services if it’s nicely done more sustainable in terms to organize them for the community but also the environmental impact can be reduced. So those are just some

Luca Belli:
examples and thank you very much and looking forward for the discussion. All right, so we have finished our speakers and we now have an open mic for everyone willing to provide comments, ask questions or share any kind of thoughts, so if you want to discuss any, to raise any issue or if you want to ask any questions I invite you to use this mic in the middle, we don’t have a roaming mic but there is, you can line there and ask your question, please go ahead.

Audience:
I’m from Rio de Janeiro, Favela da Maré in Brazil. It’s very important to hear about these experiences around the world about community networks, internet access, but a question I wanted to ask is about, I live in a favela that is dominated by the militia, by the traffic, where in the pandemic internet was very important to us, but today we can no longer have access to the internet or telephone lines because the operators, the antennas were removed and today the internet and telephony networks are dominated by the traffic and the militia, and then the article… If you and I can translate, but yes, but… She was talking about how is militia and traffic dominated territory, how important was the internet in the pandemic times, but right now they don’t have access to telephone or internet because the telecoms won’t enter the territory because it is militia dominated. Brazil, Rio de Janeiro. I am a community communicator and I live in this territory. Article 19 in Brazil gave us the alternative to make antennas, alternatives to make a community network, but analyzing the risks, we evaluated that it was better not to do it. And it means that we, community communicators, we can’t make territorial community communication and the favela itself, which has 140,000 inhabitants, today has no access to telephony or internet. And then I think, what alternatives would we have to look for solutions within a favela so that we had access to telephony and internet in a favela that is so important and so large also in Rio de Janeiro. She’s talking about how Article 19 in Brazil offered them to create a community network, but they assessed the risks and they figured they shouldn’t do it because it was a life-threatening risk because of the militia and the traffic. And so now she’s asking, what could be done, how could we think about this kind of specific problem in this context. Let’s take the other question that we have here and then we can start having a round of answers in the limit of what’s possible from this group. Hello, my name is José Arthur, I’m part of the youth delegation from Brazil, and I’m overseeing community networks in indigenous communities in the Amazon region. I would like to do a small comment on this subject. When we talk about community networks, it is necessary not only to talk about the implementation part and other issues, but also about what actions are being taken to ensure that digital inclusion is actually applied to avoid the digital terrorism, and how to teach the community about what opportunities they can have through the connective obtainment, through these community networks, that is, how they can use it to change their realities. And this is a point that I think is always very important to talk about when the subject is being discussed, because it helps ensure the community survival. I think we… Oh yeah, if you want, we can have another one and then we reply. Yeah, one question you already know. Two things. One is, I’ve been talking to people who have certain ideas of digital sovereignty. One of my friends who is a researcher who wants to work with us in some European countries said like, but you know, we have to be digitally sovereign, so we can’t cooperate very closely. Does it ring a bell for you? So, do you understand?

Luca Belli:
Okay.

Audience:
So when you collaborate with somebody on technology, there is this flag going on, like we have to be digitally sovereign, so therefore we cannot collaborate very closely. Okay. So this is one idea of digital sovereignty. I wanted to bring this to focus because I was very confused. Okay. Second one is, there’s a lot of communities, great work, amazing sessions, but I don’t know a representation of who they are. You cannot have community as rolled in and people talking about, we did Zoom, we connected YouTube, right? We can always, who are they? What are they doing with the community networks, right? We want to understand how they are participants, they are a community in the network for the services. Okay. And I can go on about that, but again, look at web. You can bring all the internet that you want, but without the web in the community, you’re just bringing, connecting Zoom, YouTube, something else, and still talking about digital sovereignty. We have to think about this. Okay. I think we might have several reactions here. Who wants to go first? Thank you, because these questions are, I think, essential, no? We can’t talk about all the things that we learn and we know, no? Because there are very long processes. And just to say that, actually, that’s why capacity building, I think,

Carlos Baca:
is key in this process, no? Because if we think digital sovereignty or digital autonomy or technological autonomy as a black or white thing, we are in the bad way, I think. And also, we think that it is like a place in which we will stay and we will have all the autonomy in our lives, and we will be very happy because all of us have autonomy. It’s also a bad way, I think, to understand it. But if we understand this like a process in which the communities and us, actually, have enough information to take good decisions, the decisions that we think are better for us, we are in the good way. So we want to think, at least in Latin America, the technological autonomy as a process of taking decisions by us, but with all the information that we need to know. So if a community understands that, and they still need to use Zoom because it’s better the signal. I don’t know. Whatever they want. But they understand what they are doing. Or Facebook or whatever, no? But they understand what they are doing, no? And the risk they have, it is better. Because if not, you have this, no? It’s connected or disconnected. And I think this is not the way. In one of the conferences yesterday, someone says that we need to escape from the idea that it is the better stage of the connectivity or no connectivity. And there is a lot of gray scale, I think, in it. And the important thing is that the communities have the understanding of what is happening, no? And what it implies to use one of different technologies. And then how they can have the environment to develop the projects they want to develop, no? So I think this is the key. And the other thing about the violence is very difficult, no? On the one hand, we have in Africa, in South Africa and Kenya, we have community networks that are in urban areas, no? Very good community networks, like Tandanet, like Binet, like Ocean View in Cape Town. And on the other hand, in our experience in Mexico, we have the narcos. I know that you all have seen series of narcos. And they are most of it, really, no? This is a reality in Mexico. And we work in the north of Mexico. And we need to negotiate a lot with them. Actually, they have the better communication, I saw, in the rural areas. But they are part of the environment. difficult. It doesn’t mean that we need to stay in the same table with them, but we know that they are behind all the discussion in the communities, and we need to know that, and it’s very difficult. It’s very difficult. They have like a big truck with a lot of internet, satellite internet and satellite phones, so they have a lot of technology. No, no, no. This is not community. This is the Narcos network. Yes. How was the negotiation? Just, I got curious, how would you approach them? I don’t know. For example, in one of the meetings we had, there is two minds that are like, and then they are very quiet, and they go out, and some people say that they are looking. What are you mean? Because they want also internet for their homes, because the communication for the daily life is for community. That’s their interest. That’s their personal interest. Yes, they want their children to be connected, the school too. So they actually, in some places, they help to develop infrastructure. It’s a very complex thing, and so we know that in the communities, we don’t need to stay with them and to talk with them, but they are part of the conversation, of the decision making. Because the starting point of the negotiation is their personal interest. Yes, to know that they are there, and this is a reality. Thank you.

Raquel Gatto:
And that’s very good. And let me just, a smaller Portuguese version. Gisela, it’s a pleasure to meet you. Welcome, and thank you for the question. I’ll speak in Portuguese with you later. Just saying, I’m going to talk to her in Portuguese later. But anyway, thank you very much for the questions. I can’t address every single point, but I think there is a common line here, which is also to bring that concept of meaningful access. We tackle this a lot, and the policy network on meaningful access. So it’s not only about bringing the connection, but it’s about the whole environment that is connected, that someone is connected to, and the skills that are involved in it, the equipment, but also, let’s say, the local environment. And I think what, first, Gisela and José Arthur brought both in the sense of, well, one into the urban environment, that’s a very non-rural environment. Let’s change the wording if that’s difficult. In a non-rural environment, that, well, first, it’s a myth that only remote and rural areas have problems. So it’s important to bring that, that we have those islands even in the cities. And then that also raises, on the indigenous community part and the slums part, how important it is to have this local voice heard, because there are different challenges, and it’s okay. But first, you need to have a space where you can openly share that, and at least look for someone that is having the same problem, that has addressed this problem, and try to get some inputs on how you can bring to solutions. But also, it is important if you think about how to scale that, because if there are many that are facing the same problem, how we’re going to find a long-standing solution and a more sustainable solution in the future. So that’s my first point, connecting all these dots and all these experiences and having the places where this can be done, it’s the first step. And then, I’m not going into the trade-offs and the digital sovereignty concept in full, but I think it’s a good alert that Carlos said, in terms of, I think the major concern is the trade-offs you have in this kind of collaborative arrangements, and the real awareness of what you are giving up when you buy into the solution. So there is no right or wrong, it’s just a matter of how well this is understood, and how this is advertised in terms of being community network driven or not. So I would put it in that sense.

Luca Belli:
I just wanted to add a point that we also have to understand that what we are speaking about, and which are the problems that we want to face, and what are the solutions to those problems. So the community networks are not a silver bullet to solve all the problems that we have in the world. So the fact that there is, let me speak, the fact that there is criminality in a given area is not something that sadly can be solved with community networks. It’s not the task of the community networks to deal with warlords or drug lords. So the community network can help. Actually, they are a very good complementary solution to solve the problem, because they bring culture to people, they bring communication to people. There is, I mean, you as a Brazilian communicator, I’m sure you know very well Paulo Freire, and he used to say that education doesn’t change the world. Education changes the people, and then changes the world. And I think you have to have this similar approach to connectivity. Connectivity does not change the world. Connectivity can change the people, and then the people will change the world. So if you think that the community network is the silver bullet that solves all the problems, I’m sorry, but you will be disappointed. But it is a very good, it’s something, it’s an alternative solution to bridge the gap that are evident in the classic traditional connectivity solutions that are state and markets. Because if all the, be them rural or areas that are not connected, or peripheral area, or slam in cities that are not connected, they are so-called market failure. It’s technical, they are called market failure areas, because the market fails to connect them, because there is no interest, economic interest in connecting them, and so you don’t have return on investment. Some of them may also be state failure areas, because the state, for various reasons, has abandoned those areas. And, but, we all know that no area is without, no community is without rules. So when the state is not ruling, someone else is ruling. And that is the problem that I think the state should solve, not really the community networks. But the community networks are a good complementary solution to expand connectivity. Osama, you wanted to say something. So actually this is not a question, but a point of observation, and also the experience, and most of the, many of the players are sitting there, and some players are sitting here. The observation is community network is so far practiced as an alternative way of providing, or building connectivity, which may be frugal, which may be commune oriented, and so on and so

Audience:
forth. The second point is that as soon as GSM comes, or the internet itself reach you, in terms of access, community network gets challenged, and they either close down, or they go haywire, or all the users get on to that network, right? Not that the previous network was not connected to the internet, but in terms of viability of existence. The third is that the best community network practice may have become an ISP, in the local area, like Goifi, and maybe Rizomatica, and there may be some examples that I may not know. The discussion that I want to do is that, what is the future of community network in itself? And coming forward, because first 15 years, internet was look up to. Now, we are fear of internet. We are fearful of internet, because there are more bads coming to you, or you have to go through those bads to get the good out of it. And therefore, can community network become an alternative commune in itself? In other words, intranet. Can it become an intranet, and I connect to the internet only when we want, or something like that, right? Is there some practice like that, or is there something, I mean, since you document a lot, I mean, this is something very important that we need to discuss, is that can community networks not in technological term, not as an alternative of ISP, not an alternative for access, but to create your own commune, like your own gated community, whatever, I mean, you can safeguard yourself, you can run on your own, even though you have Airtel, or you have NTT Docomo, or whatever, I don’t want it, you know, I just plug in and then plug off, you know, if somebody wants, because of this, and this is something that we need to discuss, because now only one third of the world is yet to be connected, so are we looking at community network as an alternative to connect those who are one third of the world, or safeguard those who are already connected, is the question. Yeah, thanks for the question, Osama, so maybe I can start, I think you are pointing out in a good direction, so I think it’s beyond connectivity,

Nils Brock:
and it’s beyond access, so when we talk about the future of community networks, and so the inter-internet approach, to have like local services, this is really something, or where there can be a difference, and to start at the other end, so what does meaningful connectivity mean at the community level, and also during the IGF, we have seen like different categories and things, but what is missing is also the question, how would the community respond to this question, what brings meaning to the connectivity from their end, that can be very, very different if you look at the rural or urban community, and then to another one, there’s so many different factors, and so only if we take into account this, I think then it’s possible to rethink, and from recent work that we have done, there is a study that we are working on also on local services, and understanding what are the importance, what are services of importance for communities, and again, that can be different, it can be agricultural services, can be educational ones, content creation, but there are things there, and that can be often done in a different way, in a complementary way, we could say, in an alternative way, whatever is the framing, but I think this is important, because you’re right, if it’s only about connectivity, and there is a provider who has a business model that comes at a community point, so this collective effort could be undone. I can take it very quickly, just to react to that, first, if we are going to put this question of the community networks becoming an internet service provider or not, we are in a good place, that’s a good problem, and it means that the community networks has grown and evolved to the place that it is, perhaps an ISP, but anyway,

Raquel Gatto:
I’m not going to the nitty-gritty of, you know, it should be one or not, but because I think there are some other regulatory discussions that needs to, that might change in some places where we are looking for more of this social license for community networks as an alternative provider, and do not confuse with the traditional internet service provider, but anyway, and as you can see, while I’m a lawyer, nobody’s perfect, and so I take more for the, you know, regulatory and process environment. I would just put the cautions on the examples that you were mentioning, like, oh, and then it becomes the internet service provider, and perhaps it’s also the content providers, and, you know, this consolidation of all the services and connectivity in the community networks, because then you might be becoming, I mean, there is no, again, right or wrong if this is really the community will, and it’s community-driven. The problem is when this package has community, or something for the community, but it’s really a top-down, and something that is not, you know, their will, and it’s not their self-determination, so that’s just the risk for this consolidation that you’ve been outlining. Thank you. I just want to add an element to this

Luca Belli:
with regard to the digital sovereignty debate, which is actually a twofold dimension. On the one hand, if, as Raquel was mentioning, if the community network is so successful that it becomes a very well-performing ISP with very low prices, well, that is, I think, the community network has succeeded, because it became exactly, starting from scratch, it became exactly like the big telcos, but without being a big telco, while being community-driven, so that is an enormous success of the local community, as long as it is maintained by the local community, and the governance model is self-driven by the local community. On the other hand, if there are some, we have also documented over the past years, there are community networks where they are, as Osama was mentioning, basically intranet, and local communities, and that is another element of their sovereignty. If their choice is to create a local network to share information, to even have their own platforms to communicate, or to trade services, or to have information on medical treatments, and they only connect sometimes to the internet to do whatever they want, again, that is the reason why we may argue it’s an expression of digital sovereignty, because it is local communities, people willingly understanding what technology means, building it, and using it for what they want, and if they choose not to communicate with you, I’m sorry for you, but it’s their choice, and so, Carlos, do you have a question also, a comment? No, okay, so it’s the, so I’m keeping on, last five minutes, so you have a question or a comment, okay, I saw. No, so to conclude, is simply, I wanted to stress that we really have to consider the self-determination element of it, which is being the master of your own digital destiny, being the one that understands what you are dealing with, and crafts a plan to what you, to succeed in your aspiration, and if then your aspiration is becoming, having a local ISP that works like Telefonica in terms of quality, but has half the prices, and you redistribute the benefits in the local economic environment, well, I would say that you have been very successful, and we can disagree, but I think that is not a failure, on the contrary, it could be seen as a success. Please, Carlos. Thank you, Luca. Carlos Rey Moreno, Association for Progressive Communications. First of all, thank you very much,

Audience:
Senka, thank you very much, Luca, I mean, we are talking about the WSIS plus 20 review, the IGF, what is the impact of the IGF, and certainly the IOMEC coalition on community connectivity, I think, has shown over the years, over the outputs, over the discussions, how much value there is in holding these type of conversations. Second, I want to speak on behalf, I’m not them, of course, of Okoro, who was supposed to be speaking for connectivity reasons, he’s not with us, he’s an APC member from Nigeria, the Media Awareness and Justice Initiative, we’re actually starting on some of the elements that Osama was talking about, right, so they are working, collaborating with another APC member, the Open Culture Foundation, with the SOOD project, on doing, bringing meaning to their community around a spill of oil in the Port Harcourt area, where their communities are based, as well as monitoring air pollution with devices and bringing, you know, value-added services to the internet that they had, right? The thing is that by doing that project, they also realized that the connectivity that they were having from the mobile operators was not enough, so they went and set up, in the last year actually, it wasn’t, you know, one of the pioneers on this movement, they started less than 10 months ago, starting a community network, two community networks, actually, in the areas where they work, so this type of citizen science can be done in, you know, and have the internet quality that it requires to do what they require, because also the affordability issues that they face in Nigeria, right? So it started the other way around, it started from bringing meaning and value-added services and using the digital platforms and solutions for solving the issues that they were having and touching upon what the problems that they are facing around, you know, air quality and pollution of oil, and, you know, it was, you know, their challenge, and using those type of tools to actually bring the community together and solve as well their connectivity issues. Anyway, I really hope Okoro was here and could speak on behalf of the project that they are doing, that is really, really amazing. Thank you. Okay, so we have also the announcement that there will be a nice, an excellent talk this afternoon. I’m sorry, I will have to fly right after this lunch, but I’m sure that I will watch

Luca Belli:
it on streaming. Thank you very much to everyone for your excellent food for thought. I think all the participants here have many more ideas now to reflect on community networks and digital sovereignty and environmental sustainability, and if you want to have even more ideas, do not forget to have your complimentary copies of the report of this year that are here for free, so if you want, please have as many as you want. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Audience

During the discussion on Internet governance schools, it was highlighted that these schools strive to build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions. Institutions like the Internet Engineering Task Force and ICANN were cited as examples of inclusivity and effectiveness in the field of internet governance. Schools of internet governance expose students to different institutional forms, including NGOs that manage standardization or open-source communities.

Another significant aspect of internet governance schools is their role in promoting peace and cultural understanding. By connecting people from different countries, these schools leverage the internet as a tool to combat prejudice and foster peace. The schools invite guests from various countries to demonstrate the world’s diversity and encourage cooperation and mutual understanding.

Furthermore, these educational institutions have the potential to reduce unemployment and empower individuals economically. For instance, the Pakistan School on Internet Governance includes sessions on leveraging the internet for entrepreneurial opportunities, highlighting successful digital initiatives that inspire youth. By training individuals on internet governance and fostering entrepreneurship, these schools contribute to employment generation and economic growth.

In areas with limited internet access, it is crucial to inform local communities about the plans of local operators and regulators. The Pakistan School on Internet Governance, for instance, invites local operators to share their internet access plans, while regulators and government officials inform the audience about their visions and strategies. This knowledge exchange helps bridge the gap in connectivity by ensuring that affected communities are aware of plans to improve access.

The African School on Internet Governance focuses on leadership development, gender equality, and addressing the gender digital divide. This collaborative initiative between Research ICT Africa, the African Union Commission, and the Association for Progressive Communications targets middle to senior management in government, regulators, and civil society. The school aims to provide a platform for women thought leaders, promote African expertise, and address gender-based violence and the digital divide.

Internet governance schools also facilitate discussions on sensitive topics, such as internet shutdowns. By creating an inclusive environment for dialogue, these schools bring together civil society, human rights activists, and government and regulatory representatives from African countries. This enables open and constructive discussions on internet-related issues, including internet shutdowns.

Overall, internet governance schools play a crucial role in building effective institutions, promoting peace and cultural understanding, reducing unemployment, bridging the urban-rural divide, and addressing societal issues. Through education, inclusivity, and dialogue, these schools contribute to the sustainable management of the internet and the achievement of Sustainable Development Goals.

Speaker 1

The Japan School of Internet Governance, which started this year, aims to promote Internet Governance on a larger scale and raise awareness of its importance. An announcement by Toshi from the school showcased its successful launch. Notably, the school conducted a full-day session with youth participants, emphasizing its commitment to engaging the future generation in discussions and decision-making processes regarding internet governance.

To achieve its goals, the school intends to foster information exchange and facilitate meaningful discussions on various topics, including contentious issues like the Manga Pirate Site. These subjects are incorporated into the curriculum, equipping students with the knowledge and skills needed to navigate internet governance and address potential challenges.

The efforts of the Japan School of Internet Governance align with SDG 4: Quality Education and SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). By focusing on these SDGs, the school contributes to improving the quality of education and promotes the development and innovation required for a robust internet infrastructure.

The establishment of the Japan School of Internet Governance is a significant step towards increasing awareness and understanding of internet governance in Japan. It strives to create a well-informed and proactive society by facilitating dialogue, promoting information exchange, and addressing relevant issues.

In conclusion, the Japan School of Internet Governance, which began its activities this year, seeks to elevate the importance of internet governance and expand its reach. Through its curriculum and initiatives, the school empowers individuals, particularly young participants, by equipping them with the knowledge and skills necessary to navigate the complexities of internet governance. By addressing significant issues such as the Manga Pirate Site, the school demonstrates its commitment to fostering dialogue and nurturing a well-informed society.

Olga Cavalli

During the session, the speakers emphasized the importance of finding connections between internet governance schools and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Olga Cavalli specifically highlighted the significance of discussing activities related to the SDGs at different schools of internet governance. This highlights the need for these schools to align their work with the broader global agenda of achieving sustainable development.

One of the main topics discussed was the energy consumption of the internet, with predictions suggesting that it will double by 2030. This raises concerns about its environmental impact. It was also highlighted that there are still parts of the world that lack access to electricity, exacerbating energy disparities. The emergence of the Internet of Energy as a new field further emphasizes the need to address energy consumption and sustainability in the context of internet governance.

The schools of internet governance were commended for their role in promoting understanding and action around energy consumption and sustainability. The South School of Internet Governance, in particular, focuses on issues related to energy consumption and its potential impacts, such as climate change. This demonstrates that these schools are not only educating individuals but also becoming platforms for addressing pressing global challenges.

The approach of organizing schools in different cities was endorsed as a means to reach and include diverse communities in the discussions. The Pakistan School on Internet Governance, for example, rotates among different cities, allowing more diverse communities to access education and engage in the dialogue on internet governance.

Efforts to bridge the gap between urban and rural communities were highlighted, particularly by the Bangladeshi School of Internet Governance. The speaker, Ashrafur Rahman, who is a coordinator of the school, mentioned their endeavors to involve rural and transgender communities and promote innovation in rural areas. This showcases the school’s commitment to inclusivity and addressing the digital divide between rural and urban populations.

Another notable aspect of the schools of internet governance is their focus on the SDGs and the integration of the goals into their programs. Olga Cavalli organized a school in Rio with Fundación Getulio Vargas that placed specific emphasis on the SDGs. By incorporating the SDGs into their curriculum, these schools are contributing to the realization of the global goals.

The evolving nature of the schools of internet governance was emphasized, with references to partnerships and collaborations. The Argentina School of Internet Governance was highlighted for partnering with a university to offer certifications from Fortinet, a leading cybersecurity company. Additionally, the production of a document for the Global Digital Compact involving over 80 fellows from around the world further demonstrates the schools’ evolving and expanding role in the field of internet governance.

The schools of internet governance were also recognized for their role in enhancing communication and learning among schools. The usefulness of the dynamic coalition in supporting these endeavors was acknowledged, as it provides materials and helps schools understand the multi-stakeholder model and its evolution. Furthermore, the availability of a website with a map showing the locations of the schools was noted as a means to share and consult information between the schools.

However, the issue of limited time for active participation in these activities was acknowledged by Olga Cavalli herself. This suggests that despite their commitment to internet governance, time constraints can hinder active engagement in these initiatives.

On the positive side, the availability of school content on their YouTube channel in multiple languages serves to disseminate their knowledge and insights to a wider audience. Additionally, students are kept engaged through a telegram group, where they can access fellowship opportunities, job opportunities, research, and news about internet governance. This further strengthens the sense of community and provides students with ongoing learning and development opportunities.

In conclusion, the session highlighted the importance of integrating the works of internet governance schools with the SDGs. The energy consumption of the internet and the need for sustainability were key concerns discussed. The schools of internet governance play a significant role in promoting understanding and action around these issues. They reach diverse communities through their approach of organizing schools in different cities and strive to bridge the gap between urban and rural populations. The schools’ focus on the SDGs and their evolving nature, as well as partnerships and collaborations, contribute to their expanding role in the field of internet governance. Despite time constraints, the schools continue to enhance communication and learning, with the dynamic coalition and the sharing of information and documents through their website. Overall, the session provided valuable insights into the achievements and challenges faced by internet governance schools and their contribution to a more sustainable and inclusive digital future.

Satish Babu

The analysis of the provided statements reveals several key points and arguments made by the speakers. Firstly, Satish Babu is associated with two schools, specifically the Asia Pacific School on Internet Governance and the India School. These schools were founded in 2015 and 2016 respectively, with the purpose of providing capacity building and building awareness in the field of internet governance. The primary function of these schools is to equip individuals with the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively navigate the complexities of internet governance.

Furthermore, it is highlighted that there is a need for schools on internet governance globally. Many countries and regions, including Africa, Asia Pacific, Argentina, Armenia, Chad, Ghana, Europe, North America, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Russia, have already established their own schools in response to this need. These schools serve as platforms for individuals from different parts of the world to convene, collaborate, and share ideas related to internet governance.

Another important aspect discussed is the incorporation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into the curricula of these schools. While the two schools that Satish Babu is associated with do not explicitly highlight the SDGs, it is mentioned that the curriculars were developed without considering the SDGs, as they were adopted after the schools were already operational. Nevertheless, Satish finds value in discussing how these schools naturally address many of the SDGs, emphasizing the alignment of their educational programmes with the broader goals of sustainable development.

Satish also advocates for the enhancement of cybersecurity efforts and the development of online education resources. It is emphasized that cybersecurity is a central issue in internet governance, and the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise, as well as the London Process, provide opportunities for African colleagues to engage and address this issue effectively. Additionally, the successful workshops conducted by the schools in collaboration with various stakeholders have led to the development of new projects.

Moreover, the speakers acknowledge the proposal for global schools on internet governance, highlighting that two schools have already evolved from regional to global stages. Satish also emphasizes the importance of content evolution in internet governance education, specifically citing the India School of Internet Governance as an example. The school has made its course content available on their website, demonstrating the journey and evolution of the curriculum over eight years.

In conclusion, the speakers address the importance of quality education, partnerships, and the SDGs in the field of internet governance. The schools on internet governance play a crucial role in building awareness and capacity, and there is a global need for such schools. Satish Babu advocates for the enhancement of cybersecurity efforts, the development of online education resources, and emphasizes the importance of content evolution in internet governance education. The analysis provides valuable insights into the current landscape of internet governance education and the efforts being made to address the challenges and opportunities in this field.

Avri Doria

Avri Doria hosted the Dynamic Coalition on Schools and Internet Governance session, emphasising the importance of education in internet governance and the role of schools in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The session was divided into three sections: presentations from new schools, discussions on SDGs and the actions schools are taking, and an examination of the objectives of the Dynamic Coalition on Schools.

Despite some participants initially being absent, Avri Doria ensured that the session followed the outlined agenda. She highlighted the dynamic coalition’s significance in supporting schools and promoting governance education. The coalition has developed useful resources for schools, such as documents and materials, to aid learning about governance and the multi-stakeholder model. Avri Doria believes that the dynamic coalition could be an invaluable resource in teaching governance and enhancing understanding of the multi-stakeholder approach.

The session also delved into discussions on the SDGs, specifically focusing on SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions). Avri Doria stressed the importance of addressing these goals within schools and internet governance. This emphasised the need to incorporate the SDGs into school curriculums and promote gender equality, clean energy, and peace and justice within educational institutions.

During the session, Avri Doria highlighted the collaboration between the dynamic coalition and the IGF Secretariat. She suggested the need for a follow-up to evaluate the impact and outcome of this collaboration, examining its success rate and feedback on the collaboration document. Avri Doria believes that additional elements could be included to enhance the effectiveness of the document.

Furthermore, Avri Doria advocated for the use of modern internet standards and global good practices to enhance justified trust in the internet and email. She referred to the Global Forum for Cyber Expertise, which includes a track focused on enhancing justified trust. Avri Doria mentioned the availability of resources and a handbook explaining these modern internet standards and their significance. She considers these resources valuable assets for schools and encourages their use in educational settings.

Additionally, Avri Doria discussed a website aimed at open educational resource sharing for internet governance. The website features a map function and sections dedicated to fellows, faculties, and a dynamic coalition wiki. While only one school has contributed materials thus far, Avri Doria encouraged others to contribute resources in order to enrich the website and promote collaborative learning among different schools.

In conclusion, the session hosted by Avri Doria underscored the importance of education in internet governance and the role of schools in achieving the SDGs. The discussions emphasised the significance of teaching governance, integrating the SDGs into school curriculums, and fostering a deeper understanding of the multi-stakeholder model. The session also highlighted the collaboration between the dynamic coalition and the IGF Secretariat, as well as advocating for the use of modern internet standards and global good practices. The importance of sharing open educational resources for internet governance was also emphasised, promoting collaboration among schools to enhance education in this field.

Sandra Hoferichte

Schools on internet governance play a significant role in promoting gender equality and empowering women. These schools have been successful in attracting a greater number of female participants compared to males, contributing to a more balanced gender representation in this field. For example, the European Summer School on Internet Governance has seen a higher turnout of female participants. These schools provide a comprehensive education that equips young professionals with the necessary knowledge and skills to pursue leadership positions.

However, despite progress in educational initiatives, there is still a lack of advancement in women’s representation in managerial positions in Germany. The proportion of women in managerial roles has only slightly increased from 21% in 2014 to 23% in 2018. Continued efforts are needed to address gender disparities in leadership roles.

To address this issue, more emphasis should be placed on adult education for promoting gender equality. Schools on internet governance can serve as a valuable platform for adult education, helping to bridge the gap and empower women in various aspects of their lives. By providing access to education and empowering women, these schools contribute to the progress towards achieving gender equality, aligned with Sustainable Development Goal 5.

In the context of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), Japan has shown greater awareness and promotion compared to Europe. Japanese society demonstrates a visible commitment to SDGs, with initiatives such as displaying SDG symbols on windows and cars. Europe could learn from Japan’s approach and consider adopting similar strategies to raise awareness and garner public support for achieving the SDGs.

Furthermore, it is important to address the limited utilization of digital resources like the wiki and website for global networking. Despite the availability of these platforms and partial funding from the Medienstadt Leipzig association, their usage has been relatively low. Sandra Hoferichte expresses concern over this limited engagement and emphasizes the need for financial support from other schools or organizations to sustain these digital resources and the work of the dynamic coalition. Such support would contribute to the effective dissemination of information and knowledge sharing among a wider network, enabling greater collaboration towards achieving SDGs 4 and 10.

In conclusion, schools on internet governance have proven to be instrumental in promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment. However, there is still work to be done to address the underrepresentation of women in managerial positions in Germany. By embracing adult education and adopting Japan’s approach to SDG awareness, progress can be made towards achieving these goals. Additionally, supporting the wiki and website for global networking through increased funding would enhance their effectiveness in facilitating collaboration and knowledge exchange for the SDGs.

Wolfgang Kleinwaechter

In the analysis, the speakers delve into the multidimensional nature of internet governance and its intersection with education. They emphasize that internet governance encompasses the evolution and use of the internet, covering both the technical and application layers, as well as various public policy issues related to the internet. It is noted that the complex and evolving nature of internet governance makes it difficult to study within a traditional university setting.

The importance of specialized courses in internet governance is highlighted. The speakers point out that new questions and issues have arisen in recent years that were not previously on the agenda. These require accurate understanding, as seen in the example of artificial intelligence (AI) governance. The speaker mentions growing confusion surrounding concepts such as digital governance, AI governance, and cyber governance. This underscores the need for courses that provide clarity to address the evolving landscape.

Furthermore, the speakers stress the significance of academic independence and proactivity in developing educational programs. They advocate for taking inspiration from the global community while also thinking independently about what is beneficial for one’s own country and community. They emphasize the need to be proactive in addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by internet governance.

The analysis also draws attention to the importance of judges with knowledge of internet governance. It is stated that in a world where many conflicts may end up in court, judges without understanding of internet governance may make incorrect decisions. This underscores the need for education and expertise in this area to ensure fair and accurate rulings.

Additionally, the analysis touches upon the topic of cybersecurity and the establishment of the Global Forum for Cyber Expertise. The origins of the Global Forum for Cyber Expertise from the London process are mentioned, with its focus on cybersecurity. It is noted that the Global Forum will be hosting a world conference on capacity building, emphasizing the importance of collaboration and partnerships in addressing cybersecurity challenges.

Overall, the analysis reflects a comprehensive understanding of the importance of education, collaboration, and continuous development of expertise in the field of internet governance. The speakers provide valuable insights, highlighting the multidisciplinary nature of the subject, the need for specialized courses, the significance of academic independence, the role of judges, and the importance of cybersecurity. These observations are crucial for navigating the complexities of internet governance and addressing its challenges effectively.

Alexander Isavnin

The analysis examines various arguments and stances on different topics, addressing issues such as internet governance schools, travel and international exposure, Russia’s societal norms, the obscurity of UN processes, access to water and healthcare, the government’s decision-making, and the perceived obscurity of certain Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

One argument posits that internet governance schools can contribute to the development of effective and inclusive institutions. It highlights the importance of including diverse stakeholders, with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) serving as an example. This argument stresses the need for governance frameworks that accommodate different perspectives and foster collaboration.

Another argument emphasises how travel and international exposure promote understanding and peace. It cites a quote from Mark Twain, asserting that travel has the power to eradicate prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness. The widespread availability of the internet is also seen as a means to bring diverse experiences from different countries into people’s homes, further enhancing global understanding.

In contrast, a negative stance suggests that Russia is slowly reverting to its old societal norms. However, the analysis lacks specific supporting facts for this claim, making it somewhat speculative.

Furthermore, concerns are raised regarding the obscurity of UN processes in the Russian Federation. It is highlighted that these processes are not widely publicised and are considered opaque by the local population, thus raising questions about transparency and accessibility.

On a positive note, the analysis acknowledges that Russia generally has good access to water and healthcare, attributing this to the legacy of the Soviet Union, which laid a solid foundation in these areas.

A negative argument contends that the government may hold the belief that certain actions should not be taken in other areas. However, no specific evidence is provided to support this claim, leaving it open to interpretation.

The analysis also notes the perception of certain SDGs, specifically the 9th and 16th goals, as being obscure. However, without specific details or evidence, this argument lacks substance.

In addition, the analysis highlights a dedicated course aimed at explaining UN processes and SDGs. This course aims to provide information to attendees, ensuring they are well-informed and understand the objectives behind the SDGs and the workings of the United Nations.

In conclusion, the analysis covers a range of arguments and stances on various topics. While some points are supported by evidence, others lack specificity or supporting facts. The analysis provides insights into the significance of internet governance schools, travel and international exposure, concerns about the obscurity of UN processes and certain SDGs, access to water and healthcare, and the government’s decision-making. The course dedicated to explaining UN processes and SDGs is seen as a valuable resource for enhancing understanding in this field.

Avri Doria:
Let me start. My name is Avri Dori and I want to welcome you to the Dynamic Coalition on Schools and Internet Governance session. We have a fairly full agenda. We don’t quite have everybody in the room yet but we can get started. So the first thing is let me just go through the agenda that we’ve got. We’ve got two moderators. We’ve got Satish and we’ve got Olga who will be joining us. I’m not sure if we have any of our report reporters in the room but but we’ll take care of that. We have basically there’s three sections in this. In the first one we’ll be talking about schools and we’ll invite Satish and Olga we’ll invite new speakers to people that have new schools to come up. What we had showing before and hopefully can keep showing for a little while is that single slide from many of the schools that we’re not going to invite to speak a lot about their schools but just to have their slides appearing for for a short bit of time. Then we’ll have a second section where we’ll basically take three of the SDGs and we’ll have presentations on those SDGs in terms of what are various schools doing in them. And then finally we’ll have a discussion with what time we have left of what the dynamic coalition on schools would like to do. So with that I’d like to pass it to you Satish to sort of go into the introduction of the schools and such, thanks.

Satish Babu:
Thanks very much, I’m Satish and I’m based out of India part of the ICANN at large and also I’m associated with two schools. First one is the Asia Pacific School on Internet Governance which was founded in 2015. The second one is the India School which was founded in 2016. So we have a bunch of slides on different schools. We can quickly run through them. We don’t want to kind of stop and present each. Can you advance to the next one? This first slide is about the African School on Internet Governance. Next please. This is the Asia Pacific School. As I mentioned it was founded in 2015 and we are planning this year’s edition in Manila in November. Next. This is Argentina SIG. As you can see Olga is unfortunately not here but she is the one that is part of this. Next. This is the Armenian SIG. Armenia has also been having quite continuously actually their SIGs. Next. The Chad SIG. We have a representative from Chad so later on in the interaction we can speak about it if you want to highlight anything. Next. Ghana. Anybody from Ghana school here? No, nobody’s from. Sorry. Yeah, next. This is the European Summer School. I am myself an alumni and Sandra is here from the Euro SIG. Next. This is India School founded in 2016. Couple of weeks back we had the eighth edition in India. Next. NASIG. NASIG is a school, a North American school set up by the ICANN community at large people, Glenn and others. I don’t think there’s anybody here from that school here. Next. This is the Nigerian School on Internet Governance. Is anybody here from Nigeria or the school? I know. Next. Pakistan. We have Akash here from Pakistan. The PK SIG from 2015. One of the earliest schools in Asia Pacific and certainly in South Asia, the first in South Asia. Next. The Russian School on, Summer School on Internet Governance, St. Petersburg University. Next. This is South School. Oh, Olga School. So this is one of the oldest again in the world actually. This is Sri Lanka IGF which also doubles as a SIG. So it’s a kind of combined structure. Next. Virtual School. This is set up by again, Glenn McKnight and Alfredo who are part of the ICANN community. And when the COVID shutdown came up, this was their response to the shutdown. And it is now continuing as a virtual school. Next. Chad, second time it’s coming I think. That’s it.

Avri Doria:
So these are the schools that we have having this slide set, slide deck. Are there anybody from any other school not mentioned so far? If so, we can quickly introduce yourself. Yeah. Okay, I’m from Benin and, from Benin School Internet Governance. Yeah. Thanks for that. This is from Benin. We have one more school which is brand new and Avery is going to introduce that school. I’m actually gonna invite an introduction to that school. And Tadashi, if you would like to, I don’t know if you could hear me. Would you like to introduce the new Japan School? While we’re talking about it, let me talk about an event that they had. KCG this year, just before this meeting started, had basically a whole day session where there was a youth session and they introduced, they basically had a session of the school. And it was really quite an interesting day in terms of the students and having sessions and such. Would you like to actually come and introduce the new school that you’re doing in Japan, the Japan School? Yeah. Yeah. Thank you, Lee.

Speaker 1:
My name is Toshi from Japan School of Internet Governance. We start this spring. Last year, I met her at the Ethiopia Addis Ababa ISGF last month. So I know slightly about School Internet Governance, but what is School Internet Governance? What is the use? I was just very confused. But at the time, I found out what is School Internet Governance. So in 2018, we have a big discussion about Manga Pirate Site. Probably you may know at the ISGF village, there are the big booths about that pirate site. So then in 2019, I started to teach in the university, talk about a pirate site and internet governance. So I also, I’m a professor in Kyoto. So then I start again this year, about the, how can I say, internet governance. So then, I’m very happy to many of you to Kyoto, and I hope that we have, how can I say, promotion of School Internet Governance and exchange for more information and help us. Thank you. Thank you very much. And quite looking forward. So back to you. I don’t know if there are any other new schools here that wanted to do some results before we move on. So I’d like to ask anybody who’s online, whether they represent any schools of, internet governance schools or internet governance. If there are some, if there is someone,

Satish Babu:
then please raise your hands. I don’t see any hands, so I’m assuming that. So we have quickly gone through the slides, but towards the end of the session, we have some discussion time. We have Olga, our moderator, who’s coming up just now. So we have time at the end of the session to discuss. Yeah, so back to you, this is the pre-gathering. Thank you. So yeah, give yourself a chance to breathe,

Avri Doria:
but we basically have gone through the new schools, invited new schools. The new Japan school discussed a little bit. I talked a little bit about the event that occurred earlier this week at KCG. And we’re now at the point where we’re gonna talk about SDGs and schools. And that’s good that we’re giving this a fair amount of time. We’re gonna have three of the SDGs are gonna be discussed. The first one, and I’ll just start this. The first one will be on SDG 5 on gender. The second, SDG 7 on energy. And the third, SDG 16 on peace, justice, and strong institutions. So I don’t know, Olga, if you wanted to introduce the whole theme more than I just did.

Olga Cavalli:
One of the purposes of this session is to try to find linkages in between what we do at the different schools of internet governance and the sustainable development goals. There are some of the activities, I would say that several of the activities that we do with the schools in different focuses of training are totally related with the different SDGs. So this is why Sandra, myself, I don’t know if we have other colleagues talking about different SDGs. We would like to explain some of the activities that we do in relation with these SDGs. And perhaps some other schools that are in the room could maybe jump up and share some other activities that are related with this issue. Sandra, would you like to go to the gender issue? And then I will follow with energy. Yes, thank you very much.

Avri Doria:
Welcome, everyone.

Sandra Hoferichte:
My name is Sandra Hoferichter. I’m the organizer of the European Summer School on Internet Governance, which is a global school other than the name suggests. The euro just comes from the fact that we are based in Europe, but we are inviting globally. And I’m proud to say that we were the first school on internet governance, and it’s really amazing to see how many schools evolved over the years and how this became a movement with a really greater impact. Speaking about impact, I would like to focus a little bit on SDG five, which is achieve gender quality and empower all women and girls. And there are several under achievements or under goals that are defined, and I looked at those who are most relevant to schools on internet governance, which I believe is 5.5, ensure women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all level of decision-making and political, economic, and public life. I do believe that schools on internet governance do contribute to this goal because most of the schools are not only focused on youth engagement and youth participation, but indeed are an opportunity for young professionals to get a holistic knowledge about internet governance, which then helps them to serve on certain boards or take leadership positions and organizations that are dealing with internet governance. In SDGs, usually there are a lot of young people in SDGs, usually there are also indicators mentioned that support or that are supporting numbers for the respective goal. I have here a number from Germany, only the proportion of women in managerial positions in Germany in 2014, it was only 21%. And in 2018, not much progress has been made, it’s only 23%. So you see there’s still a lot of work to do in order to get really the woman into managerial positions. Same applies for women in parliament or local governments. Also here, little progress has been made. If I look at the numbers, it even lowered, but this is in a very small range, so I would not go into much detail, but it’s around 30 to 40% of women that are in Germany. In local governments or in parliaments, in national parliaments. But I want to focus a little bit on the second goal that applies to our schools, which is goal 5.B, enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology to promote the empowerment of women. The respective indicator is not really related to what we are doing at our schools because it shows the proportion of individuals who own a mobile phone by sex. I think this is nothing that is relevant for us, but I think the overall goal, enhance the use of enabling technology, in particular information and communications technology to promote the empowerment of women. I do think this is really indeed the goal where the schools of internet governance should possibly provide an indicator because here I can say, speaking from the European summer school, I can realize that over the past 10 years, the participation of women and the application rate of women is much bigger than the application and the participation rate of men. So what does it tell us? Women are obviously more often willing to dedicate vacation time or education time and travel costs or participation costs in order to participate in such a summer course. And speaking from this Euro SSIG, I indeed, in order to have parity in our classes, I sometimes indeed looking for male participants that are qualified and can participate in our school. This is something that might look other in different regions of the world, but I wanted to give you this very personal view or this very local view from the school that I’m running. But I have also consulted with UNESCO and we had a discussion this year in Meissen at our school and UNESCO numbers prove that the gap, at least in primary schools, have narrowed tremendously over the past years. There is still a gap remaining in adult education and here I do believe we can pick up the qualified women that are coming from a really good qualification in the primary school, we can pick them up and include them in our courses and here I do believe the schools on internet governance, looking at them from a perspective of what they can contribute to the SDGs can really do and are doing a wonderful job and are creating a good opportunity for adult education, which of course then at some point should also lead to bring women into more leadership position, not only in managerial, but also in parliaments and governments. I have some resources here, so whoever is interested, I’m happy to share those. They are from, as I said, UNESCO, from Sciences Po Paris, but also from the World Bank. If you would like to have some more details, I don’t go into these details right now.

Olga Cavalli:
Thank you. Thank you very much, Sandra, and apologies for being late. I was confused, I thought the session was at 11 and I was running from other session this morning. My name is Olga, I didn’t present myself properly. My name is Olga Cavalli. Me and my colleague, Adrian, and other colleagues from Latin America, we run the South School of Internet Governance. I think it was the second one in the history. And it is interesting what Sandra says that after the pandemic, we went to a hybrid format and now we have fellows mainly from Latin America, which is the focus, but we have fellows from all over the world. We have a translation all the time between Spanish and English. And also this year, we organized it in the Northeast of Brazil, also in Portuguese. So it has become somehow global, but the focus is Latin America or the Americas because it has been organized also in North America and in the Caribbean. About the SDG that I wanted to comment, which is number seven, focused on ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable, and modern energy for all. Access to energy is important pillar for the well-being of people, as well as for economic development and poverty alleviation. I think schools have a major role from different perspectives related with energy, and also we have to think energy very, very much linked with climate change, which is a problem for several, for the whole world, but especially for developing countries that are suffering consequences, perhaps happening in other parts of the world. So, about energy, we have, in our school, we had several panels about the impact of what would happen if we would achieve a connectivity for all. What would happen with climate change? What would happen with the demand of energy? So, powering the Internet consumed 800 terawatts of electricity in 2012-2022, and it is expected to really increase this year and the next year, and I have some information from different resources. The energy consumption of the Internet will double by 2030, so the consumption of energy will be a major issue, and the impact that it may have in climate change may be relevant for many countries, including the demand that we have by artificial intelligence and other new developments, Internet of Things, and many automatic devices all over the world. There is another aspect of the energy, which is, there are, it’s difficult to understand or believe, but there are areas in the world that don’t have electricity today. So, in the schools, we can talk with different stakeholders, professionals from developing economies, developing countries, in trying to bridge that gap of areas that don’t have electricity. Imagine having no electricity, it’s, perhaps for many of us, we cannot imagine. We were talking in Brazil with fellows from living in the Amazonian area. They don’t have roads, they only get there by boat, and the only Internet that they are having today is the one by Starlink, with some mobile, starting with the low Earth orbit satellites, and government is installing some fiber-optic cables through the Amazons. But some parts of that region don’t even have electricity. So, the work that we do in the schools, in talking with different professionals, governments, and different stakeholders in trying to enhance the reach of electricity, and the good use of electricity, and the impact in climate change will be, it’s very important. Also, there is a new concept called the Internet of Energy. It means the Internet of Things, but focused on energy, focused on all the devices that control and manage the energy as a critical infrastructure. So, includes generation, transmission, functionality, and energy usage. So, that is a new area of work that we may include in the issues that we review in the schools. So, this is what I wanted to share with you. I have some resources here also about energy and climate change. If you want, I can send them to you. And maybe, in the audience, there are schools that could share some ideas about the Sustainable Development Goals. Do you think that’s good? Do we have time? We have one more speaker. Okay. I think that would be good. I think after we finish with Alexander, we can

Avri Doria:
then see if others want to comment, either on the schools that have, I mean, the SDGs that have

Alexander Isavnin:
already been discussed, or on others. Hello. My name is Alexander Savnin, and I teach Internet Governance in Moscow University in Russia. And I would like to talk about SDG 16, which sounds promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions at all levels. So, I would like to start talking about how schools of Internet governance could help build effective, accountable, and inclusive institutions. Actually, one of Internet governance institutions about which you have to talk at your school, it’s an Internet Engineering Task Force, and this is the most effective working standardization body, because actually, if things work, it becomes standard. If it does not work, or no one needs it, it’s not standard. It’s much more effective than ITU, for example. Or another example which we are bringing in school to our students at schools of Internet governance is actually ICANN, which is, first of all, demonstratively inclusive, with different group of stakeholders, different group of possibilities, and for sure, it’s keeping diversity, which might not be enforced in some societies. So, like Sandra and Olga from very developed countries in society meanings, Russia is actually now slowly going back to previous centuries, and then we have to bring this to our students’ information about how governance works. Actually, in our school, we talk not only about classical Internet governance institutions, we also touch different bodies, well, classical like ITU, also different NGOs, which govern standardization of technologies, or working with communities like open source community managing as NGOs, or like Wikimedia, who manages well-known Wikipedia. So, such examples of inclusion and effectiveness, again, if you are not in the West, and as a stakeholder group, could be really impressive. One of my students reported after our course that we were telling like science fictions about universities that doesn’t exist. But anyway, if you can bring such examples in your country, you can bring examples of such working institutions, and actually, people usually know that Internet works. You can show relations to what people see if they access Internet, to how it existed. So, I can talk a lot of this. Maybe just to save time, I will not give exact targets of this goal, but there are like 16.7, 16.8, something like which are more precise in this case. Also, this goal is about peace and promote peaceful things. For us, it’s very important, and I will give just one quote from a very favorite American writer, Mark Twain. Yeah. Once, many years ago, when Internet had not existed, he said that travel is fatal to pre-justice, bigotry, and narrow mindlessness. And actually, all these words are a source of current wars and conflicts. Now, from many countries, young people are not able to travel and actually be cured from pre-justice or something like this. Internet, first of all, bring us to many different places. Internet governance, demonstration to our students’ Internet governance, shows experiences from many different countries. It allows us, usually, schools of Internet governance invites guests from different countries, different other schools or something like. So, demonstration to students that world is different, world is interesting. That other people in the world and their activity, they are not aliens, they are just interesting. They are so interesting for you and your students are interesting for them. And Internet is not just a source of dangerous information, but via governance, people start cooperating, understanding each other, and spreading this into their countries, and that could bring peace to our planet more effectively. Thank you. Thanks to you. We have a mic. Maybe you can join in the mic.

Audience:
Hi. My name is Vakas, and I’m part of the team at Pakistan School on Internet Governance. We last week, we had our ninth edition in this seventh different city of Pakistan. So, our model is a bit different. We don’t, we’re not located at a central location in white people. We actually go to a different city every year. That has its pros and cons as well. I won’t go into details. But there are two SDGs that I wanted to mention, which are actually part of why we do things at SIGS. One is 8.6, which says, by 2020, substantially reduce the proportion of youth not in employment, education, or training. Since we educate people, we train people about Internet governance, and we also, at least in our school, we have a full-fledged session about Internet for entrepreneurial opportunities. So, invite people who have digital initiatives that led to successful business ventures in the end, just so as to, you know, inspire the youth about seeing the Internet as an economic empowerment tool as well. The second one I would like to mention is 9.5, subclause 9.5C, it would be then, eventually. It says that significantly increase access to information and communication technology, and strive to provide universal and affordable access to Internet in these developing countries by 2020. I’m sure many of the other schools do this as well, but we also invite mobile Internet operators to the schools, just to provide information about their plans on going to these particular areas where we go. For example, last year, we were in Gilgit, which is actually the hometown of K2. It is a mountainous area, tough terrain and all, so Internet access is a big problem there. So, we invited the local operators to talk to the people who are there at the school and to share with them what are their plans to actually provide Internet access to these areas. Similarly, we also invite our ministry and our regulators to come up and inform the audience about what are the plans, eventual plans, and what is their vision to provide Internet access to different areas of Pakistan. So, I just wanted to mention these two issues that are relevant to the

Olga Cavalli:
work of our schools. Interesting. Well, you mentioned that you rotate among cities. We do exactly the same. We organize the school every time in different cities in the Americas, which is, as you said, has good things and complicated things, because you have to start from scratch in every school, but at the same time, you are more keen to go into different communities and different countries, and so I commend you for that. It’s a new challenge for us every year, being organizers, but it’s much easier for that community to, you know, become

Avri Doria:
part of the school. Thank you. Thank you. We have another. Henriette, welcome. Thank you.

Audience:
Apologies for being late. There are also new security measures, by the way, so you cannot go through the other entrance, so everything took longer. My name is Henriette Esterhuizen. I’m the organizer of the African School on Internet Governance. We’ve just had our 11th school. It’s a joint initiative of Research ICT Africa at University of Cape Town, the African Union Commission, and Association for Progressive Communications. I wanted to speak to SDG 5. I know Sandra’s already spoken, so I’m not sure that I covered, but maybe we covered in different ways. AFRICIC is a little bit different from some of the other schools in that it’s more of a leadership development event that targets sort of middle to senior management in government, in regulators, and in civil society. This year, for example, we had members of parliament. We had six members of parliament that are also here, part of the UN parliamentary track, and we often have deputy director level heads of regulatory agencies, so we actually target people that are active in the digital internet or ICT policy context, but that don’t have a strong grasp of internet governance. The way we deal with gender is that, well, firstly, we always have at least 50 percent of our participants are women, and faculty. We really emphasize having women presenters, women thought leaders. We also actually really emphasize having African experts. There’s a lot of training that’s done in Africa, particularly even by the African Union, and it’s done by Diplo, and Diplo does excellent work, but they bring mostly presenters that are from other parts of the world, so we really try to focus on having African experts. We deal with gender-based violence, so that’s the one SDG 5 target we address. We deal with the one on leadership development, which I think EUROSIG does also really brilliantly. I have the pleasure of participating in EUROSIG, and then on the one on policy, and there we focus particularly on access, and we look in quite a granular way at what conditions in African countries lead to a gender digital divide, both at the demand side and the supply side, and then at how regulators, for example, by making universal service funds more gender aware, can actually have a positive impact on that. And yeah, I can share more, and we also do evaluations, and I mention this every year because I think it’s such a good methodology. I want to share it with the other schools. We do tracer studies, where we look back on four, five, ten years of the school, and have independent research done on how people that were in the school have had their thinking about the multi-stakeholder process change, and how it has influenced their career. We have an alumni network like EUROSIG as well, and would like to actually collaborate more with EUROSIG on finding innovative ways on strength, because we’re quite similar in some ways. Thank you. Thank you, Henriette. More comments about the SDGs? Yes, go ahead. Which is a very interesting and a very difficult thing to do. We deal with LGBT issues, and we try and deal with them in a very sensitive way, because if we have people from African governments and regulators, but we bring them together with civil society and human rights activists. We try and deal with some of these sensitive issues, including internet shutdowns, in a way where we create a trusted environment where you can actually have a conversation, not always reach consensus, but actually build better understanding of the differences of the perspectives. Interesting. Thank you very much, Henriette. More comments?

Avri Doria:
Yes.

Audience:
Thank you so much for giving me this opportunity. I’m Ashrafur Rahman. I’m the coordinator of Bangladeshi School of Internet Governance. I just want to share a few information about the Bangladeshi SIG. We are trying to make a bridge through our school with urban and rural people, because you know, always the rural people have a behind-the-scenes scenario that cannot connect with the mainstream people. I’m sorry, but is it about SDGs? Because this part is about SDGs. Yeah, yeah. So here we focused on the SDG 5, which is gender equality, and I should mention we are trying to include transgender communities also with the SIG. And another one is SDG 9, where it is the mainstream industry innovation in the infrastructure, because the rural people have, our rural students have lots of ideas, but they can implement, like the urban students or the school and college. So we are trying to work on that. Thank you so much.

Olga Cavalli:
Thanks to you. And you said you’re from Bangladesh? We have several Bangladesh students in the school. Since we started to become hybrid during the pandemic and after the pandemic, it’s very interesting. For some reason, Bangladeshi like Argentina. Maybe it’s because of football, but… We’re also a big fan of Argentina. Good to know. Thank you. Thank you so much. If I can add, as part of what was going on this week in Japan at the Kyoto school, they gave a very extensive presentation on their school, which was really quite enlightening. Fantastic, thank you, thank you so much. Bravo. More comments about SDGs. Do we have someone in remote that maybe want to say something? I’m not in the.

Avri Doria:
Is there anybody from the Zoom room that would like to make a presentation? Yeah, by the way, I do wonder whether our remote moderator is here because I haven’t been following, I haven’t seen them, so I’m sort of doing that role. He’s not there, Raymond is not there online. Right, I’ve got, yeah, I’ve got one comment here, which was dynamic coalition. Actually, the comment is about ethics, whether the courses cover ethics, and that was the original comment, and then you have. And then there was one that robotics talked about e-health access in remote areas, so I’m wondering whether that, you know, the schools, but it really didn’t talk about a school and an SDG. We’ll take it up in the next part. So shall we move on? Yeah, sure, I don’t know, Anridh, if you want to add something. I have a question, I have a question.

Audience:
So to all of you, and including ourselves, who deal with the SDGs, do you deal with them explicitly? So we, for example, also deal with some of the other SDGs, you know, we have human rights, I’m sure other schools have too, but do you actually, in your curriculum and in your agenda, have sessions that go over the SDG process that links it to the WSIS process? So, you know, I’m just curious. It’s not something we actually do. We talk about the WSIS process, and indirectly we address SDGs, but we’re not directly. So I’d like to know how you feel about that. If I may, in 2017, the whole school that we organized

Olga Cavalli:
in Rio with the Fundación Getulio Vargas was totally focused on SDGs. At that time, we prepared the whole program in trying to focus on all aspects of SDG. What we do every year is we have a kind of a general focus. This year was sustainable development and generative artificial intelligence. So although we go through all aspects of internet, we try to bring some experts and some special focus on some days on these issues. In 2017, we did especially focus on SDGs. But, you know, you have those issues in the program always, especially with climate change. We have had several also with energy, not all of it, but sometimes.

Alexander Isavnin:
Yes, please. Yeah, okay. Actually, in Russian Federation, all these UN processes are a bit obscure. So it’s not very public and so on. Because maybe since Soviet Union, we have the country at home, generally, have good access to water, have good health care and something like. And then maybe government thinks it should not be done in other things. And some SDGs like 9th and 16th are a bit obscure. So we have a separate part of our course, which does explaining how things are going around United Nations. We also are talking about SDGs, where did they get it, just an informational purpose for people if they come to such audiences, not to be wondering what SDG is, why it’s happening and something like.

Satish Babu:
The two schools that I’m associated with, neither of them explicitly highlight the SDGs. We have subjects and topics around them, but not directly as SDGs. The SDGs were adopted in 2015. At that time, many schools were already running. And so the curriculars were developed without looking into SDGs. But I think it’s good that we are using this session in particular to see how our schools naturally address many of the SDGs. And I found it very valuable also the comments from the audience, what SDGs are relevant in which region.

Sandra Hoferichte:
Because as Alexander said, also in Europe, you don’t read much about SDGs. And I’m pretty impressed how visible the SDGs are here in Japan. You can see them in some windows, you can see them on the cars that remove the trash. And it’s pretty amazing to me that there’s a much greater awareness of these important goals here in Japan than I could realize that is the case in Europe and possibly also elsewhere. So I think we could pick up what Japan is doing in this regard.

Satish Babu:
There is a comment for Vakas. This is about, because he mentioned the mountainous areas where internet access is poor. This DTN has been proposed as an access solution. DTN is delayed tolerant networks. So that has been proposed, it’s come up as a comment for you. So any other SDG related discussions or interventions? Yes, please. Hi, everyone. It’s Bashar from Chad.

Audience:
So thank you for the speaker about SDG. But as you know, we are doing, we contribute to SDG now with our school because what we are doing is good quality of education. So with the school, we teach people, we interact with them. I think that it’s contributed to SDG. So SDG is not like physical persona. It’s like the objectives that we can help to attain, like gender. So when you bring women inside and the leadership, teaching them, I think that is contribute to gender balance. When you talk about climate change, how to save energy, what Olga said is very important also. Because what we are doing, our first edition of SDG, we have problem of electricity also. So we bring the school and at the hotels to have a sustainable electricity. Because when you don’t have electricity, you don’t have projection of light, you don’t have anything. So the school is down. So I think that everything what we are doing is linked to SDG. So what Aria said, how we can improve that? Because SDG, the mandate will be a start and something like this, and how we can incorporate in our agenda is very important. As she said, so we can have a workshop to link it to SDG. But in Africa, we have agenda 2063 also. So how to localize this SDG and grassroot. So thank you so much. Thank you. More comments? Some comments from remote? No? No? No more comments about SDGs?

Avri Doria:
No?

Olga Cavalli:
So we move to the next section. So it’s roundtable discussion, which is not round, but it’s conceptually roundtable. It’s really hard to get a real roundtable at these meetings. So how do we see schools and training in internet governance evolving? So we want to discuss with you this concept and also the value of schools in reinforcing relevance of multi-stakeholder model. I have some names here in the list, but I don’t know if someone wants. Yeah, sure. So like I said, I am associated with two schools and one of them is the India School. And let me share very briefly what we have achieved.

Satish Babu:
The primary function of a school of internet governance is awareness building, capacity building basically. But beyond that, that is the first deliverable. But what we have done, we have experienced is that in large countries like India, this provides a platform for people to come together from different parts onto one table. So that is actually quite an enabling thing because what the India School did was after two editions, it started incubating the India Youth IGF. Now that has just completed six years now. So that’s a mature organization now. The second thing we did was we associated with the GFC, and Martin is here from GFC, and we started this GFC IIII series of workshops. And this is a capacity building again, awareness building on cybersecurity related norms and best practices and so on. We just, two weeks back, we finished the fourth edition of that workshop. So it gives us a platform to kind of take up new things, which otherwise cannot be taken up because we are getting a lot of people from different backgrounds. Actually, that is the multi-stakeholder system itself. In many countries, we don’t have, unlike Brazil, which has a kind of CGI.br, we don’t have anything similar to that in India and many other countries. These schools actually provide the initial part of a multi-stakeholder model. It is without any mandate. Nobody’s kind of given a mandate to us. We have kind of assumed that mandate. So what India School did then was to kind of, the third part is that we pushed for the India IGF, which was not happening for the longest time. So the school itself took the initiative and pushed the government and got everybody together. So now we are in the third year of the India IGF now. Again, that’s an achievement of the school. And another project which is going to come up as an action item, not awareness building, is that we’re going to start an India project measuring internet, the quality of internet. Again, that’s come out of the school. So a school is not just a school. It is actually an organization that can have much broader ramifications. So I’ll stop here.

Olga Cavalli:
Thank you, Santish. This is very interesting. I would like to share with you some evolution, talking about the IG schools of internet governance evolving. We started 15 years ago. This is our 15th edition, just happened in September. And after, once we finish each school, we do a survey with the fellows and with the experts. And they started to ask information previously to the week. They needed more, they wanted to be more prepared. So now we have included in the last three years a self-assisted virtual training prior to the school. It lasts two months, not all the time. Of course, it’s three hours per week with videos that we have produced and material that we have produced. It’s not copy-paste. And then the school. And what we did last year, we partnered a university. So for those students that have complied with the evaluations of the first two stages, the virtual and the hybrid, whether they are virtual or on-site, they can do a research with the university and receive a university diploma on internet governance and regulations. None of these things is paid for the fellows. Everything is for free for the fellows. And in the Argentina School of Internet Governance, we have partnered another university from Argentina. And we will offer this year certifications from Fortinet. We have some fellowships, I think like 40 fellowships for doing a certification for free in cybersecurity. So I think we are, I think Satish said a very interesting thing that schools become kind of a vortice of activities related with internet governance at the national level. And last, at the beginning of this year, we did a survey with the students and we produced a document for the Global Digital Compact, which is published in the Global Digital Compact. We did that with more than 80 fellows from all over the world and we did that in three languages, Spanish, English, and Portuguese, always working online. And now, with the student this year, we’re working on a different document in how to enhance the multi-stakeholder model through participation of fellows. I have the material, I have to work with the team to do a document, but this will be in the near future. Maybe other schools would like to comment or? Okay, perfect.

Satish Babu:
So we have roughly half an hour for discussions after which we’ll have to wind up. We have several speakers already lined up. First is Olga, would you like to go again about South School or you’re done? We have Wolfgang here from Euro SSIG. Please, can you come over here? Wolfgang? The father of all the schools. Applause for the father. The internet governance father.

Wolfgang Kleinwaechter:
Thank you very much. As Swin said yesterday, it’s always suspicious if you clap your hands and you get an applause before you have said anything, because probably I will say something where you disagree, which will not produce any applause. But I think it’s always good to remember where all this comes from, and it’s fantastic to see how a crazy idea has triggered a development where we see now so many schools which are inspired by the basic idea. As you remember, the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis adopted a broad definition of internet governance, which included the evolution and the use of the internet. That means the technical layer and the application layer, which are the so-called internet-related public policy issues. And this goes from cybersecurity to the digital economy, to human rights, to artificial intelligence, a lot of other things. And so the problem is that internet governance is such a multidisciplinary approach which you cannot study in a regular university. You have to study law or political science or informatics or cultural science or something else. So that means the idea of the founding fathers of this summer school was to find a format which would be realistic and allow this multidisciplinary presentation, both from a technical and a political perspective, from a practical and an academic perspective. So I think this was the challenge, and so the pilot project was why not to use the format of a summer school, of a one-week course? So over the years, what I think we have seen is that this is really an interesting format because it’s very flexible. So you can adjust this to special needs, special local needs or to special target group needs, and you can have one week or you can have a one-year virtual course, so just a weekend course. But if you follow more or less, or if you based the concept on the pro-definition from the Tunis agenda, then you can pick some elements, but you are rooted in this process. I think this is also important for the self-understanding of the school, that they contribute to a process which is inspired by the program of action and the principles of the World Summit on the Information Society. So for instance, when we had the pre-conference here with Kyoto University, the Brazilian school presented its model and say, we have weekend courses, we have full-year course and this, and you can have also courses for special target groups. So we are discussing now to have a special course for parliamentarians or for governmental officials or for judges. I think we heard in the open plenary there was a judge from Africa who said, I’m the only judge here. So we have the legislative, it’s the government, the parliament, the executive is the government, but what about the third form of power, the judges? And a lot of conflicts in the world of tomorrow will be at least then go to a court. And if you have judges who have no idea what internet governance is, they probably, they make stupid decisions. So in so far, judges are an important target group and you can, that’s why the format is a very good one, is flexible, and that’s why it’s an encouragement also for academics or other groups in many countries to take this as a source of inspiration. There is no single model. So we have started this in Meissen and it was testing out, so we are learning by doing. If you go to our first course in 2007, it’s so different what we offer today. So that means you have to be open to a changing environment. And as you have seen also here, issues like AI were not on the agenda 10, 15 years ago, but now say, and you have new questions, how all this is related. confusing concepts like what is digital governance? Is this different from internet governance? Do we have AI governance, cyber governance? So that means growing confusion. And insofar, schools are important, you know, to bring more clarity to the processes that you avoid this confusion and chaos and then we have a better understanding. So it’s work in progress. It will never finish. As Bill Clinton something have said in an ICANN meeting, internet governance is like stumbling forward. So that means small steps are better than big jumps. So but be very careful and be inspired what you want to achieve and what is the target group. I think these are two or three key questions you have to ask yourself if you start to develop a program and feel free. So because the beauty of an academic person, so independence of thinking is important. Do not try to please somebody. So take your inspiration from the global community and say, what is good for my country? What is good for my community? And then be proactive. Thank you. Thanks to you, Wolfram.

Olga Cavalli:
Thanks so much.

Audience:
Bravo. Does anybody have any question? We have Andrea that wanted to speak. I want to speak about the evolution. Can I come and stand here? Of course, of course. Go ahead. I think this point is really interesting to look at the evolution. And I agree with everything Wolfram said. I think we have to be, there is no perfect model. But some things I think are standing out. I think, firstly, there is a lot more other people. Mic is off. Other institutions that are delivering training. For example, UNESCO is training judges and judiciary in internet-related policy. But they’re not really part of this network. There’s also quite a lot of training for regulators as well that are not a part of this network. And I think the big difference is that they don’t emphasize the multi-stakeholder approach to the same extent. I think what’s unique about what we do is that even when we are focusing on a particular group of practitioners or professions, we always bring that diversity to the conversation. But the other things that have struck me is that there’s increased need. And it came out a little bit at EUROSIG this year. I’m, you know, EUROSIG is my inspiration. And about the social impact of the internet. I feel there’s more a demand now to not just learn how internet governance operates and who’s involved in internet governance, but to have a deeper understanding of how do we as an internet community respond to some of the social impact issues. So looking at misinformation, looking at education, looking at democracy, at political processes, looking at the media and how the media environment is affected. And I find this very challenging, you know, because it kind of is crossing over out of the narrow internet governance and maybe even out of the broad definition, Wolfgang. But I think it’s interesting to do that and to think about it. And the other thing I think that we might want to think about is sometimes taking the same cohort

Olga Cavalli:
of people and doing a follow-up. So, you know, doing like a EUROSIG or AFRISIG, I can’t speak for the South School, sorry. But having a group of people like that and then having maybe the same people rather than having a new group every year so that you actually deepen the engagement. I don’t know if we have the capacity to do that, but it is something that has occurred to me that might be quite a useful thing to do. I do think we need to evolve. Thank you, Anne-Marie. And we do have fellows that come to several schools. And that’s very interesting because they evolve with the group. Not all of them. This year we had 400, 200 on-site and 200 virtual. And a group of them are coming to several schools, which is extremely interesting because they have seen the evolution. And some of them become speakers in the experts or they start to work in companies or in governments and they become experts in the next editions. And do we have, we have some names here, but I don’t know if they’re. Muriel Alapin. Yeah, would you like to make a, your name is listed here as one of the short intervention. Can you make a short intervention about the Benin?

Audience:
And we spent the break for, I think we’ve got another half an hour. Oh, okay. Thank you. This is Ben Rashad-Sanosi from Benin. Can I go in French? Yes, I can. Yeah, but maybe I can also. If we have someone that can do, we know what I’ve learned is called consecutive translation. But you have to be really slow because my French is. Right, but no, we would need somebody to translate. He would speak a couple of lines and then someone. So if we have someone that volunteers as being good enough to do it. I can do it if he speak slowly. I will do it in English, don’t worry. Okay. I was wanting to try my French, okay. Okay. This is Ben Rashad-Sanosi from Internet Society Benin Chapter. So we also organize the School of Internet Governance. Last September, it was from September 11 to 15, September. So it was five-day training. So we have some participants from Benin, from Togo, from Cote d’Ivoire, and also from Chad. So there were about 32 people who were trained. So during the five-day, they have many session and many training as well. So it was really amazing because the Francophone region were engaged. They learn a lot about internet governance, how they can be engaged. And now some of the fellow are here on site also attending the IGF like me. Thank you. Thanks to you. Thank you very much. Bravo. Thank you also. We have Andrietta Abdelhaji. Oh, sorry. How do you pronounce it? Oh, that’s difficult for me. Abdelhaji. Yes. Hi again. It’s Abdeljalil Bashar from Chad. So I’m coordinator in National School of Internet Governance. It’s not national, but it’s School of Internet Governance. So we founded in 2019. It’s funded by House of Africa. And the main objective is to bring, as you know, Chadian ICT student, youth, digital professional, closer to the global internet ecosystem. Because what you saw that there’s not many Chadian. It can be in ICANN, it can be in IGF and other ecosystems and ITU. So main objective also to fill the gap, as I said, observe during the year in term of effective participation of Chadian and the policy development process related to internal governance, national, regional, and international ecosystems. So the first edition we organized in partnership. So a civil society partnership with government is a national ICT agency called ADETIC. So organized with them. So for 14 to 15 December, 2020, it was in Yemena. So we bring people from outside also. There’s Sebastian from France, Tijani Benjama from Tunisia. There’s Estelle from Cameroon also. And there’s some people in ICANN also, Yaowi, he did intervention online and some people from Africa also. So it is the first time that we organized this kind of school in Chad. Very appreciated. Political side also. The minister congratulated us. It’s the first time that we teach people from this sector and no sector also. So in this year, so we have, yes, 15 participants from 35 entities, government ministry, parliamentary, civil society, youth, et cetera. So this year also we will organize our second edition. It will be from 60 to 8 December. So it will be in Yemen also. So we need your support, your contribution also. It can be online, it can be to coach the people also because it’s very important for us. So I need to stop there. Thank you so much. Thank you, thank you very much. I’ll do it in French also. I’ll do it online, shall I do it now? Yeah, sure. I suggest the inclusion of children in 10 to 18

Satish Babu:
in the emerging STEM that is trying to found their way to mathematics. Is it a good idea to start with a program from the start? Or you start there? Yeah, I didn’t understand. Sorry, I suggest, this is a comment from Abdullah Kamar who is an alumnus of PK SIG and AP SIG. I suggest the inclusion of children aged 10 to 18 in emerging STEM education programs. STEM, of course, is science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Within the framework of internet governance, it is a forward thinking and crucial step towards achieving SDGs. By providing them with early exposure to STEM disciplines in the context of internet governance, we can foster a generation of digitally literate, responsible, and socially conscious individuals. Furthermore, teaching internet governance principles to young minds can instill values of online safety, digital ethics, and respect for human rights in the digital sphere, aligning with several SDGs that emphasize inclusivity, peace, and justice. Was that a question or a comment? It’s a comment.

Olga Cavalli:
Okay, I would like to comment on that. In the Argentina School of Internet Governance, we do have a lot of high school students attending the school, especially high school students of their last year, where they are mainly technical schools. And some of them are quite engaged after that and interested in following IT careers and following also online discussions about different issues about internet governance. Not in the global one. We have young people. We don’t have age limits, but I don’t remember we had high school students, but mainly young professionals. But in the Argentina one, yes,

Satish Babu:
we had a lot of high school students, which I think it was very interesting. Yeah, we have something called the India Youth IGF, which also covers young people. Not in the school, but above school. So I think the floor is now open for any comments. Other comments? Yeah. Avery? I’d like to make a comment that’s within this theme,

Avri Doria:
but more about the dynamic coalition itself and its role in doing that. I don’t organize a school. I just go to a bunch of them. And one of the things is the dynamic coalition and its usefulness, both in having the schools communicate to each other, having the schools learn from each other, and also doing the multi-stakeholder model. One of the things, for example, we try to a moderate degree of success and failure, we mix it both ways, is to have the dynamic coalition be extremely bottom up. And basically sort of always, I don’t know if you guys notice, that follow it constantly begging people to say something, to do something. And where the dynamic coalition started, it wrote documents. It produced materials that hopefully could be useful to schools. And it may be the kind of thing that would be useful to look at again, whether there’s something, for example, in the notion of the multi-stakeholder model, how it’s seen, how it works, that would produce things that could sort of help the schools themselves sort of bootstrap programs in that. The dynamic coalition cannot obviously force any kind of learning on anybody or any kind of curriculum, but certainly as a way to make these things available to the other schools. And so I’m just sort of wondering whether that makes sense to people that there is a help in the dynamic, and can we use it more for the schools? What would the schools want from a dynamic coalition to help them in teaching governance and understanding the multi-stakeholder model and the evolution of the model? And those are just kind of things I was thinking about, that I don’t do a school, but I do dynamic coalitions. And I teach at schools. In the website where we have the map, I think we have the possibility of sharing information, documents. Yeah, that should be. Yeah, that’s right, perhaps. That should be interesting for us to remember, even myself, because sometimes I forget. Oh, yeah, we have a wiki space where any school that wants to, and some have, for example, the North American school, Glenn has been amazing in terms of contributing pieces of curricula and others, and it’s open for anybody to be able to do that. Yeah, let me see if I can bring that up while we keep talking. That document in three languages for the Global Digital Compact,

Olga Cavalli:
we are working now on a different document about multi-stakeholder model. Those and other things that we all may have, it’s a good space to share, because we have the map. We can see the whole map of all the schools, and maybe others can consult and share information. Honestly, it’s lack of time. It’s not lack of interest. I actually forget, because a part of this I have to work. This is not my work. Just a quick question for Avri. Sorry, Martin. It is lack of time.

Avri Doria:
Avri, what happened with the collaboration between the DC and the IGF Secretariat on the IGF capacity building? Yeah, that was last year. That was basically a one-time thing where they took the document that we had spent several years developing and produced there, and I guess you were, were you secretary, or were you chair at the time? I don’t remember, but basically, and produced a document of their own that I haven’t followed up to see how it gets distributed, whether it gets distributed, whether there’s been any feedback on it, and said, gee, nice document, but it would be great to have X, Y, and Z added to it. I have not followed up, and that might be a good thing to do in the next year is follow up with the secretariat and say, did you use this? Did how many schools came and got it? How many schools tried to use it? How many schools found it useful? How many schools didn’t find it useful, and why? So it’s a good idea as a thing to follow up on. Martin.

Audience:
Thanks, Martin Boteman. Amongst things I also support, indeed, as was said beforehand by you, that the Global Forum for Cyber Expertise, and there we have a track on triple I, on enhancing justified trust of the internet and email in the region by use of modern internet standards and global good practice. Now, if you go to GFCE triple I, you’ll find there is a handbook that explains these modern internet standards and why they matter, and they also relate to some of the global good practices that you could refer to. So maybe this is also a resource that could end up on this page as a possible resource for schools. Basically, to teach it, you only need one person who understands the issues good enough to explain it, because the material is there, so. Thank you. Can you repeat the website? GFCE for Global Forum for Cyber Expertise,

Avri Doria:
and then triple I.

Audience:
If you Google for that, you’ll find it. Okay. By the way, the Global Forum for Cyber Expertise, which came out from the so-called London process, which started the UK government 15 years ago, will have a world conference on capacity building

Wolfgang Kleinwaechter:
end of November in Ghana, so in Africa. And I think this is probably a good opportunity for our African colleagues, you know, to link to this. So the Global Forum on Cyber Expertise, expertise had its root in the issue of cyber security. This was also the main target of the so-called London process to concentrate on cyber security, less on the broader internet-related issues. But cyber security is such a central thing, and I would recommend, in particular, our African friends

Satish Babu:
to make use of this opportunity in Ghana. It’s easy to get involved. It’s GC3B to Google on. You need to get an invite. Thanks, Martin. I think, for us, it’s been very useful. We’ve been running these workshops. This is the fourth one we just completed, and it’s been very useful. And it has even put us on a path towards an action item, a new project. I have two comments online. I’ll read them out. Both are from Keiko Tanaka. The first comment relates to the children. On the previous comment, dynamic teen coalition may be the place to go for focus on teens. It’s a new effort. Question, any chances of opening up education resources, or youth MOOC, or OER? I don’t know what OER is. I think it is online education resources. Open education. Open education. Oh, OK. OK. Do you want to respond to this question? I am a teacher. Oh, you are a teacher. I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I’m so sorry. Does anybody want to respond to this? I think that it’s really good that you are raising that. And I think UNESCO is actually reinvigorating

Audience:
a bit their open educational resources program. But I don’t see it coming to the IGF. And it’s not really coming to the IGF. So I think it’s actually important. There’s also some MOOCs that have been established. So in Africa, there’s a MOOC on internet governance training for journalists that was actually developed with also some support from UNESCO. If anyone’s interested, I can’t remember it right now. But I think that the thing about if we were to work on open educational resources, we would have to standardize. And I think that’s the challenge. Because with open educational resources, it kind of works if you use standardized templates and formats. Otherwise, you just have a repository. And in a way, the dynamic coalition already gives us that space for the repository. But it’s a good conversation to start. Thank you. If I can, I’m trying to share the website. And I don’t know whether it’s something that, yeah, OK.

Avri Doria:
So OK, it’s up now. And I can go through it a little if people want in just a few minutes. So there is a website that has been maintained. Basically, there’s mailing lists and archive. There’s about DC meetings. There’s the schools on IG. I think that’s the one that may have the map. Yep, there’s the map. And so basically, each of the schools is offered, is requested. Obviously, it’s up to each of the schools whether they want to. But basically, there’s a form that you fill out. And you get your school with a marker on the map. And then you click on it. And you get the name of the school and some information. So that’s good. There’s a fellow section where fellows who basically want to put themselves in a list of fellows so that they can be found by others. They could perhaps be reached out to as possible teachers, et cetera. So if you’re looking for a teacher for your school, especially remote, then it’s a place to go and say, oh, OK, this person was a fellow, et cetera. Faculties, some of the faculties list each other. I don’t know how many of us have listed each other. But we can. And at that point, others can find pieces of faculty, members of faculty, not pieces of faculty. Somebody should teach me how to talk. Then we have a DC WIKI that lists a lot of schools and is editing the schools, sort of listing when they are, when they were formed. There’s current work. There’s a place, let me see, where you can basically put, I’m looking for, I didn’t. Not for the form, OK. Then there’s materials. It’s still only one school that’s done it. But there’s the materials provided by schools participating in the D. So any of you that are really proud of your curriculum, really proud of a course you put together, really proud of whatever it is about your school, you’re really proud of that you’re willing to make public and available to the other schools, you’ve got it. So the North American school here basically provides a whole set of individual provided material, operations manual, introduction plan, recruitment. So there is already a rich collection of information there. It could be so much richer. It’s purely a voluntary effort, but it could be so much richer if those of you that want what your school does to be visible and usable by others, you took advantage of it.

Sandra Hoferichte:
Since Afri is mentioning the wiki and the website, it’s up for a while already. And I find it a bit sad that not really many have made use of the wiki, because I think it would be a great source for a global network of faculty, of fellows, of schools, of exchanging material, et cetera. The point is, and I’m saying that here on the record on purpose, because it’s getting difficult meanwhile, the wiki and the website and Afri’s work is only supported by our association who is organizing the Euro SSIG, which is Medienstadt Leipzig e.V. So if anyone here in the room, any school, or any other organization have some leftover budgets to support our work, that would really help to engage more into the dynamic coalition. Because doing it on voluntary work is one thing. And everyone who is contributing to the dynamic coalition is contributing on a voluntary basis already. But at least a secretariat and the digital sources that we all need to work with, they need to be funded. And at the moment, Medienstadt Leipzig, the Euro SSIG, is the only source of funding. So we are taking it basically from our Euro SSIG budget. I could believe that most or many of the school could dedicate a little bit of, it doesn’t need to be big money. I think if everyone contributes a little money, that would really help to maintain these resources and also to help the dynamic coalition to move forward. I needed to say that, sorry.

Avri Doria:
Thank you. So we have one hand up there. Yes. Two things, one is a question, one is a comment. First question is, has there been an effort or an initiative or a talk about having a world school on internet governance or a global school on internet governance?

Audience:
I know there are regional, there are national. This network has expanded so much over the last years that maybe now there is a time that all of us could pool in resources and look at something like organizing a global school on internet governance or something like that. We are at the IGF. This is the global forum for discussion on IG. But over here, we are, this room is the room which develops capacities for internet leaders to come over here and to talk about these issues. But what about our own forum? I know this DCSIG is here, and we organize a session every year at the IGF. But if we cannot pull in resources to organize a global school, can we leverage this particular DC, maybe organize more events around this, maybe have quarterly calls with the schools who are interested, could share what they did, just to have more collaboration within the SIGs, rather than having, let’s say, one meeting per year where we come down for one and a half hour, talk to each other. This is so inspiring, honestly, coming from Pakistan and seeing that how other schools are doing it. And since this network is growing, I think this is an opportunity to actually leverage this potential and probably make something which is global or at least cooperative within SIGs. Thank you. Thanks, Vakas.

Satish Babu:
I think global schools, there are two people sitting on either side. This is the first one. This is the second one. Both of them have become from regional to global. So there are these things already in place. Now, the discussions in here in the DC are at the meta level, where we don’t work at internet governance, but we talk about the things associated with it, how to run the school, what are the constraints, what is evolution, and so on. So we have to probably think about this kind of proposal that you have put up. One other thing I want to mention is that in terms of evolution, the India School has put all their content from the first edition to the eighth edition on the website. So it’s very interesting to look at the 2016 course content and then the later ones and see where it has taken us. So there is actually a very clear journey that has happened in terms of the course content on this eight years. We have five minutes more. Are there any burning questions?

Olga Cavalli:
I would like to make a comment. All the content that the school has is published in our YouTube channel in two or three languages. So after each school, our team divides each of the panels or keynotes into different videos with a clear sign who’s talking and the issue and the languages. So all that content is available. And also, one good experience that we had since almost the beginning is that with all the group of students, we create a telegram group that is active since the school, and it doesn’t stop. And some members of our team are feeding all the time different fellowship opportunities, working opportunities, research, and news about internet governance. So that has been working very well and keep on the momentum in between the groups of students. Thanks. I think we have to now think of winding up. So Avri, would you like to make any closing statement?

Avri Doria:
Not really. I mean, I invite, I don’t know if our rapporteur wishes to make a quick summary statement that was listed on the agenda, but you don’t have to unless you feel comfortable. But because what we do have to produce is we’ll have to produce a statement or two that comes out of here. And if you have such a statement that you can give to the group, that would be great. You want the mic? Yeah. You can come here. Please. Thank you. Do we have a mic? We do. You want to go? Yes, go ahead. I’ll speak after. Hello. Hello. Hello, everyone. Excuse me, I’m going to speak in French for the linguistic diversity because we are in the last row. What? I can translate. No, no, no. If you speak slowly, I can translate. Yes, because we are in the IGF. All the countries are grouped here. I can speak in English, but my English is not very good. I prefer to speak in French.

Audience:
He will speak in French because his English is not so good. Yes, because in my country, the Ivory Coast, we speak in French. So I would like to speak in French to be more comfortable. My name is Fanny Saliou. I am the country coordinator of the Internet Governance Forum. We are giving you this opportunity to inform you that the Ivory Coast is organizing its first Internet Governance Forum which will take place in the month of… He’s from Cote d’Ivoire and you’re organizing a first IGF? No, school. School of Internet Governance. Sorry, my French is limited. We had the opportunity this year to organize and host the West African Forum. So they are going to open the West African Forum? Yes, Cote d’Ivoire had the opportunity to host it this year. So you’re hosting the West African IGF this year? Yes. You both helped me. That was too much for me. So Fanny is from Cote d’Ivoire. They organized their first school of Internet Governance in December. So they need to bring all the people together. So they need the support of the DC, all the people here. It can be a speaker, it can be financial, it can be human resources. So what he need to tell us here. So he’s very happy to be here. Thank you. Thank you so much. So me to my English is very new. So at some time I was lost with my translator in my head. So I have a few takeaways that I picked and write it down. Hello. Oh, excuse me. So… We’re losing about two minutes because we are over time now. Yeah. So… We’re losing about two minutes because we are over time now. Yeah. The topics was the SIG and the SDGs. I noticed that for the SDG 5 on gender, Ms. Sandra from Euro SIG shared with us the work that SIG doing to have an inclusive and have various thematics or topics about these SIGs. For the SIG CDG 7 on access to energy, Ms. Olga explained that access to energy and climate change have a great link. So in her SIG they have a few panel discussing on this topic and his impact of the consume of energy. So excuse me if I made some mistakes. I will put it down later. Mr. Alexander from Russia SIG speaks about SDG on peace and justice and say that the SIGs can help build new standards, help enforce the multi-scholars process like in ICON and also enforces inclusion and effectiveness. From the SDG 5, Ms. Henriette from AFRISIC talked about the new era of AFRISIC which is leadership development and she said that this year they have a lot of parliament who came to enforce their knowledge about internet governance and many of these fellows are here to discuss with the parliament track.

Olga Cavalli:
Thank you very much. Thank you everyone. So final words. I think we have to use the wiki more. Can you remind us the URL? IGschools.net IGschools.net. Go to IGschools.net and we should contribute more. It’s always a time issue. It’s not like a volunteering but it’s a time issue. Apart from the school I do have to work which this is kind of a hobby. So thanks to everybody who came to the session online as well as physically here. It was a very great session. So we are now looking forward to working closer with the DC. Thank you. Thank you everyone.

Wout de Natris

Summary: The analysis of IoT security policies across different countries revealed some significant findings. Firstly, there is a noticeable gap in the policy framework for IoT security, particularly in many countries of the Global South. This suggests that these countries lack comprehensive guidelines and regulations to address IoT device security challenges. Additionally, national policy practices for IoT security often differ significantly from those of other countries, indicating a lack of alignment and standardization. The study highlights the importance of implementing accountability frameworks throughout the IoT device lifecycle. The complexity of IoT security requires a comprehensive approach that considers factors such as data privacy, cybersecurity, and standards. Governments are urged to prioritize security by design during hardware and software procurement to enhance security standards. Lack of user awareness about data privacy implications necessitates improved education and awareness campaigns. Data security standards are recommended to protect against abuse and misuse of data. The analysis raises concerns about future implications of data insecurity, emphasizing the need for proactive actions to address IoT security challenges. These findings provide insights for policymakers and stakeholders in developing robust IoT security strategies and frameworks.

Mark Carvell

The discussion centred around key topics related to the Internet of Things (IoT) and its impact on society. One important point raised was the necessity for a universal labelling scheme for IoT devices to ensure harmonisation and clarity for consumers. The argument posited was the need for a standardised labelling system that enables easy identification and comprehension of IoT products, especially as individuals increasingly travel with their devices. The sentiment surrounding this topic was neutral, reflecting concerns without strong opinions expressed.

Another topic of discussion was the role of public administrations in IoT applications, particularly in addressing government concerns about security. The question was raised regarding how IoT applications can meet government security requirements, given the interactions between governments and citizens. This inquiry underscored the significance of striking a balance between innovation and security in IoT technologies. The sentiment surrounding this topic was also neutral, highlighting the need for further exploration and understanding.

Ethical considerations in the development of IoT systems and networks were also emphasised during the discussion. The unpredictability factor associated with IoT development was addressed, and developers were encouraged to ensure that their systems and networks are developed ethically. This topic generated a positive sentiment, indicating a belief in the paramount importance of ethical innovation in the IoT industry. The sentiment reflected a acknowledgment of the potential ethical challenges posed by the rapid advancement of IoT technologies.

Lastly, there was an encouragement for the dynamic coalition to utilise the EUDIG platform for advocacy purposes. The EUDIG platform was described as having a call for issues, and a forum was scheduled to take place in Vilnius in June. The sentiment surrounding this topic was positive, indicating a belief in the effectiveness and value of using the EUDIG platform for advocacy.

In conclusion, the discussion covered a range of important topics related to the IoT and its societal impact. These topics included the need for a universal labelling scheme, the role of public administrations in ensuring security, ethical innovation in IoT development, and the value of using the EUDIG platform for advocacy. It is evident that there are various considerations and challenges associated with implementing and developing IoT technologies, and further exploration and collaboration are necessary to effectively address these issues.

Barry Lieber

Security for the Internet of Things (IoT) is a multifaceted and intricate issue, encompassing factors such as authentication, confidentiality, and data integrity. Barry, an expert with almost 25 years of experience in the field, emphasizes the importance of prioritising IoT security. To fully comprehend and address this issue, it is necessary to break it down into various components.

The integration of different sources is paramount in realising the full potential of the IoT. The seamless communication and collaboration among diverse devices, such as cars, houses, and calendars, serve as prominent examples of how integration enhances the IoT experience. However, the complexity of maintaining this integration while ensuring security and privacy presents a significant challenge.

Authentication is one aspect of IoT security that requires careful consideration. With numerous devices exchanging information and interacting within the IoT, it is crucial to establish secure methods of verifying their identities. This helps prevent unauthorised access and malicious activities, safeguarding the overall IoT ecosystem.

Confidentiality is another significant factor in IoT security. As vast amounts of sensitive data are transmitted and processed within the IoT, protecting this information from unauthorised disclosure is imperative. Implementing robust encryption protocols and secure data storage mechanisms becomes crucial to maintaining confidentiality and safeguarding user privacy.

Data integrity plays a pivotal role in IoT security as well. With the vast quantity of data being communicated and processed within the IoT network, it is essential to ensure its accuracy, consistency, and reliability. Implementing mechanisms for data validation, verification, and error detection is vital to maintain the integrity of the information exchanged within the IoT environment.

The analysis of the various supporting facts and arguments highlights that security is not merely a buzzword in the IoT landscape. The inherent complexities involved in integrating diverse systems while maintaining security and privacy underscore the challenges faced in fully harnessing the potential of the IoT. The insights gained from this analysis underscore the need for ongoing research, development, and implementation of robust security measures to address the complexities and mitigate the risks associated with IoT security.

In conclusion, security for the Internet of Things is a multifaceted and complex issue that necessitates attention to various factors such as authentication, confidentiality, and data integrity. The integration of different sources is crucial in unlocking the true potential of the IoT, but it also poses challenges in maintaining security and privacy. With the rapid expansion of the IoT landscape, it is imperative to invest in developing and implementing robust security measures to safeguard the IoT ecosystem and protect user information.

Elaine Liu

The speakers in the discussion agree that IoT (Internet of Things) should have different policies and guardrails depending on the use cases involved. They argue that considering the diverse range of data collection in IoT, which can vary from consumer to organizational to agency levels, it is vital to establish suitable policies that address the specific needs and risks associated with each use case. This approach recognizes the importance of tailoring regulations to the unique characteristics and requirements of different IoT applications.

Furthermore, the speakers emphasize the significance of taking into account the entire value chain when setting guiding principles for IoT. They highlight that hardware, software, operating systems, and data analytics all play crucial roles in the IoT process. By considering the entire value chain, policymakers can develop comprehensive and effective guidelines that address various aspects of IoT implementation, ensuring its smooth and secure operation.

These discussions align with SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure, which emphasises the need to foster sustainable industrialisation, promote research and development, and enhance access to information and communication technologies. IoT is a key aspect of Industry 4.0 and digital transformation, and thus, setting appropriate policies and guidelines for IoT corresponds to addressing the goals and targets outlined in SDG 9.

The speakers’ arguments are supported by the evidence provided throughout the discussion. They acknowledge the complexity and diversity of IoT applications and the need for tailored policies to manage the risks associated with each use case. Additionally, they emphasise the interconnected nature of the IoT value chain, where hardware, software, operating systems, and data analytics all contribute to the overall functionality and performance of IoT systems. Therefore, their arguments are well-grounded and offer valuable insights for policymakers and stakeholders involved in IoT governance.

In conclusion, the speakers advocate for the development of different policies and guidelines for IoT based on its specific use cases. They also stress the importance of considering the entire value chain, encompassing hardware, software, operating systems, and data analytics, when setting guiding principles for IoT. These discussions align with the objectives of SDG 9 and provide valuable insights into the complexities and requirements of IoT governance.

Alejandro Pisanty

The analysis reveals several key points related to the consumer Internet of Things (IoT) and its impact on security, industry, and infrastructure.

Firstly, consumer IoT devices are causing significant concern regarding security. It is essential to identify the entities that are leveraging IoT to exert power. These entities may include individuals, organisations, or even governments. Identifying these entities is crucial to establish accountability and take necessary security measures to protect against potential breaches or attacks.

Secondly, the development of consumer IoT is primarily driven by small companies. These companies often produce and sell IoT devices at very low prices, making them accessible to a wide range of consumers. However, this also creates challenges in terms of security awareness and compliance. Consumers may not be fully aware of the need to secure their devices or the potential risks associated with them. Additionally, the affordability of these devices means that they may not undergo rigorous security testing or meet established standards.

Furthermore, the deployment of consumer IoT devices poses challenges to openness, interoperability, and core internet values. Different technologies and standards are used for communication between these devices, making it difficult to establish the necessary interoperability and ensure seamless connectivity. This can lead to fragmented systems and hinder the growth and development of IoT applications. Additionally, the increased deployment of these devices expands the attack surface for everyone. With numerous connected devices, the potential for vulnerabilities and cyber-attacks increases, posing a threat to individual privacy, data security, and overall network integrity.

Moreover, the sale of many IoT devices occurs outside the oversight of national standardisation bodies. This means that these devices may not adhere to specific standards or regulations, raising concerns about their compliance and quality. The lack of standardisation can lead to compatibility issues and hinder collaboration and innovation in the broader IoT ecosystem.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the urgent need for enhanced security measures, awareness, and standardisation efforts in the consumer IoT sector. It is vital to address the security concerns surrounding these devices, identify the entities responsible for IoT deployments, and ensure that consumers are informed about the importance of securing their devices. Additionally, industry stakeholders should collaborate to establish common technological standards and guidelines to promote openness, interoperability, and cybersecurity in the consumer IoT realm. By doing so, the potential of IoT can be fully realised while simultaneously safeguarding privacy and ensuring the integrity of connected systems.

Sandoche Balakrichenan

The presentations on IoT emphasized the significance of interoperability, scalability, and zero trust. It was argued that these features are essential for the success of IoT. The domain name system (DNS) was proposed as a potential solution for IoT-based identity and access management in a zero-trust environment. DNS is widely used for communication by internet users and can potentially be used for IoT as well, enabling secure and controlled access to IoT devices and systems.

LoRaWAN, regarded as one of the most constrained networks in IoT, was highlighted as an ideal testing ground for the concept of interoperability, scalability, and zero trust. The successful implementation of this concept with LoRaWAN could potentially be applied to other IoT networks and devices.

AFNIC, a prominent organisation, is developing a dynamic identity management system based on DNS. The aim of this system is to enable interoperability among various types of identifiers such as RFID and barcodes, facilitating efficient and effective management of identities within the IoT ecosystem.

The use of DNS and DANE (DNS-based Authentication of Named Entities) was discussed as a way to eliminate the need for a certificate authority ecosystem. This approach, combined with the successful tests of TLS 1.3 and ongoing efforts to add privacy features, highlights the potential of DNS and DANE to achieve dynamic, scalable, and zero trust capability in IoT.

The presentations also touched upon the collaboration between the supply chain industry and IoT, particularly in relation to GS1 devices such as barcodes and RFID. This collaboration highlights the integration of technology systems with the supply chain industry, fostering innovation and enhancing efficiency.

Furthermore, the speaker mentioned the use of LoRaWAN with MAC IDs, showcasing an alternative approach to identification beyond traditional names and IP addresses. This demonstrates that concerns in IoT extend beyond conventional methods and require exploration of new and diverse approaches.

In conclusion, the presentations underscored the importance of interoperability, scalability, and zero trust in IoT. The potential application of DNS for IoT-based identity and access management, the development of a dynamic identity management system by AFNIC, and the use of DNS and DANE to eliminate the need for a certificate authority ecosystem were notable insights. The collaboration between the supply chain industry and IoT, as well as the exploration of alternative identification methods such as LoRaWAN with MAC IDs, further exemplify the dynamic nature of IoT and the need for innovative solutions.

Dan Caprio

In a recent discussion on the Internet of Things (IoT), it was highlighted that there is a significant power asymmetry between consumers and their understanding of IoT. This issue has been observed not only in the United States but also in other parts of the world.

To address this, the US government has launched an ongoing effort aimed at bringing consumer labelling to the IoT. This initiative is being carried out through a public-private partnership, with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) being responsible in the US. The aim is to ensure responsible consumption and production in the IoT sector, in line with SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production.

This labelling scheme would involve putting labels on IoT device packaging, providing consumers with information about the level of security offered. This proposed labelling system is seen as a means to empower consumers by giving them the necessary information to make informed choices and protect themselves in the rapidly growing IoT landscape.

Furthermore, having consumer labels on IoT devices could also facilitate international harmonisation. The idea is that these labels could pave the way for global standards and interoperability in the IoT industry. This notion aligns with Vint Cerf’s view on the importance of standards and interoperability in the IoT ecosystem.

However, it is important to note that the US consumer label for IoT is still in its early stages. The FCC announced this initiative in August, but it will not take effect until at least the end of next year. Therefore, additional work is required to develop and implement a comprehensive labelling system that effectively serves the needs of consumers.

During the discussion, it was suggested that the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) should play an active role in addressing this issue. It was acknowledged that raising awareness and fostering dialogue around consumer labelling in the IoT is a crucial step towards ensuring responsible and secure IoT adoption. It was proposed that the IGF, along with regional IGFs, should include this topic in their agendas and actively engage stakeholders in finding effective solutions.

Overall, the discussion emphasized the need for consumer empowerment and protection in the IoT sector. The ongoing efforts in the US to introduce consumer labelling and the potential for international harmonisation through such initiatives are promising steps in the right direction. However, more work needs to be done to ensure that a comprehensive and effective labelling system is developed and implemented. The active involvement of the IGF and its regional counterparts can significantly contribute to addressing this issue and promoting responsible IoT practices.

Vint Cerf

The speakers in the analysis delve into various crucial aspects of the Internet of Things (IoT). They highlight the importance of standards and interoperability in order to ensure that devices from multiple manufacturers can effectively work together. This is crucial for the IoT to reach its full potential as it allows for seamless communication and integration between devices. It also enables consumers to configure their IoT devices in a way that is useful and tailored to their specific needs. The argument put forth is that without standards and interoperability, the IoT ecosystem would be fragmented and hindered by compatibility issues.

Another key point discussed is the need for secure and upgradeable operating systems for IoT devices. The speakers emphasise that every IoT device will require an operating system, and with that comes the need for regular updates and bug fixes. The argument is made that these updates are necessary to address vulnerabilities and ensure the overall security of the devices. Without secure and upgradeable operating systems, IoT devices are at risk of exploitation by malicious actors.

The speakers also stress the significance of strong authentication, cryptography, and digital signatures in the context of IoT devices. They argue that these measures are crucial for ensuring trusted communication between devices. The speakers assert that IoT devices need to have a strongly authenticated identity and must also be aware of what other devices they are allowed to communicate with. By implementing cryptography and digital signatures, IoT devices can authenticate and verify the integrity of the data being exchanged, reducing the risk of unauthorized access or tampering.

Additionally, the scalability of configuration management and control for IoT devices is highlighted. The speakers note that in residential settings, the number of devices could easily reach the hundreds, while in industrial settings, it could be in the thousands. They argue that effective configuration management and control systems need to be in place to handle the sheer volume of devices and ensure efficient and reliable operation.

However, one speaker expresses a negative sentiment towards voice recognition as a control method for IoT devices. They highlight concerns regarding the reliability of voice recognition technology, as it is not 100% accurate and can lead to frustration for users. Moreover, there is the possibility of misuse, where unauthorized individuals could gain access to IoT devices by mimicking the owner’s voice. This raises security concerns and questions the reliability of voice recognition as a viable control method for the IoT.

In a somewhat unrelated observation, the analysis briefly mentions Vint Cerf’s extensive wine collection in his house, with approximately 3,000 bottles. It is suggested that the next owner of his house will have the responsibility of managing this impressive collection.

In conclusion, the speakers emphasize the importance of standards, interoperability, secure operating systems, strong authentication, cryptography, and digital signatures in the world of IoT. These elements are seen as crucial for the successful deployment and operation of IoT devices. Additionally, the scalability of configuration management and control systems is acknowledged as a critical factor in managing a large number of IoT devices. It is important to carefully consider the control methods used for IoT devices, as voice recognition may not be the most reliable option due to its limitations and potential for misuse.

Hiroshi Esaki

According to experts, the correct functioning of artificial intelligence (AI) relies heavily on trustworthy data. AI does not have its own algorithm; instead, it requires reliable data to provide accurate and insightful results. This emphasizes the importance of data quality and integrity in AI systems.

In the business field, IoT devices are increasingly prevalent across various industries, including agriculture. These devices offer numerous benefits, such as improved efficiency, increased productivity, and enhanced decision-making. However, to fully leverage the potential of IoT, there is a need for good ownership, responsibility, and authentication. This ensures that the devices are used ethically and securely, protecting sensitive data and mitigating potential risks.

The evolution of IoT into the Internet of Functions (IOF) brings a paradigm shift from traditional cloud computing systems. With IOF, functions can be transferred and executed anywhere over the internet. This opens up new possibilities for decentralized and distributed systems, enabling greater flexibility and scalability in IoT networks.

One critical aspect of the IoT ecosystem is the security of devices. To ensure secure and safe IoT deployment, scalable systems for labeling or certification are needed. This helps in identifying and verifying the authenticity and integrity of IoT devices, making it easier for users to trust and rely on them.

A noteworthy observation is the increasing importance of zero-trust capability in IoT devices. This means that every single device must have built-in security measures that continuously verify and authenticate network connections. By adopting a zero-trust approach, the IoT ecosystem can provide a higher level of security, protecting sensitive data and preventing unauthorized access.

Furthermore, IoT devices and the data they produce can make a significant contribution to carbon neutrality and decarbonization efforts. These devices, along with the concept of digital twins, enable better monitoring and management of resources, leading to more sustainable practices and reduced environmental impact.

Additionally, internet security is a crucial element that should be considered in the IoT ecosystem. It should be end-to-end, starting with individual users taking responsibility for protecting their network. Traceability and interoperability play a vital role in ensuring secure internet operation, and efforts are being made worldwide, including in Japan, to provide users with traceability features.

In conclusion, the future use of IoT devices is expected to evolve beyond their original purposes. These devices have the potential to transform industries, improve efficiency, and enable innovative applications. However, realizing the full potential of IoT requires addressing critical areas such as data quality, device security, and internet security. By doing so, we can create a more reliable, secure, and sustainable IoT ecosystem.

Jonathan Cave

The Internet of Things (IoT) is described as a complex adaptive system that produces things that are yet to be imagined. This system consists of connected devices that work together to create complex functions, even though these functions may not have well-defined or objectively defined definitions. The IoT has the potential to revolutionize various industries and aspects of our lives through its interconnectedness.

However, privacy concerns arise when it comes to the IoT. These devices have the ability to collect vast amounts of personal and private information from their users, regardless of whether it is relevant to their nominal functioning or design. The collection of such data raises questions about the privacy of data, devices, and their functions within the IoT context.

Another aspect to consider is the impact of IoT devices on human behavior. For instance, when people use smart speakers, they begin to trust them to deliver content, thereby giving these devices a power they did not originally have. This trust implies that IoT devices are not just sensors but also actuators, with the ability to reprogram their users’ behavior, understanding, and attention.

The interaction between individuals and IoT devices also calls for a reshaping of ethical frameworks. As the operation of these devices and systems changes people’s behavior, understanding, and attention, there is a need to align our ethical frameworks with the evolving nature of individual and collective psychology in relation to IoT devices.

Additionally, the concept of data ownership is being reconsidered in the context of the IoT. It becomes necessary to resurrect the notion of data ownership so that people can be held responsible for their actions and the functioning of these systems. This is crucial in maintaining accountability and ensuring that individuals take ownership of their data and its usage within the IoT ecosystem.

Furthermore, ethical reflection, consideration, and control are fundamental when it comes to IoT devices. The ethical implications of these devices should be thoroughly assessed and addressed, with due consideration given to the potential consequences on individuals and society as a whole. This involves scrutinizing IoT projects for their ethical considerations and the application of legal mechanisms to make control measures more predictable.

Overall, keeping the conversation open on ethical considerations and control issues is of utmost importance. The emergence of new problems within the IoT ecosystem requires a collaborative approach, as no single party can perceive and address all the challenges alone. Simply ticking the ethical box at the beginning of a project and leaving it to lawyers is not enough. Ongoing ethical reflection and open discussions are essential to ensure that the ethical implications of IoT devices are adequately addressed and controlled.

Sarah T. Kiden

In the realm of the Internet of Things (IoT), power imbalances exist, calling for accountability and responsibility measures. These imbalances may arise during the design or research phase. Concerns are raised about the lack of consumer influence on future IoT deployments, leading to a need for empowering consumers.

To address these issues, collecting user stories on the harms caused by IoT devices can guide the creation of design guidelines and influence policy changes. Organizations like the Algorithmic Justice League, Data & Society, and Amnesty International have begun documenting AI harms, providing evidence to sway policymakers in the right direction.

Overall, the analysis highlights the presence of power asymmetries in the IoT ecosystem and underscores the importance of accountability and responsibility measures. Empowering consumers and involving them in shaping the future of IoT deployments is crucial. Furthermore, gathering user stories and documenting the harms caused by IoT devices can serve as valuable evidence for influencing policy changes and creating design guidelines. This comprehensive summary emphasizes the significance of addressing power imbalances and promoting responsible practices in the IoT industry.

Avri Doria

During the session, it was mentioned that no questions had been received online thus far. However, the speaker kindly invited participants to submit any questions through the chat or QA function. The audience was asked to keep their questions brief since only 15 minutes remained in the session due to the amount of content covered in the first part.

This demonstrates the speaker’s willingness to engage with attendees and provide valuable insights. Despite the lack of questions at that point in the session, it emphasized the importance of participant engagement to enhance the overall learning experience.

In conclusion, the speaker encouraged participation by inviting individuals to submit their questions through the chat or QA function. This call for engagement highlighted the significance of participant interaction in shaping the session and allowing for a more enriching learning experience.

Maarten Botterman

The Internet of Things (IoT) is a global technology that offers new opportunities to address challenges and is adapted and developed globally. It has the potential to revolutionize society by improving efficiency, decision-making, and connectivity through device communication and data exchange. The IoT is seen as a necessary technology with positive sentiment.

The argument for the IoT is that it can ethically address societal challenges by deploying systems in disaster-stricken regions and rural areas. It requires the involvement of all stakeholders and acknowledges the varying challenges across different regions. Sustainability and inclusivity are emphasized, with a focus on creating accountable ecosystems.

However, the adoption of the IoT also presents challenges such as new risks and the potential weaponization of technology. Legal clarity and regulation are necessary for IoT investment and development, and procurement practices can improve security. It is important to take proactive measures and implement self-certification and DNS for enhanced security.

Different networks and the use of DNS for interoperability and scalability are considered. AI also comes with risks, but the potential benefits justify them. Informed consent, labeling, and change management are emphasized to inform people about risks and adapt to the fast pace of change in the IoT space.

In conclusion, the IoT has the potential to address challenges ethically and create sustainable ecosystems. Legal clarity, regulation, and proactive measures are needed to address risks. Different networks and DNS can improve interoperability and scalability. Informed consent, labeling, and change management are important considerations for successful implementation.

Maarten Botterman:
It’s, it’s, it’s, it’s set to launch, but it’s, anyway. Can you put the, ah, yeah, that’s good. And Jonathan is now on the line. Good morning, everybody. Good morning. Welcome to this. Good morning. Good morning, Jonathan. Welcome to this session of the Dynamic Coalition for the Internet of Things. I’ll give a short introduction to get us all up to speed on what this is about. And then we’ll, we’ll dive into the panel discussion with a couple of introductions. And everybody’s invited to participate. If you have clarifying questions, we’ll take those earlier and discussion is for after the contributions. So with that, I’d like to see the slides. Please start posting the slides. I need to do it from the slide room? Okay. On the desktop. The blue one here, for me is stretch. Okay. I can see it, yeah, we’re online. So the Internet of Things is talking, the Dynamic Coalition is really talking about how to get to global good practice on the Internet of Things, a development that has been progressing over many years. The Internet of Things, for all clarity, is a technology that we need. And it comes with benefits as well as with challenges, like all new technologies. And it offers opportunities to respond to today’s challenges in ways that were never possible before. Yet it comes with new ones. And just a reminder, preempting any discussion, technologies are not the ones that are good or bad, it’s the way we use them. Particularly, we need them for addressing societal issues also on global level, across borders. And this is a global technology that is adapted globally and is developed globally and adopted locally. So it requires sharing global knowledge about solutions, as well as local knowledge about what needs to happen and action to make things happen, to go beyond talking about it. There’s many different applications. And just to give a little bit impression of the width, the buoy you see is a tsunami buoy and it’s connected and it measures the waves. So this gives the people at the coasts of vulnerable areas just a half hour extra to get away from the coast when necessary. To under that, you see a little sensor that is actually part, can be part of a body, visual sensor, your blood pressure changes and will warn you, well, your blood pressure is going up, maybe lay down and call somebody to rescue you because there may be a heart attack imminent. Just above that is in room, cold monoxide measurer. You can see there’s a lot of different applications, ranging from wildlife tracking to autonomous systems that manage networks of roads around busy cities. I’m going the wrong way. So we talk about a global approach towards IIT at this global IGF. We’ve been talking about it in regional IGFs more focused at the region that has brought a lot of insight also that global solutions aren’t always the best locally or regionally. IIT for us is merely a specific aspect of the internet, just like social media, communication, access to information. And it does link to AI, it does link to big data. It generates data, it uses data. Specific characteristics that co-determine the development of future network include, in particular, the collecting, storing, providing access to many data related to an observation by sensors. It’s autonomous networks with actuators that take action following receipt of specific data on other, on sensors. And to take pre-programmed decision models or learn from it, and AI is a clear component that adds to that development and what it can do. IIT is also, because it’s physical as well, something that you can actually weaponize, whether it’s the MOTIC devices or other IOT devices to attack third parties, and that is something to be aware of. So these specifics make a difference. Dynamic Coalition is set up in 2008, so we celebrate our 15th year and active ever since, also in regional meetings. And as said, the aim is to develop global good practice. And the dialogue is about meeting multi-stakeholders on equal terms at global level. The principle that we currently have, and that’s always subject to review, is taking ethical considerations into account from the outset, and find an ethical, sustainable way ahead using IOT to create a free, secure, and enabling rights-based environment, the future we want. And for the case of time, I would like to introduce our first speaker today. We both grew older. And this is 2016. It relates to the fundaments of the internet. I’m very happy to have Vint Cerf speak here on how that relates to IOT and how that fits into the vision for the future as well.

Vint Cerf:
Well, thank you all very much for the invitation to join you. I will have to scoot very quickly because I have a leadership panel meeting to run at nine o’clock, so my normal one-hour rant will have to be curtailed. The headline that I want to avoid is 100,000 Refrigerators Attack Bank of America. And unfortunately, we’ve already had headlines that are similar to that, the Dyne Corporation attack from webcams is a good example of that. So the first point I want to make is that standards and interoperability are really critical here. We want multiple manufacturers’ devices to interwork, to have compatible kinds of control models. So as consumers of these devices, we can acquire and configure them in a way that’s useful. The second thing is that every one of these devices is gonna have to have an operating system in it. And we had better insist that the operating systems both be as secure as possible and also be updatable because there will be bugs, they need to be corrected. So the device in situ needs to be upgradable to correct for vulnerabilities or to add to new functionality. Strong authentication is absolutely critical for the use of IoT devices. So at the point where you are provisioning the device, putting it into use, it needs to have a strongly authenticated identity which can be validated remotely. It also needs to know what other devices it’s allowed to talk to. And so we should insist that the device be provisioned to know how to validate an incoming query or an incoming command from another device so that it is not subject to takeover by an unauthorized party. Once again, strong authentication and the use of cryptography and digital signatures will be our friend here. The device should have a limited access control list that it will listen to and all it would ignore. There’s a scaling issue here because the number of devices that you might have in a residence could number in the hundreds in the long term if every light bulb has its own control, for example. And in an industrial setting, we could be talking about thousands of these devices. So configuration management and control needs to be scalable. You don’t wanna spend the entire week typing IPv6 addresses into these devices to configure them. So the scaling issue is very important. There’s also a dynamic discovery question for some types of these devices. When something shows up that should become part of the residential network or part of the corporate network or the manufacturing network, you’d like to automatically find a way to configure it, but you clearly don’t want the wrong parties to be automatically configured in. So in a residential setting, you can imagine the service person coming out to do maintenance. They might have a mobile with them. They might have other devices. You might detect their presence, but you have to make the system decide whether or not to incorporate that device into the local control or not. And you might, as the owner of the system, be asked, should I configure the maintenance man’s mobile into the household network or not? So once again, we have to have the capability for doing dynamic addition. If you bought a new IoT device, you’d like to make it easy to add that. There are some discussions about what happens when you sell a house that’s full of IoT devices. What does the recipient of the house do? Do they have to reconfigure everything? How do we make that easy to do? What about voice control? This is increasingly popular. You have lots of devices. Google has the Google Assistant, for example. The problem with voice control, of course, is that there are risks. Who is allowed to control the device? What are they allowed to do with it? And you probably want to distinguish among parties with regard to their capacity for controlling the devices. For example, parents might want to have more control than the kids. Although, if your experience is like mine, the kids know more about how to do this than the parents do. You certainly don’t want the casual robber to walk up to the front door and say, open the door, and have it open the door. So voice recognition, which, as you know, is not 100% reliable, may not be the best way to do this. You may actually have to have some identifier with you that is sensible, so to speak, by the IoT devices that qualify you for certain capabilities. One interesting problem is guests that come to the house, if it’s in the residential setting. How do you train the house to know what the guests are allowed to do, and which guest is it? Do you have to issue little badges to them? If it’s a voice control system, do you have to have them stand in front of a microphone and say a bunch of words so that the system can learn their voice and to correctly interpret that? I mean, it would be kind of a weird thing to invite your guests over for dinner and have them recite in front of a microphone so that they can use the house, get the refrigerator to open, get the toilet to flush, or whatever else that they have to do. Suppose you’re standing in a room like this one with a whole lot of light bulbs. How do you turn one light bulb off or on, or which lights? Do you have to give names, like Frank and George and Eddie, and then teach your guests what the names of the light bulbs are? So we have to find ways of interacting with the system that’s easy to learn. Also, if you give authority to a guest, you don’t want that authority to go on longer than they are still welcome guests. And so when they leave the house, the house should forget their ability to access it. So those are just a list of the various things that come to my mind. And I hope in the course of today’s session that you’ll shed some light on how we achieve some of these objectives of safety and security and reliability and flexibility so that the IoT space turns out to be a useful one, both from the point of view of constructive application, but also a big opportunity for companies to design, build, and sell these devices that tend to work with each other. So Mr. Chairman, I’ll stop there and dash out the door. If these were stupid ideas, I’m sure you’ll document that. But to the extent that it stimulates your thinking, I hope it’s been helpful.

Maarten Botterman:
Thank you so much. And I’m curious, too, who would be the next owner of your house and how it would deal with everything you put in place.

Vint Cerf:
They’ll have to deal with the 3,000 bottles in the wine cellar with the little tags on them.

Maarten Botterman:
That will make up for all the other hassle, no doubt. Thank you, Vint, for sharing that. Good. If you can go back to the slides, then allow me to, in a way, put also Vint’s remarks into context. Again, the thinking and summary is to embrace IoT to address societal challenges in an ethical way. And we need IoT to keep this world vengeable. We need it to be inclusive. Deployment needs to be possible where necessary. This also means in areas where, for instance, the tsunami buoys or other agricultural systems, where the economics may not naturally offer a business case for a profit industry to build. The second thing is to create that IoT system that encourages investments. So to do that, you need to involve all stakeholders. There’s no single stakeholder holds the key. Regulation is important, because you need to understand the legal clarity in which you’re going to invest, going to develop your legal mechanisms. And we realize that nothing happens in isolation or in a vacuum. There is legislation. But how do you deal with it specifically when you develop new applications that are IoT-based? Maybe sandboxes, legal sandboxes, is part of the solution there. Create ecosystems that are sustainable and inclusive. Also means understand the issues wherever you go. They may be different. And stimulate awareness and feedback, because developments are nowadays so fast that people don’t know what’s possible until years after sometimes. That’s something that deserves attention, too. So as Vint alluded to, if we develop all this and we are in the process, then it needs to be a trusted IoT environment. So in short, in line with our current good practice document, this means meaningful transparency. And you could think of certifiable labels, understandable risks, and how to deal with devices and bigger systems. Clear accountability. So who is responsible? Not that obvious always. So it’s something that debate needs to progress. And lo and behold, let’s hope there is real choice. No lock-in. And I think that’s a point for discussion, too. So with that, is Orly online? Is Orly online? OK. Orly, if you’re online, unmute, please. Good morning, silly. Then Orly was to talk about the impact of AI and IoT. And the core of her contribution is that AI does come with risks, but sometimes these risks are really worthwhile taking. For instance, in medical applications, where AI help to improve the quality of life, even if they affect the way you move around. And that comes with a lot of ethical aspects as well that are worth thinking about and exploring. But in the end, it’s all about people. And that was the core of her story, too. So with that, Hiroshi, I would love to hear you to talk about IoT deployment and your security perspective in how to make that responsibly happen.

Hiroshi Esaki:
OK. Thank you for the introduction. I’m Hiroshi Saki from WISE Project Japan. First of all, regarding the AI, AI really need a trustable data. Otherwise, the AI is going to do very bad behavior. And also interesting for the AI is AI doesn’t have any algorithm by himself or by herself. Means their algorithm came from data, right? So we need a very trustful data in order to use AI correctly. That’s the single point in the first item. And also I’m working long time regarding the IoT business, say agriculture or the other industries. Then people are now, every single industry going to digital trend based on the transparent, interoperable and trustful data, right? In order to have the trustful data or transparency data, that is really, really important for the governance. How the people using the IoT device or how the IoT device can be manufactured, maintain software and function in it. Therefore we need a good ownership of the data and devices and the responsibility of the devices in the business field, authenticate as well. And also that’s not only on the earth in this day. We are going to include space and moon and Mars. That’s there’s no such a regulation at all at this time. We must have new area to tackle with. Second thing I want to share with you is the IoT gonna mutating into IOF. Things are connected, means data are gonna travel around on the earth. The function is the next one from the data. Means every single function attacks be able to transfer everywhere if we have the internet. That’s a completely different from bare metal computer system to cloud computing. So the function be able to travel around on the globe. That’s a completely different paradigm. Means the certification or control or management or excuse way of the things must be changed to function. Not that purely devices, physical devices, but what kind of process gonna run over any single device. So we must labeling or certificating not device but a function or software running on the hardware device. That is an important thing I believe. And also in order to have a secure or safe operation, we need labeling or certification or authentication. Then scalability is quite important. I always talk with the government. They want to control everything, but that is not scalable. Therefore, we need a very clever scalable system in order to have such a labeling or certification for secure, safe IoT or IRF devices. The third point I wanna share with you is that we have new stakeholder. As Martin mentioned, agriculture people, official people or the other people, they are not came from IT or ICT arena. They completely have a different culture and terminology. When I talk with them, completely different language, completely different structure of the industry, I have to talk with them. That is a new challenge. And also we welcome the new stakeholders come together. That is in principle of the IGF itself. So I really want to say that is a new players gonna come in in our field. The other interesting for this focusing on the IoT, IoT device requires very small latency in many cases. In the case of internet, we allow 100 millisecond, right? In order to see the video, CDN providing you say 10 millisecond. The robot requires microsecond. You must feel speed of lights, size of the earth. In the case of IoT application, it may be called as edge computing. The completely different requirement, they ask to us for the computer system alone. Then IoT went to the IOF, then more zero trust capability is required because every single device be able to travel around over the globe, then air gap or firewall protection provision doesn’t work well. Of course, that is very useful technique. The every single device must have zero trust capability in the future, otherwise we cannot enjoy IoT or IOF. Then the last one would be a IoT device or every single data for the digital twin has a huge contribution to a carbon neutral, decarbonization because we must grasp what’s going on on the earth, what’s going around you. We need a data, it must be trustable, must be transparent, otherwise we cannot live with healthy earth. That’s it, thank you.

Maarten Botterman:
Thank you very much and linking it very much to where we are today, the challenges today. And one would still think whether there’s different levels of devices that have different requirements in terms of both carbon neutrality and security, I would say. But we’ll hear more about it. We’ll also have a contribution later on about LoRa networks and how they can play in. So with that, thank you very much. Sarah Kyden is a researcher who’s been just getting her PhD in design and congratulations with that, Sarah. And really would like to hear about your insights from that perspective on IoT and how to make it deployable wherever it’s needed.

Sarah T. Kiden:
Hi everyone, I hope you can hear me well. Good evening from my end. So my name is Sarah Kyden and I would like to start with two things right now and maybe I’ll add on some more later. The first one is that as we develop guidelines for IoT as a dynamic coalition or really any group that’s developing guidelines, we need to acknowledge that there are power asymmetries in the IoT ecosystem. So if you think about it, there are people who build, who develop the IoT devices, there are people who use these devices in the context of consumer IoT and there are people who are impacted by the devices. So the impact could be positive like what Martin was talking about earlier where your medical IoT device notifies your health practitioner and you’re able to get immediate help or it could be negative in a way that perhaps an IoT device has been used, for example, to facilitate gender-based violence. There’s a group I follow at University College London that’s doing very interesting research about how IoT is being used to facilitate gender-based violence. So these power imbalances could manifest at different stages. So at the design phase or research phase where I am currently, if, for example, I interview participants and I’m analyzing data, the insights that I could draw are based on maybe what I’m interested in or what I see or just acknowledging that as a designer or as a researcher, I come with biases. So things that stand out to me could be underlying infrastructure that supports IoT, access to electricity, access to a network and so on and so forth, but it might be different for someone else. So at that point, it means the designer or engineer has the power to make design decisions. At another point, it could be a funder, for example. So they are giving you money to do particular IoT work and you have obligations for the grant agreement. So that means that the interest now lies with the funder. So I think we need to have some sort of mechanism for accountability and responsibility so that the power is not misused, but to also think about if the consumers have any power at all. If they have it, how are they using it? If not, how can we empower consumers to actually influence future deployments? The second thing I would like to talk about is something I’ve seen happening in the AI space. So organizations like the Algorithmic Justice League, Data & Society and Amnesty International, among others, are now beginning to document AI harms. So they’re actually collecting user stories about a harm that’s happening to them. It could be a hiring decision. It could be maybe they were not considered for a loan or a tenancy application and so on and so forth. It’s something that I think as the IoT, people who are interested in IoT design and deployment, we could think about. And these can serve as evidence. So basically, you can use that to create design guidelines. If I use the previous example where IoT devices are facilitating gender-based violence, if out of 500 reports, 100 are about a particular thing, then you could think about how to implement safety, for example, for smart IoT devices. Or you could nudge policymakers in a particular direction. So you tell them maybe the way the law is written currently, you cannot litigate a particular issue. And maybe we need to amend the law so that we can cover some of the things. So this is the initial thoughts that I have. And I’m happy to add some more later on. Thank you.

Maarten Botterman:
Thank you very much, Sarah, and also for illustrating the differences and the different requirements in different areas that happen. One of the examples we talked about in the preparation was, for instance, that data protection is legislation existing in many countries, but not in all. Does it mean everything goes in those countries where no data protection legislation is yet in place? It’s one of the things, if you think about it on a global level, is important to address. With that is the next person. Is Alejandro online? OK. Alejandro, you’re online, I hear. Sorry, my computer died because I don’t have electricity on it anymore.

Alejandro Pisanty:
Ouch. So yes, Alejandro Pisanti, present here.

Maarten Botterman:
Yes, please.

Alejandro Pisanty:
Thank you. This is Alejandro Pisanti from the National University of Mexico in Mexico City. Today I am in Washington, DC, and pleased to be with you. First, I would like to very briefly address one point that Sara Kidane has made, which is, who are the entities exerting power through IoT? And I think there’s room for more detailed analysis. We certainly can think, first of all, I think Martin, as we have spoken previously, and others, we have to distinguish between consumer internet of things and industrial internet of things. Consumer internet of things is a major concern for security, for example, as Vint Cerf stated at the beginning of the session, you don’t want your refrigerator to be responsible for launching missiles somewhere, or a DDoS attack on a major government. And the people exerting power in that sphere are not necessarily the ones we think of usually in a north-south divide. It’s more probably a company in a large country, which is not acting all the time in the system of rules. It doesn’t have a large transnational structure, but it’s more likely a lot of small companies making devices that are sold at a very low price to consumers that are not necessarily aware of the need to secure their devices. And devices aren’t even possible to secure, because you don’t have any access to them. You don’t have any access even to passwords, and certainly not, as we mentioned, to their operating systems and other underlying layers. So we’d need to split that kind of analysis into more different categories. Now, the main point for which I was invited to this session is to link with the dynamic collision on core internet values with the question whether the internet of things can have an impact on core internet values, on the way the internet’s core values are deployed, displayed, or challenged. We remember that some of these core internet values are the layered architecture, packet switching, which are sort of underlying assumptions. And then we have the best effort hypothesis or assumption. We have interoperability, openness, and so forth. And what we see first is that the deployment of devices in the consumer internet of things, which do send their packets and data over the open public internet, are a challenge already to openness, sometimes to interoperability. Certainly, they are increasing the load on the systems. And they have increased the attack surface for everybody, as has seen in many examples, where, for example, a specific model of surveillance cameras, standard facilities, CCTVs can be weaponized for denial, distributed denial of service, for example. And we have a further very complex challenge in the standards and layers field, where the standards for communicating the technologies and standards for communicating internet of things devices, both consumer and industrial, use a lot of different technologies. They use, for example, LoRa. They use open Wi-Fi. They use 4G. They will use 5G or even 6G if they come. For different sets or segments of their communications and for backups for some of those, as Hiroshi Esaki has already mentioned, the requirements, for example, may be of micro-sequences. So you may need to have VPNs or dedicated links that subtract bandwidth. Some telcos may decide to sell you bandwidth that’s reserved. That is one of the big discussions around the 6 gigahertz band, for example, how you split it into the open part and into the restricted or registered part. So these are important challenges. And no single manufacturer of these devices will care about these open internet effects or the effects of interoperability as long as their devices work and sell. So we have to find a way to make awareness. And part of this will have to be in consumers. One last point is some of these issues have been set up. And there’s an attempt to address them by, for example, warnings to consumers or registrations or standards bodies. But a lot of these things are sold under the radar of national standardization bodies and of commercial regulations. So people just pick them up in a mobile market and put them into a network without having to comply with any standards of, let’s say, national telecommunications authority or regulator nor anything else. So at least this is a way of making a list and inventory of the challenges and giving them some hierarchy so that we know that some of the solutions proposed may really be very limited in reach or unworkable at all. Thank you.

Maarten Botterman:
Thank you very much for your perspective, very much informed by the work also of the Dynamic Coalition for Core Internet Values. Really appreciate it. And then can I check with you whether you’re available to speak to labeling and certification? Ben Caprio? You’re unmuted.

Dan Caprio:
Yes, thanks, Martin.

Maarten Botterman:
Thank you. Ben is based in Washington, D.C., and he’s been involved in the work of the Dynamic Coalition for a long time. He’s also involved in the White House initiative to look into labeling and certification. So please, Ben, the floor is yours.

Dan Caprio:
Thank you, Martin. I’m trying to find my camera. Is that better?

Maarten Botterman:
We see you.

Dan Caprio:
Yes, thank you. And thanks for pulling this together and for your continued leadership. I think one of the issues that ties a lot of things together quite well that have been mentioned by other speakers, the issue of power asymmetry and how consumers have some idea of what’s happening with the Internet of Things, so their devices, is something that we’ve observed in the United States, and it’s also happening in other parts of the world. But the effort to bring consumer labeling to the Internet of Things. And so there’s been a real push in the United States, a public-private partnership, which was announced by the White House back in the summer, which is being the responsible party in the United States is the Federal Communication Commission, which is sort of our equivalent of the telecom regulator. And the idea is, you know, to have a widely available consumer label on packaging for devices that gives a consumer some sense of, you know, what level of security is offered on the particular device, how to update the security, how to upgrade it, and then how to become more aware. Because I think there’s a growing appetite, especially at the consumer level, for, you know, what is the device that I’m buying, what is the capability. And so, you know, there are other parts of the world and other speakers that are going to speak to this later. I know we had a regional IGF in Australia where this was the topic of discussion. But I think it’s something that’s reflective, the idea of the consumer label is something that’s reflective of the dynamic coalition itself, which is it’s a very positive development. It’s something that we’ve all been working on, working hard on for a very long time. But I think it also, you know, gives the possibility in terms of some of the labeling efforts for international harmonization, which goes to Vint’s point about interoperability and standards. So with the label in the U.S., we’re not talking about creating a standard. It’s a public-private partnership that will be run by the Federal Communication Commission and by, you know, interested stakeholders. So view it as a very positive development and hope that it’s something that we can continue to work on in the dynamic coalition and see it become more globally accepted.

Maarten Botterman:
Thank you, Dan, for that. And the U.S. is not the only one, as said. There’s national initiatives. There’s also initiative by IEEE to look into how to do this. We’re currently all very explorative, I would say, but with deep intent. Good morning, Wout. Next speaker, if we can get Sandoz. Can you make Sandoz Balakrishnan co-host? He will speak instead of Lucien Costics.

Sandoche Balakrichenan:
Yeah, good morning, Macron. Can you hear me?

Maarten Botterman:
We can hear you very well. And I asked the support, sorry for this very last-minute request. So they made you co-host, so you can also present your slides if you want to. Good morning.

Sandoche Balakrichenan:
Yeah, that will be fine. Yep. I have slides, but I will not take much time. I hope you can see my slides.

Maarten Botterman:
We can see your slides in presentation mode.

Sandoche Balakrichenan:
Thank you. Thank you, Martin. So, you know, in the opening statement of windsurf, he talked about IoT needing interoperability, scalability, etc. And Professor Isaki also said about the zero trust necessity for IoT. So both these presentations are quite a preamble for this one. So here, you know, we are looking at zero trust from an identity management angle. So to have identity and access management using DNS is a perspective that we are looking at AFNIC. AFNIC is the .FR registry that I am working at. We are based in Paris. So DNS, the domain name system, is a system that is used by most Internet users for Internet communication. And it is, to simplify, it is just mapping human-based names, like domain names, to IP addresses. So most of us, we use DNS for our Internet communication. So what we are trying to have a look is that how to use the same system that has been mostly used in the Internet for IoT-based. So in a zero trust, if we say briefly what NIST proposes is that you can have communication from a device to the network on a case-by-case basis where you can have context, where you can have different administrative access. It is not, and you don’t need to provision early. So we also see that we could do the same with DNS. So this is the use case that we see usually in IoT. The device maker, they provision the devices with some keys, and these keys need to be shared among the stakeholders over the ecosystem. So that’s a huge issue. It’s an operational nightmare. So the use of symmetric key works in IoT, but it doesn’t scale. So that’s a problem that we are trying to solve here. So we try to work with LoRa. LoRa is the long-range wide area network. Why did we try to work with LoRaWAN is that LoRa is concerned with the classification of LPWAN, local wide area networks. It is one of the most constrained networks in IoT. And if our proposition works in LoRaWAN, it will work around the other IoT networks and devices. So we were able to do the communication between the different servers in a LoRaWAN scenario using mutual authentication. When I say mutual authentication, it’s that both the client and server authenticate each other. And this could be done by normal asymmetric keys that we use on the internet, that is public and private keys. And how we do them is that we do with self-signed certificates. And in the self-signed certificates, we are able to do this mutual authentication, even when we don’t have the certificate authority. For example, in the internet, we need to have a certificate authority, and that certificate authority needs to be authorized by the browser vendors. But here we could do that in the DNS without having a certificate authority and having your own self-signed certificate. That is done, I’ll go here, that is done thanks to a technology standardized by the IETF. It’s called DANE, DNS authentication of named entities. And I will not go deep into it, but it just shows that in the DNS, you can provision both the identity resolution, as well as which key you have to authenticate. So here with the help of DNS and DANE and DNSSEC, we don’t need a certificate authority ecosystem. We can use the DNS ecosystem for both identity and access management. So we have tested that with the TLS 1.3. We even did a hackathon at the IETF. So the next step that we are going to do is that so I’m coming back to here is that we have zero trust capability here because we don’t need provisioning a priori by keys or by having a certificate authority. You can do that dynamically. And with the DNS, you have scalability. And you can use the existing identifiers because if you see in the IoT, there are different identification systems like barcode, RFID, NFC, etc. And etc. So all these different types of identifications could interoperate with each other. We have worked with the supply chain GS1 standards also. So we tested with them also. So at AFNIC, we are building on a dynamic identity management system based on DNS and we have built blocks by blocks on different projects that we have. As you can see in the slides, it’s like a lego block. We started with whether to see whether we could provision different identifiers in the DNS. When I say different identifiers, it could be a digital object identifier. It could be an object identifier. It could be an RFID. It could be a barcode. It could be domain name, etc. URI, etc. So that works. We work with the supply chain industry. Then we see whether all these identifiers could resolve with the different ecosystems. That also works. Now with the security, we have added one more layer. And we are now working on another project called Pivot where we want to add privacy features based on DNS. So that’s how we plan to do that. And I hope we could also work with the Dynamic Coalition on adding this thing here. For information, there are different standardization organizations like the IETF, the ITU, all working in the same scenario, looking at DNS for resolving the issues that we see in the IoT. Thank you. If you have any questions, I’m ready to answer.

Maarten Botterman:
Thank you, Sandor, for that. We saw startup organizations like ITU. I’m not sure ITU qualifies as a startup organization. But thanks for what you do. Because basically what also Sandor brings in is the fact that what is IoT? Is it a device? Is it a cyber physical system which brings together a couple of devices? Or is it an ecosystem of application, a coherent one, in which the self-certification may be quite part of the solution to make sure it’s a secure system? The other element is also with the LoRa networks is that whereas IoT is an extension of the Internet, it doesn’t mean that every IoT application needs streaming video capabilities. Sometimes it’s enough to ping once every five minutes or even once every hour. What’s happening? With that, Lucia also, sorry, Sandor’s presentation can be shared as well, right?

Sandoche Balakrichenan:
Yeah, it can be shared, yeah.

Maarten Botterman:
Super. So come to me after the meeting if you want, and I’ll send it by email. And we’ll also make sure that with the report, that will be very clear where you can find the presentations later on. Thanks for bringing this aspect. Zero trust. Self-signed certification is part of the solution. And the awareness that, yeah, different networks will facilitate IoT systems in different environments.

Hiroshi Esaki:
That is one of the technical components. But also we need another, you know, more wider thing. Otherwise, you know, not only the name domain or IP address, but the other part we need.

Sandoche Balakrichenan:
Just to answer to Professor Isaki, you know, we did work with the supply chain industry on GS1 type of device. When I say GS1, it is barcode and RFID. And if you see with the LoRaWAN, we are working with MAC IDs. So it’s not just names and IP addresses here.

Maarten Botterman:
So how to also deal with, and what you said also, to deal with privacy issues in systems that have very little extra capability of sharing data. Thanks for that. With us also, Wouter Natris, he’s coordinator of the IS3C Dynamic Coalition. And that coalition has done research into legislation and policy initiatives in IoT and has recently launched a report, or yesterday launched a report on findings and commonalities with that, and even has some recommendations. Wouter, would you be willing to share?

Wout de Natris:
Be glad to, Martin. Thank you. My name is Wouter Natris, and I’m a consultant in the Netherlands. And as such, coordinator of a dynamic coalition called Internet Standard Security and Safety Coalition within the IGF. As Martin said, we had our session yesterday and published two reports and launched a toolkit for Internet Standard Deployment. I was late here because I was in another session on IoT presenting on our work and then got a ping for Martin to come here. The chair of the working group is presenting as we speak in that session, so that I’m taking his place basically here to share his results. Very short, what is IS3C? We started this dynamic coalition in 2020 with the idea to get the Internet standards that are out there for sometimes decades and would make the Internet far more secure and safer if they were massively deployed by industry, most of the time by industry. And for some reason, that is not happening. So how can we make the world more secure and safer? That is by incentivizing organizations to deploy these existing standards. And that is what we do our work on. So we have several working groups, and then I’ll get to the IoT part. But we do work on security by design Internet of Things. We do work on education and skills, on tertiary education, whether they teach these standards, how the Internet works, et cetera. There’s a huge gap there. Procurement by government and industries, are they demanding these Internet standards? We have a working group on emerging technologies, which will probably start in 2024. And we have a working group on the deployment of RPKI and DNSSEC. And not because the technical problems they have, but how can we change the narrative so that when a CEO or a CFO or a Secretary General has to make a decision within his organization, that he understands why he has to go for security and not because of the technique, whether it’s political or economical or social or security motivation. So we have a working group. group that’s going to start in November. Sorry, in December. We are in October. I forgot where we are. It’s going to start in November. And hopefully we’ll have a result there early next year. So what did we do with IoT? Because that’s the reason why I’m sitting here. We came up with a plan to do research into policy documents that are findable on the Internet and to do a comparison. And as I understand, they found documents from 18 countries, a total of 30 documents in 18 countries, mostly from the global north, with 442 different practices in them. So between 18 countries, there were 442 practices. And do they align? Sometimes the terminology is even explained in a different way. So there’s no coherence between these policy documents. And that is, I think, the first thing that I want to say. I’m going to put on my glasses, because it reads a little bit easier. But what they did is they studied it from four categories. They looked at it from data privacy and confidentiality. They looked at secure updating. They looked at user empowerment and operational resilience. And from those four categories, they had five research questions. And the first one is, what are the recommended best practices for setting out the responsibilities of all stakeholders involved in IoT security, including manufacturers, providers, and users? The second question is, what policy and regulatory measures can be identified for promoting IoT security by design, and specifically with regard to ensuring device resilience against crashes, power shortages, and outages? Three, what policy and regulatory guidelines can be identified to promote user empowerment in IoT security, and what are the recommended best practices for implementing vulnerability disclosure mechanisms? Four, through what mechanisms are regulators and policymakers enforcing compliance with established IoT security standards and encouraging manufacturers to adopt the recommended best practices? And five, how do policy and regulatory documents relate security updates with warranty policies for IoT devices and services? So there’s a lot of questions that they put out on these 30 different documents. They found a lot of things, but when they started grouping them, things became quite clear very soon. So what were the main conclusions to be drawn? That one, IoT security is complex and multi-faced. Issues require a comprehensive approach. Many countries, including the whole of the Global South, lack any policy framework for IoT security, and that is almost. There are a few exceptions. Many of the national practices identified did not match other countries’ policies, and there are many differences in taxonomy. Many of the practices are voluntary guidelines without effective accountability and consequences for non-deployment. National administrations rarely require or specify security by design in the hardware and software that they procure, and this would drive and increase the deployment of security-related standards. The standards that form the public core of the Internet, which is basically software, and on which the Internet runs, are not formally recognized as such by governments, and are usually absent in all policy documents such as analyzed in this research. Specifying links between security flaws and device integrity is a strong basis for security updates. So that is the findings, and as you can see, there are huge gaps between when we talk about cybersecurity and what is actually being addressed by these governments, and that leads to a certain set of recommendations, and the first one is accountability frameworks from the design stage through to use. Two, strategies for countering unauthenticated vulnerabilities such as denial-of-service attacks. Three, stakeholder cooperation on coordinating vulnerability disclosure. Four, endorsing global implementation of open standards. Five, the integration of security updates and warranty policies. And finally, governments get your act together and agree on what a term and a definition is of a specific piece of IoT. So can we actually change this situation? And if I look back at the whole dynamic coalition, in all other studies that we found, as I said, already said, the public core of the Internet is something governments discuss, and they think that it should be protected and it should not be attacked. And my idea is that my personal idea from reading the different reports we’re producing is that governments think of the cables of the server parks, they think of the undersea cables that they have to be protected, and what they forget is what makes the Internet actually function and work as it does. So if governments don’t recognize it, it will also mean that they won’t procure it. So what would make the IoT or other functionings of the Internet more secure is when a government starts putting its money where its mouth is. In other words, if you want cybersecurity, you will have to demand certain standards to be built in the product that you are actually procuring. So if you do not demand it up front, in some cases you can’t even get it afterwards after you discover the vulnerabilities, because they can’t be mended or they don’t do it, or because it’s an end-of-life cycle for them. So in other words, you have to consider these standards up front. And so only when bigger organizations, public and private, start demanding security by design when procuring, that is the moment that things will change in the world. And that will also mean that for us as individual users, they’re not going to produce two sort of coffee machines that connect with the Internet. They will all be secure from that moment onwards, because they won’t sell secure things to the government that are insecure to us. If consumer organizations will start testing these devices, also on the IoT component, also that would prove a lot of things. So that is where we try to work with this IS3C. But when all else fails, then I’m convinced that there will be only one solution, and that is that they’re going to regulate it and legislate it. And if that is a desirable thing to happen, I’m not so certain about that, but it will happen between now and five to six years. So it’s time to get our act together. And that act can be by deploying what is out there and can’t be that difficult, I’m told. So let me stop there, Maarten, and happy to answer any questions later.

Maarten Botterman:
Yes, thank you for that, Wout. What we see is the rapid developments make it more and more difficult also for governments to keep up with what they should do. And legislation is just one of the last resort, one would say. I very much appreciate the concept that comes forward, that procurement might be a way in. If governments know how to procure for safe, secure IoT devices, they may also better know how to propose legislation or guidelines to the rest of the public. Thank you, thank you for that insight. And I also heard you having listened to Vint. Let’s think about the world we want, but also act, otherwise we may end up with the world we deserve. And we may not like that. I loved that quote. The last element I really would like to bring in and to emphasise further, because it’s a key element, not only of the society we live in, but also specifically for IoT, is how to deal with privacy and data protection. And for that, I have my friend and colleague Jonathan Cave online, who also volunteered to be our rapporteur for this session. But he’s an expert with a policy background, regulatory background, and a micro economist and game theorist. Jonathan.

Jonathan Cave:
Okay, thank you, Martin. Thank you, everybody. It’s coming up on two o’clock in the morning here. So I will attempt to be coherent. There were a couple of, not to preempt the discussion, I think it’s useful if we get quickly into the main issues. But there are a few things I wanted to say in relation to privacy. I think, from the perspective of the economics of privacy, from the perspective of the ethical aspect, and certainly from the legal perspective, one of the questions that keeps coming up through this discussion is whether the things that we’re talking about, and I include privacy in this, but also things we’ve talked about today, like security, transparency, and accountability, are meant to be principles that we adhere to or espouse when we get a chance, or are meant to be mechanisms that produce a result. Because the Internet of Things, linked into the Internet of People, is a complex adaptive system. It produces things that we can’t yet imagine. And so the engineering perspective of designing things which have specific characteristics and functions and so on, and then you turn them loose and judge them according to how well they do those things, for users who are deemed to have fixed characteristics, may not be the most useful perspective. So I just wanted to flag up this sort of game-theoretic view that all the things we’re talking about are mechanisms, and then make a few observations that are relevant, I think, to the Internet of Things. Some of these are things that have been said before. For example, we know we need to have multiple stakeholders, but it’s important to be quite clear on who those stakeholders are, what kind of voice we want them to have, and what sort of decisions we involve them in. One of the problems that’s come up, particularly with the use of AI in relation to the Internet of Things, is the question of whether agency is still a useful concept in the sense that we had it before, where we can base an entire system of markets, engineering, and laws on the idea of people being told what they can do, and then being held responsible for how they do it. Now, in this respect, I think one of the elements here is the privacy element, and I’ll just sort of round in on that, and we can discuss other things later on. When we talk about privacy, the central question is privacy of what, and why is this a useful idea? In most cases, we start from the perspective of the privacy of data. But we’ve heard all the way through, it was hinted at by Vint, and certainly picked up quite strongly by Hiroshi and everybody who spoke later, that when we talk about the Internet of Things, we’re probably talking about the data plane, certainly when AI comes in there, because you can’t understand what these things or complex assemblages of these things do without understanding how they learned, how they were trained, what data they were trained on. Then there are the devices themselves. Are they secure? Do they fit certain characteristics? Can they be updated and so on? That’s the hardware, and it includes the software as it changes over time. Then there are the functions. But because the Internet of Things contains things that are connected to each other, those functions may not be well or objectively defined. What I use the device for is not necessarily the function that you see. The function that you see may be entirely different. For example, these IoT devices that harvest vast amounts of personal, private information from their users, even when that has no connection to the nominal functioning or design of the device or its operation. The cars that observe whether we’re sleepy or whether we’re behaving well, that kind of thing. So as we move up the plane, away from the data plane and the device plane, things become, as it were, more complicated. And that produces a changing surface, not just an attack surface for cybersecurity, but a surface for, let’s call it, ethical concerns. Now, so that’s item one, which is the complexity of the things. We can engage with these things at certain levels, but they have implications at other levels. Now, I think this is important in terms of the good practice elements of what we want to see for the IoT. Many of us come from engineering or analytical backgrounds, but as many others have pointed out, a lot of the people making decisions here may not share those perspectives. And that’s not just something we have to patch together as a kind of human interoperability, but it’s part of the richness and resilience of the system that we have and give expression to those different perspectives. But that brings me to the second aspect of the privacy, which is the privacy of action and intention. When people use these devices, they develop relationships with them and through them, different relationships with each other. When people use a smart speaker, for example, they begin to trust it in certain ways. Now, partially, that gives the speaker or the people feeding data and instructions to the speaker a power that they didn’t have originally. They move from being sensors, as it were, or deliverers of content, to being actuators, to reprogramming their users. And that perfectly innocent function has really profound implications for who gets held responsible for these things. Now, another small comment I wanted to make that came up early on in the conversation was the question of how we control and own the data. For a long time, we’ve been told that you can’t own data and can’t own personal data. But, of course, now we learn that in order to make these systems function, we have to resurrect the notion of the ownership of data, simply so that we can hold people responsible. Then the final thing I wanted to talk about was the nature of our ethical engagement. We can do certain things with law, certain things with standards and certification, but behind that there needs to be an appropriate ethical framework. Most of our frameworks are based on what Martin called, at the very beginning, respect for the individual. But what we’re beginning to learn is that the individual, at least as they interact with the world, is not a kind of fixed entity. It’s not an anchor point for ethical reflection. So if I give you voice and if I give you respect, am I doing it for you right now or the you that you will become when you interact with these systems? And if it is the latter, how do we take account of the fact that the way the systems operate changes the way people use them, changes the way people understand them? Now, as an economist, I believe that this richness of perspectives is not something that we can resolve or standardize, but is instead a source of resilient interaction that helps us to understand the kinds of things that we see. So in that respect, I’ll close at this point simply by saying that I think that we need to work on the ethical dimension to understand whether concepts like privacy still serve us as useful principles or need to be modified, particularly in light of the fact that we now have different understanding of how our individual and collective psychology is affected by interacting with devices, which at the one time are mechanical devices, but at the same time are AI-empowered entities with whom we form relationships, who change our behavior, our understanding, and the things that we pay attention to.

Maarten Botterman:
Thank you so much, Jonathan, for sharing your insights on this journey. Basically, it’s also amazing how quickly our insights and what good practice should be like is evolving. And then we know the next step is to implement it in society. But also walking around in this IGF, I heard a lot of things I thought are really, truly getting us to next levels of understanding of how to deal with systems. For the sake of time, I first would like to ask Avri, is there any questions online?

Avri Doria:
No, there haven’t been any questions online unless one just came in. But, so please, if anybody wants to put one in the chat or the QA, I can read it. And please be short, because we only have 15 minutes left because we put so much content in the first part. But if anybody puts anything in chat, I’ll read it.

Maarten Botterman:
Okay, the content was based on interactions in several regional events. So in that way, the voice of people has been heard and reflected. But we look forward to the voices here in the room. Barry, please, please introduce yourself.

Barry Lieber:
Yes, this is Barry Lieber. I’ve been working on some Internet of Things related stuff for almost 25 years now, from before we called it Internet of Things. And so I’ve got a lot of thoughts on it. I’ll try to condense it to two points that I wanna make. We talk about security, and I don’t like using that term as a buzzword. It’s much more complex. And I think we need to think about it broken down into different aspects, authentication, authorization, confidentiality, data integrity, all those sorts of things. Because putting that all together makes a much more complicated picture, especially when we go to the second point I wanna make, that when we talk about turning on lights with our voice or even something that’s more dear to me as I age of the example you gave of Martin, of monitoring my blood pressure or my heart rhythm or something like that, it’s still just something we’ve been able to do for a long, long time. But now it communicates over the Internet. To me, that’s not the Internet of Things in its full potential. What I think of as Internet of Things is different sources all working together. My car and my house and my calendar, and my calendar resets my alarm clock and makes coffee earlier and tells my car where to go in the morning and that kind of stuff. And that really makes the security, all those different aspects of it, very complicated to put together. And as we think about making a secure Internet of Things and a private and a confidential and whatever Internet of Things, we really need to think about the real robust scenarios and the complexity that that puts into it of how to secure all these different pieces and make sure that the data doesn’t leak and all of that sort of thing.

Maarten Botterman:
Thank you very much, Barry. Hiroshi, please.

Hiroshi Esaki:
Yes, I think the core part of the Internet on the end should be the same, end to end. I mean, the end to end means protect yourself first by yourself, community second. The last one is public health. So the core part of the Internet, try to making a secure, good operation as a backbone network, then end station must have their own protection first. Then that is a really, really good thing for we need a traceability or interoperability. The meaning of interoperability is user must have such a capability, that education or capacity building or literacy building up. Then one of the action we are doing in Japan is the providing traceability to user, not all. But people can have a traceability function, then how many person are gonna use? That really depends on the technology usable and how we deploy or how to advocate these technologies. Then, again, end to end is very powerful, the scalability. So that’s the way we should do.

Maarten Botterman:
Loud, please.

Wout de Natris:
Thank you, Barry, for the question. I think it shows how complex our life is going to be. It’s gonna be much worse than this probably not too long from now. But the question is where do we put the accountability basically or the responsibility? And despite that the end user has a role to play here, we can be 100% certain that 99% of the people won’t even know how to protect themselves because they think this device works. My car drives and that 170 machines just like E.T. phone home in that car the whole time. You have no clue that it’s happening except when you get a very strange message all of a sudden in your car saying, what do I have to do? But that shows what happens today and it’s all about the companies gathering the data. And because of that it’s insecure because otherwise it’s probably harder to get the data for them. But we have to work or as a society we have to work a way around that somehow because otherwise we’ll probably lost forever where from a privacy point of view but also from the attack factor point of view because that is the other side, the dark side can abuse this 24 seven hours a day. Sorry, 24 seven, you know what I mean. So I think that that is why it’s so important to make sure that standards are installed at the outset and otherwise it will probably never happen and we have to start working to make that happen. Thanks.

Maarten Botterman:
Thanks for that very much. Mark, please.

Mark Carvell:
Thank you, Martin. Mark Carvell, I’m a member of Eurodig which is the European Regional Internet Governance Forum. I’m also an advisor to the IS3C coalition on standards, security and safety. So a colleague of Bart DeNatris on the panel. And first of all, thanks very much for a very interesting and wide ranging discussion. A couple of points sprang to mind. And first of all, a quick question to Dan about labeling schemes and harmonization. Where does he think the best platform is for developing harmonization given that people are gonna be traveling around the world with devices and they need to be able to understand a coherent universal labeling scheme. So where is the platform best placed for that? I did bump into somebody from the FCC on Sunday, I think it was. So there is, and I noted what Dan said about FCC involvement in the US public-private partnership. So maybe if I’d known about this, I would have asked him, perhaps if the FCC had some thinking about this and maybe that’s one of the reasons why he’s here, that particular person. So that was a first point. Now, procurement about described as a driver. But I mean, we’ve heard about consumer IoT and industrial IoT. And speaking as a former UK government official, I just wonder where we are in terms of IoT applications in public administrations generally. How can these applications be developed to meet in particular government concerns about security given that this could be a revolution in the interface between governments and citizens? So are you as a dynamic coalition looking at that particular aspect and talking to governments know what they need assurance about in terms of IoT applications? Thirdly, on Jonathan’s point about innovation, I was at an interesting session about ethical development of technologies, ethical innovation yesterday evening. Martin, you were there as well, I think. And the point I made there was that you can strive to innovate ethically, but of course, what direction does IoT, for example, take? It’s very difficult to predict, the unforeseen consequences and applications may be positive, may be negative. So how are IoT developers really approaching ethics in a way that’s going to ensure that these systems and networks are going to be developed with a degree of confidence given the unpredictability factor? Final point, as I said, I’m a member of EUDIG. So EUDIG has a call for issues. I really urge the dynamic coalition to consider using the EUDIG platform forum next June in Vilnius as an opportunity to advocate the work, the valuable work you’re doing. So the call for issues is out now. Okay, thank you. I’ll stop there.

Maarten Botterman:
Thank you very much. For sure, like any dynamic coalition, I think we also think in different messages to different stakeholder groups of their specific role. So that’s a key element. Dan, just checking, I realize it’s a different part of their view, but can you come back on the question from Mark and maybe also the remark from Jonathan in the chat? Okay.

Dan Caprio:
Am I unmuted?

Maarten Botterman:
You are.

Dan Caprio:
Yeah, yes. Yes. In terms of the US consumer label, it’s early days. The FCC just put their notice out back in August. So in the US, this is not gonna take effect until the end of next year at the earliest. And so I’m happy to get back with you with more specific information. There is some discussion in the rule that the FCC put out about international harmonization and also working hand in hand with the White House and with the State Department. But I would imagine that I’m glad you asked the question that this is something that IGF can take a very active role in, because this is something, I mean, with the Internet of Things, something that we’ve all been working on for a very, very long time. So I’d like to see IGF and the regional IGFs, I mean, sort of begin to take this issue up. But in terms of what’s the exact platform or how do you do all this? I mean, that’s to be determined.

Maarten Botterman:
Yes, thank you for that. Any last questions in the Zoom room? Okay.

Jonathan Cave:
In the interim, could I make a very small brief response?

Maarten Botterman:
And then we have the last question in the room and then time is flying.

Jonathan Cave:
It’s very quick on the issue of the ethical reflection, ethical consideration and control of these IoT devices. This is something, and in particular, there are consequences once unleashed. This is a particular concern of many organizations. At the Turing Institute, I’m part of a group called T-REX, Turing Research Ethics, that scrutinizes the Turing Institute’s projects for their ethical considerations. Part of this is, of course, making people think about what will happen when these things are turned up. In some cases, you can do this with things like behavioral or psychological or sociological analysis. You can control it and help to make it more predictable with legal mechanisms. But in general, the answer is usually to keep the conversation open, not to tick the ethical box at the beginning of the project and then turn it over to the lawyers to manage the liability, but to keep the information flying because the problems that we’re thinking about are emergent problems. No single party can possibly perceive them, nor can they be analyzed by considering just one layer of this internet. So really, the only thing to do is attention must be paid and continue to be paid. So I just wanted to make that small remark.

Maarten Botterman:
Very clear point. Can I invite you to introduce yourself?

Elaine Liu:
Thank you. Good morning, everyone. My name is Elaine Liu. I’m from Singapore. I came to this IGF as an individual learner, not related to work, so I took time off. So relating to the IoT, I personally feel three points I’d like to share and seek your guidance. First is IoT to me is like an edge devices, data collection devices. It’s all about collecting certain data. It can be text, images, and all. I feel that in setting up policies or guardrails, it all depends on the use cases, right? We talk about IoT that’s for consumer, IoT that’s led to organization, IoT that’s a higher level for agency or certain operational resilience, situational awareness, and all. So I think does it make sense to have different policy and guardrails depending on the use cases? So that’s the first point. The second point is we all know that with hardware, there’s software, there’s operating system, and at the end of the day, the data analytics that comes out of it. So I think in setting up any guiding principle, we will look at the whole value chain because looking at just the edge or the IoT part, it’s just the beginning of it or the starting point. But how it’s being consumed and distributed, that’s related as well. So I think that’s the two points I’d like to share.

Maarten Botterman:
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for your observations. Indeed, as it is time, I will round off if that’s okay.

Hiroshi Esaki:
Very quickly regarding the use case, regarding the IoT device or any single devices, right now we have multiple use. Future use is gonna come out. So even though you have a single device, that have the original usage first, that’s gonna be used to the other purposes. So we have to think about that. That is the use of the devices gonna happen every day. That’s we experience in the internet.

Maarten Botterman:
Yes, thank you. And just to, at this point to say, indeed we do, we are very conscious that it’s data, that it’s about, that there’s different applications. I think everything we say is about also the use of IoT in context, whether it’s device or a combination of devices or a service or ecosystem, all with different requirements, all with different returns, different risks. And one of the key things that has become more and more visible and is high in the interest also in Singapore, I’m aware, is labeling, informing people about what the risks are they’re dealing with, with the stuff they’re confronted with. All the information is to be found also on the DC IoT site. I invite you all to also participate to subscribe to the list from the Dynamic Coalition on IoT, where we will release main news, where you can also raise questions or issues, if that’s what you like. And we’re also very happy with the support of Medianstat that allows us to have supports, a specific website where we can also have discussions, where we can also share some of the presentations we have. And all the reports are available through that as well. This is an iterative process, so much is clear. The space of change is fast and we’re on it because we’re aware we need it and we want it to serve us in a way that it serves us more as a benefit than as a threat. But in the end, it’s all risk management as well. So thank you all for your interest and the speakers for your contributions. I hope to see you in the future, either in a regional event or next year in Riyadh, right? So thank you all very much. This meeting is closed. Thank you.