Uncategorized

Summary

This IGF workshop focused on ethical networking, sustainability, and accountability in computer science and mathematics, bringing together academics, researchers, and activists from various backgrounds. The discussion centered on how to ensure that mathematics and computer networking practices align with ethical principles including privacy, transparency, and accountability. Participants emphasized that ethical considerations cannot be treated as optional add-ons but must be fundamentally embedded throughout the development process from the beginning.

A key theme emerged around the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and diverse perspectives. Speakers stressed that engineers and mathematicians working in isolation cannot foresee all implications of their work, making it essential to include social scientists, ethicists, and affected communities in the development process. The discussion highlighted how narratives around hyperperformance and optimization in computer networks often go unquestioned, potentially misaligning with ethical principles that require time for thoughtful consideration.

Participants addressed the challenges of emerging technologies like AI and IoT, emphasizing that positive impacts are subjective and vary across cultures and regions. Alexander Isavnin provided insights from Russia, illustrating how technologies claimed to be ethical can actually serve surveillance purposes. The conversation revealed tensions between technological advancement and genuine ethical implementation, particularly in less democratic contexts.

The role of the IGF was discussed as a crucial convening platform that breaks down silos between technical and non-technical experts, enabling essential dialogue across diverse stakeholders. However, participants noted that assembling the right people is only half the challenge – translating awareness into action remains difficult. The workshop concluded with emphasis on continuous oversight and the need for humans to actively participate in ensuring technology serves positive purposes rather than assuming technology alone can solve ethical challenges.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Embedding Ethics in Technology Development**: The need to integrate ethical considerations from the ground up rather than as an afterthought, with emphasis on moving beyond traditional narratives of optimization and performance to include responsibility, sustainability, and human impact in computer networking and mathematics.

– **Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Perspective**: The critical importance of breaking down silos between technical and non-technical experts, bringing together diverse stakeholders including computer scientists, mathematicians, social scientists, and affected communities to ensure comprehensive understanding of technological impacts.

– **Cultural and Regional Differences in Ethics**: Recognition that ethical standards and definitions of “positive impact” vary significantly across different cultures, regions, and political systems, with particular attention to how authoritarian governments can abuse technology for surveillance and control.

– **Role of IGF as a Convening Platform**: Discussion of how the Internet Governance Forum serves as a crucial space for connecting diverse global stakeholders, facilitating dialogue between different perspectives, and translating awareness into actionable governance frameworks.

– **Human-Centered Network Evaluation**: The challenge of assessing networks as socio-technical systems where human and technical components interact, emphasizing the need for continuous oversight, citizen participation, and understanding of failure modes at human-machine interfaces.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how ethical principles can be integrated into computer networking, mathematics, and emerging technologies, while examining the role of international governance forums in promoting sustainable and responsible internet development. The workshop sought to bridge technical expertise with ethical considerations and cultural perspectives from different regions.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and academic tone throughout, characterized by thoughtful analysis and mutual respect among participants. While the conversation remained constructive, there was an underlying sense of urgency about the need for ethical oversight of rapidly advancing technologies. The tone became slightly more pointed when discussing regional differences, particularly regarding authoritarian uses of technology, but returned to a collegial atmosphere focused on finding practical solutions through international cooperation and interdisciplinary dialogue.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Alexander Isavnin** – Member of the Council of the Russian Pirate Party, mathematician by education

– **Sara Hjalmarsson** – Vice chair of the European Pirate Party, workshop moderator

– **Audience** – Online participant reading questions from chat

– **Dennis Mueller** – Research associate at the University of Cambridge and University of Cologne, co-founder of the Ethics and Mathematics Project, works on mathematics education for sustainable development and extreme technological risks related to AI and the Internet

– **Marc Bruyere** – Researcher at Airbus (10 years), has Ph.D., works on ethical implications of research and innovation

– **Keith Goldstein** – Chair of Pirate Parties International, involved in drafting research project on computer networking ethics

– **MODERATOR** – Technical moderator handling audio/video issues

– **Maurice Chiodo** – Research associate at the Center for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge, principal investigator and co-founder of the Ethics and Mathematics Project, research mathematician specializing in computability theory and abstract algebra, ethics and safety consultant in AI and blockchain technologies

– **Daphne Tuncer** – Academic researcher in computer science and computer networks, affiliated with Institut Polytechnique de Paris in France, works on responsibility in digital development

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# IGF Workshop Report: Ethical Networking, Sustainability, and Accountability in Computer Science and Mathematics

## Executive Summary

This Internet Governance Forum (IGF) workshop examined the intersection of ethics, sustainability, and accountability in computer networking and mathematics. Co-moderated by Sara Hjalmarsson (Vice Chair of the European Pirate Party) and Keith Goldstein (Chair of Pirate Parties International), the session brought together academics, researchers, and activists to address three key questions: how mathematics and computer networking can align with ethical principles, how emerging technologies can be ethically developed, and what role IGF can play in promoting responsible internet governance.

The discussion featured Maurice Chiodo and Dennis Mueller (co-founders of the Ethics and Mathematics Project at Cambridge University), Daphne Tuncer (Institut Polytechnique de Paris), Marc Bruyere (industry researcher), and Alexander Isavnin (Russian Pirate Party, mathematician). Participants emphasized that ethical considerations must be embedded throughout technology development rather than added as afterthoughts, and highlighted the critical need for interdisciplinary collaboration across technical and social domains.

## Workshop Structure and Key Questions

The workshop was organized around three main questions that structured the discussion:

1. **How can mathematics and computer networking align with ethical principles?**

2. **How can emerging technologies be ethically developed?**

3. **What role can IGF play in promoting responsible internet governance?**

The format included both on-site and remote participants, with audience questions addressed at the end of the session.

## Question 1: Aligning Mathematics and Networking with Ethical Principles

### Historical Context and Current Challenges

Alexander Isavnin provided crucial historical perspective, noting that “at the beginning of the internet, there was no privacy considerations or security considerations because scientists have created internet for their own needs. They thought that only such good guys with scientific approaches will exist on the internet. But actually, a lot happens since that. A lot of people came here, evil people, bad people, governments, corporations, and so on.”

This observation established why current ethical challenges exist and influenced the discussion about moving from reactive to proactive ethical frameworks.

### Technical Decisions with Ethical Implications

Marc Bruyere offered a concrete example of how technical design choices have real-world consequences. He explained how IPv4’s design, placing source addresses before destination addresses, forces routers to wait for the destination field, resulting in significant energy consumption over time. IPv6 corrected this by putting destination first, demonstrating how seemingly minor technical decisions can have massive environmental implications.

### Embedding Ethics from the Start

Dennis Mueller argued that “ethics is not an optional extra or a bolt-on. It’s something that we must fundamentally embed within everything we do… principles like safety and sustainability cannot be bolted on at the end of a project, especially with decentralised technologies such as the internet, where retrospective fixes can be very difficult or even impossible.”

## Question 2: Ethical Development of Emerging Technologies

### The Imperative of Interdisciplinary Collaboration

Maurice Chiodo emphasized that “from an engineer’s viewpoint, there are three key aspects to ethical development here. Perspective, perspective, and perspective… We work deep within technical systems, but technologies like AI, in the internet of things, are fundamentally human endeavours.”

He outlined a framework focusing on three areas requiring scrutiny: ethical vision, tool integrity, and process robustness. This emphasis on multiple perspectives became a central theme throughout the discussion.

### Challenging Performance-Oriented Paradigms

Daphne Tuncer contributed a critical perspective on narratives driving technology development, particularly questioning assumptions around hyperperformance and optimization. She challenged the notion that “fast is good,” arguing that ethical principles require time for thoughtful consideration and may conflict with speed-oriented development paradigms.

Tuncer also emphasized the importance of working with social scientists and learning survey and consultation methods to better understand diverse perspectives and impacts.

### Cultural and Regional Considerations

The discussion revealed tensions around implementing ethical frameworks across different political contexts. Alexander Isavnin illustrated how technologies claimed to be ethical can serve surveillance purposes under authoritarian governments, emphasizing that “you are your own insurance” and stressing individual responsibility for oversight.

Daphne Tuncer challenged assumptions about universal ethical standards by questioning “positive for who and relative to what?… what one might consider as being positive might be well perceived as negative by another.” This insight highlighted that ethical frameworks must account for diverse cultural perspectives rather than imposing universal standards.

## Question 3: IGF’s Role in Promoting Responsible Internet Governance

### Platform for Diverse Stakeholder Engagement

All speakers recognized IGF’s unique role as a convener bringing together diverse global perspectives. Maurice Chiodo noted that IGF “serves as convener breaking down silos between technical and non-technical experts,” while Daphne Tuncer emphasized it “provides platform for worldwide audience to confront diverse perspectives.”

Keith Goldstein, drawing from his experience with Pirate Parties International, highlighted how IGF enables dialogue across different regional approaches to digital rights and internet governance.

### Bridging Technical and Governance Communities

Marc Bruyere noted IGF’s potential role in bridging gaps between internet governance discussions and traditional standards organizations like IETF and W3C, though he acknowledged this relationship requires strengthening.

Dennis Mueller emphasized that “IGF stakeholders must act as ambassadors spreading integrated perspective to their fields,” suggesting the forum’s impact depends on participants carrying insights back to their respective communities.

### Expanding Engagement Beyond IGF

Alexander Isavnin advocated for broader interaction with UN and intergovernmental organizations beyond just IGF, arguing for more comprehensive engagement with global governance structures.

## Collaborative Research and Future Directions

The workshop revealed ongoing collaboration between several participants. Keith Goldstein, Marc Bruyere, and Daphne Tuncer have been working together on a research project, including developing a questionnaire to study how humans learn new networking methods. This collaborative approach exemplifies the interdisciplinary cooperation the workshop advocated.

Maurice Chiodo and Dennis Mueller, as co-founders of the Ethics and Mathematics Project, brought complementary perspectives on integrating ethical considerations into mathematical and technical education.

## Areas of Agreement and Different Emphases

### Broad Agreement

Participants generally agreed on the necessity of interdisciplinary collaboration and the need to embed ethical considerations throughout technology development. There was broad acknowledgment of IGF’s valuable role as a platform for diverse stakeholder engagement.

### Different Emphases

While agreeing on core principles, speakers emphasized different approaches to implementation. Alexander Isavnin focused on individual responsibility and oversight, particularly in contexts where institutional safeguards may be compromised. Maurice Chiodo and Dennis Mueller emphasized developers’ and engineers’ responsibility to integrate diverse perspectives and build safety into systems from the start.

Speakers also brought different perspectives on technology’s role in addressing societal inequalities, with varying emphasis on the potential for technological solutions versus the need for constant oversight to prevent abuse.

## Human-Centered Network Evaluation

The discussion addressed challenges in evaluating networks as socio-technical systems. Maurice Chiodo argued that “humans and technical components cannot be assessed in isolation, their value and risks emerge from their interaction.”

This systems thinking approach moved beyond simple human versus technical distinctions to understanding complex interactions. Marc Bruyere contributed insights about fundamental differences between quantitative and qualitative evaluation spaces, while Dennis Mueller emphasized that human components have different motivations and characteristics than technical components.

## Unresolved Challenges

Several critical challenges require further attention:

– Practically democratizing ethical networking to ensure meaningful citizen oversight

– Bridging global north and south dynamics in ethical technology development

– Translating IGF insights into concrete action beyond the forum

– Balancing different cultural definitions of positive technological impacts

– Developing practical evaluation tools for human components in network systems

– Ensuring adequate time and resources for ethical considerations in fast-paced development environments

## Conclusions and Next Steps

The workshop demonstrated broad agreement on the need for ethical approaches to networking and technology development, while revealing significant implementation challenges. Participants committed to continuing collaboration through future research and publications, with plans to make interdisciplinary discussions routine practice.

The conversation reinforced that technology development is fundamentally a human endeavor requiring diverse perspectives, cultural sensitivity, and continuous ethical oversight. As Dennis Mueller noted, the goal is not to slow technological progress but to ensure it serves positive purposes through thoughtful, inclusive, and ethically-grounded approaches.

The workshop concluded with recognition that while IGF provides a crucial platform for these discussions, the real challenge lies in translating awareness into concrete changes within technical communities and organizations. Participants emphasized both individual responsibility and institutional change as necessary components of ethical technology development.

MODERATOR: ♪♪ ♪♪

Keith Goldstein: Okay, thank you everybody for coming. It’s a pleasure to see you all. This is the IGF workshop on ethical networking, sustainability and accountability. Rather than introduce everyone, I’ll turn over to my colleague Sara over here to ask our first question.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Thanks, Keith. First of all, my name’s Sara. I’m the vice chair of the European Pirate Party. We have a booth here if you’re on site, so if you like what we’re talking about, please feel free to stop by. I’d like to start by letting our speakers introduce themselves first before we start with question one. So I’d like to hand over to Daphne. Do we have Daphne with us? Welcome, Daphne. Please introduce yourself and tell us a bit about what you do. Tell me something about yourself, your project, and how it relates to ethical networking.

Daphne Tuncer: Hello?

Sara Hjalmarsson: Yeah, now we can hear you.

MODERATOR: Sorry, sorry. I couldn’t turn on my mic. Sorry about that.

Sara Hjalmarsson: That’s okay. It happens sometimes. Go for it.

Daphne Tuncer: Yeah. Hi, hi, everyone. Sorry, let me turn on the video as well. It should be working now. Yeah, great. So hi, everyone. Thanks a lot for joining this session. So my name is Daphne Tuncher. I’m academic. My research is in the domain of computer science, more specifically computer networks. I’m affiliated with Institut Polytechnique de Paris in France. So over the years, I’ve been trying to work on putting together kind of actionable resources, both for research and education on what I call responsibility in our digital development. So thank you.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Okay, wow. That’s a big responsibility. All right. Thank you, Daphne. Daphne. Next. Next, we have Marc Brouillere. Marc, are you with us?

Marc Bruyere: Yes. Can you hear me and see me? Yes. Yes. Loud and clear. Loud and clear. Okay, quickly. Actually, I did a Ph.D. when I was 40, like 10 years ago, coming from a long path from an industry and so on. And when you’re actually starting to do research and you know what implication it is in research, you are actually influencing things and innovating stuff and so on. And it always questioned me how to do this without hurting society with an ethical way. Then that’s what we, I was definitely had a very first conversation about it. And I’m actually working for a large company back for 10 years in research for Airbus, was everything do count in the choice you do. And it’s very valuable that we are actually all thinking

Sara Hjalmarsson: of the impact of the choices we do. And I really appreciate we are this time together. Oh, wow. So you’ve had a lot of insight to share there. Looking forward to it. Next, we have Keith. Sorry. Next, we have Maurice. Maurice, are you with us? Yes. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yep. Loud and clear. Loud and clear.

Maurice Chiodo: Excellent. Thank you. It’s a pleasure to be able to speak here today. So my name is Maurice Kioda, and I’m a research associate at the Center for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge. I’m also the principal investigator and co-founder of the Ethics and Mathematics Project. So a research mathematician by training, I specialized in computability theory and abstract algebra. My work now looks at the ethical challenges and risks posed by mathematics, mathematicians, and mathematically-powered technologies. I’ve been working on this for over nine years and have insights and industry experience as an ethics and safety consultant in AI and blockchain technologies.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Oh, wow. You’ve done a bit of everything. Thank you, Maurice. Thank you, Maurice. Dennis. Dennis Mullow. Dennis, are you with us?

Dennis Mueller: Yep, I’m here. Thank you very much. It’s an honor to be here. I’m also a co-founder of the Ethics and Mathematics Project. I’m currently a research associate at the University of Cologne, where I work on mathematics education for sustainable development. And I work with Maurice at the Center for the Study of Existential Risk, where I study extreme technological risks related to AI and the Internet. Overall, my work sort of connects to ethics, education, mathematics, and I’m particularly interested in studying how mathematics and mathematically-powered technologies are shaping our world.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Okay, wow. All right, very good. Great to have you with us. Next, we have Alexander Isavnin. Alexander, are you with us?

Alexander Isavnin: Yeah, for sure. Hello, I’m Alexander Isavnin. I’m a member of the Council of the Russian Pirate Party, where we live in very difficult countries, and our party and citizens of our country constantly need to face ethical and sustainability challenges. I’m also a mathematician by education, but have no relations to ethics and mathematics projects.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Thanks. Okay, welcome. Next, we have Keith.

Keith Goldstein: And I’ll just introduce myself. I’m Keith Goldstein, chair of Pirate Parties International. I also have been involved with Daphne and Mark here on drafting a research project on computer networking ethics and looking at how humans are able to learn new systems. Okay, thanks. So why don’t we move on to the next question?

Sara Hjalmarsson: So let’s start with the first question there. We’re sharing a little bit. So how can we ensure that mathematics and computer networking practices align with ethical principles, including privacy, transparency, and accountability?

Keith Goldstein: So Daphne, would you like to start?

Daphne Tuncer: Yeah, sure, I’m happy to start. So as I said earlier, I’m a computer scientist. But in the recent year, I started working a lot with people from social science. And through this collaboration, I got to learn a lot about the role of narratives in how this contributes to how we approach and develop new technologies. And if you take computer network research as an example, so a lot of the narratives that we have today have to do with hyperperformance, optimization, measurements. So of course, there’s nothing wrong with that. But my point is that very often, these things are just taken for granted. We never really question these narratives. And so it does subconsciously, us, like researchers in computer networks, influence the way we think. So to me, spending time on talking about these narratives to make them explicit and also having a space to confront them is an essential part and also ingredient to get an alignment between our practices, for example, in computer networks and ethical principles. So I think what is really important is to reserve time for that. So today, and I think this has been driven a lot by all these developments in the computing technologies, we tend to value high speed as something good. So it’s fast, it’s good. But to some extent, I believe this is not really aligned with ethical principle where we require time to think. So I think time is very key here.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Thank you. Next, Maurice. What are your thoughts on this?

Maurice Chiodo: Sorry, thank you. Let me just pull that up. So the question was… Yeah, yeah, no, that’s a fair thing. Right, so ensuring that analytical practices align with core ethical principles, it requires us to address three distinct but ultimately interconnected challenges of the alignment problem. So from the perspective of ethics and mathematics, we must first define what we want to achieve. Second, we must determine how to achieve these outcomes by developing the right mathematical tools, technologies, and practices. This involves examination of the methods we use. For instance, the commitment to privacy requires not just policy, but the implementation of privacy-preserving mathematics from the ground up. The third, and most crucially, sticks. This is the long-term challenge. To get this right, we must scrutinize three areas simultaneously. As I said, the ethical vision of our outcomes, the integrity of our tools, and the robustness of our processes. Any one of these can undermine the others. For example, an ethical process can still lead to a harmful outcome if the underlying technology is flawed. Therefore, we must move beyond just analyzing intent and design aims. We have to rigorously investigate the technologies and the technologists’ ability to do good or cause harm. We must understand not only what they want to do, but also… Oh, we have a bit of a lag there. We missed the last thing you said, Maurice. Oh, sorry. So I was saying that, therefore, we must move beyond just analyzing intent and design aims. We have to rigorously investigate the technologies and the technologists’ ability to do good or cause harm. And we must understand not only what they want to do, but also what they can do. Okay.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Yeah, that’s a big point. Let’s see. We have Alexander. You have a slightly different cultural environment. What’s your perspective?

Alexander Isavnin: Let me give perspective, not just from my cultural environment, but from my experience. We all know that technology and instrumentation and tools are being developed much faster than regulations or even spelling norms of what’s going on. At the beginning of the internet, there was no privacy considerations or security considerations because scientists have created internet for their own needs. They thought that only such good guys with scientific approaches will exist on the internet. But actually, a lot happens since that. A lot of people came here, evil people, bad people, governments, corporations, and so on. So I think that our idea of sustainability and ethical networking should be the most important. It should go towards understanding of what people need, first of all, and only then such formulated needs need to shape technology developments. Back to my cultural background, in Russia, it’s happening always. The state and the state-controlled corporations are developing technologies. They are announcing that technologies are for the good of the people, but lately it appears that even network applications are developed for surveillance or control of people’s activities. Thanks.

Sara Hjalmarsson: All right, very good. We’ll actually get into that topic in a moment. In the meantime, we have, sorry, Dennis. What’s your perspective?

Dennis Mueller: I think to truly align our practices with ethical principles, we must understand that ethics is not an optional extra or a bolt-on. It’s something that we must fundamentally embed within everything we do. And so principles like safety and sustainability cannot be bolted on at the end of a project, especially with decentralized technologies such as the internet, where retrospective fixes can be very difficult or even impossible. And I think that achieving this requires a fundamental systemic shift in how we work. We need to communicate, hire, and train with ethics as a core competency. Technical success must sort of be balanced with success from an ethical and sustainability perspective. And this can be quite challenging from my experience and from working with other engineers. And it requires sort of like an adjustment because engineers can be accustomed to viewing their work as sort of like a technological optimization problems. And this perspective demands that technical and non-technical experts and the affected communities of those technologies must find a common language and build a shared understanding of the goals and risk involved. And so ultimately technical expertise and ethical expertise are sort of like two sides of the same coin. And only by fostering a community that sort of like equally values forward-thinking responsibility and backward-looking accountability, we can ensure that this happens.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Okay, very good. Thank you, Dennis. And finally, we have Marc.

Marc Bruyere: I think multi-decisionary groups and thinking is always a benefit. And then that’s something in the discipline of engineering, design, and so on, or does imply choices as well with no ethical thing, ideas and thoughts are actually have placed sometime in industry, even in research and so on. That’s very important. We have also feedback and time to give proper response and ideas, review from other people with other field of research or activities and so on. For a simple story to illustrate this, and I just verify using IPv4 to communicate through Zoom. Think of a teeny details who has very profound impact today. Then the design on that IPv4, they actually place the source address before the destination address. What do you do when you are actually checking where the packet need to go? You expecting the destination, not the source to be first. And this teeny details is actually using a lot of power and electricity every time for very long time, big impact on the consummation of electricity and so on. Because all the routers have to wait, have to wait to the destination field before having the source. Kind of a teeny mistakes, but big impact. Then obviously reviewing and so everyone and all disciplinary things for such things is very difficult. We don’t know, they didn’t know that actually that design they did will remain for that long. And in IPv6, destination come first.

Sara Hjalmarsson: All right, thank you very much. And I think that’s actually a wonderful segue into our next question. So we’ve already… Mark, sorry. Mark has mentioned the technology that we’ve had for quite a while now and how we’ve learned from that and made things more efficient. But we’re also seeing emerging technologies. How can these emerging technologies such as automated language models, an artificial intelligence, the internet of things and so on be ethically developed and deployed to ensure they have positive social, cultural, political, academic, and environmental impacts? Take 10 minutes for that one. So let’s go back to Mark for that one. Well, everyone will have a chance to answer, but we’ll just do it in kind of the opposite order this time. Go ahead, Mark.

Marc Bruyere: It’s a hard practice to have all the view and impact of what we do. But what I actually, when we started to open up ideas and thoughts with Daphne, we did find people are working hard on those questions from the root practice of what we call computer science today, which is the digital world. mathematicians, or both of you, Maurice and Dennis. They put together a lot of questions, a lot of way of asking yourself, it is a good project, and so on so on. That practice needs to be every time for everything, mostly. It was very hard to have the time for this, but it’s necessary. Giving time for this kind of practice is essential, and it does, it has to cover a minimum of different payouts that’s been introduced by their works, and I think we rely on actually kind of future project on their approaches, and it’s very valuable, and that’s why, yes, I let all the people already spend a lot of time thinking of

Sara Hjalmarsson: it. Okay, very good. Thank you, Marc. Do you want, Alexander, you have

Alexander Isavnin: something specific, go ahead. Yeah, you ask a really broad question about impact to very, very difficult fields of human society, but I would like to point two issues. First of all, for technologies, development of technology is something funny, so that’s more than young people who are rushing into technology, into education, into testing something. They don’t think about impact of their activities at all, so that’s why we have script kiddies, we have young hackers, and so on. That’s, I think, the lack of education, overall general education, not technology education. That’s an issue, and I remember myself when I was young, the Internet was a university, and so on. I definitely can confess I did some unethical things which I would not do now, having understanding all this impact. So, first of all, we need to educate young. The second approach, and this is actually a kind of experience from local, from Russia, because officials, corrupted officials, or corporations which have ties to the government, stating nearly the same things, that technology needs to be ethical, technology needs to provide sustainability and be available for everyone. But, in contrary, technology does not develop. For example, in Russia, we do not have 5G cellular networks, because all their frequencies are stockpiled by few companies or militaries under the name of protecting common resource, and so on. So, the development of 5G networks is not possible, not because of sanctions, not because of some retrospective things, but just because somebody tries to keep us sustainable. So, I think that’s two points I would like to bring to the table and maybe discuss later. Thanks.

Sara Hjalmarsson: All right. Thank you very much, Alex. That’s an interesting point. And, of course, we also invite questions from our online participants. Next, we have Maurice. Go ahead, Maurice.

Maurice Chiodo: Thank you very much. So, I’m going to sort of try and give this from an engineer’s viewpoint. So, from an engineer’s viewpoint, there are three key aspects to ethical development here. Perspective, perspective, and perspective. Even the most conscientious engineers cannot ensure positive impacts on their own. We work deep within technical systems, but technologies like AI, in the internet of things, are fundamentally human endeavors. They connect people and the object people use. Therefore, human insights and a range of perspectives must be central throughout the entire development and deployment process, not just as an afterthought. This requires a shift in resources. Ethical development isn’t free. It takes dedicated time and effort to consult with domain experts, conduct impact assessments, and engage with impacted communities. This work must be budgeted for as a core project requirement, not an optional extra. Furthermore, our motivation must be scrutinized. We should focus on applying our skills to solve recognized societal problems, rather than inventing new problems to fit a fancy technological tool. With every step forward, we have to ask a critical question. Who wins and who loses? True ethical networking requires us to see and account for everyone.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Absolutely. So, very good. Thank you, Maurice. And Daphne, what are your thoughts?

Daphne Tuncer: So, I think, kind of, the key word here in this question is positive impacts, because positive for who and relative to what? I mean, everything is subjective and that relates to, I mean, what Alexander, you were saying about the situation in Russia, because what one might consider as being positive might be well perceived as negative by another. And by mean by one can be, of course, a person, but it can be a community, a group of interest, can be a government, etc., etc. So, as the question shows, impact is multidimensional. So, we can’t expect there will be one group of people that will decide what positive impacts are. So, maybe here, I will answer as a researcher, because that’s my community, but I think as a researcher, the very important thing for us now is ready to engage in a practice that goes beyond this kind of mode of organization and silos that we’ve seen for research. So, you are a computer scientist, you are a mathematician, you are a biologist, you are a sociologist, but at the end, what really matters is that we really work together, so that we agree or at least we get some shared value on what positive impacts we are aiming at, but also how we assess these impacts.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Okay, thank you, Daphne. And Dennis, of course, go ahead.

Dennis Mueller: The development of technologies like large language models or the Internet of Things hinges critically on understanding the interconnected nature. So, from an engineer’s perspective or from a management perspective, that means that we cannot compartmentalize ethics within single sub teams, because things will just get overlooked. Nor can we sort of like overlook that sort of like the social, cultural, political and environmental aspects are deeply intertwined. So, we cannot usually address one without affecting the other. And so, that means for developers, there’s sort of a dual responsibility here, building safety into the technical architecture or into the technical system, and also earning the public’s trust. One does not necessarily imply the other in an interconnected world. And we cannot assume that engineers or mathematicians or computer scientists by default understand how to navigate this complexity or how to raise the right questions. They need to be taught this and given the space to think beyond immediate, localized, often monetary incentives. And they need to be taught how to do this in a way that earns trust from society. And once again, this sort of like requires balancing technical expertise and technical incentives with non-technical knowledge and non-technical incentives. In this sense, I can only reiterate what Maurice said. Perspective is really what matters here from my perspective.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Okay, thank you very much. I think we have quite a few overlaps there. I think a common thread is education. Education and integration with our interdisciplinary teams and interdisciplinary working environments. And in that sense, we kind of have this big interdisciplinary environment with the IGF. And that leads us to the next question. What role can the IGF and its stakeholders play in promoting sustainable and responsible internet governance? So let’s start with Daphne this time. Go ahead, Daphne.

Daphne Tuncer: Thanks. Well, I think that raising the IGF is a platform to connect and get the visibility on what’s going on. So as I said earlier, I really think that understanding for who and relative to what technology, a model, a development demonstrates certain qualities is not simple. So to me, the IGF really has the ability to reach out to a very worldwide audience. So it must capitalize on that to provide, I think, a medium through which we can confront our perspective, especially coming from different parts of the world. Because this raises perspectives that we need to embed into sustainable and responsible Internet governance. I don’t think we should get a top-down approach where a small group of people will decide on the definition of these qualities for governance. So I really believe that the IGF has a key role to play in supporting the diversity of background, cultural heritage, point of views that are really necessary to design and build this governance framework.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Okay, thank you, Daphne. Maurice, what’s your perspective? What do you think?

Maurice Chiodo: Thank you. So in my view, the IGF’s most powerful role here is that of a convener. It provides the room and sets the tables for the essential multilevel ethical engagement that sustainable Internet governance requires. This is the space where dialogue is not just possible, but it’s the primary purpose. By its very nature, the IGF assembles a diverse array of stakeholders needed to generate genuine perspective from governments and corporations to academics and activists. As we’ve discussed, perspective is the single most critical ingredient for the ethical development of emerging technologies. An engineer in a lab cannot foresee and understand all the implications of their work, just as a policymaker cannot grasp all the technical nuances. The IGF is a place where these worlds connect. It breaks down the silos between the technical and non-technical experts that often exist in industry and governments, which is crucial for finding and nurturing a common language. In this way, the IGF already acts as the essential first step. It gathers the necessary people and perspectives, creating the foundation upon which responsible governance of a decentralized mathematical technology like the Internet can be built. Okay, thank you.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Thank you, Maurice. Next, Alexander. Go ahead.

Alexander Isavnin: Yes, for sure. But first, I would like to point out that ethics and sustainability might be really different in different parts of the world. So I think these locations where the IGF was conducted have completely different approaches to what is ethical and what is not ethical. And events like Internet Governance Forum allows, first of all, to understand each other. Not to synchronize, but to understand each other’s approaches. So that still Internet Governance Forum not just connects different stakeholders from the same group, but understanding of what’s going on in different regions, different countries, different regions. Overall, IGF allows to connect all positively thinking people who are looking forward for development of the Internet for good. I think not just IGF, maybe some other platforms like World Summit for Information Society, which actually spinned off IGF 20 years ago, still have forums which are more populated by governmental people. So I think we should continue not just in IGF, in our local IGF, in our local communities, but also have broader interaction within United Nations and intergovernmental organizations.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Okay, thank you, Alexander. Dennis, what about you?

Dennis Mueller: This is sort of a follow-up from Maurice’s answer. I think that assembling the right people is only half of the process. The IGF’s next crucial role is to ensure that the insights also radiate outwards. And the IGF is already highly effective at collectively identifying emergent issues. I think what can be done next is sort of like, how do we translate that awareness into action? Because our research on ethics and mathematics has demonstrated that many technical practitioners like mathematicians, computer scientists, network engineers, quite often view their work as separate from ethics, sustainability, and also from policy. So while sort of like many people who are in this room understand that technology and ethics or technology and sustainability are inseparable, the understanding is not very widespread from our experience. And so the primary role that we see here is sort of like for IGF stakeholders to act as ambassadors, championing this integrated perspective and spreading awareness within their respective fields, within their respective companies, and bringing it where are people who are not yet convinced that this is important. Very important point. Thank you.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Thank you, Dennis. And finally, Mark, go ahead.

Marc Bruyere: When we look into the story of IGF and why it is. And so when we talk about internet, that’s not something we initially come up from the ITU. ITU has been, I mean, the very beginning of ITU was it weren’t before United Nations. But in 47, that was the very first chapter out of the Second World War to be United Nations, before UNESCO and so on and so on. ITU is still there and so for standardization, for telecommunication. But come up in the meantime that we all know, internet, very different way of to be governed and coming origin. And so the way to decide the standards are very, very different. And then it is actually winning compared to ITU standards. What we call about RSC, ETF, ERTF, the different things that’s coming up from this community. Very different. Then United Nations created IGF because they realized that something is missing. It went out of ITU. Then IGF is the good place actually to get many, many people in a very different aspect to take over what we call internet today. But it’s not only in the tubes. It’s in the way the protocol has been designed and also the content that’s stored, all different aspects. And the thing that is very, very open and we have this occasion today is very important. It could be, and then the missing part of it is how we can influence a little bit more. And participating a little bit more from the IGF community, interacting with ETF, the design and the department of technological standardizations as it is. There is gateway. People coming a little bit more in IGF from ETF and vice versa. But I think it’s very important as well. And then W3C and all different aspects and so. Then I haven’t been participating much on understanding the relationship between standards and organization like this. But that’s very important. That could be for the future. So having those platforms in place gives us more leverage. Okay. Thank you very much, everyone.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Thank you, Marc and everyone. For the last, we’re doing okay time-wise. So we have time for one more question.

Keith Goldstein: Yeah, we have time for one more question. I’ll take that over as in sort of a question for myself as well. And then we’ll try and get some questions from the audience. So we have just about nine minutes left. And the last question is, how can we evaluate the human component of networks? We’ve talked a lot about the fact that these aren’t just systems. There’s people behind them. What can we do to learn more about how we learn new networks? What practical tools can we use to evaluate computer networking practices? So go back in reverse order maybe with Marc first.

Marc Bruyere: The human part of it is a good question. And we have I have some way of trying to understand this, but it’s social work and so on. The only things I’ve learned recently, and I mean it’s a fact, the quantitative space has nothing to see with the qualitative space. And trying to understand these two different spaces for deciding what quality we want to give some evaluation we do as an engineer to get a better optimization process or performance of whatever system and so on. Finding the right gap to be able to get the quantitative design we want as a good quality as a beginning. We need people or guiders for pushing to the questions and finding the right way of making finite choices.

Keith Goldstein: Really quick, so maybe go off to Daphne next.

Daphne Tuncer: I don’t know if I have much to add to this question. So I think that’s really kind of a typical question, that we need collaboration across disciplines. For us, people working on computer networks, that’s quite important, we understand the human perspective. But we don’t necessarily know or we don’t necessarily have the tools that we can use to actually access to human perception, human feedback on this. So I think that’s where we need to collaborate, for example, with social scientists. We started working with you on that purpose, to learn how we can run surveys, how we can do consultation, how do we analyze the feedback we get through this method.

Keith Goldstein: Okay. Since we’re short on time, Maurice, Denis, Alexander, would any of you like to chime in?

Maurice Chiodo: I’d be happy to at this stage. So I think the more pertinent question really to consider here is how to evaluate the network as a socio-technical system. So humans and technical components cannot be assessed in isolation, their value and risks emerge from their interaction. This becomes evident by looking at socio-technical systems’ potential points of failure. So they must assess the potential for a failure of the technical or AI component, or a failure of the human component, or a failure of the process or workflow they’re meant to follow. Crucially, we must also evaluate the human machine interface itself, as this is the primary site of miscommunication and error. And finally, we must account for failures caused by exogenous circumstances, acknowledging that no system operates in a vacuum. This method ensures a comprehensive socio-technical evaluation. And as you can clearly see, three-fifths of the problems listed above are neither purely human nor purely technical, instead stemming from their interaction.

Keith Goldstein: Great. Denis or Alex?

Alexander Isavnin: I just would like to add shortly that our main task is just not to lose our focus and continue observing developments. So in case we shortly stop paying attention to latest developments, to technological advances, they could and I think will go the wrong way. So just keep an eye and follow and communicate with each other. That’s important. Last thoughts, Denis? So I think the really big first step is to not view human components of a network similar to technical or mathematical components. Our experience of working with mathematicians, engineers, but also with users, is that their actions, their awareness and their motivation are almost equally important when it comes to eventual outcomes. And the failure modes that Maurice outlined are deeply connected to who a human is. So from that perspective, we really need to think about this question, how do we understand who the humans are involved in these networks?

Keith Goldstein: Thanks. And just to chime in myself, that this workshop itself really began as a questionnaire that Mark, Daphne and I self-developed to try and learn about how humans are learning difficult new methods for operating computer networks. And just for our last four or five minutes, I ask Bailey, who’s with us online, to collect some questions from the audience, and maybe she can read them out to us.

Audience: Hello, everybody. So we do have a couple of questions in the chat here. I’ll start with the first question from Henan Zahir. I apologize if I mispronounce anybody’s name. But her question is, how can ethical networking be democratized to ensure meaningful citizen oversight over data-driven public systems?

Keith Goldstein: Would any of you like to quickly, quickly, three minutes and 30 seconds, half that time answer it? No? Alex, did you want to? Go ahead, Dennis.

Dennis Mueller: I think it goes back to what Alex says. We need to sort of like respect the different cultures and different regions of this world have different perspectives on this very question. So in this sense, the IGF should probably try to be even more international. And to really sort of like bring in these different cultures and perspectives. But it’s a hard question.

Alexander Isavnin: And I would like to reply to this question by noting that technology could not ensure you in something. You are your own insurance. You have to communicate. You have to oversight. You have to think about what’s going on with your data and how it’s being driven. So IGF is a good starting venue for discussions like this. But your participation is also really important.

Keith Goldstein: And Bailey, one more question, two minutes. Question and answer.

Audience: Yep. So there’s one more question here from Anna Gretel Ichazu, and she’s asking, I would like to know how do you think of global north and global south dynamics across the issues you are arising?

Alexander Isavnin: Yeah, let me answer this question, because I am from a country which for a long time pretended to be global north, but now it’s pretending to be global south. So Internet and these technologies actually could shorten the gap between what we called West world and the others, or north and south. But you also have to oversight really clearly, because in not very democratic developed countries, especially in countries of so-called global south, technology can easily be abused by the government, which will make gap to the north, economical gap, civilizational, well, not civilizational, societal gaps, democratic gaps much bigger than it exists. So I will repeat my answer to previous questions. Technology could not close gaps. You have to oversight really, really accurately and constantly and not releasing it.

Keith Goldstein: Thanks. Last 40 seconds. Any other ideas? Okay, well, then I will close off this session and thank everybody for coming. It was really interesting. I hope we can make a routine of this and produce some studies that also look into these very difficult questions. And hopefully we’ll have a publication or some other outputs for you all to read soon. So thank you, everybody, for coming. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you all in the audience. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Interdisciplinary collaboration is essential for ethical technology development

Speakers

– Daphne Tuncer
– Maurice Chiodo
– Dennis Mueller
– Marc Bruyere

Arguments

Positive impacts are subjective and require interdisciplinary collaboration beyond silos

Human insights and diverse perspectives must be central throughout development, not afterthoughts

Ethics must be embedded as core competency, not optional extra, requiring systemic shift

Multi-disciplinary groups and feedback processes are essential for ethical decision-making

Summary

All speakers agree that ethical technology development cannot be achieved in isolation and requires breaking down traditional disciplinary silos to incorporate diverse perspectives from technical and non-technical experts throughout the development process.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Time and resources must be dedicated to ethical considerations

Speakers

– Daphne Tuncer
– Maurice Chiodo
– Marc Bruyere

Arguments

Narratives in computer network research influence development and need explicit examination

Human insights and diverse perspectives must be central throughout development, not afterthoughts

Actionable frameworks and time allocation for ethical considerations are necessary

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasize that ethical considerations require dedicated time and resources, cannot be treated as afterthoughts, and must be budgeted as core project requirements rather than optional extras.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

IGF serves as crucial platform for connecting diverse stakeholders

Speakers

– Daphne Tuncer
– Maurice Chiodo
– Alexander Isavnin
– Dennis Mueller
– Marc Bruyere

Arguments

IGF provides platform for worldwide audience to confront diverse perspectives

IGF serves as convener breaking down silos between technical and non-technical experts

IGF enables understanding of different regional approaches to ethics and sustainability

IGF stakeholders must act as ambassadors spreading integrated perspective to their fields

IGF bridges gap between internet governance and traditional standards organizations

Summary

All speakers recognize the IGF’s unique role as a convener that brings together diverse global perspectives and stakeholders, serving as a bridge between different communities and enabling cross-cultural understanding of ethical approaches.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural | Development

Human components cannot be evaluated separately from technical systems

Speakers

– Maurice Chiodo
– Dennis Mueller
– Daphne Tuncer

Arguments

Networks must be evaluated as socio-technical systems considering human-machine interactions

Human components cannot be viewed like technical components due to different motivations

Collaboration with social scientists needed to access human perception and feedback

Summary

Speakers agree that humans and technology form integrated socio-technical systems where the interaction between components is as important as the individual parts, requiring specialized approaches to understand human factors.

Topics

Infrastructure | Sociocultural | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that current educational and systemic approaches are inadequate for addressing ethical technology challenges, requiring fundamental changes in how people are trained and how systems operate.

Speakers

– Alexander Isavnin
– Dennis Mueller

Arguments

Education gaps and government control create barriers to ethical technology development

Ethics must be embedded as core competency, not optional extra, requiring systemic shift

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Both speakers, coming from mathematics and engineering backgrounds, stress that technical expertise alone is insufficient and must be combined with broader human and social considerations from the beginning of development processes.

Speakers

– Maurice Chiodo
– Dennis Mueller

Arguments

Human insights and diverse perspectives must be central throughout development, not afterthoughts

Safety must be built into technical architecture while earning public trust

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Human rights

Both speakers recognize that technology development often outpaces social and regulatory frameworks, requiring more deliberate approaches that prioritize human needs and diverse perspectives in shaping technological directions.

Speakers

– Alexander Isavnin
– Daphne Tuncer

Arguments

Technology develops faster than regulations, requiring people-first approach to shape development

Positive impacts are subjective and require interdisciplinary collaboration beyond silos

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

Critique of current technology development paradigms

Speakers

– Alexander Isavnin
– Daphne Tuncer
– Marc Bruyere

Arguments

Technology develops faster than regulations, requiring people-first approach to shape development

Narratives in computer network research influence development and need explicit examination

Multi-disciplinary groups and feedback processes are essential for ethical decision-making

Explanation

Despite coming from different cultural and professional backgrounds (Russian activist, French academic, industry researcher), these speakers converge on fundamental critiques of how technology is currently developed, all calling for more reflective and human-centered approaches.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Individual responsibility in technology oversight

Speakers

– Alexander Isavnin
– Dennis Mueller

Arguments

Individual participation and oversight are crucial for data protection

Different cultures require respect for varying perspectives on ethical networking

Explanation

Unexpectedly, both the activist from an authoritarian context and the academic researcher emphasize individual agency and responsibility, suggesting that despite systemic challenges, personal engagement remains crucial across different political contexts.

Topics

Human rights | Development | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate remarkable consensus on core principles: the need for interdisciplinary collaboration, the importance of dedicating time and resources to ethical considerations, the IGF’s role as a crucial convening platform, and the necessity of treating technology as socio-technical systems rather than purely technical ones.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with strong implications for the field. The agreement spans across different professional backgrounds (academics, industry, activists) and cultural contexts (European, Russian, French), suggesting these principles represent fundamental requirements for ethical networking rather than culturally specific preferences. This consensus provides a solid foundation for developing actionable frameworks and policies, though implementation challenges remain significant given the systemic changes required.

Different viewpoints

Role of technology in addressing societal gaps and inequalities

Speakers

– Alexander Isavnin
– Dennis Mueller

Arguments

Technology can either bridge or widen gaps between global north and south

Different cultures require respect for varying perspectives on ethical networking

Summary

Alexander emphasizes that technology alone cannot close gaps and requires constant oversight to prevent abuse, particularly citing government misuse in less democratic countries. Dennis focuses more on respecting cultural differences and making IGF more international, without the same emphasis on technology’s potential for abuse.

Topics

Development | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Primary responsibility for ensuring ethical technology development

Speakers

– Alexander Isavnin
– Maurice Chiodo
– Dennis Mueller

Arguments

Individual participation and oversight are crucial for data protection

Human insights and diverse perspectives must be central throughout development, not afterthoughts

Safety must be built into technical architecture while earning public trust

Summary

Alexander places primary responsibility on individuals (‘You are your own insurance’), while Maurice and Dennis emphasize the responsibility of developers and engineers to integrate diverse perspectives and build safety into systems from the start.

Topics

Human rights | Development | Infrastructure

Approach to evaluating human components in networks

Speakers

– Maurice Chiodo
– Marc Bruyere
– Dennis Mueller

Arguments

Networks must be evaluated as socio-technical systems considering human-machine interactions

Quantitative and qualitative spaces require different approaches for system evaluation

Human components cannot be viewed like technical components due to different motivations

Summary

Maurice advocates for comprehensive socio-technical system evaluation with specific failure mode analysis, Marc emphasizes the fundamental difference between quantitative and qualitative evaluation spaces, while Dennis focuses on understanding human identity and characteristics as distinct from technical components.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Speed and efficiency versus ethical consideration in technology development

Speakers

– Daphne Tuncer
– Marc Bruyere

Arguments

Narratives in computer network research influence development and need explicit examination

Multi-disciplinary groups and feedback processes are essential for ethical decision-making

Explanation

While both speakers advocate for more thoughtful technology development, Daphne specifically challenges the narrative that ‘fast is good’ and argues that ethical principles require time for consideration, while Marc focuses on the practical need for feedback processes without questioning the underlying speed-focused paradigm. This represents an unexpected philosophical divide about whether current performance-oriented narratives should be fundamentally questioned.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center around the balance of responsibility between individuals versus institutions for ethical technology development, different approaches to evaluating human-technical system interactions, and varying perspectives on how technology impacts global inequalities.

Disagreement level

The level of disagreement is moderate but significant. While speakers share common goals of ethical technology development and inclusive governance, they have fundamentally different views on implementation strategies and responsibility allocation. These disagreements have important implications as they reflect broader tensions in internet governance between individual agency versus institutional responsibility, technical versus social approaches to evaluation, and optimistic versus cautious views of technology’s role in addressing global inequalities. The disagreements suggest that achieving consensus on practical implementation of ethical networking principles will require substantial dialogue and compromise among different philosophical approaches.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that current educational and systemic approaches are inadequate for addressing ethical technology challenges, requiring fundamental changes in how people are trained and how systems operate.

Speakers

– Alexander Isavnin
– Dennis Mueller

Arguments

Education gaps and government control create barriers to ethical technology development

Ethics must be embedded as core competency, not optional extra, requiring systemic shift

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Both speakers, coming from mathematics and engineering backgrounds, stress that technical expertise alone is insufficient and must be combined with broader human and social considerations from the beginning of development processes.

Speakers

– Maurice Chiodo
– Dennis Mueller

Arguments

Human insights and diverse perspectives must be central throughout development, not afterthoughts

Safety must be built into technical architecture while earning public trust

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Human rights

Both speakers recognize that technology development often outpaces social and regulatory frameworks, requiring more deliberate approaches that prioritize human needs and diverse perspectives in shaping technological directions.

Speakers

– Alexander Isavnin
– Daphne Tuncer

Arguments

Technology develops faster than regulations, requiring people-first approach to shape development

Positive impacts are subjective and require interdisciplinary collaboration beyond silos

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

Ethics must be embedded as a core competency in technology development from the beginning, not added as an afterthought

Interdisciplinary collaboration across computer science, mathematics, social sciences, and affected communities is essential for ethical networking

Technology development outpaces regulation, requiring proactive people-first approaches to shape development

Networks must be evaluated as socio-technical systems considering human-machine interactions, not just technical components

The IGF serves as a crucial convener breaking down silos between technical and non-technical experts globally

Perspective diversity is the most critical ingredient for ethical development of emerging technologies

Different cultures and regions have varying approaches to ethics and sustainability that must be respected and understood

Individual participation and continuous oversight are essential for meaningful citizen control over data-driven systems

Narratives in computer network research (like hyperperformance optimization) subconsciously influence development and need explicit examination

Time allocation for ethical considerations and reflection is necessary but often undervalued in fast-paced technology development

Resolutions and action items

Workshop participants plan to produce studies and publications examining the difficult questions raised during the discussion

IGF stakeholders should act as ambassadors spreading integrated ethics-technology perspectives within their respective fields and companies

Researchers should engage in practices that go beyond organizational silos to work collaboratively across disciplines

The IGF should continue facilitating connections between internet governance and traditional standards organizations like IETF and W3C

Participants committed to making this type of workshop a routine practice for ongoing dialogue

Unresolved issues

How to practically democratize ethical networking to ensure meaningful citizen oversight over data-driven public systems

How to bridge the gap between global north and global south dynamics in ethical technology development

How to effectively translate IGF insights and awareness into concrete action beyond the forum

How to balance different cultural definitions of what constitutes ‘positive impacts’ in technology development

How to create practical evaluation tools for assessing human components in network systems

How to ensure adequate time and resources are allocated for ethical considerations in fast-paced development environments

How to prevent technology from widening gaps between different regions while promoting democratic oversight

Suggested compromises

Balancing technical expertise with ethical expertise as ‘two sides of the same coin’ rather than competing priorities

Using the IGF as a platform for confronting diverse perspectives rather than imposing top-down definitions of ethical governance

Focusing on understanding different regional approaches to ethics rather than trying to synchronize them globally

Integrating both quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods to bridge engineering and social science approaches

Combining technical safety architecture with public trust-building as dual responsibilities for developers

At the beginning of the internet, there was no privacy considerations or security considerations because scientists have created internet for their own needs. They thought that only such good guys with scientific approaches will exist on the internet. But actually, a lot happens since that. A lot of people came here, evil people, bad people, governments, corporations, and so on.

Speaker

Alexander Isavnin

Reason

This comment provides a crucial historical perspective that reframes the entire discussion about ethical networking. It highlights the fundamental disconnect between original design assumptions and current reality, showing how technological development often outpaces ethical considerations and regulatory frameworks.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from theoretical ethical principles to concrete historical lessons, establishing a foundation for understanding why current ethical challenges exist. It influenced subsequent speakers to consider the gap between technological development and governance, and reinforced the theme that emerged throughout the discussion about the need for proactive rather than reactive ethical frameworks.

Think of a teeny details who has very profound impact today. Then the design on that IPv4, they actually place the source address before the destination address… this teeny details is actually using a lot of power and electricity every time for very long time, big impact on the consummation of electricity… Because all the routers have to wait, have to wait to the destination field before having the source.

Speaker

Marc Bruyere

Reason

This technical example brilliantly illustrates how seemingly minor design decisions can have massive, unforeseen consequences at scale. It demonstrates the interconnection between technical choices and environmental sustainability in a concrete, understandable way.

Impact

This comment provided a perfect segue into the next question about emerging technologies and became a touchstone for the discussion. It grounded abstract ethical principles in tangible consequences, showing other participants how technical decisions have real-world impacts. Sara even noted it was ‘a wonderful segue,’ indicating how it shaped the conversation’s flow.

From an engineer’s viewpoint, there are three key aspects to ethical development here. Perspective, perspective, and perspective… We work deep within technical systems, but technologies like AI, in the internet of things, are fundamentally human endeavors.

Speaker

Maurice Chiodo

Reason

This comment cuts through complexity to identify the single most critical element for ethical technology development. The repetition of ‘perspective’ emphasizes its paramount importance, while the insight that technologies are ‘fundamentally human endeavors’ reframes technical work as inherently social.

Impact

This became a recurring theme that other speakers referenced and built upon. Dennis explicitly reiterated ‘Perspective is really what matters here from my perspective,’ showing how Maurice’s framing influenced the discussion. It shifted focus from technical solutions to human-centered approaches and established perspective-taking as a core competency for ethical development.

So, I think, kind of, the key word here in this question is positive impacts, because positive for who and relative to what?… what one might consider as being positive might be well perceived as negative by another.

Speaker

Daphne Tuncer

Reason

This comment challenges the fundamental assumption underlying the question about ‘positive impacts’ by exposing the subjectivity inherent in value judgments. It forces recognition that ethical frameworks cannot be universal and must account for diverse perspectives and contexts.

Impact

This observation deepened the analytical level of the discussion by questioning basic assumptions. It reinforced Alexander’s earlier points about cultural differences and influenced the later discussion about the IGF’s role in bringing together diverse global perspectives. It moved the conversation from seeking universal solutions to acknowledging the need for inclusive, multi-perspective approaches.

Ethics is not an optional extra or a bolt-on. It’s something that we must fundamentally embed within everything we do… principles like safety and sustainability cannot be bolted on at the end of a project, especially with decentralized technologies such as the internet, where retrospective fixes can be very difficult or even impossible.

Speaker

Dennis Mueller

Reason

This comment challenges the common industry practice of treating ethics as an afterthought and provides a compelling technical argument for why this approach fails with decentralized systems. It reframes ethics from a compliance issue to a fundamental design requirement.

Impact

This insight influenced the discussion about systemic change and the need for new approaches to technical education and development. It supported the emerging consensus about the need for interdisciplinary collaboration and helped establish the argument for why current approaches to technology development are insufficient for addressing ethical challenges.

The more pertinent question really to consider here is how to evaluate the network as a socio-technical system. So humans and technical components cannot be assessed in isolation, their value and risks emerge from their interaction.

Speaker

Maurice Chiodo

Reason

This comment reframes the final question by rejecting the premise that human and technical components can be evaluated separately. It introduces the concept of emergent properties from human-technology interaction, which is a sophisticated systems thinking approach.

Impact

This reframing elevated the final discussion by moving beyond simple human vs. technical distinctions to a more nuanced understanding of complex systems. It provided a framework that other speakers could build upon and demonstrated how the conversation had evolved from basic ethical principles to sophisticated systems analysis.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing historical context, concrete examples, and sophisticated frameworks that moved the conversation from abstract principles to practical understanding. Alexander’s historical perspective established why ethical challenges exist, while Marc’s IPv4 example grounded abstract concepts in tangible consequences. Maurice’s emphasis on perspective became a central theme that influenced multiple speakers, while Daphne’s questioning of ‘positive impacts’ challenged basic assumptions and deepened analytical thinking. Dennis’s ‘not a bolt-on’ insight reinforced the need for systemic change, and Maurice’s socio-technical systems framing provided sophisticated closure. Together, these comments created a progression from problem identification through concrete examples to sophisticated solutions, while consistently emphasizing the human-centered, culturally-aware, and interdisciplinary nature of ethical technology development. The discussion evolved from individual ethical considerations to systemic understanding of technology as fundamentally social and requiring diverse perspectives for responsible governance.

How can we better integrate interdisciplinary collaboration between computer scientists, mathematicians, social scientists, and other fields to address ethical networking challenges?

Speaker

Daphne Tuncer

Explanation

Daphne emphasized the need to move beyond silos in research and work together across disciplines to agree on shared values and assess impacts, but the specific mechanisms for achieving this integration need further exploration

How can we develop practical tools and methodologies for researchers to conduct surveys, consultations, and analyze human feedback on networking systems?

Speaker

Daphne Tuncer

Explanation

Daphne mentioned that computer network researchers don’t necessarily have the tools to access human perception and feedback, indicating a need for practical methodologies to bridge this gap

How can we better educate young people about the ethical implications of technology development to prevent unethical behavior?

Speaker

Alexander Isavnin

Explanation

Alexander highlighted the lack of general education about technology impact among young developers and hackers, suggesting this as an area requiring further research and development

How can we strengthen the relationship and interaction between IGF and technical standards organizations like IETF, W3C, and others?

Speaker

Marc Bruyere

Explanation

Marc noted that while there are some gateways between IGF and technical standards organizations, this relationship needs to be strengthened to have more influence on technological standardization

How can we translate IGF insights and awareness into concrete action within technical communities and organizations?

Speaker

Dennis Mueller

Explanation

Dennis pointed out that while IGF is effective at identifying issues, the challenge is how to spread this awareness to technical practitioners who often view their work as separate from ethics and sustainability

How can we develop comprehensive evaluation methods for socio-technical systems that account for human-machine interface failures and exogenous circumstances?

Speaker

Maurice Chiodo

Explanation

Maurice outlined the need for evaluation methods that go beyond purely technical or human components to assess the interaction between humans and technical systems, but specific methodologies need development

How can we ensure meaningful citizen oversight over data-driven public systems through democratized ethical networking?

Speaker

Henan Zahir (audience member)

Explanation

This question from the audience addresses the broader challenge of public participation in overseeing technological systems that affect citizens

How do global north and global south dynamics affect the implementation of ethical networking principles?

Speaker

Anna Gretel Ichazu (audience member)

Explanation

This audience question highlights the need to understand how different regional contexts and power dynamics influence the application of ethical networking principles

How can we continue the research project on computer networking ethics and human learning of new systems mentioned by Keith Goldstein?

Speaker

Keith Goldstein

Explanation

Keith mentioned an ongoing research project with Daphne and Marc on computer networking ethics and how humans learn new systems, suggesting this work needs continuation and development

Summary

This open forum discussion focused on “The Ecosystem of Digital Cooperation in Development,” examining how various stakeholders can collaborate to bridge the digital divide and build inclusive digital public infrastructure. The session was organized by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, University of Oslo, and BASIC Internet Foundation, bringing together representatives from government agencies, NGOs, academia, and youth organizations.

The discussion highlighted that 2.6 billion people remain offline globally, creating significant barriers to accessing essential services and deepening inequalities. Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) representative Tale Jordbakke emphasized Norway’s commitment to digital public goods as open, non-commercial solutions that prevent vendor lock-in and promote democratic principles. Franz von Weizäcker from the German Agency for International Cooperation discussed their work with the African Union on harmonizing digital policies across 55 member states, emphasizing digital sovereignty and avoiding technological dependencies.

Catherine Kimambo from the African Child Project in Tanzania stressed the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches and investing in grassroots innovations, particularly highlighting their School Connectivity Project that provides internet access, devices, skills, and content to rural schools. Youth representative Thomas Aarheim shared personal experiences of digital transformation in education, emphasizing how proper digital infrastructure fundamentally shifts learning possibilities.

University of Oslo President Svein Stolen outlined their Global University Academy initiative, which aims to provide education to one million refugees by 2038 through digital and hybrid solutions. Ethiopian representative Meklit Mintesinot described their E-SHE project, which has successfully implemented digital learning policies, infrastructure, and capacity building across 50 public universities, training over 250,000 students and 20,000 instructors.

Key themes throughout the discussion included the need to break down silos, ensure interoperability of systems, support open-source solutions, and move from dialogue to concrete action. Panelists emphasized that digital public infrastructure should be built with inclusion by design rather than as an afterthought, and stressed the importance of local ownership and sustainability of digital solutions. The discussion concluded with calls for bold visions, continued collaboration, and the recognition that digital transformation represents both an opportunity for leapfrogging development challenges and a tool for achieving greater equity and inclusion globally.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital divide and infrastructure challenges**: The discussion highlighted that 2.6 billion people remain offline globally, with this digital exclusion limiting access to essential services and deepening inequalities. Panelists emphasized the need for digital public infrastructure (DPI) as a foundation for public services across health, education, and community access.

– **Digital Public Goods and open-source solutions**: Multiple panelists stressed the importance of open, non-commercial digital solutions that prevent vendor lock-in and promote collaboration. Norway’s role in the Digital Public Goods Alliance and support for solutions like MOSIP and OpenCRVS were highlighted as examples of this approach.

– **Multi-stakeholder partnerships and ecosystem thinking**: The conversation emphasized breaking down silos between government, NGOs, academia, private sector, and civil society. Panelists discussed the need for coordinated efforts rather than isolated initiatives, with examples from Tanzania’s school connectivity projects and Ethiopia’s e-learning system.

– **Youth engagement and capacity building**: The discussion featured strong youth perspectives on digital inclusion, emphasizing the importance of involving young people not just as beneficiaries but as active contributors to solutions. The conversation highlighted how digital access fundamentally changes educational possibilities and opportunities.

– **From dialogue to action**: A recurring theme was the need to move beyond policy discussions to concrete implementation. Panelists called for better data collection, funding for grassroots innovations, and accountability for turning resolutions into real-world results.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to demonstrate how different actors (government agencies, NGOs, academia, and youth organizations) can contribute to building an inclusive digital ecosystem for development. The goal was to highlight practical examples of digital public infrastructure implementation and identify concrete actions for closing the digital divide, particularly focusing on education and community access.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently collaborative and solution-oriented tone throughout. It began with formal introductions but quickly evolved into an engaged, practical conversation focused on real-world examples and actionable solutions. The tone was optimistic yet realistic about challenges, with panelists showing genuine enthusiasm for partnership opportunities. The youth representatives brought particular energy and urgency to the conversation, especially when calling for moving “from dialogue to action,” which added a constructive sense of accountability to the overall discussion.

Speakers

– **Marianne Knarud**: Project leader for the Global University Academy, a consortia of universities and other stakeholders working together to increase access to higher education for refugees, displaced learners and their communities through digital and hybrid solutions. Session moderator.

– **Tale Jordbakke**: Head of section for partnership at the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD)

– **Franz von Weizacker**: Digital policy expert at the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), heading the economic and digital portfolio of the GIZ Office of the African Union, based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

– **Catherine Kimambo**: Founder and executive director of the youth-led NGO African Child Project in Tanzania, focusing on digital public infrastructure in education and inclusion

– **Thomas Aarheim**: Representative of Youth Coalition on Internet Governance

– **Svein Stolen**: President of the University of Oslo

– **Meklit Mintesinot**: Head of the E-SHE (E-Learning for Strengthening Higher Education) project at the Ministry of Education in Ethiopia, joining online

– **Audience**: Multiple audience members asking questions, including Pons Light from the Gambia NRI Focal Point and board member of the Association for Progressive Communication, and Mohamed Abdi Ali, executive director from Somali civil society platform Kole Tsonsa based in Somalia

**Additional speakers:**

– **Josef Noll**: From the University of Oslo, mentioned as co-moderator keeping track of online activities, though not directly quoted in the transcript

# The Ecosystem of Digital Cooperation in Development: A Forum Report

## Introduction and Context

This open forum discussion, organised by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, University of Oslo, and BASIC Internet Foundation, brought together stakeholders to examine “The Ecosystem of Digital Cooperation in Development.” The session was moderated by Marianne Knarud, Project Leader for the Global University Academy, with Josef Noll co-moderating and tracking online participation. Representatives from government agencies, NGOs, academia, and youth organisations explored how various actors can collaborate to bridge the digital divide and build inclusive digital public infrastructure.

The discussion opened with the stark reality that 2.6 billion people remain offline globally, creating significant barriers to accessing essential services and deepening inequalities. The forum aimed to move beyond theoretical discussions towards practical solutions for addressing these challenges through collaborative approaches.

## Key Stakeholder Perspectives

### Government and Development Agency Approaches

**Norwegian Development Cooperation**

Tale Jordbakke, Head of Section for Partnership at the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD), outlined Norway’s approach to digital development cooperation. She explained that Norway’s strategy centres on digital public goods as open, non-commercial solutions that prevent vendor lock-in and promote democratic principles. This is operationalised through Norway’s participation in the Digital Public Goods Alliance, where they champion solutions like MOSIP (Modular Open Source Identity Platform) and OpenCRVS (Open Civil Registration and Vital Statistics).

Jordbakke noted that digital transformation offers opportunities to achieve more with fewer resources, particularly important given reduced development funding. She emphasised that the focus should be on normative work, capacity building, and institutional strengthening rather than merely deploying technology, with NORAD positioning itself as a facilitator of multi-stakeholder partnerships.

**German International Cooperation**

Frans Weissecker, Digital Policy Expert at the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), described their work with the African Union on harmonising digital policies across 55 member states. His presentation highlighted the complexity of coordinating digital development across diverse national contexts whilst emphasising digital sovereignty as a core principle.

Weissecker’s approach focuses on helping governments remain independent and avoid technological dependencies through strategic policy development and capacity building at the continental level whilst respecting national sovereignty.

### Civil Society and Youth Perspectives

**Youth-Led NGO Approach**

Catherine Kimambo, Founder and Executive Director of the African Child Project in Tanzania, brought a practical implementation perspective to the discussion. Her organisation focuses on digital public infrastructure in education and inclusion, including their School Connectivity Project that provides internet access to rural schools.

Kimambo highlighted a critical gap in Tanzania and across Africa: “we have good policies on paper, but when it comes to implementation, there’s equally to very few that is implemented from the policies.” She emphasised the need to move from dialogue to action, stating “There’s a lot of dialogue that is happening globally but I’d move more into action. How are we moving from dialogue to action?” She also referenced the Dar es Salaam declaration and advocated for better data collection to verify the impact of digital inclusion initiatives.

**Youth Coalition Perspective**

Thomas Aarheim, representing the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance, provided personal testimony about the transformative potential of digital infrastructure. He shared a vivid memory of showing his grandfather an end-of-year paper that incorporated digital resources: “I very distinctly remember showing my now late grandfather one of my end-of-year papers… he almost didn’t believe it because he was in high school in the 1950s” and had to rely on library research.

This generational perspective illustrated how digital tools fundamentally shift educational possibilities by providing access to real-time information and multimedia resources. Aarheim emphasised the importance of local ownership in technology development and highlighted media literacy as crucial for safe online navigation.

### Academic and Higher Education Contributions

**University Leadership**

Svein Stolen, President of the University of Oslo, outlined their Global University Academy initiative, which aims to contribute to reaching one million refugees before 2038 through digital and hybrid solutions, supporting the UNHCR’s 15 by 30 goal.

Stolen advocated for bold action over perfect planning, suggesting a “cut the crap, just do it” approach and being “less afraid of failure.” He emphasised that universities need to work across sectors to transform knowledge into action and maintain international cooperation despite geopolitical challenges.

**Ethiopian Implementation Experience**

Meklit Mintesinot, Head of the E-SHE (E-Learning for Strengthening Higher Education) project at the Ministry of Education in Ethiopia, provided concrete examples of large-scale implementation. Her project has successfully implemented digital learning across 50 public universities, training over 250,000 students and close to 20,000 instructors.

Due to visa delays, Mintesinot participated virtually and described the evolution of their approach: “Initially, we started this project as a vertical approach when it comes to digital public infrastructure. But currently, we’re evolving horizontally. We’re working with different sectors, with the health sector, with the employment sector.” She highlighted how universities can serve as gateways with better infrastructure to connect schools and communities.

## Areas of Consensus

### Digital Public Goods and Open Source Solutions

Speakers showed strong agreement on the importance of open source solutions and digital public goods as foundations for inclusive digital development. Both Jordbakke and Weissecker advocated for these approaches as ways to prevent vendor lock-in, promote democratic principles, and maintain digital sovereignty.

### Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships

All speakers emphasised the importance of collaboration between government, private sector, civil society, and academia. There was consensus that no single actor can address digital development challenges alone, though speakers emphasised different mechanisms for achieving this collaboration.

### Implementation Focus

Both Kimambo and Stolen emphasised the gap between policy creation and implementation, advocating for practical action and understanding root causes of failures rather than continuously developing new policies without implementation.

### Capacity Building

Speakers agreed that providing technology alone is insufficient and that comprehensive capacity building, skills development, and institutional strengthening are essential for sustainable digital transformation.

## Audience Engagement and Questions

The forum included audience participation, with questions addressing how people internalize information differently and concerns about cybersecurity and digital warfare’s impact on future digital cooperation. These questions highlighted emerging challenges that require ongoing attention in digital development work.

## Concrete Commitments and Initiatives

The discussion identified several specific commitments and ongoing initiatives:

– The Global University Academy’s goal of contributing to reaching one million refugees before 2038

– Ethiopia’s E-SHE project expansion across sectors beyond higher education

– Continued championing of open, inclusive digital public goods

– Investment in grassroots youth-led initiatives alongside institutional capacity building

## Key Challenges Identified

### The Implementation Gap

The persistent gap between policy creation and practical implementation emerged as a central challenge, with Kimambo’s observation about good policies on paper but poor implementation resonating throughout the discussion.

### Data and Accountability

The need for better data collection and verification mechanisms to measure progress in digital inclusion initiatives was highlighted as an ongoing challenge.

### Funding Sustainability

Securing sustainable long-term funding for digital public infrastructure remains challenging, particularly in an environment of reduced development aid.

## Conclusion

This forum demonstrated broad consensus on fundamental principles for digital cooperation in development, including the importance of open source solutions, multi-stakeholder partnerships, and practical implementation over policy creation. The discussion highlighted successful examples like Ethiopia’s E-SHE project and Norway’s digital public goods approach, while also identifying persistent challenges around implementation, funding, and data collection.

The forum’s emphasis on moving from dialogue to action, as advocated by Kimambo, combined with concrete commitments like the Global University Academy’s refugee education goal, suggests potential pathways for meaningful progress in addressing the digital divide affecting 2.6 billion people worldwide. The challenge now lies in translating these discussions and commitments into concrete actions that reach those who remain digitally excluded.

Marianne Knarud: Ladies and gentlemen, it’s my great pleasure to welcome you to this open forum titled The Ecosystem of Digital Cooperation in Development. And also a big welcome to viewers who are joining us online. My name is Marianne Knarud. I am the project leader for the Global University Academy, a consortia of universities and other stakeholders working together to increase access to higher education for refugees, displaced learners and their communities through digital and hybrid solutions. And I am very excited to moderate this session, which is organized by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the University of Oslo and BASIC Internet Foundation. And with me on stage I have a stellar panel representing various actors of the digital ecosystem that we want to highlight here today from government agencies, NGOs and academia. And also as my co-moderator is Josef Noll from the University of Oslo, who will be keeping track of everything that’s going on online. And we have Tale Jordbakke, head of section for partnership at the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation. We have Frans Weissecker, digital policy expert at the German Agency for International Cooperation. Catherine Kimambo, founder and executive director of the youth-led NGO African Child Project in Tanzania, focusing on digital public infrastructure in education and inclusion. And Tomas Årheim, representing Youth Coalition on Internet Governance. And we have the president of the University of Oslo, Svein Sturlund. And… And last but not least, we have Meklit Mitesinu, head of the E-Shi project at the Ministry of Education in Ethiopia, joining us online. And before I give the word to our panelists, I will shortly introduce the context for and the goal of this session. Because today, 2.6 billion people remain offline without access to internet, and this digital exclusion really translates into lack of access to essential services. That limits opportunities and deepens inequalities. So the purpose of the session is really to highlight how the different actors can contribute to building an inclusive digital ecosystem for development, and to demonstrate how digital public infrastructure can serve as a cross-cutting foundation for public services, from health information in schools to digital access for communities. And also, what I hope that we will accomplish throughout the session is to also think about how we can go from words to concrete action as we move forward. And each panelist will now have three minutes to highlight their role in the digital ecosystem, and how their institution or organization can contribute to closing the digital divide. And I will give you a little wave once you are approaching your three minutes. So, I want to start with you, Tale. The Norwegian government has been quite active, I would say, in this space, and now also the host of this conference. How do you see NORAD’s role in the ecosystem? Tale?

Tale Jordbakke: First of all, thank you for having NORAD in this panel. In NORAD, we believe that achieving the SDGs can only be done by unlocking opportunities through digital transformation. Digital solutions are key to improve people’s lives at scale. And it’s even more important in these times where the funding for the development sector is cutting. And to answer the panel’s question, how to increase access to digital public infrastructure, we believe the answer lies in digital public goods. These are inclusion, collaboration, scalability, and they will prevent vendor lock-in. By breaking down silos, reducing fragmentation and promoting collaboration and transparency, we can achieve more and ensure that no one is left behind. Norway has been involved from the start as a founding member of the Digital Public Goods Alliance and through investments in open sustainability solutions across sectors, such as health, education, and public administration. DPI now also connects long-term development, humanitarian efforts, democracy, and human rights. That’s why it’s crucial to base DPI on open, non-commercial solutions that counter tech monopolies and promote democratic principles. I believe that Norway here have an advantage. We do have high credibility because we contribute with funding and do not have our own commercial interests. NORAD and Norway support solutions like MOSIP and OpenCRVS and fund initiatives like the World Bank’s ID4D. We collaborate with partners such as Codevelop to allocate financing mechanisms and ensure DPG’s sustainability. To meet these challenges, we need to be working closely with governments and private sector to share responsibility for maintaining and developing this infrastructure. At the same time, it’s important to be honest that there are many challenges that we face. Our capacity is limited. Therefore, we must use our resources wisely, support cross-sectorial solutions, and focus on normative work, capacity building, and institutional strengthening, not just technology. We must also continue to be a bold and visionary donor, willing to take risks where others cannot, and use our position to mobilize more partners and create collaborative funding mechanisms. In conclusion, Norway and NORAD will continue to champion open, inclusive digital public goods as a foundation for DPI, ensuring access, information, services, and opportunities for all across sectors and borders. Together, we can build an ecosystem where DPI serves as a tool for equity and inclusion.

Marianne Knarud: Thank you. Thank you, Tale, for this. And Franz, what about you? How does this look from your perspective?

Franz von Weizacker: Yes, thank you very much. So my name is Franz Weizäcker, and I’m heading our economic and digital portfolio of the GIZ Office of the African Union. And this is based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. And in GIZ, we are a company that works, is owned by the German government and works on behalf of mostly German and European governments for the sustainable development goals in our partner countries. And Africa is probably the biggest focus because there’s also the fastest growth of internet penetration that we have. And in my role, I work together with the African Union Department for Infrastructure and Energy and working on harmonizing the digital policies in Africa on the continent with the 55 member states of the African Union. GIZ is also endorsing these principles that you just mentioned on open infrastructures, accessible infrastructures, where it can be open source when it comes to software development or open access when it comes to internet offerings and these principles that we endorse are also, we have this partnership with NORAD on the Digital Public Good Alliance, which I very much support and when it comes to the increasingly important topic of digital sovereignty, of how governments can remain sovereign in a digital age and then avoid too many political dependencies that are derived from technological dependencies. In that sense, we in Europe can play a big role in creating this independence by providing and sharing elements for a sovereign government. As we in GIZ, we typically work with our governmental partners together to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, but of course also we are supporting quite a few of grassroots organizations that are providing very concrete, tangible solutions like in Cameroon, we have also community network projects that are providing internet access for communities. Thank you. Thank you very much, Frans. Catherine, you have

Marianne Knarud: previously highlighted the importance of skills and not just technical solutions in your work. Can you tell us a little bit about the African Child Project and what your take on this is?

Catherine Kimambo: So, there’s a lot that the African Child Project is doing in regards to skills and access. We have like two flagship projects in Tanzania and our first flagship project is the School Connectivity Project where we connect schools in rural Tanzania to internet, making sure that we are not only providing access but also put into perspective things like devices, also skills and content. Because at the end of the day, when we are speaking about digital public infrastructure, I think there’s a notion that we and the other panelists. We will be having a discussion on the policies of the ICTs outside the school premises. So, for us, we’ve had, I think, a lot of success in terms of having multi-stakeholder approach in everything that we do in regards to our project. But also, the policies in Tanzania, I think, it’s, the way we’re seeing harmonization of policies. How are we making sure that we have effective policies on the ground? And also, how can we better have discussions in policies, and how can we better have effective policies on the ground? But also, I think our government is now seeing the importance of not only having policies on paper, but also implementing the resolutions that are written in the policy. I think now that we are coming from the African IGF, where we are discussing a lot about the ICTs multi-stakeholder approach, I think we have to be very clear about that, because those are the very questions. and Jelena Kikwete. We are also working in local talents but also pioneering local solutions across Tanzania. So there’s a lot that is happening and we are happy that we are able to see now there’s a shift of perspective in terms of multi-stakeholder initiative and involvement of civil society in such platforms. But also recognising that big ideas also come from grassroots. So we are seeing that recognition and also involvement of the young people. So we are not only seeing young people working independently, but we are seeing all of us coming together in terms of bridging the divide as a collective.

Marianne Knarud: Thank you very much. Thomas, you’re representing youth today. So it seems, yeah. Well, also with Catherine, I would say. So what is your perspective, taking this from the youth side?

Thomas Aarheim: Well, thank you very much. Well, I can start off by saying I’m a part of a, well, what I’m representing is a youth coalition on internet governance. And this is one of the IGF, like, dynamic groups that the IGF kind of facilitates for. And what we try and do is that we engage, or we try to connect, engage youth from all over the world. And the only way we can do that is obviously through the internet, through an open internet platform. So the way we work is that we have, on the board, we have one representative from each region, the UN-recognized region of the world. Meaning that you will basically get perspectives from any type of culture, any type of background, all walks of life. And that is the idea. Because what we really want to, you know, focus on is to make sure that, you know, digital public infrastructure is inclusive by all means. And that’s what we’re trying to do. That’s what we’re trying to do by design. And not just by afterthought. And what I mean by that is that in And that means that other countries that want to increase or develop their public infrastructure can learn from the failures of previous initiatives, but also, perhaps more importantly, learn from the successes, and maybe allow that to leapfrog into a more interconnected and more access to open internet. And since, yes, like you said, I’m here to provide some sort of youth perspective on digitalization, I thought I’d like to start this off by relating it to my own experience as a digital native, perhaps, I daresay, well, maybe not the only digital native here, but one of the only digital natives here, and I have this vivid memory from how this infrastructure or this development in infrastructure has impacted my education growing up, because if you go back a few years to when I was in high school, I started in 2015, which is a full decade ago now, to be fair, but my year group was the pilot project year group for introducing iPads in the school instead of using textbooks, you know, as an initiative to start digitalizing the classroom. And of course, there was plenty of pushbacks and skepticism, you know, parents were worried about screen time, teachers were worried about losing the crucial battle in the classroom for attention, and of course, these issues had to be taken seriously, and I mean, yeah, I’ll be the first one to admit that there were maybe some, you know, late hours in the Monday afternoon where my attention drifted to apps and then games on the iPad that probably weren’t that educational, but overall, I would say that this project for us and the way we experienced it turned out to be a huge success because it really did change the way we were being taught in the classroom. We were more interconnected, we had more interactiveness and we were more productive throughout our working week. And we also found that it opened up a whole new world of learning. We had access to real-time information, multimedia resources and all the knowledge that the World Wide Web possesses at our fingertips in the classroom. Just to put this into maybe a generational perspective, I very distinctly remember showing my now late grandfather one of my end-of-year papers, topical research papers, and he almost didn’t believe it because he was in high school in the 1950s. What he said is that if he were to put together a piece of paper like this, he’d have to not only comb through dozens and dozens of books, but he had to spend hours and hours in the physical library to get all the sources and get all the material. And this is a moment that’s really stuck with me, not just because it shows how much has changed in a relatively short amount of time, but because it reminded me that access to the right type of tools, digital tools, with them having the infrastructure backing them up, fundamentally shifts what’s possible, especially in education. And that is what DPI really should be. And then, like you said, there are still billions of people who don’t have access to internet. And when you see these micro-examples of how it can look in the field, it really puts into perspective how important it is to really develop this and make sure that everyone has this, that it’s inclusive, so that everyone has access to this gift that we have, which is the internet.

Marianne Knarud: and I’ll leave it at that for now if that’s okay. Thank you very much Thomas and I think it’s safe to say that the future is in pretty safe hands. And going towards the universities, your intervention Thomas really you know it highlights you know the inequalities that lack of access creates and remembering also from the pandemic how how soon Norwegian schools, European schools managed to kind of pivot and just you know be online within two days and then the example that we saw when visiting rural areas in Uganda, you know schools were completely shut down for two years with no learning really happening at all and the consequences of that you can just only imagine right. So being on the topic of education, Svein, you’ve taken the initiative to establish actually the Global University Academy a little over a year ago but the University of Oslo has a long a proud history I would say of initiatives connected to this topic that we are exploring today. Could you say a little bit about how this looks from the University of Oslo’s side? I should first of all say that I’m representing Lesjang here of course.

Svein Stolen: I’m not native digital but I lived through the whole thing using punching cards initially to program different things. So university has been deeply involved really in the creation of the digital world that we see today and you can see that on the outside of the hall here because Josef and his people have something about the history of digitalization in Norway and at university. I think that shows the power of research because you need to be at the forefront of development that’s at the heart of a university but then of course you need to take the knowledge into use as well and then education is really what we need to do. ICT is obviously enlarged at the University of Oslo and I think it’s a big challenge even in Norway to secure. We have to make sure that the digital divide is not opening up too large. If you go to Europe, the challenge is even huger. And then, of course, if you go beyond Europe, it’s really a huge challenge. So for that reason, we have tried to go into an initiative where we try to collaborate on giving education to refugees where the refugees are. So we have an aim to contribute to the 15 by 30 goal of the UNHCR and a modest goal of contributing to one million refugees before 2038. ICT is obviously important in that respect. It’s about giving people Internet access, of course, as we say here today, but also about capacity building. So what we try to do is to say that no one can do everything, but everyone can contribute to some extent. We try to partner up with different universities. We are about 20 universities from four continents. We partner up with UNHCR, UNICEF, and so on, and we try to build on lifelong learning platforms to give micro-credentials that can be stacked and then can be scalable. So we try to lower the threshold for universities to take part, to contribute with programs that give employability, and then to have an ecosystem kind of thinking. Breakdown silos, I hear that from several panelists here today. We are starting in Jordan, close to the border to Syria, in Asraq and Zaatari. Educational offers in ICT by Al-Husayn Technical University. And then we hope that what we do in one space, which is a global, how to say, way of thinking on the educational offer, can be transferred to other places. Like in Uganda, where we are in Adjomani, but of course then the challenge is quite different. In Jordan, UNHCR is in charge of CAMP. Save the Children Jordan is implementing partners, giving us the classrooms and the internet. Adjomani is a much bigger challenge. And we can talk more about that later, I guess. Do you want to highlight some other examples from the University of Oslo? Do you want to highlight some other examples from the University of Oslo? I think that that was talking about global goods. The health information system program is extremely important. I mean, it’s an impressive offer that’s been developed for many years. And I think it’s also an inspiration for what we try to do in here today. And also Josef has a great initiative also on contributing to giving access.

Marianne Knarud: Thank you. And turning to our online panelist, Meklit, you are project manager for the E-SHE. And it’s an Ethiopian initiative that uses e-learning to strengthen higher education across all universities. Could you tell us a little bit about the initiative and how this is helpful for students and learners?

Meklit Mintesinot: OK, thank you, Marianne. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. Actually, I’m honored to be part of this panel discussion. Actually, my initial plan was to join you in person, but I couldn’t make it due to my due to the delay in my visa. Anyways, thanks to technology, I’m able to join from to join you from the comfort of my home. So a brief introduction about myself. My name is Meklit Muntasnot, I’m from Ethiopia. And today I’m speaking on behalf of the E-Learning for Strengthening Higher Education project under the Ministry of Education. So before discussing how our work is contributing to the digital public infrastructure development, just I would like to give you a highlight of the project, what we have been doing, what are our objectives and what we want to achieve through this project. So actually, the E-SHE project, we call it E-SHE, it’s the E-Learning for Strengthening Higher Education project. It is a national initiative. It’s designed to improve the Quality, Accessibility, Inclusion and Resilience of Higher Education, mainly by leveraging digital education. And for the past three, four years, we’ve been implementing it in partnership with the ECOPEAD Ministry of Education, Arizona State University, a local implementing partner called Shia Ashoni and the MasterCard Foundation. They are our financial partners. Actually, they’re the ones who supported the project. So for the past three years, we have been working on policy, on digital education policy, infrastructure system and capacity building. And I would say we have achieved a great success. So actually, the first thing or the first problem that we have been tackling is the policy and the framework issue. So in Ethiopia, actually before this project, we didn’t have a policy that governed digital education or that governed online education. So to tackle that problem, we have managed to develop actually a national e-learning policy, institutional guidelines, directives. And even we have managed to, we have managed to establish e-learning at a direct rates level in every university. Ethiopia has 50 public universities, so currently all these 50 public universities have a direct rates that leads digital education or the digital education initiative. That’s what we have been doing when it comes to policy. Additionally, the other problem that we have been observing was lack of a learning management system and student information systems. So in partnership with Arizona State University, we have customized and rolled out a learning management system for the public, for the 50 public universities. So currently, all the. The public universities have their own learning management system and as well student information system. So that’s the other success we mentioned in this project. And the third intervention area was infrastructure. Actually, we’ve been establishing resource centers, online resource centers, where instructors produce their contents, where students access the contents. So we established the seven multimedia studio online resource centers in seven public universities. And the last one is related with capacity development. Actually, after having the system, after having the policy, after having the infrastructure, the students and the instructors need to know how to operate the system and how to benefit from the system. So in this regard, we have money to provide digital skill training for over 250,000 students from all the 50 public universities. And close to 20,000 instructors were trained on how to design digital content, on how to facilitate online classes. So that’s what we have been doing. Actually, initially, we started this project or we started the SHIP project as a vertical approach when it comes to this digital public infrastructure. But currently, we’re evolving horizontally. We’re working with different sectors, with the health sector, with the employment sector, and with other sectors, so that the youth, especially the youngsters, can benefit from the project. So recently, we’re partnering with the prime minister’s office to cascade. We are facilitating the 50 million coders program, so currently we are facilitating that program and actually it is training 5 million young people so that they can be able to design and code. So we are also facilitating that and we are also working with high schools and regional education bureaus to connect the universities with high schools so that students from remote areas can access the content or can access digital services. So this is what we have been doing for the past 3-4 years. Thank you. Thank you very much for this very inspiring intervention and also highlighting how you can in practice go from the vertical to the horizontal approach. I know for sure that I want to hear more about all of the things that you said after the session and hopefully you all will too.

Marianne Knarud: So Tale and Franz, you are both representing government agencies here in this panel and reflecting on the introductions that we just heard and understanding also the importance of partnership working across but also really involving the whole of society to make sure that we have a truly inclusive system. How can your agencies or government programs be better at really making those connections and also give space for civil society actors? Tale, do you want to go first?

Tale Jordbakke: Sure. I do think that we as a government agency can play a role. Firstly, by being clear on that the policies and principles we support are open source. exclusively open, and that it is the digital public goods for DPI, like the DHS2 that was mentioned here, that NORTH has been supporting for years. When we ensure that the digital development that we support are open source, it can be used by many and be adaptable. So secondly, we can also contribute to mobilize and contribute funding. We need to work on these challenges together, and as an agency, Norwegian government agency, we have been taking early risk by providing catalytic funding for digital public goods, and by ensuring pool resourcing, working through mechanisms like Digital Public Goods Alliance 50 and 5, working with co-develop, we can make sure that we avoid duplication and maximize impact. Thirdly, I think we can support capacity building and knowledge sharing by investing in local expertise and strengthening institutional frameworks. We enable countries to implement, adapt, and sustain digital solutions over time. And lastly, I think that we can act as a bridge builder between sectors and a convener by bridging together stakeholders from government, civil society, private sector, and international partners. We talked about a lot of ideas just before, back on stage here today. We help to ensure that solutions are not developed in silos, but are interoperable and meet real needs across sectors, like health, education, and financial inclusion, as we heard about here today. So, all in all, I think better coordination, creation of the DPI’s ecosystem means committing to openness, partnerships, and long-term sustainability, so that digital transformation truly delivers for everyone, everywhere. Thanks. And Franz, do you have anything to add to that, I’m sure?

Franz von Weizacker: Yeah, so you asked about how we involve civil society in these questions. And of course, as a governmental agency, when we cooperate with other countries, we start talking with the government. That’s in most cases the starting point and also a basis of justification to be there. But then at the same time, depending on the context, we set up different types of multi-stakeholder partnerships. So in the case of digital policy development, it is actually, I mean, it’s not just about developing a policy, but it should be an inclusive policy. So therefore, we do consult with private sector, with civil society, and depending on the context, with researchers, academia, for the policy consulting. And then also in the implementation, if you look at, it depends very much on the context. We always design it according to form follows function, of course. If it’s a municipal level interaction or a national level, depending on that, we set up different types of multi-stakeholder partnerships. And then what we also have in some cases is a direct funding mechanism for civil society. So with the African Union, we set up the African Union Civic Tech Fund, where we currently have 30 grantees from across the continent, from 26 different countries, that are developing a solution, that have developed solutions that are working, that promote civic engagement and participation, and we’re providing funding and expertise to grow and scale these initiatives by the civil society. So there are various mechanisms, and I think we really need to see, in the context, is it education, is it health, and so on, what is the most suitable form of engagement with civil society.

Marianne Knarud: Great, thank you. and Catherine, I wanted to ask you, hearing all of these interventions and discussions that we’ve had, if you were Minister of Digitalization or Minister of International Development, what would be the first thing that you did?

Catherine Kimambo: So for me, if I were Minister of Digitalization, first I’d want to understand why. Maybe why certain things aren’t working, because I think there’s a tendency to always come up with a new standard, come up with a new policy. I think in Tanzania we have this saying that we have good policies on paper, but when it comes to implementation, there’s equally to very few that is implemented from the policies. So I really want to understand why certain things aren’t working. But also when it comes to investing in grassroots ideas, I think there’s a lot that is happening on ground. There’s a lot of great ideas that youth have, but we don’t have resources, I think, to implement such ideas. So maybe trying to really dig deep and understand what are the great ideas. I think we have a good success with school connectivity, because it was a grassroots initiative, but also we are experimenting with affordable solutions, solutions that are scalable, solutions that are fit for purpose. So I think having that understanding of what could be scalable on ground and not having these parachuting ideas where you come up with solutions that are high-end or of high cost that are not sustainable in the long run. I think I could also see what works on ground, but also overseeing implementation or harmonizing the policies, because currently we are having a lot of policies that are coming up, but also they are not harmonized. I want to see how we can have like a common understanding in terms of involving different stakeholders. and others in the field to understand the policies but also how are we coming in together in regard to bringing all the policies to life. But also something else that I’d invest in is in terms of funding. I think funding is a challenge when it comes to youth and how they are operating. So I think I invest more in youth because when it comes to us as youth there’s a lot of capacity building I feel that we are getting but we are not getting a chance to do meaningful work. So maybe less on the capacity building and really funding our ideas in terms of how we can accelerate connectivity and digital inclusion in Tanzania. But also just I think in terms of data I’d really want to understand when we are saying we’ve reached maybe this age group. Is there data for it? Because I think there’s a lot of data that is missing so I’d invest much in having data that really speaks to the results that we are seeing because there’s a lot of we are seeing a lot of stories like this that is happening we’ve reached this amount of people but when for us we are working on ground we are not seeing the shift that is there on the global stages. But also we have been dialoguing a lot. There’s a lot of discussions that are happening but I’d move more into action. How are we moving from dialogue to action? How are we being more action oriented? Because I think there’s a lot of dialogue that is happening globally but even here after dialogues and all this what’s happened? What’s next when you go back to our regional countries? Are we implementing ideas? Are we coming up with results? Or are we only maybe coming up with different resolutions and then when we are meeting again next year we are having another resolution. So I think if I was a Minister of Digitalization I’d move from dialogue to action and really spotlighting the different innovations that are there on ground to bring them to the global presence and maybe that could also bring a change in the digital inclusion and divide.

Marianne Knarud: Hear, hear. Thomas.

Thomas Aarheim: Yeah, no, hear, hear. If I was minister for a day, well, let’s say since I don’t represent any political party and I haven’t yet gotten any vested economic interests or I can just go from a blank slate, I would say that I think it is really important, and that’s why I say this, I think it’s really important to focus that this type of new technology and development in the countries where it happens also stays in the countries where it happens, where they also don’t just become users of technology from foreign aid and foreign companies that do direct investments, but that they also then own this themselves so that they can share that knowledge and that they can start using that as a part of their industry, that it becomes integrated into their local systems and that this creates a form of long-term growth for them. So, in a sense, which probably would make me a really bad minister, I would do it without any strings attached, but we’ll see if that passes in Congress. Yeah, and like we talked about before, out of these billions of people who are without access, a majority, like in these regions and places we’re talking about, the majority of the youth or young population in the world is located here. So, it’s really an investment in the future as well because these regions, these are skills that will last for decades for them. And that’s why it’s really important to get them connected now, get them connected so that they can use this for the next five, six decades and pass this on.

Marianne Knarud: Thank you. And Svein, you can also give us your take on if you were a minister for a day.

Svein Stolen: I have power, so I would like to say that I try to be a cut the crap, just do it director. And I think that what we really need is to be less afraid of failure. We need to try to utilize the power of an institution, and then I think all have to take the same take. How can we do better? For a university, I believe that to utilize the power to take the knowledge into use, because we’re quite good at research, we’re quite good at education, but we have to be a little bit out of the comfort zone in order to transform that knowledge and competence into action. For that reason, I believe in this ecosystem type of thinking, because often when universities work, they work alone, or they work together with other universities, but I don’t think that is going to solve many challenges. We need to work across sectors. That challenges universities, but it also challenges other actors. So to break down the silos. So for that reason, in the Global University Academy, we recently launched a policy paper where we said that, okay, universities are not really flexible, to be honest. So there’s a lot of challenges that are on itself, but I think it’s also a lot of challenges on the other part. Especially, I would like to see that ministries and the politicians, they understand that universities could be used more efficiently in some of these global collaborations. But then they have also to, how to say, give them that task. When we talk with universities in other parts of the world, they say that this is not really within our mandate. I think it should be within the mandate. And for me, that’s also about educating students in our own countries. Because in the Global University, we hope to use the students as part of the classroom. and so on. And if we are going to educate students with a global mind, that’s the way to do it. So I believe in this ecosystem and we should push that and break down silos in my opinion. I think that’s a major takeaway from this session, to break down the silos and figure out how to work more efficiently together. I want to open up for some questions from the Zoom. There is one from Francis Thompson to Thomas and Svein. Does the ease of information access to children and students make them less likely to internalize the information, as in there is less need to digest fully the information and context or even remember it for recall because it is so accessible and easy to find again online? That was a bit unclear. Can you repeat the first part? I got the last part. Yeah, okay, I’ll try again. Does the ease of information access to children and students make them less likely to internalize the information?

Thomas Aarheim: Maybe, probably. We talk about now maybe with this, again like I was talking about earlier in the classroom, this attention span. There are concerns now that with youth and younger people these days getting more and more exposed to really fast-paced flickering images and then very short-pitched information that the concern for maybe more in academia is that you’re not capable of reading a full dissertation anymore, you’re not capable of reading a full book. I don’t think that’s necessarily true. I’m going to sound all the alarms right now and what we’re really talking about is for people to get to the, you know, that might be a late stage problem for a very small part of the world population, if you look at it that way. But I think easier access to information as a whole is a good, that’s a force for good and definitely something we should strive towards. Again, this will maybe later be a really good way for us to use this type of hindsight, like I was saying in the beginning, that you can maybe leapfrog and you can avoid some pitfalls. So I think it’s really important to then, you know, we’ll keep an eye on this, we’ll make sure we keep reading our books, despite being on TikTok or other platforms. But also then take the lessons and really try and learn from them and not just observe them. I don’t know if that answers your question, Svein, what do you think?

Svein Stolen: I think you answered that very well. I think that the attention span is a worry, but the access to information is not really a worry. I’m not very good at remembering anything, I’ve never been, but I manage anyway. And I think that what we need to be able to, I mean, how much more I can do today than I could do when I was a PhD student in 1988? It’s amazing. And I think we are going in the same direction. We have to harness the tools, we have to harness the technology and use it. And strictly, I believe that most of our students understand they can’t fool themselves, because if they use the new equipment in the wrong way, they’re not learning, they understand that. I mean, the students are bright. So I think that we shouldn’t overestimate the challenges. Some part of the student population probably could be tempted, but still, in general, I’m quite optimistic about the student and about technology. Great. And also, if there are questions in the audience, there is a microphone.

Marianne Knarud: We have a microphone on the side, and feel free to take the microphone. While waiting for participants to maybe take the mic, I want to ask a question to Meklit, that’s coming from the Zoom chat. How do you see the pathway from universities to schools and communities? Meklit, you can answer that, and after we will open the mic here in the room. Meklit? Sure, Marine, thank you.

Meklit Mintesinot: That’s an important question. As I mentioned earlier, currently we are working with universities. Actually, in Ethiopia, relatively, the universities have a better infrastructure, internet services, and they also have well-trained personnel. We believe that universities are the gateway. Once working or once capacitating the universities, we can connect them with the highest schools and with the communities. For example, the universities have trained personnel or trained instructors. They have the infrastructure. They also have the resources. They can mobilize resources or they can mobilize financial resources. We’re planning to connect them with the highest schools and to the communities. For example, you can take rural schools that are located in a rural area. In that case, the universities are better positioned to support them. They can support them in connectivity. They can support them in human resources. They can also support them in developing systems and infrastructures. The universities are the gateways, and through that, we can connect the schools, and we can also serve the communities. Thank you very much. And now we have two questions from the audience.

Marianne Knarud: Please state your name before your question and whom it is addressed to. And also please be brief. Thanks.

Audience: Thank you very much. I’m Pons Light from the Gambia NRI Focal Point and also a board member of the Association for Progressive Communication My question goes to Franz and the lady from NORAD and is also connected with SEV. It’s in regards to digital cooperation, which is a major part of the Global Digital Compact that is being implemented. I would like to know how both your agencies, GIZ and NORAD, work with academics in the global north to implement programs in the global south that also incorporates African universities, especially in terms of if you have to set up programs in rural areas that bring about connectivity.

Marianne Knarud: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And we’ll take the other question as well and then the panel will answer.

Audience: Yeah. My name is Mohamed Abdi Ali. I’m executive director from Somali civil society platform Kole Tsonsa based in Somalia. My question is to the all panelists. I’m thinking positively digital is okay, but negativity. Now digital war started, cyber conflict started. So how in the future influence that barriers the ecosystem of digital cooperation and development? Thank you very much. Thank you very much. So first questions to Tala and Frans, which one want to go first? I can start. Thank you so much for the question.

Marianne Knarud: I believe that… NORAD, for example, supports, like Abhi mentioned, digital public goods, open source solutions. So, the University of Oslo works together with our partners in India, the MOSIP digital ID platforms, and NORAD supports those and have been from the beginning. So we connect universities and academia with the digital public good, the DHS2, which is a help platform. We try to connect our partners, IITB, in Bangalore, in India, with the University of Oslo to go together and learn. And on request of partners and countries in the global south and countries south of Zawahar in Africa, they have requested these kind of systems, and we connect the partners. We can support with the funding, but together we bring partners with knowledge and experience of rolling out and implementing these kind of systems that are open source, that can be built on something built elsewhere, but it can be adopted. It must be modified to the country itself, but it’s a lot cheaper to start with a system that you don’t have to develop. So that is one example how NORAD and Norway work with different countries in global south and connect universities, which are so important to the knowledge that we share and the experience that are often built local and has to be built local. Thank you. And Frans?

Franz von Weizacker: All right. Yeah, thank you, Ponsillet, for your question on also the cooperation with universities to work between universities from the north and the south to implement projects on connectivities. Actually, that’s a topic very close to my heart. Coming from Berlin University of Technology, while I was a student, I was setting up back in 2003 in Kabul, Afghanistan, the computing center at Kabul University. So very hands-on work we did as a student there. also writes that we could be doing much more in this university cooperation, if you compare for example how this used to be done maybe in the United States, they have quite a few faculties from the United States that are implementing hands-on development projects in the global south, and I think it’s a good and successful mode, and in the German system there is typically most university corporations work through the DART, the German Academic Exchange Service, and that was also the one that was funding the cooperation in Kabul that I mentioned earlier, but indeed where we can and where it makes sense, we should be involving universities. Maybe one more example from the European level, as part of the Global Gateway Project, we have the Medusa cable, and that’s basically a cable connecting northern African universities to fiber optics internet infrastructure, and that is part of the agenda that is now being developed in Brussels on infrastructure and connectivity under the Global Gateway Initiative.

Marianne Knarud: Thank you very much. And then there was a question about how to make sure that we are still digitally connected and working together in a time where the world is increasingly in turmoil, I would say. Svein, do you have any reflections on…

Svein Stolen: I understand the question, I mean I became rector eight years ago, everyone talked about the Sustainable Development Goals and the three Os, open science, open innovation, open to the world, and now we are talking about national interest, research security, and geopolitical issues. So to push forward and continue cooperation, so at the University of Oslo, we try to keep all doors open. I got a lot of criticism to work with China, we do, we try to work also on this. this Global University Academy at the present time, because it’s more important than ever. It’s more difficult, of course, but I don’t have any other answer than that. But we really, really need to to work different parts of sector and push towards collaboration. Tale, you wanted to come in there? Yeah, just to build on that. I think also in these times we have to work together

Marianne Knarud: and collaborate to do more with less because there will be less funding. And actually, in terms of digital transformation, this might be an opportunity because these are the leapfrog possibilities that can actually be done through technology. And if we build not silos, that has been said, but open source and shareable and digital public goods, then then we can actually make more out of less. And I think that’s more important than ever. Yeah. Thomas, this is also something that you see when you discuss with your fellow youth representatives. Yeah, and I definitely agree with what was just said. And in a world where, you know, things are getting more, like you say, in turmoil and then it’s that’s the focus.

Thomas Aarheim: I don’t think I think it’s important to keep in mind that it’s not like we want the Internet to disappear, but we really want to be able to navigate the Internet safely. And that means that, yeah, for a lot of youth in today’s reality, we’re going to have to develop, you know, new skills and new tools to be able to, you know, surf online safely. And that’s why you have it’s really important to drive, you know, initiatives that, you know, increase media literacy or, you know, Internet information literacy. You need to be able to know how to spot fake news and that’s going to be key moving forward for anyone who is surfing online.

Marianne Knarud: Thank you very much. We are running out of time, so we’re going to close up this session. So from for all of you, you have, you know, if you could sum up, but then. also think about what is it that we need to do when we leave this room, not just nice words but what are some things that we can all just go out and do to make a difference? Catherine.

Catherine Kimambo: So for me, I still go back to the Dar es Salaam declaration that we had with the African IGF where they were speaking about a unified voice or African voice in global processes. So I think still as Africa, we still need that unified voice in global processes because I still believe we still have the largest number of unconnected people in the Global South. So having a unified voice, what are the plans that we have as a continent? And I think for me going back home, I understand that the work that we do as African Child Projects contribute very much in the key aspect of digital divide, the things like digital skills, connectivity, so we plan to do more of that and I know with the different partners that we have and the desire that they have shown in terms of accelerating digitalization in Tanzania, so there’s more that we are going to do. And hopefully when we meet in the next year of IGF, we will have a lot of concrete and live examples on the ground of what we’ve done and how we’ve succeeded.

Marianne Knarud: Thank you. I want to turn online. Meklit, what would be your final short remarks?

Meklit Mintesinot: Thank you, Maureen. So actually for me, digital public infrastructure, digital service is not just about technology, it’s all about equity, inclusion and access and there are millions of people remaining disconnected and those who couldn’t access the services due to the existing situation, due to lack of infrastructure, due to lack of skill and due to lack of support, so we need to come. We are advocating for public-private development partnerships, so bringing the public sector which is the government, the development sector and even the private sector in availing services or in availing digital services for their use, especially their use actually. As I mentioned earlier, the majority of the population is used in Ethiopia and in Africa and they need to be served and they need to be included and they need to benefit from this initiative. So my call to action is let’s work together, especially we need to include the development and the private sector in enhancing digital services across Africa. So on our side, both the ministry and the project is open to collaborate with interested partners and to make digital services accessible to everyone. That’s what I can say. Thank you.

Marianne Knarud: Thank you very much. And Svein, some short final remarks.

Svein Stolen: I think we need bold visions. We need to continue to work hard and not look for the perfect system that solves everything, but go on the way and try to construct the airplane while flying, so to say. We need to push forward. Vivid picture. Tale?

Tale Jordbakke: I think collaboration. I think connectivity is important, but also the solution that we build has to be open and interoperability. We have to be able to build on each other. We cannot build in every country a different solution every time. It’s too expensive. It’s not smart. We need to be able to share open between each other.

Marianne Knarud: Thank you. Frans?

Franz von Weizacker: Absolutely. Those principles of openness, the principles for digital development are actually amazing. So you need to understand the existing ecosystem. Thank you very much, and that’s it from us. Thank you all for coming, and thank you to this wonderful panel, and also to the very energetic Josef Noll at the University of Oslo for really making this event a reality today.

Marianne Knarud: I think it’s safe to say that without you, this panel would not have been here. So let’s give the panel a big applause, and thank you very much for coming. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. and Fabiana Slok together caught us off guard when they launched their condos in the world after a tropical storm Marts Dam.

Agreement points

Open source solutions and digital public goods are essential for inclusive digital development

Speakers

– Tale Jordbakke
– Franz von Weizacker

Arguments

Digital public goods are key to inclusion, collaboration, and scalability while preventing vendor lock-in

Open source solutions counter tech monopolies and promote democratic principles

Digital sovereignty helps governments remain independent and avoid technological dependencies

Summary

Both speakers strongly advocate for open source solutions and digital public goods as foundations for digital public infrastructure. They agree that these approaches prevent vendor lock-in, promote democratic principles, and help maintain digital sovereignty while enabling collaboration and scalability.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Multi-stakeholder partnerships are crucial for effective digital development

Speakers

– Tale Jordbakke
– Catherine Kimambo
– Meklit Mintesinot
– Svein Stolen

Arguments

Breaking down silos and promoting collaboration across sectors is essential for digital transformation

Multi-stakeholder approaches involving civil society, private sector, and government are crucial for effective implementation

Public-private development partnerships are needed to enhance digital services across Africa

Universities need to work across sectors rather than alone to transform knowledge into action

Summary

All speakers emphasize the critical importance of breaking down silos and fostering collaboration between government, private sector, civil society, and academia. They agree that no single actor can address digital development challenges alone.

Topics

Development | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Capacity building and skills development are fundamental to digital inclusion

Speakers

– Tale Jordbakke
– Catherine Kimambo
– Meklit Mintesinot
– Thomas Aarheim

Arguments

Focus should be on normative work, capacity building, and institutional strengthening, not just technology

Investment in local talents and pioneering local solutions is important for sustainable development

Digital skills training is essential – over 250,000 students and 20,000 instructors were trained in Ethiopia

Media literacy and internet information literacy are crucial for safe online navigation

Summary

Speakers agree that providing technology alone is insufficient; comprehensive capacity building, skills development, and institutional strengthening are essential for sustainable digital transformation and inclusion.

Topics

Development | Capacity development | Online education

Implementation challenges must be addressed through practical action rather than just policy creation

Speakers

– Catherine Kimambo
– Svein Stolen

Arguments

Good policies exist on paper but implementation remains a major challenge

Governments should focus on understanding why existing solutions aren’t working before creating new ones

Bold visions and willingness to take risks are needed rather than seeking perfect solutions

Summary

Both speakers emphasize the gap between policy creation and implementation, advocating for practical action, understanding root causes of failures, and taking calculated risks rather than continuously developing new policies without implementation.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers, representing youth perspectives, emphasize the importance of local ownership and avoiding dependency on foreign solutions. They advocate for investing in local capacity and ensuring that technology development creates sustainable local growth rather than external dependency.

Speakers

– Catherine Kimambo
– Thomas Aarheim

Arguments

Investment in local talents and pioneering local solutions is important for sustainable development

Technology development should remain in the countries where it’s implemented to create local ownership and long-term growth

Topics

Development | Economic | Capacity development

Both speakers view universities as crucial intermediaries and gateways for extending digital education and services to broader communities. They see universities as having the infrastructure, expertise, and capacity to bridge gaps between different educational levels and serve underserved populations.

Speakers

– Meklit Mintesinot
– Svein Stolen

Arguments

Universities serve as gateways with better infrastructure and trained personnel to connect schools and communities

Universities can contribute to refugee education through lifelong learning platforms and micro-credentials

Topics

Online education | Development | Infrastructure

Both speakers frame digital transformation as both an urgent challenge due to massive exclusion and an opportunity for leapfrogging development constraints, particularly in resource-constrained environments.

Speakers

– Tale Jordbakke
– Marianne Knarud

Arguments

Digital transformation offers leapfrog opportunities to do more with less resources

2.6 billion people remain offline, creating digital exclusion that limits opportunities and deepens inequalities

Topics

Development | Digital access | Infrastructure

Unexpected consensus

Continued international cooperation despite geopolitical tensions

Speakers

– Svein Stolen
– Tale Jordbakke
– Thomas Aarheim

Arguments

International cooperation must continue despite geopolitical challenges and reduced funding

Digital transformation offers leapfrog opportunities to do more with less resources

Media literacy and internet information literacy are crucial for safe online navigation

Explanation

Despite representing different sectors (academia, government agency, youth), these speakers unexpectedly converged on the need to maintain international cooperation and digital connectivity even in times of geopolitical tension and cyber conflicts. They acknowledge challenges but emphasize the importance of continued collaboration and safe navigation rather than isolation.

Topics

Development | Human rights principles | Cybersecurity

Technology access benefits outweigh potential negative effects on learning

Speakers

– Thomas Aarheim
– Svein Stolen

Arguments

Digital tools fundamentally shift what’s possible in education by providing access to real-time information and multimedia resources

Questions about information access and attention span need consideration but shouldn’t overshadow the benefits of connectivity

Explanation

When directly confronted with concerns about whether easy access to information might reduce students’ ability to internalize knowledge, both speakers unexpectedly agreed that the benefits of digital access far outweigh potential drawbacks, showing consensus on prioritizing connectivity over concerns about attention span or information retention.

Topics

Online education | Sociocultural | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated remarkably high consensus across multiple key areas: the importance of open source solutions and digital public goods, the necessity of multi-stakeholder partnerships, the critical role of capacity building, and the need for practical implementation over policy creation. There was also strong agreement on the transformative potential of digital tools in education and the importance of local ownership in technology development.

Consensus level

Very high consensus with complementary rather than conflicting perspectives. The speakers represented different sectors (government agencies, academia, civil society, youth) but shared fundamental values about inclusive, collaborative, and sustainable approaches to digital development. This high level of agreement suggests a mature understanding of digital development challenges and broad alignment on solutions, which bodes well for coordinated action in addressing the digital divide and building inclusive digital ecosystems.

Different viewpoints

Approach to policy development and implementation

Speakers

– Catherine Kimambo
– Tale Jordbakke
– Franz von Weizacker

Arguments

Good policies exist on paper but implementation remains a major challenge

Focus should be on normative work, capacity building, and institutional strengthening, not just technology

Digital sovereignty helps governments remain independent and avoid technological dependencies

Summary

Catherine emphasizes that Tanzania has good policies on paper but implementation is the real challenge, advocating for understanding why existing solutions don’t work before creating new ones. Tale and Franz focus more on creating new frameworks and policies through international cooperation and capacity building approaches.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Funding priorities and resource allocation

Speakers

– Catherine Kimambo
– Tale Jordbakke

Arguments

Funding for youth-led grassroots initiatives is insufficient despite their innovative ideas

Focus should be on normative work, capacity building, and institutional strengthening, not just technology

Summary

Catherine argues for less capacity building and more direct funding of youth ideas, while Tale emphasizes continued focus on capacity building and institutional strengthening as the priority for resource allocation.

Topics

Development | Economic | Capacity development

Unexpected differences

Role of international cooperation in digital development

Speakers

– Thomas Aarheim
– Tale Jordbakke
– Svein Stolen

Arguments

Technology development should remain in the countries where it’s implemented to create local ownership and long-term growth

Breaking down silos and promoting collaboration across sectors is essential for digital transformation

International cooperation must continue despite geopolitical challenges and reduced funding

Explanation

Unexpectedly, there’s tension between Thomas’s advocacy for complete local ownership ‘without strings attached’ and the other speakers’ emphasis on international partnerships and cooperation. This disagreement is surprising given the general consensus on collaboration, but reveals different philosophies about dependency versus partnership in development.

Topics

Development | Economic | International cooperation

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on implementation approaches (top-down policy vs. grassroots-up solutions), resource allocation priorities (capacity building vs. direct funding), and the role of international cooperation (partnership vs. complete local ownership)

Disagreement level

The level of disagreement is moderate but significant for implementation. While speakers share common goals of digital inclusion and closing the digital divide, their different approaches could lead to conflicting strategies in practice. The disagreements reflect deeper philosophical differences about development approaches – whether change should be driven by policy frameworks and institutional capacity building, or by direct support for grassroots innovations and local ownership.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers, representing youth perspectives, emphasize the importance of local ownership and avoiding dependency on foreign solutions. They advocate for investing in local capacity and ensuring that technology development creates sustainable local growth rather than external dependency.

Speakers

– Catherine Kimambo
– Thomas Aarheim

Arguments

Investment in local talents and pioneering local solutions is important for sustainable development

Technology development should remain in the countries where it’s implemented to create local ownership and long-term growth

Topics

Development | Economic | Capacity development

Both speakers view universities as crucial intermediaries and gateways for extending digital education and services to broader communities. They see universities as having the infrastructure, expertise, and capacity to bridge gaps between different educational levels and serve underserved populations.

Speakers

– Meklit Mintesinot
– Svein Stolen

Arguments

Universities serve as gateways with better infrastructure and trained personnel to connect schools and communities

Universities can contribute to refugee education through lifelong learning platforms and micro-credentials

Topics

Online education | Development | Infrastructure

Both speakers frame digital transformation as both an urgent challenge due to massive exclusion and an opportunity for leapfrogging development constraints, particularly in resource-constrained environments.

Speakers

– Tale Jordbakke
– Marianne Knarud

Arguments

Digital transformation offers leapfrog opportunities to do more with less resources

2.6 billion people remain offline, creating digital exclusion that limits opportunities and deepens inequalities

Topics

Development | Digital access | Infrastructure

Key takeaways

Digital public infrastructure must be built on open source solutions and digital public goods to ensure inclusion, prevent vendor lock-in, and enable democratic participation

Multi-stakeholder partnerships involving government, civil society, private sector, and academia are essential for effective digital transformation and closing the digital divide

Breaking down silos between sectors and organizations is crucial for maximizing impact and avoiding duplication of efforts

Capacity building and skills development are as important as technical infrastructure – focus should be on institutional strengthening, not just technology deployment

Universities can serve as gateways for digital transformation, connecting with schools and communities through their existing infrastructure and trained personnel

Youth perspectives and grassroots innovations must be prioritized and funded, as young people represent the majority of the global population in underconnected regions

Implementation of existing policies is more critical than creating new ones – focus should be on understanding why current solutions aren’t working

Digital transformation offers leapfrog opportunities to achieve more with fewer resources, especially important given reduced development funding

Local ownership and sovereignty of digital solutions is essential to prevent technological dependencies and ensure long-term sustainability

Resolutions and action items

Continue championing open, inclusive digital public goods as foundation for digital public infrastructure across sectors and borders

Mobilize collaborative funding mechanisms and pool resources to avoid duplication and maximize impact

Invest in grassroots youth-led initiatives and provide meaningful funding rather than just capacity building

Develop unified African voice in global digital processes to better represent the continent’s needs

Establish public-private development partnerships to enhance digital services accessibility

Focus on harmonizing existing policies and improving implementation rather than creating new frameworks

Maintain university cooperation and global collaboration despite geopolitical challenges

Move from dialogue to concrete action with measurable results and data-driven outcomes

Develop media literacy and internet safety skills to help users navigate online spaces securely

Unresolved issues

How to effectively measure and track progress in digital inclusion initiatives with reliable data

Balancing information accessibility with concerns about reduced attention spans and information internalization among digital natives

Addressing cybersecurity threats and digital warfare while maintaining open internet cooperation

Securing sustainable long-term funding for digital public infrastructure in an environment of reduced development aid

Ensuring meaningful youth participation beyond capacity building to actual decision-making and implementation roles

Harmonizing multiple overlapping policies and frameworks at national and international levels

Maintaining international digital cooperation amid increasing geopolitical tensions and national security concerns

Suggested compromises

Use ecosystem thinking and cross-sectoral partnerships rather than expecting any single organization to solve all challenges

Adopt ‘form follows function’ approach – design multi-stakeholder partnerships according to specific context and needs rather than one-size-fits-all solutions

Balance risk-taking with practical implementation by being willing to ‘construct the airplane while flying’ rather than waiting for perfect solutions

Combine vertical and horizontal approaches – start with strong institutional foundations (like universities) then expand to broader community connections

Provide funding and expertise without strings attached while still ensuring local ownership and sustainability

Focus on interoperability and building on existing solutions rather than creating entirely new systems in each country

Maintain open doors for international cooperation while addressing legitimate security and sovereignty concerns

I think there’s a notion that we and the other panelists. We will be having a discussion on the policies of the ICTs outside the school premises… But also recognising that big ideas also come from grassroots. So we are seeing that recognition and also involvement of the young people.

Speaker

Catherine Kimambo

Reason

This comment challenges the top-down approach to digital policy by emphasizing that innovation and solutions often emerge from grassroots level rather than being imposed from above. It shifts focus from theoretical policy discussions to practical, community-driven implementation.

Impact

This comment established a recurring theme throughout the discussion about the importance of grassroots innovation and youth involvement. It influenced subsequent speakers to address how their organizations engage with local communities and avoid ‘parachuting’ solutions from above.

I have this vivid memory from how this infrastructure or this development in infrastructure has impacted my education growing up… Just to put this into maybe a generational perspective, I very distinctly remember showing my now late grandfather one of my end-of-year papers… he almost didn’t believe it because he was in high school in the 1950s.

Speaker

Thomas Aarheim

Reason

This personal narrative powerfully illustrates the transformative potential of digital infrastructure by contrasting generational experiences. It moves the discussion from abstract policy to concrete human impact, making the digital divide tangible and relatable.

Impact

This story became a reference point for understanding educational inequalities. Marianne directly referenced it when discussing how Norwegian schools pivoted online in two days during the pandemic while Ugandan schools remained closed for two years, deepening the conversation about global digital inequities.

So I really want to understand why certain things aren’t working… I think in Tanzania we have this saying that we have good policies on paper, but when it comes to implementation, there’s equally to very few that is implemented from the policies.

Speaker

Catherine Kimambo

Reason

This comment cuts to the heart of development challenges by highlighting the implementation gap between policy and practice. It challenges the tendency to create new policies without understanding why existing ones fail, advocating for evidence-based approaches.

Impact

This observation shifted the discussion toward practical implementation challenges and the need for accountability. It influenced other panelists to address how their organizations ensure policies translate into real-world impact, moving the conversation from theoretical frameworks to operational realities.

Actually, initially, we started this project or we started the SHIP project as a vertical approach when it comes to this digital public infrastructure. But currently, we’re evolving horizontally. We’re working with different sectors, with the health sector, with the employment sector.

Speaker

Meklit Mintesinot

Reason

This insight demonstrates the evolution from siloed, sector-specific approaches to integrated, cross-sectoral digital infrastructure. It provides a concrete example of how digital public infrastructure can scale and create synergies across different domains.

Impact

This comment reinforced the recurring theme of breaking down silos and influenced the discussion toward ecosystem thinking. It provided a practical model for how vertical initiatives can evolve into horizontal platforms, supporting arguments made by other panelists about interoperability and collaboration.

I think it is really important to focus that this type of new technology and development in the countries where it happens also stays in the countries where it happens… that they also own this themselves so that they can share that knowledge and that they can start using that as a part of their industry.

Speaker

Thomas Aarheim

Reason

This comment addresses the critical issue of digital sovereignty and local ownership, challenging traditional aid models that create dependency. It advocates for sustainable development that builds local capacity rather than external dependence.

Impact

This perspective on ownership and sustainability influenced the final discussion about moving beyond aid relationships to genuine partnerships. It connected with Catherine’s emphasis on grassroots solutions and supported the broader theme of avoiding technological colonialism.

There’s a lot of dialogue that is happening globally but I’d move more into action. How are we moving from dialogue to action? How are we being more action oriented? Because I think there’s a lot of dialogue that is happening globally but even here after dialogues and all this what’s happened?

Speaker

Catherine Kimambo

Reason

This comment directly challenges the conference format itself and the broader development discourse, calling out the gap between endless discussions and concrete implementation. It demands accountability and results-oriented approaches.

Impact

This intervention created a moment of self-reflection in the discussion and influenced the moderator to explicitly ask panelists for concrete actions they would take ‘when we leave this room.’ It shifted the final portion of the discussion toward specific commitments and actionable next steps.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by challenging conventional development approaches and demanding more authentic, locally-driven solutions. Catherine Kimambo’s interventions were particularly impactful, consistently pushing the conversation from theoretical policy discussions toward practical implementation and grassroots innovation. Thomas Aarheim’s generational perspective and emphasis on local ownership provided powerful framing for understanding both the potential and the equity challenges of digital infrastructure. Meklit’s example of vertical-to-horizontal evolution offered a concrete model for scalable implementation. Together, these comments created a discussion that moved beyond traditional donor-recipient frameworks toward more collaborative, sustainable approaches to digital development. The recurring themes of breaking down silos, ensuring local ownership, and moving from dialogue to action became the defining characteristics of this forum, making it more than just another policy discussion but a call for fundamental change in how digital cooperation is approached.

How can we better have discussions in policies, and how can we better have effective policies on the ground?

Speaker

Catherine Kimambo

Explanation

This addresses the gap between policy creation and implementation, particularly in Tanzania where there are good policies on paper but limited implementation

How are we making sure that we have effective policies on the ground?

Speaker

Catherine Kimambo

Explanation

This focuses on the practical implementation challenges of digital policies and the need for harmonization of policies

Why certain things aren’t working?

Speaker

Catherine Kimambo

Explanation

She emphasized the need to understand root causes before creating new standards or policies, particularly regarding why existing policies aren’t being implemented effectively

Is there data for it? When we are saying we’ve reached maybe this age group, is there data for it?

Speaker

Catherine Kimambo

Explanation

This highlights the need for better data collection and verification of claimed results in digital inclusion initiatives

What’s next when you go back to our regional countries? Are we implementing ideas? Are we coming up with results?

Speaker

Catherine Kimambo

Explanation

This addresses the need to move from dialogue to concrete action and implementation of discussed initiatives

How do you see the pathway from universities to schools and communities?

Speaker

Francis Thompson (via Zoom)

Explanation

This question seeks to understand how digital infrastructure and education can be scaled from higher education institutions to broader community access

Does the ease of information access to children and students make them less likely to internalize the information?

Speaker

Francis Thompson (via Zoom)

Explanation

This addresses concerns about whether easy digital access might reduce deep learning and information retention among students

How in the future influence that barriers the ecosystem of digital cooperation and development?

Speaker

Mohamed Abdi Ali

Explanation

This question addresses how digital warfare and cyber conflicts might impact future digital cooperation and development efforts

How both your agencies, GIZ and NORAD, work with academics in the global north to implement programs in the global south that also incorporates African universities?

Speaker

Pons Light

Explanation

This seeks to understand specific mechanisms for North-South academic cooperation in implementing digital connectivity programs in rural areas

Summary

This workshop at the Internet Governance Forum focused on AI innovation, responsible development, and ethical imperatives, co-organized by CAST, the UN Consultative Committee on Information Technology (CCIT), and the Internet Society of China (ISC). The discussion centered on how to foster AI innovation while ensuring responsibility, inclusivity, and alignment with global frameworks like UNESCO’s ethical recommendations and the Global Digital Compact.

Opening speakers emphasized that AI’s transformative power across sectors from agriculture to healthcare must be balanced with addressing challenges such as algorithmic bias, lack of transparency, privacy breaches, and the risk of deepening digital divides. Professor Gong Ke highlighted three core policy dimensions: inclusive development to prevent AI from worsening digital disparities, global governance frameworks that align national policies with international standards, and multi-stakeholder collaboration mechanisms.

UNESCO’s representative, Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoy, stressed that innovation and human rights protection should not be viewed as contradictory goals, emphasizing that good innovation benefits everyone rather than specific groups. He outlined UNESCO’s approach of fostering opportunities, mitigating risks, and prosecuting harms through established international human rights frameworks.

Educational applications of AI received significant attention, with speakers discussing both opportunities for personalized learning and risks including digital poverty, lack of regulation, and the potential reduction of diverse opinions. Professor Ricardo Israel Robles Pelayo from Mexico highlighted concerns about AI implementation in education and justice systems without proper ethical consideration, particularly in contexts with existing structural challenges.

Dr. Daisy Selematsela addressed how academic libraries navigate AI integration, discussing challenges around data protection, technical expertise, and financial constraints, while noting benefits like improved search capabilities and 24/7 user support. The workshop concluded with consensus on three key takeaways: AI must bridge rather than deepen global divides, governance requires harmonized national and international frameworks, and ethical design ensures AI serves humanity effectively.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Balancing AI Innovation with Ethical Imperatives**: The central theme focused on how to foster AI technological advancement while ensuring responsible development that aligns with human rights, ethical frameworks, and global standards like UNESCO’s AI ethics recommendations.

– **Inclusive AI Development and Digital Divide Concerns**: Multiple speakers emphasized the need to prevent AI from exacerbating existing digital disparities between and within countries, particularly addressing how developing nations can maintain access to AI technologies and benefits.

– **AI Risks and Challenges in Education**: Extensive discussion on how AI impacts higher education, including concerns about academic integrity, digital poverty, lack of regulation, unauthorized content use, and the need for age-appropriate limitations and data ownership policies.

– **Global Governance and Multi-stakeholder Collaboration**: Speakers addressed the need for international cooperation, harmonized national frameworks, and multi-stakeholder approaches to AI governance, drawing lessons from internet governance models while recognizing AI’s unique vertical complexity.

– **Sector-Specific AI Implementation Challenges**: Detailed examination of AI applications in specific sectors like libraries, justice systems, and education, highlighting both opportunities (automation, personalized learning, 24/7 access) and risks (job displacement, bias, over-dependence on algorithms).

## Overall Purpose:

The workshop aimed to explore how to achieve responsible AI development that promotes innovation while ensuring ethical considerations, human rights protection, and inclusive access. The goal was to foster international dialogue and consensus-building around AI governance frameworks that serve the common good.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently collaborative and constructive tone throughout. Speakers approached the topic with cautious optimism, acknowledging both AI’s transformative potential and its significant risks. The tone was academic and policy-focused, with participants sharing practical experiences and recommendations rather than engaging in debate. There was a strong emphasis on finding common ground and shared values, particularly around human-centric approaches to AI development.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi** – Director for Digital Inclusion at UNESCO

– **Daisy Selematsela** – From the University of Witwatersrand Library, South Africa

– **Ricardo Israel Robles Pelayo** – Professor from Mexico

– **Dr Zhang Xiao** – Vice President of SYNLINK, IGF MEGA member and Executive Deputy Director of China IGF

– **Huang Chengqing** – Vice President of Internet Society of China and Director of China IGF

– **Moderator** – David, Deputy Director of China IGF (from ISC – Internet Society of China)

– **Ke GONG** – Professor, Chair of CCIT (Consultative Committee on Information Technology)

– **Dr. Yik Chan Chin** – Professor from Beijing Normal University (Note: The moderator introduced this speaker as “Professor Xiaofeng Tao” and “Professor Qian,” but the speaker identified themselves as “Dr. Yik Chan Chin”)

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Workshop Report: AI Innovation, Responsible Development, and Ethical Imperatives

## Executive Summary

This workshop at the Internet Governance Forum (Workshop 110) brought together international experts to examine the balance between fostering AI innovation and ensuring responsible development. Co-organised by the UN Consultative Committee on Information Technology (CCIT) and the Internet Society of China (ISC), the discussion featured representatives from UNESCO, academic institutions, and governance organisations. The session faced time constraints and technical difficulties that affected the flow of presentations, with some speakers’ remarks being cut short due to scheduling limitations.

## Opening Framework

The workshop was moderated by David from ISC, who serves as Deputy Director of China IGF. Professor Gong Ke, participating online, established the foundational framework by identifying three key policy dimensions: inclusive development to prevent AI from exacerbating digital disparities, the need for global governance frameworks aligned with international standards, and the establishment of multi-stakeholder collaboration mechanisms.

Professor Gong emphasised that international collaboration is essential to maximise AI’s potential while minimising negative impacts, highlighting concerns about AI systems’ lack of explainability, transparency, and issues of bias within algorithmic processes.

## UNESCO’s Perspective on Innovation and Human Rights

Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi, Director of Digital Inclusion at UNESCO, challenged the narrative that positions innovation and human rights protection as contradictory forces. He argued that these should be viewed as complementary objectives, stating that good innovation should benefit everyone rather than privileged groups.

Godoi outlined UNESCO’s three-pronged approach: fostering opportunities through AI development, mitigating risks through established frameworks, and addressing harms when they occur. He noted that UNESCO builds upon existing international human rights frameworks and mentioned the organisation’s 80th anniversary context. He emphasised that capacity building represents the primary demand from UNESCO’s member states regarding AI ethics implementation.

## Chinese Perspectives on AI Governance

Huang Chengqing, Vice President of the Internet Society of China, emphasised that AI development must be human-oriented, following the principle of “intelligence for good.” He argued that while government guidance is important, effective AI implementation requires participation from all sectors of society.

Ms. Zhang Xiao, Vice President of CENIC IGF MEGA member and Executive Deputy Director of China IGF, provided brief remarks on the complexity of AI governance, noting the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration while acknowledging the challenges involved.

## Educational Sector Concerns

Professor Qian Yiqin from Beijing Normal University raised critical questions about rapid AI implementation in educational settings without adequate consideration of consequences. He identified key risks including the acceleration of digital poverty, insufficient regulatory oversight, and unauthorised use of educational content.

Professor Qian introduced concerns about what he termed “containment of AI-generated content,” describing a problematic cycle where AI systems trained on AI-generated content could lead to deterioration of knowledge quality over time. He also raised questions about age-appropriate AI use and data ownership issues regarding user-generated commercial data.

## Latin American Perspective

Professor Ricardo Israel Robles Pelayo from Mexico expressed concern about hasty AI incorporation without adequate ethical reflection, particularly in educational institutions and justice systems. He questioned whether it is legitimate to trust algorithms trained with biased data and whether judges should delegate human judgement to machines.

Professor Pelayo emphasised that critical thinking serves as an essential mediator for ensuring fair AI decisions, arguing that innovation must be guided by law, ethics, and critical reflection rather than pursued as an end in itself.

## Academic Libraries Implementation

Dr. Daisy Selematsela from the University of Witwatersrand Library in South Africa began presenting insights on AI integration in academic libraries, highlighting both opportunities and challenges. However, her presentation was interrupted due to time constraints, preventing a complete discussion of her intended remarks about practical implementation challenges, data protection concerns, and financial constraints affecting institutions in developing countries.

## Workshop Conclusion

Due to time limitations, the moderator provided brief concluding remarks focusing on three key takeaways: inclusion as the foundation for AI development, the necessity of unity in governance approaches, and ensuring that innovation thrives within ethical guidelines. The session ended with an invitation for continued discussion rather than formal comprehensive conclusions.

## Key Challenges Identified

The workshop highlighted several unresolved issues requiring continued attention:

– Balancing rapid AI innovation with adequate regulatory oversight

– Developing mechanisms for international collaboration in AI governance

– Addressing data ownership and concentration issues

– Establishing age-appropriate guidelines for AI use in education

– Preventing AI from accelerating digital divides

## Conclusion

Despite technical difficulties and time constraints that affected the session’s flow, the workshop demonstrated international interest in addressing AI governance challenges through collaborative approaches. The discussion emphasised human-centric AI development and the need for frameworks that ensure AI serves broader societal benefits while addressing risks and inequalities. The abbreviated nature of the session highlighted the complexity of these issues and the need for continued international dialogue on AI governance.

Moderator: Good afternoon distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, speakers and participants both on-site and online. So welcome to workshop number 110. The topic of the workshop is AI Innovation, Responsible Development and Ethics Imperatives. The workshop is co-organized by CAST, UN Consolidative Committee on Information Technology, CCIT and Internet Society of China, ISC. So I’m David. You can just call me David because the same pronunciation in Chinese and English of ISC and the Deputy Director of China IGF. I’m honored to moderate today’s session. So here nowadays we stand at a very important moment where AI’s transformative power must align with ethical imperatives. Therefore, the workshop will explore how to foster innovation while ensuring responsibility, inclusivity and alignment with the global digital compact and UNESCO’s ethical frameworks. Okay, let’s begin. First, I would like to introduce the speakers of today. First, Mr. Huang Chengqing, the Vice President of Internet Society of China and the Director of China IGF, and Professor Gong Ke, Chair of CCIT, and Ms. Zhang Xiao, Vice President of CENIC IGF MEGA member and Executive Deputy Director of China IGF. And Mr. Guilherme Canara de Souza Godoy, Director of Digital Inclusion of UNESCO and Professor Qian Yiqin from Beijing Normal University and Professor Ricardo Israel Robles Pelayo from Mexico and Dr. Daisy Selematsela from the University of Waywater Slend Library, South Africa. Okay, let’s begin. First, I will invite Professor Gong Ke, Chair of CCIT. He will deliver our opening remarks online. Okay, Professor Gong, the floor is yours.

Ke GONG: Thank you. Thank you, David. Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, on behalf of one of the organizers of this workshop, CCIT, I welcome you all to join this very important discussion. CCIT stands for the Consultative Committee on Information Technology under the China Association for Science and Technology. CCIT has participated in all 20 editions in the past 20 years of IGF, sharing the perspectives and the practices of China’s ICT communities with international partners to promote internet governance to be effective, inclusive, and serves to the common interest of all people. Today, the theme of our workshop is AI innovation, responsible development, and ethical imperatives. Artificial intelligence, in short, AI, is making breakthroughs in numerous fields at an accelerated pace, reshaping sectors ranging from agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, to education, healthcare, social services, and governance. Significantly, artificial intelligence is influencing the development and operation of the Internet and other ICT services. Yet challenges and risks persist. Lack of explainability and transparency in big AI models, weak robustness and precision, potential bias and discrimination, and the danger of exacerbating existing digital divides both between and within countries. To maximize AI’s potential for achieving sustainable development while minimizing its negative impacts, international collaboration and international consensus is essential. Through technical innovation to enhance AI’s explainability, transparency, safety, and robustness, and through proper regulation based on global consensus on AI principles, interoperable standards, and rules, this workshop will address three core policy dimensions. First, inclusive development. How can policies safeguard technology access for developing nations and prevent AI from worsening digital disparities? Second, global governance. How can national frameworks align with the United Nations Global Digital Compact and operationalize UNESCO’s recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence? Third, multiple stakeholders collaboration. What mechanism models can foster effective cross-sector and cross-border collaboration, especially in today’s geopolitical context? Dear colleagues, we sincerely invite all of you to actively engage in today’s dialogue, share your insights on establishing an effective global governance models, and jointly chart a course for AI development that drives sustainable transformation and delivers a responsible digital future for all. Thank you again for joining the workshop.

Moderator: Okay, thank you. Thank you for Professor Gong’s opening remarks. And next, we welcome Mr. Huang Chengqing, the Vice President of Internet Society of China and the Director of China IGF. For his opening perspective, Mr. Huang, please.

Huang Chengqing: Ladies and gentlemen, good day to you all. It’s a great pleasure to be here with you at the UN IGF to discuss the innovation and development of artificial intelligence. On behalf of the organizers of this workshop, I would like to extend a warm welcome to all the participants. In recent years, the rapid development of AI technology has profoundly impacted human production and lifestyle. However, it has also brought about many challenges, such as algorithmic bias, privacy breaches, disinformation, deepfakes, and information concludes. How to ensure that the innovation of AI develops in a human-oriented direction has become a crucial issue that needs to be addressed urgently. This issue involves not only technological and… Thank you. This issue involves not only technological and legal aspects, but also ethical and moral considerations. Therefore, clarifying the path to responsible innovation and development of AI and ethical considerations is of great significance for the stable, safe and sustainable development of global AI industry. At present, the innovation and development of AI is of a global affair that requires the participation and cooperation of the international communities. Countries should participate in the global governance of AI with a sense of responsibility. The ultimate goal of AI technology should be to promote human well-being and enhance the overall happiness and quality of the life of the people. An increasing number of international organizations, governments and industry civil society have joined hands to promote AI technology. have introduced ethical principles and governance policies for AI. In November 2021, at the 41st United Nations General Assembly, 193 member states unanimously approved the proposal for artificial intelligence to provide new opportunities to stimulate research and innovation in nuclear physics. In November 2021, at the 41st session of the UNESCO General Conference, 193 member states unanimously adopted the recommendation of Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, which proposed to provide new opportunities to encourage ethical research and innovation and to grant AI technology in human rights and fundamental freedoms, values and ethical considerations, to grant AI technology in human rights and fundamental freedoms, values and ethical considerations. In October 2023, China released the Global AI Governance Initiative. In October 2023, China released the Global AI Governance Initiative, emphasizing the principles of people-oriented and intelligence for good, and provided a Chinese solution for global AI governance, based on the concept of a community with a shared future for mankind. At the same time, we need to recognize that to promote artificial intelligence innovation and to follow the ethical principles of science and technology for good, we need not only the guidance of governments, also need the wide participation of all sectors of the society At the same time, we must recognize that promoting the innovation of AI in accordance with the ethical concept of technology for good requires not only the guidance of governments but also the extensive participation of all sectors of the society The Chinese Internet Association, as a social organization of the Chinese Internet industry has always been committed to promote self-discipline and the construction of social responsibility in China’s Internet industry As a civil society in China, the Internet Society of China has always been committed to promote self-discipline and the construction of social responsibility in China’s Internet industry and has released a number of initiative documents and has released a number of initiative documents and industry conventions Based on the valuable platform of the Internet Governance Forum, ISC also undertakes the work of the China IGF Secretary actively participating in global Internet governance and sharing China’s beneficial practice in data security and algorithm governance Contributing to the global governance of Internet Frontier Technologies with presented by AI technology Ladies and gentlemen, I believe that promoting the development of AI is the most important goal of the Internet Governance Forum The core goal of Responsible Development is to ensure the basic human rights of AI technology, respect human basic rights, promote fair justice, and prevent potential risks. I hope this that through this workshop we can bring together the consensus of all parties through interesting exchanges and cooperations, and work together to contribute to the innovation and development of AI. I wish the workshop a complete success. Thank you all.

Moderator: Thank you Mr. Huang for his opening perspective. And now we turn to our first presentation. First speaker is Mr. Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoy, Director for Digital Inclusion at UNESCO. His topic is Shaping Humanistic and Inclusive AI Innovation. Mr. Godoy, you have the floor.

Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi: Thank you very much. First and foremost, thank you so much for the invitation to be here. And the previous two speakers already did part of my job because they explained better than I could do. What are the key characteristics of the UNESCO recommendations on ethics and AI? So probably they saved me a few seconds on this conversation. So the first important thing here, if you need to take just one element of my five minutes, is this one. We shouldn’t put innovation and protection and promotion of human rights as contradictory goals in this conversation about AI. It’s possible to innovate and at the same time protect and promote fundamental freedoms and human rights and be ethical. This should be actually our aim. We shouldn’t negotiate that. Actually, good innovation is very much related to the fact that we are not leaving anyone behind. Otherwise, it’s an innovation that benefits just a specific group in our society. So that said, the spoiler made, this is my conclusion. Let me just go into some specifics. UNESCO is celebrating its 80th anniversary this year. We were created together with the UN system in 1945. And if you look into the very first paragraph of the UNESCO constitution, you will see there that UNESCO is an organization that should promote the free flow of information and ideas. So from the very start of UNESCO, every technological revolution were brought to UNESCO to discuss, well, how we support this technological revolution and at the same time, we keep this mandate of protecting the free flow of information and ideas, which is broadly connected with the overall protection and promotion of the international human rights law system and the international standards that all UNESCO 194 member states have agreed on the first. So, as you can imagine, it’s easy to say, but it’s not that easy to do. And if we want to summarize in a nutshell, it’s what the previous two speakers already said. At the end of the day, when we are looking into and assessing these technological changes, in this case it’s AI, but a few years ago was another thing, tomorrow will be quantum or whatever, we are looking into three big things. We need to find ways to foster the huge opportunities we have with these technological revolutions and fostering these opportunities to everyone. We need to mitigate the risks and eventually we need to prosecute the harms. And it’s not one thing or the other, it’s one thing and the other. And that’s the basic of the governance system, how we do this, how we enhance the opportunities, mitigate the risks and eventually prosecute the harms. In the view of UNESCO and the United Nations system, we do that implementing the international agreements, the international standards that we have agreed on in the first place. In our case, for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So the UNESCO recommendation on ethics and AI actually is a translation to the AI sphere of these 80 years of history in dealing with the different technological changes that we had and how we can assess those changes, keeping in mind these original commitments and principles of our societies. Again, in our case, the human rights system and the Human Rights Declaration. So to conclude, practically speaking, what we are doing now is guaranteeing that our member states are capable of using the recommendation on ethics and AI and assess themselves to understand how ready they are to move to the next step. So more than 70 UNESCO member states have already implemented the readiness assessment methodology, which is a good self-assessment of what is needed to make the jump. And the second big pillar of this conversation for UNESCO vis-à-vis our member states is capacity building. It’s the first demand we have from our member states, is to increase capacity building on these different areas. So very recently we launched in the beginning of June in Paris a global alliance of national schools of governments and public administration in order to create processes of pre-service and in-service training of civil servants in the public sector about these issues. Then finally, to conclude, I’m also the secretary of an important intergovernmental program in UNESCO called Information for All, of which China is a very active member. And in that program, we are always emphasizing, if what we are doing here is not for everyone, for all, then we are missing something. And therefore we need to look into specific issues such as multilingualism, what we do for people with disabilities, or how we reduce gender gaps, and so on and so forth. So thank you and a pleasure to participate in this conversation.

Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Godoy. Next, I will invite Professor Xiaofeng Tao from Beijing Normal University. She will address risks and responsible use of AI in higher education. Okay, Professor Qian, please. Okay, great.

Dr. Yik Chan Chin: Thank you for… Thank you for giving the opportunity to address the ethical issue here. So I choose a particular topic, which is the education, ethics, the AI risk in education. So as we know that, you know, the AI actually poses some unique ethical and risk to the society. For example, like fairness, transparency, privacy issues, especially for the education sector. So therefore, in my presentation, following presentation, I will look at, you know, the risk, AI risk and application of generative AI in higher education. So first of all, what kind of the application, you know, we use at the moment in higher education, for example, like we use AI, generative AI for academic writing and learning support, personalized adaptive learning, pedagogical support, creative education, and so on. And so there’s a kind of opportunity brought by the application of the generative AI, such as we can now we can have more convenient student center opportunity and institutional opportunity and education, innovation, inclusion, reduce the workload and for the, of course, the educational sector and also free up teachers’ times, allowing them to focus on more excellent teaching or innovative teachings. But at the same time, we also notice, you know, that’s the many research has been going on. Look at the risk of generative AI in the educational sector. So there’s several very salient risks. The first one is the acceleration of digital poverty, which means so data reached a poor country will be excluded, you know, from the development of the larger language model or the algorithm. Secondly, is the lack of the national supervision and regulation, which means the technology is too fast. and most of the time it’s the big companies who control the technology, who know how to use it, implement it well actually the regulators are lagging behind to regulate so there’s some kind of gaps between the technological development and the regulation the third one is unauthorized use of content we know that there’s so many legal cases going on at the moment, like intellectual property rights issues and then the fourth one is the un-expandability of a generative model because of the black box nature it’s difficult to understand the reason for them to generate specific content and the fifth one is the containment of AI-generated content I think yesterday there was a report, a paper published, which talked about how the charted GPT, the large-language model actually changed by the content generated by the GPT so there’s a circle, you know, you change it on something which is reliable so the result is, the outcome is reliable again so there’s a serious problem about the reliability of knowledge in the long term and then there’s a lack of the real-world understanding as we know that the large-language model doesn’t really understand the text, the output they give to you we know the mechanism of how the generative AI works and there’s other two risks which is quite significant the one is when we look at education so if we use a large-language model without awareness of risk there’s a big issue about the reduce of diversity of opinions and the marginalize of minority voice because the opinions dominate, you know, the general opinion which is the most common or dominate positions and the deepfake issue as well so there’s some policy recommendation, actually it’s based on the UNESCO’s report of course every country They gave some recommendations, but here I used a recommendation from the U.S. school. So for example, we needed to educate the school and the education institution to improve their understanding of the potential benefit of the risk of artificial intelligence. So they need to understand what is the potential benefit, but at the same time the risk in the education institutions. And secondly, we need to reflect on the long-term impact of generative AI on the education research. So this is because as we noticed that most of the countries are still in the very early stage of adopting AI, generative AI in education. We have some of the advanced countries like China, America, even the EU, but a lot of countries are actually still in the early stage to adapt to AI. So there’s an urgent need for the public debate and police dialogue on the long-term impact of the AI in education, but this kind of debate has to be multi-stakeholder inclusive. And the other one is the definition and implementation of aging limitation of generative AI. What is the aging limitation for users to use AI? Because most of the AI in large number is designed for adults, which is 18 or at least 13 years old. So should we allow primary school students or middle school students under 13 to use charged GBD? So there’s a risk as well. So we need to discuss this. And the last one is about data ownership. So there’s a huge debate about the concentration of structures of data. So what kind of, should we allow the user-generated commercial data to be only owned by the large company, which will kind of manipulate the data? So should we have a huge debate? how we should use those data. So actually, we use a case study from China and the UK, because I do not have much time left, but you are welcome to do some research about these two countries. I think that’s a very interesting case study, because China just announced two guidance. The first guidance, the guidance for the general education of artificial intelligence in primary and secondary school, and the guidance for the use of generative artificial intelligence this year. So they give a very detailed plan, you know, how to use AI in their primary education, secondary education. Of course, there are some, for example, they have a particular approach, for example, moving from the quantitative to application to creation. So they have some pedagogical design, and also want to have a promote kind of international standard collaboration. Well, the UK’s approach is slightly different. UK also published recently and last year, they published very comprehensive guidance in using AI in education context, for example, the safe and effective use of AI. So they more look at the safety issue. Safety should be the top priority when deciding whether to use AI in an educational setting. So these two countries are very interesting for us to explore further. I think we need an urgent debate on this, especially for those countries who haven’t applied AI in their education. So I stop here. Thank you very much.

Moderator: Okay, thank you, Professor Chen. Now I will invite our third speaker, Professor Richardo Israel Robles-Peleo from Mexico, and he will share insights on innovation with responsibility, a legal and ethical perspective. Okay, Professor Peleo, please.

Ricardo Israel Robles Pelayo: Thank you very much. Good afternoon, everyone. It is an honor to be here and share a reflection on a topic that is crucial to our present and above all. Our future. Artificial intelligence sends both as a driver of innovation as a legal ethical challenge. AI is transforming all aspects of life from daily activity to critical sectors such as healthcare, education, justice, and security. While AI offers great innovation potential, it also presents significant legal and ethical challenges. Its widespread use demands responsibility. Therefore, it is essential to establish guiding principles, values, regulations, and public policies to ensure the responsible and sustainable use of this resource. Based on my professional experience in Mexico and Latin America, education and the justice system are two key areas that can significantly shape how societies respond to the impact of the AI. Talking about the AI as a source of stress of the students. As I mentioned in IGF in Berlin, it is urgent to apply big data in the design of educational policies. However, it is essential not to lose sight of what the students experience in their daily lives. Hyperconnectivity and constant use of AI-based tools can provoke insanity, destruction, and technological dependence among young people. The pressure to stay updated, the overflow of information, and the algorithms that filter and shape what we consume directly affect their emotional well-being and their ability to develop critical thinking. Despite this, we are witnessing how many educational institutions and even the national education system are hastily incorporating AI without taking the time to analyze its ethical implications. It seems that the urgency to innovate has overtaken the reflection on the human consequences this entails. And what about the artificial intelligence in the justice system? AI is already being used in areas such as crime prediction, evidence analysis, and even sentencing recommendations. However, in countries like Mexico, where the justice system faces deep structural challenges, we must ask, is it legitimate to trust an algorithm trained with biased data? Can a judge delegate their human judgment to a machine? Recently, Mexico established a system for selecting judges that prioritizes popular election over academic training and technical experience, undermining impartiality and legal quality. This reality, combined with work overload, lack of specializing training, and political electoral pressures, may lead to a dangerous trend using AI as a shortcut to issue rulings disregarding the ethical principles and critical analysis that justice requires. And what about the AI versus ethics, morality, and critical thinking? Artificial intelligence makes decisions based on data but lacks autonomy and ethical judgment, which can lead to bias. Ethics enables deliberation on what is right through philosophical principles, although it can become unjust when imposed authoritatively. Morality, rooted in social norms, may exclude if it is not inclusive. In this context, critical is essential for evaluating and questioning automatisms, identifying risks it serves as the key mediator to ensure fair and contextualized decisions. No system is infallible on its own. Critical thinking asks as the essential mediator for fair and contextualized decisions. In conclusion, Artificial Intelligence is already resharpening how we learn, judge, and protect ourselves. However, without ethical guidance, it can threaten human dignity. Its misuse in education, justice, and cyber security highlights the need for strong regulations, inclusive policies, and critical engaged society. Building a fair and sustainable digital world requires not just innovation, but shared responsibility and focus on humanity. Innovation must not be an end itself. It should be guided by law, ethics, and critical reflection. Mexico has the opportunity to build an inclusive, regulated, and people-centered Artificial Intelligence model. That will be true responsible innovation. So, thank you again for allowing me to share these ideas with you, and I look forward to continuing to collaborate in these important forums.

Moderator: Okay, thank you, Professor Pelayo. Now, I will welcome Dr. Daisy Selematsela from the University of Witwatersrand Library, South Africa, and discussing how education institutions leverage libraries to navigate AI challenges and opportunities. Okay, Dr. Selematsela, please.

Daisy Selematsela: Thank you. I just want to highlight on issues faced by academic libraries when we look at the integration of AI in the work that we do. And as you have heard from the other panelists here, issues around that are impacting on higher education and especially the pedagogy side. But coming from the library background, it’s quite important for us when we deal with the collections from academic libraries and how do we do see the interface between the collections that we have. So I just want to touch based on ethical concerns that we have and you have heard a lot that you heard from the previous speakers, that from ethical concerns for us from the library side, we handle vast data. And it’s quite crucial to navigate these ethical dilemmas responsibly from the side of the library side. When we look at technical challenges, we also are looking at issues such as interoperability of our systems because we then also align ourselves with international databases and e-resources and also a lack of technical expertise also hinder our seamless adoption. The other part I want to touch base on is the issues around financial constraints. And here is that as you know that when budgets are cut in universities, libraries are the first ones to be affected by the budget cuts. And this makes it difficult in investing in advanced AI solutions. The other aspect that’s a challenge is the job displacement fears. Concerns exist among staff about the potential use of AI replacing human jobs and actually and especially where we have tools that we use as librarians for the services that we provide. The other challenge that I want to highlight the issues around content digitization. At this day and age, we ensure that our special collections are digitized and we need to ensure that as part of the effectiveness of AI, we need to ensure high quality digital content is essential for optimal functionality. The other aspect is the users. Our library users, students, academics, and researchers at large. User adaptation is quite key, and education, data literacies, and you have heard about pedagogy, I won’t dwell much, but it’s quite key when we look at adoption of our technologies, especially in AR. The other aspect that we pick up as a challenge is interference, or the interference with traditional teaching and learning, and you have heard a little bit about the pedagogical aspect, it’s quite important. The other aspect is the data at risk, or the fragility of access, and here we’re looking at libraries implementing robust data protection strategies, such as encryption, anonymization, and access control measures, because that’s key for the work that we do. The other aspect is the constant uncertainty that we pick up when we are looking at the integration of AI in academic libraries, and here are some key aspects I want to highlight, data quality and reliability. Here we’re looking at the inconsistent or biased data that can lead to unreliable outcomes, making it challenging for us to maintain the accuracy and reliability of AI-driven services in libraries. The other aspect that’s key is technological dependence, and here we’re looking at issues around cyber attacks that actually compromise library resources and services, as you know that with libraries we deal mostly with international platforms and tools. The other aspect is evolving technologies, like I’ve highlighted, that we, for libraries globally, we tend to subscribe to similar tools and databases, and this requires also resource-intensive, which are quite resource-intense, and also impacts on the longevity and stability of our current system, and we need to keep abreast of the evolving technologies. The other aspect is on the issue of ethical and privacy concerns. When we use AI in libraries, we need to ensure that the AI systems that we have are transparent and fair, as an ongoing challenge. The other aspect is the user adaptation, and we can’t overemphasize the involvement of the users of the tools, the databases that we have in libraries, to ensure that equality and access is across the board, as we have heard from a colleague from UNESCO. So, educating users and building their confidence in these technologies, that’s the daily bread that we do in libraries, and it can become difficult. The other aspect is around regulator and policy changes. Libraries must stay informed and compliant with these changes, which can add to the uncertainty that we face. The other aspect that I want to, it’s the benefits that we look into. Under the benefits, the recap in academic libraries, it’s personalized learning. We need to ensure that AI, as the tool, can actually assist us in recommending books, articles, and other resources to ensure that personalized learning of the user. This tailored approach would also enhance the learning experience of our students and researchers. The other aspect is regarding automation of repetitive tasks. We do a lot of cataloging, which are routine work, and indexing and inventory management. And we see the use of AI actually allowing librarians to focus more on complex tasks and intellectually demanding activities, and that’s how we see the movement with the AI tools. Improved data management and analysis. Also, we see AI tools that can help and manage, analyze large data sets, making it easier to derive meaningful insight and support on research activities. And the other aspect, no library can work or be effective without access to its resources 24-7, irrespective of where you are located. And we’re seeing AI-powered chatbots. and virtual assistants can provide around-the-clock support to users answering queries and assisting library services at any given time. The other aspects that AI offers us that we pick as offering numerous benefits to academic libraries is enhanced search and discoverability. We can’t operate without AI-driven algorithms that can analyze vast data sets quickly, improving the accuracy and efficiency of search results. And this helps our researchers and our students to find relevant information faster. Enhanced accessibility, I can’t dwell much on that. It’s about the speech to text, the text-to-speech and other assistive technologies for disabled users and so forth. When we come to resource planning and collection development, we see predictive analytics that can help librarians plan their resources and develop collections that better meet the needs of their users. And this benefit actually highlight the transformative potential of AI in academic libraries, making them much more efficient, user-friendly, capable and supporting advanced research. The other part that we love much in libraries is the issues around repositories. And our repositories, whether it’s on data repositories or repositories about our collections, also we see the benefits where AI can serve as agents that can also enhance the functionalities of our repositories. And also here we’re looking at content generation, where this includes generating summaries, translations and even new research articles by analyzing and synthesizing information from the repository. The other aspect would be enhanced search and discoverability. Here we’re looking at AI agents that can improve the search and discover process by understanding user queries better and providing more relevant results. and they can also suggest related material that users might find useful. And that’s how we see the growth in how AI can be used in our repositories. Other aspects would relate to automated metadata creation and this will also assist us in reducing the manual effort required when we catalog our collections in the library. The other aspect will be on personalized recommendations. Here AI agents can offer personalized recommendations for books to a particular user, articles and other resources, enhancing the user’s experience. The other aspect will be on interactive learning. Selematsela, time is up. Okay, I will speak only for 5 minutes. Okay, I’m sorry.

Moderator: Okay, thank you Dr. Selematsela. For our special remarks, I will invite Ms. Zhang Xiao, Vice President of SYNLINK, IGF MEGA member and Executive Deputy Director of China IGF. Okay, Ms. Zhang, share your thoughts.

Dr Zhang Xiao: Thank you everyone. I’m glad to be involved in this interesting discussion and I have three points to share after listening to all the distinguished speakers. The first is why we are still talking about innovation and governance. And as I heard some people, especially from industry, that governance could not be too early because AI is still a young baby at this moment. But as we know that you cannot go to the road without a break with your car. So actually I think from the Chinese philosophy, that’s the beauty of the unity of objects. So from the innovation and governance, especially something like ethics, they are not objects. They are aligned with each other in nature, in our philosophy. Because without good governance, we cannot go further. So my second point is that what we can learn from internet governance, because we are here in the Internet Governance Forum, and of course we know that internet governance has the beauty of a modest stakeholder approach. But what’s the difference between AI and internet? As we know, the internet has connected all of us horizontally. But for AI, it has changed each field vertically. So they’ll be more complex, especially in ethics and safety issues. So what we can learn from internet governance is definitely a modest stakeholder, but if we should go further, they’ll be more complex. And the third question is what we can do in the future. Definitely, I think for AI governance people, we should find something. Of course, a modest stakeholder is beautiful. We should listen to different people. But still, we should go further. We need to find something in common. And one thing I think particularly important is ethics value. That should be in my mind as there should be a set of frameworks of ethics as we have done by UNESCO. But I think human-centric is something we all recognize. Human-centric. Because I think AI is more empowering, should be more empowering people, more enabling than just prevent or control the machines. That’s a human behind the machines. So I think human-centric, that means we should raise the awareness of each people, of each person, raise awareness that something is going to happen. And because it becomes too complex and sometimes it’s hard to find something in common. But still, let’s find something in common. I think there is awareness, human-centric, capacity building, and we are all doing, especially like AI. Liu, and Kevin Sekaray. And so, also I think we should have some shared vocabulary including frameworks of ethics and also interoperable standards. So let’s find something common and still allow the beauty of multidisciplinary approaches considering the different culture and backgrounds. So actually I think it’s very important that we can learn something from Internet governance, the multidisciplinary approach, and also we should be more enabling and responsible for AI because it has been more complex and also has ethics inside. That’s my very short comments. Thank you. Okay.

Moderator: Thank you, Ms. Zhang. So here we still only have six meetings because in my schedule we have a free discussion, but the time is up. Okay, I will make a conclusion. So we have three critical takeaways emerged. First, inclusion is a foundation. AI must bridge, not deepen, global divides, especially in the global South. And second, governance requires unity and national frameworks must harmonize with international norms like UNESCO’s ethic recommendation. And third, innovation thrives with guiding rails. Ethical by design ensures AI serves humanity, not vice versa. So if you have some questions, we can make a discussion and maybe we can have some more discussion and dialogues after the workshop. And so we believe that through our shared efforts, AI can become a force for good advancing economic and and the social development and creating a better future for all. So do you have some questions you can ask and our speakers maybe will answer you. Do you have four minutes? If you have questions, you can raise your up. So I’m very glad to meet you in this workshop. And on behalf of CCIT, IFC and China IGF, I think I thank our brilliant speakers, engaged participants and IGF secretary, especially the IGF secretary. So thank you, IGF, for giving us an important and equal platform to share our experiences and discuss the problems and share the opinions. So we hope that IGF will hold continuously. Maybe it’s our the same hope. Okay, the time is up. If you want to make more collaboration, we can discuss and make some more dialogue after the workshop. Okay. Thank you. Beggan construction of the builder’s house, located in the CAIA-7INAUDIBLE FORTRESS, along the United States- scenic South Saudi Arabia border coating. The house was designed to have been perfect for military educational purposes. The building has over 300 rooms and was designed for international students. Another biggest achievement of this way of building is the display of white-house mapping using RealFleet mapping. It depicts the tuning unit of the G-whooce itself, Ding therelilalada bebealina dingerelemang e Bea prestige under the PE who HE DA French who Pen dingerelemang e Bea prestige under the PE who HE DA French who Pen dingerelemang e Bea prestige under the PE who HE DA French who HE DA Pen dingerelemang e Bea prestige under the The case settled, the prime subject of a special report resulted in the failing investigation. For more information visit www.FEMA.gov director & producer machine visual effects ORIENTAL CINEMATOGRAPHY ditto sitter speech MASTER DITTO PHENOMENAL INVISIBLE FRANKIENSTEIN DILEMMA DOMINGUEZ Thanks For Watching!!

Agreement points

Human-centric approach as fundamental principle for AI development

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi
– Huang Chengqing
– Dr Zhang Xiao

Arguments

Innovation and protection of human rights should not be contradictory goals in AI development

AI development must be human-oriented and follow the principle of “intelligence for good”

Human-centric approach should be the common framework for AI ethics

Summary

All three speakers emphasize that AI development must prioritize human welfare and rights, with AI serving humanity rather than the reverse. They agree that human-centric principles should guide AI innovation and governance.

Topics

Human rights principles | Development

Need for international collaboration and unified governance frameworks

Speakers

– Ke GONG
– Huang Chengqing
– Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi
– Moderator

Arguments

International collaboration and consensus are essential to maximize AI’s potential while minimizing negative impacts

Countries should participate in global AI governance with a sense of responsibility

UNESCO’s 80-year experience in managing technological revolutions provides a foundation for AI governance

Governance requiring unity through harmonized national and international frameworks

Summary

Speakers unanimously agree that AI governance requires international cooperation and alignment between national frameworks and global standards like UNESCO’s recommendations and the UN Global Digital Compact.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Human rights principles

Multi-stakeholder participation essential for effective AI governance

Speakers

– Huang Chengqing
– Dr Zhang Xiao
– Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi

Arguments

AI implementation requires extensive participation from all sectors of society, not just government guidance

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential but AI governance is more complex than internet governance due to vertical impact across sectors

Good innovation should benefit everyone, not just specific groups in society

Summary

Speakers agree that effective AI governance cannot rely solely on government action but requires participation from all sectors of society, though they acknowledge AI governance is more complex than previous technological governance models.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Interdisciplinary approaches

AI must address rather than exacerbate digital divides and inequality

Speakers

– Ke GONG
– Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi
– Dr. Yik Chan Chin
– Moderator

Arguments

Policies must safeguard technology access for developing nations and prevent AI from worsening digital disparities

Good innovation should benefit everyone, not just specific groups in society

AI poses risks of accelerating digital poverty, lack of supervision, and unauthorized content use in education

AI must bridge rather than deepen global divides

Summary

All speakers recognize that AI development risks widening existing inequalities and agree that inclusive policies are essential to ensure AI benefits all populations, particularly in developing nations and educational contexts.

Topics

Development | Digital access | Human rights principles

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers express concern about the rushed implementation of AI in educational settings without proper consideration of ethical implications and risks to students and educational quality.

Speakers

– Ricardo Israel Robles Pelayo
– Dr. Yik Chan Chin

Arguments

Educational institutions are hastily incorporating AI without analyzing ethical implications

AI poses risks of accelerating digital poverty, lack of supervision, and unauthorized content use in education

Topics

Online education | Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasize the importance of human judgment and critical thinking in AI systems, arguing that technology should empower rather than replace human decision-making capabilities.

Speakers

– Ricardo Israel Robles Pelayo
– Dr Zhang Xiao

Arguments

Critical thinking serves as essential mediator for fair and contextualized AI decisions

Human-centric approach should be the common framework for AI ethics

Topics

Human rights principles | Development

Both speakers highlight the practical challenges educational institutions face in implementing AI, including resource constraints, technical limitations, and the need for proper oversight and regulation.

Speakers

– Daisy Selematsela
– Dr. Yik Chan Chin

Arguments

Academic libraries face challenges with data management, technical expertise, and financial constraints in AI integration

AI poses risks of accelerating digital poverty, lack of supervision, and unauthorized content use in education

Topics

Online education | Development | Infrastructure

Unexpected consensus

Innovation and ethics as complementary rather than competing forces

Speakers

– Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi
– Ricardo Israel Robles Pelayo
– Moderator

Arguments

Innovation and protection of human rights should not be contradictory goals in AI development

Innovation must be guided by law, ethics, and critical reflection rather than being an end in itself

Innovation thriving with ethical guidelines

Explanation

Unexpectedly, speakers from different backgrounds (UNESCO, academia, moderation) converged on rejecting the common industry narrative that ethics and regulation slow innovation, instead arguing they are mutually reinforcing.

Topics

Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory | Development

AI governance complexity exceeding internet governance challenges

Speakers

– Dr Zhang Xiao
– Dr. Yik Chan Chin
– Daisy Selematsela

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential but AI governance is more complex than internet governance due to vertical impact across sectors

There are concerns about reliability of AI-generated content and reduction of diversity of opinions

Academic libraries face challenges with data management, technical expertise, and financial constraints in AI integration

Explanation

Despite coming from different sectors (governance, education, libraries), these speakers unexpectedly agreed that AI presents fundamentally different and more complex challenges than previous internet governance models, requiring new approaches.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Interdisciplinary approaches | Online education

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated remarkable consensus on core principles: human-centric AI development, need for international cooperation, multi-stakeholder participation, and inclusive development that addresses rather than exacerbates digital divides. They also agreed on the complexity of AI governance challenges and the complementary relationship between innovation and ethics.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles with strong implications for AI governance. The agreement across diverse stakeholders (UNESCO, government, academia, civil society) from different regions (China, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil) suggests these principles have broad international support and could form the foundation for global AI governance frameworks. The consensus particularly strengthens the legitimacy of UNESCO’s ethical recommendations and the multi-stakeholder approach pioneered in internet governance, while acknowledging the need for more sophisticated governance mechanisms for AI’s unique challenges.

Different viewpoints

Pace and approach to AI implementation in education

Speakers

– Dr. Yik Chan Chin
– Ricardo Israel Robles Pelayo

Arguments

AI poses risks of accelerating digital poverty, lack of supervision, and unauthorized content use in education

Educational institutions are hastily incorporating AI without analyzing ethical implications

Summary

Both speakers identify problems with current AI implementation in education, but Dr. Chin focuses on systemic risks like digital poverty and regulatory gaps, while Pelayo emphasizes the rushed adoption without ethical consideration and its psychological impact on students

Topics

Online education | Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Complexity of AI governance compared to internet governance

Speakers

– Dr Zhang Xiao

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential but AI governance is more complex than internet governance due to vertical impact across sectors

Explanation

Zhang uniquely argues that AI governance is fundamentally more complex than internet governance because AI impacts sectors vertically rather than connecting horizontally like the internet. This perspective wasn’t directly addressed by other speakers, creating an implicit disagreement about whether existing internet governance models are sufficient for AI

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Interdisciplinary approaches

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers showed remarkable consensus on core principles (human-centric AI, need for ethical frameworks, international cooperation) but differed primarily on implementation approaches and emphasis. The main areas of disagreement were subtle, focusing on methodology rather than fundamental goals.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers largely agreed on fundamental principles but showed different perspectives on implementation strategies, regulatory approaches, and the complexity of governance challenges. This suggests a mature field where basic principles are established but practical implementation remains contested.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers express concern about the rushed implementation of AI in educational settings without proper consideration of ethical implications and risks to students and educational quality.

Speakers

– Ricardo Israel Robles Pelayo
– Dr. Yik Chan Chin

Arguments

Educational institutions are hastily incorporating AI without analyzing ethical implications

AI poses risks of accelerating digital poverty, lack of supervision, and unauthorized content use in education

Topics

Online education | Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasize the importance of human judgment and critical thinking in AI systems, arguing that technology should empower rather than replace human decision-making capabilities.

Speakers

– Ricardo Israel Robles Pelayo
– Dr Zhang Xiao

Arguments

Critical thinking serves as essential mediator for fair and contextualized AI decisions

Human-centric approach should be the common framework for AI ethics

Topics

Human rights principles | Development

Both speakers highlight the practical challenges educational institutions face in implementing AI, including resource constraints, technical limitations, and the need for proper oversight and regulation.

Speakers

– Daisy Selematsela
– Dr. Yik Chan Chin

Arguments

Academic libraries face challenges with data management, technical expertise, and financial constraints in AI integration

AI poses risks of accelerating digital poverty, lack of supervision, and unauthorized content use in education

Topics

Online education | Development | Infrastructure

Key takeaways

Innovation and human rights protection should be complementary, not contradictory goals in AI development

AI governance requires a human-centric approach with international collaboration and consensus-building

Multi-stakeholder participation is essential, but AI governance is more complex than internet governance due to its vertical impact across all sectors

Educational institutions are rapidly adopting AI without sufficient consideration of ethical implications and long-term consequences

Three core policy dimensions must be addressed: inclusive development, global governance alignment, and multi-stakeholder collaboration

Critical thinking serves as an essential mediator for ensuring fair and contextualized AI decisions

Capacity building is the primary demand from member states for responsible AI implementation

AI must bridge rather than deepen global digital divides, particularly affecting developing nations

Resolutions and action items

UNESCO member states should implement the readiness assessment methodology for AI ethics (over 70 states have already done so)

Educational institutions need to improve understanding of AI benefits and risks before implementation

Countries should develop national frameworks that align with UN Global Digital Compact and UNESCO ethical recommendations

Academic libraries should implement robust data protection strategies including encryption, anonymization, and access control measures

Establish age limitations and guidelines for generative AI use in educational settings

Promote international collaboration through shared vocabulary, ethical frameworks, and interoperable standards

Unresolved issues

How to effectively balance rapid AI innovation with adequate regulatory oversight

Specific mechanisms for cross-border and cross-sector collaboration in current geopolitical context

Data ownership and concentration issues regarding user-generated commercial data

Age limitations for AI use in primary and secondary education settings

How to address the reliability concerns of AI-generated content contaminating training data

Specific strategies for preventing AI from accelerating digital poverty in developing nations

How to maintain diversity of opinions and prevent marginalization of minority voices in AI systems

Suggested compromises

Find common ground through shared ethical frameworks while allowing for cultural and contextual differences

Balance innovation speed with responsible development by implementing ‘ethical by design’ principles

Combine government guidance with extensive participation from all sectors of society

Learn from internet governance’s multi-stakeholder approach while adapting to AI’s greater complexity

Focus on human-centric values as universal foundation while accommodating different national approaches

Prioritize capacity building and awareness-raising as foundational steps before full AI implementation

We shouldn’t put innovation and protection and promotion of human rights as contradictory goals in this conversation about AI. It’s possible to innovate and at the same time protect and promote fundamental freedoms and human rights and be ethical. This should be actually our aim. We shouldn’t negotiate that. Actually, good innovation is very much related to the fact that we are not leaving anyone behind.

Speaker

Guilherme Canela de Souza Godoi (UNESCO)

Reason

This comment reframes the entire AI governance debate by challenging the false dichotomy between innovation and ethics. It’s particularly insightful because it positions ethical considerations not as barriers to innovation, but as essential components of truly beneficial innovation.

Impact

This comment set the philosophical foundation for the entire discussion, establishing that the workshop would not debate whether to choose between innovation or ethics, but rather how to achieve both simultaneously. It influenced subsequent speakers to focus on practical implementation rather than justifying the need for ethical AI.

The containment of AI-generated content… there’s a circle, you know, you change it on something which is reliable so the result is, the outcome is reliable again so there’s a serious problem about the reliability of knowledge in the long term

Speaker

Dr. Yik Chan Chin (Beijing Normal University)

Reason

This observation about the recursive degradation of AI-generated content introduces a profound epistemological concern that hadn’t been addressed by previous speakers. It highlights how AI systems trained on AI-generated content could lead to a deterioration of knowledge quality over time.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from immediate ethical concerns to long-term systemic risks, introducing a new dimension of complexity that other speakers hadn’t considered. It deepened the conversation by highlighting how current AI practices could have cascading effects on future knowledge systems.

What’s the difference between AI and internet? As we know, the internet has connected all of us horizontally. But for AI, it has changed each field vertically. So they’ll be more complex, especially in ethics and safety issues.

Speaker

Dr Zhang Xiao (China IGF)

Reason

This metaphor brilliantly distinguishes between horizontal connectivity (internet) and vertical transformation (AI), providing a new framework for understanding why AI governance is fundamentally different and more complex than internet governance.

Impact

This comment provided a conceptual breakthrough that helped explain why existing internet governance models, while useful, are insufficient for AI governance. It influenced the discussion’s conclusion by highlighting the need for new approaches that account for AI’s sector-specific vertical impacts.

Despite this, we are witnessing how many educational institutions and even the national education system are hastily incorporating AI without taking the time to analyze its ethical implications. It seems that the urgency to innovate has overtaken the reflection on the human consequences this entails.

Speaker

Ricardo Israel Robles Pelayo (Mexico)

Reason

This observation critically challenges the rush to adopt AI in education and justice systems, highlighting the dangerous gap between technological implementation and ethical reflection. It’s particularly powerful because it connects abstract ethical principles to concrete institutional failures.

Impact

This comment introduced a sense of urgency and critique that hadn’t been present in earlier presentations, shifting the tone from theoretical discussion to practical concern about current harmful practices. It prompted deeper consideration of implementation timelines and the need for ethical frameworks before, not after, AI adoption.

When budgets are cut in universities, libraries are the first ones to be affected by the budget cuts. And this makes it difficult in investing in advanced AI solutions… The other challenge that I want to highlight the issues around content digitization.

Speaker

Daisy Selematsela (University of Witwatersrand)

Reason

This comment grounds the AI ethics discussion in practical resource constraints and infrastructure challenges, particularly highlighting how global inequalities manifest in AI adoption. It brings attention to often-overlooked institutional players (libraries) in AI governance.

Impact

This perspective added a crucial dimension of practical implementation challenges that the previous speakers had not addressed, showing how ethical AI principles must account for resource disparities and institutional constraints, particularly in developing countries.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a theoretical discussion about AI ethics into a nuanced, multi-dimensional conversation that addressed philosophical foundations, practical implementation challenges, and long-term systemic risks. The UNESCO representative’s opening reframing eliminated false dichotomies and set a collaborative tone. Dr. Chin’s insight about recursive content degradation introduced temporal complexity to the discussion. Dr. Zhang’s horizontal/vertical metaphor provided a new conceptual framework for understanding AI governance complexity. Professor Pelayo’s critique of hasty implementation added urgency and practical grounding, while Dr. Selematsela’s focus on resource constraints highlighted global inequality issues. Together, these comments created a comprehensive discussion that moved from abstract principles to concrete challenges, establishing both the philosophical necessity and practical complexity of responsible AI development.

How can policies safeguard technology access for developing nations and prevent AI from worsening digital disparities?

Speaker

Ke GONG

Explanation

This addresses the critical issue of inclusive development and ensuring AI benefits reach all countries, not just developed ones

How can national frameworks align with the United Nations Global Digital Compact and operationalize UNESCO’s recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence?

Speaker

Ke GONG

Explanation

This focuses on harmonizing global governance approaches and ensuring consistent implementation of ethical AI principles across nations

What mechanism models can foster effective cross-sector and cross-border collaboration, especially in today’s geopolitical context?

Speaker

Ke GONG

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of maintaining international cooperation on AI governance despite current geopolitical tensions

What is the aging limitation for users to use AI? Should we allow primary school students or middle school students under 13 to use ChatGPT?

Speaker

Dr. Yik Chan Chin

Explanation

This raises important questions about age-appropriate AI use in education and the need for age-based restrictions on AI tools

Should we allow the user-generated commercial data to be only owned by the large company, which will manipulate the data?

Speaker

Dr. Yik Chan Chin

Explanation

This addresses critical questions about data ownership, concentration of power, and fair use of user-generated data in AI systems

Is it legitimate to trust an algorithm trained with biased data? Can a judge delegate their human judgment to a machine?

Speaker

Ricardo Israel Robles Pelayo

Explanation

This raises fundamental questions about the role of AI in judicial systems and the limits of algorithmic decision-making in justice

How do we ensure that AI systems in libraries are transparent and fair as an ongoing challenge?

Speaker

Daisy Selematsela

Explanation

This addresses the need for ongoing research into maintaining transparency and fairness in AI systems used in academic and library contexts

What can we learn from internet governance for AI governance, considering AI changes each field vertically while internet connects horizontally?

Speaker

Dr Zhang Xiao

Explanation

This suggests the need for research into adapting internet governance models for the more complex, sector-specific challenges of AI governance

Summary

This discussion was hosted by the Digital Cooperation Organization (DCO) at the Internet Governance Forum, focusing on “Cooperation for Digital Resilience and Prosperity” and how to operationalize trust, resilience, and equity in digital spaces. The session brought together experts from various international organizations, governments, and regions to explore moving from theoretical frameworks to practical implementation of digital cooperation initiatives.

Hassan Nasser, DCO’s Special Envoy for Multilateral Affairs, opened by highlighting the organization’s mission to accelerate inclusive digital economic growth across its 16 member states spanning Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. He emphasized the challenge of fragmentation in the current multilateral system and introduced DCO’s Digital Economy Navigator as a tool to provide common assessment and understanding of digital economy priorities across 50 countries globally.

The panelists shared diverse regional perspectives and experiences. Dr. Wario Weh-Dimi from Nigeria discussed Africa’s priorities in diversifying from resource-dependent economies to digital-focused growth, emphasizing the need for continental cooperation and leveraging the Global Digital Compact. Representatives from WIPO, ERIA, and other organizations highlighted the importance of intellectual property frameworks, innovation ecosystems, and regional integration models in fostering digital transformation.

A key theme throughout the discussion was the critical need for better coordination between existing mechanisms like the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), and the newly adopted Global Digital Compact (GDC). Speakers emphasized avoiding duplication while building on established foundations and ensuring that global frameworks translate into concrete local implementation.

The conversation underscored significant digital divides that persist globally, with examples showing vast differences in digital adoption rates between developed and developing regions. Panelists stressed that successful digital transformation requires not just technological adoption but also cultural and organizational evolution, supported by capacity building and multi-stakeholder cooperation. The discussion concluded with calls for continued collaboration beyond formal forums to ensure that digital prosperity benefits all regions and populations.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital Cooperation and Multilateral Frameworks**: The session focused on operationalizing cooperation between international organizations, governments, and stakeholders to build digital resilience and prosperity, with emphasis on moving from theoretical discussions to practical implementation of frameworks like the Global Digital Compact (GDC) and World Summit on Information Society (WSIS).

– **Regional Digital Transformation Priorities**: Panelists shared diverse regional perspectives on digital economy development, including Nigeria’s shift from oil-dependent economy to digital diversification, ASEAN’s transnational AI innovation ecosystems, and the need for unified African positioning in global digital governance.

– **Innovation Ecosystems and Intellectual Property**: Discussion of how organizations like WIPO support digital innovation through IP frameworks, infrastructure, and global databases, while balancing protection for creators with access to information and fostering startup-friendly environments across different regions.

– **Implementation Challenges and Digital Divides**: Recognition of significant gaps between policy development and practical implementation, highlighting disparities in digital adoption (e.g., 80% online shopping in Norway vs. less than 5% in Africa) and the need for capacity building, infrastructure development, and culturally-adapted solutions.

– **Integration of Existing Mechanisms**: Strong emphasis on avoiding duplication by building upon established frameworks like WSIS and IGF, with National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) serving as key vehicles for implementing GDC principles at local levels and ensuring multi-stakeholder participation.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore practical pathways for international digital cooperation, focusing on how to translate global digital governance frameworks into concrete actions that promote inclusive, sustainable digital transformation across different regions and development levels.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently collaborative and constructive tone throughout. It was professional yet engaging, with participants demonstrating mutual respect and genuine interest in learning from each other’s experiences. The tone remained optimistic about the potential for cooperation despite acknowledging significant challenges, and there was a clear sense of urgency about moving from discussion to implementation. The moderator effectively maintained momentum while allowing for substantive exchanges, and the session concluded on an encouraging note with invitations for continued dialogue.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Sameem Ghaffar** – Multilateral Engagements Senior Manager at DCO (Digital Cooperation Organization), session facilitator

– **Giulia Ajmone Marsan** – Head of Startup and Digital Inclusion at ERIA (Economic Research Institute for ASEAN), former innovation economist at OECD

– **Liz Giener** – Strategist at Nortel, based in the US

– **Helen McGowan** – Senior Business Partnership Manager at DCO, online moderator based in Riyadh

– **Ryszard Frelek** – Representative from WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization)

– **Hassan Nasser** – Special Envoy for Multilateral Affairs at DCO

– **Concertina Tossa** – Head of International Affairs at the Italian Agency for Digital, expert in digital governance and IT policies

– **Torbjorn Fredriksson** – Head of the E-Commerce and Digital Economy Branch of UNCTAD, based in Geneva

– **Audience** – Various audience members asking questions

– **Luca Belli** – Professor of Digital Governance and Regulation at the FGV Law School in Brazil

– **Dr. Wario Weh-Dimi** – Director of Corporate Planning and Strategy at the National IT Development Agency of Nigeria

**Additional speakers:**

– **Edwin Chung** – From DotAsia, serves as secretariat for the Asia Pacific Regional IGF

# Comprehensive Report: Cooperation for Digital Resilience and Prosperity

## Executive Summary

This session, hosted by the Digital Cooperation Organisation (DCO) at the Internet Governance Forum, brought together international experts to explore practical pathways for operationalizing trust, resilience, and equity in digital spaces. Facilitated by Sameem Ghaffar with online moderation by Helen McGowan from Riyadh, the discussion focused on moving “from pledges to policies, from theory to practice” in digital cooperation initiatives.

The conversation featured diverse regional perspectives from Africa, Asia-Pacific, Europe, Latin America, and North America, examining how to integrate the newly adopted Global Digital Compact (GDC) with existing mechanisms such as the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Participants emphasized the need for enhanced collaboration in an increasingly fragmented world while addressing persistent digital divides and implementation challenges.

## Opening Context and Framework

Hassan Nasser, DCO’s Special Envoy for Multilateral Affairs, established the foundational context by highlighting the challenges facing digital cooperation efforts in “a more fragmented world.” He explained that “this is, of course, the reason why DCO was established, addressing those barriers, but also leveraging the opportunities coming from digital economy.”

DCO’s positioning as an intergovernmental organisation spanning 16 member states across Africa, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia was presented as a response to fragmentation across agendas, mandates, and resources. Nasser introduced the Digital Economy Navigator as a practical tool providing common assessment and understanding of digital economy priorities across 50 countries globally, with plans for a second edition incorporating stakeholder feedback.

He also referenced DCO’s four-year agenda adopted in Jordan and the Cotonou Declaration from May 2024, emphasizing the organization’s commitment to moving beyond theoretical frameworks toward concrete implementation.

## Regional Perspectives on Digital Transformation

### African Economic Diversification

Dr. Wario Weh-Dimi from Nigeria’s National IT Development Agency highlighted Africa’s strategic shift from resource-dependent economies toward digital diversification. He explained that Nigeria “has had a monolistic economy, that is we are very dependent on mineral resources. And recently there has been a marked deviation from only depending on that.”

He emphasized the accessibility of digital opportunities and their potential to leverage Africa’s human resources, particularly its youthful population. However, he acknowledged that “local infrastructure availability and understanding implementation paths remain difficult terrain requiring international cooperation.”

### ASEAN Innovation Ecosystems

Giulia Ajmone Marsan from the Economic Research Institute for ASEAN (ERIA) presented insights on transnational innovation ecosystems in the Asia-Pacific region. Her organization focuses on developing AI innovation ecosystems through strategic partnerships and skills transfer programmes that transcend national boundaries.

Marsan emphasized breaking traditional regional boundaries, arguing that “organisations should break regional boundaries and learn across continents rather than limiting themselves to geographic labels.” This approach has enabled ASEAN countries to develop sophisticated digital innovation capabilities through collaborative frameworks combining technological advancement with sustainable development goals.

### Latin American Implementation Gaps

Luca Belli from FGV Law School in Brazil highlighted the gap between policy development and practical implementation, noting that “Latin America has comprehensive data protection laws but lacks regional framework for unified digital market,” despite having multiple regional organisations and 19 countries with data protection legislation.

He emphasized that “political momentum is always a very difficult element to guess,” identifying political will as often the missing ingredient in digital cooperation initiatives. Interestingly, he noted that “BRICS countries successfully achieved enhanced cooperation in cybersecurity and AI governance despite being informal club governance system.”

## Intellectual Property and Innovation Frameworks

Ryszard Frelek from the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) provided insights into IP ecosystems supporting digital innovation. He emphasized that effective IP frameworks require a “comprehensive approach including legal framework, infrastructure, industry-academia collaboration, and financing access.”

Frelek highlighted the growing importance of intangible assets, noting that their value reached significant levels in 2023, becoming increasingly important for SMEs and local businesses globally. WIPO’s support encompasses national IP strategy design, research and data provision through global databases, and capacity building programmes tailored to different development levels.

## Implementation Challenges and Digital Divides

### Quantifying Global Disparities

Torbjörn Fredriksson from UNCTAD provided stark evidence of persistent digital divides, observing that “in Norway, for instance, more than 80% of people are shopping online on a daily basis. In Africa, it’s typically less than 5%.” This disparity illustrated that while advanced economies debate AI governance, vast populations remain excluded from basic digital economic opportunities.

Fredriksson emphasized that “basic digital challenges remain despite AI advancement, requiring attention to fundamental access and opportunity issues.” He also highlighted coordination inefficiencies, noting “there are still too many examples of duplications of work, something that we need to minimize, especially in these times of shrinking resources for technical assistance and capacity building.”

### Practical Implementation Solutions

Liz Giener from Nortel challenged conventional assumptions about digital transformation requirements, arguing that “many governments overestimate or maybe oversold the need for a heavy legacy IT investment.” She provided examples from Estonia and Finland demonstrating how “lean modular architecture, trusted digital identity, and public-private partnerships” enable countries to leapfrog traditional infrastructure development stages.

Giener emphasized that “citizen-centric service design more effective than technology-first approaches” and announced Nortel’s upcoming entry into the LATAM market, providing practical frameworks for addressing digital inclusion challenges while building sustainable digital governance capabilities.

## Framework Integration and Governance Mechanisms

### Global Digital Compact and WSIS Integration

Concertina Tossa from Italy’s Agency for Digital emphasized that the “Global Digital Compact marks significant milestone in digital governance evolution, building on existing WSIS foundations.” She advocated for “effective integration between GDC and existing mechanisms like WSIS to avoid duplication and maximize resources.”

Tossa suggested that the upcoming WSIS+20 review process presents an opportunity to integrate GDC objectives systematically rather than creating separate implementation mechanisms. She explained that “National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) can serve as operational mechanisms for translating GDC implementation at local levels.”

### Interactive Discussion on NRI Implementation

Edwin Chung from DotAsia, representing the Asia Pacific Regional IGF secretariat, raised practical questions about how NRIs can concretely implement GDC components at local levels. This inquiry sparked discussion about clearer guidance and support mechanisms to help regional and national IGF communities translate global commitments into actionable local programmes.

The discussion highlighted the potential for over 180 NRIs worldwide to “incorporate GDC objectives into agenda setting and report outcomes back to global frameworks,” leveraging existing multi-stakeholder participation mechanisms and local contextual knowledge.

## Cross-Regional Learning and Collaboration Models

Hassan Nasser emphasized the importance of “South-South cooperation and triangular cooperation essential for achieving global digital transformation goals.” This approach recognizes that developing countries often face similar challenges and can learn effectively from each other’s experiences.

Fredriksson highlighted the E-Trade for All partnership as demonstrating an “effective model for bringing 35 organisations together with common vision,” showing how multiple international organizations can coordinate around shared objectives while maintaining distinct mandates and expertise areas.

## Future Directions and Commitments

The discussion concluded with concrete commitments for continued collaboration. DCO committed to maintaining multi-stakeholder dialogue beyond the session, including at upcoming conferences, and developing a second edition of the Digital Economy Navigator incorporating stakeholder feedback.

Participants agreed that NRIs should systematically incorporate GDC objectives into their agenda setting and report outcomes back to global frameworks. The emphasis on continued informal dialogue and networking highlighted recognition that formal sessions alone cannot address complex coordination challenges.

## Conclusion

This session demonstrated both the potential and challenges of international digital cooperation in an increasingly complex global environment. The strong consensus around multi-stakeholder cooperation, building upon existing frameworks, and comprehensive ecosystem approaches provides a foundation for continued collaboration.

The diversity of regional perspectives highlighted the value of inclusive multi-stakeholder dialogue while illustrating the complexity of developing cooperation frameworks that can address vastly different development contexts simultaneously. The emphasis on moving from theoretical frameworks to practical implementation reflects growing maturity in digital governance discussions, with recognition that effective cooperation requires sustained commitment, innovative partnership models, and adaptive approaches that can evolve with rapidly changing technological and geopolitical contexts.

Sameem Ghaffar: This is, I think, one of the first sessions. Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the session hosted by DCO, Digital Cooperation Organization. We’re very, very pleased to have you here in the room and to have our participants online with us. I’m Samim Ghaffar, I’m Multilateral Engagements Senior Manager at DCO, and it’s my honor and pleasure to facilitate this session here today. We have with us online our colleagues from back in Riyadh, Helen McGowan, Senior Business Partnership Manager, who will be moderating online as well. We’ll be taking questions in the second segment of this session. The first session will be a panel discussion. We have with us a very distinguished panel of experts that have been assembled from various areas of expertise, and we’re very happy to have you in the room today. We thank you very warmly and would like also to thank the organizers of the IGF and warm thanks to the Norwegian government for their hospitality. Today the session entitled Cooperation for Digital Resilience and Prosperity, we don’t aim for it to be just a theoretical discussion. It’s about operationalizing trust, resilience, and equity in digital space. It’s about moving from pledges to policies, from theory to practice. We’ll be looking at the USIS and IGF discussions and also how the GDC adds to that very important equation. We have with us our Special Envoy for Multilateral Affairs, Hassan Nassar, and I will be giving him the floor for his opening remarks. Over to you, Hassan.

Hassan Nasser: Thank you very much, Samim. Thank you, everyone. Good morning in Oslo. This is, I think, one of the first sessions, so thank you for joining early. I really want to thank, of course, the organizers, the host country, the IGF Secretariat and all the stakeholders involved in this forum. For DCO, this is the second participation to IGF, and I know some of the participants here have a long experience in this forum. DCO was founded only four years ago as a unique intergovernmental organization mandated to accelerate inclusive and sustainable growth of the digital economy. With this mandate, we are supporting 16 member states across Africa, Europe, Middle East and Asia. And this mandate is mainly focusing on this aspect of digital enablers, digital business and digital society. Last year, during the IGF hosted in Riyadh, which is also the headquarter of the DCO, we had a first forum to explore the areas of digital cooperation, because, again, we think that this is the way forward to build digital prosperity and to ensure resilience of the digital economy. We are facing today a more fragmented world, and this is, of course, the reason why DCO was established, addressing those barriers, but also leveraging the opportunities coming from digital economy in terms of creation of jobs, creating of new opportunities and innovation. For today’s discussion, as mentioned by Samin, we really want to look and explore new cooperation. That’s why we have made sure that we have with us partners from member states, from other international organizations and from other governments. There is a space for all stakeholders, and the IGF is the good example of a multi-stakeholder process when it comes to digital cooperation and building a more safe, open and sustainable and inclusive digital future for all. In the DCO General Assembly hosted in February by the government of Jordan, the 16-member state adopted the four-year agenda for the organization. This four-year agenda focuses on specific elements which have been designed to really cover and ensure joint efforts. When we look at the current multilateral system, we can see, I think we can all see, the main challenge in terms of fragmentation, fragmentation of agendas, fragmentation of mandates, fragmentation of resources, and in DCO, we really want to address this issue of fragmentation by providing a common assessment, a common understanding of what is the situation today when it comes to digital economy. That’s why DCO, during the Summit of the Future hosted in the UN headquarters in New York September 24, launched the Digital Economy Navigator. The Digital Economy Navigator has been designed as a joint solution shared with all stakeholders to understand what are the priorities today, what is the situation today when it comes to digital economy, looking at the different aspects from digital enablers, digital society and digital business. This Digital Economy Navigator today covers not only the 16 DCO member states, but it covers a total of 50 countries around the world. We have shared the findings, the data of this Navigator, and we are currently working on a new edition of this Navigator. To work on this second edition of the Navigator, we will of course engage with all stakeholders to get their feedback, their input, and also to see how to activate and implement the findings coming from this tool. So today’s discussion for us is really an opportunity to start this multi-stakeholder dialogue when it comes to understanding better the digital economy. With the Digital Economy Navigator, we also hope to identify the right priorities for the member states, for all stakeholders, to then define where to invest and where to concentrate and coordinate efforts to build a more inclusive and sustainable digital economy. This cooperation will also help us to define and to ensure resilience of the digital economy, which as we’ve seen over the last years is a key issue and a key challenge for developing countries, but also for industrialized countries. So I’m really looking forward to the discussion today. We really want this to be an open discussion. We want to hear from other partners, other stakeholders. We really also invite you to connect beyond this session to make sure that we can continue this dialogue during IGF and beyond. We will be also attending the FFD4 next week in Sevilla, looking at financing development for digital economy, and we really continue to open this conversation for a more inclusive digital future. Thank you very much, and back to you, Sami.

Sameem Ghaffar: Thank you very much, Hassan, for these very interesting and clarifying remarks. We have with us today in the room five panelists, experts, but also two online. We have Oktat and Nortel. I will go a bit further later on into the introduction. But let me turn my first question of this panel to Dr. Wario Weh-Dimi. He’s a Director of Corporate Planning and Strategy at the National IT Development Agency of Nigeria. Nigeria is one of the member states of DCO, a very active member state and is championing a lot of digital transformation, and we’re very happy to have him in the room to clarify the priorities of the government of Nigeria, especially in light of the Cotonou Declaration that was adopted in May 2025 last month on the Worcester Review for Africa. So Dr., good morning, and I’m very happy to have you. What would be the priorities of Nigeria going forward? And we will keep this question three minutes, so we can give chance to everybody in the first part of this discussion. What would be the priorities and how does the multi-stakeholder approach support the priorities of the Nigerian government in the digital economy? Okay. Thank you very much, Moderator.

Dr. Wario Weh-Dimi: I’m very happy to be amongst you today for this discussion. The priorities of Nigeria in the area of digital cooperation as well as the WSIS Declaration in Cotonou, I think the digital economy, it’s vastly gaining ground in all that we do, it’s like as you all know. The digital economy of Nigeria has had a monolistic economy, that is we are very dependent on mineral resources. And recently there has been a marked deviation from only depending on that. So we take the digital economy as a priority area now because of the accessibility, because of its lack of critical investments, quite unlike the exploration of oil and all that. Here we are going to tap our vast human resources as well as harness the youthful age that we have in the country. So our priorities are shifting to this so that we can diversify our economy. And I’m sure most African countries as well are setting up policies as well as framework strategies to ensure that they tap from this digital economy offerings that are available to all of us. So going forward from that, answering your question directly, the Nigerian government has taken strategic steps to make sure that we tap from the multistakeholderism that’s proposed by the WSIS plus 20. And judging from the Cotonou Declaration, talking from the African perspective, we’ve decided that this time around the African nations should come together in unison and in an inclusive manner to position themselves to uphold leadership roles in the information society. The implication is that we must have a means of working together, tap from the strengths of others and then utilize, uplift the weaknesses that are found amongst us because it’s obvious that there are various levels of proficiency as well as capacity to utilize the digital offerings that we have. Most importantly, some countries are not at the forefront of the digital technology while others are much higher. So for us to be able to leverage on this availability and carry on the leadership role, there needs to be that inclusivity and more like an averaging effect. Those who have the strength will pull up those who are weak in the areas of providing policy assistance and all that. So that positions us in a very good position to see how we can benefit from the DCO arrangement and all strategies that are being formulated and planned for. So we intend to do that, passing through a unified African position in such a way that whatever we can benefit from the offerings of the DCO, we are going to key into it. The Global Digital Compact as well, which provides for some citizen-centric digital economy provisions will all tap into that. So we look forward to actually working with the DCO to make sure that the digital economy, all the provisions we’ve made and even the digital economy, all provisions that are made are tapped from and we’re going to benefit from all of that. Thank you very much.

Sameem Ghaffar: Thank you very much, Doctor. This collaboration at national, regional, continental level cannot happen without innovation. So I’ll turn my gaze to Richard from WIPO and I’d like to ask him, how is WIPO supporting and fostering innovation through their digital IP standards and how do they balance creativity and openness with standards? Over to you, Richard.

Ryszard Frelek: Thanks so much, Samin. And thank you, of course, to DCO and Hassan and all your colleagues for inviting WIPO to join this very interesting panel. Allow me first to perhaps highlight that when thinking about intellectual property, of course, there is the legal framework, which is important, but other aspects are equally important that shape this conducive IP ecosystem. This includes, of course, the infrastructure that helps the innovators and creators more easily to protect and manage their IP. This is about collaboration between the industry and the academia. This is about accessing the financing by startups and SMEs. And finally, of course, this is also about making sure that everyone everywhere is aware of how they can benefit from the IP system. And all of these elements and many, many more should be really taken into account when creating a national IP ecosystem that fosters innovation, creativity, and allows all entrepreneurs, including, of course, the digital ones, to thrive. This system is, of course, built to provide both the protection for our amazing innovators and creators through copyright, trademarks, patents, and many other IP rights, but also it gives them access to all the information contained, for example, in the patent information systems. So, of course, WIPO provides all entrepreneurs with services to more easily and cost-effectively protect their IP rights across borders, but also through, for example, the patent scope, we provide them with free-to-use global databases, which include, for example, in this case of patent scope, 122 million patent documents available, of course, for everyone to use. And as you know, WIPO, of course, works with our member states on many different areas and we support them in many different ways. Let me maybe just focus here on and mention three of them. So, first, we support our member states to design their national IP strategy, which take into account all these many different elements of the IP ecosystem, the legal provisions, the infrastructure, the financing, the awareness, so that we can help together work with our member states to tailor their IP ecosystem to help their local innovators and creators. Second, of course, we provide research and data that guide the policymakers world over, whether on an international or local level. So, for example, we have the Global Innovation Index, which is one of our flagship publications that ranks 130 economies and also specifies their innovation weaknesses and strengths. We have the IP statistic reports or, of course, we have the patent insight reports on the future of technologies. The third element, which is, of course, also very close to our heart, is that through a range of programs and initiatives, such as the IP management clinics or the work of our WIPO Academy, we want to help the local innovators understand how they can benefit from the IP system so that in the end of the day, they can successfully run their business, their initiative using this system. Of course, being here allowed me to also mention that we have the WIPO Conversation, which is this open, inclusive, also multi-stakeholder platform, where we provide everyone with a leading global setting to discuss the impacts on frontier technologies on all the relevant IP rights and, of course, to bridge that existing gap. So, over the past five years, 12,000 people, experts from the global experts, many of them attending, by the way, IGF, but also local innovators have been participating, and sessions focus on such areas as data, the metaverse in the past, but also, of course, as everywhere, AI. But what is also important following these conversations is that we launch a range of tools and underground projects. So, for example, we have the AI and IP Policy Toolkit or the upcoming AI Infrastructure Interchange. And this is the part where I can, of course, say so much more, and I love talking about these things, but I see the clock ticking. So, let me perhaps just mention as well that, of course, WIPO, in 2024, the Member States of WIPO have approved two international treaties, which is something we’re, of course, very proud of. Let me say by ending that, of course, as WIPO, we are here to serve the digital innovators, the creators, the entrepreneurs, and across the world, and we look forward to working with DCEO and all the many partners attending IGF and beyond to make sure that all our innovators and creators can benefit from IP.

Sameem Ghaffar: Many thanks, Samim, and over to you. Thank you very much, Richard. We hear a lot, and DCEO also subscribes to the notion of data-based policymaking. Let me turn to Julia Ajmon-Mossan, who is the Head of Startup and Digital Inclusion at IRIA, Economic Research Institute for ASEAN. What insights can you offer us from the global frameworks, like the GDC and regional integration models from the ASEAN countries? You are also a former innovation economist at the OECD, you have a wide range of experience. So what would be the insights you can give us on building interoperability and resilience into digital economies?

Giulia Ajmone Marsan: Thank you Samim. It’s a great pleasure to be here with all my fellow panelists. Thank you DCO, Hassan, for this kind invitation. So cooperations when it comes to digital innovation, it’s very much at the core of what we do. We are an international organization of 16 member countries based in Indonesia, in Jakarta. Our member countries are the 10 Southeast Asian economies, ASEAN, plus Korea, China, Japan, India, New Zealand and Australia. So we are very much at the center of the Asia-Pacific and Indo-Pacific. And we have recently established, thanks to the generous contribution of the government of Japan, our Digital Innovation and Sustainable Economy Center, IDISC. We are very interested, through the activity of the center, to explore the relationship between digital innovation and the Sustainable Development Goals, DSDGs. And that’s because through our activities we want to develop insights, but also policy dialogue, capacity building, to support a digital transformation that is compatible and conducive to the SDG framework, which is very much what the UN Global Digital Compact is about at the end, and I think also very much what many of my colleagues on the panel are working on. Let me give you a couple of examples. For instance, we are now currently very active in developing both local innovation ecosystem within Southeast Asia, but also in some cases transnational ones. And this is when our conversation today about international and global cooperation becomes so important. We are active in developing a strategic document called ASEAN-Japan AI Innovation Co-Creation Roadmap that will go directly to Ministers for Economic Development of ASEAN and Japan, where we are really looking at, on one hand, the strengths and areas of improvement of these 11 countries, but also ways to really develop a multinational AI innovation ecosystem based on connections of people, based on skills transfers between different areas of the world. Some countries of these 11 countries are benefiting from very young, tech-savvy, dynamic population. In other cases, aging economies, they may need to think about how to develop a very effective relationship with these young entrepreneurs that are developing fantastic start-ups, but also digital innovations. So this is one example of something that is very much in relation to our discussion today. We also know that, you know, just looking at our region is not enough in a globalized world. As Hassan was telling us earlier today, that global collaboration is becoming more difficult, but nevertheless, we need to keep trying and keep developing our relationships. And that’s because there is so much to be learned. So we are very active in certain G20 work, notably, and this is something I personally very much committed to, the work of a new engagement group of the G20 called Startup20 that is currently led by South Africa, the G20 Chair this year. But we had the pleasure to work also very, very well with India and Brazil last year. And this is again, you know, a global group that is pushing for the development of a global innovation ecosystem, looking at the strengths of different countries and also complementarities. And the idea is also to basically build a global dialogue. We are just at the beginning of this adventure. It’s a working group that was established under India three years ago, but nevertheless, it’s something very interesting because on one hand, we can share the very good lessons that we see in our region and learn from other regions in the world. We had a very, very interesting number of exchanges last year under Brazil, lots of, you know, interesting developments that could be pushed forward in terms of collaboration between Indonesia and Brazil, for instance, because of the size of the economy, certain sectoral specialization, including in digital innovation and so on and so forth. Coming back, you know, to the Pacific area, we are also very pleased to collaborate with APEC, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, this year under Korea. We are in touch with the Korean Ministry for Startup and SMEs, you know, and we will actively contribute to something that is called Global Eco-Innovation Forum. It will take place under the APEC Ministerial Week on MSMEs. And there, we will look at how to combine the digital transformation with the green transformation. So once again, you know, this idea to connect different SDGs, both at local level and international level. And maybe, you know, because we are probably short in time, let me just conclude by saying that even our collaboration with GCC countries is becoming more important than ever, especially after the two summits, ASEAN-GCC. So this is also another area where I really look forward to staying in touch with DCO, the countries in the Gulf, and you know, all the panelists that are present here today, because there is a lot that we can do. Thank you very much.

Sameem Ghaffar: Thank you, Giulia. I know there is a lot of nuggets and experiences from the areas of work that each of us are doing. And let’s keep it under two to three minutes, and in the second part of the panel, you can maybe share a bit more on your experience. We have next Concertina Tossa, the Head of International Affairs at the Italian Agency for Digital. Concertina is a very distinguished expert in digital governance and IT policies globally and also now at national level. We would like to have your experience regarding the GDC process and existing mechanisms like WSIS, IGF, and national and regional initiatives. How do they contribute to address challenges in the digital economy, based on your experience both at the transnational levels and local levels? How does GDC and those platforms have to solve these problems?

Concertina Tossa: Okay, so thank you for this invitation, it’s a pleasure to be a speaker in such an important panel. So the Global Digital Compact marks a significant milestone in the evolution of the global digital governance, and this is a result that began several years ago with the High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation, continuing with the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation, and also was further shaped by our Common Agenda. And the GDC seeks to respond to complex challenges of digital transformation through coordinated global efforts aimed to building an inclusive, open, secure, and equitable and sustainable digital future for everyone. But in this context, it’s essential to foster synergy between the GDC and existing processes, and in particular, with the World Summit on Information Society, which has been active for more than 20 years, and even if in the last 20 years the digital landscape has evolved significantly with new priorities such as data governance, artificial intelligence, and biosecurity, the foundational principles of the WSIS remain relevant and complementary to those of the GDC. So the upcoming WSIS Plus 20 review process, it’s an important moment, it’s a key opportunity to strengthen and update the WSIS framework, incorporating the GDC objectives and priorities, and to avoid redundancy and duplication. So it’s an important moment to discuss which mechanism could facilitate this integration. And in this scenario, the IGF continues to serve as a primary platform for an inclusive dialogue among all digital stakeholders. Since its inception in 2006, the IGF has grown from a discussion forum to a structured ecosystem, including dynamic coalition, best practice forum, policy network, and especially the network of national and regional initiatives that now are comprising over 180 initiatives worldwide. The NRIs could play a strategic role in the local implementation of the GDC. Their multi-stakeholder structure and their close connection to the local context make them particularly well-suited to monitor the implementation of GDC principles at local level, to promote inclusive participation in digital policy development, to collect and transmit local needs, recommendations, best practice to the local level. So the NRI can act as an operational mechanism for translating and tracking the GDC implementation at the national and regional level, to ensure that the principles are not confined to the diplomatic or theoretical sphere, but are concretely reflected in public policies and local practices. So in conclusion, I think that the success of the GDC will depend heavily on the international community’s ability to build on and reinforce existing participatory frameworks. The IGF and the NRIs must be seen not just as a forum for dialogue, but as essential players in monitoring, implementing, and aligning Global Digital Policy with National and Local Realities. Thank you.

Sameem Ghaffar: Thank you very much, Cantatina. We have with us online Torbjörn Fredriksson, Head of the E-Commerce and Digital Economy Branch of OCTAD. Tobjörn?

Torbjorn Fredriksson: Well, thank you very much, moderator, and greetings here from Geneva. I wish I was there with you in Norway to celebrate the 20-year anniversary of IGF. The fast pace, I think we see on the digital landscape change, represents a huge challenge for governments when it comes to developing adequate policy responses. You know, this challenge is not made easier by the fact that governing digitalization cuts across so many different policy domains. And in order for the global community, including multilateral organizations like UNCTAD, WIPO, ITU, and others, to serve the needs of our member states in this context, it’s really important that we also manage to connect the dots between what every different organization is doing. And I think this can be achieved in multiple ways. We have already mentioned the key processes like the WSIS, GDC, etc. And the WSIS, for example, it was extremely important to help clarify which organizations that should take the lead in various areas. For example, UNCTAD, ITC, and the Universal Postal Union lead together in the area of e-business. It is also clarified that the IGF would be housed under UNDESA, even if it’s a very multi-stakeholder forum. The GDC, meanwhile, it helped to highlight certain areas that deserve more attention than what was previously noted in the WSIS outcome documents and in the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development. So, for example, we have the area of inclusivity and sustainability aspects of the digital economy. We have the human rights online. You have the data governance and the artificial intelligence that were given added impetus through the GDC. If I go to the area of UNCTAD, in the area of e-commerce and the digital economy, we have also taken an initiative to create what we call E-Trade for All, which is a partnership with a common vision to support developing countries that are trailing behind in what we call e-trade readiness. And by bringing 35 partners together, including AREA, WIPO, and DCO, it helps us to better understand what different organizations are doing and how we can find better ways to work together to achieve common goals. Unfortunately, there are still too many examples of duplications of work, something that we need to minimize, especially in these times of shrinking resources for technical assistance and capacity building, as well as for dialogue. When new initiatives are developed, we also need to ensure effective integration with existing mechanisms. So I agree there very much with Conchitina. That’s why it’s so important that when it comes to the GDC, that we make full use of the existing mechanisms that were born out of the WSIS process. And this is also what member states agreed upon in the most recent session of the UN Commission on Science and Technology for develop full integration of efforts between the GDC and WSIS is what we need. I’ll stop there. Thank you so much again.

Sameem Ghaffar: Thank you very much for these enlightening remarks, Torbjörn. I’ll shift my focus to Professor Luca Belli, Professor of Digital Governance and Regulation at the FGV Law School in Brazil. He has a lot more responsibilities and titles, but in the interest of time, let me just cut to the question. You’ve done a lot of research, Professor, in LATAM and BRICS countries. What lessons can you share that can accelerate the multilateral digital prosperity and bridge the gap for Global South?

Luca Belli: Thank you very much, Samim, and also Hassan for organizing this very timely discussion. And so as Samim was mentioning, we do a lot of research at the Center for Technology and Society on various issues that are very much of interest for DCO and its members and also for the participants here, especially data governance, digital transformation, AI, cybersecurity. And so I wanted to share a little bit of findings of two of our flagship projects, one dedicated to digital policies in the BRICS grouping, Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and the six more that have joined last year, including some DCO members. And then the other one called CPDP LATAM, which is an annual conference we organize on data governance in LATAM and includes also a lot of research and research and policy proposals also to increase convergence of data governance in LATAM. So first of all, I think that from what emerges from our research is that to trigger digital transformation, to facilitate it, there are multiple levers, right? First of all, policy frameworks that must be coherent, especially when you want to share them amongst multiple organizations or members of an organization. Then you have to have a sort of agile governance system because digital technologies are evolving and also the threats. So we also focus a lot on cybersecurity and the evolving landscape of digital threats is something extremely important to take care. And the only way to do it is to having a very agile multi-stakeholder governance to continuously cooperate with also non-governmental stakeholders that have their hands on cybersecurity. And then strategic investments. So it’s not only about policy priorities, but also having the funds to translate this into concrete actions. And this is not only through hardware and software, it’s also through capacity building for humans, which is the most important part. Now, how these elements play out in the two very different groupings that we work on, which are the BRICS and LATAM. Let me provide you two very telling examples to illustrate how this may work more or less successfully depending on the maturity of the mechanism, on the alignment of the priorities, but also I think one of the most important elements that we frequently forget is the political impetus and support that there is to achieve the results. BRICS, it has not been created as a club governance mechanism specifically for digital policies, but it sort of became one, at least digital policies, especially cybersecurity, cybercrime, AI have emerged as priorities, especially since the Snowden revelation in 2013, when then it was created a specific working group on ICT security. And it’s very interesting because it has triggered a sort of what in intergovernance jargon we call enhanced cooperation process, which is not common, but in practice, it worked over the past 10 years. And a case in point is the adoption of the UN Convention Against Cybercrime, which was an initiative basically of Russia and China supported by BRICS and their allied countries and brokered thanks to the very skillful work of the Brazilian diplomacy that managed to achieve this result. And again, we can criticize the text as any convention, but for me, what is relevant is to see the concrete result of this mechanism, which is not even in IGO and intergovernmental organization, is a club governance system like the G7 or the G20. Now, a counter example in the last 30 seconds I have at my disposal about LATAM, which is a very interesting example. We do a lot of research on data governance in LATAM. And 19 countries already have data protection laws in LATAM, all very similar because they all copy and paste from Europe, but diverse because they all have to adapt them to the national idiosyncrasies in cultural and legal terms. There are already several organizations that work supposedly effectively at the regional level from the Organization of American States, the Union of South American Nations, the Mercosur and all the partners. But despite already having all adopted laws and having organizations, there is no regional framework which would be extremely valuable not only to harmonize the policy, but also to allow a unique data market and fostering more cooperation at the regional level. So as one of the results of our conference last year, we produced also not only a study on these frameworks, but also a suggestion of what would be a regional framework. I know that DCO does not have Latin American members, but maybe in the future they will have. And so we already prepared the work for you if you want to use it. It is in open access. And also we have shared it with Brazilian colleagues that are chairing the Mercosur in December. So I don’t know. I mean, political momentum is always a very difficult element to guess, but maybe there might be now some political momentum to put in practice these ideas. Thank you very much.

Sameem Ghaffar: Thank you, Professor. Liz Giener is a very experienced strategist at Nortel and they have developed a lot of solutions. And what is very interesting is the collaboration and support to both public and private sector. Liz, what will be the lessons that you can share with us from Global North, but also extrapolating to Global South? What will be the experience of implementing digital solutions so that all these talks we’re having at the global level can be translated into action?

Liz Giener: Thank you. And thank you for the invitation to join you all today. And hello from the US where I am currently sitting. Nortel’s global headquarters is in Estonia and we’re celebrating our 25th anniversary this year. And I am in the US. and soon to be announcing as well, our entry into LATAM. So very thrilled for this news. Previously from Nortel’s experience, deploying digital solutions across Europe, the Middle East, Africa and North America, I wanted to speak to some of the underestimated enablers that can accelerate readiness and resilience for governments that may have a limited infrastructure. So the first one of four is having a lean modular digital architecture. Many governments overestimate or maybe oversold the need for a heavy legacy IT investment. So one example that we can reference is our work in Botswana where we helped the Botswana Unified Revenue Service leapfrog to a modern API based tax system running in the cloud and integrated with existing systems. This was without the need for major infrastructure upgrades. Secondly, I would focus on looking at trusted digital identity. This probably seems like a no brainer, but some governments often deprioritize digital identity, yet it is foundational for trusted scalable services. In both Estonia and Finland, Nortel helped implement national digital ID platforms that now enable seamless access to services across health, finance, government, and this dramatically increases both reach and resilience. And touching more directly your question on cross-sector partnerships, public-private collaboration accelerates resilience. In Oman, Nortel brought together government, telecommunications operators and banks to co-create citizen services, expanding access farther and faster than the government could do acting alone. Probably the most important, especially when you want to make sure that you are focused on trust and the trust of your citizens, is citizen-centric service design. Many programs focus on technology first, and it’s very easy to think this way rather than focusing on users. In both Lithuania and in Oman, Nortel led with user-centered design, ensuring that services were accessible across mobile-first channels. And this was a critical factor in markets that have a patchy infrastructure. So I want to enforce that with the right enablers, which include modular architecture, trusted identity, public-private collaboration, and human-centered design, many governments can leapfrog constraints, not just work around them. Nortel’s experience shows that even in limited infrastructure settings, it’s possible to build digital ecosystems that drive real resilience, inclusion, and in the end, and ideally, long-term prosperity. Thank you very much for including me today.

Sameem Ghaffar: Thank you very much, Lisa. I’m happy to have your perspectives. And I’d like to give the floor very quickly to Hassan again, just to synthesize a little bit. There’s a lot of angles, a lot of perspectives here. What do you make out of this, Hassan?

Hassan Nasser: Yeah, that’s, before we open probably for discussion, I think this is amazing. We have been from Asia to Latin America, passing by Africa and Europe in a few minutes. We’ve heard private sector, UN agencies, government entities. I think what we get from that is, first of all, there is a huge potential of digital economy to really help prosperity, to really help human development, as long as we make sure that this transformation, this digital transformation, this new economy, which is now becoming probably the economy, is also aligned with SDGs and with principle that we are all caring about. To do that, I think the other takeaway from me so far is we need cooperation. And that’s easy to say, that’s not easy to do. Because to have this cooperation, we need to share principle. We need to have also a common language. We need to have respect as well, which sometimes seems to be difficult in this world today. In terms of common principle and common ambition, we believe that the GDC was a big achievement to define, let’s say, direction of travel. And of course, we need to build with existing foundation, as mentioned by the panelists. We have very strong foundation, 20 years ago, defined to help us. So now we have, let’s say, this political commitment coming out of the summit of the future. We have an existing mechanism that we need to reinvent and refresh and support. We need also to really ensure that there is an openness when it comes to listening to different perspective. Today, we have on this panel, so this global South perspective, South-South cooperation, triangular cooperation will remain an essential part of what we are trying to achieve. So from DCO perspective, and I’m really curious, of course, to hear from the participants, from the audience as well, our commitment is to really support the consolidation of this mechanism to foster cooperation based on openness, based on shared knowledge, based on common language and common principles. But again, we have limited time. We hope that after this forum, we have a lot of coffees that will help us to continue the conversation.

Sameem Ghaffar: So back to you, Samim, and I hope we have some questions as well. Thank you very much, Hasan. We would really like to apologize to our audience because we couldn’t keep the interactive session as long as we wanted to be. But we open the floor for questions in the room, and then we’ll have time to take questions online as well. Helen is assisting online. The floor is open. If you don’t have questions from the room, and let me see if we can take a question from our live audience. Helen, over to you.

Helen McGowan: Hello, Samim. Hello, everybody in Norway. There aren’t any questions online yet to take forward. So hopefully somebody in the room will participate and have a question there.

Sameem Ghaffar: Well, in that case, I will- Torbjörn has a question. Yes, Torbjörn, please go ahead.

Torbjorn Fredriksson: Just to break the ice. Thank you so much. Let me just comment on one thing that Hasan said here. We’re talking about the digital economy now becoming the economy. I wish that was the case in all parts of the world, but I think it’s so important to keep in mind that we still have very huge divide, especially in the digital economy. Just to give one example, in Norway, for instance, more than 80% of people are shopping online on a daily basis. In Africa, it’s typically less than 5%. So I think it’s so important to keep this in mind, although we are carried away sometimes by all the amazing things that are happening with AI and so on and so forth. Many of the basic challenges still remain if we’re gonna make sure that the digital revolution brings value and opportunities full-scale in many parts of the development world.

Sameem Ghaffar: Thank you, Torbjörn. If any of the participants and speakers would like also to share, maybe they didn’t have a chance to complete their thoughts earlier, I’m happy to do that. Richard, we’ll go from left to right.

Ryszard Frelek: Thanks so much. I mean, I can reconfirm absolutely that cooperation is extremely important and DCEO, UNCTAD, thank you, of course, for having us as well as the partner for E-Trade. For all, we’re always very happily contributing with our IP expertise in E-Trade for all, but also in many different forums, including DCEO here in IGF and so forth. It’s just to perhaps using that opportunity for a quick conclusion is that just to perhaps say that the value of intangibles has been growing rapidly over these 25 years and it reached the 62 trillion US dollars worth in 2023 and intangibles, which are, of course, many of them protected by intellectual property are not only increasingly becoming important for some of the biggest companies, but even more especially it’s becoming important for the SMEs, the local businesses or innovative and creative individuals in every corner of the world. And WIPO together with all the partners is there to serve them.

Sameem Ghaffar: Thank you, Richard. We’ll go back to the room. We have a question from the audience, please, sir.

Audience: Thank you. This Edwin Chung from DotAsia. We actually serve as the secretariat for the Asia Pacific Regional IGF. I heard, I forgot who mentioned this from the panel, but about kind of the success of the GDC and implementing it into the NRIs. I think that’s a very interesting direction and something that is really important for the NRI community to understand. But how is that envisioned? What components of the GDC would you see more concretely being both promoted, advocated and implemented in the NRIs? I guess that’s sort of my question. I forgot who- It’ll be addressed to Concettina. Thank you very much.

Concertina Tossa: So as you know, I mean, the NRI as the national and regional expression of the IGF worldwide and there, there are so many issues that are part of GDC objectives that are discussed, managed and also directed. I was speaking about artificial intelligence, data governance, digital divide. I mean, all those issues are discussed at the NRIs level. So I think that’s an important space where, I mean, coming from this discussion, it could also monitor. This vision should be reported to the GDC but also to the other UN entities. I think this is an important process that should start after each IGF ends and after each national and regional initiative ends. It’s important to communicate, to spread results and to create these linkages that now are I think a little bit weak, this is what I think.

Audience: That’s a very good clarification, if I understand correctly then really what you’re suggesting is NRIs take the GDC as part of the input to their agenda setting as well as look at how the outcomes or outputs or the reporting could tie in back to the GDC. I think that makes a lot of sense. Thank you very much.

Giulia Ajmone Marsan: Giulia, do you have any comments on that question because the question was addressed from the region of your concern? No specific comment. I think that Conchettina has already addressed the question very well. Let me just add that I think she mentioned the UN system but of course there are also organizations beyond the UN system. We work a lot and very happily with the UN system but nevertheless this is a global effort. So I see the Global Digital Compact as a kind of vision. I mentioned at the beginning of my intervention that even us are very interested in this relationship between digital transformation and sustainable development goals. So it is something that is going to inspire a lot of organizations and stakeholders around the world. Again, multi-stakeholder approach, I think that some other speakers mentioned this before me. So whether we are private, multilateral, local, this is something that we need to work together and we also need to learn how to work together and in some cases we need to also learn our respective portfolios and mandates. But let me just add something before we move on. I think it’s also very important to be open to learn across regions. So before I was based in Paris, you mentioned I was working for another very big multilateral organization. Then I moved to Asia and I just realized that now that I’m based in Asia, not everybody of course, we had a wonderful conversation with Luca just before this panel, but don’t look at us as just an Asian organization. Of course we have expertise on Asia but we want to learn from Europe, the Americas, Africa, everywhere in the world. We also have lessons to share. So I think this is very important to try to break a little bit these boundaries, think outside the box and learn from different regions without just labeling institutions, this is Asia, this is Africa, it has nothing to do with me so it’s not interesting. Because every day, even through G20 South Africa, I’m learning so much about the continent and so many lessons that are so relevant for the economic development and prosperity of our member states.

Sameem Ghaffar: Thank you. We have time just for 30 seconds to Professor Luca, a doctor, and Liz.

Luca Belli: Luca. Yeah, I will use my 30 seconds wisely. So just to reiterate a couple of points that I think are key here, which is the fact that again, when we’re speaking about the GDC or any kind of other effort aimed at transforming digitally a nation, a company, a society, this is not only about adoption of technology, it’s not only a technological shift, it’s also an evolution, a cultural evolution and an organizational evolution, right? And so I think sometimes amongst academics we are a little bit frustrated because there are a lot of very nice declarations, policies, and even regulation at the national level that sounds fantastic in theory, but then the practice is very far. And so I think that the challenge here and how multi-stakeholder interaction could be explored more is to translate these excellent sometimes policy objectives into concrete actions. So to make it percolate from policy level, concrete change, capacity building is essential. And to let simply public servants know that the policy exists or capacity building is essential to make people understand they have an opportunity. And I mean, cyber security is a very good example. People consider it a cost, but if you make them understand that it’s an opportunity for business, they will consider it a business as an opportunity to invest money and time in it. I’m speaking too much, I’m seeing from your glance, so I will stop here. We have one minute to go. But just to conclude, let me tell you something that I think the DCO has a very good role in it because many regions in the world do not have a player like DCO that could help articulating this.

Dr. Wario Weh-Dimi: Thank you very much. I think you wrapped it up for us, but I would like to still give the floor to Dr. Ford. Last comment. My comments will go in the area of disparities between the whole system, globally and then regionally as well as nationally. As the professor said, there are beautiful policies and regulations and all that are out there, but the implementation is difficult. Now how do we address these differences? Local levels, infrastructure availability, as well as understanding the nitty-gritty of the implementation path that these things will take is a difficult terrain. I think the people in Africa will stand to benefit from these international corporations, but our peculiar issues will have to be put in the picture as well. So that is my final words for this. Thank you.

Sameem Ghaffar: Thank you very much. That’s a beautiful statement. Unfortunately, we cannot go further along this very, very exciting discussion, and we’ve come to an end of it, unfortunately, and we’re getting queues that I have to wrap up. Thank you very, very much. Everybody in the room, our panelists, online audience, and the organizers and everybody else involved from DCO’s side to support this. We’ve been in a very, very engaging session, and we hope that you’ve learned from this, and like Hassan said, we have time for coffee after for any other further discussion. Thank you. Thank you very, very much, and I hope you enjoyed it.

Agreement points

Need for effective integration between GDC and existing mechanisms like WSIS to avoid duplication

Speakers

– Hassan Nasser
– Concertina Tossa
– Torbjorn Fredriksson

Arguments

DCO serves as unique intergovernmental organization addressing fragmentation in digital economy through common assessment and understanding

Global Digital Compact marks significant milestone in digital governance evolution, building on existing WSIS foundations

Need for effective integration between GDC and existing mechanisms like WSIS to avoid duplication and maximize resources

Summary

All three speakers emphasize the importance of building on existing frameworks like WSIS rather than creating parallel systems, with focus on addressing fragmentation and maximizing limited resources

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Multi-stakeholder cooperation essential for successful digital transformation

Speakers

– Hassan Nasser
– Concertina Tossa
– Giulia Ajmone Marsan
– Luca Belli

Arguments

South-South cooperation and triangular cooperation essential for achieving global digital transformation goals

Multi-stakeholder cooperation essential for translating global digital policies into local realities

Organizations should break regional boundaries and learn across continents rather than limiting themselves to geographic labels

Implementation challenges exist between excellent policies and practical application, requiring focus on capacity building and cultural change

Summary

Speakers unanimously agree that multi-stakeholder approaches involving different regions, sectors, and levels of governance are crucial for effective digital transformation

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Digital transformation requires comprehensive ecosystem approach beyond just technology

Speakers

– Ryszard Frelek
– Luca Belli
– Liz Giener

Arguments

IP ecosystem requires comprehensive approach including legal framework, infrastructure, industry-academia collaboration, and financing access

Implementation challenges exist between excellent policies and practical application, requiring focus on capacity building and cultural change

Citizen-centric service design more effective than technology-first approaches for building accessible digital services

Summary

All speakers agree that successful digital transformation requires holistic approaches that consider legal, cultural, organizational, and human factors, not just technological solutions

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Intellectual property rights

Importance of addressing digital divide and ensuring inclusive participation

Speakers

– Torbjorn Fredriksson
– Dr. Wario Weh-Dimi
– Giulia Ajmone Marsan

Arguments

Significant digital economy participation gaps exist between developed and developing regions, with Africa at less than 5% online shopping versus Norway’s 80%

African nations need unified continental approach to leverage digital opportunities and address capacity gaps

Digital transformation requires combining with green transformation and sustainable development goals

Summary

Speakers acknowledge significant disparities in digital participation and emphasize the need for inclusive approaches that address capacity gaps and ensure equitable access

Topics

Development | Economic | Sustainable development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of cross-regional learning and cooperation, moving beyond traditional geographic boundaries to foster global digital development

Speakers

– Hassan Nasser
– Giulia Ajmone Marsan

Arguments

South-South cooperation and triangular cooperation essential for achieving global digital transformation goals

Organizations should break regional boundaries and learn across continents rather than limiting themselves to geographic labels

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers advocate for building upon existing WSIS mechanisms rather than creating new parallel systems, emphasizing the need to strengthen and update current frameworks

Speakers

– Concertina Tossa
– Torbjorn Fredriksson

Arguments

Global Digital Compact marks significant milestone in digital governance evolution, building on existing WSIS foundations

Need for effective integration between GDC and existing mechanisms like WSIS to avoid duplication and maximize resources

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers highlight the gap between policy formulation and practical implementation, emphasizing the need for capacity building and addressing local contextual challenges

Speakers

– Dr. Wario Weh-Dimi
– Luca Belli

Arguments

Local infrastructure availability and understanding implementation paths remain difficult terrain requiring international cooperation

Implementation challenges exist between excellent policies and practical application, requiring focus on capacity building and cultural change

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Unexpected consensus

Political momentum as crucial factor for digital governance success

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Hassan Nasser

Arguments

Political momentum and support crucial for successful implementation of digital governance frameworks

South-South cooperation and triangular cooperation essential for achieving global digital transformation goals

Explanation

While technical and policy aspects are often emphasized in digital governance discussions, both speakers unexpectedly converged on the critical importance of political will and momentum for translating frameworks into concrete results

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Value of informal governance mechanisms alongside formal institutions

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Concertina Tossa

Arguments

BRICS countries successfully achieved enhanced cooperation in cybersecurity and AI governance despite being informal club governance system

National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) can serve as operational mechanisms for translating GDC implementation at local levels

Explanation

Both speakers recognize that informal or semi-formal mechanisms (BRICS club governance and NRIs) can be as effective as formal intergovernmental organizations in achieving digital governance objectives

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around the need for multi-stakeholder cooperation, building on existing frameworks rather than creating new ones, addressing digital divides, and taking comprehensive ecosystem approaches to digital transformation. Speakers consistently emphasized the importance of translating global policies into local realities through capacity building and inclusive participation.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary perspectives rather than conflicting viewpoints. The agreement suggests a mature understanding of digital governance challenges and a shared commitment to collaborative, inclusive approaches. This consensus provides a strong foundation for implementing initiatives like the Global Digital Compact and strengthening existing mechanisms like WSIS and IGF.

Different viewpoints

Scope and urgency of digital divide challenges

Speakers

– Hassan Nasser
– Torbjorn Fredriksson

Arguments

DCO serves as unique intergovernmental organization addressing fragmentation in digital economy through common assessment and understanding

Significant digital economy participation gaps exist between developed and developing regions, with Africa at less than 5% online shopping versus Norway’s 80%

Summary

Hassan presents an optimistic view suggesting digital economy is becoming ‘the economy’ and focuses on coordination mechanisms, while Torbjorn challenges this notion by highlighting massive participation gaps and emphasizing that basic challenges remain unaddressed despite technological advances

Topics

Development | Economic

Effectiveness of existing versus new frameworks

Speakers

– Concertina Tossa
– Luca Belli

Arguments

Global Digital Compact marks significant milestone in digital governance evolution, building on existing WSIS foundations

Implementation challenges exist between excellent policies and practical application, requiring focus on capacity building and cultural change

Summary

Concertina emphasizes building on existing frameworks like WSIS and integrating them with GDC, while Luca expresses frustration that excellent policies exist but implementation remains poor, suggesting structural problems with current approaches

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected differences

Regional cooperation effectiveness

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Giulia Ajmone Marsan

Arguments

Latin America has comprehensive data protection laws but lacks regional framework for unified digital market

ASEAN region developing transnational AI innovation ecosystems through strategic partnerships and skills transfer

Explanation

Unexpectedly, two regions with similar organizational structures show contrasting results – LATAM has laws but lacks coordination despite multiple regional organizations, while ASEAN successfully develops transnational innovation ecosystems. This highlights that institutional presence doesn’t guarantee effective cooperation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed subtle but significant disagreements on the urgency of digital divide challenges, the effectiveness of current policy frameworks, and approaches to regional cooperation. While speakers generally agreed on goals like digital inclusion and cooperation, they differed on assessment of current progress and optimal strategies.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications – the differences in perspective on whether digital transformation is progressing adequately versus facing fundamental implementation challenges could lead to very different policy priorities and resource allocation decisions. The contrast between optimistic coordination-focused approaches and more critical implementation-focused perspectives suggests underlying tensions about the effectiveness of current multilateral digital governance approaches.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the importance of cross-regional learning and cooperation, moving beyond traditional geographic boundaries to foster global digital development

Speakers

– Hassan Nasser
– Giulia Ajmone Marsan

Arguments

South-South cooperation and triangular cooperation essential for achieving global digital transformation goals

Organizations should break regional boundaries and learn across continents rather than limiting themselves to geographic labels

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers advocate for building upon existing WSIS mechanisms rather than creating new parallel systems, emphasizing the need to strengthen and update current frameworks

Speakers

– Concertina Tossa
– Torbjorn Fredriksson

Arguments

Global Digital Compact marks significant milestone in digital governance evolution, building on existing WSIS foundations

Need for effective integration between GDC and existing mechanisms like WSIS to avoid duplication and maximize resources

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers highlight the gap between policy formulation and practical implementation, emphasizing the need for capacity building and addressing local contextual challenges

Speakers

– Dr. Wario Weh-Dimi
– Luca Belli

Arguments

Local infrastructure availability and understanding implementation paths remain difficult terrain requiring international cooperation

Implementation challenges exist between excellent policies and practical application, requiring focus on capacity building and cultural change

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Key takeaways

Digital cooperation requires moving from theoretical frameworks to practical implementation, with emphasis on translating global policies into local realities

The Global Digital Compact (GDC) should build upon existing mechanisms like WSIS and IGF rather than creating duplicative structures, with effective integration being crucial for success

Multi-stakeholder cooperation is essential for digital transformation, requiring collaboration between governments, international organizations, private sector, and civil society

Significant digital divides persist globally, with developing regions like Africa having less than 5% online shopping participation compared to 80% in developed countries like Norway

Regional approaches to digital transformation vary significantly, with successful models emerging from ASEAN, BRICS, and other regional groupings that can provide lessons for cross-regional learning

Digital transformation is not just technological but requires cultural and organizational evolution, with capacity building being fundamental to success

National and Regional IGF Initiatives (NRIs) can serve as operational mechanisms for implementing GDC principles at local levels, bridging global frameworks with national realities

Intellectual property ecosystems require comprehensive approaches including legal frameworks, infrastructure, financing access, and capacity building to support innovation

Governments can leapfrog infrastructure constraints through lean modular architecture, trusted digital identity systems, and strategic public-private partnerships

Resolutions and action items

DCO committed to continue multi-stakeholder dialogue beyond the session and at upcoming FFD4 conference in Sevilla

DCO to work on second edition of Digital Economy Navigator with stakeholder input and feedback

NRIs should incorporate GDC objectives into their agenda setting and report outcomes back to global frameworks

Participants encouraged to continue conversations through informal networking and coffee meetings after the session

Organizations should strengthen coordination to minimize duplication of work, especially given shrinking resources for technical assistance

WIPO to continue collaboration with DCO and other partners through E-Trade for All partnership and other initiatives

Unresolved issues

How to effectively bridge the implementation gap between excellent policies and practical application at local levels

Specific mechanisms for integrating GDC with existing WSIS frameworks without creating redundancy

How to address infrastructure and capacity disparities between developed and developing regions

Concrete methods for translating global digital governance frameworks into actionable national policies

How to ensure adequate political momentum and support for sustained digital cooperation initiatives

Ways to address the fragmentation of agendas, mandates, and resources in the current multilateral system

How to balance regional peculiarities and local contexts with international standardization efforts

Suggested compromises

Use existing WSIS+20 review process as opportunity to integrate GDC objectives rather than creating separate mechanisms

Leverage NRIs as bridge between global frameworks and local implementation to avoid top-down approaches

Focus on South-South cooperation and triangular cooperation models to complement traditional North-South assistance

Combine digital transformation initiatives with green transformation and SDG alignment to maximize impact

Break regional boundaries in learning and collaboration while respecting local contexts and needs

Prioritize citizen-centric service design over technology-first approaches to ensure accessibility and adoption

We are facing today a more fragmented world, and this is, of course, the reason why DCO was established, addressing those barriers, but also leveraging the opportunities coming from digital economy… When we look at the current multilateral system, we can see, I think we can all see, the main challenge in terms of fragmentation, fragmentation of agendas, fragmentation of mandates, fragmentation of resources

Speaker

Hassan Nasser

Reason

This comment was insightful because it directly addressed one of the core challenges in global digital governance – the paradox of needing cooperation in an increasingly fragmented world. It reframed the discussion from theoretical cooperation to practical solutions for overcoming systemic fragmentation.

Impact

This set the foundational theme for the entire discussion, with subsequent speakers consistently returning to themes of cooperation, integration, and avoiding duplication. It established fragmentation as the central problem that all panelists would address from their respective domains.

The digital economy of Nigeria has had a monolistic economy, that is we are very dependent on mineral resources. And recently there has been a marked deviation from only depending on that. So we take the digital economy as a priority area now because of the accessibility, because of its lack of critical investments, quite unlike the exploration of oil and all that.

Speaker

Dr. Wario Weh-Dimi

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it highlighted how digital transformation can serve as economic diversification strategy for resource-dependent economies, offering a concrete example of digital economy as a development pathway that requires less capital investment than traditional industries.

Impact

This shifted the discussion from abstract policy frameworks to concrete national strategies, demonstrating how digital cooperation can address real economic challenges. It grounded the theoretical discussions in practical development needs.

Unfortunately, there are still too many examples of duplications of work, something that we need to minimize, especially in these times of shrinking resources for technical assistance and capacity building… When new initiatives are developed, we also need to ensure effective integration with existing mechanisms.

Speaker

Torbjörn Fredriksson

Reason

This comment was particularly insightful because it addressed the practical inefficiencies in the current system of digital cooperation, highlighting how resource constraints make coordination not just desirable but essential for effectiveness.

Impact

This comment reinforced Hassan’s earlier point about fragmentation but added the critical dimension of resource scarcity, leading other speakers to emphasize building on existing frameworks rather than creating new ones. It influenced the discussion toward practical integration strategies.

Despite already having all adopted laws and having organizations, there is no regional framework which would be extremely valuable not only to harmonize the policy, but also to allow a unique data market and fostering more cooperation at the regional level… political momentum is always a very difficult element to guess

Speaker

Luca Belli

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it illustrated the gap between having the technical and legal infrastructure for cooperation and actually achieving it, highlighting that political will is often the missing ingredient in digital cooperation initiatives.

Impact

This comment introduced a more nuanced understanding of cooperation challenges, moving beyond technical and policy issues to political economy factors. It prompted reflection on implementation gaps and the role of political leadership in digital transformation.

Many governments overestimate or maybe oversold the need for a heavy legacy IT investment… In both Estonia and Finland, Nortel helped implement national digital ID platforms that now enable seamless access to services across health, finance, government, and this dramatically increases both reach and resilience.

Speaker

Liz Giener

Reason

This comment was insightful because it challenged conventional wisdom about digital infrastructure requirements, suggesting that leapfrogging strategies could be more effective than traditional heavy infrastructure investments, particularly for developing countries.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion toward practical implementation strategies and challenged assumptions about barriers to digital transformation. It provided concrete examples of how countries can achieve digital resilience without massive infrastructure investments.

We’re talking about the digital economy now becoming the economy. I wish that was the case in all parts of the world… Just to give one example, in Norway, for instance, more than 80% of people are shopping online on a daily basis. In Africa, it’s typically less than 5%.

Speaker

Torbjörn Fredriksson

Reason

This comment was particularly thought-provoking because it provided stark quantitative evidence of the digital divide, challenging the assumption that digital transformation is universally advanced and reminding participants of the fundamental inequalities that cooperation efforts must address.

Impact

This comment served as a reality check that grounded the discussion in the persistent challenges of digital inequality. It reinforced the urgency of the cooperation agenda and reminded participants that basic challenges remain alongside advanced AI and emerging technology discussions.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing a progression from problem identification to solution strategies. Hassan’s opening comment about fragmentation set the central challenge, which subsequent speakers addressed from their respective domains. The discussion evolved from abstract cooperation principles to concrete implementation strategies, with speakers building on each other’s insights about resource constraints, political challenges, and practical solutions. The comments created a comprehensive narrative arc: from recognizing systemic fragmentation, through understanding resource and political constraints, to identifying practical pathways for cooperation. Torbjörn’s reality check about digital divides served as an important anchor, ensuring the discussion remained grounded in the fundamental inequalities that make cooperation essential rather than optional. The interplay between these comments created a rich, multi-dimensional understanding of digital cooperation challenges and opportunities.

How can the Digital Economy Navigator be expanded and improved for its second edition to better serve stakeholders globally?

Speaker

Hassan Nasser

Explanation

Hassan mentioned they are working on a new edition of the Navigator and will engage with all stakeholders to get feedback and input, indicating a need for further research on how to enhance this tool

How can the fragmentation of multilateral agendas, mandates, and resources be effectively addressed?

Speaker

Hassan Nasser

Explanation

Hassan identified fragmentation as a main challenge in the current multilateral system that DCO wants to address, but the specific mechanisms for doing so require further exploration

What specific mechanisms can facilitate the integration between GDC and existing WSIS frameworks to avoid redundancy and duplication?

Speaker

Concertina Tossa

Explanation

She emphasized this as an important area needing discussion to ensure effective integration without creating overlapping efforts

How can National and Regional Initiatives (NRIs) effectively monitor and implement GDC principles at local levels?

Speaker

Concertina Tossa and Edwin Chung (audience)

Explanation

This was identified as a strategic role for NRIs, but the concrete mechanisms and components of GDC that should be promoted and implemented need further clarification

How can the huge digital divide in e-commerce adoption between developed and developing countries be bridged?

Speaker

Torbjorn Fredriksson

Explanation

He highlighted the stark contrast between Norway (80% online shopping) and Africa (less than 5%), indicating this gap requires targeted research and solutions

How can excellent policy objectives be effectively translated into concrete actions and capacity building?

Speaker

Luca Belli

Explanation

He expressed frustration about the gap between policy declarations and practical implementation, identifying this as a key challenge requiring further research

How can regional frameworks for data governance be developed and implemented, particularly in Latin America?

Speaker

Luca Belli

Explanation

Despite having 19 countries with data protection laws, LATAM lacks a regional framework, and Belli mentioned they have prepared suggestions that need political momentum for implementation

How can peculiar regional and local issues be effectively integrated into international digital cooperation frameworks?

Speaker

Dr. Wario Weh-Dimi

Explanation

He emphasized that while international cooperation is beneficial, local infrastructure availability and implementation challenges specific to regions like Africa need to be considered

How can duplication of work among international organizations be minimized, especially given shrinking resources?

Speaker

Torbjorn Fredriksson

Explanation

He identified this as an ongoing challenge that needs addressing to make better use of limited resources for technical assistance and capacity building

How can the relationship between digital innovation and Sustainable Development Goals be better explored and operationalized?

Speaker

Giulia Ajmone Marsan

Explanation

She mentioned this as a key area of interest for their Digital Innovation and Sustainable Economy Center, requiring further research and policy dialogue

Summary

This discussion focused on technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV) and the need for multisectoral collaboration to address this growing issue. The session brought together researchers, advocates, and practitioners to share findings and identify gaps in current approaches to combating online violence against women and marginalized groups.

Neema Iyer presented research from Uganda’s 2021 elections, revealing that women politicians faced significant sexist and sexualized comments online, which deterred many from using social media for campaigning despite its affordability. Her team also studied AI’s impact on African women, finding under-representation in datasets, algorithmic discrimination, and threats to low-skilled jobs. Notably, their research on perpetrators revealed that many are minors who learn harmful behaviors in peer spaces, highlighting the need for better digital citizenship education for young people.

Ayesha Mago from the Sexual Violence Research Initiative discussed their global research agenda, which identified major gaps in TFGBV prevention strategies, understanding of perpetration patterns, and support for marginalized populations including women with disabilities and LGBTIQ+ individuals. She emphasized the disconnect between policy frameworks and actual survivor needs, noting that many well-intentioned regulations fail to provide meaningful support.

Tom Orrell highlighted the importance of context-specific approaches, sharing examples from the Philippines where local stakeholders collaborated to define TFGBV within their cultural context. The discussion revealed challenges in defining TFGBV boundaries, particularly when online harm translates to offline violence, and the critical need for safe online spaces for criminalized communities who depend on digital platforms for connection and support.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Research findings on women politicians and digital participation**: Discussion of studies showing that women politicians in Uganda faced sexist online violence during the 2021 “scientific election,” leading many to avoid social media campaigning despite its affordability and potential benefits for their campaigns.

– **AI’s discriminatory impact on African women**: Examination of how artificial intelligence systems contain data bias due to under-representation of African women, leading to algorithmic discrimination, digital surveillance issues, labor exploitation, and threats to low-skilled jobs.

– **Perpetrator-focused research and youth involvement**: Findings that a significant proportion of technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV) perpetrators are minors who learn harmful behaviors in peer spaces online, highlighting the need for education about online empathy and behavior rather than focusing solely on victim-blaming.

– **Breaking down silos between communities**: Multiple speakers emphasized the critical need to connect digital rights advocates, GBV researchers, health professionals, and traditional women’s rights organizations who often work in isolation despite addressing interconnected issues.

– **Implementation challenges and survivor needs**: Discussion of gaps between policy creation and enforcement, particularly around cybercrime laws, and the need to center survivor voices in developing responses rather than focusing primarily on criminalization approaches.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to bring together researchers, practitioners, and advocates from different sectors (digital rights, gender-based violence prevention, health, policy) to share research findings, identify collaboration opportunities, and build a more connected community of practice around technology-facilitated gender-based violence.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and solution-oriented tone throughout. It began formally with research presentations but became increasingly interactive and networking-focused as audience members shared their work and asked questions. The tone was serious given the subject matter but remained constructive and forward-looking, with speakers emphasizing opportunities for partnership and collective action rather than dwelling on problems alone.

Speakers

– **Neema Iyer**: Feminist researcher focusing on technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV), conducted studies on women politicians in Uganda’s 2021 elections, AI impact on women in Africa, and perpetrator research

– **Ayesha Mago**: Global Advocacy Director at SVRI (Sexual Violence Research Initiative), leads TFGBV work for a global research network that builds evidence on violence against women and children in low- and middle-income countries

– **Tom Orrell**: Works at Development Gateway, involved in implementation work developing tools, platforms, and policy recommendations in-country with local partners

– **Audience**: Various participants including representatives from different organizations and countries

**Additional speakers:**

– **Onu**: Secretary General of Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum

– **Representative from Digital Health and Rights Project**: Researcher studying tech-facilitated abuse among young people in Ghana, Kenya, Colombia, and Vietnam, particularly focusing on HIV communities and LGBTQ+ populations

– **Denny**: Works with organization called Tatl, builds open source software to research and respond to online harms, focuses on detection of online gender-based violence in Indian languages

– **Manpreet**: Works at Chen, involved in Survivor AI project and encryption work related to TFGBV

– **Carla**: Works for Association for Progressive Communications (APC), involved in Women’s Rights Program and Feminist Internet Research Network

– **Mia Marzot**: Digital rights advocacy lead at Oxfam, works with partners from 10 countries in the global south

– **Mohammed Aded Ali**: From Somalia, concerned about increasing digital gender-based violence

– **Santiago Danibia**: From VHRP program, trans man advocate working on safe digital spaces for trans people

– **Oni Kamakwakwa**: From Global Digital Inclusion Partnership, co-founder of Wise for Africa (feminist organization in South Africa working on feminist jurisprudence for gender-based violence cases)

# Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence: A Multisectoral Discussion on Research, Collaboration, and Prevention

## Introduction

This collaborative discussion at the Internet Governance Forum brought together researchers, advocates, and practitioners from diverse sectors to address technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV). The session featured extensive audience participation and networking, creating a dialogue that highlighted both the complexity of TFGBV and the urgent need for coordinated responses across traditional sectoral boundaries.

The discussion was anchored by three main presenters: Neema Iyer, a feminist researcher focusing on TFGBV with extensive experience studying women politicians in Uganda and AI’s impact on African women; Ayesha Mago, Global Advocacy Director at the Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI), who leads TFGBV work for a global research network; and Tom Orrell, who contributed session management and facilitation. The session also featured significant contributions from audience members representing organisations across multiple countries and sectors, including digital rights advocates, health researchers, and women’s rights practitioners.

## Research Findings and Evidence Gaps

### Women Politicians and Digital Participation

Neema Iyer presented compelling research from Uganda’s 2021 elections, which she described as a “scientific election” due to COVID-19 restrictions that made digital campaigning particularly important. Her team’s findings revealed a troubling paradox in digital political participation. Whilst social media campaigning offers significant advantages for women politicians—particularly its affordability compared to traditional media—many women candidates chose to avoid these platforms entirely due to fear of online violence.

“So we actually found out it was actually really quite difficult to find the accounts of women to actually monitor because a lot of them chose to actually stay away from it instead of embracing,” Iyer explained. “Because women actually tend to really benefit from social media campaigning because it’s much more affordable… So it was a bit heartbreaking to see that they weren’t using it to its full capacity.”

The research documented extensive sexist and sexualised comments directed at women politicians, creating a hostile environment that effectively excluded them from affordable campaign tools. This finding illustrates how TFGBV creates structural barriers to democratic participation, moving beyond individual harm to systemic inequality.

### AI’s Discriminatory Impact on African Women

Iyer’s team also conducted groundbreaking research on artificial intelligence’s impact on African women, revealing multiple layers of discrimination embedded in AI systems. Their findings identified under-representation of African women in datasets used to train AI systems, leading to algorithmic discrimination that affects everything from facial recognition technology to hiring algorithms.

The research documented several key areas of concern: digital surveillance disproportionately affecting women, labour exploitation through AI-driven platforms, and threats to low-skilled jobs traditionally held by women. This work expands the understanding of TFGBV beyond social media harassment to encompass broader technological systems that perpetuate gender inequality.

### Global Research Agenda and Evidence Gaps

Ayesha Mago presented findings from SVRI’s global research agenda, which identified significant gaps in current approaches to TFGBV. The research revealed major shortcomings in prevention strategies, with current approaches focusing heavily on detection and punishment rather than addressing root causes.

“And the huge emphasis on detection and incarceration, in fact, is hindering approaches to actually preventing this kind of behaviour online,” Mago observed, challenging the dominant punitive approach to addressing online violence.

SVRI’s work identified particular gaps in understanding TFGBV’s impact on marginalised populations, including women with disabilities and LGBTIQ+ individuals. The research also highlighted a disconnect between policy frameworks and actual survivor needs, noting that many well-intentioned regulations fail to provide meaningful support to those experiencing online violence.

## Perpetrator-Focused Research and Youth Involvement

One of the most significant findings presented was Iyer’s research on TFGBV perpetrators, which revealed that a substantial proportion are minors. This discovery fundamentally challenges conventional approaches to addressing online violence.

“And quite interestingly, we found out that quite a big proportion tend to be minors. So it’s oftentimes children on the internet behaving badly,” Iyer explained. “So the question becomes then, how do we actually reach and teach younger people about how do you behave in online spaces? Because I think as humans, we’re taught so much how to behave in public… But that’s not the case once you build an account online.”

This finding suggests that many young perpetrators learn harmful behaviours in peer spaces online, where traditional social conditioning mechanisms don’t operate. The research indicates a need for education about online empathy and digital citizenship rather than focusing solely on victim-blaming or criminalisation approaches.

## Cross-Sector Collaboration and Breaking Down Silos

A central theme throughout the discussion was the critical need to break down silos between different communities working on related issues. Multiple speakers emphasised that TFGBV requires multisectoral responses that bring together digital rights advocates, GBV researchers, health professionals, and traditional women’s rights organisations.

Mago highlighted SVRI’s approach to fostering collaboration through their 300-member community of practice, which provides safe spaces for challenging conversations and resource sharing. “We run a community of practice… and we found that to be much more successful than these kinds of in-person conferences,” she noted, suggesting that online communities can be more effective for connecting diverse stakeholders globally.

Carla from the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) contributed significantly to this discussion, highlighting their Women’s Rights Program and Feminist Internet Research Network’s work in connecting researchers and advocates across different contexts.

The discussion revealed that whilst there is growing recognition of the need for collaboration, significant barriers remain. Several speakers noted that women’s rights organisations often show resistance to technical topics due to lack of digital skills and confidence, whilst technical communities may lack understanding of gender dynamics and survivor needs.

## Platform Expansion and Emerging Spaces

The discussion highlighted significant gaps in current research focus, particularly regarding platforms where young people are active. Iyer emphasised the need to expand research beyond traditional social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook to include gaming platforms such as Roblox and Fortnite, where many children spend considerable time.

This observation was supported by audience contributions, including research from the Digital Health and Rights Project showing that 75% of young people across four countries (Ghana, Kenya, Colombia, and Vietnam) experienced tech-facilitated abuse, with particularly high rates among LGBTQ+ and HIV-affected populations.

## Legal and Policy Implementation Challenges

Despite the existence of legal frameworks addressing online violence, the discussion revealed significant implementation challenges. Multiple speakers highlighted gaps between policy creation and enforcement, particularly around cybersecurity laws.

Oni Kamakwakwa from the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership provided a stark illustration of these challenges: “However, there is no knowledge of how to enforce it, including within the judiciary as well… But the reality of it is that we have women who continuously get harassed, including serious cases of revenge porn, where even the police are laughing at the incidents because they don’t realise that… this is how we expect judiciary clusters to actually respond to these cases.”

This observation highlighted how deeply embedded attitudes within law enforcement and judicial systems can undermine even well-crafted legal protections.

## Marginalised Communities and Recognition Issues

The discussion gave particular attention to the challenges faced by marginalised communities online. Santiago Danibia, a trans man advocate, raised a particularly poignant question about recognition in digital spaces: “My question is around how we work over that, over not having recognition even in the countries, and how we do or how we help or we move the idea of being recognised in the digital world, if we don’t have safe spaces even in the countries that are supposed to protect us.”

This question highlighted the intersection of legal recognition, safety, and digital inclusion for trans communities and other marginalised groups. The discussion revealed a fundamental tension in digital inclusion work: online spaces are often essential for marginalised communities to connect with support and partners, yet these same spaces can pose significant safety risks.

## Innovative Approaches and Tools

Several audience members shared innovative approaches to addressing TFGBV challenges. Denny from Tatl described building open-source software to research and respond to online harms, with a particular focus on detection of online gender-based violence in Indian languages. This work involved crowdsourcing data and developing machine learning models, with potential for replication across other countries and languages.

Manpreet from Chen discussed the Survivor AI project and encryption work related to TFGBV, highlighting how technical solutions can be developed with survivor needs in mind.

## Areas of Strong Consensus and Future Directions

The discussion revealed remarkable consensus on several key points: the need for cross-sector collaboration, shifting focus from victim-centred approaches to understanding perpetrator behaviour, addressing significant research gaps, and improving implementation of existing laws.

The session generated concrete commitments, including SVRI’s continued funding of research grants in low- and middle-income countries, encouragement for participants to join the TFGBV community of practice, and plans for follow-up networking. Iyer indicated plans to repeat the Uganda elections analysis in 2026 to compare changes over five years.

## Conclusion

This comprehensive discussion demonstrated both the complexity of technology-facilitated gender-based violence and the potential for collaborative responses across traditional sectoral boundaries. The session successfully brought together diverse perspectives and expertise, with extensive audience participation creating a foundation for continued collaboration and coordinated action.

The discussion revealed that whilst significant challenges remain—from definitional issues to implementation gaps—there is strong consensus on priority areas for action. The emphasis on perpetrator-focused research, cross-sector collaboration, and prevention-oriented approaches provides a clear direction for future work.

The collaborative tone and practical focus of the discussion, combined with concrete commitments for follow-up action, suggest that this conversation represents an important step towards more coordinated and effective responses to technology-facilitated gender-based violence.

Neema Iyer: and a number of other women politicians who participated in the 2021 elections in Uganda. And Uganda is actually going into elections again in 2026, that’s Jan next year. And we’re planning to do another analysis so that we can actually compare and look at how things have changed in the past five years. And what we found out is that women face a lot of sexist and sexualized comments online. But I think what was even more interesting, so this particular election, the president of Uganda called it a scientific election because it happened during COVID. And they were trying to reduce the number of rallies that were happening in public. So they said, let’s move more of the campaigning to an online space. But unfortunately, a lot of the women leaders don’t really have digital skills. That’s one, but there’s also the fear of what kind of online violence they might face that they don’t want to deal with. So we actually found out it was actually really quite difficult to find the accounts of women to actually monitor because a lot of them chose to actually stay away from it instead of embracing. Because women actually tend to really benefit from social media campaigning because it’s much more affordable. Like they can’t often afford the rallies or the radio shows or the TV ads, but social media is so much more affordable. So it was a bit heartbreaking to see that they weren’t using it to its full capacity. The next study we had is looking at the impact of AI on women in Africa. And we did this as part of a three-study series looking at what’s happening and what we think will continue to happen. And what we really found is that there’s an under-representation of African women in the data sets itself. So this leads to the kind of data bias. We found there’s a lot of algorithmic discrimination against marginalized women. There’s also issues of digital surveillance and censorship that AI makes very possible. There’s labor exploitation, and it also threatens low-skilled jobs. So just looking more holistically of what is AI doing to harm women in other ways beyond social media, for example. And then the last one I want to touch upon is our recent research on perpetrators. So a lot of research on TFGBV is really focused on women. Women as the victims, women should report, women should go to the police. It’s often that narrative that we see in this kind of research. And we said, OK, let’s just flip the script and see why do people engage in this kind of behavior? Why are the perpetrators of this kind of violence? And quite interestingly, we found out that quite a big proportion tend to be minors. So it’s oftentimes children on the internet behaving badly. And they learn this bad behavior in their peer spaces. So this kind of bad behavior is actually encouraged by their peers in these kind of spaces. So the question becomes then, how do we actually reach and teach younger people about how do you behave in online spaces? Because I think as humans, we’re taught so much how to behave in public. Our parents are constantly telling us what to do, what not to do. Society corrects you all the time. But that’s not the case once you build an account online. There are no rules. You can do whatever you want. You can insult anyone in whatever country. There are no repercussions, right? So it’s really trying to figure out where does this ideological radicalization happen to young people? And why are we focusing so much on victim blaming and platform inaction when there could be other pathways to reach minors to talk about empathy in online spaces? So a lot more work to be done in this sort of space. And just building into that, I think the time is really right for us to start studying the role of masculinity’s ideology. I think as a feminist researcher, we talk so much about feminist research, but I don’t think we dive deeply enough into the masculinities and what’s going on there and what is the connection to TFGBV. What are the perpetrator pathways? What does reformation look like? Why do people reform? What does that cause? And more importantly, I think we need to start looking at other platforms. I think we have focused for a long time on Twitter, Facebook. But if you look at the number of children that are playing Roblox that are on Fortnite, and I feel like we’ve barely touched the iceberg of what goes on there. So there’s a lot more research to be done, and I really hope we’ll have space to have that conversation. But I’ll pass it on to Aisha.

Ayesha Mago: Thank you, Nima. And thank you, Tom. And I think, actually, just listening to both Tom and Nima, it’s more clear than ever why we’re actually doing this together. And it’s a perfect segue from you, Nima, from what you were saying about research. Because I’m Aisha from the SVRI, that’s the Sexual Violence Research Initiative. I’m the Global Advocacy Director there, and I lead our TFGBV work. And SVRI is a global research network that builds evidence on violence against women and violence against children in low- and middle-income countries. And we do that to find out, really, what works and what doesn’t work, and to try and gather that information to really strengthen the field of violence programming and practitioners and policymaking and all of that, and at the same time, really strengthen researchers in low- and middle-income countries where there often aren’t the resources that they need to be. Within this, of course, there is a huge amount of work being done on TFGBV right now, and we do have quite a large evidence base. But there are still some really major gaps. In fact, as Nima has already mentioned, one of the key gaps is around perpetration. What we decided to do was, with some partners, the Association for Progressive Communications, UN Women, and the Global Partnership to End Online Harassment and Abuse, which is a coalition of multiple countries working on this, we decided to actually run a consultative process to create a research agenda for the field. And the point of that research agenda was to say, okay, we know there’s a lot of evidence out there, but where are the real gaps? And once we have conducted this process and identified these gaps, then we can work with researchers, with practitioners, with funders to persuade them to put resources where the real gaps are, and where the field as a whole is saying those gaps are. So we had feedback from hundreds and hundreds of people from around the world. I won’t go into the process, it’s way too long, but please do feel free to come and ask me if you’re interested in this. Because we really do believe in research priority setting as a sort of key thing for the field. And one of the areas we found that we really do not know much about is prevention, what works to prevent TFGBV, right? That includes tech company accountability, and as Tom mentioned, this whole area around safety by design and how to actually persuade tech companies to engage in that. But it also includes all the work Nima’s just talked about around perpetration. How do you stop people from perpetrating? And how do you deal with some of these really, really impactful studies that are showing that it is young people and lots of research that’s coming out of various places now that’s showing that the huge emphasis on detection and incarceration, in fact, is hindering approaches to actually preventing this kind of behavior online. We also found a big gap was on specific populations, and those are the populations that are most impacted by TFGBV. So that includes, you know, marginalized groups of women, such as women with disabilities, LGBTIQ+, populations, refugee and migrant women. So there’s an enormous invisibilization of these people in the research, even though we know that the impacts are the highest on them. Where there is data, it’s not just aggregated. Then there’s a whole area around survivor needs, and we’re going to try and talk about that a little bit more today, but it was around, like, what do survivors actually want in terms of services, and are all these policies and regulations and legal frameworks and stuff actually meeting that in any way? So the research agenda is a big part of our work on TFGBV. The other part is that we support a number of research grants all over the world, but in low- and middle-income countries, trying to drill down specifically into the areas of gaps that I’ve mentioned, and, you know, it might be work in Colombia on an app, working with the police to identify online grooming. It might be in South Africa on TFGBV and how it’s impacting specific communities of women with disabilities, young people in Nepal, gender disinformation in India. So a whole range of different research grants that we are funding, and actually a whole bunch of other stuff, but the one I want to mention I think is highly relevant in this context of bringing safety communities together is our community of practice. So we run a TFGBV community of practice. There are more than 300 members of it now. It really is a safe space to convene, to have really challenging conversations, to share resources, to share work, and right now we’re working on a partnership with UN Women where we are actually engaging in a whole series of policy dialogues so that some of the key messages, again, coming from the field can be fed into the larger global frameworks, and so that we can start saying, okay, what’s missing? What’s the field thing is missing, and, you know, how do we use the strength of some of the multilateral organizations, such as the UN, to actually get those messages across? So I mean, I’m going to stop there, other than just to say in terms of Internet Governance Forum, it’s a very, very different space for SVRI, but I think one of the key things that we really wanted to do was to start breaking some of the silos between digital rights and GBV researchers and practitioners, and we know that this is, you know, a huge, huge issue that needs multisectoral responses, but often we are not talking in the same rooms to each other, so that’s sort of a key goal for me here. Thank you.

Tom Orrell: Thank you. Thank you both. And thank you all for listening to us, and now it’s your turn to also get involved, so there’s no escape now, you’re not allowed to get up and walk away. We have a few questions for discussion, but actually before moving to those, we’d love to hear any reflections, thoughts, or any experiences of work that you’ve been doing on TFGBV, if you’d like to share with us, that would be great. We had hoped this would be a less formal networking session. This is the stage we were given. We didn’t expect to be standing on stage. Perhaps… We can go down. Should we sit on the edge of the stage, maybe, and that’s a nice kind of balance? Yeah. Yeah. Let’s go around. I’m going to just jump down. Oh. Not working. Oh, you have to lean. But… Oh, wow, that’s really… No, no one has a mic. No, for the live stream. Oh. Is it okay? All right, cool. Amazing. So would anyone like to jump in with any questions or experience sharing? And we can always move on to the conversation questions as well. One second, one second. Thank you. How do I change slides?

Audience: Good afternoon. My name is Onu from Bangladesh. I’m looking after Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum. I’m a Secretary General. Thank you very much. Your session and conversation is very well. But I have one observation regarding Ayesha. You mentioned the research funding you provide the community. You mentioned India. Do you have any planned research regarding this agenda in Bangladesh?

Ayesha Mago: So I don’t think we currently have a research grant in Bangladesh. But every year we do another set of research grants. But I don’t think we have one in Bangladesh right now, no. And not on TFGBV for sure. But we have funded research grants in Bangladesh on violence against women, yes.

Audience: Okay, okay. Your organization already involved any organization in Bangladesh?

Ayesha Mago: In the past, definitely. We’ve had partners there, yes. But I mean, we are not currently working with Bangladesh on this issue. But we would love to be. So let’s chat.

Audience: This is a bit of a comment on our work. And some questions that would be interesting to hear more about. So myself and my two colleagues, we’re from the Digital Health and Rights Project. So we’re really looking at things from a health angle. Particularly rooted in the HIV movement and communities living with and affected by HIV. We’ve just concluded a study with 300 young people in Ghana, Kenya, Colombia, and Vietnam. And we found that 75% of young people in our study had experienced tech-facilitated abuse. Some of that is along gender lines. A lot of that is around being LGBTQ+, or being part of a criminalized population of people living with HIV. So yeah, we’re really interested to connect with everyone. And learn more about this space and how we can be more engaged as we cross over multiple different spaces. And also, we really found that we were struggling to define tech-facilitated abuse and the bounds of it. So a lot of the young people were experiencing harm online, or the beginnings of harm. And then it translated into offline harm. And how we defined that was a really interesting piece of what we were talking about as a project. And the kind of classic phrase of your rights must be protected online as they are offline. And whether that really applies, because it’s quite a spectrum of both online and offline abuse. And the other really interesting conversation we’re having, and I think you kind of touched on it just there, was should we advocate for criminalization, and what other options are there? So yeah, those are the kind of questions that we would bring and want to discuss and learn more from others about. Amazing. Thank you very much. Hey, I’ll just add to the conversation around breaking silos. My name’s Denny, I’m with an organization called Tatl. Denny, we were supposed to meet. So we build open source software to research and respond to online harms. And OGPV is also one of our verticals for us. Our incentive to start this OGPV project was the lack of data sets and tooling when it comes to detection of online gender-based violence in Indian languages. So I feel like over the last two years, we’ve kind of created like a recipe where we started crowdsourcing slurs in Indian languages, annotating them and filtering them, consolidating them, whatever. And then co-create resources and machine learning models to detect OGPV in Indian languages. And I think the reason to share this with a larger group like this is that I think the process can be replicated across countries or across languages. And so happy to chat with other people who are looking to do something similar. Awesome. Super interesting. Thank you for sharing. It’s such amazing work. The lady at the back over here. And I thought there was another hand as well. Hi, my name is Manpreet from Chen. I think most of you have connected with us in different ways. Our current work, we’re actually working on Survivor AI, looking at helping, I think, again, I think all of you have connected in different ways, but just with the general other participants. Working on Survivor AI, working with where individual survivors can come onto the platform and create an escalation letter to support them and take down with any images on various different platforms. And we’re also working with European organizations around encryption and looking at how that actually impacts TBFGBV. And so, yeah, a lot of our resources around healing are in different languages as well and supporting that. So I think there’s some opportunities to connect and collaborate on different aspects around encryption and Survivor AI. Definitely, yeah, definitely. Thank you. Hi, hello everyone. I am Carla and I work for the Association for Progressive Communications. So first, thank you for starting this important conversation at the Internet Governance Forum and connecting the spaces because I think it’s quite relevant to have this conversation here as well. And I’m a huge fan of SVRI and policy and the work that they do and the work that we do together. I’m happy to say that APC, as some of you mentioned it too, that you have worked with us and we work with you. And it’s happy to see that there are more people that we can collaborate with on online gender-based violence or now TFGBV and these acronyms that we have on this subject. And yes, as APC, we have different approaches to the issue. And these approaches include as well research, capacity building, movement building. So APC has the Women’s Rights Program and in the Women’s Rights Program we have the Feminist Internet Research Network. And right now we are on the third cycle of research, specifically on technology-facilitated gender-based violence. We also have the platform GenderIT.org and through the platform it’s a think tank of feminist advocates who bring their voices and share from their own experiences on issues related to feminist internet, including technology-facilitated gender-based violence. We also have the Feminist Principles of the Internet and one of the principles is specifically on violence. So anyway, that’s just a very broad, small introduction of the work that APC does. We have a booth if you want to go and take a look. But I’m just excited to be here and to share with you and to learn from you as well, so thank you.

Neema Iyer: I’d also like to mention that the first project that I mentioned where we did the Africa-wide research was part of the Feminist Internet Research Network and it was really being a part of that network that actually set all our other feminist work in motion. I think it was really a transformative program and yeah, I just really appreciate having been a part of it all those years ago.

Audience: That’s great. Hi, thank you so much for convening this space. My name is Mia Marzot and I work for Oxfam. I’m the digital rights advocacy lead and particularly also have a booth right around the corner because we’re bringing together partners from 10 different countries in the so-called global south with the aim of making sure that the needs and perspectives of communities that are not necessarily always in these spaces are here. So we see Oxfam’s roles as acting a bit as a convener or raising the voices of the feminist young activists and organizations that we work with and partner with. And on that point, because you mentioned breaking silos and also the importance of making sure that this evidence that you’re gathering or the projects that you’re implementing are actually acted upon, that they don’t just remain words on a page as much as important it is to have words on a page. It’s great to see you guys here, but in, I guess, my question is in the more traditional spaces that have been looking at women’s rights and safety of women and girls, which opportunities do you see coming up, as in where can the technical community or the private sector tech companies should be engaging with? One place that comes to mind is the CSW, the Commission on the Status of Women. This year’s meeting had a very, very small focus on tech-facilitated gender-based violence and very little mention of it, although it’s an increasingly prevalent and important issue. So I guess my question is, what has been your experience in trying to bring some of the people that are maybe in this community, in these other spaces, and what opportunities do you see coming up where maybe we can join forces a little bit more as organizations or people concerned with this issue? We’ll come around here. Thank you very much for your presentation, much appreciated. My name is Mohammed Aded Ali, I’m from Somalia. Gender-based violence by digital is increasing, mainly women and girls, because blackmailing as well as harassing is an arena of digital issues. So, in your research, your prospective strategy, how that increasing violence can reduce, as well as who can take the responsibility of that increasing, because some of the country doesn’t have any policy or regulatory protecting the women and girls. That’s my question, thank you very much. Thank you.

Tom Orrell: We’ll come back to that. Thank you so much for all those reflections and inputs. We have some more, I was going to say, are there any more? Please keep it coming. We’ve got about 15 minutes left, so we can keep doing this for a few more minutes. Yeah, we can keep the conversation going. And also, if people want to respond to things that they’ve heard and questions that they’ve heard from others, please do jump in. It’s not just us.

Neema Iyer: If you have questions on things other people have mentioned.

Audience: Hi, my name is Santiago Danibia. I’m from the VHRP program, as my colleague said. So, I have a question. It’s around doing the project. We experienced the need to bring safe spaces, digital spaces, to trans people, making advocacy and incidency, over and even in the idea of a recognition of trans people in the difference, because usually when people talk about trans people, they only assume that trans people are trans women. I’m a trans man, and getting the idea of people recognizing myself and my community and my population around we being trans also has been one of our needs. And I wanted to ask a question, because you know that recently in the UK, the categorization about a woman becomes really hard for trans women, because they stop being recognized as women. So, my question is around how we work over that, over not having recognition even in the countries, and how we do or how we help or we move the idea of being recognized in the digital world, if we don’t have safe spaces even in the countries that are supposed to protect us. That’s a question.

Ayesha Mago: Possible question. That is such a hard question. I know. Nima, you take that. That joke is very nuanced as well.

Audience: Hello, my name is Oni Kamakwakwa. I’m from the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership, where we work on advancing meaningful connectivity for the global majority. And I guess my question is how do we make sure that standards for inclusion, for digital inclusion, begin to more boldly identify online safety as one of the things that actually impedes inclusion? So, it’s very uncomfortable to continuously be advocating for digital inclusion when there’s a whole population that is endangered by being included online specifically. So, that’s just one question. Also, personally, I’m a co-founder of a feminist organization in South Africa called Wise for Africa, that works on building feminist jurisprudence in how courts address gender-based violence specifically. And one of the things we’ve observed with online violence against women is that we always have really great policies, cybersecurity laws that criminalize the behavior. However, there is no knowledge of how to enforce it, including within the judiciary as well. Any insights and examples you can share with us for how we actually get past that hurdle? Because I feel like we are stuck on celebrating this amazing law. But the reality of it is that we have women who continuously get harassed, including serious cases of revenge porn, where even the police are laughing at the incidents because they don’t realize that, in the same way you see someone speeding down the highway and you chase them because they’ve broken a law, this is how we expect judiciary clusters to actually respond to these cases. So, are we making any progress, really, on the legal front, in terms of just enforcing these amazing policies and cybercrime laws that we are adopting?

Ayesha Mago: Sure.

Neema Iyer: There was a question on how to bring other spaces in. I do find some of the other questions were very difficult questions, but this one I feel I can answer. I actually want to talk about another research project that we had. It’s called Afrofeminist Data Futures. In that project, we talked to women’s rights organizations from all across Africa. I think we spoke to 40 organizations, but we mapped all of them, and we asked them about how they use data, their thoughts on data, just what do they think of their data future. We did this study in different languages. We did it with an Anglophone group, a Francophone group, and a Lusophone group. What I think was one of the most interesting insights is that as you moved across these languages, so countries colonized by the English, the French, and the Portuguese, you could really see, also going back to questions of digital inclusion, that there was a lesser and lesser understanding or skill level of digital skills. What I really felt was that there was a resistance to talking about data, to talking about digital rights, because they felt that it was really outside their domain of expertise. They felt like, okay, I’ve been doing women’s rights for many years, I understand this, I understand the pain of all these other issues, but when it came to talking about anything technical, they really would shy away. I’ve actually also experienced this when I’ve done trainings. I’ve done trainings with the most amazing people, talking about their times in Uganda, all the things they’ve been through, and then I come to train them on a data collection tool, and they become a different person. They just suddenly are very helpless. And so I think it really comes down to bringing them into the spaces, so us going into those spaces and them coming into our spaces, and getting rid of that fear of not knowing. So yeah, I think sort of what you’re doing, like bringing organizations to this convening, I think are really, really important. I also know the… Have you heard of the African School of Internet Governance? It’s another really amazing program. So I think all these programs, like FUN, AFRICIG, I think they’re so instrumental in bringing these different voices. And I don’t know if there are similar initiatives in other countries, but I think that they are very instrumental and there should be more of them. So answering that question.

Ayesha Mago: Great. Pass it on to you. So I wanted to quickly pick up on what you had mentioned about the measurement issues, because that’s a really, really big gap. And just very quickly, what I wanted to say was it came up big time in the research agenda that we still don’t have clear definitions. So how can we deal with, measure all of that? Lots of organizations are doing work on this. So I’ll share resources with you. And I’d love to hear more about your study as well. Remind me of other questions. I’ve got a whole list.

Tom Orrell: Okay, go on. I think there was a good question about where can the technical community and private sector companies be engaged in these spaces? Where can we join forces a little bit more?

Ayesha Mago: Right. I mean, just to add to what Nima was saying, I’m sure you have some ideas on this as well. But just to add, one thing we have found really successful, and maybe more successful than these in-person conferences, is something like the community of practice. Because people from all over the world and from all sorts of different sectors come to those meetings. And I mean, although they are online, it is a chance to really exchange views, exchange work, get to know about people’s programming and stuff that’s happening in all sorts of places that you just don’t. And often forums like this are actually very difficult to make those connections, right? I mean, I went to RightsCon last year, and I found it really hard to actually just keep a handle on things. So I would say those sorts of online communities are great spaces. And to keep pulling the tech sector in and not let them say no, I think that’s important. Yeah, I mean,

Tom Orrell: I’d add a couple of points to that on that particular question. From our perspective, and at Development Gateway, we do a lot of implementation work. So we work in-country with local partners to kind of develop tools, develop platforms, develop policy recommendations in-country. And I think from that development point of view, the closer you are to the context, the better your community is going to be and the more effective it’s likely to be. In the Philippines, we convened a two-day workshop bringing together national regulators, the local police force, representatives from city-level gender-based violence desks, together with media, media academics, local civil society groups, international civil society groups, UN women, all of these people in a room together. And we spent the first day basically talking about what TFGBV was in the Philippines. What is it here? Some people work on online. It’s a besmirchment and defamatory practice essentially, but it is a form of TFGBV when it’s gendered and it has become that in the country. So you uncover the nuances and the local practices and the local issues when you engage with people at that level. I think the value and the relevance of fora like the IGF is sharing and learning and building those communities of practice across country, across regions, across thematic areas, learning from each other, hopefully building synergies and sharing information as we move forward through those online spaces. But I think it’s also important for us to be able to feed into policy discussions and policy outcomes. What exactly we want to be saying, I don’t know, beyond platforms should be accountable for removing bad content. But I think that’s a very tricky question. There were a couple of other points I wanted to make in relation to some of the other questions. We’ve got about three and a half minutes, I’m not going to hog it all, don’t worry. I think you’re doing some really interesting work there on that intersection of SRH. Some of the comments that I just make I think apply to what you were saying as well, which is how do you actually define the parameters of TFGBV? I wanted to share a really cool experience that I had talking to someone who worked on sexual and reproductive health in the Philippines. She was part of the workshop I just mentioned, and she works for a local foundation in the Philippines that supports the training and deployment of frontline SRH workers. It hadn’t actually occurred to me, okay, wow, how do you integrate TFGBV into the work of a frontline SRH worker? Because it is a form of mental well-being that they need to support when you’re dealing especially with younger people who have this enormous access and presence online. For me, it was just a really interesting thing that I hadn’t, hands up, I hadn’t thought of that intersection before. But I think it just goes to show just how pervasive the digital aspect of our lives is. The point that you made about online harms then manifesting in the physical world, I think it’s been true for a while. But I think with TFGBV issues in particular, it’s especially poignant and especially painful I think for survivors, especially image-based abuse, et cetera. Those images, even when removed from some platforms, are likely to be somewhere in cyberspace for perpetuity, in perpetuity really. So the damage can be extremely long-lasting in the physical world. And that link with SRH I think is something that’s well worth teasing out. And what can we learn from successful SRH approaches over the last 20, 30 years, and how do we apply that to TFGBV? Those are some of the things I wanted to just share. We have about a minute and a half each. Maybe some final thoughts from my colleagues here, and then final thoughts really quickly.

Ayesha Mago: One and a half minutes. I just wanted to say one thing about what you were saying about how can you be recognized online when you are not recognized in the real world? I mean, we know both are the real world. And I do not have an answer for that question. But what I will say is that this incredibly difficult line specifically for communities that are discriminated against in public life, and therefore how important it is actually to access the online space, and then how do you navigate that online space? And it connects to what our colleague behind was also saying about like, but the online space is dangerous. But that online space is critical, right? Because for many people in communities that are criminalized, that is in fact the only space they have sometimes to connect with support communities, to connect with intimate partners, all of that. So while I do not have an answer to that, I think your point just makes it so much more important around how we have to make online spaces safe. And we have to keep fighting that fight. Yeah. Yeah.

Neema Iyer: I think I will take the last 15 seconds to just say thank you to everyone who contributed, everyone who asked questions. I think we were able to get the networking going a little bit. It was really interesting to hear about all the work that you are doing. So thank you for coming and making the session less awkward. I really appreciate it. Thank you all for being here. Thank you. Thank you so much. We did want to just say as well, for those who are interested in taking the network forward, there is a bar in the next room. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Need for cross-sector collaboration and breaking down silos

Speakers

– Neema Iyer
– Ayesha Mago
– Tom Orrell
– Audience

Arguments

Breaking silos between digital rights and GBV researchers is crucial for multisectoral responses to TFGBV

Context-specific implementation with local partners brings together diverse stakeholders more effectively than broad international forums

Women’s rights organizations across Africa show resistance to technical topics due to lack of digital skills and confidence

Summary

All speakers agreed that TFGBV requires multisectoral responses and that breaking down silos between different communities (digital rights, GBV researchers, women’s rights organizations, technical communities) is essential for effective solutions.

Topics

Gender rights online | Interdisciplinary approaches | Development

Research gaps and need for better definitions

Speakers

– Neema Iyer
– Ayesha Mago
– Audience

Arguments

Research needs to expand beyond Twitter and Facebook to platforms like Roblox and Fortnite where many children are active

Major research gaps exist in prevention strategies, specific marginalized populations, and survivor needs that current policies don’t address

Clear definitions are still lacking, making measurement and response difficult across organizations

Difficulty in defining tech-facilitated abuse boundaries when online harm translates to offline harm across a spectrum

Summary

Speakers consistently identified significant gaps in TFGBV research, including lack of clear definitions, insufficient focus on prevention, and need to expand research to new platforms and marginalized populations.

Topics

Gender rights online | Legal and regulatory | Children rights

Focus on perpetrators and prevention rather than victim-blaming

Speakers

– Neema Iyer
– Ayesha Mago

Arguments

Research on perpetrators reveals many are minors who learn harmful behavior from peers, suggesting need for education on online empathy rather than victim-blaming

Research shows emphasis on detection and incarceration hinders prevention approaches to online harmful behavior

Summary

Both speakers advocated for shifting focus from victim-centered approaches to understanding and preventing perpetrator behavior, particularly among young people.

Topics

Gender rights online | Children rights | Cybersecurity

Implementation and enforcement gaps in existing laws

Speakers

– Ayesha Mago
– Audience

Arguments

Research shows emphasis on detection and incarceration hinders prevention approaches to online harmful behavior

Despite good cybersecurity laws criminalizing behavior, there’s lack of knowledge on enforcement within judiciary systems

Police and courts often don’t understand severity of cases like revenge porn, treating them dismissively rather than as serious crimes

Summary

Speakers agreed that while laws exist to address TFGBV, there are significant gaps in implementation and enforcement, with justice systems lacking understanding of the severity of these crimes.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Gender rights online | Cybersecurity

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the need for more comprehensive research approaches that go beyond traditional victim-focused studies to understand perpetrator behavior and develop prevention strategies.

Speakers

– Neema Iyer
– Ayesha Mago

Arguments

Need to study masculinity ideologies and perpetrator pathways for reformation rather than focusing solely on feminist research

Major research gaps exist in prevention strategies, specific marginalized populations, and survivor needs that current policies don’t address

Topics

Gender rights online | Sociocultural | Human rights principles

Both recognized the paradox that vulnerable and marginalized communities most need online spaces for connection and support, yet these same spaces pose significant safety risks, creating tension in digital inclusion efforts.

Speakers

– Ayesha Mago
– Audience

Arguments

Online spaces are critical for criminalized communities to connect with support and partners, making safety even more important

Need to address how online safety impediments affect digital inclusion efforts for vulnerable populations

Topics

Gender rights online | Human rights principles | Development

Both emphasized the importance of working within local contexts and building capacity among traditional women’s rights organizations to engage with technical aspects of TFGBV.

Speakers

– Neema Iyer
– Tom Orrell

Arguments

Women’s rights organizations across Africa show resistance to technical topics due to lack of digital skills and confidence

Context-specific implementation with local partners brings together diverse stakeholders more effectively than broad international forums

Topics

Development | Gender rights online | Interdisciplinary approaches

Unexpected consensus

Online communities more effective than in-person conferences

Speakers

– Ayesha Mago
– Tom Orrell

Arguments

Online communities of practice are more successful than in-person conferences for connecting diverse sectors globally

Context-specific implementation with local partners brings together diverse stakeholders more effectively than broad international forums

Explanation

Despite being at an in-person conference (IGF), speakers agreed that online communities and local context-specific gatherings are more effective for meaningful collaboration than large international forums, which is somewhat counterintuitive given the setting.

Topics

Interdisciplinary approaches | Development

Gaming platforms as critical research frontier

Speakers

– Neema Iyer
– Audience

Arguments

Research needs to expand beyond Twitter and Facebook to platforms like Roblox and Fortnite where many children are active

75% of young people in study across four countries experienced tech-facilitated abuse, particularly LGBTQ+ and HIV-affected populations

Explanation

The consensus on gaming platforms as a critical but understudied area for TFGBV research was unexpected, as these platforms are often not considered in traditional discussions of online gender-based violence.

Topics

Children rights | Gender rights online | Cybersecurity

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around the need for cross-sector collaboration, shifting from victim-focused to prevention-focused approaches, addressing research and definitional gaps, and recognizing implementation challenges in existing legal frameworks. Speakers also agreed on the importance of local context and the particular vulnerabilities of marginalized communities online.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary rather than conflicting viewpoints. The agreement suggests a mature field where practitioners and researchers have identified common challenges and are aligned on priority areas for action. This consensus provides a strong foundation for collaborative efforts and coordinated advocacy, though the challenge remains in translating this agreement into concrete action across different sectors and contexts.

Different viewpoints

Unexpected differences

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed minimal disagreement, with speakers largely building on each other’s points collaboratively. The only disagreements were methodological – about whether online or in-person engagement is more effective, and different emphases on prevention strategies.

Disagreement level

Very low level of disagreement. This was primarily a collaborative knowledge-sharing session rather than a debate. The speakers demonstrated strong alignment on core issues and complementary expertise. The methodological differences actually strengthen the overall approach by offering multiple pathways to address TFGBV, suggesting that different strategies may be appropriate for different contexts and stakeholders.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the need for more comprehensive research approaches that go beyond traditional victim-focused studies to understand perpetrator behavior and develop prevention strategies.

Speakers

– Neema Iyer
– Ayesha Mago

Arguments

Need to study masculinity ideologies and perpetrator pathways for reformation rather than focusing solely on feminist research

Major research gaps exist in prevention strategies, specific marginalized populations, and survivor needs that current policies don’t address

Topics

Gender rights online | Sociocultural | Human rights principles

Both recognized the paradox that vulnerable and marginalized communities most need online spaces for connection and support, yet these same spaces pose significant safety risks, creating tension in digital inclusion efforts.

Speakers

– Ayesha Mago
– Audience

Arguments

Online spaces are critical for criminalized communities to connect with support and partners, making safety even more important

Need to address how online safety impediments affect digital inclusion efforts for vulnerable populations

Topics

Gender rights online | Human rights principles | Development

Both emphasized the importance of working within local contexts and building capacity among traditional women’s rights organizations to engage with technical aspects of TFGBV.

Speakers

– Neema Iyer
– Tom Orrell

Arguments

Women’s rights organizations across Africa show resistance to technical topics due to lack of digital skills and confidence

Context-specific implementation with local partners brings together diverse stakeholders more effectively than broad international forums

Topics

Development | Gender rights online | Interdisciplinary approaches

Key takeaways

TFGBV research reveals significant gaps in prevention strategies, with current approaches focusing too heavily on victim-blaming rather than perpetrator intervention and education

Many TFGBV perpetrators are minors who learn harmful behavior from peers, indicating need for early intervention and online empathy education rather than criminalization approaches

Women politicians and marginalized communities avoid beneficial digital spaces due to fear of online violence, missing opportunities for affordable campaigning and community connection

Cross-sector collaboration between digital rights advocates and GBV researchers is essential but currently limited by siloed approaches and lack of shared spaces

AI and algorithmic systems perpetuate discrimination against African women and marginalized groups due to under-representation in datasets

Legal frameworks exist but enforcement remains problematic due to lack of understanding within judiciary and law enforcement systems

Online communities of practice are more effective than in-person conferences for connecting diverse global stakeholders across sectors

Research must expand beyond mainstream platforms like Twitter and Facebook to include gaming platforms where many children are active

Context-specific, local implementation with diverse stakeholders is more effective than broad international approaches

Resolutions and action items

SVRI to continue funding research grants in low- and middle-income countries targeting identified evidence gaps

Participants encouraged to join the 300-member TFGBV community of practice for ongoing collaboration

Follow-up networking planned for bar session to continue building connections

Uganda elections analysis to be repeated in 2026 to compare changes over five years

Replication of Indian language OGPV detection process across other countries and languages

Continued policy dialogues with UN Women to feed field messages into global frameworks

Unresolved issues

How to ensure legal recognition and safety for trans people in digital spaces when they lack recognition in their home countries

How to balance digital inclusion advocacy with online safety concerns for vulnerable populations

How to effectively enforce existing cybersecurity laws and educate judiciary systems on TFGBV severity

How to define clear boundaries of tech-facilitated abuse when online and offline harms intersect

How to bring technical and private sector communities into traditional women’s rights spaces like CSW

How to address increasing digital gender-based violence in countries lacking protective policies

How to overcome digital skills gaps and technical intimidation among women’s rights organizations

Suggested compromises

Using online communities of practice as alternative to challenging in-person conference networking

Focusing on local, context-specific implementation while maintaining global knowledge sharing through forums like IGF

Shifting from criminalization-focused approaches to education and prevention strategies for young perpetrators

Combining survivor-centered approaches with perpetrator-focused research rather than choosing one over the other

So we actually found out it was actually really quite difficult to find the accounts of women to actually monitor because a lot of them chose to actually stay away from it instead of embracing. Because women actually tend to really benefit from social media campaigning because it’s much more affordable… So it was a bit heartbreaking to see that they weren’t using it to its full capacity.

Speaker

Neema Iyer

Reason

This comment reveals a profound paradox in digital participation – that the very tool that could democratize political participation for women (social media) becomes inaccessible due to fear of violence. It challenges the assumption that digital spaces are inherently empowering and highlights how online violence creates systemic barriers to political participation.

Impact

This insight reframed the discussion from simply addressing online violence to understanding how it creates structural inequalities. It established the foundation for later discussions about digital inclusion and safety, showing how online violence isn’t just individual harm but a barrier to democratic participation.

And quite interestingly, we found out that quite a big proportion tend to be minors. So it’s oftentimes children on the internet behaving badly… So the question becomes then, how do we actually reach and teach younger people about how do you behave in online spaces? Because I think as humans, we’re taught so much how to behave in public… But that’s not the case once you build an account online.

Speaker

Neema Iyer

Reason

This comment fundamentally shifts the narrative from victim-blaming to understanding perpetration patterns. It challenges the typical focus on adult perpetrators and introduces the concept that online spaces lack the social conditioning mechanisms that exist in physical spaces. This insight suggests entirely different intervention strategies.

Impact

This observation redirected the conversation toward prevention and education rather than just response and punishment. It influenced later audience questions about enforcement versus other approaches, and sparked discussion about how to create accountability in digital spaces where traditional social norms don’t automatically apply.

And the huge emphasis on detection and incarceration, in fact, is hindering approaches to actually preventing this kind of behavior online.

Speaker

Ayesha Mago

Reason

This comment challenges the dominant punitive approach to addressing online violence, suggesting that current strategies may be counterproductive. It introduces a critical perspective on criminal justice responses and opens space for alternative approaches focused on prevention and rehabilitation.

Impact

This insight prompted several audience members to question criminalization approaches, including the audience member who asked ‘should we advocate for criminalization, and what other options are there?’ It shifted the discussion toward more nuanced approaches to addressing perpetration.

So, it’s very uncomfortable to continuously be advocating for digital inclusion when there’s a whole population that is endangered by being included online specifically.

Speaker

Oni Kamakwakwa

Reason

This comment exposes a fundamental tension in digital rights work – the conflict between promoting digital access and acknowledging that digital spaces can be dangerous for marginalized groups. It challenges the field to grapple with this uncomfortable reality rather than treating inclusion as an unqualified good.

Impact

This observation deepened the complexity of the discussion by highlighting how safety and inclusion can be in tension. It connected to earlier points about women politicians avoiding social media and reinforced the need for safety-first approaches to digital inclusion.

My question is around how we work over that, over not having recognition even in the countries, and how we do or how we help or we move the idea of being recognized in the digital world, if we don’t have safe spaces even in the countries that are supposed to protect us.

Speaker

Santiago Danibia

Reason

This question from a trans man highlights how offline marginalization compounds online vulnerability. It challenges the discussion to consider how digital safety intersects with broader systems of recognition and protection, particularly for trans communities facing legal erasure.

Impact

This question prompted Ayesha Mago to acknowledge the complexity of the issue and emphasize how critical online spaces become for criminalized communities, even when dangerous. It added intersectional depth to the conversation and highlighted how online safety is particularly crucial for those without offline protections.

However, there is no knowledge of how to enforce it, including within the judiciary as well… But the reality of it is that we have women who continuously get harassed, including serious cases of revenge porn, where even the police are laughing at the incidents because they don’t realize that… this is how we expect judiciary clusters to actually respond to these cases.

Speaker

Oni Kamakwakwa

Reason

This comment exposes the gap between policy and implementation, showing how even good laws fail without proper understanding and training. The detail about police laughing at cases illustrates how deeply embedded attitudes undermine legal protections.

Impact

This observation grounded the theoretical discussion in practical realities of implementation. It highlighted that having laws isn’t enough and that cultural change within institutions is necessary for meaningful progress.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by challenging conventional approaches and revealing systemic complexities. The conversation evolved from a focus on documenting harm to understanding structural barriers, from punitive responses to prevention strategies, and from simple solutions to nuanced intersectional analysis. The most impactful comments introduced paradoxes – such as digital tools being both empowering and dangerous, or inclusion efforts potentially increasing harm – that forced participants to grapple with uncomfortable tensions in the field. The discussion became increasingly sophisticated as speakers built on each other’s insights, moving from individual experiences to systemic analysis and from single-sector solutions to multi-stakeholder approaches. The audience participation was particularly valuable in bringing diverse perspectives that deepened the complexity of the conversation and highlighted implementation challenges that pure research or policy discussions might miss.

How do we actually reach and teach younger people about how to behave in online spaces?

Speaker

Neema Iyer

Explanation

This is important because research shows that a significant proportion of TFGBV perpetrators are minors who learn bad behavior in peer spaces online, where there are no clear rules or consequences unlike in physical public spaces.

Where does this ideological radicalization happen to young people?

Speaker

Neema Iyer

Explanation

Understanding the pathways of radicalization is crucial for developing effective prevention strategies targeting young perpetrators of online violence.

What is the role of masculinity’s ideology in TFGBV?

Speaker

Neema Iyer

Explanation

This research gap is important because while there’s extensive feminist research on TFGBV, there’s insufficient exploration of masculinities and their connection to perpetration.

What are the perpetrator pathways and what does reformation look like?

Speaker

Neema Iyer

Explanation

Understanding how people become perpetrators and how they can be reformed is essential for developing effective intervention and prevention programs.

What goes on in gaming platforms like Roblox and Fortnite regarding TFGBV?

Speaker

Neema Iyer

Explanation

This is a significant research gap as many children use these platforms, but research has focused primarily on traditional social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook.

Do you have any planned research regarding this agenda in Bangladesh?

Speaker

Onu from Bangladesh

Explanation

This represents a geographic gap in current research coverage and potential for expanding TFGBV research to underrepresented regions.

How do we define tech-facilitated abuse and its bounds, especially when harm translates from online to offline?

Speaker

Digital Health and Rights Project representative

Explanation

Clear definitions are crucial for research, policy development, and intervention strategies, especially given the interconnected nature of online and offline harm.

Should we advocate for criminalization of TFGBV, and what other options are there?

Speaker

Digital Health and Rights Project representative

Explanation

This is important because research shows that emphasis on detection and incarceration may actually hinder approaches to preventing online violence.

How can the process of creating datasets and machine learning models for OGPV detection be replicated across countries or languages?

Speaker

Denny from Tatl

Explanation

This addresses the critical gap in detection tools for non-English languages and could improve global capacity for identifying and responding to TFGBV.

Where can the technical community or private sector tech companies engage with traditional women’s rights spaces?

Speaker

Mia Marzot from Oxfam

Explanation

Breaking down silos between technical and women’s rights communities is essential for comprehensive approaches to addressing TFGBV.

How can increasing digital violence be reduced and who can take responsibility, especially in countries without protective policies?

Speaker

Mohammed Aded Ali from Somalia

Explanation

This addresses the urgent need for prevention strategies and accountability mechanisms, particularly in contexts with weak regulatory frameworks.

How do we help trans people gain recognition in the digital world when they don’t have safe spaces even in countries that are supposed to protect them?

Speaker

Santiago Danibia

Explanation

This highlights the intersection of legal recognition, safety, and digital inclusion for marginalized communities, particularly trans individuals.

How do we make sure that standards for digital inclusion identify online safety as an impediment to inclusion?

Speaker

Oni Kamakwakwa

Explanation

This is crucial because promoting digital inclusion without addressing safety concerns can actually endanger vulnerable populations.

How do we get past the hurdle of enforcing cybersecurity laws and policies, including within the judiciary?

Speaker

Oni Kamakwakwa

Explanation

This addresses the critical gap between policy development and implementation, where good laws exist but enforcement mechanisms and knowledge are lacking.

Summary

This networking session at the Internet Governance Forum focused on mapping digital rights capacities and threats in global majority communities, presented by Oxfam’s Recipe Project in partnership with civil society organizations from multiple countries. The discussion aimed to identify current challenges and foster stronger partnerships to ensure inclusive digital governance that leaves no one behind.

Representatives from Vietnam, Bolivia, Cambodia, Somalia, and Palestine shared findings from comprehensive research involving over 1,000 respondents across nine countries. Common themes emerged across all regions, including significant digital literacy gaps, inadequate legal frameworks for digital rights protection, and widespread experiences of digital violence. In Vietnam, despite rapid digitalization, none of the 63 provincial service portals meet accessibility standards, and 44% of people cannot distinguish between accurate and fake information online. Bolivia reported that 77% of respondents experienced digital security incidents, with 62% facing digital violence, particularly affecting human rights defenders and women activists.

Cambodia highlighted that fewer than 30% of citizens possess adequate digital navigation skills, while lacking comprehensive cybersecurity and data protection laws. Somalia found that while 98% have internet access, only 28% understand risks of sharing personal information, and 42% experienced digital violence. Palestine presented the most severe situation, with systematic surveillance, censorship, and discriminatory infrastructure limiting Palestinian access to advanced networks while Israeli settlers enjoy full connectivity.

The panelists emphasized the importance of bottom-up approaches, multi-stakeholder dialogue, and capacity building for marginalized communities. An audience member from Zambia reinforced the need for balanced approaches to cybersecurity that protect both safety and freedom of expression. The session concluded with calls for continued collaboration between technical communities and civil society to address misinformation while preserving digital rights.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital divide and access inequalities**: Multiple speakers highlighted significant gaps in digital access, with rural areas particularly affected (70% in Bolivia, limited infrastructure in Cambodia and Somalia), and the need for meaningful connectivity rather than just basic access.

– **Digital literacy and capacity building challenges**: All countries reported low digital literacy rates (under 30% in Cambodia, widespread gaps in Palestine), emphasizing the need for comprehensive training programs and bottom-up approaches to build digital skills in marginalized communities.

– **Digital violence and security threats**: Speakers documented high rates of digital violence, particularly gender-based (77% in Bolivia experienced digital security incidents, 42% in Somalia faced digital violence), including harassment, hate speech, and threats targeting human rights defenders and activists.

– **Inadequate legal frameworks and governance gaps**: Most countries lack comprehensive digital rights legislation, with laws still in draft form or inadequately protecting citizens from surveillance, data misuse, and online violations, while policy development often excludes marginalized voices.

– **Multi-stakeholder collaboration and advocacy strategies**: Organizations emphasized the importance of building coalitions, creating networks (like Bolivia’s feminist collectives), and engaging in policy dialogue to bridge grassroots communities with policymakers for more inclusive digital governance.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to map current digital rights capacities and threats in Global Majority communities through the RECIPE project, share research findings from nine countries, and foster partnerships between civil society organizations to address digital inequalities and promote human rights in the digital age.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, collaborative, and solution-oriented tone throughout. While speakers acknowledged serious challenges and violations, they balanced concern with optimism by highlighting ongoing efforts and practical solutions. The tone remained constructive and forward-looking, emphasizing collective action and shared learning rather than dwelling on problems alone.

Speakers

– **Mia Marzotto** – Digital Rights Advocacy Lead at Oxfam

– **Online moderator** – (Role/title not specified, appears to be Luan Mendez based on context)

– **Audience** – Enes Mafuta from Zambia, Standards Engineer

– **Khadeja Ibrahim** – International Advocacy Officer at the Palestinian NGO, Miftah

– **Cristian Leon** – Executive Director of Fundacion Internet Bolivia.org

– **Tran Thi Tuyet** – Program Manager for the Institute for Policy Studies and Media Development in Vietnam (also referred to as “Snow”)

– **Mohamed Aded Ali** – Executive Director of Somalia Non-State Actors (SONSA)

– **Theary Luy** – Head of Program at the Cooperation Committee for Cambodia

**Additional speakers:**

– **Luan Mendez** – Project Coordinator of the Centro SOS Digital at Fundacion Internet Bolivia (mentioned as online moderator but appears to be the same as “Online moderator”)

# Comprehensive Report: Mapping Digital Rights Capacities and Threats in Global Majority Communities

## Executive Summary

This networking session at the Internet Governance Forum presented findings from Oxfam’s Recipe Project, a comprehensive initiative examining digital rights capacities and threats across global majority communities. The discussion brought together civil society representatives from Vietnam, Bolivia, Cambodia, Somalia, and Palestine to share research findings from nine countries involving over 1,000 respondents. The session revealed concerning patterns of digital rights violations, infrastructure inequalities, and governance gaps while highlighting innovative community-driven solutions and advocacy strategies.

## Research Methodology and Scope

Mia Marzotto, Digital Rights Advocacy Lead at Oxfam, introduced the Recipe Project as a multi-country research initiative co-funded by the European Union. The project examined four critical dimensions: digital literacy levels, internet access quality, experiences of digital violence, and existing prevention measures. The research methodology emphasized bottom-up approaches, engaging directly with marginalized communities to understand their lived experiences of digital rights challenges.

The comprehensive scope of the research spanned nine countries with over 1,000 respondents, though five countries were presented in detail during this session. This approach enabled the identification of common patterns while respecting regional specificities across diverse geographical and political contexts.

## Country-Specific Findings and Challenges

### Vietnam: Policy Development Gaps

Snow from the Institute for Policy Studies and Media Development in Vietnam presented findings highlighting significant gaps in digital policy development. Despite government-led digitalization efforts, fundamental accessibility problems persist, with none of Vietnam’s 63 provincial public service portals meeting user-friendliness standards.

The research revealed that 44% of Vietnamese respondents cannot distinguish between accurate and fake information online, indicating significant digital literacy gaps. More concerning is the systematic exclusion of marginalized communities from policy development processes. As Snow explained, digital policies remain largely developed through top-down approaches led by state agencies, with consultation processes that are “often formalistic and lack meaningful engagement.”

Snow presented four fundamental lessons from Vietnam’s experience: the need for meaningful participation of marginalized communities in policy development, the importance of addressing digital literacy gaps, the requirement for user-friendly digital infrastructure, and the necessity of moving beyond formalistic consultation to genuine engagement.

### Bolivia: High Rates of Digital Violence

The Bolivian findings, presented by online moderator Luan Mendez, revealed alarming statistics. An overwhelming 77% of respondents experienced digital security incidents, while 62% faced digital violence. Most significantly, 77% of those experiencing digital violence identified a specific relationship between these attacks and their status as human rights defenders.

Bolivia faces severe connectivity challenges, with a 30% digital divide in urban areas expanding to 70% in rural regions. These infrastructure gaps compound the vulnerability of already marginalized communities to digital rights violations.

However, Bolivia also demonstrated innovative civil society responses, including the creation of feminist collective networks providing digital security support through peer-to-peer methodologies. These networks represent a community-driven approach to building digital rights capacity.

### Cambodia: Capacity Building Through Networks

Theary Luy from the Cooperation Committee for Cambodia (CCC) presented findings showing that fewer than 30% of Cambodian citizens possess adequate skills to navigate the digital world safely. This digital literacy gap particularly affects rural youth and grassroots organizations.

CCC represents 200 NGOs and collaborates with over 400 provincial NGOs, providing a broad network for capacity building. Cambodia’s legal framework remains incomplete, lacking comprehensive cybersecurity, cybercrime, and personal data protection laws despite having digital government policies.

The Cambodian response emphasizes peer-to-peer capacity building, with grassroots organizations trained to become trainers themselves. As Theary explained, their multi-stakeholder policy dialogue serves as “not a consultation, but it’s a way to build trust” and ensure genuine community voice consideration in policy development.

### Somalia: Connectivity Without Protection

Mohamed Aded Ali from Somalia Non-State Actors (SONSA) presented a paradoxical situation where 98% of the population has internet connectivity, yet significant protection gaps persist. Only 28% of users understand the risks of sharing personal information online, while 42% experience digital violence, with 37% reporting gender-based incidents.

Somalia’s regulatory landscape includes various bodies such as the Digital Rights Authority (DBA) and National Identification and Registration Authority (NERA), but has limited legislative framework, with policies remaining in draft form or under cabinet review.

The Somali response includes establishing a digital task force committee comprising decision makers, civil society organizations, and technology companies, representing a multi-stakeholder approach to addressing digital rights challenges.

### Palestine: Systematic Digital Discrimination

Khadeja Ibrahim from the Palestinian NGO Miftah presented findings documenting systematic digital rights violations including surveillance, censorship, and discriminatory infrastructure access. Palestinians use 3G networks while Israeli settlers in the West Bank have access to 4G and 5G networks, creating stark technological inequality.

Khadeja mentioned specific AI tools being used including Blue Wolf, Lavender, and Where’s Daddy, as well as the impact of Facebook law and anti-terrorism legislation. Palestinian civil society organizations face additional challenges, with 72% unaware of local digital rights legislation and 75% lacking technological resources.

Despite these constraints, Palestinian organizations participate in the Palestinian Digital Rights Initiative Coalition, maintaining coordination and knowledge sharing to build collective capacity under extremely difficult circumstances.

## Common Challenges and Themes

### Digital Literacy Gaps

All speakers identified digital literacy gaps as a fundamental barrier to digital rights protection. The consistency of this challenge across diverse contexts—from Vietnam’s 44% unable to identify misinformation to Cambodia’s under-30% digital navigation skills—demonstrates this as a universal challenge requiring coordinated responses.

### Widespread Digital Violence

The research documented high rates of digital violence across all regions, with particular targeting of human rights defenders and gender-based violence. Bolivia’s finding that 77% of digital violence victims linked attacks to their human rights defender status demonstrates how digital spaces are weaponized to silence advocacy and activism.

### Inadequate Legal Frameworks

All countries face significant gaps in legal frameworks for digital rights protection. Laws are either missing entirely, remain in draft form, or lack meaningful stakeholder participation in development. This regulatory vacuum leaves citizens without recourse when digital rights violations occur.

### Infrastructure Inequalities

The research revealed how digital infrastructure serves as a mechanism of exclusion. Palestine’s discriminatory network access and Bolivia’s 70% rural digital divide demonstrate how unequal access reinforces existing inequalities.

## Civil Society Responses and Innovation

Despite significant challenges, civil society organizations across all regions developed innovative capacity-building strategies sharing common characteristics: peer-to-peer learning, community ownership of solutions, and network-based approaches.

Bolivia’s feminist collective networks, Cambodia’s train-the-trainer models, and Vietnam’s grassroots consultation advocacy all demonstrate community-driven approaches. These methods recognize that communities possess knowledge about their own needs and can develop contextually appropriate solutions.

Multi-stakeholder collaboration emerged as important but requiring genuine participation rather than tokenistic consultation. Cambodia’s policy dialogue platform and Somalia’s digital task force committee represent attempts to create meaningful engagement across sectors.

## Areas of Consensus and Tension

Strong consensus emerged regarding fundamental challenges: digital literacy gaps, inadequate legal frameworks, high rates of digital violence, and the need for bottom-up approaches. This consensus across diverse contexts suggests these are universal challenges in digital rights implementation.

However, tensions remain around balancing security and rights. Audience member Enes Mafuta from Zambia highlighted how cybersecurity laws enacted without transparency can create public backlash and restrict legitimate activities, reflecting broader challenges in digital governance where security concerns can justify restrictions on rights.

## Key Insights and Future Directions

The research demonstrates that digital rights violations follow systematic patterns reflecting broader inequalities and governance failures. This systemic nature requires comprehensive responses addressing root causes rather than individual incidents.

The success of peer-to-peer capacity building approaches suggests need for sustained investment in these methodologies. Supporting organizations to become trainers and knowledge sharers multiplies impact while building local ownership and sustainable capacity.

The Recipe Project demonstrates the value of sustained collaboration between civil society organizations across different contexts, enabling ongoing learning and mutual support while respecting local autonomy.

## Conclusion

This networking session successfully demonstrated both the universal nature of digital rights challenges and the innovative capacity of civil society organizations to develop contextually appropriate responses. The research findings reveal concerning patterns requiring urgent attention, while also highlighting remarkable innovation in community-driven capacity building and advocacy strategies.

The strong consensus among speakers on both challenges and solutions suggests significant potential for coordinated action and mutual learning. Moving forward, the digital rights community must build on these foundations while addressing ongoing challenges around resources, legal frameworks, and coordination mechanisms.

As Mia concluded, the session emphasized the need for continued collaboration between technical communities and civil society to address challenges like misinformation while preserving digital rights. This collaborative approach, grounded in community knowledge and meaningful participation, offers a promising path toward more inclusive digital governance.

Mia Marzotto: Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us for this networking session titled Mapping and Addressing Digital Rights Capacities and Threats. My name is Mia Marzotto, and I’m the Digital Rights Advocacy Lead at Oxfam. This week at the IGF, we heard many times how the deployment of digital technologies in more areas of our daily lives and the rapid rise of artificial intelligence increases the urgency with which human rights in a digital age must be prioritized. So with this session, we want to focus on what the current landscape looks like in terms of digital rights capacities and threats in global majority communities and encourage new or stronger partnerships and connections between progressive actors in the digital governance space so that we can collectively ensure that we turn the critical commitment of leaving no one behind into reality. With Oxfam, we believe that effective digital governance should advocate for and protect the rights and interests of all people and that their needs and experiences should really determine the future course of the digital age. Our mission is to end inequality, and this includes tackling the issue of digital inequality as we see a growing concerning gap between those who benefit from digital technologies and those who don’t. This is why in mid-2024, we launched Recipe, a multi-year project co-funded by the European Union that aims to promote fundamental rights in the digital age in partnership with with civil society organizations from 10 countries, working with some of the most vulnerable people in society for whom the risks as well as the opportunities related to digital technologies are the greatest. So this session will proceed as follows. First, we’ll hear from five representatives from the civil society organizations involved in the Recipe Project, who will present key information extracted from primary research and analysis recently conducted, providing sort of like a snapshot of the current situation of digital rights capacities and threats in a diverse set of global majority countries. And then we will move into a discussion and of course encourage reflections and questions from the audience, both in the room and online. So without further ado, let me quickly introduce my panel here of distinguished speakers, starting with Mohamed Aded Ali. He’s the Executive Director of Somalia Non-State Actors. To my right here, Tran Thi Tuyet, Program Manager for the Institute for Policy Studies and Media Development in Vietnam. Theary Luy, Head of Program at the Cooperation Committee for Cambodia. And at the end of the table, Christian Leon, Executive Director of Fundacion Internet Bolivia.org. Joining us online, we also have Khadeja Ibrahim, who’s the International Advocacy Officer at the Palestinian NGO, Mifta. And Luan Mendez, Project Coordinator of the Centro SOS Digital at Fundacion Internet Bolivia, who will also be our online moderator. So before focusing on the countries, I just wanna make a quick few remarks on the overall methodology and demographics. and Theary Luy. So, this is a summary of the demographics of the multi-country assessment we conducted under the Recipe Project to map the digital landscape threats and opportunities. So this was an assessment that included a comprehensive set of questions related to four main topics, digital literacy and internet access, digital violence and safety, and current measures to prevent digital violence, as well as perceptions on the further action needed to prevent digital rights violations. We had over a thousand respondents across nine countries, representing a range of groups, including community members, activists, journalists, and members of civil society organizations. And of course, we also looked at existing literature and other relevant studies, and importantly validated the findings through workshops with the groups involved. So I will now pass it on to our panel to present key findings from each country, as well as provide an overview of ongoing efforts and lessons learned in their work to promote digital rights and accountable internet governance in their respective contexts. Snow, would you like to start?

Tran Thi Tuyet: Hello, everyone, and it’s nice to meet you all here. I’m Snow from the Institute for Policy Study and Media Development of Think Tank based in Vietnam, focusing on digital technology policies. And it’s my honor to be here, and thank you so much, MIA and Osmar Malan, for giving us this opportunity to share here. And without further delay, I will start my presentation now. In Vietnam, digital transformation, or truyền đổi sổ, has been a national priority in recent years, with the government recognizing that digitalization is a comprehensive socioeconomic shift. The government leaves no one behind commitment aimed to guarantee that all citizens can benefit from and participate in the digital era. The cornerstone of this vision is to ensure digital rights for everyone. But despite notable progress, the reality for many is still marked by the barrier to digital access and participation. So our challenge and opportunity is to ensure that digital rights are not just a slogan, but a reality for all. In Vietnam, more and more people are using digital services. Each day, between three to six million log into this platform. This is three to four times more than just a year ago. Nearly half of all government services are now fully online. This number reflects the country’s strong push for digitalization. But the real question is, do this positive number actually means everyone can access to these services? While official reports show promising figures, significant challenges remain in digital infrastructure, digital skills, and digital access. According to our research in mid-2024, none of Vietnam’s 63 provincial public service portals fully meet standards for user-friendliness or accessibility, even though these portals are the main gateway for government services. So for marginalized communities, such as the migrant workers, getting access to these services is even more critical, since it is a necessity for them for claiming the entitlement under essential social protection policies. As digital services become a part of daily life in Vietnam, concern about data protection and online safety are growing, and Vietnam has also started building legal frameworks such as the personal data protection decree and a new law, but challenges still remain. Personal data protection leak and the buying and selling of personal info without the identification still happen. And misinformation in the online digital environment is common as 44% of people in our recent research Research also say that they cannot clarify the information they saw was accurate or fake. So this confusion makes it easier for the scammers, especially among people with limited digital skills, like the marginalized community. A survey by the National Cyber Security Association found that one in every 220 smartphone users in Vietnam has fallen victim to online scams. These challenges stem from several core issues that our analysis has identified. Digital policy in Vietnam are still largely developed through a top-down approach led by state agencies with consultation processes that are often formalistic and lack of meaningful engagement. There remains an absence of participation from the marginalized communities and their representative organizations during both the design and implementation of digital policies. Furthermore, there is a lack of robust coordination mechanism between the public sector, the private sector, the civil society, and relevant stakeholders that advocate for digital rights. So from the perspective of a policy research organization, we observe both remarkable and persistent challenges. Hence, our policy recommendations aim to provide a strategic roadmap that integrates both the policy, the technical, and the cooperative dimensions. So we would like to highlight four fundamental lessons. The first one is digital transformation as a multi-component ecosystem requiring synchronization between policy, technology, and people. The second one, inclusive policy design with a tentative participation mechanism and grassroots support institution is necessary. The third one, ensuring digital rights as a prerequisite for greater public participation in the transformation process. especially for marginalised groups. And the fourth one established multi-level, multi-layer and multilateral cooperation mechanism to strengthen the capacity, voice and policy influence of social organisation and disadvantaged community. So before I conclude my presentation, I would like to invite you to explore our research on this topic. Our detailed recommendations are available via the QR code on the screen. And we hope that Vietnam’s experience and lesson learned can contribute to the global conversation on digital rights for all. Thanks for your attention.

Mia Marzotto: Thank you, Snow, very much. From Vietnam to Bolivia. Christian, please.

Cristian Leon: Sure. Thank you, Mia. Good morning to all the wonderful panellists and the friends participating on site and online. So I represent an organisation called Internet Bolivia Foundation that is a digital rights organisation established in 2018. We work to generate digital inclusion, protection of digital rights and the fostering of capacities for the most vulnerable populations, especially in the fight against digital gender violence. We do this in a context in which three things are combined. The first one is a digital divide that still affects 30% of the population in urban areas and almost 70% in the rural areas. So we are really far from achieving a meaningful connectivity. The second thing is a strong perspective from the government and legislators to push forward a digital transformation, but the digital transformation more motivated in digital technosolutionism than in real necessities. And this is exposing people to potential abuses to their rights, such as privacy, freedom of speech, participation, among others, and see a very hostile environment. for Human Rights Defenders, for Women Activists, for LGBTQIA populations, all the vulnerable populations. So they are connected but without any safeguards to their participation. That is why most of our work has been focused on fostering the capacities of these populations and advocating for the respect of our rights. And that is why we are working with the RECIPE group to join forces together with other organizations from the Global South and the Global North for achieving these objectives. So we made a mapping of the current threats. And my colleague Luan, she’s connected. She will explain to you a little more about our results. So Luan, please.

Online moderator: Thank you very much. Hi, everyone in the session. Good morning. Well, about the key findings, we saw that 77% suffered a digital security incident and 62% experienced some type of digital violence in the last year. Another important result was that 77% said that the actions of digital violence affect them may have a specific relationship with their status as human rights defenders. That is a very important result. And another thing that the four main threats identified were harassment, hate speech, physical or sexual threats, and public defamation. So in order to respond to that, one way of responding to the previous result was the creation of a network of feminist collectives. Some of the objectives of this network are to generate support for digital security among and others. The first thing was the methodologies with pedagogical and practical dynamics were identified such as awareness-raising sessions, space for horizontal reflection, and articulation for advocacy in public policies in the political arena. This network seeks to provide support to victims and carry out collective prevention actions. It’s important to mention that this network is composed for a very large feminist collective in Bolivia that now are working in strategies and creating horizontal pedagogical methodologies in order to improve their skills in digital security.

Mia Marzotto: Thank you very much to you both. Theary, do you want to talk to us about Cambodia?

Theary Luy: Yes, thank you, Mia, and good morning all. I’m honored to speak with you on behalf of the Cooperation Committee for Cambodia, CCC. CCC, we are a membership-based organization in Cambodia that works in the inclusive partnership to promote good governance, enabling environment, and sustainability for civil society organizations in Cambodia. Currently, we have 200 NGOs as a member, including the local and international NGOs. Besides that, we also have the collaboration with the provincial-based NGOs that work at the ground level with their members, more than 400 NGOs. And back to the digital context in Cambodia, Cambodia stands as a digital crossroad that over the past… Last decade, we witnessed the rapid growth of the Internet and the transformative power of the social media in how our people communicate, engage, and access to the information. However, this digital growth has not come without challenges. So I would like to highlight the challenges based on the key findings of the research. First is about the digital literacy remain alarmingly low in Cambodia. Based on the research, fewer than 30% of Cambodians, especially rural youth and grassroots civil society organizations, posted the skill needed to navigate the digital world safely and effectively. This digital divide is not just about the access to technology, but it’s about the access to the opportunity to participation and to the protection. And second, our legal framework is still catching up. Cambodians have a digital government policy 2022 to 2035, which focuses on the three pillars that I mentioned about the digital government, digital economy, and the digital citizen. However, Cambodia lacks comprehensive law. Several laws are in the draft form. They are in process. This law includes cybersecurity law, cybercrime law, and personal data protection law. And the last one, the third, the absence of the clear and the right-based legislation make the citizen vulnerable to surveillance, misinformation, and data misuse. This leads to the growing of the stress in the digital platform due to the online scam, online gaming. There are a lot of things that we must urgently reveal. However, there is a hope and there is an action. At CCC, we are working with the provincial NGO network to promote the digital awareness and security. These local organizations are not only receiving training, but they are becoming trainers themselves to transfer the knowledge to their members and also their communities. And we are also engaging the youth and the social influencers to lead the public campaigns that make digital rights relevant. Another thing is about the main importance of our work in the policy dialogue. In Cambodia, we believe in the multi-stakeholder approach and the inclusive dialogue. We are bringing together the government, civil society, development partners, and also the private sector to raise awareness of the digital law and policy and to ensure the voice of the civil society are heard and shaping them. So for us, this multi-stakeholder dialogue is not a consultation, but it’s a way to build trust among key stakeholders. So from this effort, we learned that the local ownership, inclusive dialogue, and the youth engagement are the key building the digital future that is safe and equitable and empowering for the Cambodian citizens and also the world. Thank you.

Mia Marzotto: Thank you, Thierry. Mohamed?

Mohamed Aded Ali: Thank you very much. My name is Mohamed Aded Ali. I’m the Executive Director of Somali Civil Society Network, namely SONSA. SONSA is a multisectoral platform of the civil society organization dedicated to promoting I would like to thank the panelists as well as the IGF community and IGF Norway particular secretariat that organized this significant event. In general context, in Somalia, media oversight and regulatory barriers are limited digital advocacy in human rights, gender, economic, climate justice, and democracy. But the digital access can help drive equitable development, accountability, governance, gender, equality, climate actions, and human rights that empowers citizens to voice needs and hold leaders accountable. Increasing digital capacity, rights, awareness, and security practices to navigate constituents and maximum impact is critical for Somali civil society organizations. In Somalia, we have different stakeholders that engage in the digital and Internet sector, which is institutional sectors, private sectors, and other civil society organizations, mainly human rights defenders. We have Digital Rights Authority, DBA. We have National Identification and Registration Authority, NERA. We have National Communication Authority, NCA. We have Somali National Telecommunication and Technology Institute, as well as we have touch companies as a private sector actors, as well as we have human rights organizations and defenders. In early 2024, SOMSA conducted mapping and assessment addressing digital rights capacity, and that capacity focuses on Internet access, digital literacy, social media, users, digital rights awareness, digital violence, and digital security. The findings that we found during the assessment is, number one, internet access, 98% of the population connected primary networks from their home, workplace, use internet cafes, public services, and friendly networks. In terms of digital literacy, 98% reported that digital literacy is very important, as well as 90% can send messages through their mobiles as well as to receive their emails. In terms of social media users, Facebook and TikTok, 44% of the population, mainly youngest, they are using social media in terms of Facebook and TikTok. As well as there is YouTube, 32% uses YouTube as a user. As well as there is Twitter, which politicians and decision makers use as a professionality and a purpose of their work and displaying their achievement in terms of government institutions. As well as the assessment raises digital rights awareness, 28% understand risks and sharing personal information online. As well as digital violence, 42% experience digital violence, whereby 37% reports gender-based incidents like male harassment and other sexual offensive issues. In terms of digital security, 44% have basic incidents like account thefts and other scams. 69% adopted basic measures, blocking reporting updates, but advanced practices and secure communication and multi-security authorization remain limited. We have As ongoing efforts, as strategies, as lessons learned, strengthen the civil society organizations in digital skills, such to deliver workshops and corruption, privacy-seeking, patient and cyber security attack awareness, security communication and safe device practices, as well as, it is very important, raising public awareness, launch a nationwide campaign on tech-facilitated gender-based violence and online safety through radio, social media, as well as community forums. The other one, engage policymakers, it is very important to convene policy dialogue and roundtable connecting civil society organizations with regulatory decision-makers to align ICT framework with digital rights protection, sustain capacity building, distribute practical toolkits, ag digital safety checklist, incident reports, guides, templates, privacy policies, and provide follow-up support so CSO can apply and update practice over time. So thank you very much, I need to conclude my presentation, over to you.

Mia Marzotto: Thank you, Mohamed. We’ll now go to Khadeja, who’s online, thank you.

Khadeja Ibrahim: Hello, everyone, thank you for having me, and thank you, Mia. Just a second. Yeah, so I’m calling in from the West Bank, I work with the organization called Muftah, we work domestically on promoting good governance and democracy, and highlighting how Israeli violations affect women and girls in gender-specific ways. So to give a quick background, when we talk about digital rights violations, they’re unfortunately non-existent, the digital rights are non-existent. We face a variety of violations. To give a quick overview, Israel’s use of advanced surveillance, including biometric data. We’ve seen the development of AI tools such as Blue Wolf and Lavender and Where’s Daddy, which are deployed to monitor and control Palestinian movement, often without legal oversight. We also have a lot of social media censorship. Palestinian content is subject to arbitrary censorship, account suspensions and surveillance on platforms like Facebook and Instagram. The Facebook law and vague anti-terrorism legislation are weaponized to criminalize online dissent and restrict freedom of expression. There’s also repressive technology infrastructure in the occupied West Bank and the Gaza Strip, so discriminatory practice limit Palestinian access to ICT infrastructure. For example, Palestinians still use 3G Internet network, while Israeli settlers who are illegally living in the West Bank have full access to 4G and 5G networks. We’re also seeing a huge shrink in civic space, so civil society actors, journalists, and activists face intimidation, arrest and spyware targeting through Israeli technologies. So, to speak of the mapping assessment that we’ve done at Muftah, we collected questionnaires from 55 Palestinian organizations based in the West Bank, including Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. Some of the key findings from that mapping assessment. First, we see a widespread gap in digital awareness and security capacity. So, 23% of CSOs lack basic knowledge of digital rights. Only 14.5 of them raise their awareness of digital threats as high. 52% have no digital rights protection policies. We also see that after October 2023, there’s been severe challenges. 40% of institutions face direct digital violations. We also see institutional vulnerability due to limited resources, so nearly 75% of CSOs lack technological resources, 55% lack digital knowledge, and 36% lack legal support, and small or medium-sized institutions are more vulnerable. Nearly 86% of CSOs received no technological or legal support post-October 2023, when the risks were more high. There’s also a lack of legal and policy frameworks, so 72% of CSOs are unaware of local digital rights legislation. Over half of them believe that existing cybercrime laws may be ineffective or unsure of their effectiveness. Nearly 62% of CSOs believe that the Palestinian government is not doing enough to protect digital rights. And we see an overwhelming majority of them need urgent, there’s an urgent need for capacity building and international support. And this means many of them seek security training, and they want training on digital rights to raise awareness. So, to speak of the main activities that we’ve been doing at Muftah, we’ve had two rounds of trainings on digital rights for CSOs and CBOs from marginalized communities across the West Bank. We’ve had a policy meeting with CSOs on the cybercrimes draft law. We’ve hosted a diplomatic briefing with diplomats based in Palestine on our digital rights report. We also are continuing to produce social media content based on the evidence-based research. We also plan to start a podcast series based on it as well. And we have participated at the Palestinian Digital Activism Forum back in March, which is hosted by the organization Hemna. And we will continue doing the work that we have been doing for the past year. So that’s it from my end. Thank you.

Mia Marzotto: Thank you very much Khadeja and thank you all so much for the presentations. I just would like to underline how clear it is every time I hear you guys speak that as much as there are clear differences between the various countries you come from and the communities you work with. There are some common digital rights threats and issues and also some important work from civil society organizations like the ones you represent, which shows that a better, more rights respecting digital ecosystem is possible. So we want to open it up to any questions or reflections from the audience to any of the speakers or in general. We have a few questions that we came up that we would like to hear from you. But of course, any and all questions are welcome also from those listening in online. So there are mics to the side of the room in case anybody wants to ask any questions. Otherwise, I know I have questions for our panel here. Any questions? Okay, maybe I can break the ice with a question to you all and then I’ll also monitor online if there are any questions. One question to all any of you who want to answer. Can you share a little bit more what you have done in terms of sharing these important research findings and analyses with stakeholders and duty bearers at the national level? International level and if there have been any reactions or actions taken on their part and then how have you communicated about those actions back to the groups involved in the research to establish meaningful two-way accountability in digital governance. Anybody would like to start?

Theary Luy: Yeah, from Cambodia actually, based on the finding that we conducted research in Cambodia, we organized a workshop that disseminated the finding to the civil society and other stakeholders on that, and based on that, we validated the request. Like I mentioned about the action that we conduct at the ground level in terms of the training to the grassroots organization and also the community there. And for that, not only the awareness raising on the digital, but also about the policy implementation at the national level that need the voice of the community, voice of the civil society that work there to consideration in the policy framework. So the policy dialogue that I mentioned is very important. Actually, we plan in 3rd July and also the end of this year for the policy dialogue that allow the audience, the community, and the civil society at the ground level and their representative to meet with the policy maker to raise all the challenges. So that’s why the multi-stakeholder dialogue is very important. That’s not for the consultation, but it’s the platform that change and consider the demand of the community. Yes, thank you.

Cristian Leon: Yeah, as Luan mentioned in Bolivia, we are creating this network of grassroots women organizations that they want to work together in these issues, but from a bottom-up perspective with the idea of not only creating tools, digital security tools or others, but also to carry out advocacy actions together. And this is really important because in Bolivia we are in a moment of elections, and you know these moments really normally open the windows to create new policies and to discuss things with politicians. So I think this is a very key moment in order to organize, to create coalitions and to do advocacy together. So this is one of the actions that we are doing with Internet Bolivia Foundation.

Mia Marzotto: Thank you. Mohamed?

Mohamed Aded Ali: Yeah, thank you very much. In our context, in terms of digital arena is a new ecosystem because mostly the civil society organizations and other individuals have a challenge in terms of capacity, you know, knowledge in the digital. Mostly in Somalia, the private sector as well as the civil society organizations are concentrated in terms of digitalization and as well as using other technologies. But mostly the population of the community still didn’t have much knowledge on digital. After we started this RECIPI project, we engaged different stakeholders. The decision makers are, for example, the government institutions. In terms of legislative, some of them still they are drafting and some of the policies are on the disk of cabinet and still not passed yet. So that’s the way we are, our context. But in terms of our engagement, we make coordination with different stakeholders. We established a digital platform organization as a digital task force committee, which comprises decision makers, civil society organizations, and tech companies to work together, considering digitalization is a part of basic rights of individuals. Thank you.

Mia Marzotto: Thanks, Mohamed. Perhaps, Khadija, would you like to come in on this? I know you mentioned the Palestine Digital Activism Forum, but maybe there’s more.

Khadeja Ibrahim: Yes, so we’re actually part of the Palestinian Digital Rights Initiative Coalition, which is a group of CSOs who work in the realm of digital rights within Palestine. So we contribute with them on a monthly basis, share findings, insights, and kind of just learn from each other, also learn about upcoming opportunities from one another as well. So it was through this coalition that we were actually encouraged also to apply to PDAF, to the Palestinian Digital Rights Activism Forum. This was a two-day forum of speakers, panels, workshops, teaching about digital rights in Palestine. So we participated in that and we were able to reach, you know, an audience within Palestine, like students, other organizations, other activists. So that was a really great opportunity for us as well. In addition to that, we just continue to share our content online through social media. We find that social media is a very effective tool to reach people, not only internationally, We have students at universities in Palestine who have reached out to us because of our content asking more questions, maybe they were doing research on the topic, so we were able to help them in that capacity. Thank you.

Mia Marzotto: Snow, yeah?

Tran Thi Tuyet: Yeah, actually, for IPS in Vietnam, we act as a bridge and facilitator for this process. Usually we follow a bottom-up approach, which means that we’re starting from the grassroots level through survey, consultation, and other, like, participatory activities to collect inputs from all relevant stakeholders. Once we have gathered sufficient perspective, we organize in-depth discussion with policymakers to share the findings, and through that, these findings are always accompanied with clear and actionable recommendations, so that we can work alongside with policymakers to drive positive change. For example, over the last three years, we have been heavily involved in the issue related to digital governance and online public service delivery, and once the concrete recommendations – we have the recommendation about consolidating our own 63 provincial portal into a single national portal, as I have mentioned in my presentation, then it was adopted by the policymaker. And additionally, our user experiences assessment are now being adopted as part of the national standards, and we continue to work closely with the policymaker and other government authorities to refine these standards. And when recommendations are taken on board, it’s become much easier to bring the policymaker, government agencies representative, and other civil society organizations together for direct dialogue, and I think that’s all.

Mia Marzotto: Thank you. Any brave souls in the room with questions, reflections? No? Okay. Then I do have a final, oh yeah, please. Would you like to come up to the mic? Thank you. Hello.

Audience: Thank you, everyone. I don’t know if you can hear me. Yes. Yes. So my name is Enes Mafuta. I’m from Zambia. I’m coming from the technical background. I’m a standards engineer. So I’ll just talk briefly on, I think, question three on digital rights and how international governance community should prioritize more respecting. So I’ve seen all your amazing presentation and how you’ve highlighted. One thing that I’ve noticed is that they are more interlinked with the issues that we’re facing in different regions. You talk of Asia, South America, Africa. There’s one common denominator, and that is digital literacy, which has been a challenge in terms of accessing the rights. So with regards to that question, one of the things that I would like to see the international community to work on is, you see, access is a right. We’ve said it, access is a right. But there’s something that will always block access. When it comes to the government, they’ll say they are safeguarding platforms from misinformation, deepfakes, and everything. So there’s need to balance this cybersecurity resilience by while upholding freedom of expression and also access. One of the example that I would give you is under a few minutes is how my country has enact, has amended the cybersecurity crime and law of 2025. And this bill was assented in a private manner. So when this bill was assented in a private manner, then the society came to learn about it It created a perception out there to say this is a bad law They are trying to curtail our freedom of speech and access and everything So it was a situation where now people started throwing memes, insults and everything So there was those types of arrests and stuff like that. In a nutshell I wouldn’t blame the government because there were some cyber Crime offenders, but on the other hand, there were some people who were ignorant about this law So there were not much awareness and everything. So I would encourage the civil society space at least to advocate for Algorithm detection that can tackle misinformation and also this deepfakes because Once an information which is wrong is sent out there It is weaponized and once it is weaponized It creates a perception in the minds of users and when it creates that perception in the mind of users The users themselves they are going to be limited by that information. They are going to accept it So in short, they are going to accept that definition And when you accept that definition it will end up limiting you and when you are limited by that information you believe it So you live with it because it’s a lie. So this is just my observation about this So let’s work together technical community civil society. Let’s find ways on how we can tackle these Misinformation and defects. Thank you very much

Mia Marzotto: Thank you very much. I’m aware. We have only one minute left I’m sure like there’s lots of thoughts around me on this I think this is definitely something that we the reason why spaces like the IGF are really important in the multi-stakeholder Approach is very important, right? And and I think that in in that Balancing exercise which you mentioned having a diversity of voices and experiences participate is is really important to find the right balance because because it is a balancing act indeed. Like I mentioned, this is the start of the conversation, hopefully, although I know that it may be the last day of this IGF, but we do want to continue the conversation. There are some resources at the back, and of course you can come up to us to have our contact details. I want to thank you all, panelists, and also to those online, and those in the room, and the technical team making this hybrid session possible. Again, thank you, and have safe travels back home, and let’s continue the discussion. Thanks again. Thank you.

Agreement points

Digital literacy gaps as fundamental barrier to digital rights

Speakers

– Tran Thi Tuyet
– Theary Luy
– Mohamed Aded Ali
– Audience

Arguments

Vietnam lacks meaningful participation from marginalized communities in top-down digital policy development

In Cambodia, fewer than 30% of citizens possess skills to navigate digital world safely, with particular gaps among rural youth and grassroots organizations

Somalia shows 98% internet connectivity but limited advanced security practices and digital literacy gaps

Need for balanced approach between cybersecurity resilience and freedom of expression, with civil society advocacy for algorithm detection to tackle misinformation

Summary

All speakers identified digital literacy as a critical challenge affecting their populations’ ability to safely and effectively participate in digital spaces, with particular impact on marginalized communities

Topics

Development | Human rights

High prevalence of digital violence and security incidents

Speakers

– Online moderator
– Khadeja Ibrahim
– Mohamed Aded Ali

Arguments

77% of respondents in Bolivia suffered digital security incidents and 62% experienced digital violence, with 77% linking attacks to their human rights defender status

Palestinian organizations face widespread digital rights violations including surveillance, censorship, and discriminatory infrastructure access

In Somalia, 42% experience digital violence with 37% reporting gender-based incidents, while 44% face basic security incidents like account theft and scams

Summary

Multiple countries report extremely high rates of digital violence and security incidents, with particular targeting of human rights defenders and gender-based violence

Topics

Human rights | Cybersecurity

Inadequate legal and policy frameworks for digital rights protection

Speakers

– Tran Thi Tuyet
– Theary Luy
– Mohamed Aded Ali
– Khadeja Ibrahim

Arguments

Vietnam lacks meaningful participation from marginalized communities in top-down digital policy development

Cambodia lacks comprehensive cybersecurity, cybercrime, and personal data protection laws despite having digital government policy

Somalia has various regulatory bodies but limited legislative framework with policies still in draft or cabinet review

72% of Palestinian CSOs are unaware of local digital rights legislation and believe government efforts are insufficient

Summary

All countries face significant gaps in legal frameworks for digital rights protection, with laws either missing, in draft form, or lacking meaningful stakeholder participation in development

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Similar viewpoints

All speakers emphasized bottom-up, community-driven approaches to building digital rights capacity, with focus on training local organizations to become trainers and creating multi-stakeholder platforms for collaboration

Speakers

– Cristian Leon
– Tran Thi Tuyet
– Theary Luy
– Mohamed Aded Ali

Arguments

Creation of feminist collective networks in Bolivia to provide digital security support and advocacy through horizontal pedagogical methodologies

Vietnam’s bottom-up approach involves grassroots consultation followed by policymaker engagement with actionable recommendations

Training grassroots organizations in Cambodia to become trainers themselves, transferring knowledge to communities

Establishment of digital task force committee in Somalia comprising decision makers, CSOs, and tech companies

Topics

Development | Human rights

Strong consensus on the importance of meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement that goes beyond consultation to genuine participation in policy development and implementation

Speakers

– Tran Thi Tuyet
– Theary Luy
– Mia Marzotto
– Audience

Arguments

Vietnam’s bottom-up approach involves grassroots consultation followed by policymaker engagement with actionable recommendations

Policy dialogue in Cambodia serves as platform for community voice consideration rather than mere consultation

Importance of multi-stakeholder approach in IGF spaces for finding right balance in digital governance

Need for balanced approach between cybersecurity resilience and freedom of expression, with civil society advocacy for algorithm detection to tackle misinformation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Unexpected consensus

Infrastructure disparities as tool of discrimination and control

Speakers

– Khadeja Ibrahim
– Cristian Leon

Arguments

Palestinians use 3G networks while Israeli settlers access 4G/5G, demonstrating discriminatory technology infrastructure

Bolivia faces 30% digital divide in urban areas and 70% in rural areas, far from meaningful connectivity

Explanation

Both speakers highlighted how infrastructure access disparities serve as mechanisms of exclusion and control, whether through deliberate discrimination (Palestine) or systemic neglect (Bolivia rural areas)

Topics

Development | Human rights | Infrastructure

Gender-specific targeting in digital violence across different contexts

Speakers

– Online moderator
– Mohamed Aded Ali
– Cristian Leon

Arguments

77% of respondents in Bolivia suffered digital security incidents and 62% experienced digital violence, with 77% linking attacks to their human rights defender status

In Somalia, 42% experience digital violence with 37% reporting gender-based incidents, while 44% face basic security incidents like account theft and scams

Creation of feminist collective networks in Bolivia to provide digital security support and advocacy through horizontal pedagogical methodologies

Explanation

Unexpected consensus emerged on the gendered nature of digital violence across very different political and social contexts, leading to similar feminist organizing responses

Topics

Human rights | Cybersecurity

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists among speakers on fundamental challenges including digital literacy gaps, inadequate legal frameworks, high rates of digital violence, and the need for bottom-up, multi-stakeholder approaches to digital rights protection

Consensus level

High level of consensus despite diverse geographical and political contexts, suggesting these are universal challenges in digital rights implementation. The agreement on solutions – particularly community-driven capacity building and meaningful stakeholder engagement – indicates potential for coordinated global action and shared learning across regions

Different viewpoints

Approach to policy development – top-down versus bottom-up methodologies

Speakers

– Tran Thi Tuyet
– Theary Luy

Arguments

Vietnam lacks meaningful participation from marginalized communities in top-down digital policy development

Policy dialogue in Cambodia serves as platform for community voice consideration rather than mere consultation

Summary

Vietnam’s speaker critiques top-down policy approaches as formalistic, while Cambodia’s speaker presents their multi-stakeholder dialogue as genuinely inclusive, suggesting different views on what constitutes meaningful participation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Balance between cybersecurity measures and freedom of expression

Speakers

– Audience
– Mia Marzotto

Arguments

Need for balanced approach between cybersecurity resilience and freedom of expression, with civil society advocacy for algorithm detection to tackle misinformation

Importance of multi-stakeholder approach in IGF spaces for finding right balance in digital governance

Summary

The audience member emphasizes technical solutions like algorithm detection for misinformation, while the moderator focuses on multi-stakeholder processes for balance, representing different approaches to the same challenge

Topics

Human rights | Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

No significant unexpected disagreements identified

Speakers

Arguments

Explanation

The session was structured as a collaborative sharing of experiences rather than a debate, with speakers presenting complementary rather than conflicting perspectives on digital rights challenges

Topics

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed minimal direct disagreement, with most differences arising from varying national contexts and implementation approaches rather than fundamental philosophical disagreements about digital rights

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with high consensus on core issues. The main tensions were around implementation methodologies rather than goals, which suggests strong potential for collaborative solutions and knowledge sharing across different contexts

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

All speakers emphasized bottom-up, community-driven approaches to building digital rights capacity, with focus on training local organizations to become trainers and creating multi-stakeholder platforms for collaboration

Speakers

– Cristian Leon
– Tran Thi Tuyet
– Theary Luy
– Mohamed Aded Ali

Arguments

Creation of feminist collective networks in Bolivia to provide digital security support and advocacy through horizontal pedagogical methodologies

Vietnam’s bottom-up approach involves grassroots consultation followed by policymaker engagement with actionable recommendations

Training grassroots organizations in Cambodia to become trainers themselves, transferring knowledge to communities

Establishment of digital task force committee in Somalia comprising decision makers, CSOs, and tech companies

Topics

Development | Human rights

Strong consensus on the importance of meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement that goes beyond consultation to genuine participation in policy development and implementation

Speakers

– Tran Thi Tuyet
– Theary Luy
– Mia Marzotto
– Audience

Arguments

Vietnam’s bottom-up approach involves grassroots consultation followed by policymaker engagement with actionable recommendations

Policy dialogue in Cambodia serves as platform for community voice consideration rather than mere consultation

Importance of multi-stakeholder approach in IGF spaces for finding right balance in digital governance

Need for balanced approach between cybersecurity resilience and freedom of expression, with civil society advocacy for algorithm detection to tackle misinformation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Key takeaways

Digital rights violations are widespread across Global South countries, with common patterns including low digital literacy (under 30% in Cambodia), high rates of digital violence (77% in Bolivia experienced security incidents), and inadequate legal frameworks

Marginalized communities face the greatest digital risks, particularly women, human rights defenders, rural populations, and migrant workers who lack access to protective measures and digital skills

Top-down policy approaches without meaningful community participation are ineffective – successful digital governance requires bottom-up engagement and multi-stakeholder dialogue

Civil society organizations are developing innovative capacity-building strategies including peer-to-peer training models, feminist collective networks, and horizontal pedagogical methodologies

Infrastructure discrimination exists even within countries (Palestinians have 3G while Israeli settlers have 4G/5G access), highlighting how digital divides can be tools of oppression

Digital transformation initiatives often prioritize techno-solutionism over addressing real community needs and protecting fundamental rights

Resolutions and action items

Continue multi-country collaboration through the Recipe Project to strengthen civil society digital rights advocacy

Establish and maintain regular coordination mechanisms like Cambodia’s multi-stakeholder policy dialogues and Palestine’s Digital Rights Initiative Coalition

Develop practical toolkits and resources for digital security training that can be adapted across different contexts

Create networks of grassroots organizations (like Bolivia’s feminist collectives) to provide peer support and collective advocacy

Engage with upcoming political opportunities like Bolivia’s elections to advocate for digital rights policy reforms

Maintain ongoing capacity building programs where trained organizations become trainers for their communities

Unresolved issues

How to balance cybersecurity measures with freedom of expression and access rights without government overreach

Lack of comprehensive legal frameworks in most countries (cybersecurity, data protection, and cybercrime laws still in draft stages)

Limited resources for civil society organizations – 75% of Palestinian CSOs lack technological resources and 55% lack digital knowledge

Misinformation and deepfakes detection while preserving legitimate discourse and avoiding censorship

Meaningful participation mechanisms for marginalized communities in digital policy development processes

Coordination between public sector, private sector, and civil society remains weak across all countries presented

Suggested compromises

Multi-stakeholder dialogue platforms that serve as genuine policy consideration forums rather than mere consultation exercises

Algorithm detection systems for misinformation that involve civil society advocacy to ensure they don’t restrict legitimate expression

Gradual policy implementation with community feedback loops, as demonstrated by Vietnam’s approach of grassroots consultation followed by policymaker engagement

Hybrid approaches combining government digitalization initiatives with civil society-led capacity building for vulnerable populations

International support frameworks that respect local ownership while providing technical and legal assistance to under-resourced organizations

Digital policy in Vietnam are still largely developed through a top-down approach led by state agencies with consultation processes that are often formalistic and lack of meaningful engagement. There remains an absence of participation from the marginalized communities and their representative organizations during both the design and implementation of digital policies.

Speaker

Tran Thi Tuyet (Snow)

Reason

This comment is insightful because it identifies a fundamental structural problem in digital governance – the disconnect between policy creation and the communities most affected by these policies. It moves beyond surface-level issues to examine the root cause of digital inequality: exclusionary policymaking processes.

Impact

This observation established a critical framework that other panelists built upon throughout the discussion. It shifted the conversation from merely cataloging digital rights violations to examining the systemic governance failures that enable these violations, setting the tone for deeper structural analysis.

77% said that the actions of digital violence affect them may have a specific relationship with their status as human rights defenders.

Speaker

Luan Mendez

Reason

This statistic is particularly thought-provoking because it reveals how digital violence is not random but strategically targeted at those working for social change. It demonstrates how digital spaces are being weaponized to silence advocacy and activism, making it a tool of oppression rather than liberation.

Impact

This finding elevated the discussion from general digital safety concerns to understanding digital violence as a deliberate tactic to suppress civil society. It helped frame subsequent discussions around the need for protective measures specifically for vulnerable groups and activists.

Palestinians still use 3G Internet network, while Israeli settlers who are illegally living in the West Bank have full access to 4G and 5G networks.

Speaker

Khadeja Ibrahim

Reason

This comment is profoundly insightful because it illustrates how digital infrastructure itself can be a tool of discrimination and control. It shows how seemingly technical decisions about network access are actually political choices that reinforce existing power imbalances and human rights violations.

Impact

This stark example of digital apartheid provided concrete evidence of how digital rights violations intersect with broader systems of oppression. It challenged participants to think beyond individual privacy concerns to consider how digital infrastructure can institutionalize inequality.

There’s need to balance this cybersecurity resilience by while upholding freedom of expression and also access… when this bill was assented in a private manner, then the society came to learn about it. It created a perception out there to say this is a bad law… So there were those types of arrests and stuff like that.

Speaker

Enes Mafuta (audience member)

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it highlights the complex tension between legitimate security concerns and rights protection, while also demonstrating how lack of transparency and participation in lawmaking can undermine both security and rights objectives. It shows how process matters as much as content in digital governance.

Impact

This intervention shifted the discussion toward the practical challenges of implementing digital governance, moving from problem identification to the nuanced realities of balancing competing interests. It prompted reflection on the importance of inclusive, transparent policymaking processes.

Digital transformation as a multi-component ecosystem requiring synchronization between policy, technology, and people… ensuring digital rights as a prerequisite for greater public participation in the transformation process.

Speaker

Tran Thi Tuyet (Snow)

Reason

This insight reframes digital transformation from a purely technological process to a holistic social transformation that requires careful coordination of multiple elements. It positions digital rights not as an add-on consideration but as foundational to successful digital transformation.

Impact

This systems thinking approach influenced how other panelists framed their recommendations, moving the conversation toward comprehensive, coordinated responses rather than piecemeal solutions. It helped establish digital rights as central rather than peripheral to development goals.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by elevating it from a simple catalog of digital rights violations to a sophisticated analysis of systemic governance failures and structural inequalities. The conversation evolved from problem identification to root cause analysis, with participants building on each other’s insights to develop a comprehensive understanding of how digital rights violations are embedded in broader systems of power and exclusion. The comments collectively demonstrated that digital rights issues cannot be addressed through technical solutions alone but require fundamental changes to governance processes, power structures, and approaches to development. The discussion successfully connected local experiences to global patterns, showing how similar exclusionary processes manifest across different contexts while respecting the unique circumstances of each region represented.

How can algorithm detection be developed and implemented to tackle misinformation and deepfakes while maintaining freedom of expression?

Speaker

Enes Mafuta (audience member from Zambia)

Explanation

This addresses the critical balance between cybersecurity resilience and upholding freedom of expression and access rights, particularly important given how misinformation can be weaponized and create limiting perceptions in users’ minds

How can the technical community and civil society work together more effectively to find solutions for tackling misinformation and deepfakes?

Speaker

Enes Mafuta (audience member from Zambia)

Explanation

This collaborative approach is essential for addressing the common challenges of digital literacy and misinformation that appear across different regions (Asia, South America, Africa)

How can governments better balance cybersecurity measures with protecting citizens’ rights to access and freedom of expression?

Speaker

Enes Mafuta (audience member from Zambia)

Explanation

This question arose from the example of Zambia’s cybersecurity law amendment that was enacted privately, leading to public backlash and arrests, highlighting the need for transparent processes and public awareness

What are the most effective methods for raising public awareness about new digital laws and policies to prevent ignorance-based violations?

Speaker

Enes Mafuta (audience member from Zambia)

Explanation

This addresses the gap between policy implementation and public understanding, which can lead to unintentional violations and subsequent arrests or restrictions

How can meaningful two-way accountability in digital governance be better established between research findings and the communities involved?

Speaker

Mia Marzotto

Explanation

This question seeks to understand how organizations can ensure that research findings lead to actionable changes and that communities are kept informed about the impact of their participation in research

Summary

This discussion focused on bridging the connectivity gap for excluded communities, examining innovative solutions and policies to achieve meaningful, affordable, and inclusive internet access for all. The panel, moderated by Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu from Paradigm Initiative, brought together experts from the Internet Society, Global Digital Inclusion Partnership, and Internet Bolivia to address last-mile connectivity challenges.

Christopher Locke from the Internet Society emphasized that while emerging technologies like low-earth orbit satellites show promise for connecting remote areas, sustainability remains a challenge due to pricing instability and regulatory issues. He stressed the importance of community readiness and building local capacity for network management, noting that successful community networks require both technical training and business model development. Onika Makwakwa from the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership advocated for treating connectivity as a human right and reforming universal service funds to address demand-side issues like digital skills and device affordability. She highlighted the need for gender-disaggregated data and moving beyond basic connectivity metrics to measure meaningful access.

Leon Cristian from Internet Bolivia presented a more sobering perspective, outlining four key complexities: emerging technologies creating new problems around data sovereignty, regulatory power imbalances between states and big tech companies, the breakdown of cooperative governance models, and the emergence of a new digital divide around advanced computing capabilities. The discussion revealed that despite 20 years since the World Summit on the Information Society, similar connectivity gaps persist, requiring context-informed, people-focused solutions that go beyond traditional market-driven approaches to embrace community-centered models and multi-stakeholder collaboration.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Last-mile connectivity challenges and innovative solutions**: The panel explored how emerging technologies like low-Earth orbit satellites (LEO) and 5G can bridge connectivity gaps, particularly in remote and underserved communities. However, sustainability issues around pricing, regulatory frameworks, and infrastructure capacity remain significant barriers.

– **Moving beyond basic connectivity to meaningful access**: Panelists emphasized the need to shift from simply providing internet access to ensuring meaningful connectivity that includes digital literacy, local content in native languages, affordable devices, and daily reliable access rather than the current standard of usage “once every three months.”

– **Community-centered networks and sustainability models**: Extensive discussion on community networks as viable alternatives to traditional telecom models, with emphasis on local ownership, management, and diverse business models including cooperatives. The Internet Society’s community readiness toolkit and grant programs were highlighted as examples of supporting sustainable community-led initiatives.

– **Policy and regulatory reform needs**: Strong calls for reforming Universal Service and Access Funds, opening spectrum for community networks, treating connectivity as a public good and human right, and creating enabling regulatory environments that support diverse stakeholders rather than just large telecommunications companies.

– **Growing complexity of the digital divide**: Recognition that the digital divide is becoming more complex with new challenges including data sovereignty, regulatory power imbalances between states and big tech companies, and emerging technology gaps (AI, quantum computing) that create additional layers of exclusion for developing countries.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to generate actionable insights for bridging the connectivity gap for excluded communities, focusing on innovative solutions, policies, and business models to achieve meaningful, affordable, and inclusive connectivity for all by 2030, particularly in the Global South.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional but increasingly urgent tone throughout. It began optimistically with solution-focused presentations but became more sobering as panelists acknowledged the persistent challenges and growing complexities. The tone shifted from technical problem-solving to more critical assessments of systemic failures, with speakers expressing frustration about the lack of progress 20 years after initial digital divide discussions. Despite the challenges highlighted, the conversation concluded on a constructive note with concrete recommendations and examples of successful community-led initiatives.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu** – Chief Operating Officer at Paradigm Initiative (nonprofit dedicated to promotion of digital inclusion and digital rights in Africa and the Global South); Session moderator

– **Christopher Locke** – Works with Internet Society, involved in community-led connectivity programs and ISOC Foundation

– **Thobekile Matimbe** – Senior Manager Partnerships and Engagements for Paradigm Initiative; Expert in human rights-based advocacy

– **Onica Makwakwa** – Executive Director Global Digital Inclusion Partnership; Has worked for 25 years driving gender and equity-focused policy

– **Leon Cristian** – Executive Director of Internet Bolivia; Advisor to governments on digital rights

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members who asked questions during the Q&A session

**Additional speakers:**

– **Sani Suleiman** – Colleague of Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu, mentioned as online moderator gathering questions and comments (though did not speak in the transcript)

– **Bara Kotieno** – Chair of the Association of Community Networks in Kenya

– **Leo** – Representative from United Republic of Tanzania

– **Lee McKnight** – Professor at Syracuse University in the United States

– **Lisa Dakanay** – From the Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia

# Bridging the Connectivity Gap for Excluded Communities: A Comprehensive Discussion Report

## Introduction and Context

This panel discussion, moderated by Nnenna Paul-Ugochukwu, Chief Operating Officer at Paradigm Initiative, brought together leading experts to examine innovative solutions and policies for achieving meaningful, affordable, and inclusive internet access for excluded communities. The conversation addressed the persistent challenge that 2.6 billion people remain unconnected globally, indicating that current approaches require fundamental reassessment.

The panel featured Christopher Locke from the Internet Society, who focuses on community-led connectivity programmes; Onica Makwakwa, Executive Director of the Global Digital Inclusion Partnership with extensive experience in gender and equity-focused policy; Leon Cristian, Executive Director of Internet Bolivia and government advisor on digital rights; and Thobekile Matimbe, Senior Manager for Partnerships and Engagements at Paradigm Initiative. The discussion also included valuable contributions from audience members, including Bara Kotieno from Kenya’s Association of Community Networks and other participants from across the global digital inclusion community.

## Emerging Technologies: Opportunities and Challenges

### Low Earth Orbit Satellites: Promise and Limitations

Christopher Locke examined the potential of Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites to bridge connectivity gaps in remote areas, while highlighting significant challenges that complicate their deployment. “We’re still in the very early stages of Leo Internet,” Locke explained, “and not only is the price initially expensive, but also we’re increasingly seeing that as the networks become clogged, the prices sometimes are quite dynamic based on demand.” He cited examples from African cities where Starlink services are “pretty much booked out,” illustrating how capacity constraints create new barriers to access.

Locke emphasized that while LEO satellites offer solutions for remote connectivity, sustainability remains problematic due to pricing instability and regulatory frameworks that haven’t kept pace with technological development. The infrastructure requires significant investment in ground stations and local capacity building, making it unsuitable as a standalone solution for underserved communities.

### Regulatory and Sovereignty Challenges

Leon Cristian provided a critical perspective on how emerging technologies create new regulatory challenges. His most striking example concerned data sovereignty: “Starlink is operating in my country without permission,” he revealed, explaining how the company told Bolivian authorities, “I don’t need that, I don’t need to put an office in your country. I can operate and I can provide my services even if I don’t fulfil all their requirements.”

This example illustrates broader challenges where technological solutions can undermine national sovereignty and regulatory frameworks. Cristian identified emerging complexities including problems related to data sovereignty and spectrum allocation, regulatory power imbalances between states and technology companies, and what he termed an evolving “digital divide.”