Uncategorized

Hideshi Takatani

Hideshi Takatani, a traditional Japanese artist, has embraced digital technology since 1977, making him a unique figure in his field. Coming from a traditional Japanese background, Takatani combines the analog and digital in his artwork, showcasing his ability to seamlessly blend the two worlds.

Takatani expresses concern over Japan’s ongoing economic struggles since the 1990s, referring to this period as a “blank 30 years.” This highlights the severity of the situation and sheds light on the challenges faced by the Japanese economy. Through his firsthand experience, Takatani’s worries hold both weight and authenticity.

However, despite his concerns, Takatani remains hopeful for the future. He believes in the transformative power of Internet3, an emerging concept and technology. Embracing Internet3, Takatani sees it as the last consciousness of human beings, hinting at its potential to revolutionize various aspects of life. Internet3 is perceived by Takatani as a catalyst for change, capable of ushering in a new era marked by innovation and progress.

In summary, Hideshi Takatani is a traditional Japanese artist who has successfully integrated digital technology into his artistic practice. While expressing concern over Japan’s economic struggles, he remains optimistic about the transformative potential of Internet3. Takatani’s unique ability to blend tradition and technology makes him a significant figure in the art world.

Mitsuhiro Hishita

During the discussion, the speakers emphasised the need for innovation in the field of Internet of Things (IoT) business to achieve free and secure access to the internet. They specifically highlighted Internet3 as a solution that enables zero trust and ensures a high level of security by providing secure IP addresses for each IoT device.

Internet3 was mentioned as a service that plays a crucial role in the IoT ecosystem, offering a secure and reliable internet connection for IoT devices. It enables zero trust, a security concept that assumes no device, user, or network should be inherently trusted, and verifies the identity and integrity of each connected device. This significantly reduces the risk of unauthorized access and enhances security in IoT environments.

A positive sentiment was expressed towards the potential benefits of adopting Internet3 in the context of achieving sustainable development goals related to industry, innovation, and infrastructure (SDG 9). The speakers specifically supported the deployment of Internet3 in the Hokuriku region.

The Hokuriku region’s companies and local enterprises were identified as potential early beneficiaries of Internet3. The speakers proposed that these entities should be the first to adopt this innovative technology. This suggests that the speakers recognize the significance of Internet3 in supporting the growth and development of the IoT industry in the region.

The overall sentiment towards Internet3 and its potential impact on IoT business and secure internet access was positive throughout the discussion. The speakers’ endorsement of Internet3 and its deployment in the Hokuriku region reflects their confidence in the technology’s capability to address the challenges of IoT security and facilitate innovation.

In conclusion, the speakers highlighted the importance of innovation in IoT business to achieve free and secure access to the internet. They focused on Internet3 as a service that ensures zero trust and provides secure IP addresses for IoT devices. Additionally, they advocated for the deployment of Internet3 in the Hokuriku region, particularly in local companies and enterprises. The discussion’s positive sentiment and support for Internet3 signify the potential benefits it holds for advancing sustainable development goals related to industry, innovation, and infrastructure.

Katsuhisa Sasaki

The analysis reveals that Katsuhisa Sasaki and Sabai City have expressed their support for different issues and initiatives. Katsuhisa Sasaki supports the implementation of Internet 3, emphasizing its benefits for the sustainability of Sabai City in the Hokuriku region. He believes that Internet 3 will play a crucial role in the development and progress of the city. This indicates that Sasaki recognizes the potential of Internet 3 to contribute to the overall growth and sustainability of Sabai City.

On the other hand, Sabai City emphasises the importance of gender equality as a major factor for a prosperous future. They believe that achieving gender equality is an essential element in creating a city where people can flourish and take on new challenges. This clearly highlights the commitment of Sabai City towards creating an inclusive and equal society where everyone has equal opportunities to succeed and thrive.

Both speakers express positive sentiments towards their respective arguments. This indicates that they firmly believe in the potentials and benefits associated with implementing Internet 3 and promoting gender equality, respectively.

The analysis also reveals that the topics discussed by the speakers are aligned with specific Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Katsuhisa Sasaki’s support for Internet 3 relates to Goal 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure, indicating the potential for technological advancements and infrastructure development in the region. On the other hand, Sabai City’s focus on gender equality aligns with Goal 5: Gender Equality, demonstrating their commitment to creating an inclusive society and promoting equal opportunities for all.

Overall, the analysis uncovers differing but equally important viewpoints on significant issues. The support for implementing Internet 3 and fostering gender equality highlights the commitment of Katsuhisa Sasaki and Sabai City towards sustainable development and societal progress. Their positive sentiments further validate the significance and potential benefits of their respective arguments.

Kristopher Tate

Internet 3, introduced by Kristopher Tate, is positioned as a revolutionary reimagining of the Internet, offering trust from the device layer. Unlike its traditional counterpart, Internet 3 operates as a good rather than just a service. Its software requests the Trusted Platform Module (TPM) to generate a public key corresponding to an IPv6 address, ensuring a high level of security and trust. All command and control as well as communication applications within Internet 3 are built on a foundation of trust.

One of Internet 3’s key features is its ability to provide 100% encryption and authentication. By establishing trust from the device layer, Internet 3 guarantees encrypted data transmission and proper authentication of communication entities. This heightened security makes Internet 3 suitable for both information technology and operational technology, offering protection against cyber-attacks and bolstering the security of critical infrastructure systems. Additionally, Internet 3’s useful applications for various markets have the potential to boost GDP and facilitate economic growth.

Internet 3 also promises integration with culture and society. Its support for remote work and promotion of work-life balance demonstrate its potential to enhance everyday work and family life. The collaboration between Internet3 and Mr. Hideshi Takenai from Shin-ten-no-ji temple signifies the connection between this technological innovation and cultural significance.

Moreover, Internet 3 embodies the concept of a universally accessible and owned Internet. By allowing users to have ownership over the Internet, Internet 3 aims to make it accessible to more places on Earth, bridging the digital divide and reducing inequalities. This aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals of Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure, as well as Reduced Inequalities.

Despite technological advancements, there are still areas, including Japan, where the full potential of the Internet remains untapped. Kristopher Tate shares observations that people in Silicon Valley initially doubted Japan’s technology scene, and when he personally travelled to Japan at a young age, he noticed a lack of Internet usage. This serves as a reminder that although technology has evolved, global connectivity gaps still need to be addressed.

In conclusion, Internet 3, as presented by Kristopher Tate, offers a groundbreaking approach to the Internet, prioritising trust, security, and universal accessibility. It holds promise for integration with culture and society and has the potential to bridge the digital divide. Embracing cultural interpretations of freedom can further enhance global connectivity. Addressing disparities in Internet usage is essential to fully unlock the potential of technology worldwide.

Samantha Kawaguchi

The analysis explores two important topics: the potential of Internet 3 in bolstering sustainability in cities and the commendable initiative of Sabae City in promoting gender equality. Internet 3, a concept gaining prominence, is seen as a robust tool for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). It can facilitate this by providing increased avenues for developers to innovate and develop new solutions. By offering more opportunities for collaboration and engagement, Internet 3 can effectively contribute to addressing various SDGs such as quality education (SDG 4), gender equality (SDG 5), decent work and economic growth (SDG 8), industry innovation and infrastructure (SDG 9), reduced inequalities (SDG 10), sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11), peace, justice and strong institutions (SDG 16), and partnerships for the goals (SDG 17). The sentiment towards Internet 3 is positive, as it is seen as a significant enabler for sustainable development.

Additionally, Internet 3 is recognized as a crucial factor in ensuring digital peace and secure access to the internet for all individuals. With the implementation of Internet 3, the safety and privacy concerns associated with the internet can be effectively addressed, enabling widespread and secure connectivity. This is essential for fostering an inclusive and equitable digital environment.

Shifting focus to Sabae City, its historical emphasis on women empowerment and gender equality is noteworthy. The city has a long-standing tradition of women actively participating in the workforce and effectively managing both their careers and family responsibilities. Many women engage in family-run businesses, which form a significant portion of the local industries, including the production of glasses, lacquerware, and textiles. This cultural norm of women being involved in business and family life contributes to a thriving community where gender equality is valued.

The city’s specific commitment to gender equality under the SDGs is also highlighted as a notable point. Sabae City has made substantial efforts to emphasize gender equality through various initiatives, promoting equal opportunities, eliminating gender biases, and empowering women in all spheres of life. The sentiment towards Sabae City’s approach to gender equality is positive, acknowledging the importance of women’s contribution to the local economy and the promotion of a fair and inclusive society.

In conclusion, the analysis showcases Internet 3 as a potential catalyst for sustainability in cities, with its ability to drive innovation, enhance collaboration, and ensure secure internet access. Furthermore, the analysis highlights Sabae City’s commendable efforts in promoting gender equality, leveraging its history of women empowerment and initiating specific SDGs-based projects. These findings underscore the significance of technological advancements and progressive social policies in shaping sustainable and equitable communities.

Kristopher Tate:
What is it? This might be interesting. This might be interesting. This might be interesting. This might be interesting. How many minutes left? How many minutes left? It’s on time. It’s on time. Should I stand up? Should I stand up? Welcome. Thank you for joining us today. I think we’re on time at 4.30. I’m Christopher Tate from Connect Free Corporation. And today we’re here to talk about Internet 3 and Internet based on 21st century principles. Today, hopefully together, we are going to reinvent the Internet. That’s a big thing to talk about, reinventing the Internet. What does that mean? Well, first we need to think about how the economy works. I think that the first Internet really worked well because it fit with the economic trends at the time. Obviously, if something doesn’t work economically, then it’s really hard for a lot of integrators and people to connect to. But if we think about the economy and go back to basics, like Economy 101, we think about goods and services. And really, we have to think about what is a good, right? A good is something that usually some sort of specialized manufacturer or entity creates. And then it can be bought or sold. And obviously, usually you think about a good when you buy it, that you get to own it. You get to own the goods that are made for you, that you purchase. On the other hand, services are kind of another unique kind of thing. I traditionally think of services as something like maybe I want to eat a hamburger. Instead of going to the supermarket, and buying lettuce and tomatoes and the meat, if you’re a meat eater, and the bun, you might want to go to a company called McDonald’s, a shop called McDonald’s, and buy a hamburger. Or instead of managing your own wealth or managing your own cash, you want to maybe keep it safe in a bank, have them do it for you. Or even maybe you don’t have the time to clean your suit or clean your clothes, so you end up contracting the services of a dry cleaner. So these are usually things, when we think about services, we think of services as something that you can do yourself, but you choose not to, because you either have the luxury to do so, or it’s economically viable for you to do so. And so that really kind of brings the question about, what about internet services? Internet services, are they the same thing? Is internet service something you can do yourself? What about internet services? And so we really have to think about really kind of the core of internet services, the internet service provider. And so, historically speaking, the internet was not really for everyone. It was built mainly for the government and later research organizations, and it was not immediately understood that everyone would be able to connect. This is not something that really we think everyone would be connecting to. It was mainly, again, to reiterate for governments and research. And then, the advent of the personal computer kind of changed a lot of things. And obviously, the cheaper modems got, so you could use the existing telecom infrastructure. And we saw the rise of something called the Computer Bulletin Board. And really, these Computer Bulletin Boards, these BBSs required administration and a central phone to connect to. And then eventually, some entrepreneurs realized that they could further centralize this system nationwide. So instead of having a BBS that your friend or your friend or a friend connects to or creates for you, the idea would be that you would have companies that would provide the centralization to do this nationwide. And so, this was the birth of the online service provider, or instead of an ISP, what we say the OSP. And so, these OSPs sold monthly subscriptions to access their systems. Normally, you’d want to have access to a newspaper or access to a television subscription or a magazine. And so, this is kind of the thought process that there was a resource of information somewhere not in front of you, something you need to dial into, a monthly subscription. And so, as we are well known today, some of these in the US were CompuServe and later AOL. But then, as we still think about it, traditionally, these are still a service. Theoretically, they’re still a service. If you really wanted to, you could still set up your own BBS independently. Who wants to do that? So, it would be great to say, OK, CompuServe, OK, AOL, why don’t you do that for us? Why don’t you create the connective service for us? It still made sense that there were these companies that would do something, like creating these BBSs for you instead of you doing it yourself or having someone in your community do it for you. But then, in 1991, specifically, with the backing of the White House, the Internet, which was then known as the NFS Network, which is the National Science Foundation, finally opened up access to commercial entities. This is great. This meant that not only the government and research entities would use the Internet, but also commercial entities as well. And so, obviously, what took place afterward was a rush, a land rush, to obtain as many IP addresses as one could get. Apple, to this day, not to hone an apple, I mean, they did something great. They decided they wanted to get space, so they got a whole block, of IP space. And even today, Amazon Web Services owns 1.7% of the IPv4 address space, which is around 73 million addresses. Quite a lot of addresses. Now, really, what comes next is that there’s a lot of industrious entrepreneurs, like the entrepreneurs that created the BBSs, the OSPs, that realized that they could sell a monthly subscription to access the Internet itself. And so, I pulled this from the Wikipedia on the Internet. And you can see here that something kind of weird is that the Internet’s all the way up there. And you’ve got Tier 3 networks, and all these networks, but the Internet is way above, and where are the customers? The customers are not in the Internet. They’re down at the bottom. They’re kind of tethered onto the Internet. They’re not in the Internet. They’re just kind of accessing the Internet. I think this is a fundamental problem. This is kind of interesting. Pulling up the Wikipedia was such an interesting image for me because, really, you are not an Internet user. You’re an Internet subscriber. There’s a distinction. And so, ISPs should be called Internet subscription providers. So, as long as IP address is centralized, we think, I think, that so, too, is the Internet. And that’s unfortunate. And so, getting to the Internet we want, which is kind of the theme here that we have today at the IGF. And, really, the Internet that we want is unfortunately not the Internet that we currently have. We find that we want more from the Internet than what the Internet can currently provide to us. And, believe it or not, if you were to place the word Internet with electric grid 100 years ago, you’d probably have the same thing happening what we have today, the electric grid that we want, per se. And so, this is interesting because, just like the Internet, the electric grid is very dangerous. It’s a dangerous thing. If you connect, touch directly to the electric grid, you might get shocked. Before the invention of the socket, the only option to repair light bulbs was to call an electric company who would send an electrician. This might be very hard to believe, but, again, 100 years ago, different time, different technologies, there were people that were connecting electric grid directly to the light bulbs in these houses. And so, here in Japan, a gentleman by the name of Konosuke Matsushita, he was one of those electricians. And he realized that an invention, a socket, would allow anyone to change their light bulbs independently of electricians. And so, as the story goes, and it is a story, obviously, you go to the museum inside of Panasonic’s headquarters, they’ve got a whole section, a whole corner of it, but, basically, his superiors balked at the idea that common folk, common people, would work with dangerous light bulbs. Who would want to do that? Who would want to work on that? That’s dangerous. And they even hypothesized that they might even lose their jobs to commoditization, that if anybody could change a light bulb, what would happen to me? What would happen to my job? And so, he thought of both sides. He thought of his colleagues. I don’t want people to lose their jobs. But then again, he thought about the rural side of Japan. There’s so many places in Japan that can benefit from electricity, can benefit from these innovations, but unless they can create a world that doesn’t need direct electricians to change a light bulb, then his hopes would not happen. So he founded Panasonic. And today, they make very many useful products that everyone can use at their leisure at any time. And so, the Internet, like the electric grid, still requires professionals to work to its full extent. And unfortunately, if configured incorrectly, the Internet can be hacked, filtered, and redirected. These are all things that we work with. I think a lot of the people here at this IGF were in our different work groups, and we’re talking about these different things. And so, although the current Internet has enabled economic opportunities for billions of people, it also fundamentally hinders the future of our modern economy. And so what do I mean by that? Well, I’ve got four different things here. The first is, without encryption and authentication at its core, cyberspace is less of a trustworthy society and more or less the Wild West of our modern economy. Number two, the Internet architecture places too much power in the hands of network administrators who could be coerced by bad actors or repressive governments to shut down networks or filter information. We’ve seen this a lot around the world. There’s a lot of news about it. Something happens, a war breaks out, and then all of a sudden, the Internet goes down. Can’t connect anymore. This is a really hard thing to work through. And so, obviously, because the way that the current architecture works, it’s really easy to, even if there’s good intending people at these ISPs and these institutions, you put a gun to someone’s head, and it changes. Third, the governments and corporations that currently utilize this stuff, they’re forced into this kind of idea of private networks, which in turn limits our innovation and economic freedoms by creating closed networks in the name of security. Here in Japan especially, there’s a lot of carriers who are well-meaning. No one’s bad. No one’s doing bad things, but at the same time, they are marketing these closed networks to their clients, that you can have a closed network, a closed 4G, 5G network that connects directly to the cloud. And the problem with this is that, again, further limits the access to the Internet. You want to have so much connectivity to all these different devices and different services, but we end up seeing a lot of carriers in the name of security closing down the networks when we should be keeping them open. And fourth, politically repressive governments have been hijacking Western technology and are rapidly extending it to create digital authoritarian ecosystems. This is a lot of keywords here, but basically, people are using the Internet that we invented in America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, and using it to do things that are not, let’s say, in the name of freedom. And so instead of relying on a few network engineers that we have, the question really becomes, why not make an Internet that anyone can securely operate anywhere? This should be a no-brainer. I’m going to say it again. Instead of relying on the few network engineers that we have, why not make an Internet that anyone can securely operate anywhere? And so that’s Internet 3. Internet 3 is an Internet that works… You wanted to clap there? That’s great. I haven’t presented you here. It’s an Internet that works like a good instead of a service. Instead of buying access to the Internet, you are the Internet, and so am I. Instead of relying on network engineers, the software that the Internet 3 is based on autonomously maintains connectivity at all times through all interfaces. So normally, what this means is that when you get an IP address, it’s usually on one interface. You’re connecting to Wi-Fi in a cafe shop. Well, you’ve got the Wi-Fi’s cafe shop’s IP address. And you might have the IP address of maybe your phone that you’re tethered to, right? So a computer today, unfortunately, has so many different IP addresses, different connectors, but instead we want to autonomously do that. So then instead of fearing connection, Internet 3 allows you to welcome it, right? We get this a lot in the corporate world. If you go to maybe your partner’s office, a different corporate partner’s office, and they’ve got the Ethernet cable out on the table, and you’re tempted to use it, and then, you know, he says, no, please don’t use our Internet because our network administration says you shouldn’t do that. And so we want to create, you know, an Internet where everyone is connected at all times. Just like the electric, you know, we’ve got these electric cables here on our desk right here, right? We just, you know, plug into it, have fun with the electricity. Well, we should have the same thing with the Internet. And so really the fundamental change is how you get your IP address, right? You know, the corporate network, you want to maintain that, you know, only your corporate people are having IP address. So we see this as a really big problem. Who owns the IP address? And so the Internet was born in a world where computational power was limited and quite expensive. I mean, we’re talking about mainframes, right? And then we had, you know, generally started getting in the direction of the personal computer, but it really wasn’t until, you know, Apple came along and others came along that allowed us to think about, you know, computers in terms of personalized power. But again, computers were good at moving data and not calculating math. And so we really see a fundamental change in the 1990s, but unfortunately the export laws limited how math and cryptographic primitives could cross borders. So, you know, we have the technology to do a lot of security, but unfortunately we were worried about how this technology would be placed in others’ hands. And so by the end of the 20th century, the Internet had a second protocol implementation, as we know it today by IPv6, but it continued to remain tied to an address registry. Yes. And so this changes today with Internet 3. Inside of most smartphones, probably most everyone’s smartphones here today, there is something called a Trusted Platform Module, or TPM. Apple likes to say that it’s called the Secure Enclave. And when you watch a Hollywood movie or download an app from an app store on your phone, the content you receive is cryptographically signed so that only your phone can use it. You know, we call this DRM, which is, normally when you think about it, kind of, it’s not a really happy technology, it’s kind of a clothing technology, but the flip side is that Internet 3 can utilize this TPM in a completely new, revolutionary way that changes the game. So instead of asking the network for your IP address, who am I, Internet 3 software asks the TPM to generate a public key that maps to an IPv6 address. And so, specifically, because, you know, this is a broad claim to make, you know, what are you doing? Specifically, we generate a curve 25519 public key and cryptographically hash it into an IPv6 address. So, what does this mean? It means that when you’re connecting to another node and you talk to the node, normally what would happen inside the browser happens at the protocol layer, and because every node on Internet 3 has this public key, you exchange public keys and are able to ascertain not only who the other party is, but the other party can ascertain who you are. Not in terms of a privacy data standpoint, but actually as more of a, more as a kind of a specific physical property of the network, right? So, obviously, here we have DNA and we have our faces and our fingerprints. You don’t know who someone is, but you do know what they look like. And so, the same way, every device on Internet 3 knows what they look like. So, this is kind of a rough illustration here. So, you have the trust module inside the computer, and then that has a secure public key, and from that secure public key, into an authenticated IP address that you can use and share. And because it’s backwards compatible with IPv6, all of the applications on top of Internet 3 work just like they did before. So, we’re completely backwards compatible with all of the IETF protocols above layer 3. So, that means TCP, that means all of the other application suites, that means email. All of the applications that you like and love today, they become automatically encrypted and authenticated. And we think that this is a great trend to create. So, this means that without any public key infrastructure at all, we can create an Internet that is not only 100% encrypted, but also 100% authenticated. And I think that this is kind of the crux of what we really need. And so, there’s so much to get into. I’ve spent 12 years of my life, and our company has been around for 12 years to really kind of work this through. It works over existing layer 2, so any kind of physical layer that you’ve got, you can still use today. It’s always authenticated IP addressing, so instead of having, if you go to a website and put a username and password, the website knows who you are, and you know that you’re connected to the website. It works, again, to reiterate with existing software, so anything that speaks IPv6, you can put it on top of Internet 3. And then again, it’s software-defined networking, which means that you don’t have to… to go get another switch or router or some sort of hardware or thingamajig to plug into your computer. It’s software, you download it, it works. And again, to reiterate, it’s a patent solution. We’ve been working on this for over 10 years, so we’ve been lucky to get some very core patents. So you can see that where a lot of security is up at layer seven and it’s hit and miss, internet three integrates internet security and encryption and authentication at layer three. And so in that way, anything above there is completely secure. And so seeing is believing. So I wanted to show you guys kind of a demonstration of it running. I’ll walk around here to the computer. I was expecting a stage, right? Because you’re gonna have a launch event, you think you’d have a stage, but I like this format too. It allows us to be more together. So I’m gonna switch over here and I apologize if in order to accommodate some of the pictures here. So this is one of the applications. So again, this is Safari by Apple. And you’ll notice that it’s not, we haven’t changed Safari in any way. It’s Safari version 17. And you’ll see that at the top here, I’ve got an IP address. Now this IP address is a little bit special. It starts with FC. And that is a special range inside of the IPv6 mandate where it’s called a site local address, which means that the site local administrator can do whatever they want with that address space. And so we, again, hash our public key into this IP space. And so we can create IP addresses that don’t conflict with the current internet. So again, this is internet three. We can use, I can go to Google here. I’m not going through VPN. I’m not using any kind of things. It’s completely backwards compatible things, but it doesn’t mess up your current internet connectivity. So it’s an additive solution. It’s not that you have to use internet three or not. You can use internet three and you can use the existing internet simultaneously. And so this demonstration I’ve got, it’s kind of a cute little website here that I’ve got here. And this was actually made by a couple of high school students at the Fikui Technical High School. And what is this thing here? Well, it’s a little web application here that’s running on a Raspberry Pi inside of our offices in Fikui prefecture. And right now, it’s kind of hard to see me. I’ll zoom up here. We are opening the door, the main security gate to our offices in Fikui over internet three. And so what’s kind of special here, I’m gonna stop it here because I don’t want to go too far. Maybe I’ll let the cats and dogs in here. What’s really special about this is that we have a special arrangement with NTT that allows us to use their fiber optic network without having ISP built into it. So right now, here in Fikui, this property doesn’t have an ISP registered. We don’t have any kind of ISP services there. It’s just a fiber optic line from the NTT network. And then somewhere in the border of NTT’s network and this internet network, we have another internet three node, which is relaying this traffic with the NTT network. And this is again, all done kind of in a P2P fashion. And so what’s great about this is that again, if I’m gonna switch to the administration page here, you’ll see that these, it’s a simple application made by high school students. There’s a security tab here and you can see that there’s these different IP addresses. So this is my IP address right here. So if I comment this out, if I comment this out here and then hit deploy, you’ll notice that if I refresh the page, it says permission denied. And so this is really important because it means that I can control who accesses what, what resources simply by what IP address I own. So if you wanna do this with public keys and TLS and all this stuff, it requires real knowledge of security primitives. But with internet three, it’s just a simple string that you have to match. So as long as I match, I’m gonna, I wanna close the door. So I’m gonna redeploy here. And so we reconnect here and then I’m gonna press the down button here and then I’m gonna close the door. And so what this means is that without using the cloud at all, we can just connect to all of these devices on these high speed networks. Most of the phones in everyone’s pockets here, they’re on the 5G network, right? And they’re running 24 hours a day and you plug them in charge night and they have multiple gigabytes of storage and they have all the photos and the data that you wanna share with your friends. Why not have an IP address on your phone that you can connect to? Why can’t your phone be a server? These are the kind of questions that we ask ourselves every day at Connect Free. And I just wanna show you for the technical people here. So if I do a netstat, which is kind of shows the local network table of this machine, you’ll notice that how we implement it is that there is a rule in the network table that says anything that starts with FC, send it to this virtual network adapter. And if I pull up the virtual network adapter, you can see that this IP address that’s generated from the public key is there. And so some other things that you can do with this. Obviously, there’s a lot of software that runs on IPv6. So for instance, if you look at, for instance, maybe before we connect here, let me open up the settings. So this is the IP address, the Internet3 IP address of this Windows server that we’ve got. And of course, Internet3 runs on Windows as well. And so if we connect here, you’ll notice that I’m on a Mac here, but I’m connecting to a Windows machine. And then if I set up, if I, let me see here. If I open up the network control panel here for network adapters, you can see, and if my antivirus loads here, okay, let me pull it over to the side here. Yeah, so if we pull up, you can see that again, the Internet3 IP address has been assigned to this adapter. This is a virtual network adapter. So to the operating system and to the applications, nothing is new. You’ve got an IP address that you can use, and we can tell your friends, hey, this is my IP address. And you can control it with a normal firewall as well. So again, going back, I’m gonna go back into my, so again, this is working. So it’s not, so kind of the cool thing about this is that it’s working the way it should be, but all of this has been encrypted and authenticated, which is great. It’s not like it’s, it’s such an additive technology, but there’s no cost to do any of this, right? You just install it and it works, which is the way it should be. So I’m gonna go back to my presentation here and kind of get more into talking about, and I apologize, there’s a lot of words on this slide. I apologize. So basically, you’re gonna hear a lot here today at IGF about something called DFFT, data-free flow with trust. What is that? What does that mean? And the late Prime Minister Abe presented at Davos in 2019 to the G20 group that really, the internet needs to be, in one way, more accepting to data flow, but in another way, having more to do with trust. And so, again, I apologize, there’s a lot on the slide there but really, the question we also kind of ask ourselves, why do we still trust the telephone system, right? Well, because all of the applications on your phone, like SMS and voice, and even here in Japan, we still use fax machines a lot, this is all authenticated by the network layer. The telephone company asserts that the telephone number is gonna be trustworthy. But unfortunately, the internet itself, there’s a lot of people like Blockchain and Web3 and these other well-to-do people that are trying to do something on top of the internet, but really, the problem is that by trying to reinvent trust on top of the internet, you’re still having to deal with the cost of the internet itself. What that means is that even though, yeah, even though you’re trying to do something better for the internet, right, and try to help people, you’re still having to work with the tremendous cost of the internet itself. So, Internet3 gets around that by providing trust from the device layer. So, because each Internet3 device is a router, is routing secure data for other devices, you’re able to get all command and control and communication applications in a way of trust, right, that everything can have trust. It’s not just one application. It’s not just one computer. It’s all computers and all applications. And so, I’m kind of moving into the weeds here a little bit. You’re also gonna hear, hopefully, more about something called Zero Trust. And Zero Trust is a specification defined by the United States National Institute of Standards and Technology. And this is very important because of what it means is instead of having these local networks, we redefine the way network security is by saying that we shouldn’t trust anyone to begin with and only trust the connections that we are able to trust. And so, why Internet3 plays a huge, important role into how Zero Trust will go forward and how communication will go forward is because every computer is authenticated by the public key that is inside of the computer. When a packet comes into the other application, right, so if you’re connecting to another application, immediately, that application knows that this IP address is definitely coming from whatever computer it’s coming from. Now, they don’t know what name the computer is or the user is. They don’t have any of this privacy information. Just like I’m looking around the room and there are some new faces and there are some old faces, right? I don’t know everyone’s name here, but I can look in everyone’s direction and I can see who you are. You have the right to exist in reality from your DNA, right? If you walk into a bank, the bank can say hello to you. They might not know your name. If they do know their name, they can greet you. But we hope that we can do the same thing here on the Internet. And so, really, we wanna convey that we think that Internet3 is the best way to implement Zero Trust. Now, is it hard to use? What do you do? Well, it’s really simple. You download software, you double-click it, it activates, and you’re online. That’s the way it should be. So, very simple to use. Again, for embedded devices, we have a developer program that allows you to work with us to integrate Internet3 into your device. And so, in kind of one slide, you can see here that we have, really, for a plethora of different markets, a solution to helping everyone connect. And so, the real critical question now that we come to this juncture in our time together in this one-hour slot is really, well, this is great and all, but how do you guys make money? You said it’s a good. How much does it cost? What is your business? And so, we really think about, kind of, instead of, again, to reiterate, instead of having the Internet become a service, we think it should be a good. So, we sell the IP address for a one-time cost, right? And, you know, although we don’t have any kind of slides to it today, generally, our idea is that it’ll be free for people, and we wanna make money on the devices. If you look in the ceiling, there’s a lot of lights, there’s a lot of infrastructure that is around us, and helps us get through the world. I think the term in the United States is operational technology. So, a lot of people think of the Internet as being a solution for IT, for information technology, but we think that the Internet should go more towards the idea of operational technology. There’s a lot of infrastructure that apparently is gonna be hacked, or hackable, right? We wanna help to see that we’re not hacked, that we’re all secure, and all secure, and ready to utilize the infrastructure in ways that increases GDP. And so, by selling the IP address for a one-time fee, it really helps us do two things. One is, it helps the manufacturers take responsibility for the product. What does that mean? Anyone who has ever bought an IP camera knows that when you buy the IP camera, you end up spending a lot of time setting up the IP addresses, and doing all these different things. Whereas, in the future, when the IP camera comes from the factory, it already has an IP address because it was generated at the factory. You can write it on a label. You can put it on a QR code. There’s no need to do any kind of setup because for the lifetime of the device, it’s always the same IP address, which means it’s trustworthy. And so, again, because the public key and the associated private key is generated inside the device, we don’t have any control over that. We can’t revoke that IP address, but what we can do is we can activate and bless the device. And what that means is that we associatively sign the key so that other nodes in the network knows that it is actually bought and paid for. And so, I like to use the term bless instead of activate because you can do the reverse of activation. You can deactivate something. It’s really hard to un-bless something once it’s blessed. We like to use the term bless, but the idea is that, again, to sell these IP addresses. That’s our core market. We think there’s about a trillion devices in the world that might be available for Internet3. So that is, if you sell it for $1 per device, it’s a trillion dollars. We think it’s a huge market. And so, to help us really grow Internet3, there’s a number of core partners that we’ve been working with. We’ve been very shy about who we work with at this current juncture because we haven’t been really public in our activities. And so, at IGF here, we’re going to come forward. But now we have these collaboration partners, Omnimo, KOMGates, and Mitsubishi and Company, who have been fundamental in helping us navigate really what is gonna be, hopefully, a huge juncture in how we communicate. And so, I’d like to change gears now and hopefully kind of reiterate what we’re doing. I mean, there’s a lot of different things that I can talk about, but it’s best to have really kind of these experts talking. So, if I may, can I ask Mr. Hirohishita to give some comments about the, oh, you got your mic?

Mitsuhiro Hishita:
Okay, great, about Internet3. Thank you. Thank you very much, Chris. My name is Mitsuhiro Hishita. I am the Director General of the MIC Japan Hokuriku Regional Office based in Kanazawa. Actually, I am posted this position since this July. Until then, I was working for the Global Strategy Bureau of the MIC, and I was working for the global negotiation, like the G7. The last G7 was, by the way, held in Takasaki in this April. Well, at that G7 also, we talked about the internet governance. We noticed that there is some government control over internet. Sometimes, there’s a government shutdown. There is sometimes government internet fragmentation. So, the theme of this IGF is, as you know, the internet we want. So, what is the internet we want? As Chris mentioned, there is, if you want to do the IoT business, you need to get free access to internet, and you need to have a secure ICT infrastructure. So, according to what I heard from this Chris presentation, and understand that this Internet3 is an innovative new service that will enable the zero trust, and also it will provide a secure IP address for each IoT devices. So, I hope that from the viewpoint of the Hokuriku Regional Office Director General, such a new innovative service should be first introduced in the Hokuriku region’s companies, and also local enterprises, so that they can show that this new technology really is feasible, and also can provide safe access to internet. This is my comment.

Katsuhisa Sasaki:
Thank you very much. It’s okay to clap. Yeah, it’s okay. Yeah. So, again, we’ve had a lot of support from the Hokuriku region. A lot of people don’t know where Hokuriku is. It’s kind of north of here, and a little west of Nagoya and Tokyo. But we like to think of it as Cyber Valley, as the upcoming place where a lot of this innovation will take forward. So, thank you for your comments, Mr. Hishida. So, next, I want to kind of switch gears to Mr. Katsuhisa Sasaki, Mayor of Sabai City. And thank you, Mayor, for coming so far out to Kyoto. And so, again, Sabai is a really core city in the Hokuriku region. And so, I’d like to hear some comments from Mayor Sasaki. Thank you. Hello, everyone. I am Katsuhisa Sasaki, the Mayor of Fukui Prefecture, Sabai City. Sabai is a city no one wears NBT eyewear, which make up over 19% of nationally produced glasses frame. Our city is also known throughout Japan for its SDGs by gender equality, sustainable development, any city. We believe that gender equality is a key to a prosperous future and strongly to be a sustainable city in which people can together flourish and take on new challenges. I am here to support Internet 3, which will contribute to Sabai’s sustainability. Now, Samantha, from our resource center for implementation of SDGs, we address our thoughts on sustainability and Internet 3. Samantha, go ahead. Thank you.

Samantha Kawaguchi:
Thank you, Mayor Sazaki. Before I start, I would just like to make one correction. The, Um, the, uh, English coming out at the top of the screen said 19% of glasses for Sabae, the number is over 90. Just wanted to make that distinction, sorry. Um, hello, my name is Samantha Kawaguchi. I am a Canadian based in Sabae City. Much of my work focuses on the Sustainable Development Goals. Um, within that, mostly, um, goal number five, gender equality, and other areas such as diversity and intersectionality. And today, I have come here with the Mayor to speak a little bit about how Internet 3 correlates with Sabae’s initiative for the Sustainable Development Goals, and how that, um, implementing Internet 3 is a great way to further sustainability, and not just our city, but in other local cities, very similar to our own. And before I’d like, um, before I start, I would like to mention that Sabae is, um, a small city of about 70,000 people, but it has greatly been considered one of the forefronts of the local SDGs initiatives. It’s a role model city in, especially, regards to goal number five, gender equality, and this is for many reasons, but one of the big ones stems from Sabae’s history with women’s empowerment. Unlike some of the other regions in Japan, Sabae, historically, has seen many women involved in the workplace, as well as in their family life, balancing career and child raising, which is something very specific to Sabae and the Fukui region. And currently, women are still in the workplace, active as ever. Much of the women are involved in family-run businesses, which still, to this day, make up a great number of our local industries, such as glasses, lacquerware, and textiles. And it is for this reason that, um, Sabae event, uh, started being very particular in its SDGs, especially gender equality initiative. And today, with the current environment of Sabae being pretty different than other regions in Japan, where we have the, uh, highest percent of the, uh, women, women, excuse me, employed and women, um, working as well as men working. So dual income households. So with this, um, background, we spent a lot of time and strived to, um, further, not only gender equality, but all of the sustainable development goals. And some of the ways that we have done this is, um, through, uh, various initiatives that both the city and our local companies and industries engage in, such as, um, we have a network that, um, really promotes gender equality by bringing together leaders of our local businesses that have implemented, um, policies within their workplaces to encourage gender equality. We encourage, uh, per- uh, excuse me, parental, uh, paternity. We support paternity leave in both our public and private sectors. And we also celebrate many global milestones, such as International Women’s Day, to spread more awareness of how gender equality is something very necessary to a sustainable society, society. And we feel that, in Sabae, Internet3 is a very, very important tool to not only, um, doing more things towards gender equality, Goal 5 from the SDGs, but also all of the other SDGs as well, as well. So this would, um, work with all of the three pillars of, um, sustainable development, such as the economic sector, the environmental sector, and the societal s- s- excuse me, sector. So, for example, with Internet3, this, or Internet3, excuse me, um, there would be no fees, which would make Internet way more accessible to a larger amount of people. So, for example, there would be more e- means to go online and access educational tools, and for people to be online without having to pay monthly costs would mean less barriers. So this would directly relate to SDG 4, 5, and 10. And that is on an individual level. On a consumer level, Internet3 would relate to the SDGs by providing more ways for developers to get involved in actually developing and innovating towards new solutions rather than trying to rehash old things and trying to work more on security. So this would mean more inventions. And this could, um, really reframe the way that, um, all of our companies and industries work, how our inter- our inner structure functions. This would, uh, correlate to SDG 8, 9, and 11. And this is directly… Indirectly, it has the potential to correlate with many other SDGs, such as poverty, healthcare, as well as areas, uh, pertaining to environmental issues. And it is for this reason that, um, we think that Internet3 would also be a very, very key factor to, um, digital peace online. Because with Internet3, everybody will have safe access to the Internet, and this will allow for a digital democracy in which we can all focus on our human rights and our, um, safety in order to use the Internet in a way that was different than what we have, um, used up until now. And it will be better for us on a, um, as humanity on a whole in order to access the Internet. And this will pertain to SDG 16 for peace. And another huge factor in Internet3 is SDG 17. Because through global partnerships, and local partnerships as well, everybody can come together to use this new type of Internet to have more access to a free virtual world. And this will be a great opportunity for everybody to come together and tackle much of the societal issues that we all face together as humanity. So Internet, as we all know, as everybody here knows especially, uh, Internet is such a vital part of our lives. It really is an indispensable lifeline. And in regards to diversity and human rights, the Internet is one of our rights. And we should be able to access it in a way that is free, and is safe, and is accessible to everybody. So it is for this variety of reasons that Internet3 can be a great tool that can help survive sustainability. But not just our city. It can help many cities, much like our own, that are trying their best to deal with local issues and do their best towards global issues as well. So, um, we hope here from Sabaya, a little city of 70,000, that our showcase of what we are doing and how Internet3 can really speed up our sustainability process and help our town grow even more, we hope that this could have been a little hint for everybody listening, and that you too can find something that Internet3 can help you with. Thank you for listening.

Kristopher Tate:
Thank you, Samantha. I, I think that, you know, obviously, um, Sabae is really important, uh, for a number of reasons. Um, one, you know, it, it only has 70,000 people, but it’s really what I think the model Japanese town. If Sabae, uh, if it can work in Sabae, it can work anywhere. And I really want to touch again on, um, what Samantha was talking about with, uh, equality and women’s, uh, uh, women’s equality in, in the sense that, um, through Internet3, um, there’s been, um, different projects inside of the, uh, city to help remotely connect to, um, the Sabae city network. So what does that mean? It means that, you know, if you, um, need to be at home, especially, uh, dur- during COVID-14, uh, 19, it was very hard for, um, people to connect into these networks, these governmental networks. And so we, uh, were able to talk to the Ministry of, um, uh, Internal Affairs and Communications to get the right checklist, the right guideline checklist to be able to use Internet3 inside of a governmental setting. And that really changed it so that people could take their, um, they could use their laptops from home and connect into the la- to the- their desktops and do the work from their home, um, when they weren’t able to before. So again, that really helps for, um, child, uh, uh, bearing and helping with, with the home, uh, issues. And, and so, uh, again, to reiterate, um, it’s really great to hear from Sabae city, uh, today. So I’m gonna change gears a little bit. Um, I want to introduce, um, Mr. Hideshi Takenai, who’s, uh, next to me. He’s kind of a unique person. Um, he’s from the Shinten-no-ji Temple in Osaka. And, um, he is, um, kind of a very artistic person. And so I think that a lot of people think about, um, I think a lot of people think about the Internet and digital as being this kind of high-tech thing. And I really hope that Internet3 can show that it integrates well with, um, culture. And what that means is that a lot of people are still thinking kind of, uh, what we say in Japan as kind of an analogue method. And, um, through, uh, our relationship, um, he has kind of, uh, helped, uh, helped me find that, that, you know, digital can also really be, um, connected to culture and connected back to, um, really, um, society in a very profound way. And so I’d like to, to ask, uh, ask him for, for a little comment here.

Hideshi Takatani:
Yes. Um, I am real, I know people, yeah. And, uh, thank you so much. Uh, let me introduce myself. It’s, uh, I was born in a traditional Japanese family. I was bo- uh, I play in the traditional Japanese entertainment. Uh, I played at the traditional, uh, Japanese instruments. Uh, Japanese set is, uh, so, you know, it’s a koto, yeah. So it’s a koto, uh, I play. Uh, this is, uh, the simbrick is, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, yeah. Uh, yeah, no, yeah, just, no, no, yeah, it’s okay. Uh, it’s something like that. Um, it’s so, uh, but, uh, I am, I am a new, uh, a new wave, I want a new wave, yeah. I had, uh, the, so I had a board, a computer in 1977. Yeah, uh, 1977, yeah. Oh, the display in this, uh, keyboard, display, the Sony is a keyboard, the Yamaha, and, uh, you saw, uh, oh, oh, tape recorder, yes. Oh, oh, oh, yeah, yeah, what, what, what, what to use, what to use, yeah. Yeah, and maybe, uh, the one hundred yen, you know, hyaku man yen, yeah. Uh, and so, and to be con- yeah, so Japanese, and to be continue to, uh, step by step, step by step, as so, and, uh, analog, and so digital, it a combination. Yeah, to be continue, yeah. And, uh, by the way, it’s a Japanese, uh, uh, situation, yeah. Now Japanese situation, economic, uh, situation is so bad. What, yeah, yeah, as, uh, Tate, thank you so much, it’s a what, and to Japanese situation, economic situation is a bad. Why, what, uh, yes, it’s so, uh, in, uh, 1970, 1980, yeah, no, no, 1960, 1970, 1980, yeah, is so go, go, go, go, go, yeah, yeah, go, go, go, go, go. But the 1990, yeah, and so, 90 from 99, 99, yeah, to now, yeah, from 1999 from, to now, is so, uh, this is, uh, what is, what to say, is, uh, uh, 13 blanks, 30 blanks, 30, why this, yeah, yeah, yeah, it’s okay, 30 blanks, 30 blanks, uh, so, 空白の30年, yeah, yeah, uh, yeah, yeah. Um, uh, so, uh, I, uh, can fit in, uh, digital, yeah, to be continued from 1977. But, uh, in Japan, uh, almost Japanese people, and Japan cannot, uh, settle into Internet, and, uh, cannot set into, uh, uh, digital, yeah. And, uh, because it’s so economic, it’s, uh, all most, it’s things, is, uh, wow, wow, yeah. And, uh, I think it’s, I catch, um, I catch Internet 3. Thank you so much. I got Internet 3. Yeah? You think so? And, uh, I think, uh, the Internet 3 is meaning is, uh, last, uh, last, uh, consciousness of human beings. Uh, consciousness is a human beings. Uh, uh, so I take, please say is, uh, Internet 3, uh, is meaning is the last consciousness a human being. Uh, we hope, uh, Internet 3 create, uh, Japan, and, uh, Japan, and, uh, so create, uh, the world. Create is, uh, new world. Uh, it is, uh, possible for us, uh, to create new world. Uh, so take, Chris, uh, thank you so much.

Kristopher Tate:
Thank you. You know, I think that everyone, you know, uh, we’re trying, right? And I think that a lot of people, they’re so, uh, excited about this new idea of an Internet that we can own together. Um, it connects, the Internet connects us today a lot of places, but it also connects us, it doesn’t connect us. There’s a lot of places on the Earth that are not connected, um, where it’s important to, um, bridge the gap and bridge connectivity, um, not only just in a technical means, but also, um, in, you know, sometimes a spiritual mean, uh, even. And so, um, you know, there’s, it’s, a lot of, a lot of people, anybody can, uh, can join Internet 3, and that’s what makes it, um, very special. So, um, I wanna, uh, let’s see here, let me switch. So we’ve got a TV spot. Maybe we can, uh, kind of, uh, slow things down here. I think, you know, just to kind of introduce the TV spot, um, we’re really thinking about, you know, the, the name Connect Free, our company’s name is Connect Free. And, um, just to give you kind of a perspective, I, uh, grew up, uh, in Seattle, Washington, uh, connected, uh, to the Macintosh for the first time at three years old, got on the Internet, uh, at four, started writing, uh, C, uh, language at five with this, uh, ThinkC interpreter. Um, graduated early from high school at 15, went to Silicon Valley, got invested in by Ron Conway, uh, got into the scene there, so I went from Seattle to Silicon Valley, which was a big move to me. But, um, I realized something, and that was at 19, and that was that a lot of the world didn’t understand Japan and still doesn’t understand Japan. And growing up, um, in Seattle, there was a lot of Japanese people around me, and I really wanted to understand why they weren’t getting it. Why didn’t people get Japan? And so, um, I’m, I, uh, I traveled to Japan at 19 because there was a lot of people in Silicon Valley that just didn’t believe in Japan at the time, unfortunately. And so when I came to, um, Japan, I asked them, point blank, why, why don’t you use the Internet more? Why don’t you use technology more? And just like, um, we just heard, um, you know, the 1970s, 1980s, people were really interested in technology, but when it came to the 1990s, they were really hard-pressed to get in there. And so it was really about, um, freedom and responsibility. For Japanese people after the war, um, the word freedom shows up in the Japanese constitution, uh, 11 times in Japanese. And so it really forced the Japanese people to really think about what is freedom? What does it mean to be free? And their interpretation was to be 100% responsible. Um, and so, um, we really think that, that kind of changed me a lot as an American, um, to really think about there’s, there’s a lot of ways you could think about freedom. And so, um, I realized that, you know, we could connect better. We could connect more freely. So that’s where the name Connect Free, uh, comes from. And so I want to put the, the TV spot on here to show a little bit how we, um, we think about freedom. Can we get more of the speakers? So with that, I’d like to, uh, end today’s, uh, uh, at least this, this portion of, of the talk. Um, and, um, Internet 3, um, you can, you can access it at internet3.net. And, um, you know, I, I think that we’re starting something together today. You know, I, uh, I think that we still have maybe a few minutes of time here. We’ve got four minutes left here. So, um, I want to open it up and see if anybody wants to, you know, uh, kind of come forward. And talk if that’s what, uh, that’s, uh, feasible. If not, um, we can see you back at our booth at number 39. And, uh, I hope everyone has a great IGF. Thank you. Great. Yeah.

ISIF Asia

ISIF Asia and APNIC Foundation are two organizations that play a crucial role in promoting internet development and innovation in the Asia-Pacific region. ISIF Asia specifically focuses on providing grants and awards to projects that contribute to internet development, with a particular emphasis on infrastructure, inclusion, and knowledge. Their ultimate goal is to achieve meaningful and equitable internet access for all individuals. On the other hand, the APNIC Foundation is committed to supporting and recognizing entrepreneurs and innovators in the internet field, with the aim of fostering the expansion and improvement of internet access and usage.

Both ISIF Asia and the APNIC Foundation align their efforts with the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, and SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals. These goals serve as a framework for their work in making significant contributions towards the development and enhancement of internet-related initiatives in the region.

While ISIF Asia has dedicated substantial resources to supporting projects and initiatives in the Asia-Pacific region, they acknowledge that the current funding falls short of the needs of researchers and practitioners. In response, they actively seek contributions and support from like-minded organizations, partners, and donors who are willing to collaborate and participate in their work.

Both ISIF Asia and the APNIC Foundation recognize the importance of monitoring and evaluating the impact of their interventions. ISIF Asia is in the process of developing a monitoring and evaluation framework to better understand their impact and calculate their contributions within a broader ecosystem, rather than claiming full attribution for project outcomes. This approach reflects their commitment to a multi-stakeholder, community-based approach to internet development, wherein they actively build networks and collaborate with various regional and national organizations to maximize their impact.

Overall, the contributions of ISIF Asia and the APNIC Foundation are valuable in driving internet development and innovation in the Asia-Pacific region. Their commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals, collaborative approach, and efforts towards monitoring and evaluation demonstrate their dedication to creating meaningful and equitable internet access for all individuals.

University of Malaya

The University of Malaya in Malaysia has been recognized for their work on an SDN-based internet exchange playground, receiving the prestigious ISF-Asia 2023 award. This project aims to enhance the training of technical operators and bolster the routing security of internet exchange points (IXPs). One important aspect of their work is the team’s focus on engaging women in this field, with the aim of promoting gender diversity. Additionally, the project introduces the use of RPKI (Resource Public Key Infrastructure) in the BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) to enhance security.

The ISF-Asia 2023 award comes with a £5,000 grant for research costs and a travel grant to the Internet Governance Forum in Kyoto, Japan. This recognition highlights the significance of the University of Malaya’s work and their contribution to the advancement of the internet industry.

The University of Malaya is optimistic about the possibilities of further international collaboration on their SDN-based internet exchange playground project. Dr. Ling Tak Chow, a representative from the university, expressed the hope that more countries and collaborators would join their efforts. The project has been designed in a way that allows for connection to more nodes, thereby enabling the training of a larger number of networkers. Furthermore, the project aims to create a more distributed environment for IXPs, facilitating network operations on a wider scale.

Providing easy access to a learning environment for young networkers is another key aspect emphasized in this summary. Access to such an environment may be particularly challenging in developing or least developed countries. The goal, therefore, is to create a learning environment that closely resembles real-world scenarios. This enables young networkers to gain practical experience and skills necessary for their professional development.

The summary also highlights future areas of development in internet network operations, including the exploration of AI-assisted IXP environments and the continuous improvement of internet exchange security. These advancements are expected to enhance the efficiency and reliability of internet networks, contributing to the further development of the industry.

In terms of technological advancements, the summary points out the University of Malaya’s use of advanced technologies like SDN (Software-Defined Networking) and BGP routers. They have secured funding to deploy these machines in various countries, allowing users to set up their own path between routers. This technological approach creates a more flexible and customizable network infrastructure, encouraging innovative solutions and greater user autonomy.

The University of Malaya has also received grants and appreciates the support and collaboration they have received. They express gratitude towards their institution and collaborators, particularly mentioning Dr. Chua Pangwei, Dr. Aris Redianto, and project admin Satish Kumar for their valuable contributions.

Overall, the University of Malaya’s work on the SDN-based internet exchange playground project is lauded for its significant impact on the industry. While the number of publications may be an important measure of success, Dr. Ling emphasizes the importance of the project’s practical implications and the training it offers.

The expanded summary highlights the University of Malaya’s achievements, aspirations for further collaboration, focus on gender diversity, commitment to practical learning environments, and exploration of advanced technologies. Their dedication to advancing the field of internet network operations is commendable, and their work has the potential to shape the future of the industry.

Keywords: University of Malaya, Malaysia, ISF-Asia 2023 awards, SDN-based internet exchange playground, networkers, routing security, IXPs, gender diversity, RPKI, BGP, Internet Governance Forum, practical learning environment, international collaboration, developing countries, least developed countries, AI-assisted IXP environments, internet exchange security, Software-Defined Networking, BGP routers, flexible network infrastructure, grants, appreciation, industry impact.

Audience

Technical projects aimed at improving Internet efficiency and reducing latency have a dual impact, both on a technical level and on the economic front. In particular, projects such as Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) play a crucial role in driving not only technical advancements but also economic progression. These initiatives require funds to be implemented, and although the investment may seem significant, the practical and economic benefits they bring tend to far exceed the initial funding. One specific example of this is a project that used $9.4 million, where the speaker believes the impact on the economy was far greater than the amount invested.

The economic impact of such projects is as vital to consider as the technical advancements they bring. It is crucial for stakeholders, especially governments, to be convinced about the benefits and impacts of these technical projects. One suggestion for achieving this is to present quantifiable data and statistics that demonstrate the economic impact. By providing tangible evidence, such as measurable results in terms of economic benefits, stakeholders can better understand the value and potential of these projects. In particular, the speaker, Dr. Zartash, has highlighted the challenge of convincing government and other key stakeholders about the significance of these initiatives. The use of quantifiable data and statistics could prove to be a more effective method of persuasion, appealing to stakeholders’ preference for concrete numbers.

Looking towards the future, it is essential to develop plans that can further demonstrate the economic impact of technical projects like IXPs. This is key to gaining continued support and persuasion from relevant stakeholders. In particular, quantifiable results can serve as a persuasive tool to build a case for more projects like IXPs in regions such as Pakistan. By providing evidence of the positive economic impact and potential future benefits, stakeholders can be encouraged to support and invest in such initiatives.

In conclusion, technical projects aimed at improving Internet efficiency and reducing latency not only have a technical impact but also a significant economic impact. The practical and economic benefits of these projects generally surpass the initial funding, making them valuable investment areas. However, convincing the government and other stakeholders about the importance and value of these projects can be a challenge. Utilising quantifiable data and statistics to demonstrate the economic impact can play a crucial role in persuading stakeholders. Future plans should be devised to provide further evidence of the economic impact and to gain continued support and persuasion from stakeholders.

Ellisha Heppner

Ellisha Heppner holds the position of Grants Management Lead for the APNIC Foundation, where she oversees the distribution and management of grants. Her role highlights her commitment to effectively managing grants within the organization. She actively supports the advancement of the Internet for development, recognizing its potential to drive innovation and infrastructure growth.

One notable example of Heppner’s support is her encouragement of the LUMS team’s efforts. The team received the ISF-Asia awards in 2023 for their outstanding work in the development and implementation of software-defined networking (SDN) applications for internet exchange points (IXPs). Their innovative approach enabled the successful deployment of IXPs in Karachi and Lahore, leading to reduced operating costs through automation. Heppner played a crucial role in presenting the award to Sartaj Avzal-Uzmi, the leader of the LUMS team, expressing her hope that the recognition would further assist their future innovative initiatives.

Furthermore, the APNIC Foundation celebrates the remarkable contributions of three grantees from the Information Society Innovation Fund (ISIF) Asia. These grantees have made exceptional strides in the development of internet exchange points, which play a vital role in industry, innovation, and infrastructure growth. The recognition they receive highlights the importance of promoting internet exchange points and their impact on advancing connectivity and collaboration.

However, challenges remain in convincing service providers to fully utilize the newly established internet exchange points. Although physical connectivity has been established, there is room for improvement in optimizing their usage. While there are potential cost benefits for service providers in utilizing these exchanges, increased persuasion is needed to ensure their widespread adoption.

The accomplishments of the ISF-Asia 2023 awards extend beyond LUMS. MNIX, the organization behind Myanmar’s first internet exchange point, is recognized for their exceptional work in this field. MNIX operates as a non-profit, community-led exchange that provides IP peering facilities. With two IXPs and three points of presence (POPs), their plans to extend their network reach to a data center further contribute to the development of internet infrastructure in Myanmar. Heppner commends the notable work done by Thien Nguyen Kim and the team at MNIX.

Additionally, the University of Malaya, Malaysia, is acknowledged for their work on designing, developing, and operating an SDN-based internet exchange. Led by Dr. Ling Tak Chow, this project holds significant implications for the advancement of industry, innovation, and infrastructure. The University’s efforts to foster gender equality in the field through online training, tutorials, and seminars specifically targeting women are also recognized.

Overall, Heppner expresses gratitude towards the meeting attendees and appreciates the support provided by the Asia Pacific Internet Development Trust and APNIC. She recognizes their essential role in enabling the work of awardees and their commitment to furthering the development of the internet. Through her support and encouragement, Heppner demonstrates her dedication to advancing internet connectivity and collaboration in pursuit of sustainable development goals.

University of Management Sciences or LUMS

Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) is actively working on the development of software-defined Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) in Pakistan. The LUMS team has successfully deployed IXPs in both Karachi and Lahore. This achievement is the result of collaboration with government organizations such as the Higher Education Commission and Pakistan Telecommunication Authority. These collaborations were essential for identifying suitable locations and hosting the IXPs.

Despite the successful deployment, the utilization of the IXPs remains a challenge. Efforts are being made to incentivize service providers to exchange their traffic through the IXPs by encouraging the presence of large content providers in Pakistan. By doing so, it is hoped that the overall utilization of the Internet Exchange Points will increase.

One of the significant hurdles in this project was the absence of IXPs in Pakistan. The LUMS team had to secure funding and develop a research team to address this issue. The first challenge was to identify the problem and seek funding to solve it. However, despite these initial obstacles, LUMS was able to overcome them and successfully deploy the IXPs in Karachi and Lahore.

In terms of challenges faced by Pakistan’s internet infrastructure, the limited connectivity and expensive access are noteworthy. Pakistan’s connectivity is only through the southern part of the country, which brings about inefficiencies and renders access to the internet quite expensive for ordinary users. This highlights the importance of improving internet affordability and making it accessible for the masses.

Another noteworthy observation is the need for the neutralization of geopolitical scenarios for efficient international connectivity. Currently, Pakistan is not connected to any neighboring countries for internet exchange, resulting in inefficiencies. It is crucial to have better international connectivity to enhance internet exchange practices.

Overall, the successful deployment of the IXPs by LUMS is a significant step towards improving Pakistan’s internet infrastructure. Collaboration with government organizations, efforts to incentivize service providers, and addressing issues of limited connectivity and expensive access are all crucial aspects of this project. By focusing on these areas, it is hoped that Pakistan’s internet exchange system will be more efficient, cost-effective, and accessible to a wider population.

Myanmar Internet Exchange

The Myanmar Internet Exchange (MNIX) has been recognised for its achievement in developing Myanmar’s first internet exchange point (IXP), winning the ISF-Asia Awards 2023. MNIX has successfully expanded its operations to include two IXPs and three points of presence (POPs), with 26 peer ASNs. This not-for-profit, community-led exchange provides IP peering facilities for its members, promoting collaboration and connectivity within the country.

However, MNIX faces challenges in several areas. Cooperation between local internet service providers (ISPs) and contemporary providers proves to be a hurdle. The emigration of engineers further compounds this issue, exacerbating the shortage of local staff and hindering the growth and development of the exchange.

Nonetheless, MNIX has notable achievements to its credit. It established the Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) system earlier than other regions, ensuring security and authenticity in the exchange of internet routing information. Additionally, MNIX places significant emphasis on the training of IXP members, fostering knowledge sharing and collective experiences.

Looking to the future, MNIX has plans for expansion. This includes extending its network reach to a data centre, setting up another IXP in a different city, and establishing small POPs in other cities. These steps towards expansion aim to strengthen internet infrastructure and enhance connectivity across the country.

One of the main challenges faced by MNIX and other internet exchange points in Myanmar is securing the engagement of large network operators. Negotiations with these entities often prove difficult, as they show little interest in participating in IXPs. However, an increase in the content connected to the IXP may generate interest from these larger network operators, leading to increased collaboration and connectivity.

The community, particularly content providers, play a crucial role in supporting the establishment and operation of IXPs. By joining the IXP, content providers contribute to reduced latency and increased connectivity, benefiting all stakeholders involved. This highlights the importance of partnerships and community involvement in driving the success of internet exchange points in Myanmar.

In a separate development, the Myanmar Internet Exchange (MMIX) has expanded its network beyond Yangon by establishing another IXP in Mandalay. MMIX aims to focus on small and medium ISPs and plans to set up more locations in remote areas of Myanmar if there is demand.

However, challenges exist, particularly with the government network in Naypyidaw. Currently, it is not yet connected to MMIX, despite most of the networks in the city being government-operated. Connectivity between MMIX and the government network in Naypyidaw could enhance collaboration and extend the benefits of the internet exchange point.

MMIX recognises that establishing content for the network is crucial for attracting ISPs. To this end, they have been approaching content delivery network (CDN) providers to acquire content. Without a diverse range of content, ISPs are unlikely to connect to their network, underscoring the significance of content provision in driving the success of internet exchange points.

In conclusion, the recognition of MNIX for developing Myanmar’s first IXP highlights its significant contribution to the country’s internet infrastructure. Despite challenges in cooperation, staff shortage, and engaging large network operators, MNIX has achieved notable successes with the RPKI system and IXP member training. Plans for expansion and the vital role of the community and content providers emphasise the importance of collaboration and involvement in advancing internet exchange points in Myanmar. Additionally, MMIX’s expansion beyond Yangon and focus on content provision demonstrate a commitment to improving connectivity and access to remote areas.

(Note: I have retained the same level of detail as the original text, while correcting grammatical errors, sentence formation issues, typos, and using UK spelling and grammar where required.)

Ellisha Heppner:
My name is Alicia Hepner, and I am the Grants Management Lead for the APNIC Foundation, and I’ll be your emcee. I just want to thank you all for your support here today and the commitment to advance the Internet for development. We are here to celebrate the work of three fantastic grantees of the Information Society Innovation Fund, ISIF, Asia, for their outstanding contributions towards the development of Internet exchange points. We have a short video to introduce the ISIF Asia for those who may not be familiar with it. Could we please play the video?

ISIF Asia:
In 2016, the United Nations declared Internet access a human right. But today, more than a quarter of the Asia-Pacific is still disconnected, leaving many of the most vulnerable people without access to this essential resource. The Information Society Innovation Fund, ISIF Asia, supports communities in the Asia-Pacific region to research, design, and implement Internet-based solutions to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. ISIF Asia achieves its goals through grants and awards to projects that contribute to Internet development from a technical and operational perspective in three key areas – infrastructure, inclusion, knowledge. The infrastructure program aims to increase Internet speed, reduce maintenance and operational costs, improve reliability and or security. ISIF Asia infrastructure projects have ranged from innovative satellite connection research through to smart villages and the establishment of networks to serve remote communities. The inclusion program pursues the goal of meaningful and equitable access to the Internet for all. It focuses on availability, bringing the Internet to places with limited or no access. Affordability, helping bring down the costs of Internet access for disadvantaged areas. Accessibility, boosting the adoption of standards and technologies to help people with disabilities online. Diversity, increasing representation in the Internet industry among women, LGBTQI plus people and other underrepresented groups. The knowledge program supports training and research projects that develop technical capacity and or research around Internet network operations. ISIF Asia knowledge projects have ranged from cyber security research through to training in technical best practice. ISIF Asia is run by APNIC Foundation thanks to generous support from the Asia-Pacific Network Information Center and the Asia-Pacific Internet Development Trust, as well as other generous donors. To get in touch, contact the foundation at info at isif.asia. And now I’d like to introduce the foundation’s acting CEO, Sylvia Cadena, to speak. Thank you, Alicia. Thank you. If I can have my slides. Thank you. My apologies for my croaky voice. I am trying to be quick in this presentation, but it’s my great honor to introduce to you the work of the foundation in this edition of the ISIF Asia Awards. The foundation was established as the fundraising arm of APNIC. For those of you that are not aware of what APNIC is, APNIC is the Asia-Pacific Network Information Center, and we allocate the IP addresses and ASN numbers that all network operators require to connect their customers to the Internet, and we cover all the Asia-Pacific region with a big focus on developing capacity, both human and infrastructure, and produce insightful research and actively participate in multi-stakeholder model of Internet cooperation and governance, which gathered us here today at the Internet Governance Forum in Kyoto. The APNIC Foundation, the map that you can see in front of you, are showing only the projects and initiatives that were supported just last year. The map for the years of operation of the foundation was established in 2016. It’s a little bit bigger to fit in one screen, so you can scan the QR code to have a look at our last year annual report. The mission of the foundation is to increase investment in this area and to support dialogue and collaboration that leads to the development of these projects, like the ones that you are going to learn about today. As mentioned in the video, the foundation has three programs, infrastructure, inclusion, and knowledge, and all our funding is allocated around those three, which includes grants and awards from ECF Asia and other funding mechanisms that the foundation has, with a big focus on building capacity, both human and operational, for a global, open, affordable, accessible, stable, and secure Internet. We target most of our funding and our support to network engineers, cybersecurity professionals, and Internet governance specialists, as we understand that the needs of the people that build the Internet are not very well addressed. A lot of the funding that exists goes into projects that are more focused on end users, so the role of the foundation is to support those that build the Internet and maintain it and make it what it is today. I’m not going to repeat what we saw in the video about what the infrastructure, inclusion, and knowledge programs cover, but the photos that you saw on the screen and some of the information in the video are all about projects that we have supported in our years of operation, and we encourage you to take advantage of the reports that we normally publish on our website to see what resources are available. In terms of other areas of investment from the foundation, you can see on the screen the projects that the foundation is currently investing on. They are all ranging from technical training and capacity building in different modalities, some with a stronger emphasis on, for example, gender and diversity, others with a stronger emphasis on new or students that are just graduating from engineering that are looking at how can we engage them in the future development of the Internet, like the School on Internet Asia in their API project, and you also can see a couple of our research projects that are research on Internet measurement and also on cybersecurity. Those projects are all the same as with the three programs that I mentioned before. They are all aligned with the programs of the foundation and all looking at the support for the network engineers, cybersecurity professionals, and Internet governance specialists that make the Internet work. The foundation has three main public or community funding tools or mechanisms to provide support. ECF Asia is the one that gathers us here today, but we also have the foundation community assistance and the trust discretionary funding that allows organizations that are working in Asia-Pacific or globally to be able to receive much-needed support for really core operations that they are doing. So in the photo, for example, on the right hand of my screen on the trust discretionary fund square is Shadow Server that allows information that are produced by people that are using different cybersecurity mechanisms like honey pots and honey nets to share threat analysis at a global level, and that dashboard allows for organizations to learn about those cybersecurity threats. The photo in the middle is about training provided that has allowed organizations in the Pacific to continue the support for computer emergency response teams. And the last photo on ECF Asia is from one of the deployments in the Solomon Islands. So ECF Asia was established in 2008. So far we have allocated $9.4 million to 145 projects and 33 awards, covering 32 of the economies that APNIC service region. The technical reports from all of these organizations are published on a creative commons license that allows, we only publish the final report, but that allows organizations that are looking into replicating some of the issues that they are targeting to be able to find some of the information and the lessons learned that these organizations have discovered in the process. These reports are very raw, are very, is the lessons learned, is their first goal of what they learn and what they share is not academic papers, they are not trying to impress anyone, it’s just about sharing really what happened and encourage dialogue and participation. And we really encourage you to have a look at those reports because I think that’s one of the main differences between ECF and any other grants program in the region or globally. The majority of grants programs will never disclose the reports that guarantees provide to them and that is a valuable source of information for the community. ECF was awarded as an ECF champion back in 2018 and 2019 and so far we have received thousands of proposals. So we, although you know those numbers might be big in terms of you know almost 10 million dollars over 15 years, the needs of researchers and practitioners in the region are way bigger than that. So we are always looking for contributions and support from well-minded organizations, partners and donors that are willing to participate in our work. We are aligned with mostly SDG 9 and SDG 17, SDG 9 on innovation and internet infrastructure development and SDG 17 as we are partners for the goals. But a lot of the individual projects are aligned with different SDGs and in our maps, in our website, you will be able to identify which SDGs our projects or the projects that we have supported are aligned with. At the moment for this year we had 23 selection committee members that were actively serving in five selection committees. They were all well-recognized experts in the region. We received 135 applications this year, a 12% increase from last year across the different categories as you can see on the read on the screen. And at the moment we are tracking 68 active projects between the last three years of operation as we have projects that expand over 18 months implementation periods. So there is some that the final projects reports are not yet published but they will be at some point in the future and we encourage you to find them in our new website that was very recently launched. These are all our social media handlers and we really hope that you can follow us, especially the one for LinkedIn and YouTube as we are hoping to get our vanity links. So if we get more people to subscribe we get closer to that number. So please if you have a chance to have a look at more of our work we really welcome your input and your support to the work that the foundation does and of course to the growth of the funding mechanisms that we have available. We are just an email away and I will get back to Alicia so that we can continue with the most important part which is acknowledging the outstanding contributions of these remarkable people we have here today. Thank you Alicia.

Ellisha Heppner:
Thank you Sylvia. So now what we’re going to do is look to celebrate the success and award our nominees. We will look to play a short video and then I’ll ask to come up and present award face the front to our beautiful online audience and just get a quick snapshot before sitting down and I’ll introduce the next. So first awardee is the Lahore University of Management and Sciences or LUMS and the project was led by Zatash Uzmai. They are receiving the award for their work on software defined internet exchange points and we have a short video to show on the project. Could we play the project?

University of Management Sciences or LUMS:
The ISF-Asia 2023 awards include five thousand dollars for research costs and a travel grant to the internet governance forum in Kyoto, Japan. A winner of the ISF-Asia awards 2023 is the Lahore University of Management Sciences LUMS for their work on software defined internet exchange points IXPs. Wanting to make software defined networking SDN more accessible for smaller IXPs in emerging economies, the LUMS team developed a method to conveniently retrofit IXPs with open source SDN applications. Led by Zatash Abzal-Uzmi, the team was able to retrofit an IXP in a lab setting intended for deployment at a local IXP in the capital city of Islamabad, using their own prototype software package which can help bring down operating costs via automation. What has happened since the start of the project is that we have been able to successfully deploy internet exchange points in Karachi as well as in Lahore. So now there are three internet exchange points in Pakistan. Many service providers in each of these three cities are bringing in their optical fiber cables to the internet exchange points in the respective city and they are exchanging traffic with each other. There is still a big challenge, so the physical connectivity is there. The big challenge which still remains is convincing these service providers to actually exchange their traffic through this internet exchange point. We try to convince them, you know, this will save a lot of money for you which you can use to offer additional services and bring the state of the internet in the country to a higher level. So that’s That’s something that we are hoping to do in the coming months. We congratulate Sartaj Avzal-Uzmi and the team at GLAMRS, and we trust that this award will help them on their journey towards supporting their community through innovative uses of internet-based technologies.

Ellisha Heppner:
Thank you. Sartaj, I was wondering if you could stand up, and I will have the APNIC Director-General, Paul Wilson, here today, and we’d like to invite him out the front to present the award to Sartaj. Paul, could you just make your way to the front, we’d like it, keep going through. We have our online community that would love to see your beautiful faces and present the award to Sartaj. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Thank you both. Thank you. The awkwardness of this. It is that moment. Our second awardee is from Myanmar International Exchange, and the project lead is Dae Min Kain. They are receiving the award for their work established in Myanmar’s first IXPs. We have another short video to introduce the project.

Myanmar Internet Exchange:
The ISF-Asia 2023 awards include $5,000 for research costs and a travel grant to the Internet Governance Forum in Kyoto, Japan. A winner of the ISF-Asia Awards 2023 is MNIX, Myanmar Internet Exchange, for their work developing and operating Myanmar’s first internet exchange point, IXP. As a non-for-profit, community-led exchange, it is carrier and data neutral, providing IP peering facilities for its members. Since the start of operations in 2017, MNIX has grown to two IXPs and three points of presence, POPs, with 26 peer ASNs, and plans to extend their network reach to a data center. There is no rules and regulations when we set up this IXP. We set up this IXP by ourselves, and we reported to the ministry regularly. Later, ministry allowed us to operate officially. The biggest challenge is the co-operation between local ISPs and contemporary providers. Many engineers are leaving country for their future career, so we have to create local stuff by ourselves. We could set up RPKI system very early in this region. We regularly train the IXP members. We share our knowledge and experience. We will set up another IXP in another city, and we will also set up small POPs in other cities as well. We congratulate Thien Nguyen Kim and the team at MNIX, and we trust that this award will help them on their journey towards supporting their community through innovative uses of internet-based technologies.

Ellisha Heppner:
Wonderful, thank you. To present the award, I’d like to welcome Sylvia back to the front of the stage so to speak, and Ms Kyne here to present the award. Thank you. APPLAUSE Hopefully everyone got time for photos, otherwise we can do that afterwards. And the final awardee is the University of Malaya, Malaysia, and the project led by Dr Teck Chaw Ling for their work on the design, development and operation of an SDN-based internet exchange playground for networkers. We have the last video to show you about the project.

University of Malaya:
The ISF-Asia 2023 awards include $5,000 for research costs and a travel grant to the Internet Governance Forum in Kyoto, Japan. A winner of the ISF-Asia Awards 2023 is University of Malaya, Malaysia, for their work on the design, development and operation of an SDN-based internet exchange playground for networkers. A valuable simulator that can help train technical operators and strengthen routing security of IXPs. To foster participation, there was online training, tutorials and seminars, particularly focused on engaging women in the field. We want this playground to simulate and to work like an internet exchange point. Under this internet exchange point, we actually also introduce the RPKI in the BGP into these environments. So the student actually can learn so-called the security of RPKI and the BGP. This will actually help to reduce a lot of fakes or routes inside our environments. We are hoping to see that in the future, we can actually get more collaborators to join in and become a node that is connecting to us. And because our environments are more towards a distributed environment, so we are hoping to see that more countries or more collaborators can join us. And from there, they can also utilise it and then to train more networkers in the future. We congratulate Dr. Ling Tak Chow and the team at University of Malaya, and we trust that this award will help them on their journey towards supporting their community through innovative uses of internet-based technologies.

Ellisha Heppner:
Thank you. Dr. Ling up the front. And to present the award, I’d like to welcome Jun Murai, who in addition to being the board of the foundation, is very well known here and even being called the father of the internet in Japan. So he’s the president of the Wide Research Institute and the dean of the Graduate School of Media and Governance at Keio University. Thank you for those photo opportunities and well received for the beautiful work that you guys have been doing. Before we go into a couple of question times for our awardees, I’d like to just hand it over to Silvia.

ISIF Asia:
We normally have a very distinguished guest that likes to join us today. He’s been served and he apologized earlier this morning that he was not able to join and he sent me some remarks to read on his behalf. So dear Silvia, the APNIC Foundation has been a key promoter of internet innovation in Asia Pacific and beyond for many years. It has been my privilege to participate in this work from time to time and to acknowledge how important it is that newcomers to the internet, entrepreneurs and innovators are recognized for their efforts. I regret that another event required my attention during this session, but it does not dampen my enthusiasm for the APNIC Foundation’s continued efforts to expand and improve internet access and use. Those who are sponsored by and honored by APNIC are benefiting people everywhere. Please keep up with this good work, being served chair of the IGF Leadership Panel.

Ellisha Heppner:
Thank you very much. Thank you, Silvia. So I’d just like to take the next about 20 minutes, 15, 20 minutes, just to ask our awardees some questions about the work that they’re doing in their economies. So my first question for Ms. Kine, as a practitioner and an implementer developing IXPs in Myanmar, what will be the main challenges for engaging network operators in the country at the IXP from a multi-stakeholder approach? What can the region and international community do to support your work?

Myanmar Internet Exchange:
Yes, for set up IXP negotiations are the most difficult parts. So especially negotiation with the network operators, big network operators, mobile operators, because they are big and they do not have so much interest in IXP. So for the community, we need to find out what kind of interest they may have connecting to the IXP. So we need more content connecting to the IXP. So also, they should have awareness, mutual connection, each other will be better, staying alone themselves and going outside traffic or do the overseas so we can reduce more latency. So more and more content arrived to the IXP, they were also interested to connect to us. So community should support, especially content providers. Thank you.

Ellisha Heppner:
Thank you. This question is for Dr. Ling. In your view, what will be required to continue to build capacity and confidence within your young engineers interested in internet network operations and management? And what are the future areas related to knowledge development?

University of Malaya:
Thanks for the questions. Whenever we do any teaching and so on, I like to emphasize on the word easy access. But in reality, easy access is not easy. For most of us, you don’t feel that, but actually if you go to least developed country or still developing country, you will start to feel this thing. So what we are trying to do is to have an environment for easy access so that the young networker can actually got the opportunity to actually use the environment. That’s number one. Number two is we want the environment to be as similar as possible to the real environments. So even during one of our training, when we start to pump in the internet routes into our environments, everybody’s machine hang. So in our normal learning environments, you can’t encounter these kind of things. When you learn, they will ask you, set up to BGP, exchange. Thank you very much. You get my route. I get your route. Thank you very much. Correct? Correct. And in reality also, you are configuring your own environment ASN and the other guy is configuring the other side. And you must make sure that they are actually talking to each other. And unwanted route should not be coming in. So these are all the things that we slowly want to develop into the environment so that it will actually work as close to the real environment as possible. So of course, as I mentioned just now in the video, we have POP in many countries. This is because in our last project, another project sponsored by Asia Connect, we managed to get funding so that we can put our machines over there. And we use the RAN, Research and Education Network, to actually run through the SDN and also allow BGP routers to be actually hosted. And the user can eventually set up their own path in between all the routers. So these are the things that we are hoping that in the near future, there are other country can join us and then we have more POP and more people can actually benefit there. So what are the things that we want to look into it? We are hoping that we can look into AI-assisted IXP environments and also more security onto the internet exchange. So that’s what we are looking forward to. Thank you very much.

Ellisha Heppner:
Thank you. My last question is for Mr. Zatash. What are the challenges that you face as a researcher to bring your proposed solution and research outcomes to practice in Pakistan? Are any of those challenges common to other parts of the APAC region?

University of Management Sciences or LUMS:
Thank you, Alicia, for the question. I would like to list some of the challenges starting from identification of the problem. As a researcher, I was looking at the state of the internet in Pakistan and the apparent gap of the absence of internet exchange points in Pakistan led to the identification of this gap and identification of this research problem. The next challenge was to put together a team to solve this problem and secure funding for solving this problem, and I would like to thank ICF Asia and APNIC for providing the funding for this project. I work at a university, so I had easy access to the talent, and I’m thankful to the colleagues and the students who have worked on this project. The next challenge was going out of research and actually deploying the system in practice. For that, as a university professor, I would not have been able to do it on myself if it were not for several government organizations who have provided support. So one of the big challenges was to identify the locations where we could host the internet exchange points and the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan, which is a government body, Pakistan Telecommunication Authority has been throughout with us for identification of the locations, and then a Punjab Information Technology Board, which is also a government body, they allowed us to host the internet exchange point at their location, and these locations serve as the neutral locations, which is an essential part of deployment of the internet exchange points. The next step was to ask the service providers to bring in their optical fibers to the internet exchange points, and in that also the telecom regulator. Pakistan Telecom Authority played a key role in convincing the service providers, small and large service providers, to bring in their optical fibers to the Internet exchange points in all the three cities. So that challenge was also solved. The next challenge, which is yet to be solved, is to make sure that the Internet exchange points are fully utilized. We still do not see a lot of traffic through these Internet exchange points, and it will require, you know, more effort convincing the Internet service providers to actually exchange the traffic. And one of the reasons that we have identified is the lack of CDNs and content hosting in Pakistan. We are making an effort, Pakistan Telecom Authority is at the forefront of this effort, and we are hoping that some of these large content providers, CDNs, would be able to deploy their presence in Pakistan at the Internet exchange points, which will incentivize these smaller service providers to actually make use of the IXPs that we have deployed. So these are some of the challenges that we have faced, some solved, and some are yet to be solved. Thank you.

Ellisha Heppner:
Thank you very much, Zartash. We’ve got a couple of minutes before I ask the three awardees for closing remarks. Is there any questions from the audience? Yes, please.

Audience:
Okay, thank you. My name is Vakas. I work for PTA, and thank you, Dr. Zartash, for mentioning PTA being one of the partners in the IXP. My question is actually to the APNIC Foundation. So, you see, these are technical projects for you to improve the Internet efficiency and performance and to reduce the latency and all. In terms of technical impact, these projects are huge, but at the same time, I also believe that the economic impact of these projects is also very valuable data to have. And why I mention this is because you mentioned $9.4 million or something, right? But in terms of impact, this number would be much higher with these projects and all. Probably we also need these numbers to address one of the challenges that Dr. Zartash has mentioned, which is about convincing the governments or to the CDNs and all to come and be deployed in Pakistan. And with my experience, I’ve seen that government understands numbers way more than just the objectives of the project or anything. So is there any future plans, or is there any data or any research that can prove the economic impact of these projects, which we can then use to sort of build a case for more IXPs or for more similar projects like this in Pakistan? Thank you.

ISIF Asia:
Thank you, Wakas, for the question. Well, I have to say that from the foundation side, we’ve been working on monitoring evaluation framework to try to understand the impact of the work of the foundation in a better way. And then in that field, there is something called attribution and another element called contribution. So even though $9.4 million sounds like a lot of money over 15 years, small projects like the ones that we have funded in the past, it takes three to five, sometimes longer, to actually reap the fruits of their labor. I think Professor Zartash can share the horror stories of the beginning when he was trying to just open the dialogue for that to happen in Pakistan, and all the 145 grant recipients can also share many of those stories. The part that I would like to highlight is that the funding that this program facilitates and the funding that the foundation facilitates builds community. So in the end, we are also investing in people, and we are also investing in their minds, in these wonderful minds that are here. The number of dollar signs that are behind the work of Dr. Zartash that we were able to provide are very small compared to the support that he gets from the university, the support that he gets from you and the VTA and other people in Pakistan. But the part that would be really interesting to see, as you very rightly say so, is how the foundation and other donors in this space, how can we aggregate our contributions into something that shows how we are really working for the Internet we want, for the Internet we need, for the Internet we want to preserve. But again, it’s around attribution and contribution, to wrap up what I was saying. It’s very difficult for an organization like us to say that we have done this or say that this is our impact. That is a very personal view. We have contributed to it, but it cannot be attributed only to us. And it’s very important that we highlight that this is a healthy ecosystem of organizations that are committed to work in this space, and that in the next few days we have a call for a meet and greet for donors in the Internet development space, exactly because there are a bunch of organizations that are working at a national, regional and global level contributing to this and trying to figure out how we express our impact collectively is something that we are all grappling with. There is only a couple of results frameworks that are associated with Internet adoption. One is the UNESCO indicators for Internet universality, the ROM-X, which are like a hundred and something indicators that are really hard to be able to monitor. But the more organizations and the more projects, even at a smaller scale, start measuring against indicators like that, then the easier it is for all of us to look at not only what we have achieved, but what’s next, what’s missing, what are the gaps, and how can that small funding that we have available can be of use for that particular community. There are projects or initiatives like the Partners to Connect at ITU that are simplifying a lot of those indicators. The same in a similar fashion to try to get people that are investing in this space to talk to each other and to see, okay, what are your priorities and how that is progressing. Very difficult to do when there are conflicting funding agendas also. So giving space for practitioners in the field like Kain in Myanmar and for researchers and educators like Tartaj and Professor Link is super important because they are just, it is all come together. It’s a multi-stakeholder approach to advance IXPs in the region, and I hope these examples are illustrative and support IXP development also, knowing that we have representatives here from Latin America and from Africa in the meeting, not in this room, just seeing how these lessons learned and how this information can more accurately share on the building of IXPs in the region. But thank you very much for your question. I hope it’s a long answer, but it is a complicated process. The Internet is very new to be able to have that all mapped out, but we are working on it. Thanks.

Ellisha Heppner:
Thank you, Silvia. Is there any last questions before I hand it over for closing remarks? So I’m just going to ask then in the last couple of minutes that we’ve got for just our awardees perhaps to just reflect and just give two minutes on what’s next. You’re at the IGF, there’s a platform for you. What does IXPs mean for you and what’s next for your economy? Dr. Sathesh, would you like to start?

University of Management Sciences or LUMS:
I think we are talking about the affordability and pervasiveness of the Internet for masses. So we solve some of the technical problems, but there are other sort of issues that also require some attention. One of the things that I would like to mention, which is related to Internet affordability and broader access, is international connectivity. I will specifically take the example of Pakistan, which is like a big country, the fifth largest country in the world. The connectivity of the country to the international routes is only through the southern part of the country, which is under sea cables, not connected to any of the neighboring countries, so not exchanging traffic there, which brings in a lot of inefficiencies and the access becomes a lot expensive for the ordinary users. And this is where the geopolitical scenarios come in the way, and I think there has to be some effort, probably other people who specialize in that area, to make sure that geopolitical situations are neutralized in order to bring what was probably envisioned as the broader Internet, everyone is connected to everyone without any geopolitical situation. We can reach there one day. Thank you.

Ellisha Heppner:
We’ll hand that over now to Ms. Cullen.

Myanmar Internet Exchange:
For MMIX, we set up the first IXP in Yangon, and recently we set up another IXP in Mandalay. Relating to the content, without content, no ISP would like to connect to our exchange. Also, content provider is also the same. Without network operators, they don’t like to connect, like a chicken and egg. So we are approaching to the CDM provider, and we can provide some traffic to the ISP, so we are running this first IXP. For the second IXP, at first, when we set up, there is no content. We have to adjust this problem using the technical. We are carrying traffic from Yangon to Mandalay, so we are providing some traffic, all the traffic from Yangon to Mandalay, and later we requested CDN, so when arrive the new CDN, we can provide traffic locally. So Myanmar has three biggest cities, Yangon, Mandalay, and Naypyidaw. Naypyidaw, we already reached our service, but now Naypyidaw, most of the network are government network, and government network is still not connecting to MMIX. Now all the connection are private setters also. We are also targeting another city. We are targeting many ISP, especially for the small and medium. Big ISP, they are not interested to connect IXP. So they have their own transmission, their own international link, so without forcing or without the interest to connect MMIX, especially for the content, they will not connect to us. So we are targeting for the small and medium ISP, we will set up another for that location if there is a demand. We also consider not only the same city, but also some parts of the Myanmar areas, even they have only one and two ISP, we are negotiating with the transmission provider, we will carry remote traffic and connect to the Yangon and Mandalay IXP. So we are planning like that. Thank you.

Ellisha Heppner:
Thank you, that sounds really promising. And Dr. Ling, just last closing remarks from you and your reflections.

University of Malaya:
I always believe in how impactful a project will be than how many people actually you publish. So for us, we got a grant from Asia Connect, we set up all the infrastructures, and we use this grant to do all the training, and we are hoping that we can actually enhance the playground, put in more features, and later on we will do more trainings for the young networkers and so on. So I would also like to take this opportunity to thank ISIF for giving us the grant, and also my university for providing us the environment, and also my collaborator, Dr. Chua Pangwei, Dr. Aris Redianto, and also my project admin, Satish Kumar, for their help in actually putting up the whole things. So thank you very much.

Ellisha Heppner:
Thank you. Well thank you everyone for joining us online and in the room, and I’d really like to especially thank the Asia Pacific Internet Development Trust and APNIC for your support. And for your support, we have cookies, I hope everyone has also collected their cookies as enticement, but I also want to recognize and thank our awardees who have traveled quite far to be here and showcase the work that they’re doing in their economies. So I appreciate your time today, thank you. Thank you. That concludes the proceedings, and for the awardees we might have a few photos with the extra minutes we’ve got. Thank you.

Anja Gengo

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) is not just an annual meeting but a continuous process that promotes a multistakeholder model and facilitates discussions on various internet governance issues. It serves as a platform for different stakeholders, including governments, civil society, the private sector, and the technical community, to engage in dialogue and exchange ideas.

The IGF has been organised by various member states, including the current host, Japan. Its main objective is to provide an open, inclusive, and transparent space for all stakeholders to address the challenges and opportunities presented by the internet. By adopting a multistakeholder approach, the IGF ensures that decisions about internet governance are not solely left to governments but involve all relevant actors.

The IGF Secretariat, based in Geneva, Switzerland, plays a crucial role in supporting the IGF process. It operates in a neutral manner to facilitate discussions and help coordinate the activities of the forum. The Secretariat is keen on receiving feedback from participants to continuously improve the process and address any concerns or suggestions they may have.

The IGF Leadership Panel was appointed following the Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation. They recognise that digital technologies are rapidly developing, and mechanisms for governing those technologies should keep pace. The Panel emphasises the need for the IGF to advance its modalities and ensure that it remains relevant in the ever-changing digital landscape.

In addition to its role in facilitating discussions, the IGF contributes to capacity development and sustainability through various initiatives. One such initiative is the Youth track, which works with young people from different regions for capacity building in the area of internet governance. Another initiative is the Parliamentary track, which engages legislators in discussions on internet governance and helps them develop policies that align with the goals of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

In conclusion, the Internet Governance Forum is a dynamic and inclusive process that goes beyond its annual meeting. It promotes a multistakeholder approach to internet governance, with the aim of addressing the challenges and opportunities brought about by digital technologies. Through the support of the IGF Secretariat, the collaboration of stakeholders, and the implementation of capacity-building initiatives, the IGF contributes to the development of sustainable and inclusive governance frameworks for the internet.

Anja Gengo:
Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I hope you can hear me well. So, to everyone who has joined us online from the different parts of the world, for the majority of the world, it is very late or very early, so we thank you for the great effort you are making. Good. Those of you who are here are the ones who are participating for the first time in person. I hope we can have a nice and friendly conversation about what the IGF is, what it means, how to participate. And well, we have four days ahead of us, and well, we can participate and collaborate in these four days, but we are also going to talk about how to continue collaborating between the sessions. I am Anja Gengo, I work at the IGF Secretariat. The Secretariat is an office based in the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland. Its main task is to support the process in a neutral way. The Secretariat has been in operation since the beginning of the IGF. The person in charge of our office, unfortunately, has not been able to be here with us due to some changes at the last minute, but surely you already know him, all of you who have been here yesterday, and you will see him later, especially at the opening ceremony. Do not hesitate to contact me or others. How was all this started, and as I said, what are the ways for long-term engagement? I will guide you through this history of almost two decades long through a couple of slides, but I hope that most of the time of this morning’s session can be reserved for a dialogue with you. The Secretariat is very interested to learn about your feedback on the current process, the way, for example, you’ve heard about the IGF, reasons to be here, and of course your expectations from the forum. This is always very valuable for us to improve the process for the time to come. Now, to go to a little bit of a history of the IGF, as you can imagine, the concept of the United Nations traditionally is multilateral, so it’s first of all member-state-centered and people-centered process. In early 2000s, the concept of multi-stakeholder model was, I think we have some interference probably from Zoom, so I’ll ask our technicians to mute the online participants. We’ll certainly have, as I said, time to give floor also to online participants, and I hope that you can give me a couple of minutes to just introduce the topic, and then we’ll give you the floor. Thank you. As I said, in a traditionally multilateral intergovernmental process, introducing the concept of multi-stakeholder model was something that I’m sure you can imagine was exotic at the time, and as the Internet was on the rise in early 2000s, sort of the late 90s, and was becoming more and more part of people’s daily life, the community, not just the member states, but the community, different stakeholder groups, called for a process to govern the Internet while at the same time keeping it accessible, affordable, safe, secure, of course human rights-centered, and the Internet is one, which is very important, so to avoid any fragmentation. So in early 2000s, because of these calls, the Working Group on Internet Governance was formed, and the Working Group was formed of different stakeholders coming from different backgrounds. Some of them you can actually meet here at the IGF. I think they are really valuable resources of information, and if you go to WGIC website or just to Wikipedia, you can check the names of those members and maybe approach them during this meeting to just get to know each other. But very long story short, the WGIC did come up with a working definition of Internet governance, and I hope you can see it on this slide, saying that Internet governance is the development and application by governments, the private sector, and civil society in their respective rules of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs to shape the evolution and use of the Internet. This definition that is older than the IGF itself is the definition that is still in use today, and I’m sure from your experience as well, just as mere end users, first of all, you can also tell that it’s very much relevant to today’s digital public policy processes. Going further, within the World Summit on the Information Society of the United Nations, there were calls by different stakeholders, of course, including the member states, to establish a forum that will be inclusive, that will be multi-stakeholder, and that will enable everyone to get together and discuss issues that pertain to Internet governance. Through two phases, which are most important, happening in 2003 and 2005 in Tunisia and in Switzerland, in Geneva, finally the IGF was convened. The Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, specifically its paragraph 72, is what gave life to the IGF. It set its mandate. The convening of the IGF, formally speaking, happened in early 2006 by, at that time, serving Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Kofi Annan, and the very first annual meeting took place in late October, early November of 2006, in Athens, hosted by the government of Greece. Now, the rest is, of course, history. Today, we are sitting at the venue that is hosting the 18th annual IGF meeting and its edition. These five days of the annual meetings are far from being just organized by an event organizer. It’s a part of a process, and it’s organized by its host country, the government of Japan for this year, and also by various modalities within the structure of the IGF. The heart of those modalities is shown on this slide. I hope you can see it. First and foremost, the IGF Multistakeholder Advisory Group, or the MAG. The MAG is a multistakeholder body composed of 40 members coming from different stakeholder groups, different regional groups, with gender parity across the membership. It is chaired by a chair that’s elected through the membership and endorsed as such. The group is appointed annually by the Secretary General of the United Nations, and its core mandate, by terms of reference, is that it serves to advise the Secretary General on the program, on the agenda of the annual IGF meeting. Currently, the MAG is chaired by Mr. Paul Mitchell. That is the first chair coming from the private sector. This year’s meeting is particularly important with respect to the Multistakeholder Advisory Group composition, just because probably during this week, if not even today, the community will be informed about the renewed membership of the Multistakeholder Advisory Group, and not just that, also by its new chair. So we will have a rotation of the chair as well. So please stay tuned. The information will be at the IGF website, and I’m sure it will be announced also during the IGF meeting at appropriate places and sessions. The MAG is renewed, as I said, by approximately one-third of its total membership every year. So today, or in this week, we will learn who are the new 11 incoming MAG members, from which countries they’re coming, what are their backgrounds. So it will be very interesting to see how the composition will be refreshed in that sense. If you are interested to be part of the MAG, or to contribute, then the call for nominations usually opens during the first half of the year, for a couple of weeks. And any stakeholder, individual or organization, is most welcome to nominate eligible nominees that are then considered for possible appointment to the membership group for one term, subject to extension for up to three terms. As of last year, the structure of the IGF has been advanced and reformed to an extent. So today we speak also about the IGF Leadership Panel. The Leadership Panel was appointed last year by the Secretary General, following a process that came out of the Secretary General’s High-Level Panel on Digital Cooperation and Roadmap for Digital Cooperation, calling for the IGF to advance its modalities, given the fact that, as you can all witness, of rapid development of digital technologies, and it is on us to ensure that the mechanisms for governing those technologies are keeping pace with that development. So the Leadership Panel is a high-level multi-stakeholder body, composed of in total 15 members. Among the 15 members, as an ex officio members, are, for example, the MAG Chair, the Secretary General’s Envoy on Technology, but also the host countries. So, for example, the current host country holds a seat, as well as the future host country and the past host country. So we have that three-partite arrangement through the Leadership Panel, which allows us to bridge the process from last year to current year and then to future year. And with that, keep the continuity of the discussions and the process. Just yesterday, I think it was the last session hosted in this room, so if you were here, you had a pleasure to meet most of the members of the Leadership Panel and to hear from them. There will be other opportunities during this week, plenary open sessions, and that’s a good opportunity to listen to what the Leadership Panel has in plan for advancing the IGF, its modalities, for making it more impactful, more visible globally speaking, and for helping us to engage those that are not currently engaged and ensure that we are leaving no one behind. The profiles of the Leadership Panel members are visible, hopefully, to you on this slide. You can see that it’s very diversified. The chair of the Leadership Panel is Mr. Vint Cerf, well-known father of the Internet to all of us, and his vice chair is Ms. Maria Ressa, the Nobel Prize winner, and I’m sure also a person that’s well-known to all of you. And then finally, you can see that part of the working mechanisms of the IGF, as I said at the beginning, is the office where I work. For example, the IGF Secretariat, this is the entrance at the Palais des Nations in Geneva, where we are based, and the role of the, as I said, the Secretariat is to ensure that all these mechanisms do work within the framework of the IGF principles and procedures. Now, what are the IGF principles? The IGF is an open, inclusive, bottom-up, transparent, non-commercial, multistakeholder process that runs throughout the year. Its funding is extra budgetary, so in other words, it doesn’t have regular financing channels, but it depends on support from various donors, whether it’s financial or in-kind. The IGF is very transparent when it comes about also its financing, the way it functions, so if you visit the IGF website, you will see who are the donors to the IGF’s trust fund, who are also the in-kind donors and supporters. Just in case, if you would have questions later, I can tell you that among the biggest donors, of course, are certain governments and also the technical community, then the private sector, but there are also those that come from a completely non-commercial domain that can be nested under the civil society. So it’s a very interesting composition of the supporters of the IGF, and we are very grateful to all those friends who are making sure that the IGF functions for almost the past two decades. I mentioned to you at the beginning that the IGF is a process, so not just the annual meeting, and that process, of course, includes a couple of components, but two are major, which I think would be valuable for you to memorize. One is called the intersessional work. Everything that’s happening between the two annual meetings is called the intersessional work. It’s a community-centered, community-driven work, and I will be speaking about its concrete form in just a couple of minutes. And then another integral part, very important, of that process is, of course, what’s happening today and what’s going to happen this week here in Kyoto at this venue, the IGF annual meeting. Different member states have, different governments have hosted the IGF so far, and the 18th annual IGF meeting, as you can see, is hosted by the government of Japan. For the next year, we will formally announce the host very soon, so please do stay tuned. In this room, we will learn where the IGF will be going next year in 2024. But on this slide, you can see where we were in the past 17 years so far. It’s great to be back in the Asia and Pacific region, as you can see, after a long period since we met, I think, in Bali, that was the closest to this region. This is just to illustrate quickly the dynamic atmosphere at every IGF, but I’m sure that especially those of you who attended the wonderful gala night just last night already felt that dynamics and just the energy that is produced by so many people gathering at one place who really care about the Internet and who are strong and passionate believers that the Internet, its associated tools and services, can really transform this world and bring better life to all people. This annual meeting, of course, is not just about discussions. Of course, the IGF is not a decision-making forum, but that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t produce concrete outcomes and outputs. I’m sure from your experience you would agree one of probably the greatest value and benefit individually and also for organizations participating at the IGF in person here at the annual meeting is the fact that you can network and exchange good practices, maybe not so good practices, but learn from those practices and ensure that going back to your respective communities you can make a change and make an improvement. There are also tangible outputs, so toward the end of this meeting you will be able to consult at the IGF website what we call the IGF messages. Those are the messages, action-oriented, and the tangible outputs that emerge from the reports of the session organizers. In other words, more than 300 sessions that feature this year’s program of the 18th annual IGF meeting will result in concrete messages that are developed around the main sub-teams of the IGF. The main sub-teams, I’m sure that by now you all know them by heart. The Internet we want empowering all people is the overarching theme of this year’s IGF. Under the overarching theme we have eight sub-teams, which you can see are very diverse. We’re discussing matters related to connectivity and access to human rights online, artificial intelligence, other emerging technologies, but also matters related to, for example, digital governance, to sustainability and environment, safety and security, data governance, and so on. So there’s plenty to choose from. I know it can be also overwhelming when you look at this very robust and rich agenda, but it is only reflective of the world that we are living in now, and that is that with respect to online environment, different communities have different issues, and a global forum needs to be inclusive of all those. And I hope that your inputs coming from your respective communities will help us to understand better those local specificities and ensure that this global community then is informed and can act upon that information. Yes, this year’s forum for now marked record number of registered participants. We are now close to having 9,000 participants who have registered to participate in the IGF. Of course, the largest number of them over, I think, 75% is in-person participation, and the rest is online participation. In terms of the participation and the backgrounds of the registered participants, it is really diversified, and we have stakeholders coming from all stakeholder groups, different disciplines, so representatives coming from the government, international and intergovernmental organizations, civil society, including the academia, private sector, technical community, and other related industries and disciplines. Now to move to this first component that I mentioned of the IGF process, which is called the IGF intersessional work. So I want to just concretely say what does that mean, and especially what are the ways of engagement, what’s the value of being engaged in that type of a work, and what you need to do if you’re interested in any of these topics. So the intersessional work, the work that’s happening in between the two annual meetings of the IGF, whose results are then discussed at the annual meeting, takes different forms. We have, for example, the best practice forums and the policy networks. Both are multi-stakeholder-driven community networks focused on particular issues, through which stakeholders work together to unpack mapped issues and to look at good practices, maybe not so good practices, and while not issuing concrete recommendations, we are very much focused on the intersessional work on good actions that can be taken to bring progress on recognized issues. So for example, for this year, the best practice forum on cyber security looks at cyber security related agreements and norms at national and international levels, trying to identify where are the gaps, and I think in this week the BPF on cyber security has a dedicated session, so you can certainly visit that session to understand what has that work resulted so far in. But the way the best practice forum, for example, functions throughout the year is that its modus operandi is its public mailing list. Everyone is most welcome to join the public mailing list. From the MAG, from the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group, usually a couple of MAG members act as co-facilitators. The IGF Secretariat holds a PAN as a neutral editor, and all together we work with community stakeholders from around the world to discuss the issues. We usually meet at least once monthly, and of course we meet at the on-site meeting once annually speaking. Just like best practice forums, the policy networks are very similar in terms of the working modalities. The only difference is the scope. While the best practice forums look good practices, best practices, the policy networks have a much broader scope. They look at what are the issues, what’s the status quo, what could be done to change it, how could that be done, who could do good actions to resolve certain issues. And for this year, the MAG decided that we have three policy networks that are focused on meaningful access, on Internet fragmentation, and on artificial intelligence. You are most welcome to subscribe to the mailing lists and to join these networks at any point in time. The PNs, the policy networks, they also have dedicated multi-stakeholder working group of experts, so they are very much of help to drive the work toward the right direction and to engage other stakeholders from the world in order to ensure that we have an inclusive process reflective of all issues globally that exist. Now I mentioned to you that the BPFs and PNs are dependent every year on the MAG, but also on your input, because through the public call for inputs every year, the MAG basically advises on the final agenda of the annual IGF meeting on the sub-teams, for example, looking at where is the pulse of the community, what’s relevant for the community, and they also decide on what are the topics that it seems the community finds most relevant and marks as a priority, and then they orient the intersessional work of the BPFs and PNs toward those topics. But unlike these two forms, the dynamic coalitions is something that’s more consistent, more independent in terms of the MAG and the IGF working mechanisms. They are run by experts coming from different disciplines, different stakeholder groups, different regions, and some of the dynamic coalitions, which are issue-oriented, exist for years. Some of them exist close to the duration of the IGF so far. As I said, they’re issue-oriented. They are very concrete. For example, you have now, it says 24, but by the time we reach the 18th annual IGF meeting here in Kyoto, we have three more, so it’s 27 in total. And they are different. There are dynamic coalitions, for example, on blockchain, on public access in libraries, on environment, on domain name system, and so on. So you are most welcome to visit the IGF website, look at what the dynamic coalitions are doing, subscribe to their mailing list, or simply reach out to the IGF secretariat, and we will put you in touch with the coordinator of this work. And then part of the IGF process also relates to capacity development. By the mandate of the IGF and the Tunis agenda that I mentioned to you at the beginning, at the heart of the IGF is to build capacity in all countries, developed and developing countries. And the capacity development strategy is every year tailored to fit the needs of the global community, but I would like, just for the purpose of this meeting, to focus on two very important components that are also presented here at the IGF in Kyoto. They are the parliamentary track and also the youth track, where I’m very much focused on developing capacity and working with legislators, members of parliaments coming from different parliaments from around the world, through our parliamentary track. The parliamentary track that’s coordinated by my colleague Celine sitting in this room is coordinated and developed in cooperation also with the regional IGFs. That helps us a lot to reach the local communities much better, much more efficiently. For example, this year we had a series of capacity development workshops hosted at the Asia-Pacific regional IGF in Brisbane in Australia, but also at the African IGF in Abuja in Nigeria. And here at the IGF yesterday, a series of capacity development workshops and dialogues between members of parliaments and with members of parliaments took place. Today it continues as well, so I do advise you to please visit the IGF website, IGF 2023 menu parliamentary track, and just see which session takes place where today. They’re very interesting and it’s a good also experience so you can engage better maybe with members of your parliament in your countries. Part of the capacity development for us relates to sustainability of these processes and the sustainability of the processes of course relates to investing and working with young people. Through the youth track, the IGF Secretariat works throughout the year with many youth IGF coordinators and many youth-related networks and communities on Internet governance to design and then implement the youth track. So this year, young people advised us that their priority is to look into safe digital future and so we are unpacking basically that concept through a couple of capacity development workshops. Some of them, just like the parliamentary track, have been hosted at the regional IGFs or at the Asia-Pacific IGF. Well, we firstly actually toured the globe through regional IGFs starting at Eurodig, that is the European IGF in Finland, then we moved to the Asia-Pacific IGF which was hosted in Australia, then to Latin America region through the Youth LAC IGF hosted in Colombia and then we concluded with the African IGF that was hosted in Nigeria in September. The conclusion of the youth track took place just yesterday. We had a wonderful IGF 2023 Global Youth Summit where we tried to establish a framework for a meaningful dialogue between the current generation of experts and leaders and the next generation of experts and leaders. And that’s very important for us. It has been a message that’s been sent by youth throughout the years of the IGFs feedback process that young people are very much interested to be active players in this field but that they do not want to be isolated and that is important that we have a meaningful dialogue with them between the decision makers and the decision makers holding those positions here right now. Now, I mentioned to you already a couple of IGFs, not just one, and that all relates to the concept of the IGF initiatives, national, regional, sub-regional and youth IGF initiatives or we should call them shortly the NRIs. The NRIs emerge organically. If you look at the Tunis agenda, it doesn’t call for establishing a national IGF in a particular country or a regional IGF but it does very much calls for development of a multistakeholder model at local levels and building on that, learning from the IGF as a model, many multistakeholder communities or many countries and regions started organizing their own IGF processes, applying the same set of principles, frameworks, procedures in their local communities. That history of close to 18 years now resulted in having today more than 160 officially recognized NRIs by the IGF Secretariat. The IGF Secretariat is entrusted by the NRIs to run the recognition process, ensuring that the processes do adhere to the IGF principles and also to support the network so we work throughout the year on a couple of objectives including to be presented here through a couple of sessions at the annual IGF meeting but also on other types of objectives you can see on the IGF website which we always set at the beginning of the year in a bottom-up consultations with all the NRIs. Many of the NRIs are present at this year’s IGF meeting here in Kyoto and they will have their main session, a couple of collaborative sessions so I do invite you to consult the IGF website and join us on those sessions and meet colleagues doing these really great things also in their respective countries. And I want to recognize of course our host, Japan has an excellent national IGF that has its own evolution and just I think in early September they hosted their annual meeting which was excellent and I think set a very good preconditions for engagement of Japanese community in this year’s 18th annual IGF meeting. So I mentioned the leadership panel, I won’t keep your time now on that, you will have opportunity to learn from the leadership panel directly. I hope that you have visited the IGF village which is just near the registration area at this venue. The IGF village you have seen probably is composed of a couple of exhibition booths and it serves for the community to better connect with institutions, organizations that are doing excellent work on Internet governance and it’s a very good opportunity and a quick one to connect with work of these organizations and see how certain maybe partnerships and cooperation could be developed long-term speaking. There’s a system of bilateral rooms, I hope that you have seen that at the IGF website. If someone participating in person at this year’s meeting is of your interest to meet with in a bilateral setup, so in a private setup, you can reserve a room through the IGF website, the secretariat will facilitate the approval and you can meet with those stakeholders. And of course if you need any support to connect with anyone, please email us at igf.un.org, we’ll be happy to support you. Now I won’t go that much into the processes which are with the United Nations are very much related or have an impact on the IGF, but I will mention briefly of course the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and I’m sure you’ve seen the 17 SDGs really cross-cutting the agenda of the IGF. This community is very much outspoken about the SDGs being a great accelerator of sustainable development and all of us as session organizers, as session participants are doing what we can to ensure that the reflections on how the SDGs can be supported by certain digital public policy related processes are reflected in discussions at this meeting. I mentioned at the beginning the digital cooperation concept, I’m sure that many of you also heard about it, especially the Global Digital Compact, the Our Common Agenda. So those are all the processes that are very recent, they came out of the Secretary General’s office and the whole goal is to look at our digital future, long-term speaking, to ensure that we can all benefit from it. It impacted the IGF already and probably it will long-term speaking, for example the leadership panel is the outcome of the Roadmap for Digital Cooperation and you can see hopefully on this slide more about this whole concept about the roadmap and its pillars. The Our Common Agenda and Global Digital Compact, there will be discussion a lot with respect to these topics at this year’s IGF. Many sessions are indeed directly or indirectly focused on this. The GDC is gaining momentum certainly, the Member States will soon enter the negotiation process to understand what the GDC will be about and of course the IGF as the forum within the United Nations where all stakeholders as equals discuss matters related to Internet governance, public digital policy is directly engaged in these processes and reflected by the discussions happening within. Now I’m going to invite for your comments and questions, it doesn’t have to be a question but I would like to also hear from you how do you find this year’s IGF, is it overwhelming for you? If you have any questions for the Secretariat I’d be happy to respond, we have I think a couple of more minutes left. And I also invite you to connect with us, so to subscribe to our mailing lists, to connect with us through our email, igf.un.org is the email address of the IGF Secretariat and we would be happy to hear from you. You can also visit our social wall, connect with us on social media, we’re present on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. There is also the IGF mobile app, it’s very convenient and quick way to follow the schedule for example for this year’s IGF rather than going through a browser, so I hope that you’ve experienced it, if not then I do invite you to download the app and use it and tell us your user experience so we can do better for next year. So with that let me stop here and pause here and just to see if you have any questions or comments on what you’ve heard so far. I would assume that if yes, if there are comments we would use these microphones that are up front, correct? Yes. Good, I don’t see any comments, any requests for questions, I don’t know if we have anyone online that would like to ask anything before we wrap up here. Thank you. So we don’t have any requests from online participants, good. This is a compliment, that means that it was clear so far. First of all I want to sincerely thank you for being here and for being at the IGF, learning about it. It’s been a great pleasure to speak with you and to you this morning. As you know we will start preparing for the big moment of this year’s IGF which is to formally open this year’s meeting and I think everyone will benefit, especially the organisers and the technical logistical team, of a couple of more extra minutes to set the stage, prepare the room, so I will wrap up then earlier. Thank you very much. Please let us meet also outside, be free to approach or visit our office, 104, that’s the number of our office, we would be very happy and grateful to connect with all of you. Thank you very much for your attention.

Title: An In-Depth Analysis of the Main Arguments and Evidence Presented in the Text

Summary:

The following extended summary provides a comprehensive overview of the main points, arguments, evidence, and conclusion presented in the original text. Additionally, notable observations and insights gained from the analysis are also included. The summary is written using UK spelling and grammar.

The text under analysis argues that advancements in technology have had a profound impact on the modern world. The author asserts that these advancements have not only shaped our society but have also brought about significant changes in various sectors such as healthcare, education, and communication.

One of the main points highlighted in the text is the positive impact of technology on healthcare. The author argues that technological advancements have improved the accuracy and efficiency of medical diagnoses and treatments. They provide evidence by citing examples of cutting-edge medical devices that aid in diagnoses and advanced surgical procedures that have significantly improved patient outcomes. Moreover, the author discusses how telemedicine has revolutionized healthcare by making healthcare services more accessible to remote areas and underserved communities.

Another key argument put forward in the text is the transformative effect of technology on education. The author contends that technological tools and online learning platforms have enhanced the learning experience for students. They supply evidence by referencing studies that demonstrate improved academic performance and engagement among students who utilize technology in their studies. The author also highlights the potential of virtual reality and augmented reality in creating immersive educational experiences.

Additionally, the text addresses the impact of technology on communication. The author argues that advancements in communication technology have broken down physical barriers and enabled instant communication across the globe. They present evidence in the form of statistics on the rise of social media platforms and the increasing ease of global collaboration. However, the author also acknowledges the drawbacks of technology, such as the potential for privacy breaches and the negative effects of excessive screen time on individuals’ well-being.

In conclusion, the text asserts that technology has revolutionized multiple aspects of our lives, including healthcare, education, and communication. While presenting compelling evidence to support this claim, the author acknowledges the potential downsides of technology. Overall, the analysis provides a well-rounded view of the impact of technology, acknowledging both the benefits and challenges it brings to our society.

Note: The expanded summary aims to accurately reflect the main analysis text and include relevant long-tail keywords without compromising the summary’s quality or readability.

Frank Kirchner

The development of AI and robotics is seen as increasingly necessary due to demographic changes and the complexity of certain tasks. Robots are already being used in production facilities and private households, and there will be a greater need for automation in the future. However, the predominantly controlled nature of AI and robotics development, with a small number of private companies, limits access and understanding. This concentration of control raises concerns about the diffusion and democratization of these technologies. Advocates argue for the establishment of standards and regulated frameworks to democratize the design, understanding, and programming of AI systems. This would make them accessible to a wider range of individuals and organizations and foster a more inclusive AI landscape. A standardized design and programming framework would enable cradle-to-grave tracking of robotic components, ensuring accountability and sustainability in production. Transparency is also highlighted, with the validation of source, carbon footprint, and material composition of AI components. The International Development Agency (IDA) could play a role in monitoring AI and robotics development worldwide to promote inclusivity, transparency, and sustainability. Another concern is the concentration of control in a few big companies, and efforts should be made to prevent monopolies and ensure access for a wider range of stakeholders. The risks associated with AI and robotics, including hackers and misuse, cannot be entirely prevented but can be minimized and regulated. Open access and contribution to knowledge safeguard data and technology by minimizing misuse and promoting responsible use. In conclusion, the development of AI and robotics requires addressing issues of access, control, transparency, and accountability. Standards, regulated frameworks, and monitoring by organizations like the IDA can democratize AI, foster innovation, and ensure a more inclusive and sustainable future.

Audience

Suji, a PhD student from Seoul, Korea, is inquiring about the model of governance that AIDA is considering for AI. She is specifically interested in whether AIDA is looking towards models such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Suji is raising the question of whether AI, like nuclear energy, requires stringent governance due to its potential risks. She also wants to understand the authority and power that such a governance body should possess, as well as its specific roles and responsibilities.

Furthermore, the advancement of technologies like AI, AOT, IoT, and blockchain is resulting in a significant increase in data generation. This has led to the creation of an international database. The proliferation of these technologies has heightened the need for international regulations and rules to govern data transactions that occur across borders. One example is the existence of the SWIFT code, which is a system for international data transactions regulated by 835 different banks from various nations. Establishing international standards and guidelines for data transactions is crucial to ensure the efficient and secure exchange of data globally.

In addition to governance and data transactions, there is also consideration of ethics in regards to cybersecurity, with a particular focus on the issue of hacking. The ethical implications of cybersecurity breaches are a cause for concern. Safeguarding against hacking incidents is crucial for maintaining the security and integrity of data systems. This highlights the importance of incorporating ethical considerations into cybersecurity practices.

Overall, Suji’s inquiries shed light on the growing need for robust and comprehensive governance frameworks to regulate AI, as well as the importance of establishing international standards for data transactions. Furthermore, her observations underscore the significance of ethics in the realm of cybersecurity. Addressing these concerns is vital to ensure the responsible and secure development and deployment of AI technologies.

Evelyn Tornitz

In this session on promoting human rights through an International Data Agency (IDA), the speakers explored the role of IDA in strengthening human rights and ensuring responsible innovation. The session was moderated by Evelyn Tornitz, a Senior Researcher at the Institute of Social Ethics, University of Lucerne, Switzerland, and a MAG member at the UNIGF.

Peter Kirchschlediger, Director of the Institute of Social Ethics at the University of Lucerne, provided an overview of IDA and its purpose. He emphasised that IDA aims to create standards and monitor compliance with these standards in the design and development of robots and artificial intelligence (AI) systems. The goal is to promote responsible practices and prevent any misuse or negative consequences of AI technology.

Kutoma Wakanuma, a Professor at Montford University in Zambia and the UK, discussed the importance of responsiveness, inclusivity, and proactiveness in responsible innovation. She highlighted the need for AI systems to be inclusive of diverse voices and ensure that they respond to the needs and concerns of different communities. Additionally, she emphasised that responsible innovation should be proactive in addressing potential risks and negative impacts.

Frank Kirchner, a Professor at the German Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence, joined the session online and added a new aspect to the discussion. He highlighted the need for a tracking system that can monitor the use of robots and AI, as well as ensure compliance with established standards. By creating a system for monitoring and evaluating AI technologies, potential risks and negative consequences can be identified and addressed more effectively.

Yong Jo Kim, a Professor at Chuang University in Korea, focused on the role of education and knowledge in promoting human rights. He emphasised the importance of transparency, fairness, and embedding human rights in their specific contexts. By integrating human rights principles into education and promoting transparency in AI systems, the potential for violations can be minimised.

Migle Laokite, a Professor at Pompeo Fabra University in Barcelona, Spain, highlighted the challenges associated with handling the negative consequences and risks of AI. She stressed the need for robust mechanisms to address and mitigate these risks, particularly when it comes to high-risk AI technologies. She also mentioned the importance of impact assessments and using the information generated from these assessments to predict and prevent future risks.

Yuri Lima, from the Federal University in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, focused on the inclusion of the Global South in discussions on labour rights and inclusive living. He emphasised the need to involve diverse perspectives and ensure that any discussions about human rights and technology include the voices and perspectives of those in the Global South.

During the Q&A session, participants raised questions about the concrete functions and powers of IDA, as well as the regulation of data. The panelists addressed these questions, highlighting the importance of regulation and proactive prevention of misuse and risks associated with AI. They emphasised the need for the inclusion of the Global South in discussions and decision-making processes related to AI and human rights.

In conclusion, this session emphasised the importance of responsible innovation and the role of IDA in promoting human rights. The speakers highlighted the need for inclusivity, proactiveness, and transparency in the development and use of AI systems. They also stressed the significance of education, knowledge, and regulation in addressing the risks and negative consequences associated with AI technology.

Kutuma Wakanuma

The analysis of the speakers’ viewpoints on AI technology and its social and ethical concerns reveals several key points. Firstly, there is a strong call for a proactive approach to addressing these concerns. The speakers advocate for responsiveness and the need to actively consider the potential threats and consequences associated with AI technologies. They argue that current AI technologies often focus on the positive aspects and neglect to address these important issues. This proactive stance is seen as crucial to avoid potential negative impacts and ensure the responsible development and use of AI technologies.

Inclusivity and understanding of the impact of technologies on different subjects is another key theme that emerges from the analysis. The speakers assert that technologies can have diverse impacts depending on the cultural and geographical context of their usage. They emphasize the need for diverse representation in decision-making processes and the development of AI technologies. This inclusivity is seen as essential to ensure that the technologies are designed and used ethically and consider the needs and perspectives of different groups.

The establishment of an agency like IDA (AIDA) to oversee ethical concerns in AI technologies is also supported by some of the speakers. They argue that such an agency could oversee, supervise, and monitor the ethical and social concerns associated with AI technologies. Inclusive decision-making can be facilitated through the existence of an entity like the IDA, ensuring that the perspectives of various stakeholders are taken into account. This would help set global standards and ensure the responsible and ethical development and use of AI technologies.

In addition to these points, one of the speakers suggests an overall employment-free status at borders, allowing individuals to earn globally. This viewpoint highlights the need to adapt to the changing nature of work in the digital age and to consider the global impacts of AI technologies on employment opportunities.

Furthermore, health and education are identified as key focus areas in AI policy. These sectors are seen as crucial for social development and well-being, and AI technologies can play a significant role in improving access and quality of healthcare and education. The speakers argue for greater emphasis on these areas in AI policy discussions and decision-making processes.

The analysis also brings to light the idea that different continents and countries may require different AI regulatory policies or acts. This recognition emphasizes the importance of considering the diverse contexts and needs of different regions when formulating AI policies and regulations.

The establishment of a global AI act that can protect everyone is a point of consensus among the speakers. They argue that this would ensure a universal standard for the responsible development and use of AI technologies, safeguarding individuals from potential harmful consequences.

Proactive measures and policies are seen as necessary to regulate AI technologies like CHAT-GPT, which is highlighted as an example of a technology with widespread effects but inadequate policies in place. The speakers emphasize the urgency of taking proactive steps to regulate such AI technologies, particularly in sectors like education, where the responsible use of AI is crucial.

Another noteworthy observation from the analysis is the emphasis on global inclusivity in discussions and decision-making processes related to AI regulation. Currently, more developed nations dominate these discussions, which can lead to a lack of representation and consideration of the perspectives of the Global South. The speakers stress the importance of including voices from both the Global South and North to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive approach to AI regulation.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the need for a proactive approach to address the social and ethical concerns associated with AI technologies. Inclusivity, the establishment of an oversight agency like IDA, and the development of global policies and standards are seen as essential steps towards ensuring the responsible and ethical use of AI technologies. Additionally, the analysis emphasizes the importance of considering the diverse needs and contexts of different regions and the need for proactive measures and policies to regulate AI technologies. Overall, the speakers advocate for a comprehensive and inclusive approach that takes into account the potential impacts and concerns associated with AI technologies.

Yuri Lima

The rapid advance of new technologies has brought about significant challenges in our ability to comprehend and effectively integrate them into our economic systems. This has resulted in an uneven distribution of the advantages these technologies provide. The digital economy, as it currently stands, showcases a stark contrast between the international flow of profits and the conditions of labour.

Many individuals across the globe find themselves working under poor circumstances, with meagre pay and minimal labour rights or protections. This divergence from the ideals outlined in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which emphasises fair and favourable working conditions, poses a significant concern in the modern digital economy. The insufficiencies in addressing these issues further highlight the need for more comprehensive and inclusive approaches.

It is paramount to acknowledge the vital role that underdeveloped countries play in the global exchange of technology and wealth. Disregarding their importance hinders progress and sustains an unequal global value chain. For a fair and just digital economy, it is crucial that the global South, where much of this exploitative digital sweatshop labour occurs, has a say in shaping the global rules that govern the digital economy.

To address these challenges and foster collaboration, an International Database Assistance Agency (IDA) could be established at the United Nations level. This agency would shed light on hidden inequities, identify best practices, and propose actionable solutions. By providing transparency and serving as a platform for engagement between governments, workers, businesses, and civil society, an IDA could contribute to the achievement of a fairer digital economy. The goal would be to create a system that benefits all, promoting technical cooperation and ultimately shaping a just and equitable digital future for everyone.

In conclusion, the fast-paced introduction of new technologies has created a disparity between our comprehension and integration of these technologies into our economies. The current digital economy falls short of embodying principles such as fair working conditions and equal distribution of benefits. To rectify this, it is essential to consider the role of underdeveloped countries and ensure their inclusion in shaping global rules for the digital economy. Establishing an International Database Assistance Agency at the UN level can facilitate transparency, facilitate cooperation, and pave the way towards a more equitable digital future.

Hyung Jo Kim

The discussions centre around the incorporation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) within education, the necessity of an agency to regulate the use of AI, the importance of handling data with transparency and fairness, and the consideration of cultural contexts in discussions pertaining to human rights.

In the sphere of education, the Korea Ministry of Education has made the decision to introduce AI education to all children and high school students by 2025. This will involve utilising AI tools to teach fundamental subjects such as mathematics and English. The argument made is that including AI in education is essential for enhancing learning and equipping students with the skills required for the future. This move is viewed positively as it will enhance educational quality and prepare students for a progressively digitalized world.

Transitioning to the regulation of AI, it is asserted that establishing an agency or control tower to oversee its usage is imperative. It is acknowledged that AI technology has both positive and negative aspects. While it has the potential to revolutionise various industries and foster innovation, concerns regarding its ethical implications and potential risks have arisen. The proposed agency would assume responsibility for regulating the use of AI, ensuring it is implemented responsibly and ethically. It is noted that such an agency would inevitably amass substantial amounts of data, highlighting the necessity for cautious consideration and transparent handling of this information.

The significance of data transparency and fairness is additionally underscored in the context of AI regulation. In the age of AI, the issue of data ownership has become progressively intricate, emphasising the need for transparent and just treatment of data. The trustworthiness of the agency responsible for regulating data is emphasised, as it plays a critical role in upholding public trust and confidence in the use of AI. This is regarded as crucial for accomplishing SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions.

Lastly, the consideration of cultural contexts is regarded as imperative in discussions encompassing human rights. Specifically, within regions such as Africa and Asia, it is necessary to concretise the concept of human rights by taking into account cultural diversity. It is asserted that research should strive to strike a balance between universal and diverse values, i.e., universality and diversity, in order to establish a comprehensive understanding of human rights that respects diverse cultural perspectives. This is deemed important for the achievement of SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities.

In conclusion, the discussions and arguments presented revolve around the integration of AI in education, the need for an agency to regulate its usage, the significance of data transparency and fairness, and the consideration of cultural contexts in discussions concerning human rights. The inclusion of AI in education is seen as a positive move towards improving educational quality and equipping students for the future. The regulation of AI is deemed necessary to address potential risks and ensure responsible implementation. Data transparency and fairness are emphasised as significant aspects in the age of AI, while cultural contexts are underscored for attaining a comprehensive understanding of human rights.

Melina

During the discussion session, Ayalev Shebeji raised a valid concern regarding the protection of international database information. The question focused on whether advanced technology or other methods could effectively safeguard sensitive data from hackers and potential security breaches.

The complex issue of protecting international database information from unauthorized access is brought into question when considering the effectiveness of sophisticated technological advancements. While advanced technology can enhance data security, it is not foolproof. Hackers continually develop innovative strategies to bypass technological barriers, rendering them less reliable for complete protection.

In addition to advanced technology, other measures can be employed to safeguard international database information from hackers. Implementing strict security protocols and utilizing encryption techniques can make it more difficult for hackers to gain access to sensitive data. Regular security updates and patches should also be applied promptly to address potential vulnerabilities. Furthermore, educating and training individuals who interact with the database on best practices for data protection can significantly reduce the risk of security breaches.

It is important to be aware that no security measure can provide absolute protection against hacking. Cybersecurity is an ongoing battle, as hackers continuously adapt and evolve their techniques. Thus, a multi-layered approach is necessary, combining advanced technology, robust security protocols, encryption techniques, regular updates, and ongoing training and education.

In conclusion, protecting international database information from hackers requires a comprehensive strategy that incorporates advanced technology and complementary security measures. While advanced technology plays a crucial role, it should be accompanied by robust security protocols, encryption techniques, regular updates, and continuous education and training. By adopting this multi-layered approach, organizations can reduce the risk of security breaches and protect sensitive data to the best of their ability.

Peter Kirchschlediger

The International Database Systems Agency (IDA) is a research project that originated at Yale University and was finalized at the University of Lucerne. Its primary objective is to identify the ethical opportunities and risks associated with Artificial Intelligence (AI) in order to promote the well-being of humanity and the planet. The IDA’s vision extends beyond AI regulation to encompass the entire value chain of AI, from resource extraction to the production and use of AI technologies.

The IDA aims to foster peace, sustainability, and human rights while promoting the responsible development and deployment of AI. Drawing inspiration from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IDA is seen as a necessary step towards addressing the ethical concerns of AI, with the goal of preventing AI-based products that violate human rights from reaching the market.

Peter Kirchschlediger, a supporter of the IDA, argues for the need for stronger enforcement mechanisms in the field of AI. He notes that despite the existence of numerous guidelines and recommendations, businesses continue to operate as usual, highlighting the necessity for a structure similar to the International Atomic Energy Agency. This would provide orientation and ensure that AI is developed and deployed in an ethical and human rights-respecting manner.

In addition, it is suggested that the IDA should not only enforce regulations but also have the power to sanction both states and non-state actors that fail to fulfill their obligations. This would further strengthen the IDA’s effectiveness in promoting responsible AI practices and holding those who undermine ethical principles accountable.

The IDA also has the potential to address cyber security concerns by promoting technological cooperation and enforcing legally binding actions. It is believed that the IDA’s enforcement capabilities and global reach could contribute to the development of a global consensus on cyber security issues, given the significant risks cyber attacks pose to societies worldwide.

Overall, the IDA’s research project seeks to identify the ethical opportunities and risks associated with AI, with the aim of promoting the well-being of humanity and the planet. By fostering peace, sustainability, and human rights throughout the AI value chain, the IDA strives to ensure that AI is developed and deployed in an ethical and responsible manner. Drawing inspiration from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IDA advocates for stronger enforcement mechanisms, including the power to sanction actors that violate ethical principles. Furthermore, the IDA could play a pivotal role in addressing cyber security concerns through technological cooperation and the enforcement of legally binding actions. The IDA’s mission is to shape a future where AI benefits society while respecting ethical standards and human rights.

Migle laokite

The European Parliament has recently proposed conducting an assessment to evaluate the impact of high-risk artificial intelligence (AI) systems on fundamental human rights. This assessment would take into account various factors, such as the purpose of the AI system, its geographical and temporal scope of use, and the specific individuals and groups likely to be affected. The aim of this assessment is to ensure that AI technologies are developed and deployed in a manner that respects and safeguards fundamental human rights.

There is a growing consensus that the Artificial Intelligence and Data Agency (AIDA) should play a central role in addressing the potential threats and risks associated with AI. Supporters argue that AIDA should gather and share knowledge on AI risks and harms with international organizations to prevent harm on a global scale. Making this information readily available and accessible can help protect against AI-related harm worldwide.

Furthermore, proponents advocate for AIDA to become the focal point for addressing AI risks and harms to protect individuals and prevent misuse of AI beyond Europe’s borders. They argue that by leveraging AIDA’s capabilities, the rest of the world can also benefit from the prevention of negative effects and potential abuses related to AI. This perspective aligns with the goal of reducing global inequalities, as AI can have far-reaching implications for societies and individuals in different regions.

In summary, the European Parliament’s proposal to assess the impact of high-risk AI systems on fundamental human rights acknowledges the importance of ethical and responsible development and deployment of AI technologies. The support for AIDA to play a central role in this endeavour aims to share knowledge and collaborate to mitigate potential threats and risks associated with AI within and outside of Europe. The ultimate goal is to protect people globally and foster a more equitable and inclusive AI landscape.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Good afternoon to this session, Promoting Human Rights through an International Data Agency. Welcome both to our participants and speakers here on site and also to our online audience. I am Evelyn Tornitz. I’m going to be moderating the session today. I’m a Senior Researcher at the Institute of Social Ethics, University of Lucerne, Switzerland, and also a MAG member here of the UNIGF. Here today with me are Peter Kirchschlediger, Director of the Institute of Social Ethics, also University of Lucerne, Switzerland, and Kutoma Wakanuma, Professor at the Montford University in Zambia and UK. Then we have Frank Kirchner, Professor at the German Research Institute for Artificial Intelligence in Germany. He’s online. He’ll be joining us online. We have here with us on site also Hyung Jo Kim, Professor at Chuang University in Korea. And then we have Migle Laokite, Professor at Pompeo Fabra University in Barcelona, Spain. He will be joining us online. And then we also have Yuri Lima from the Federal University in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He will also be joining online. Some words to the flow of the session. We will start with short input presentations, just really short to give you a bit of a overview what the session is going to be about. Afterwards, there’s going to be a question and answer from both online and on-site participants. And then we would really like to also have, like, open the floor in the sense of having a lively discussion with… with all of you, also hear your inputs, your comments and your contributions which you would like to share with us. So, let’s start with Peter, who is here with us today. So, if you could maybe explain in the beginning what this International Data Agency, what it is about and how it will contribute to strengthen human rights.

Peter Kirchschlediger:
Well, thank you so much, Evelyn, and thank you to you, all of you, being here. A warm welcome to this session. So, the idea of the International Database Systems Agency, IDA, is a result of a multi-year project started at Yale University in the US and then finalized at the University of Lucerne. Basically addressing the question, how we can make sure that we identify early enough the ethical opportunities and the ethical risks of so-called AI in order to make sure that all humans can benefit from the ethical opportunities and that we are able to master the risks in a way that humanity and the planet can flourish. And based on that research, I made two concrete proposals. One is to deal with AI in a human rights-based way. So, talking about human rights-based AI. This means, though, looking at the entire value chain of so-called AI. So, looking to how we extract the resources that this is happening in a human rights-respectful way, how we produce technology products, also dare that we do that in a human rights-respecting way. And also then the use, and also maybe human rights-based, the non-use of certain technologies. and get to recognize that certain technologies we shouldn’t use because they may be human rights violating. And that was the first concrete proposal. And the second proposal is to think so-called AI with a dual nature. So having ethical upsides and ethical downsides and comparing that to nuclear technologies because also there we have ethical positive potential but also ethical negative potential. And thinking in the model of the International Atomic Energy Agency, simplifying it in the field of nuclear technologies we were doing research, we built the atomic bomb, we used the bomb several times and then we realized as humanity that we need to do something about it in order to avoid the worse. I’m fully aware that the International Atomic Energy Agency is not a perfect solution. It has its geopolitical implications but still I think it needs to be admitted that it was able to avoid the worse. So I think in analogy in the model of the International Atomic Energy Agency we should also establish at the UN an International Database Systems Agency, IDA. IDA aiming for fostering peace, promoting sustainability and promoting human rights but also making sure that no AI based product which is human rights violating is ending up on the market. And I’m very much looking forward to our discussion and the session about this idea of IDA. Thank you so much.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Thank you very much Peter for providing us with this overview and what you’re envisaging for IDA. We go on now to Kutuma who will also Give us a short input on AIDA and what possible role you would see.

Kutuma Wakanuma:
Hello. Is it on? Okay. So, good afternoon, everyone. Thank you very much for joining us on this session, which I’m hoping will have a very good discussion between us and yourselves. I think it is very important that we do think about establishing an agency such as AIDA. And I think one of the things that we ought to be doing as we try to advocate or as we advocate for the establishment of AIDA is to look at how we can be responsive when it comes to the identification or the identified social and ethical concerns around emerging technologies like artificial intelligence. Oftentimes, when these technologies are being innovated, they’re being developed or perhaps designed and then implemented, one of the things that is… Excuse me. One of the things that is always looked at is the positive aspect of these particular technologies. Very little, I think, in the process of these designs up to the implementation stage, do we or do the developers think about the consequences or the threats that these technologies present? And this then brings us to concerns around privacy and data protection, for example, and also other ethical concerns such as ownership and control, because we know that as the technologies are being developed, the concentration of ownership and control is in the hands of a few, especially as they trickle down to, say, for example, the Global South. We have issues around transparency and accuracy of the technologies. We have concerns around autonomy. We have concerns around power, which then speaks to aspects related to monopoly, to dependency, and to a certain extent, to digital colonialism, as the technologies become mainstream. So rather than becoming reactive when the concerns start, the unintended consequences start showing up, we need to be a bit more proactive, and I think this is where AIDA might actually come in. So some of the questions that we need to ask is how do we become responsive to responsible innovation? For me, I think one of the things that we ought to be looking at is being inclusive, particularly when we are looking at how these technologies permeate globally. Yes, of course, they perhaps start from more developed countries, and then trickle down to less developed countries, but the issues perhaps may be similar to a certain extent, because obviously, privacy and data protection concerns, I think, could be universal to a certain extent, although, of course, the way these concerns may be looked at or experienced could be slightly different. We also need to be cognizant of the fact that we need to understand how these technologies can have an impact on the different subjects that start using these particular technologies. So how do we go about ensuring that we co-create, for example, or co-produce these particular technologies? Because for the most part, we have these technologies as global technologies. And when we’re talking about global technologies, sometimes we should be concerned about who are the voices that are representing these particular technologies in a global manner. Do we have everybody at the table when we’re talking about ethical concerns that impact people? And for the most part, I think there is a gap in terms of who is at the table, whose voices are being represented, whose social and ethical concerns we’re going to be talking about. And if we’re going to have an agency like IDA, that may actually help in terms of overlooking or supervising or indeed monitoring these particular concerns so that we can actually use these innovations, we can actually use these emerging technologies in a more responsible and not irresponsible manner. So this is what I have to contribute for now. And then hopefully I’m looking forward to an exchange with everyone else here. Thank you.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Thank you, Kutuma, for adding this aspect of responsiveness, which is, I think, really a key word that is not often mentioned, but I think, yes, you’re right. I mean, if we want responsible innovation, it should be responsive, inclusive, and proactive, as you mentioned. Thank you very much for adding this point. We will go on now with Frank Kirchner, who is joining us online. Frank, are you there?

Frank Kirchner:
Yes, I’m there. Can you hear and see me?

Evelyn Tornitz:
Yes, we do.

Frank Kirchner:
Okay, cool. Yeah, thank you for the opportunity. My name is Frank Kirchner. I’m the director of the German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence, actually. And at the same time, I’m the professor for robotics at the University of Bremen. What I would like to take a point of view, of course, from creating these robots, creating these systems that we actually call AI-based robots, because they’re… have to act and are already acting in real world environments in direct cooperation, for example, with people in production facilities, but also already in private households. And I think what we’re seeing now is just the beginning of it, because in many countries, because of the demographic factor, we will have a very, very high need for more and more of this kind of automation. At the same time, these systems will be required to do even more complicated tasks that usually have been done or are still done today by human beings. So what that means is that we have to create systems, robotic systems, acting in a real world environment, maybe in direct contact with human beings, that will have to be able to perform really complicated, maybe for human beings, trivial tasks, like packing something or cleaning your house and stuff. But for a robot, for a technical system, it’s still very complicated. And this can only be achieved with massive intervention by artificial intelligence tools. So having said that, as Peter said, there’s one thing that is actually one way and one alley that we have to go down that is really very useful and can be of high value for humankind. But on the other hand, because we have to use these highly sophisticated AI models, there’s only always the risk of danger in whatever way to misuse these systems as well. So how do we deal with this? The problem is that we cannot say we avoid it. You know, we cannot say that we don’t touch it, we don’t do it, because it will be done. It’s already moving forward. And one thing that has already been mentioned by the previous speaker is that if we look at who’s able to actually do these kind of things today, you know, who can build these robots, who can build the systems that can drive the robots, the AI technology inside? It’s only very few. And it’s not even states, it’s not even countries. It’s actually private companies. So if you want to create the foundational models that you need in order to… enable a robot to do these kind of tasks that I was describing, you have to put a lot of money into creating the model, the foundational model. And if you look at who is doing this today, it’s the big five. And not even countries, not even the high developed and rich countries in Europe or North America are putting the kind of resources to the table. So this kind of in this idea of having the IDA, I think I do support a lot because it gives the opportunity to create ways to design these systems that gives the power to more and more people. So instead of just having a few experts that can design these kind of systems, we have the possibility by creating standards in the way we design and program these systems from the very low level mechanical and electronic level of performance all the way up to the high level behavior and decision making in these devices. So these standards have to be created and somebody has to monitor them. And that’s something that can be done by as we have seen it in software development tools in general. If you go back to the 70s, for example, there were a few people on the planet that could program your IBM computer. And these guys were flown back and forth between all parts of the world in order to do this kind of programming. In the meantime, we have been able to develop frameworks and model based development tools that allows basically everybody to program his own computer. And the same thing, I think we have to think about for robotics and for artificial intelligence based system. The effect of this will be that we have more and more people that are able to not just create these systems, but also to understand they’re working and to understand their inner functionality. And that usually is a way, effective way to block and to put a wall to misuse of these kind of systems. The other thing that these model-based frameworks for design and programming allows us to do is we can also use meta-knowledge, meta-knowledge for all the parts that go into these robots. We can have a cradle-to-grave tracking of all the components that go into these robots. Where has this motor been produced? Who has produced it? What material was used for it? What was the carbon footprint for exactly this material that went into your robot? We can track it, but all by having a more standardized way to design, to build, and finally to program and use the kind of systems that by no means, by no question, we need in the future to serve so many challenges that humankind is facing now and moreover in the future. That would be my comment and my hope for something that an institution or an idea like the IDA could support and maybe even be an institution like Peter said, to monitor this kind of development worldwide. Thank you.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Thank you, Frank, for adding this new aspect of creating standard and also monitoring the compliance with this standard and also this tracking system that you mentioned for the design development use of robots and AI. We’re going to go on now with our on-site participant, Yonggeom, on my left side. Okay.

Hyung Jo Kim:
Thank you very much. The pronunciation for European is very difficult. I’m sorry for that. Okay. Thank you very much for having me and this good opportunity to this meaningful meetings, especially for Professor Petter. I have many things learned from this conference yesterday and today, also from the presenter. How should we live and prepare for our digitalized society in order to preserve or even more promote our human rights with digital technology? Let me start with a brief quote of a technical philosopher, Heidegger. A quote began, regardless of whether we enthusiastically embrace technology or deny technology, we are bound to it helplessly. The question concerning technology, so, and yes, the using of AI is unstoppable current. For example, I should show our situation in Korea to express. Before three months, the Korea Ministry of Education decided to offer AI education to all our children and high school students, starting in 2025. In addition, primary subjects such as math, English, will be taught with AI tools. It means two ways, coding and some related to AI technology, we should all, we should all run in our education knowledge, we should do, and also in other subject, mathematics and English, English, with this subject, also with AI tools to all, to be offered to all our children. So in this context, I would like to say that it is very self-evidently that we should have an agent such as control tower item. Because as we are well known, AI technology has not only positive but also as mentioned a negative side. So that we need a control tower in order to minimize the negative side. It is self-evidently. Therefore, more, I think more significant is not merely asking whether it is possible but asking a question in regarding how it should be, should, will be. More concrete, how we should and will build the institute. Because such a question finally constitutes an object or target of our question. And the thought underlying the question constitutes the character of that object. Meaning to say, question make entity. So with following two questions, I would like to suggest a discussion in regarding of directional building of item. First is about the problem of infinity regress. In the age of artificial intelligence, data are becoming ownerless. Even though yesterday many presenters in the main session have stressed the data authority. But this fact can be considered as a contra-factual evidence for the fact that the ownerhood of data is becoming weak. The agency that regulates the use of data will eventually collect more data than any other agency should be controlled or regulated. This could lead to call for the agency to be. are subject to be also controlled as well, yeah? Therefore, it is important to well demonstrate the agency’s trustworthiness. At this moment, we should come back to the value of transparency and fairness. The second, the problem is of definitional research on human rights. Okay, if we discuss the concept of human rights in the abstract and theoretical dimension such as level of political declaration, maybe, today so many speaker, yesterday in the main session said, it may be related to the just philosophical concept such as very broad concept human rights or human dignities, but however, if we consider the cultural context in Africa or Asia and so many other group, the concept of human rights will be made concrete and realized in accordance with the situation. This should be a research group to establish a good circle or the victoria circle structure between general and particular value, namely, universality and diversity. I think this should ultimately be implemented through collaborated research between various research group, something a low researcher and ethics and philosophical research group. Okay, my point worked too. Thank you very much.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Thank you very much also to you, Yongo, also for pointing out the role of, Yes, thank you very much, Yongo, also for pointing out first the role of education and knowledge which we have. haven’t talked about yet, and also for highlighting the need of transparency, fairness and embedding human rights in their contexts. So we will go on now with our online speaker Migle. Migle, are you there? Yes, I am. Can you hear me? Yes, we hear you perfectly. And we see you

Migle laokite:
okay. Good. So first of all, it’s great to see you again, although it’s online, but it’s great to see Evelyn, Peter, Kutuma and Hyongho. It’s great to see you again. My point, thanks of course for this opportunity to explain why do I think that AIDA is relevant and necessary in this in this in this context of especially artificial intelligence advancements. So basically, my point was more, you know, I start from the European perspective. So as to argue that, well, we need we do not have and therefore we need a sort of international agency to address the threats that the artificial intelligence and the related systems might give rise to, so much so that European Parliament has recently published its suggestions on how to expand how to improve the proposal for the Artificial Intelligence Act that the European Commission is promoting, right, that the first artificial intelligence legislative document that we are right now negotiating at the European level. And one of the things that the European Parliament has seen as very relevant and very, very important was the idea that we need to address the not only classify artificial intelligence on the basis of the risk, but also bear in mind that the high risk artificial intelligence systems might and surely will have a huge impact on the human rights. And therefore, European Parliament has proposed to propose that the high-risk artificial intelligence systems should undergo the fundamental rights impact assessment, which was not foreseen in the original version of this legislative proposal. So the assessment of this impact would basically include such elements as the purpose of the system, intended geographic and temporal scope of the use of the system, categories of natural persons and groups, not only persons as such, but also groups likely to be affected by the use of the system. How we are going to verify that the particular artificial intelligence system is compliant with the legislation related to the fundamental rights, but of course it applies to the human rights more widely. And what kind of reasonably foreseeable impact we can envisage through this impact assessment and what specific risks, what harms can we think of and what adverse impact there might be. And should this assessment lead to the certain huge and negative outcomes so that the foreseeable misuses or harms are kind of especially relevant, the developer needs to inform both the national and national authorities and also the stakeholders and in particular, the national supervisory authority that might start the investigation. So having said this, of course we say, okay, that’s a great initiative and well, we very much hope. that all these assessments might be brought into being. What I do, where I do see the role of AIDA is that is making, is basically being the focal point where all these assessments might flow. So as to basically make the good use of all this enormous amount of information related to artificial intelligence risks and harms to people and groups of individuals or ethnical groups or any other groups of human beings because this information is fundamental to prevent these risks and negative impacts, right? So making this knowledge also available and accessible for international organizations would help us also not only to prevent these harms from taking place in Europe but also would expand this protection worldwide because United Nations and in particular this the International Database Systems Agency, so AIDA could be the institution that could be in charge of this task because otherwise, we discover things in Europe but then we would say, okay, so that many companies might say, okay, we cannot do this in Europe but there is the rest of the world, right? Where you can do anything you want. And the way to prevent this from taking place is to build AIDA and make it the focal point for this sort of information to be distributed, accumulated and put to the use that would prevent any abuse, harm or other negative effects on the people from other continents where actually I think Thuma rightly pointed out that there is a tendency, there was a historical tendency, you know, to. to colonialize and abuse other continents. So I think this is the way to prevent also the repetition of historical errors we’re still kind of not comfortable with. Thank you very much.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Thank you very much, Miglia, for your input. And also highlighting again, I think all the speakers have agreed that technology has lots of advantages, but we also need to handle the negative consequences and the risks, especially when it comes to these high risks AI that you mentioned, which at least at the European level then has this impact assessments and what to do with this assessments or with this information that these assessments generate, like ideally to predict future risks. So there also we have like a new contribution that we have not discussed so far yet for AIDA. We will go on now to our last speaker who is online from Brazil. I’m not going to ask you what time zone that is and what hour of the day, but Yuri, if you are there, can you hear us?

Yuri Lima:
Sure. Thank you, Evelyn. It’s 4 a.m. in Rio. So good afternoon to the participants of this important session on the International Database Systems Agency. It is a pleasure to be here today. I would like to briefly speak about the challenges of building a fair international division of labor in the digital economy. In the past decade, we have witnessed the rapid and unprecedented evolution of AI and digital platforms that ushered in a new digital hyper-globalized economy. These powerful changes have transformed the essence of work globally and will continue to do so. While the potential of recent technological advances to drive growth and innovation is staggering, there is a significant disconnect between the pace of this evolution and society’s capacity to adapt. The speed at which new technologies emerge far surpasses our collective ability to understand, regulate, and fairly integrate them into our economic fabric. The result is an unequal distribution of the benefits of this technological progress. The digital economy, as it stands, presents a stark disparity between the international flow of profits and labor. While a handful of multinational tech giants amass incredible wealth, sometimes larger than countries’ GDPs, most of the digital labor force finds itself in a challenging position. This dichotomy results in an international division of labor that is often invisible, underpaid, and inhumane. A modern dynamic that echoes centuries-old practices when resources from many were channeled to benefit a privileged minority. The technologies might have changed, but the underlying logic in their development, operation, and even disposal still relies on exploring cheap labor from the global south. From Kenyan content moderators who flag harmful content to train chat TTP, and gig workers in Brazil who drive for Uber while producing data that helps to develop autonomous cars that will eventually replace them, to the Congo miners who extract the materials to produce the next iPhone that will later be dumped in electronic waste landfills in Thailand. Many people around the world face poor working conditions with low pay and little to no labor rights or protections. to sustain a digital economy that seems very clean and slicky in the developed economy’s Silicon Valley. Meanwhile, Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights articulates everyone’s rights to just and favorable conditions of work and to just and favorable remuneration, ensuring an existence worthy of human dignity. Moreover, the Sustainable Development Goal No. 8 calls for decent work for all, fostering economic growth while upholding workers’ dignity, safety, and rights. Sadly, the current digital economy diverges from these noble ideals. In consequence, the time has come for urgent action to promote a more ethical international division of labor in the digital economy. We need greater transparency around the supply chains in labor practices that sustain big tech. We must recognize that the role of underdeveloped countries in the global flow of technology and wealth cannot be diminished in importance, as it is imbricated with the more valued parts of this global value chain, both sustaining and allowing it to exist in the first place. The global South, where much of this digital sweatshop labor takes place, must have a seat at the table in determining global rules for the digital economy. Enter the potential role of an international data-based systems agency, IDA, an agency that can serve as a sentinel, monitoring and ensuring that the principles of fairness, justice, and equality are upheld in the digital sphere. Observing the current state, but also anticipating future challenges, IDA can shine a light on areas. that have remained in the shadows, revealing inequities, identifying best practices, and recommending actionable solutions. An IDA at the UN level can bring transparency and provide a platform for governments, workers, businesses, and civil society to engage, collaborate, and commit to a fairer digital economy. By promoting the rights to a fair International Division of Labour, IDA would ensure that a larger portion of the society, not just the privileged few, enjoy the fruits of the digital revolution. In conclusion, while technology drives progress, it is our collective responsibility to ensure that this progress does not come at the cost of human rights and sustainability. As we build a more technologically advanced society, we cannot leave human rights and dignity behind. The future we want is one of inclusive prosperity and equity. Getting there will require both steps to reform the International Division of Labour in the digital economy as it stands. An International Database Assistance Agency at the UN can be a platform for technical cooperation in the field of digital transformation, promoting a just and equitable digital future for all. Thank you.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Thank you very much, Joeri, for also pointing out here what Koutouma already mentioned as well, like who is sitting at the table and that absolutely the Global South also needs to be included as well if we talk about labour rights, but of course, and inclusive living. Thank you for that. We have now heard the inputs of all our speakers, so I would like to give the word to the audience, both on-site and online, first for a round of questions and answers to our panellists. Maybe we can start first with the participants here on-site, if you have any open questions.

Audience:
Yes. Hi. Oh, can you hear me? Okay. Hi, my name is Suji, and I’m from Seoul, Korea. And I’m studying public administration in the Seoul National University, and now I’m a PhD student. So I really, really wanted to ask, is there any model as a governance? I mean, is AIDA looking for an IAEA model or FDA model kind of things? So if you are thinking that AI could be a hazard as a nuclear energy, then are you thinking about IAEA model? And then do you think it is fit for the context of AI, and what should be the authority and power for the governance exactly? And so I was curious about what the governance body of IAEA would actually do concretely, and what the authority or power should it have? Thank you.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Thank you so much for posing this very important question, like about the concrete function and powers also. Who would like to answer that question from the panelists, maybe? Peter?

Peter Kirchschlediger:
Well, thank you so much for the question. So you’re absolutely right that there need to be adoptions made to, let’s say, the model of the International Atomic Energy Agency adopting it to the field of AI. I think you’re absolutely right on that. I still think that the model of the International Atomic Energy Agency can serve to give us orientation how many functions, rights, entitlements such an agency should have in order to really make a difference then on the ground. Because I think what’s important now is that I think we have gone through a period of beautiful declarations and guidelines and recommendations. but we haven’t seen yet so much impact of that. You know, businesses run as usual. We’re still facing the same risks. You know, we are not that good in identifying the ethical opportunities together. Not everyone is benefiting from AI, and so we need something really which is teethful, so has an impact. And I think there, we need to adopt the International Atomic Energy Agency model in order to make it fit for AI, but I think it’s possible looking at, for example, concrete functions IDA should have. For example, what is absolutely usual and not even questioned in the field of the pharmaceutical industry is a certain kind of approval of access-to-market process. And something similar would be needed to be done in the field of AI, so IDA would have the rights to run such approval process. Secondly, it would need to have, I mean, the proposal would be that it has also possibility to sanction not only state but also non-state actors not fulfilling their duties, not fulfilling their obligations. So in order really to make, to see a difference, you know, of the impact of artificial intelligence on the ground. Basically, you know, the underlying motive is to protecting the weak from the powerful. So, and of course, who the powerful is, as we have heard from Frank Kirchner from Germany, is that, you know, the powerful, it has kind of shifted, you know, the powerful in the field of AI are the multinational tech giants and not so much the states anymore. So of course, that needs to take into consideration as well. Thank you.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Would you also like to add something?

Kutuma Wakanuma:
Yeah, just quickly. And I think, for me, this also relates to Mikla’s contribution when she talked about the… on their own rights, on their own interests, that says that the borders must have an overall employment-free status. And then people who want to live, they can just attach their palm to the whole across the world to get the stuff that they need. That’s the kind of idea, but I think the third one out of seven just focuses on the health as well as the education. Perhaps also Africa might be looking at a different kind of act or regulations. And within these particular countries or continents, there will be also countries looking at different regulatory policies or acts if you like, whatever it is that they are looking at in terms of AI policy. And so for me, I think that IDA would be, one of the things that IDA could do is to then sieve through all these different regulatory policies to help come up with, I know it’s going to be quite difficult, but at least come up with something akin to one global standard of artificial intelligence because as Peter rightly said, one of the things that IDA would do is to, potentially do, is to protect the weak from the strong. So if we have an organization or an agency like IDA, I think it might help to then come up with some standard or some AI act that can be cohesive and cover a global ground so that everyone is protected in that respect.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Thank you very much for these, hello, no. Yes, okay, thank you for sharing your insights on that and are there any more questions here from the onsite participants? If not, we would go on to see if there are online questions, but please, if you have any. If you have any more questions, feel free to pose them. If not, Melina, she’s our online moderator, may I ask, are there any questions in the online chat?

Melina:
Good afternoon. Yes, actually, there’s one question by Ayalev Shebeji. So I would like to invite you to ask your question. And now he didn’t raise the hand, but he already posed the question in the chat. I will read it. And is it possible to protect or prevent international database information by building sophisticated technology advancement? Or is there any other means to protect or prevent from the hackers?

Evelyn Tornitz:
Who would like to answer that?

Audience:
Okay. Sorry. Thank you very much for giving me this opportunity. I can elaborate my question, it looks like a little bit cluttering words.

:
Sorry, maybe if you could put on your camera, is that possible?

Evelyn Tornitz:
So we can also see you?

Audience:
Yeah, okay. No worries.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Thank you so much.

Audience:
I joined IGF in Addis Ababa last year. And I’m researching in digital fiat currency or CDBC in Australia. I just finished my master in information and communication technology. My understanding is last year, there is a positive and negative impact of AI. And also, we haven’t mentioned here is a lot of technologies behind it. We have AOT and IOT and also… blockchain technologies, all these technologies is generating huge amount of data. We are trying to create, as I can see now, international database. So are we really creating international database and protecting this database with a sophisticated technology or is there any other mechanism we can regulate internationally with global south, including global south at the current database, for example, SWIFT code or SWIFT is internationally a data transaction with a cross border and that’s 835 different banks of different nations is signed and regulated. We need to find that kind of international rules and regulation. Also, we need to think how we teach the hackers. If we hack another country, what happens if another person or another hacker is hacking our own country? We need to have ethics. So what are actually these international IGF forum, try to find out and set up all inclusive countries, international law, which is governing both internet and internet related technologies and what are the what are the perspectives? This is my question. So thank you very much. If it’s not clear, I can elaborate more.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Thank you very much for your question. If I understood correctly, your question has to do with the regulation of this huge amount of data. and how the Global South can be included specifically. Please correct me if something is missing. Okay, so who wants to address this question from the panelists, both on-site or online? Kutuma, please go ahead, yes.

Kutuma Wakanuma:
Well, I don’t know if I’m going to address it adequately, but yeah, I’ll address it in a manner that I kind of perhaps understood it. I think your question for me took me to reflect on discussions that we’re having around CHAT-GPT. I mean, it hasn’t been very long. I mean, a couple of years, if you like, we didn’t really have a concern around CHAT-GPT. So now, you know, we’re starting to look at it and think about all these concerns in education and, you know, in different kinds of sectors. And CHAT-GPT is a classic example of how these unintended consequences can actually affect different, I suppose, organizations or corners of the world differently. And it’s one technology that is permeating everywhere. And people are struggling to understand how or what policies, you know, we can start looking at. I mean, coming from being an academic and, you know, being very much involved in student activities and student modules and things like that, we are now thinking about, oh, okay, this is a technology that has bolted. So there is no way of, you know, bringing it back. So how do we help students or how do we encourage students to use it responsibly? And I think this is something that everyone is kind of thinking about across the globe. And there is no… there is no right way of looking at it and this is why we probably need agents like AIDA to proactively look at these particular global events or situations and how we can then have global mitigating aspects related to this. So and one of the things that we ought to be doing also is to be inclusive and I think you did allude to the fact that in the global south, it could be an impact and things like that but for the most part, only a few, I suppose, especially from developed, more developed countries really are sitting at the table discussing these particular elements and we need an agency like AIDA to ensure that everyone, including people from the global south, from the global north, are sitting at the table trying to find solutions to concerns that are currently emerging or to have a foresight in terms of what could potentially come as a result of these particular technologies coming in. We shouldn’t just sit around and wait until something has happened in order for us to then start scrambling to find solutions and this is one example of what CHRGPT has done and I’m sure a lot of other upcoming technologies are doing. So I hope I’ve answered your question, perhaps even in a little way, thank you.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Yes, of course, Peter, please.

Peter Kirchschlediger:
May I just, well, thank you so much for your question. I just wanna add three minor points. I think the first thing is really that AIDA should promote technological cooperation and I think that’s very important for for tackling, you know, cyber security. And secondly, it shows also that IDA needs to have some kind of force also being legally binding because a problem like cyber security, we cannot tackle with recommendations and guidelines. And thirdly, I think it creates a certain kind of optimism that this will be possible to find, you know, global consensus on IDA because of the huge and enormous damage, economic damage. Cyber security is basically, you know, threatening all of us, be it, you know, state actors, be it non-state actors. And to join forces in that regard, you know, could help us to tackle that huge issue. And I would suggest that, you know, IDA could play a substantial role in that. Thank you.

Evelyn Tornitz:
Thank you very much, Peter. Are there any further questions from the audience online? Melina, is there anybody there who want to ask another question?

Melina:
No, I don’t see any more questions. Does anyone want to add something?

Frank Kirchner:
Well, if there’s no other questions, I would like to add to what Peter just said to the question of Yadel. I think Peter already said, we cannot prevent hackers from doing what they want to do. You know, it’s criminal. So we will always have criminals in the world. And if they have enough criminal energy, they will do it. So this is not the way we can make this data safe. But there is, of course, other ways to do it. And that’s what my comment was about the standardization and the opening of this knowledge to a broader audience, to a broader audience. To a broader audience, to a broader public, you know? And this is exactly where the agency could play a vital role. Because if you think about Wikipedia. You know, if you think something like this is an open database, you know, a database of knowledge and everybody can read it and everybody can add to it. And this is how I think you would be able to minimize the possibilities of misuse or hacking or whatever, by the largest extent, because if everybody sees and has the benefit from having this database, everybody will also make sure that this database is not corrupted. So still means that there’s possibilities for people that want to misuse it, they will misuse it. And then we have, like has already been said, ways actually of regulatory or laws, you know, that can then intervene and say, okay, you misuse this data, you will be, you know, punished by law, you know, because you committed a crime or whatever, because you misused the data that we’ve provided to the general public all over the planet. But to my mind, the biggest or the best possibility to make sure that we can use this great technology, which is it, which it is, right, it is a great and very, very powerful technology. We have to use it, but we have to use it to our best for benefit. And we have to live with the fact that there will always be people that try, at least, to misuse it. And this is where governance and where governments can come in and set in, you know, regulations like the EU says, you will not be punished for creating artificial intelligence, you will be punished for misusing it, you know, if you come up with an application that is misusing artificial intelligence. So that’s my perspective. And I think it’s correct what you said, you know, by looking at the further demands on automation that I have referred to, all these machines, all these robots, all these machines, you mentioned the Internet of Things, they will all create data. And it is. an enormous challenge and task for humankind actually, how to manage and how to create and how to safeguard this data. But it cannot be just in the hand of a few big companies. We should not forget that, Peter also mentioned it. It’s not the States, it’s not United States, it’s not Germany, it’s not the European Union that is creating these techniques. It’s companies, it’s companies that have enough money to pay the energy bill of a state like New York to create a foundational model, billions of dollars. Nobody can put these billions of dollars out. And the most stupid thing is that they are all doing it again and again and again. So if Microsoft comes up with creating-

Evelyn Tornitz:
I’m sorry to interrupt you, Frank, but I got the sign here from the technical staff that we have to come to a close of this session. But I would like again to take the opportunity to thank all participants, all speakers, both on and offline. I think there was a broad consensus that we need to, if possible, proactively prevent the misuse and risks of so-called artificial intelligence database systems. And standard setting, of course, as also Frank has put it out now at the end, is a way to do it, is also a way to do it for IDA. And yes, thank you very much again for being here. And I’m sure that discussion is gonna continue. Who knows, maybe at next year’s IGF, let’s see. So thank you again for being here. Thank you.

Audience:
Thank you. Thank you.

John LEE

The analysis highlights the importance of pandemic preparedness and emphasizes the pivotal roles of digital platforms and community involvement in effectively addressing pandemics. It acknowledges that pandemics are escalating in both scale and frequency, as demonstrated by the devastating impact of COVID-19 on a global scale. To address this challenge, the World Health Organization (WHO) has introduced the HIVE, a digital platform that aims to provide trustworthy health information with a community-centered approach.

Digital platforms like the HIVE play a crucial role in pandemic preparedness. Through dialogue, support, and collaboration, these platforms create a space for collective intelligence and efficient access to information. They also tackle the issue of infodemics and misinformation by providing accurate health information, combating the spread of false information during pandemics. By harnessing technology and fostering partnerships, digital platforms such as the HIVE facilitate the effective dissemination of vital health information to the public.

The analysis also emphasizes the crucial role of community involvement in addressing pandemics. It recognizes that communities have a direct influence on individuals’ access to information and decision-making during health emergencies. Hence, active engagement of communities in pandemic response efforts is essential. Community-driven platforms are particularly valuable as they provide local, contextualized information and facilitate connections with global health experts. Informed communities actively participating in developing solutions are vital in pandemic response and control measures.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights that the integration of digital platforms and community involvement in pandemic preparedness aligns with multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Specifically, SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) are directly related to these initiatives. The integration of digital platforms and community participation not only enhances healthcare outcomes but also promotes sustainable development through collaborative efforts.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the urgency of improving pandemic preparedness and highlights the instrumental roles of digital platforms, such as the HIVE, and community involvement in addressing pandemics. By leveraging the power of technology and fostering community engagement, stakeholders can collectively combat infodemics, provide accurate health information, and effectively respond to health emergencies. Furthermore, these efforts align with the broader SDGs, indicating the potential for comprehensive and sustainable approaches to global health challenges.

John LEE:
All right. We’re on time. Let’s get started. Good morning and distinguished guests. I guess between now and the next opening ceremony, we have a very light session of the lightning talk. And thank you very much for this opportunity to share a little bit about the HIVE. The title is People, Pandemic, and Information Platform, which is WHO’s digital space for health emergency preparedness platform powered by communities. My name is John Lee, technical officer at WHO headquarters Geneva in Switzerland. I work with an area where teams are working on preparing for next pandemic. As you can see, it’s not really a popular topic. We just went through a pandemic. But I guess the idea is that when next pandemic happens, not if, when the next pandemic happens, then we’ll be ready as a global community together. The purpose of this presentation is to share the high level overview of the platform. And as you can see in the name, like a beehive, we envision a platform that is creating a space of activity, support, and community to come together. You see the photo up there is a Kyoto. It’s great to be here. Did a little bit of the homework about the Kyoto. The colleague sitting over here might know a bit better about. Apparently in 1467, the Onin War happened. And, you know, it actually triggered the Kyoto citizens to develop autonomous communities to protect their lives by themselves. And in 16th century, it evolved into another version, Choshi Kinomuku, which in turn become Choki or Chosadame, which they form a rules, formulated by the residents of the Kyoto for the purpose of making the comfortable for themselves and maintaining favorable environment in the community. I see that there is the important similarities there between the hive platform and the community sense in Kyoto. So we just went through COVID-19. So devastation caused by the pandemic COVID-19 has brought really urgency to strengthen the way the world prepare for, prevent, and detect the response to health emergencies. The question is, are we prepared to globally respond to the next major pandemic? Are we ready to cooperate and perform across countries and across sectors to face such a threat? Not only to protect health in major epidemic and pandemic, but also to protect economic development, protect political and social systems, and not to repeat the history again. This is a bit of a chart about what are the tangible impact or devastating effect of COVID-19 and other emergencies that we just went through. It was a destabilizing event, and the effect of the pandemic is continued to reverberate in our society. Our political system, health system, and global economy. So it is important to note that pandemics are increasing in impact and scale and frequency, and the epidemic and pandemic risk has become a global strategic concern. I’ll also note that this was the second pandemic of 21st century. So like it or not, this is new normal, and we don’t expect the frequency of these epidemics to go down, unfortunately. In fact, the vulnerabilities of all over the world, whether it’s developed or developing countries, have increased, not decreased. So the question is, how do we prepare the communities before the next pandemic happens again? And especially, obviously, there are many work to be done, but I’ll be speaking to the preparedness of the communities when it comes to preparing for the next pandemic. So the WHO HIVE team envisions community-centered, trustworthy health information that facilitates health information and synchronous and asynchronous collaborative working practices, supported by a few functionalities, including community spaces, document repositories, and documentation, instant chat, and breakout groups. Some of the technological effect, but I guess that when you think about the community center approach, to me, it is fully informed and a properly informed community who are actively engaging in developing solutions. As some of the earlier speakers in previous session mentioned, very important topic about this as well, is that having the community centered and community-led is a very important piece of preparing our digital ecosystem for the next era. Each individual is a part of the multiple communities. For example, the workplace can be a faith community, a learning community like universities, or health or wellness, and each community influences an individual and their access to information and decisions, and an individual makes during the health emergency, and how they behave. So the challenge is that when the high-impact public health event happens, it’s often accompanied by the infodemic. I think it was touched on a number of sessions throughout this IGF. It’s defined as an over abundance of information, whether it’s accurate or not, in the digital space or physical space. It accompanies acute health events such as an outbreak, an epidemic, which is what we saw in the recent event of COVID-19. The infodemics drive today, especially in digitized and interconnected ecosystem right now, and individuals are exposed to a very complex and highly targeted information ecosystem, and the content is not always from the most reliable sources, and they can serve to confirm biases. And as you know, it takes time to build trust, and it’s hard to earn, but as we observed throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, it’s so easy to erode very quickly. So a small team at WHO began to think, I think this was before COVID-19 pandemic, how do we actually get the right information to the right people in the format that is actually appropriate, so that they can make decisions to protect their communities. And when we recently went through the COVID-19 pandemic, we were able to answer the question of, you know, can we rapidly ramp up the communication and address the key questions and concerns with large networks? And the answer is yes. We were able to, you know, use the opportunity provided the COVID pandemic to engage with the networks like Worldwork Network, all the industries and associations, the faith network and youth councils, and other associations and groups associated across the world. So building on some of those success that we envision, building a digital community space that is safeguarding communities during high-impact public health events, and creating a space for people to come together and discuss about, you know, whether they might have a question about the situation, whether the sum of public health social measures, you know, what does that mean in their context, and also reach out to the experts, whether it’s the WHO folks or the peripheral networks in the Ministry of Health or other advocacy groups and stakeholders within pandemic preparedness. There are a few features. I wouldn’t make this into the technical one. There’s four key components. There is ability for you to connect and collaborate. You can host and attend events. So then you can build what you saw in digital, the hybrid format of the events such as this, that you can really build the collective intelligence together, and you can access information that is slightly more efficient using, thanks to the technologies, machine learning and AI technology to really connect the people, information, and communities, and having a space, the digital space people can go to when it comes to the specific topic of epidemic pandemic preparedness. All right. So with the, and before we open up to a quick discussion with the participants here, you know, as a WHO, we’re not a technology expert, but we are the technical experts in health. So we would like to invite as many experts as possible, especially in digital space and in IGF is a really important forum to learn about what it means and engage in communities in digital space. So we need help from global experts in bringing the communities together while leveraging all the technologies that is available and enabling building community relationships for the preparedness and response to health emergencies. And most importantly, not go through what we went through is not leaving anyone behind, addressing the vulnerable and marginalized and the communities whose needs are also addressed and they have a place they can go to, to interact with the people. And I give the communities opportunity to bring the local and contextualize information that is the more appropriate for them. And also connect with the global, the experts of the global health public issues. Also this, this will, could create an opportunity to directly or indirectly the manage the, some of the issues around the mis and disinformation naturally by participating and not letting some of the questions and concern, progress it into the information bias, thereby progressing further into narratives than what we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic that created the huge impact on public health and everyone’s livelihood and life in general. So with that, I’ll end my presentation. Thank you for attention. And yeah, if you have any questions, I will invite everyone for a quick discussion before we wrap up. Any questions? All right, well then, we’ll end this session early and maybe we’ll proceed to next main session. So there are a few pens and brochures. Feel free to take them for as a reminder.

Hendrik Ike

Submarine cables play a critical role in facilitating international cooperation in internet governance and diplomacy. The agreements between various entities, such as NRENs/Rens, are built on trust and reciprocity. These agreements enable public entities to share and disseminate public research and educational data, fostering collaboration and knowledge exchange.

The evolving landscape of internet ownership and utilization underscores the significance of an open, resilient, and distributed internet structure to support research and education. The demand for investments in submarine systems is driven by the growth of research and educational activities, particularly in remote and traditional routes.

Submarine cables also serve as physical geopolitical solutions to the increasingly politicized internet. By providing reliable connectivity across borders, submarine cables promote international collaboration in research and education. This aligns with the goals of SDG 9: Industries, Innovation, and Infrastructure, and SDG 17: Partnership for the Goals in fostering global partnerships.

Strategic agreement provisions for submarine cables between the European Union and Japan have significant implications for scientific, political, and economic aspects. These agreements demonstrate the recognition of the importance of submarine cables in facilitating international cooperation and advancing research and educational initiatives.

However, the construction and operation of submarine cable systems present complex challenges. Paul Rouse describes them as intricate engineering projects that require careful design and construction. The complexity arises from the various components involved and the need to navigate through different territories and environments.

Successful submarine cable projects often involve multi-stakeholder collaborations. The involvement of multiple member states or nations enhances project outcomes and strengthens partnerships. Hendrik Ike highlights the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration in achieving project success, enabling different interests and expertise to contribute to the project’s objectives.

To summarize, submarine cables are crucial for international cooperation in internet governance, diplomacy, research, and education. Trust-based agreements facilitate the exchange of public research and educational data. The evolving internet landscape necessitates an open and resilient structure. Submarine cables also provide geopolitical solutions and are strategically recognized by the European Union and Japan. However, the complexity of designing and implementing submarine cable systems requires careful planning and coordination, often through multi-stakeholder collaborations.

Jun Murai

The discussions revolve around various topics related to infrastructure, technology, and funding in the Asia-Pacific region. The WIDE project, which has been operational for 35 years, focuses on improving infrastructure and technology research for the internet in the Asia-Pacific region. It involves more than 100 companies, including Starbucks, and encompasses professionals, engineers, and scientists. This project has a positive sentiment and aims to enhance internet infrastructure and technology research.

The need for a large funding body in the Asia-Pacific region similar to the EU and US is highlighted. The EU and US have significant funding bodies promoting research that ultimately results in the installation of submarine cables. However, the Asia-Pacific region lacks such a body, leading to the argument that there is a need for one to facilitate the installation of new submarine cables. This argument is expressed with a neutral sentiment.

The WIDE project started ARINAPAC, an arterial research and educational network, to create a supportive infrastructure in the Asia-Pacific region and link it to Europe and America. This initiative receives positive sentiment and supports the SDG goals of industry, innovation, and infrastructure and partnerships for the goals.

There is also support for the development of Wet ROADM (reconfigurable optical add and drop multiplexer) technology for submarine cables. Wet ROADM allows for the reconfiguration of spectrum splitting for future adjustments and enables adding or dropping traffic without reinstalling the fiber. This positive sentiment stance supports SDG goal 9.

The importance of effective collaborative projects between multiple stakeholders is emphasized by Jun Murai, with in-kind contributions being a significant aspect. Past collaborations mentioned include satellite transponder companies working together and high-speed switches and equipment developers participating in interoperability testing. Additionally, a wide project exploring new technology is mentioned, highlighting the mutual benefits of collaboration from an investment perspective. This argument has a positive sentiment and emphasizes the importance of collaboration and in-kind contributions for future networking progress.

Connectivity in Southeast Asia is seen as crucial, with Jun Murai supporting collaboration between the EU and JAN. The initiation of IHPI and satellite utilization, as well as the reference to 10 efforts to connect as the next generation of terrestrial connectivity, are mentioned. A three-phase plan is also outlined, involving satellite connection as phase 1, TEN connectivity as phase 2, and the redesigning of southern connectivity utilizing the Arctic Ocean as phase 3. This argument has a positive sentiment and highlights the importance of collaboration for enhancing connectivity in Southeast Asia.

Tain, the giant version and regional network of Southeast Asia, is mentioned to have started in the 80s, while the cable CAE-1 began in the middle 90s. These historical facts are mentioned neutrally.

Research and educational networks contribute a small percentage, around 5-10%, of the total installation costs of cables like NordNet. It is mentioned that it is possible, though not easy, to raise funds for research and education to cover 5% of the entire cable installation costs. This argument has a neutral sentiment and highlights the contribution of research and educational networks.

Once installed, the research and educational community will occupy about 5% of the capacity on the fiber pair. This positive sentiment argument emphasizes the usage of fiber capacity by the research and educational community.

The EU-Japan Digital Partnership Agreement endorses the project and extends the scope of people involved. It also promotes the benefits of investing in optical fiber to various industries. This argument has a positive sentiment and supports the importance of partnerships and endorsements for the project’s success.

Jun Murai believes that the special approach taken by the research and education community in actively initiating the project and inviting other stakeholders to get involved is unique and has not been done in the past. This positive sentiment argument emphasizes the importance of the research and education community’s active involvement.

Japan’s high frequency of earthquakes is mentioned in discussions related to the smart cable concept, which involves piggybacking sensors on commercial communication cables. It is argued that this concept is not enough for Japan due to the frequency of earthquakes, resulting in a negative sentiment.

Investment for the specific installation of sensor cables at the bottom of the ocean, identified as a dangerous area due to earthquakes, is seen as necessary for earthquake preparedness. It is argued that this investment can help in preparing for future catastrophes. This argument has a positive sentiment and supports the importance of investing in sensor cables for earthquake preparedness.

Japan has different funding sources for commercial companies, research, education, and seismic operations due to the frequency of earthquakes. This positive sentiment argument highlights the unique funding decision-making in Japan influenced by the frequency of earthquakes.

In conclusion, the discussions highlight the importance of infrastructure, technology, and funding in the Asia-Pacific region. Projects like WIDE and ARINAPAC aim to improve internet infrastructure and create supportive networks. There is a need for a large funding body to support submarine cable installation, similar to the EU and US. Collaboration and in-kind contributions are seen as important for future networking progress. Jun Murai emphasizes the importance of connectivity in Southeast Asia and the significance of collaboration between the EU and JAN. Additionally, the importance of investment in sensor cables for earthquake preparedness in Japan is emphasized. The discussions also highlight the different funding sources in Japan due to the frequency of earthquakes.

Audience

During a discussion, an audience member raised a question regarding the cost comparison between transferring energy and transferring data. This query sparked interest and highlighted the importance of understanding the financial implications of such processes.

In another point of discussion, the topic of installing cables in icy regions was explored. It was revealed that this project would be costly and resource-intensive, potentially requiring the commissioning of a new icebreaker. The task was considered a significant challenge, particularly when attempting to accomplish it without the assistance of immigrants alone. It became evident that substantial resources and funding would be required to successfully carry out the installation.

The need for government endorsements and funding emerged as a key aspect of the project. Participants agreed that financial support from the government would help alleviate the cost burden associated with the installation of cables. Furthermore, the issue of financial viability and return on investment was raised, reinforcing the importance of government involvement in this initiative.

Collaboration between various regions, namely Nordic, European, and Asian countries, was identified as a potential solution to facilitate the project’s progress. It was suggested that a common understanding and agreement on funding the project among these regions could lead to more efficient and effective implementation.

Switching gears, the discussion turned to the business case for the ability to predict natural disasters such as tsunamis and earthquakes. The potential benefits of accurate predictions were highlighted, including the reduction of costs associated with disaster recovery. In addition, it was pointed out that companies like Google and British Telecom were already testing predictive technologies, which could open up new revenue streams. This observation emphasized the need for companies to explore and capitalize on the opportunities presented by disaster prediction services.

In conclusion, the discussion covered various aspects related to the costs, resources, and collaborative efforts required for projects involving transferring energy and data, installing cables in icy regions, securing government endorsements and funding, and exploring the potential of disaster prediction services. The importance of government support, collaboration between different regions, and seizing new revenue streams were emphasized as crucial factors for the success of these initiatives.

Ieva Muraskiene

Submarine cables across the Arctic have the potential to revolutionise connectivity between Europe and Asia by offering a faster, more reliable, and geopolitically stable connection. Currently, 90% of direct traffic between the two continents goes through the congested Suez Canal, but the Arctic route presents a shorter distance and can avoid geopolitical complications by passing through the exclusive economic zones of Norway, Denmark, Canada, the US, and Japan. This alternative route has the potential to alleviate congestion and improve data transfer efficiency.

Additionally, the analysis highlights the potential for submarine cables in the Arctic to support the green data centre industry. The abundant surplus of renewable energy in the far north is currently underutilised due to a lack of power infrastructure. By leveraging submarine cables, this excess energy can be effectively harnessed to power data centres. Data transfer is more efficient and cost-effective than moving energy, and the cool climate in the northern regions can assist in dissipating the heat generated by data centres, reducing energy consumption and environmental impact.

To realise the vision of Arctic connectivity by 2030, two potential projects are identified: PolarConnect and Far North Fiber. Expected to be operational by 2030, these projects would establish reliable submarine cable connections in the Arctic. PolarConnect spans a total distance of 11,000 kilometres, while Far North Fiber covers 14,500 kilometres. These projects hold the potential to unlock the vast benefits of Arctic connectivity and bridge the digital divide.

In addition to enhancing connectivity, submarine cables equipped with sensors can also serve as powerful scientific instruments. These cables can be utilised for distributed acoustic sensing or state of polarization technology, allowing them to collect valuable data for monitoring Earth’s conditions, marine life, and seismic research. The ability to measure temperature, pressure, velocity, and salinity provides valuable insights into climate change and oceanic processes. Furthermore, the sensors can aid in the protection and monitoring of the cables themselves.

The analysis also touches on the cost disparities between transferring energy and data. The report acknowledges that the lack of infrastructure largely contributes to the cost difference. However, it emphasises the need for further exploration of the value proposition of energy versus data transfer. This information would provide valuable insights for decision-makers and assist in the development of infrastructure to support both energy and data transfer.

Engagement with governments and the European Commission is considered essential to secure funding and support for these projects. The Nordic countries, in particular, are recommended to communicate with their respective governments to obtain the necessary endorsements and support. The European Commission can also play a crucial role in exploring funding opportunities for these projects, aligning with SDG 17, which emphasises partnerships for attaining goals.

It is worth noting that the potential of submarine cables in the Arctic extends beyond mere connectivity. The analysis highlights multiple use cases and benefits across various sectors, including research, education, and the commercial sector. The project can contribute to early warnings for natural disasters and seismic activity, providing valuable information for scientific research and supporting SDGs 9 and 13.

In conclusion, the analysis showcases the immense potential of submarine cables across the Arctic. These cables offer a faster, more reliable, and geopolitically stable connection between Europe and Asia, bypassing congested areas like the Suez Canal. They not only facilitate efficient data transfer but also support the green data centre industry by utilising excess renewable energy and managing the heat generated by data centres. The PolarConnect and Far North Fiber projects are anticipated to realise the vision of Arctic connectivity by 2030. Furthermore, submarine cables equipped with sensors have the potential to serve as scientific instruments, collecting valuable data for observing the Earth, marine life, and seismic research. Engagement with governments and the European Commission is crucial for securing funding and support for these projects. The potential of submarine cables in the Arctic extends beyond connectivity, offering multiple benefits and use cases across different sectors.

Dr. Masafumi Oe

The National Astronomical Observatory of Japan (NAO-J) operates astronomical facilities globally that rely on large volumes of data for research and analysis. To support this need, high-bandwidth networks are essential. The Subaru Telescope, which was established in 1999, has recently undergone system upgrades, including the addition of the hyperspring cam. As a result, the telescope’s data can now be efficiently transferred to Tokyo for analysis through a 100 gigabit Ethernet network, improving data transfer capabilities.

In addition, the ALMA (Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array) project is currently upgrading its network infrastructure to a 1.2 terabit capacity. This upgrade will enable synchronous data transfer from all ALMA receivers, enhancing overall data transfer capabilities for the project. Dr. Masafumi Oe supports these network improvements for big science astronomy facilities, as it allows them to meet the demands of modern research effectively.

One significant outcome of these network upgrades is the reduction in data analysis time. With the upgraded network, the Subaru Telescope can now analyze data in under 10 minutes, demonstrating the positive impact of enhanced network capacities on research efficiency. Additionally, the 1.2 terabit network infrastructure upgrade for the ALMA project promises improved efficiency and reliability in astronomical research through enhanced data transfer capabilities.

The evidence strongly supports the argument that high-bandwidth networks are crucial for the advancement of modern astronomical research. The notable achievements of the Subaru Telescope and the ongoing network upgrade for the ALMA project highlight the benefits that improved network capacities bring to big science astronomy facilities. The positive sentiment surrounding these advancements, along with Dr. Masafumi Oe’s endorsement, further emphasizes the importance of upgrading network capacities for the progression of astronomical research.

Overall, the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan operates astronomical facilities globally that heavily rely on large datasets, making high-bandwidth networks essential. The upgrades made to the Subaru Telescope’s data transfer capabilities and the ongoing network upgrade for the ALMA project underscore the significance of improving network capacities for modern astronomical research. The reduction in data analysis time and the endorsement of Dr. Masafumi Oe enhance the overall efficiency and progress of big science astronomy facilities. These advancements contribute to the overall efficiency and progress of astronomical research.

Paul Rouse

The analysis explores the role of submarine cables in supporting research and education, highlighting that 98-99% of global internet traffic is transmitted through these cables. They not only facilitate data transmission but also offer physical solutions to the increasingly politicized internet, benefiting research and education. The agreements between research and education networks at national and regional levels, based on trust and reciprocity, form the foundation for submarine cable usage in this context.

However, concerns arise regarding the changing ownership and utilization of submarine cable infrastructure. Content providers like Google, Microsoft, and Facebook are increasingly acquiring a larger share of the market, potentially reducing available capacity. This poses a risk in meeting the demands of research and education missions adequately.

To address these challenges and ensure critical infrastructure availability, proactive measures and investment in submarine systems are essential. Recent collaborations serve as examples, such as Géant partnering with the European Investment Bank and DG NIR from the European Commission to invest in the Medusa submarine cable system in the Mediterranean Sea, improving connectivity for North African countries. Additionally, Red Clara collaborated with Géant and received funding from the European Commission to invest in a new submarine cable connecting Europe to Latin America.

The analysis acknowledges the Bella project as a trailblazer amongst National Research and Education Networks (NRENs) worldwide. The project encountered various hurdles, including limited experience in submarine cable investments initially and economic difficulties, particularly in Brazil. Nonetheless, it emphasized the significance of stakeholder engagement, compliance, governance, and financial requirements in realizing successful submarine cable projects.

Collaboration and partnership emerge as recurring themes throughout the analysis. NRENs alone cannot deliver the necessary infrastructure and support; collaboration with commercial partners is crucial. The analysis suggests that NRENs are desirable partners due to their capacity to mitigate risks using public funds.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the importance of submarine cables in supporting research and education. While concerns exist regarding changing ownership and utilization, proactive measures, investment, collaboration, and partnerships are crucial to secure critical infrastructure. The Bella and Medusa projects serve as successful collaboration examples, reflecting the value of government support, funding bodies, user communities, and the skills within NRENs. Moving forward, fostering collaboration and partnerships between NRENs and other entities will be instrumental in ensuring continuous growth and success in research and education pursuits.

Keiko Okawa

Two speakers in Asia highlight the crucial role of internet connectivity in promoting educational and research collaboration in the region. The first speaker stresses the necessity of internet access for internet engineers, as it not only supports sustainable development but also enhances collaboration among professionals in the field. They propose the implementation of an Asia-wide educational programme for internet engineers, which would ensure that they have the necessary education and connectivity to contribute effectively to the region’s progress.

The second speaker focuses on the long history of collaboration among universities in Asia, which has been facilitated by internet connectivity. They highlight the ‘Asia Internet Interconnection Initiative’, which was launched in 1996 with the aim of connecting universities across the region. This initiative has played a vital role in fostering knowledge sharing and learning among academic institutions. Furthermore, the establishment of the ‘School of the Internet’ in 2001 has further contributed to the exchange of ideas and information among universities in Asia.

Both speakers emphasise the positive impact of internet connectivity on education and partnership building in Asia. They highlight the importance of enabling access to high-speed internet for educational institutions, as it plays a crucial role in connecting these institutions and facilitating research activities. The first speaker mentions that Asia university partners are excited about the new high-speed network, showing the enthusiasm and support for such initiatives.

Furthermore, evidence of internet connectivity’s impact is demonstrated by the fact that as of 2019, almost 60% of the population in Asia was connected. This wide access to the internet has undoubtedly contributed to the growth of educational and collaborative networks across the region.

In conclusion, internet connectivity in Asia is recognised as a fundamental force driving educational and research collaboration. By providing internet access to internet engineers and enabling universities to connect and share knowledge, sustainable development and partnership building in the region can be greatly enhanced. The examples of initiatives like the ‘Asia Internet Interconnection Initiative’ and the ‘School of the Internet’ demonstrate the long-standing commitment to collaboration and shared learning among universities in Asia. With the continued efforts to expand and improve internet connectivity, the potential for educational and research collaboration in Asia is immense.

Hendrik Ike:
you want to double check with number 2 as well? They are face to face. They are face to face. He’s going to speak in the first, and you’re going to do the second part. He’s going to speak in the first, and you’re going to do the second part. He’s going to speak in the first, and you’re going to do the second part. He’s going to speak in the first, and you’re going to do the second part. He’s going to speak in the first, and you’re going to do the second part. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Hello. Good morning everybody. Thank you for making it here so early on the first slot of this being the second day officially of the IGF23. My name is Hendrik Eick, I’m a public affairs officer at Géant, which is the regional research and education network of Europe. And before I introduce the speakers, I’d like to just talk a little bit about why we’re here today. So global cooperation in the field of submarine cables is an essential element of both internet governance and diplomacy. Research and educational activity is fueling demands to support investments in submarine systems. in remote areas as well as in more traditional routes. The changing profile of the ownership slash utilisation of the internet is noted, and the public interest role of research and education can be seen to be significant enough to be a conduit to ensure a retention of an open, resilient and distributed internet structure. Submarine cable agreements between national, regional research and education networks, or NRENs slash RENs, are based on the common values of trust and reciprocity, and they allow public entities to not just share and disseminate public research, educational data, but innovate solutions and services to bolster scientific advancement. With this, of course, comes both economic growth and drivers of sustainability. Submarine cables can also provide physical geopolitical solutions to an increasingly politicised internet for the good of research and education. I’d like to now introduce the speakers we have today for you. The first, and this will be in order of appearance, so the first is my colleague Paul Rouse. He’s the Chief Community Relations Officer at J-ON, and he’s joining us online, and he’ll be presenting first. Following that, we have our friends and colleagues from wide, so starting with Jun Murai-san, founder of the Wide Project, professor at Keio University and father of the Japanese Internet. We then have Professor Kaiko Okawa-san, and she’s a professor at the Keio University Graduate School of Media Design. She’s a director of the School on the Internet Asia Project, launched by the Wide Project in 2001. And then we have Dr Masafumi Oe-san, who’s a Vice Director of the IT Security Office at the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan. And our final speaker will be Ieva Mureshkene. She’s a Strategy and Policy Officer at Noijinet. which is the regional network for the Scandinavian NRENs. The backdrop of this session is we wanted to view it a bit through the lens of the EU-Japan strategic partnership, and also within that agreement between the EU and Japan, there are provisions for agreements on submarine cables. In order to understand this and its scientific, economic and political impact, we’ll start with Jaon giving a brief overview of how we came to this space, and with that, I’d like to hand over to Paul for his first 20 minutes.

Paul Rouse:
Thank you, Hendrik, and good morning to everybody there and to all those online. Can you see and hear me okay? Good, thank you. Right, we’ll start then with the first slide, and really, I’d like to start off with an introduction here to talk about how we have the outcome of the combination of submarine cables, the internet, and research and education networks. So we’ll start today with a little lesson in history, first of all, and let’s look at the concept of the submarine cable. It was in the mid-19th century when the first transatlantic cable was put into service. It started off with another very successful beginning, but by 1988, the world saw the advent of fibre-optic cables in place across the North Atlantic as well, and this really became the start of the capabilities as we know today, to the point where 98, 99% of all the world’s internet traffic is actually carried by submarine cables. And there to the right, you can see an extract of all the submarine cables that are in service around the world, so really very much a critical infrastructure for modern society. Let’s overlay that next then with how the internet came about. So it was Vint Cerf back at Stanford University, and the importance here of the story here is you’ll see that a lot of the internet was born out of research, academia. So Stanford University, the internet protocol was devised. And then later on at CERN, Sir Tim Berners-Lee actually came up with the concept of the World Wide Web. Now many of you may have heard of the Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, where at the lowest level humans recognize we have the need for simple things like food, warmth, shelter. Some bright individual has repurposed this Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need and suggested Wi-Fi is the most important characteristic in modern society. So it just goes to show from the concept of ideas in research that the internet now is ingrained in everything we do. And for any of you that have young children, you’ll know anywhere you go someone new, the first thing they want to do is find out the code for the Wi-Fi. Looking at the next slide then, what’s the significance of research and the use of the internet? Well, here in the image, you can see the ATLAS experiment at CERN in Geneva. The purpose of CERN is high energy physics, and it looks for new exciting research into how the world was created. So most recently you would have heard of a new particle that had been identified, the Higgs boson particle. When the scientists there work on these activities, the experiments are conducted there, but the data is disseminated around the world for scientists to collaborate globally to investigate those data sets. And what you can see on that bottom graph on this slide is actually the increase and the profile of traffic. These scientists generate huge amounts of data when they conduct these experiments. And what you’ll actually see on the right-hand side of that graph is where the traffic is now, or the data produced, flowing out of the network to researchers around the world is actually starting to peak at around a terabit of data that’s coming out there. So in terms of networking connectivity, that’s a pretty significant flow rate in the network. And we need certain kind of network capabilities and solutions to be able to convey and transmit that data accurately. As well as this, CERN produces other great impacts on all of our lives. A picture there of an x-ray, so the technologies that CERN are working with are actually then deployed and adopted in x-ray technology that many of us, hopefully, you won’t experience it, but if you go into hospital and have an x-ray taken, some of the technology from CERN may be incorporated into the x-ray machines that are used to improve the image definition. So that’s physical sciences, but that’s not the only place where network connectivity is important. In the subject of observing the Earth, Earth environmental sciences, the European Union has a space program called Copernicus. Copernicus has a number of satellites that have different sensors there, and all of these sensors take a range of measurements around the Earth and make this data set available for researchers around the world. So as an example here, one such center in Kenya, the Regional Center for Mapping of Resources for Development, receives this data that’s gathered from the satellites and is transmitted over research and education networks for researchers to help contribute towards the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, looking at land use, crop erosion, crop diseases. All of the sensing technologies are very important to help make effective use of land resources. Now if you recall back to what I told you about the creation of the Internet, roughly at the time the Internet was created was also the birth of the National Research and Education Networks. And I’d now like to introduce you to the GIANT organization. Hendrik mentioned it briefly in his introduction, and I’ll spend a little bit more time here. GIANT is based in the Netherlands, but we’re an association with 39 member NRENs behind us, and we provide services and activities that support over 10,000 institutions or 50 million academic users. So, we’re pretty significant in terms of research and education activity. And in our composition and our activities, the things that we cover and do, if we look at the next slide please Hendrik, is in running that organisation, we undertake a number of European funded projects. But in doing this, we have three dimensions, the network, services and people. The network I’ll talk about more in just a moment, but the services are also important to exploit that network technology layer. So identity services, allowing students to access their resources as they move around centres, or researchers to collaborate using shared facilities. And then finally, the people dimension, ensuring communities of interest can collaborate and work effectively. And the way the modern world works, this isn’t limited just to Europe, we often work on a global basis. Let’s have a little bit of a look at the network now. The network that you can see there isn’t built by Jeanne alone. A characteristic of our community, the National Research and Education Network, or that when it’s aggregated at a regional level, the Regional Education Network, we collaborate together. So Europe will collaborate with North America, with Asia-Pac, to ensure a network is in place to support those use cases that I’ve described already. And my colleagues and speakers here today will talk to you at greater length about some of the specific activities or initiatives that we see coming up in the future. But at present, we have a good infrastructure to ensure this collaboration and this research activity can happen. We not only support the physical sciences, and the earth sciences, but we support other user communities as well. Research often relies on technology, artificial intelligence, high-performance computing infrastructure. Access to those sorts of resources are important. Our network provides the connectivity pathways to those. But also the control that we have over our network infrastructure ensures that we can service arts and humanities community who are very sensitive to latency characteristics on a network, such that an artist performing a dance routine in Latin America can collaborate with someone in Central Europe who may be playing the accompanying music with a very much controlled latency over the music and image coordination. Health and food is another area, and also energy. We’re working on developing a new site in Cadarache in France, where there is a global collaboration to look at fusion energy sources. The data and control of those systems will produce a significant amount of connectivity requirements and research and education networks are underpinning that. So I’ve explained to you a little bit about how the internet came to be, how it has its source in research education, and also the significance of submarine cables in that domain. So what have we done about this? What have we done as research and education networks to make sure that the network and infrastructure exists there? Well, as an example, Red Clara, the regional network in Latin America, with Géant and funding from the European Commission, enabled an investment in a new submarine cable connecting Europe to Latin America, such that we have dedicated spectrum on this route for the use and benefit of research and education networks. So this was a real pathfinder example, how research and education networks can be an active player in the submarine cable marketplace. That’s a little bit about the now. What about the future? Well, why are we here talking today? What’s important to us? If we look to an external advice, that from telegeography, good expert organization and understand all things that are going on about connectivity in large. Their data shows that the ownership of these submarine cables is changing. It’s changing that what are called content providers, the likes of Google, Microsoft, Facebook, are taking a greater percentage ownership in this submarine cable infrastructure, which means the market is shrinking. So we perhaps have a risk around ensuring that we have adequate capacities that we can continue as NRENCH to deliver the research and education mission. So this is taking our attention and we’re seeing some action and response to this already. In Europe, on the next slide, there is an initiative called the Digital Data Gateways. Just recently, Xiao has worked with the European Investment Bank and DG NIR from the EC to invest in the new Medusa submarine cable system in the Mediterranean Sea. And this will improve the connectivity for a number of North African countries. There’s another example where, for the benefit of research and education and securing sovereignty over this infrastructure for the public good, we can have a good mix in the parties and actors to ensure continued outcomes and infrastructure access. But it’s not just the connectivity. As a community, the research element continues. And we’re using these same submarine cables in a new project called Submerse to investigate whether it’s possible to use submarine cables to be Earth-observing. And on the next slide, you’ll see an overview of the Submerse project. One slide appears to have missed out there, so I’ll just talk to that. The submarine cable has the ability to not only carry data, that research data that may be produced by CERN, but it has the ability to observe the Earth around it, and the oceans are the largest, greatest unexplored territory. So we can see what’s happening to the Earth from the view of the ocean, which is important for things like climate change and understanding undersea currents. So we’re looking at how these submarine cables can also be used for Earth observation. I mentioned earlier, when I was talking about the network, how we don’t ever do this just alone. We always ensure that we collaborate with partners around the world. And often at a political level, we see commitments being made, for example, between Europe and Japan, with a recently signed strategic partnership agreement. And I know Jun will talk to this more shortly, and explain how we can translate this political agreement into action in the form of things like digital connectivity, and the broader socio-economic benefits that that brings. So overall, there’s an introduction there. I hope you’ve understood how the internet has come to be, how the importance of submarine cables are relevant to the internet in carrying that majority of all traffic, and how for research and education, it is essential that we can continue to have access to submarine connectivity infrastructure to deliver the benefits for society at large. Thank you very much for listening. And I hope you enjoy the rest of the session. Thank you, Hendrik.

Hendrik Ike:
Thank you very much, Paul. And thank you very much for that clear introduction as to why these cables matter, essentially, for research and education in our community at large. Before I move on, does anybody have any questions for Paul from the audience? Or in the chat, which I see no questions. We can also, we also have a segment at the end where we have time for more audience questions. But now, I would now like to move on to WIDE, our colleagues in Japan, and I see Jun has a microphone already, so I will let him start.

Jun Murai:
All right, thank you very much, good morning everybody, and welcome to Kyoto, Japan. And I’m Jun Murai, Keio University WIDE, well, founder of WIDE project, and I’m going to talk about WIDE much later, but Professor Hiroshi Yasaki sitting in there is a director, representative of WIDE project, but anyway, today I’m going to talk about what the Japan team basically, not only the WIDE project, is talking about, and can I see my slide? Can you control the slide, please? Okay, so WIDE project is a research consortium working for the infrastructure, researches on the internet technology and protocols and other things for a long time. It’s been 35 years of history, and it’s more than 100 companies, more Starbucks companies supporting us from Japan, but also they are from the other part of the world as well. And then the universities and the engineers from the ISPs and the vendors, engineers, so it’s a very nice mixture of professional experts on the network and the computation background, including the science and other researchers. So the WIDE project decided to work on the submarine cable, and we’ve been kind of are doing a lot of work. But if you heard GEANT and other European activities, and this is very nice that the EU is funding the research activities. And then the research activity is endorsing the installing of a new submarine cable around. OK, so then the US, National Science Foundation, United States, is doing a very similar thing and connecting the international cable, including the connectivity to Japan and Europe, but also to South America and the other thing. So see, the US got a pretty big funding body. And then the EU got a pretty big funding body based on the research and then endorsing the installing of a submarine cable. So the point is that we don’t have that in the Asia-Pacific region. So that has been the issue. So various entities started to work together to work as Europe and America, and then the Asia-Pacific Submarine Infrastructure for the research and educational activities. That has been discussed. But finally, now it’s got into the form. Go ahead. And so the wide project started the things called the ARINAPAC, Arterial Research and Educational Network in the Asia-Pacific, and also working together with the other funding agency of Japan and the other partners around the Pacific to work together. Then it’s creating the great collaboration to connect the various partners, and then onto the very strong, try to establish a strong network infrastructure in the Asia-Pacific, and then connecting to both Europe and America. So if you, the next slide’s going to be this one. OK, good. OK, so we have a booth, actually, and then asking all the people visiting the booth to connect to their own research and educational network link by themselves. And creating this globe with a pin and a string. And so if you look at this carefully, then we do have a very important partners. And the blue one is, by the way, the dream, dream line. So it’s not there. So the Arctic fiber is one of the blue line. And from the Chile to this side. Yeah, Chile to, we don’t have that one yet. Yeah, we have one here. So after this session, then please visit our booth. And you can add your dream link for the, anyway. But anyway, so that’s kind of a symbolic effort we’ve been working together. So this part of the Asia-Pacific is not just by Arena Park, which is a wide project operation, but also the Sinet and other things. So going to the, oh, let me share one of the challenges we started to work. We are the researchers of networking technology as well. So we have a new technology called reconfigurable optical add and drop multiplexer, which is well known for the data center technology as well. But so instead of dropping the fiber. And then the going forward type of a thing. Then we can split the spectrum and the dynamically reconfigurable spectrum thing. That’s a ROADM technology, which is now getting pretty much standard for the data center technology. But that’s called a dry ROADM. So there’s going to be a wet ROADM, which is used for undersea cable. So that’s going to change our configured and the design of the submarine cable for the dropping in the city from the middle of the ocean and then reconfigurable for the future. So remember, the lifetime of the optical fiber is like 25 years. And therefore, during that 25 years, probably the split to the dropping in a certain city, traffic might be changed. And then instead of reinstalling the fiber, we can do the reconfigurable, utilizing the existing fiber and then the control. So this might be, it’s not there for the research long-term, long-haul network on the submarine cable yet. But we are now very eager to explore this technology for the new cable, especially between Europe and Japan. So go ahead with the new one. So if the Arctic fiber coming to Japan from north, which is a red line, and then going to south, which is reaching to a southeast Asia. And then the important thing is that this connectivity for the northern cable and the southern cable should be benefit for the European community to reach. the Southeast Asia research entity as well. Therefore, the question is how can we dropping and from, I mean, connecting Tokyo and then dropping in the Philippines and other cities, which is also a requirement of a EU research community as well. Okay, so next slide, please. And then those places could be a candidate of installing the wet ROADM and then reconfigurable for the dropping in Hokkaido, dropping in Tokyo, dropping in, terminating in Tokyo and then connecting in the Tokyo and then reaching to Philippines and other Southeast Asia. This is what we are trying to achieve for the future. So, next slide, please. So this is a yellow part, basically they’re working with the Japanese government that which part’s gonna be a more missing ocean of the cable and then, so that’s gonna be beneficial because most of the traffic is on the internet. Internet traffic can be getting a benefit from alternative and the complicated route and the topology, right? So route topology should be complicated and the redundant for the internet traffic anyway. So from here on, then the application like a research and education, not only the scientific big researches and the starting with Keiko for explaining about this way here and that. Oh, okay, all right, okay, I’m sorry. I’m gonna talk a little bit more. This slide is talking about the research collaboration between Asia and Europe, each of the specific subject. and including fusion and astronomy, high-performance computing. There is a lot of requirements for the research community between Asia and Europe. And this is from one entity, agency, NIA, and the next one is NICT, to work with various entities and the research. And then the third slide is basically asking their requirements for the, how much bandwidth do you want? And then they said 100 gig, 500 gig. Oh, by the way, I forgot to say that most of this string is 100 gig today, and they’re going up to 400 gig for the future, so which is gonna be a lot of traffic. So then switching to educational thing, there’s Keiko, and then more the consuming a lot of bandwidth from astronomy research from OSR. Okay.

Keiko Okawa:
Thank you, Jun, introducing me. So I’ve been working in Southeast Asia and Japan education and research collaboration for more than 20 years. So we have right now a lot of partners. You can see a red dot. Maybe it’s not a little bit blur, but red dots are our current partners. And we do have a Nepal, this is the list from west to east, Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippine, Timor-Leste, Japan, and the most east, I believe, Australia. And those are the partners, not only a pinpoint university, but those are the gateways to their own RANs, like an NRAN, BDRAN, MRAN, so all the countries and regions have their own universities and institutions connecting. So we are kind of gatewaying to all the areas. The red dots, as you can see, they are connected to each other by international collaboration. So, Huawei, the wide project, launched two significant projects in 1996 and 2001. 1996 is the Asia Internet Interconnection Initiative. Remember when we lived with a little connectivity in 1996? We had a big hope to connect all the universities. How can we connect the Internet among universities in Asia? It was 1995, only .4% of the population of the world was using the Internet, and even smaller in Asia. And they connected many universities in Southeast Asia utilizing satellite technology. And five years later, from the IEEE, as we call it, the right-hand side is the School of the Internet. How can we share knowledge among universities in Asia over the Internet that the IEEE created? That was 2001. Still, only 8.6% of the population was using the Internet. So this is the beginning of our collaboration. And at that time, all the universities set up the satellites to connect each other, and so on, so on. So connectivity is essential for research and education, even from a very early stage. In 2007, we had a whole set of partners start to work together. That was 20% of the population era. So at that time, learning and research together in Asia has been a norm since the beginning. So, yeah, we got together. We know we can do better with peers than doing ourselves. So we learned each other. You can see many countries are connecting there and very, very simple technology at that time, multicast and satellite and many countries connected by themselves because of the education. And many, many things happened and then 2019, we had almost 60% of population connected and the university are ready to go farther in 2019. And then COVID came and yes, this is the way we’ve been working together for several years now. But now we got a cable connectivity and we have a good harmonization with satellite and cables right now. And ArenaPAC that Jun just talked about started to strengthen our collaboration beyond Asia. So you can see Tokyo is connecting to many places and Singapore is connecting to many places and Guam has a new topology added by ArenaPAC. But Asia university partners are excited about new high speed network, which is Indonesia’s signing ceremony, 100 giga BPS coming to Indonesia. And that is not only to Indonesia, but beyond that. And Indonesia is connecting to Guam, Tokyo, but not only to Tokyo, beyond Tokyo, go into other places, Europe and the United States as well. So it’s already connected, ready to do many more things. And we are looking forward to more collaboration and that is on the research and education. And in order to keep this environment sustainable, we really believe education for the internet engineers are key essence for the future. So we have our education program and now all Asian partners, Asia-wide educational program are ongoing and we are ready for research and education collaboration beyond Asia. So I would like to pass this microphone to Oe-san.

Dr. Masafumi Oe:
Thank you very much. So I’m Masahumi Oe from Astronomical Observatory of Japan. So today I would like to talk to you about how submarine cables enhance the big astronomy science. So the first three, so why we, our network undersea, the submarine cables are relevant to astronomy. So this presentation will be explain about our big science facilities. So this is a very big consuming the data to analyze the astronomy data. And also I would like to introduce to impact the network have bandwidth on the science. So why we NAO-J? NAO-J is National Astronomical Observatory of Japan. So we have a lot of the astronomical facilities in the world. So our main facility is locating in the top of Mauna Kea in Hawaii. And also we make a collaborate with the ESA and the NARO in US in the Chile. So it’s called the ALMA, Atacama Submarine Array Antenna. So that is two of the current facilities are consuming a lot of data to analyze, to observing the astronomy. So that is one of the example. So the Subaru Telescope, that has a one. 8.2 primary single meter is facility. So this telescope facility is a multipurpose use. So this Subaru Telescope has the three point of the mounting point for the attaching to some observation system. So the Subaru Telescope established in 1999, the system has been upgraded year by year. So currently, the hyperspring cam is our flagship observation facility, one of the facilities. So this is a lot of the huge amount of the data to the short start. So this is a lot of the high sensitive CCD is connected to the computing facility and the storage facilities. So right at 870 million pixels digital camera in the top of the monocular. So all of our facility is located in the world. So one of the Subaru facilities I talked. So another one is the Aruma project. That’s first right is 1921. So this site also, there are a lot of consuming data to transfer to the Tokyo and other European countries and the US mainland. So currently, this figure is showing to the submarine cable. But that facility is not quite different. Actually, the data network from the Aruma Subaru to the Tokyo. So the submarine cable planning is not relationship to the location of the observation site. The current location site is the best location for observing the stars. So the next fact is science is not possible without network technologies. So the ARMA is the one of big facilities. So you show this figure showing the Yamanote line. That is a major JR line in the Tokyo area. So each parabola antenna is connected around the size of the Yamanote line. So the fiber cable over the 16 kilometers away from the central data center. So each data from their telescope has been transferred to the correlation office. So all of the correlation office has a supercomputer system. So this system facility, the engineering that analyze the data from each telescope. So then they’re creating the images. So currently, this network has based on the 10 gigabit Ethernet. However, so this facility, it’s depending on the technology of the commodity technology, like Ethernet or some ATM or something. So this program will be updated year by year. So firstly, I’m talking about the current the astronomy facilities with the bulk data networks. So in last year, we have collaborated with the Arena Park, the 100 gigabit Ethernet network reached to the Subaru Telescope in the top of Mauna Kea. So we are upgrading all of the network facility from Mauna Kea to Tokyo. So before the upgrading, so we need to do one more week to analyze the data. However, so after the upgrading the 100 gigabit Ethernet network deployed, so all of the data analyzed to the computing facility in Japan. So I mean, basically, the Subaru Telescope in 1999, we just only have the 100 ATM-based network. So all of the computing, analyzing, storage facility should be located in the Subaru. However, currently, the high bandwidth network has been deployed from the Mauna Kea to Tokyo. So it means that all of the data transferred to Tokyo and analyze the computing facility in Tokyo. So that means a lot of accelerates to analyze the data, just only currently under 10 minutes. So that’s a very good impact for the astronomy science. And also, the ARMA has currently a data transfer system. DTS system is upgrading. So the ARMA is currently using a 10-gigabit Ethernet. However, that will be upgrading to the 1.2-terabit network, which is based on the 400-gigabit Ethernet. So I mean, currently, the ARMA Telescope has the multiple band receiver is existing the one single antenna. However, if bandwidth upgrading to the 1.2-terabit, means that all receivers are sending data synchronous to the data centers in Santiago. So it means the fiber is also deployed to the over 6 kilometers away from the main site to the data center facilities. So this network improvement is improve the network functionality, open the way to the new scientific frontier. That is a very good impact for the bandwidth. So that’s all from me. So thank you.

Hendrik Ike:
Thank you very much from all three representatives from wide. I would like to open the floor if I have any questions for our three colleagues here. And I don’t see anything in the chat, but as I said before, we’ll have time at the end for more questions and I have one or two up my sleeve too. But before then, it’s my pleasure to introduce my colleague Ieva from Nordinet, who’s going to talk to us about the Nordinet view of subsea cables.

Ieva Muraskiene:
Thank you. Thank you. Sorry. Thank you, Henrik, for the introduction. So my name is Ieva Mureskene. I’m sorry for the voice. I come from Nordinet and if someone introduced me, then I have to introduce Nordinet as well. Nordinet is a collaboration of the research and education networks of the five Nordic countries, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland. Nordinet was established in 1985 when the five Nordic countries joined forces. And since then, Nordinet has been known to pioneer innovative solutions and push the boundaries of the technology from the beginning of history of Internet itself. The first connection between Stockholm and Princeton was set up in 1988 with a capacity of 56 kilobits per second. And in 1989, Nordinet established the first open available Internet outside of the U.S. In 1991, Nordinet was selected to operate the first root name server and then after that a lot of other innovative solutions. Currently, Nordnet operates a global network that interconnects the research and education networks in the five Nordic countries and connects these countries to the rest of the world. The high level of redundancy on the Nordics networks is ensured by using the shared infrastructure as each end run in the Nordics provides spectrum for the Nordnet network itself. On global scale, Nordnet has presence both in the United States and Asia. Going further, today I will talk more about the global communication problems and how we foresee to improve the routes and what value we can bring to the green data centers up in the north and how we can make an impact on the climate science and by presenting the smart cables. Fast and reliable internet is now vital for all parts of our modern society. Being it private use, businesses, governments, research and education institutions and going forward with the digital transformations, we will need the connectivity to be more resilient, more robust, bringing even more capacity to our everyday life. If we take a look at the statistics and we break down the distribution of internet traffic for the last five years, we can clearly see that the real-time traffic has grown the most. It’s more than three times growth. We cannot afford to have delays in real-time traffic. It’s not acceptable anymore by any user. But if we take a look at the example of research and education world, in the north of Europe, Nordnet provides connectivity, high-speed connectivity to iSCAD 3D, which is the next generation international atmosphere and geospace research radar. With this high-speed connectivity, we enable real-time steering and data integration between three sites of the iSCAD 3D, each consisting of the 10,000 antenna beam-forming phased array systems. In Europe, we also have connectivity to Large Hadron Collider and CERN, and throughout other research and education networks, we have connections also to ALMA Observatory in Chile. Before many years, scientists had to wait for the dedicated time slots or several years to get access to the equipment on the network. But now, the connection needs to be up and running with 100% availability. You can imagine the pressure of delivering that through the research and education networks. I don’t know if many of you in the audience know what this picture is showing. If not, the answer is a methane plume from the Nord Stream gas pipeline explosion in the Baltic Sea. My point here is, you cannot protect the cable on its whole stretch, but what you can do is build more redundancies. Network cables can ensure redundancy and resilience for our networks, and that’s why we need to look at geographical redundancy, meaning we need to look at alternative routes. And while doing that, we must keep geopolitical situation in mind, especially if we consider the Nord Stream case or similar cases which disrupted the submarine cables. Now if we take a look again at the statistics and the connectivity today, we take a projection to very near future. We would see that we would have doubling of the traffic between Europe and Asia to be expected and almost tripling to the traffic between Europe and North America Depending on the perspective we take it can be a big challenge But it also can present us as an opportunity to take action and do something about it Now if we look at the connectivity from the perspective of Europe, we can divide it into four major parts, four major areas For example Europe to North America connections. There are a lot of cables connecting Europe to North America through the Atlantic Ocean But a lot of systems are aging and we do not know yet if there will be other systems built in time to serve the future needs and demands Then we go to Europe, Africa and Europe, South America. The cables go outside of the coast of Africa with very limited redundancy Connecting Asia We have a terrestrial route going across Russia and due to a lot of geopolitical implications This route is already more or less getting closed. A lot of Contracts are being terminated and Then it leaves us with a Suez route to the Middle East and Asia Now if we take a really closer look at the Suez We’re currently 90% of the direct traffic between Europe and Asia traverses. It’s a very narrow area It’s only 200 meters wide at the most narrow place and you can imagine the congestion of the submarine cables there It’s basically a cable every 20 meters and over this area 1,500 trips pass every month. You can imagine there’s danger And to the challenges that I just mentioned We can offer one solution if we take the earth from the North Pole perspective and look at the route opportunities from the Arctic. We can see that we can build the additional redundancy or create complementary routes to the existing Suez Canal area connections by adding submarine cables over the Arctic Ocean. It would be a fast track between Europe and Asia as it is the shortest possible route. It would strengthen the digital sovereignty of the involved regions. The route also avoids geopolitical considerations as it would go through exclusive economic zones of Norway, Denmark, Canada, US and then traverse to Japan. But then you might ask, why are the Nordics involved? The Arctic connectivity would also increase the accessibility of the green data centre industry in the far north. There we have a lot of local excess energy from renewable energy sources but due to lack of power infrastructure there are limitations of how much energy you can transfer from north to south. Additionally, there is a relatively high cost of transferring energy in large distances. Therefore, moving data is much more efficient and cheaper than moving energy. In addition to this, where we have a really cooler climate in the north we can utilise the free cooling, we don’t need air conditioning to cool the data centres and we can reuse the excessive heat from them to the nearby communities. Also, if we land high-speed connectivity in the northern areas we can create work opportunities and prevent young talents from leaving northern communities from coastal areas of the Nordic countries. And all of these things combined, we create the PolarConnect Vision 2030, where PolarConnect is an initiative led by Nordnet to obtain secure and resilient connectivity through the Arctic to Asia and North America. Where we see submarine cables over the Arctic, adding digital routes from Europe, they improve the digital resilience and autonomy in the global network. They can create a ring structure of two or more cables traversing the Arctic Ocean. Here in this vision, we see PolarConnect, a more direct route passing under the ice cap of North Pole in the Arctic Ocean, just north of Greenland by exclusive economic zones and then traversing to Asia. The other one, the yellow one, is Far North Viber, a route passing through northwest passage of Greenland and then to North America through Bering Strait and then to Japan. Far North Viber project is more advanced. It’s way ahead of us. It’s scheduled to be in service in 2027, with the total distance of the submarine cable being 14,500 kilometers. Where PolarConnect project aims to be in service around 2030, with a total distance of 11,000 kilometers. A lot of questions can be raised from this vision. And one of them, is it doable? And we are working really hard to answer these questions. We’re working together with the Swedish Polar Research Secretariat to find a way if this is viable to cross the Arctic Ocean with the submarine cable. And the answer is yes. Their knowledge, they shared the knowledge from their previous Arctic expedition. It was the Arctic Coring Expedition in 2004. With a drill ship, Vidar Viking, and the two icebreakers, Odin and Sovetsky Soyuz, they were able to cross the Arctic Ocean and do the expedition. So in essence, to be able to build the submarine cable over the Arctic, we need two icebreaker ships and one cable-laying vessel. With this approach, we can cross the Arctic Ocean and put a submarine cable there. So while Sweden has one icebreaker, the government is already in the discussions about building a second icebreaker of the highest polar class, comparable to the Russian one you see here. And with the preparations, we see it being ready by 2030. Additionally, for the submarine cable, we need to have information about the seabed of the ocean. Where Arctic Ocean is largely unexplored territory, especially for intercontinental subsea cables, but it offers dramatic advantages for us all. So we must investigate the seabed. So we are working together with Professor Martin Jakobsson from Stockholm University and his project, International Bathymetric Chart of the Arctic Ocean, where the project is helping us to gather the information on what’s openly available about the seabed of the Arctic Oceans. So the initiative of this project is to develop a digital database that contains all available bathymetric data north of 64 degrees north to be used by map makers, researchers, institutions, and others who work requires a detailed and accurate knowledge of the depth and shape of the Arctic seabed, including our submarine cable. So what we see in this image is about 24% of the Arctic seafloor that is already mapped. And we will continue to work with this project to improve this map and fill out the gaps. We aim that the seabed data will be available. used to identify the potential route of the Arctic connectivity and it will contribute further for us to de-risk the project and contribute to the cable survey. So as you can see Arctic connectivity can bring broader economic benefits for the productivity trade and our all consumer welfare. It will be the shortest route from Europe to East Asia, safeguarding the minimal delay time, but also submarine cables can serve as scientific instruments for Earth observation, marine and seismic research. Traditionally we have scientists making measurements in the Arctic Ocean by dropping various instruments from icebreakers into the Arctic Ocean. They either take instant measurements or they are left to float and take measurements over time, but there are a lot of challenges. A lot of things can go wrong in the Arctic. Sometimes the instruments are lost and recovered, sometimes never recovered. This is where fiber sensing comes into play. We can enable submarine fiber cables be used as sensors by equipping them with distributed acoustic sensing or state of polarization technology. Apart from that we also are familiar with the smart cable concept where fiber cables can be equipped with various sensors and can act like monitors under the sea. They can measure temperature, pressure, velocity, salinity and together with the vibrations and acoustic sensors can provide a very wide scope of observations around the cable. They can also present near real-time data to be used by scientists and this data can be used to improve Forecasting models, it can be used to monitor climate change, ocean heat circulation, it can support us while monitoring from natural disaster warning systems like earthquakes or tsunamis. It can also help us understand marine mammal ecosystems better. The measurements will be continuous and over a long time, and scientists will have access to this data. Also, fiber sensing can help us protect and monitor the cables themselves. So a lot of benefits on the scientific angles, which are really important, as this was not possible before. In addition to that, there’s currently a lot of political momentum for the Arctic connectivity, as expressed by Margrethe Wester, the Executive Vice President of Europe Fit for the Digital Age. In addition to that, in July there was a memorandum of cooperation signed between the European Union and Japan and MOC on submarine cables for secure, resilient and sustainable global development. And this mock states that the Arctic route presents the potential to be expanded to wider European and Asian regions, and to the Atlantic and the Pacific areas. And to realize this advantage, MOC expresses a shared intention to explore and facilitate joint and respective support action as appropriate on trans-oceanic submarine cables, such as awareness raising, financial supports, demand aggregation, and as appropriate facilitating relevant administrative processes. This was a joint statement by the President of European Council Charles Michel, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, and Prime Minister Kishida Fumio from Japan. And they met in Brussels and communicated this jointly. And with this positive note on multinational collaboration on submarine cables, I end my presentation. If you would like to know more, we have a value proposition of submarine cables report done by Copenhagen Economics. And also you can find a lot more information about the Polar Connect initiative under this QR code. Thank you so much.

Hendrik Ike:
Thank you very much, Ieva. I had no idea that 90% of European traffic to Asia was at its narrowest 0.200 meters wide. That was quite an eye-opener for me. Does anyone in the audience have any questions for Ieva? Or any in the chat? I have some questions of my own, but I should also expand it to all of the speakers here, including Paul online, if anybody had any further questions. Please, I think that microphone should be working.

Audience:
Thanks, I need it because I’m losing my voice. Nothing to do with karaoke. I did actually have a question for Ieva about the cost of transferring energy versus data that you mentioned. Is there any reports or research you could point to for that?

Ieva Muraskiene:
There is a lot of research done in that value proposition in the report. We did investigate that. But it’s due to lack of infrastructure or the cost for actually transferring the power. So I can share the report with you and we can discuss it. Great, thank you.

Hendrik Ike:
Thank you. Any further questions? Well, then I’ll rattle off a few of my own. I’d actually like to start online with Paul. He’s staying up very late in the UK to be with us here. So I’m very, very happy that he is. Paul, you mentioned in your presentation the Bella project. were a big part in making that happen between Géant, Red Klar and the EC. I’d just like to know or see your perspective on what would you say was the highest challenge in actually bringing together those stakeholders in an R&D context in order to make Bella happen? I think

Paul Rouse:
First you had the challenge of it being a pathfinder. In our global community NRENs haven’t had a lot of experience in investing in submarine cables at their inception, at the build date. They tend to procure from a more established market. So there was working in a new space with different ways of working and then being a publicly funded body comes with certain requirements for compliance, governance and how the money was spent. And that was sometimes at odds with the way the telecommunications industry works. So trying to find a common way of working that satisfies everybody’s obligations was a challenge. We were carrying out the project as well during some difficult times in the world’s economy, with Latin America particularly as well in Brazil. So ensuring funding was available. There were challenges throughout the project. So I don’t think I have one particular one that rises above all the others. But these submarine cable systems are big pieces of heavy engineering taking lots of resources, complexity to design, construct and build. So there are many moving parts. It’s not a simple project.

Hendrik Ike:
Thank you, Paul. No, it doesn’t. I remember at the time it of course wasn’t an easy one to get over the line as such, but it did work and it was a success. Jun, I liked your slides and a part which struck me especially because I’m more from a public affairs policy point of view, was you showed the different political agreements on the different projects between Europe, other countries, and you were showing the multi-stakeholders of these different areas, and I was wondering, with your experience, what has been, in your view, the more successful projects that have had multiple member states or nations collaborating together, and what do you think were the reasons that made them a success?

Jun Murai:
That’s a great question. You know, 30 years is a long time, so it’s always different funding could be available for creating the future of the kind of fibre networking and other things. So one time it was very much kind of a satellite transponder company was exploring the way for allocating the spectrum, so they wanted to work together, and therefore kind of their transponder is, I hardly say that in kind, to work together with, right? And then also the submarine cable itself is not that particular thing, but all the high-speed switches and the equipment is going to be, you know, so the vendor started to create the new. Right, great. Thank you. Thank you. switch from, you know, kind of, say, whatever, the 10 gig to 100 gig, they really wanted to test that with interoperability and other things. So multiple companies working together with us for the exploring the interoperability testing and the other thing. So these are the research network mission that they’re working together. So that’s one of the reason I intentionally introducing today about the RODEM type of challenges, so that probably the new generation of the optical submarine cable control might be achieved working together with those people. And then they want to test that, and we want to test that. And therefore, probably, it’s a kind of mutual benefit to work together from the point of view of investment to the new technology, it could be very expensive. But then for the testing purpose and the other thing, then it’s a kind of a mutual benefit without, you know, actually paying. So I said the in-kind, right? So this is a testing, therefore, they bring the equipment and they’re working together. So it’s varied for the time by time that how that research type of funding could be benefit for the real operation of creating the network. That’s a wide project, probably characteristic in the world, right? So we are always exploring the new technology so that probably the fundraising is not that high, but we can challenge the new things. So that’s a model of the wide project. But it reminds me, if you’re working with these actors and you’re talking about in-kind contributions, that’s very similar to reciprocity between NRENs. when we make agreements in such a sense. OK. Oh, by the way, I forgot a very important thing during our presentation to all of the European side of the people. So talking about Southeast Asia connectivity for the researchers, that was initiated by what Keiko mentioned, like IHPI and utilizing a satellite. But we should note that the 10 efforts to connect them is very much the next generation of a terrestrial connectivity to Southeast Asia, collaboration with the EU and the JAN. And then now, we are working together for the new generation, utilizing the Arctic Ocean or the redesigning the southern connectivity as well. So that’s basically the phase one. It’s going to be by satellite. Phase two is going to be by TEN. And the phase three, we are talking about those historical things should be mentioned clearly

Keiko Okawa:
by me or Keiko, but I apologize. Yeah, let me add one. TEN, T-E-I-N, and Trans-Eurasia Information Network, the initiative supported by EU to connect the ICT infrastructure between Asia and Europe a long time ago, but now TEN is phase four. And that strongly supported not only EU to Asia, but Pan-Asia connectivity, basically Singapore-centered connectivity, right? So a long time ago, it’s still there. Of course, it was still there, of course. Since a long time ago. OK, thank you.

Hendrik Ike:
If I ask just a simple question, when was the first iteration of Tain? Do you remember when it began? Because Tain is like the giant version, it’s the regional network of Southeast Asia. That’s a question to you, actually. Yes.

Jun Murai:
Or Paul. Paul knows about the exact year when it started. In the 80s. Yes. The project was? Yes, but the cable CAE-1 started later. Probably middle 90s, I believe. Okay. Thank you very much.

Hendrik Ike:
I mean, it just also goes to show that NRENs and regional networks were really pioneers at the beginning of the boom of the Internet. And I, for one, am honoured to have so many colleagues who were there at that point. I would like… I saw a few people come in. I’d just like to open the floor for any final questions to our guests. Yes. Microphone here, or… Okay, thank you so much.

Audience:
Good morning, everybody. My name is Bjørn Rønning. I’m representing the Norwegian data centre community, i.e. the commercial part of a potential project. So, my first question is endorsements by governments. But I think the reason for asking is… I guess this is going to be an extremely costly project. So, already it’s been mentioned that you have to commission a new icebreaker just to get this over there. But that can probably be repurposed to other tasks and cable deployment and cable maintenance. So, obviously, I think… I consider this project to be too much of a heavy lift for only for the immigrants, no offense, by no means, but I think that there should be, we should probably expect that you have some governmental funding or you need to have a common Nordic or even European and also on the Asian side and a Japanese common understanding and agreement on how to fund this project because there also has to be done some financial viability on the return of investments. So how much is one willing to sacrifice for returns on investment, worst case? I don’t know if I made myself clear or if I should probably dive into details.

Hendrik Ike:
I have my own thoughts on it, but it’s for Jun or Ieva or Paul to answer.

Jun Murai:
Yeah, I think you are right. I mean, so, you know, yeah, I was going to explain a little bit more on that part, but, you know, the research and educational network contribution for the, you know, kind of investment is just, you know, probably, you know, the 10% or 5% of the actual installation cost, I believe. But the important thing is that for the NordNet and ourselves from the both sides that, you know, the cable company had a plan, and then, you know, we kind of generated a little interest from both sides that once it’s installed, then we’re going to occupy, like, you know, kind of 5% of the capacity on fiber pair and tire for the research and educational community. So that might be possible. It’s not that easy. But the fundraising for the research and educational for 5% of the entire cable installation, right? And the other part, of course, need to be, you know, kind of investment has to come in from the commercial or the public entity other than research and educational purposes. So this is not that easy. So in the past, a number of projects failed because of the lack of the, you know, construction building was not successfully done to raise enough funding. But so for this one, we kind of did very special approaches different than the past on the other part of the cable, which is, which when the poll explained about the EU-Japan digital partnership agreement, which is very much in public entity endorsing that this is gonna be needed for, not only for the research and educational scientific one, but all the economy of the both end. So that is a way that, I don’t think a government can raise, support the commercial activities. I don’t believe that, but they can endorse. That means, you know, the Japanese government, frankly, already started to communicate with the economy industries that, and the financial industry, that you’re gonna get the benefit of this cable if that is the case, then you have opportunity to invest for the optical fiber because this is special. So that kind of a promotion already are supported by the government in Japan already. So this is an additional endorsement type of efforts from the public, I mean, government side. So I think this is good, and I don’t remember this has been done in the past on the history. So the EU-Japan Digital Partnership Agreement. is now extending the kind of industry and the scope of the people and the stakeholders to be involved for the supporting the industry. So the research and education are actually initiated that kind of thing. So Nordnet and ourselves said, we want this cable, and that this might be, so we kind of started the efforts and then inviting the other stakeholders to be involved. So this is a very special way, I believe, but what do you think, Ami?

Ieva Muraskiene:
Yeah, I agree everything you said. And from the Nordics perspective, of course, we need to engage with the Nordic ministries and governments to get their support and endorsement equally like in Japan. But apart from the governments, we’re also engaged with the European Commission to ensure that there’s relevant support from their side to ensure also the funding opportunities that we can explore to have the conversation with them as well, because they also made some promises. We also contribute to the goals they are expecting us to deliver on. And we benefit from the unique position we have from the research and education point. We can talk to them all and also engage with the commercial side. And that partnership with Japan and having connections to Japan also helps to communicate our message even further and for them to communicate it back so that both ends of the connectivity are engaged. And we create this multiple use cases to have the arguments that we really need such infrastructure on our end. It’s not just the connectivity that we talk about. We talk about much more benefits added on top of simple submarine cable. So I think there’s good progress. And we’re also working on de-risking the project for the commercial side. So to make them a little bit more attracted to the idea, we’re working on building the business cases, exploring the opportunities there. So it’s not just that we talk, but we also do the work, the CBET survey, the resources we need for actually building the cable, but to know when they will be available, so we can make use of them. So I think there’s good progress. Thank you.

Hendrik Ike:
Thanks, Siobhan. Paul, did you still want to answer before I move on to the next question?

Paul Rouse:
I think a lot of the good points have been made there. I’ll just reinforce the point. We’ve got some experience of doing this now. In the Bella case study, I gave us an example. So in the Mediterranean with the Medusa system recently, and in both of those instances, as Yeva and Jun have said, it’s about a collaboration and partnership. So the question from the floor there is absolutely right that NRENs alone can’t deliver this, whether it’s the financial investment, the skills, the expertise, the resources, there’s government, there’s funding bodies, there’s the user communities, the skills that we have within NRENs. As we explained, the history of the internet comes from our community, so we’re pretty good at building networks. But the heavy lifting of actually implementing a submarine cable, we work closely with commercial partners. And I’d like to say that I think we’re quite desirable partners there. Yeva used the term there around de-risking with public funds and our use case, supporting research and education. We’re a good partner to have on board to enable a project to progress. Thanks, Andrew.

Hendrik Ike:
Thank you very much, Paul. I think we have another question from the audience.

Audience:
I was actually just going to build on that. I’m wondering if part of the story then is also a security and resilience one, if we’re looking at it from a government perspective. So from one side, you’ve got the ability to pump time down this, so you’ve got a GPS type of solution there. But then what is the cost of disaster recovery after an event so if you can predict tsunamis for example if you can predict earthquakes Surely that has a very strong business case So we’re working with the likes of Google and British Telecom at the moment to test some of these and of course all of these Companies are looking for new revenue streams and new services and products So I think that is part of the story as well

Hendrik Ike:
Thank you anyone want to take that Yeah

Jun Murai:
Yeah, probably that is a little bit different from the Maybe you know following me probably smart cable concept should be explained from an alternate side but then in Japan, we’ve been in a suffered with the earthquake very much and Then they know so the smart cable concept is like, you know Piggybacking the sensors on a commercial communication cable, right? but that is not enough for Japan and therefore the National Laboratory of Earthquake Seismic Study had its own collaboration with a cable company for the specific type of sensors to be installed so historically we started from the well expired communication cable and the putting the sensor and for the you know kind of detecting the earthquake or the Mitigation for the earthquake type of a thing, but now it’s a kind of a very much The we we now identify that this area of oceans gonna be a very thing I mean bottom of the ocean is gonna be very dangerous. Therefore. We have a very specific installation of the sensor cable So that it’s its own purposes as well, so It’s a very serious in this country. So and so the meaning that separate funding for the, you know, kind of a commercial company’s funding and the research and the educational traffic funding and the seismic funding, a little bit different funding possible in Japan because of the frequency of the earthquake.

Hendrik Ike:
Anyone like to add?

Ieva Muraskiene:
Just a little comment. So last week we, as NORDONET, had a science engagement workshop. We engage with the scientists and look what kind of opportunities they want to see on the submarine cables. And there’s a lot of good conversations, but there’s also an understanding of how different the commercial companies want to use the cable and how different it is for the scientists what they want. They want accuracy. They want a lot of information. So alone, the submarine cable cannot replace other research instruments, but it can contribute highly to early warning or just, hey, look, something is happening at that end. Maybe you want to look more closely, that kind type of information, but not be the main source of seismicity or other types of natural disasters. But we can contribute to the scientific research. We can bring the information to the table, but not be the main source of it. So we need to kind of distribute the expectations a little bit, but it’s really insightful to talk to the scientists. They have really good comments. Thank you.

Hendrik Ike:
Thank you, Eva. Are there any further questions? No, I don’t see any in the chat. Well, I think with that, I will close the session. I’d really like to thank everybody who presented today and who attended from remotely across the world. And for those of you who turned up for this session this morning, it’s been an eye-opener for me, and I very much appreciate everyone’s input. So thank you so much. and enjoy your coffees, goodbye. Thank you very much. Have a good day all, thank you. Thank you Paul, and the audience please visit our booth after that, then you can touch and you can install your dream to theirs. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . . . .

Speaker 3

Speaker 3 discusses two initiatives aimed at solving problems within the coalition. The first initiative is the National Legislation Mapping Group, which conducts mapping exercises to understand the development of ID systems in different countries. This group recognizes that the issuing and implementation of nationality programs vary greatly across the world and seeks to compare and understand these differences. By doing so, they aim to identify best practices and foster collaboration between countries.

The importance of the National Legislation Mapping Group’s work is emphasized by Speaker 3. Through their mapping exercises, the group hopes to create a comprehensive understanding of the different approaches and challenges in developing ID systems. This knowledge can then be used to inform policy decisions and drive innovation in the field of identity management. The group’s work is particularly relevant to SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure, as it aims to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of identification processes worldwide.

Speaker 3 also highlights the collaborative and flexible nature of the methodology used by the mapping group. Each member contributes their ideas to the development of the methodology, ensuring that it reflects diverse perspectives and is adaptable to different contexts. This flexibility is vital for newcomers to easily understand and contribute to the mapping exercises.

Furthermore, the National Legislation Mapping Group has specific goals and aims for its work. They aim to develop a tool that can be hosted on each organization’s website, making the information easily accessible to stakeholders. This tool would enable organizations to compare and learn from the different legislative approaches employed by countries around the world. Additionally, the group aspires to adopt a more quantitative approach in the future, further enhancing the accuracy and comprehensiveness of their mapping exercises.

In conclusion, the initiatives discussed by Speaker 3 are positive steps towards achieving the goals of the coalition. By mapping the development of ID systems and understanding the varying approaches to nationality programs, the National Legislation Mapping Group is contributing to the partnership for SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals. Their collaborative and flexible methodology ensures that all members of the group can contribute effectively. The goals and aims of the mapping group highlight their commitment to advancing knowledge and promoting best practices in the field of identity management. Ultimately, these initiatives have the potential to drive innovation, foster collaboration, and create positive change within the coalition.

Audience

The speakers at the event covered various topics related to proactivity, digital ID systems, biometrics, and government cooperation. They highlighted the importance of proactive initiatives within organizations, advocating for the need to put things on the agenda themselves. The audience agreed that Caitlyn’s organization supports proactivity and is not just reactive but also proactive.

The discussion also touched upon the implementation of digital ID systems in different countries. The World Bank has been advocating for the entity system, which is being used in countries with numerous problems. The audience believes that the entity system is perceived as a solution for struggling countries, and the World Bank has been endorsing it as a proposed fix.

The government in Mexico is trying to pass a law to expand the digital ID system, raising concerns about the use of funds collected through digital ID. Similarly, there is an expectation for the implementation of mandatory digital ID in Mexico. In Iraq, it was stated that there is currently no biometric system in place.

The introduction of biometric passports worldwide has been initially rejected by most countries but later accepted. Hugo Cordova, an employee of the European Parliament, is currently working on legislation to introduce electronic IDs for Europe.

Concerns were raised about the coexistence of international and national digital identity initiatives and their respective purposes. The audience highlighted the need for clarity on how multiple digital identity initiatives would cohabit. The discussion also touched upon the entry process for various coalitions, as Camila wanted to know how to join.

Armando Manzuela from the Dominican Republic expressed his interest in seeing the scope of a study extended to other countries within the same region. He offered to share plenty of information from his country. The convergence of national and supernationals electronic identity systems into international standards was seen as a possibility in the future, but concerns were raised about the governance of these systems and the need for privacy safeguards.

The principle of necessity was emphasized for digital ID systems, as it was argued that each system should be based on the principle of necessity and not applicable to all contexts. Digital ID systems were also discussed as socio-technical systems, not just technological systems, where context should be carefully considered in analyses. Extensive documentation of the harms that digital ID systems can create and exacerbate was also highlighted.

The speakers also touched upon the importance of public interest litigation and the potential involvement of individuals. The audience acknowledged and appreciated the influence of work done on multinational and national issues related to digital identification. However, concerns were raised about the lack of engagement with communities and the penetration level of the ID system in certain countries.

The significance of digital identity as the entry to the digital economy and society was discussed. The implementation of digital identity was seen as a way to track individuals, and there was increasing momentum from both the government and private sector for its implementation. However, doubts were raised about whether digital identity could be implemented correctly given the pressure.

There was mention of a private meeting on litigation about digital ID, indicating that Peter from Access Now is planning to discuss this topic at the meeting. He also expressed the need for a better acronym for their network.

The importance of multilateral engagement for the proactive development of the Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) safeguards initiative was discussed. The need for a deeper and more participatory engagement process beyond unilateral consultation was emphasized, as the coalition aimed to not just contribute inputs but also receive feedback. The upcoming summit of the future was seen as a pivotal moment for the coalition.

The tech envoy’s insight into the safeguards process’ timeline and key engagement opportunities was highly sought after, as the coalition was eager to prepare for future engagements. The coalition also stressed the importance of civil society involvement and accountability in digitization interventions.

The UNDP’s signing of an MOU with the Kenyan government regarding digital ID without civil society or community engagement was criticized. The audience believed that the UNDP should not abet exclusion in digitization interventions and should be accountable. Transparency and the right to information were seen as essential, and there were concerns about the lack of information regarding the negotiated protection mechanisms concerning civil society.

The benefits of open-source technology for critical systems development by the government were highlighted. Open-source technology was seen as a way to ensure safety, security, and trust in government systems, and it also opened up the possibility for global contribution to what was being built. The audience expressed the belief that everything should be digitized using open-source technology to prevent issues faced by countries with their digital systems.

Regarding government cooperation, the audience expressed a desire for more transparency and communication. There were incidents of claimed public participation without actual involvement, and progress in advocacy in Kenya related to the Data Protection Act and digital access was discussed. It was stressed that the government should work effectively with civil societies and the UNDP.

The event also saw community members expressing their interest in joining the community and asking how to get involved. One audience member, who represented a tech company, T4Beast, with a strong presence in the MENA region, highlighted their expertise in supervision, digitalization, and security. The audience believed that T4Beast was the biggest in the region and valued their close partnership in META.

In conclusion, the event covered a wide range of topics related to proactivity, digital ID systems, biometrics, and government cooperation. The speakers and audience highlighted the importance of proactive initiatives, community engagement, transparency, open-source technology, and effective communication between stakeholders. They also discussed the potential risks and benefits associated with the implementation of digital ID systems. The speakers emphasized the need for context-specific approaches to digital ID systems and the importance of privacy safeguards. Overall, the event provided valuable insights and sparked important discussions about the challenges and opportunities in the digital identification landscape.

Speaker 5

The team responsible for organising the Summit for the Future has developed a plan to host multiple convenings in the lead-up to the summit. These convenings aim to gather input and feedback on the overall process, ensuring that a diverse range of perspectives and ideas are considered.

In addition to in-person convenings, a virtual platform will be provided for individuals unable to attend in person. This platform will enable participants to share their experiences and contribute to the dialogue, ensuring that everyone has an opportunity to actively participate and provide insights, regardless of physical presence.

One of the summit speakers strongly advocates for open dialogue and collective input, emphasising the importance of civil society’s involvement. The speaker encourages civil society to engage and participate in the summit’s discussions. This approach highlights the significance of inclusivity and diversity in decision-making processes and underscores the role of civil society in shaping the summit’s outcomes.

Overall, the team’s plan for the convenings, the inclusion of a virtual platform, and the call for open dialogue and collective input demonstrate a commitment to creating an accessible, inclusive, and responsive space. This approach aims to represent a wide range of voices and interests, fostering collaboration and partnership during the summit.

Amandeep Singh Gill

There is a growing interest in Digital Public Infrastructures (DPIs), and more investments are being directed towards them. It is crucial to develop a safeguards framework to protect the safety, security, human rights, and sustainability considerations associated with these infrastructures. This framework aims to ensure that investments in digital infrastructure do not lead to violations in these areas.

Addressing the issue of exclusion in digital public infrastructures, especially for marginalized groups, is also important. Efforts should be made to avoid excluding these groups and ensure that DPIs are accessible and inclusive for everyone.

Prominent advocate Amandeep Singh Gill suggests the formation of multi-stakeholder partnerships to develop and implement effective safeguards. Involving various stakeholders, including governments, civil society organizations, and the private sector, these partnerships can establish comprehensive safeguards for DPIs.

To support this initiative, the UN Secretary-General’s tech envoy launched an initiative with the UNDP on DPI safeguards, reflecting a positive sentiment towards the need for these safeguards.

Regarding governance, there are plans to establish a governance structure for the DPI initiative. This structure will include an advisory board and a steering committee, contributing to the decision-making process. Additionally, efforts are underway to identify learning partners who can provide valuable insights and contribute to the development of this governance structure.

Engaging civil society and the private sector is also a priority, particularly in developing digital ID systems. Consultations with these stakeholders are planned, recognizing the key role the private sector can play in developing digital identification systems.

The overarching goal is to leverage DPIs in a human-centered and human rights-respecting manner to advance the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Planning for a good and ambitious global digital compact is underway to ensure DPIs significantly contribute to the achievement of the SDGs.

A noteworthy observation is Amandeep Singh Gill’s emphasis on joint participation in building and maintaining digital platforms. He suggests involving the community in the process, enabling them to contribute to the development and maintenance of digital systems.

Furthermore, Amandeep Singh Gill highlights the importance of accountability for UN agencies in maintaining DPIs and digital services. He suggests holding these agencies accountable as per the safeguards framework to ensure effective management of digital services.

In conclusion, there is a need to establish a safeguards framework around DPIs, ensuring safety, security, human rights, and sustainability considerations are not violated. Multi-stakeholder partnerships, governance structures, and engagement with civil society and the private sector are key elements in developing and implementing effective safeguards. Leveraging DPIs in a human-centered manner can significantly contribute to the attainment of the SDGs. Additionally, promoting joint participation and accountability are crucial in maintaining DPIs and digital services on the ground.

Speaker 1

The organization being discussed is a global coalition of civil society comprising diverse members, ranging from small grassroots organizations to large multinational NGOs. These members employ various approaches, including advocacy, lobbying, and strategic litigation, to advance their goals.

A significant highlight is the organization’s transition from a reactive to a proactive approach in the context of digital identity systems. Instead of merely reacting to opportunities, they now actively identify and pursue them. This proactive mindset enables them to develop shared resources and leverage their community’s strengths to achieve more inclusive outcomes.

Multilateral engagement and national level advocacy have been identified as key priorities for collective action. The organization seeks to incorporate its members’ concerns, information, and expertise in multilateral spaces and international organizations. Additionally, they focus on advocacy at the national level to promote human rights.

Speaker 1 demonstrates a positive stance towards the organization’s evolution and development. They highlight achievements such as agreeing on a shared vision, formalizing a structure, and identifying key priorities. The transition from a reactive to proactive approach is seen as a significant advancement.

The ongoing discussion revolves around clarifying the distinction between legal identity and digital ID. This discussion takes place both online and at RiceCon, and the community perceives productive progress. The incorporation of safeguards and remedies is central to this ongoing debate.

It is important to note that there have been misunderstandings regarding civil society’s approach to digital identity systems. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the difference between legal identity and digital ID. The speaker does not oppose digital IDs but emphasizes the need for appropriate safeguards to protect individuals’ rights.

In summary, the organization is a global coalition of civil society with diverse membership and approaches. They have transitioned to a proactive approach towards digital identity systems, and prioritize multilateral engagement and national level advocacy. The ongoing discussion revolves around clarifying the distinction between legal identity and digital ID while highlighting the importance of safeguards and remedies.

Laura Bingham

Strategic litigation has generated significant interest within civil society communities. To address this, a strategic litigation training workshop has been organized. The decision to hold this workshop was influenced by a heat mapping exercise conducted by the organization, which likely revealed a high demand for knowledge and expertise in this area.

In addition, the concept of ‘Digital ID done right’ was discussed, highlighting its dynamic nature. It was emphasized that Digital ID implementation should not be seen as a one-time event but rather an ongoing process that requires constant monitoring and adaptation to local, national, and regional contexts. This recognition acknowledges the evolving nature of society and the need for digital identification systems to respond accordingly.

Moreover, the importance of incorporating frameworks for ongoing feedback was emphasized. It was suggested that these frameworks are crucial in addressing exclusion and rectifying any issues that may arise during the implementation of Digital ID systems. By continuously seeking feedback from individuals affected by these systems, organizations can ensure they are inclusive and responsive to the needs of all stakeholders.

In conclusion, strategic litigation has garnered significant interest within civil society communities, leading to the organization of a dedicated training workshop. Furthermore, the concept of ‘Digital ID done right’ recognizes the need for constant monitoring and adaptation to effectively respond to evolving societal dynamics. Incorporating feedback frameworks is crucial to ensure the inclusivity and effectiveness of Digital ID systems.

Speaker 2

The coalition’s initiative in Costa Rica involves conducting an exercise to map the needs and capabilities of its members with the aim of facilitating knowledge sharing and capacity building. This initiative is driven by the recognition that effective collaboration and partnerships are essential in achieving the goals outlined in SDG 17: Partnerships for the goals.

Through this mapping exercise, the coalition has sought to identify a balance between the expertise that exists within its member organizations and the areas where development is needed. The exercise was successful in pinpointing the strengths and needs of the coalition’s members, providing valuable insights to guide future actions.

The mapping exercise revealed that some members excel in research fields such as discrimination, economic and social rights, privacy and data protections. On the other hand, there were identified needs in areas such as comparative examples, collective actions, surveillance fields, transparency, and access to information. This comprehensive understanding of the capabilities and gaps within the coalition’s organizations is crucial for effective collaboration and targeted capacity-building efforts.

In light of these findings, the coalition has encouraged its members to support each other by sharing their expertise and learning collectively. By populating the cells according to their strengths and needs, the members can better grasp the areas where support can be given and received. This collaborative effort aims to build capacity and address the identified needs collectively, enhancing the overall effectiveness of the coalition in working towards its goals.

Overall, the mapping exercise conducted by the coalition in Costa Rica has provided valuable insight into the needs and capabilities of its member organizations. By leveraging the strengths and expertise of its members and addressing the identified needs through collaborative learning, the coalition is well-positioned to make significant progress towards its objectives. This initiative demonstrates the power of partnerships and knowledge sharing in achieving the goals set forth in SDG 17.

Speaker 4

The Multilateral Working Group is a dedicated initiative that aims to enhance expertise building on a global scale while ensuring more strategic and coordinated engagement in multilateral forums. The group’s primary focus is on providing training related to technology, science, and standards, equipping members with the necessary knowledge and skills to effectively participate in these international platforms. This approach not only increases the group’s collective understanding of these subjects but also enables them to actively contribute to global development and problem-solving.

In addition to knowledge-building initiatives, the Multilateral Working Group also plays a crucial role in facilitating the participation of its members in international forums. They recognise the importance of having a diverse range of voices and perspectives in these discussions and, therefore, provide funding to support the presence of more members. This financial assistance ensures that individuals from various national contexts can actively engage and contribute to multilateral forums, enabling a more inclusive and comprehensive dialogue.

Another important aspect highlighted in the analysis is the significance of collective efforts in addressing issues related to identification systems. The importance of this collective approach was emphasised by the community involved in the study. They stressed the need for a unified and collaborative approach, acknowledging that tackling such complex issues requires the collective knowledge, skills, and resources of a diverse group of individuals and organisations.

To support this collective effort, the community developed a toolkit aimed at digital rights activists. This toolkit provides valuable insights into the intricate complexities associated with identification systems. Its purpose is to aid advocacy, mobilisation, and education on this topic. By equipping activists with a deeper understanding of identification systems, the toolkit empowers them to effectively advocate for policies and practices that align with the principles of peace, justice, and strong institutions, as outlined in SDG16.

In conclusion, the Multilateral Working Group’s focus on expertise building and strategic engagement in multilateral forums highlights their commitment to global collaboration and problem-solving. By providing training on important subjects and facilitating diverse participation in international platforms, the group aims to enhance the collective knowledge and impact of their members. Furthermore, the emphasis on the importance of collective efforts in addressing identification systems showcases the community’s dedication to promoting peace, justice, and strong institutions. The development of a toolkit further supports this objective by empowering activists to advocate for positive change in this area.

Moderator

The analysis of the provided information highlights several important points made by the speakers during the discussion. Firstly, it is noted that the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) community has made significant progress since the last meeting. This progress includes the development of a structured framework, regular communication, and the identification of thematic areas. These advancements suggest a more organized and coordinated approach within the IGF community.

The community places great importance on deliberate and intentional learning, leveraging each other’s strengths, and identifying gaps and opportunities. They have conducted exercises such as mapping the needs and capabilities of members to identify areas for knowledge sharing and influence. By focusing on capacity building in areas with greater needs, they aim to create a supportive and collaborative environment.

In terms of their focus, the community is working on two thematic groups: one focusing on national-level interventions and the other on multilateral engagement. This demonstrates their commitment to addressing different aspects and levels of digital identification issues.

The World Bank has advocated for the use of an entity system in countries facing various problems. However, it is important to note that digital ID should not be conflated with legal identity, as they serve different purposes. The community recognizes the need for disentanglement between these two concepts and is working towards achieving a common understanding.

The engagement in multilateral forums, particularly in the context of ID4D, has presented challenges. There have been both online conversations and discussions at events like RiceCon. However, misunderstandings in approach have been observed, emphasizing the complexities involved in addressing digital identity system issues at a global level.

Strategizing public interest litigation has been seen as an effective approach to address multinational and national issues related to digital identification. The analysis reveals that countries like Uganda are interested in learning from Kenya’s experiences in working on digital identification issues. Furthermore, the community’s engagement with civil societies and organizations from India and Jamaica showcases the potential for cross-country collaboration.

The analysis also emphasizes the importance of constant oversight and updates in socio-technical systems like digital ID. These systems need to adapt and evolve along with societal changes and should have mechanisms in place for feedback and addressing exclusions and other issues.

Public involvement and collaboration are encouraged for the development and maintenance of digital public infrastructure (DPI) and digital services. By involving the public, UN agencies can be held accountable, promoting a more transparent and inclusive approach.

The use of open-source technology in government systems is suggested as a way to develop secure, trusted, and effective systems. Open-source technology allows for a deeper understanding of how systems operate and enables technical communities from different countries to contribute to their development. It is considered a key solution to address ongoing challenges faced by countries in their digital systems.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the progress made by the IGF community in terms of structure, communication, and thematic areas. It also emphasizes their deliberate approach to learning, collaboration, and capacity building. The recognition of the need for disentanglement between legal identity and digital ID, as well as the challenges in multilateral engagement, are notable observations. The effectiveness of strategic litigation in addressing digital identification issues at various levels is also highlighted. Finally, the analysis underscores the importance of constant oversight and updates in socio-technical systems, as well as the value of public involvement and the use of open-source technology in government systems.

Moderator:
Okay, wonderful, fantastic to have you. We’ve got some new faces, lots of smiles, so that’s really exciting. So this session is about the digital what? IDs and?

Audience:
Human rights.

Moderator:
And we’re called a?

Audience:
Coalition.

Moderator:
A coalition, a?

Audience:
Revolution.

Moderator:
A revolution, a? Yes. Okay, welcome. So this session is really an opportunity for the digital IDs and human rights community to tell you a little bit about what they’re doing, to hear from you about what they do, and hopefully you can join this fantastic community, revolution, coalition, togetherness, yeah? Okay. Excellent. So this digital IDs community is global, yeah? We know what global means? Global means? Global? Huh? Over. Global means? Balloon.

Audience:
Balloon.

Moderator:
So we’ve got people from all over the world represented in this coalition, yeah? Okay, let’s see. We’ve got people from South America, where are you? You see? We have people from North America, can we hear it? Again, again. We have people from Europe in the coalition, where are they? We’ve got people from Asia, Asia, yeah, that was a very, Asia, can we hear you? Yeah, okay. We’ve got people from, we have Australia?

Audience:
Yes.

Moderator:
Hey! Okay, and then people from the motherland, where are you?

Audience:
Hey!

Moderator:
Okay, fantastic. So on our agenda, you have the slide? So on the agenda, we will start with really a brief. a brief overview, so we’ll have different members tell you about the incredible stuff that this community has been doing. They’ll tell you a little bit about the journey. It’s been about a year since the last IGF, isn’t it? But we’ve come such a long way, you know? They’ve got structure, they have regular communication, they have focus, they have thematic areas, they have, you’re going to wait and hear the rest. Okay, so you’ll hear about that and some of the activities that they are doing. Then we’ll also really like to hear from the rest of you and hear about what are some of the digital ID challenges that you’re dealing with, okay? So let’s start with a brief overview, background. Let’s give it up for Kaitlin, for Kaitlin! All right, here you go.

Speaker 1:
Hi everyone, I’m Kaitlin Shafi and I have the very difficult task of following our excellent moderator, Ash Newt. I can promise a drop in energy, so I apologize for that. And I won’t do any call and response, but what I’ve been asked to do is to give a background of our coalition work to tell you a bit how we got here today, why we’re here and why we really want to invite more of you to come join us in the great work that we’re doing in advancing digital ID and human rights. So Ash Newt’s already told you a little bit about who’s in the room, that we’re a global coalition. We are a civil society organization, so we are researchers, activists. Some of us are unfortunately lawyers as well. We’re diverse in our geography, but we’re also diverse in the size of organizations that we represent. So we have small community grassroots organizations all the way up to large multinational NGOs, people from universities. We really run the gamut when it comes to human rights organizations and human rights actors. We’re also very diverse in the reasons why we’re interested in digital ID. People are approaching it from many different perspectives, bringing many different viewpoints, and we’re very diverse as well in our approach to how we come to the work. Some of us are researchers, some of us are engaged in advocacy, some of us do lobbying, strategic litigation. We bring a lot of tools to the table when it comes to advancing human rights. And really the reason that we came together is because we have shared concerns about the types of digital ID systems that we’re seeing, the way digital identity is being formed. And if you look at the timeline, which is the slide that’s on the screen right now, you can see that in the beginning we were very reactive. So we saw opportunities to come together for consultation. consultations, to do joint research projects, to write things like open letters that shared some of our concerns, but we were really reacting to opportunities that we saw. And over the past few years, I think we’ve become a much more proactive community. So we’ve become more cohesive, we do have structure now, which is very exciting for all of us, and also we are trying to be much more forward-looking, to identify opportunities before they come, so that we’re much more prepared to meet them, to develop shared resources, and also to leverage the strengths of our community to build more inclusive and human rights-focused outcomes. And it’s very special for us to be here today at IGF in the first public session to share the work of our coalition, because it was actually at IGF last year in Addis that the coalition really began to take on a formal shape. So that’s when we launched our initial volunteer group to start establishing some structures, and started to bring what was at the time a very loose coalition of civil society organizations together into something that is much, much, much more organized today. And over the last year, we are in a kind of a piloting phase, a building phase, but we’ve accomplished quite a lot. We’ve agreed on a shared vision statement for the coalition, so we’re a powerful coalition that aims to move together to provide solidarity and support, and engage in collective action. And we have a beautiful one-pager that’s on the table here, and I’m sure will be shared with some of the folks online as well, talking about some of our shared vision. And we also established a structure, which will be the next slide that you’ll see here. And at the top of this structure, the thing that is most important to us is our community membership. All of the CSOs and activists that have come together, that is our strength, and that is what we build all of our work on. And to bring some shape and structure to that, we established a coordinating group that’s responsible for setting meetings, developing visions to share with the group, setting up things like sharing sessions as well. We have a specific work stream on sharing and learning, so we have, for instance, shared information about strategic litigation that’s happening in Uganda for the rest of the coalition to learn and hear about current developments, and we have a lot of other opportunities planned where information and resources will be shared with members of the coalition. We also have a work stream on communication, so improving the way that we share and communicate with one another, but also. with the outside world. And perhaps most importantly, at the last meeting we had together, identified two priorities for collective action. So one is on multilateral engagement, on bringing the concerns and the information and the expertise of our members into multilateral spaces and international organizations. And we also have a piece of collective action on national level advocacy. And I have some wonderful colleagues here who are gonna share a bit more about this work. So without further ado, I’ll turn it over to Janina, who’s gonna talk about some of the needs mapping that we’ve done.

Audience:
Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi.

Moderator:
What did you like about what Caitlyn said? Anything that struck a chord? I hope you’re paying attention. Should we ask her to get back again? You like the word community? Aha, what else did we like from Caitlyn’s presentation? Caitlyn’s presentation? You talk to me. Please, don’t be like on Zoom where you hide behind the screens. What did we like about Caitlyn? What else did Caitlyn say that we liked? Sorry?

Audience:
She said that they’re not just reactive, but they’re proactive. Proactive. Putting things on the agenda themselves, which is good.

Moderator:
Okay, excellent. You had another point. Any other thing that stood out for us? Okay, all right. So now let’s listen to Janaina. She’s going to tell us about one of the initiatives of the coalition, of the community.

Speaker 2:
Thank you so much, Ashmit. I don’t know if everyone here was in Costa Rica. I don’t know if Ridescom, but when you were there, get. So some of us, yes. But what we did there, we did this exercise, this mapping of our needs and our capabilities. What we tried to do is actually, it’s better show where we can influence and we can share knowledge between our members and where we can actually build the capacity, where we need to build this capacity. This is something that Juan’s gonna tell just after me. And we wanted to see how we can find these areas. The coalition members can support each other. So we did one sheet just for the capabilities and distribute another sheet just for the needs. What we ask for our members were to populate the cells, where they, for example, which kind of digital governance influence methods they utilize in their organizations and which kind of human rights and social fields they are most, build their expertise on it. So we give them these examples, and I think we can show the next one. And what we came with all of these answers is what we have flourished in the capabilities map, where we have our strengths, where each organization can support each other, like the big ones, the multilateral ones. So here we can see, for example, where some of our members comment. For example, one of our members had like 12 affiliate actors, and they produced state policy research outputs. They are very strong in research fields like discrimination, economic and social rights, privacy and data protections. Other members are like real GDPR experts. They’re from lawmaking to enforcement and compliance. We also have experts using personas, storytelling, and how to reach communities, how to actually raise awareness, and how to stoke advocacy. So these are strong suits, and this is how we can support each other. But also, we see where are our biggest needs, where we should focus our capacity building, where we can actually construct workshops, bring more experts, actually, to help us to capacity build on our needs. So here we see where our members want to learn more about it. For instance, learn about comparative examples. Some of them want more focus on collective actions, alias for advocacy, and their surveillance fields, transparency, and access to information. And this also speaks from our multilateral engagement projects, and also the national legislation project that I’m going to pass to Juan to speak, and how we share knowledge on these two big fields that you’ll focus on this year. So without further ado, Juan, please. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much, Janaina. As you can see, the community is very deliberate, very intentional on trying to make sure that members learn from each other, leverage on each other’s strengths, really understand where are the gaps, where are the opportunities. and use that to create opportunities to learn from one another. Not just regionally, not just nationally, but? But all over the world. Can you imagine being part of that? Exciting, yeah? Okay. Thank you, thank you. Okay, so we are now going to listen to one of the initiatives that the community is working on. There are two thematic groups. One looking at national level interventions, and then the other one looking at multilateral engagement. So let’s give it up for Juan.

Speaker 3:
Thank you, thank you. Okay. It’s hard to fight against jet lag and keeping such high energy levels. I mean, I’m not gonna be able to deliver as good, but yeah. Yeah, I’m not gonna try and match it, yeah. That’s right.

Moderator:
Should we try and give you energy?

Speaker 3:
No, no, no, I’m fine.

Moderator:
Should we try? Thank you. Should we try and give you energy? Let’s give him energy. Shall we give him energy? You see, we are compassionate, kind. Hey, imagine. We are compassionate, we are kind, we support each other. Yeah, shall we clap? Clap. Energy, energy, energy, energy.

Speaker 3:
Thank you. Okay, now proceed, yeah. I’m feeling very capable now. So yeah, we’ve got two initiatives that are working groups aimed at solving particular problems that we think we can solve for in the coalition. And one of them is the National Legislation Mapping Group. We, this stems also from the Ridescon meeting in which we agreed on forming these two groups. And this one, what it’s doing is a mapping exercise on the development of ID systems in different countries. One of the reasons we think that’s an important task is because the issuing and the implementation of nationality programs is very different in different parts of the world. And we try and compare those different systems in different places to understand how they’re working and to use that knowledge to our advantage in terms of advocacy mainly. So this was a prioritization, as I mentioned, from the Ridescon Summit. And the idea behind it is that we create a tool that’s useful to advocate mainly. We are not a coalition that’s focused only on research or on academic work, although we’re very academically capable as well. We do think that that’s a requirement to build better arguments. But we’re aiming this effort towards something which allows us to move forward our advocacy efforts. And then the methodology, which is maybe one of the stronger points of this exercise as a whole, was collectively developed as well. It’s very flexible, but every member of the working group has pitched in with ideas and with ways of making that methodology very strong, which I think it’s one of the strengths of the group as a whole. So the methodology has that advantage. And the other one is that it’s easy for newcomers to adapt to it. So this is, of course, an invitation for all of you to come join us. join us, but we develop it so that any country or any researcher can come in at any point and bring their specific situation to the table in a manner that allows us to compare the different situations all around the world. So yeah, I think we can show them the idea of how we’re going to – oh yeah, first the categories that we’re actually mapping. For now, it’s these five. We, as I mentioned, have a methodology on how we’re gathering this information in order to make it easy to compare. But this is very much still open to discussion. If we see that we need to develop more or newer categories, we can do that. And then what we’re aiming for with the results is something, at least for the first part, that looks like the next slide. Yeah, something of this sort. So we’re trying to develop something that can be hosted in each organization’s website so that it doesn’t require people to navigate to another website in itself, but it can be – I mean, it’s the same information presented in many different places. And we’re trying to, for now, just have the more narrative version of it displayed. But this is going to be the building, the stepping stone for probably a more quantitative approach towards ID in the future. That depends on what we’re doing. And as you can see, I mean, some countries are already beginning to be blue. But on this side of the map, we still lack some of your help. So if you’re willing to join, that would be great. And yeah, I think that’s it for the National Legislation Group for now. I guess we can take questions on the methodology and everything on the Q&A. Next up, Marianne.

Speaker 4:
I have a lot of energy. I have all the energy. I have all of the energy that you guys do not have. I stole it. Hi. from Access Now. I am the campaigner for YID, which is our campaign on digital identity. So I was supposed to talk to you. I don’t have phone graphs. I only have this one slide. So I need to have a lot of energy to counteract it. But this is basically what the Multilateral Working Group has been working on for the past year. We have been working a lot and meeting constantly so many meetings. This is not trying to deter you from joining. Like, you can join the meetings as you wish. And as you can, you do not have to be present weekly. I mean, yeah, no, but we have the biweekly. And then we have the working group meeting. So it’s a lot. It’s just I’m saying. I’m just saying we have worked a lot. That is good. So this is basically our effort to build expertise that is across national context and transnational and global, which are all different things, and engaging multilateral forums in a way that is more strategic and coordinated, because we have been doing that, all of us, but separately and uncoordinatedly so far. So basically, the goal is to ensure that all of the community members that are part of the coalition have the timely information and the insights so that they can engage in processes at an international level, but also to be able to understand which tools and which activities and which learning experiences can be developed that integrate the different needs across the globe. So that means that, on the one hand, we, this year, work on a collective strategy for our members, independently, to engage with different processes, such as the UN-GIA High Level Week, where we have different sorts of participation and different types of meetings, and then a debrief session to understand how to work with the knowledge that each of us have acquired throughout the different activities. That also means that we are preparing trainings on technology, the science, and standards, and also on how to engage in this forum, because for each organization, we all have different levels of expertise, and we all have different. approaches to how to engage and where to engage. And also, the coalition has been funding, providing funding for the presence of more members on forums like this one. So a lot of the people who came to this IGF, to the previous IGF, to Ridescone as well, to our meeting at Ridescone, where their travel was funded by them. Also, the YAD campaign, ha, ha, ha, you knew this was coming. The YAD campaign is launching today, a report that we have been working on for an entire year with the community, which was a community effort that many of you were part of at the last Ridescone, providing feedback in our zero draft of this. This is a toolkit that, I don’t know if we have a couple of them still there, but the great part is that now we have a website and everyone can see it on the website. This toolkit aims to help digital rights activists working on the identification systems to navigate the complexities of this topic in an easier way and to provide them with language that might help them get started in campaigning and mobilizing, advocating, educating around the YAD systems. So this is basically a stack of a framework to help us think about the YAD systems. And it came from community effort to understand what the global needs were across different regions. And that is all from me. Thank you. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you. Thank you. Excellent. You see? You’ll even have cards. You have tools. So many things, yeah? OK, so we’ve heard from the different presentations. So what I’d just like to give you is three minutes with the person next to you or three of you. Do you have any questions about the community, about the coalition? Is there anything that intrigues you? Yeah, I give you three minutes. Three minutes. Just talk to the person next to you. Not to your phone. The phone is not a person. A laptop is not a person. A person is an actual human being. Yes. Talk to the person next to you. Please talk to each other. I beg, I beg, talk to each other.

Audience:
The entity system can also be found in countries that have many other problems as well. The World Bank and others have been pushing it as a solution.

Moderator:
Hey, people, please put your phone down. Talk to the person next to you. That phone is with you.

Audience:
I have no natural entity system. By the way, by the way, in Iraq, it’s not my national identity. which is very new in Mexico. Sorry? In the passport. The biometric passport. Okay, yeah. So still, there is no biometric in the world. And the big question is then you have to be mindful what they do with that money. Yeah, I don’t know. There will be creative appliances in the future. Government institutions that collect or that are provided by the authorities like the governments or the nearest organizations or the global organizations that provide the digital ID or add it to the wall. And there are others like the tax authorities. But now, particularly right now, like probably next week, the government is trying to pass a law to expand the digital ID that will be like the mandatory ID for all people in Mexico. And so, we’ve been expecting this for a long time. And they have not been able to do that. Yeah. No, in Iraq, it’s…

Moderator:
Okay, can I have your attention, Bob?

Audience:
My passport just came in. No! So there is a biometric thing, which is very new. And in the beginning, most of the countries, they rejected it. Can I have your attention? They asked people to have it around the world. And now they accept it. So, for example, if you are in trouble… Can I have your attention, please? Yes? So, yeah. Okay, what questions do we have? What questions do we have? What questions do we have? There are no questions. I was hoping for at least… No questions for the community? Oh, it’s clear? It was perfect? Okay. Okay, let’s listen. Hello, everybody. My name is Hugo Cordova, and I work for the European Parliament. I’m working currently in legislation to make electronic IDs for Europe. And my question will be for everybody here who wants to answer. We know that these digital identities now are going to be more and more provided by different countries. How this coexistence of these initiatives with the national solutions is going to cohabit, and what is the purpose of one and another? How is the relationship? Thank you. Okay.

Moderator:
Good thing I’m a moderator. Someone from the community will answer that. Do we have any other questions? Take two or three. Any other questions for the community? Yes.

Audience:
Okay, so we are just curious about the impressive work, and we wanted to know how many organizations are in the coalition so far. Yeah.

Moderator:
How many are we? We are so many. Can you even count? Someone start counting, okay?

Audience:
Hi, I’m Camila from EDAC in Brazil, and my question is, how can we enter the coalition?

Moderator:
You have to go through me, number one. Any other?

Audience:
Two questions, yeah. How much does it cost to join, and why don’t you have a better name and acronym?

Moderator:
A better name, an acronym, as compared to? As compared to? OK. That’s another question. Any other? Those were three? OK.

Audience:
Hello, I’m Ale from Brazil. I’d like to hear how the coalition have been influencing multilateral and international organizations such as ID4D and so on. Thank you.

Moderator:
OK. Do we have someone for each of the questions? Can we take any other? Are we ready? Two more, two more points. Are we OK to answer? OK. No, OK.

Audience:
Yeah, Armando Manzuela from the Dominican Republic. Just wanted to know if you are planning to extend the scope of the study you’ve made to other countries as well, especially to other countries, maybe in the same region, the Caribbean, for example? All countries. I don’t know all countries. OK. If that’s the case, I have plenty of information I’m willing to share with you. So you can have from my country, of course. Dominican Republic.

Moderator:
Dominican Republic. OK. Does someone want to be the facilitator? I saw you taking up. OK, great. So let’s start with the first question. The first question? Who’s taking the first question? Oh, yeah, Thomas, there you go. And you’ve got a microphone right in front of you. Oh, yeah, you’re right. There you go. And it works. Hello, hello.

Audience:
So as I understood the question, it’s about the relationship between these national electronic identity systems, supernationals ones. And I mean, we don’t know the answer yet. But my strong assumption would be that we see a convergence. There will be international standards. They will be supported by our phones, by the secure hardware elements on that. So sooner or later, there will be a one-size-fits-all solution for at least, let’s say, particular regions in the world. And my fear is that not in all cases, these systems will be governed democratically and will have privacy by design safeguards that make them safe to use, particularly for vulnerable parts of the society.

Moderator:
OK, thank you. Did that answer your question? OK. There was a second question. Yes, please add.

Audience:
Yeah, I think I would just add to Thomas’s answer. And I don’t think I can speak for the entire coalition, because I think there is some divergence in our views here. And we’re not a coalition that has a set viewpoint or advocacy position on any given digital ID system, I think, because we are such a diverse group and we have such diverse concerns. But I think from an individual perspective, our position of my organization, which is the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice, is that each digital ID system, whether it’s national or supranational, needs to be based on the principle of necessity. So it really needs to be a stronger understanding of where and why certain ID systems are necessary. And that certainly won’t apply to every context in which a digital ID system is currently being implemented. And I think also, just to emphasize the strength of our coalition, is that we have extensive evidence and documentation of the harms that digital ID systems can create and can exacerbate in different contexts. And I think what that has really shown is how important each individual context is, the political context, the economic context, the social context. And that in having an evaluation of how a system should interface, that context needs to be very carefully considered. Because these are not just technological systems, they are socio-technical systems. And it’s very important to situate any kind of analysis about system design, system implementation in the individual contexts of each country and each region.

Moderator:
Mm-hmm, you see that community? I saw people nodding their heads as Caitlyn was speaking. OK, there was another question. What was the other question? There was a question around the number. We have almost 60 groups. Almost 60 groups in the coalition now. Civil society. Oh, there’s a one pager down here at the end with some more information about the community. And there is an email address that you can get in touch with and our new communication system that we set up. Yeah, or anyone in the room. We’re all here to talk to you. OK, does everyone have the one pager? Who has the one pager? Who doesn’t have the one pager? Who doesn’t have the one pager? Really, really, please, please pass that one pager. You must get it. Everyone must get that one pager. Is that the one? There’s another one. It’s the other one. Horizontal. No, this one behind you. That one. Yes, yes, yes. Please, please, please. They didn’t answer your question, Peter. Yeah, you had two questions, Peter. They didn’t answer the second. They are still thinking about it. They are ruminating, ruminating, ruminating. OK, any other questions? Any other questions? Yes, Maria?

Speaker 1:
OK, I don’t need that many microphones. So yeah, I don’t remember who asked this beautiful question that I get to answer now. On our engagement in multilateral forums, but particularly on ID4D. It has been a bumpy road. Is that a assessment of our relationship with ID4D, a bumpy road? But I think that for the last year, we have had a very interesting conversation. It is an ongoing conversation that we had both online and later at RiceCon, and it’s continuing, and it’s ongoing. about there have been some misunderstandings, let’s say, in how we approach digital identity systems from the space of civil society, which is that we are not in the position of a digital ID is bad, necessarily. But that there needs to be a disentanglement between the notion of legal identity as the relationship, the legal relationship, between a person and a state. And digital ID being a tool that is used to accomplish that maybe, maybe, but not necessarily. So there is an identification there that we are trying to disentangle from a conceptual point of view. And then we are working on getting to about the same page on safeguards and remedy. And so there is an ongoing conversation. That is what I’m going to say about that. And I would say that this past year has been very productive for us as a community. And I’m not going to speak on behalf of ID4D, but I think that for them as well. They have expressed so. So that’s that there. Did I miss something?

Moderator:
OK, thank you. No, thank you. OK, OK, OK. Questions? Comments? Yes. Oh, I love.

Audience:
I have a question. I heard a phrase, strategizing public interest litigation. I was wondering if you are doing it. And if yes, how? Secondly, if I could join. So please let me know. OK, let’s take that. Hi, everybody. There was a question. I don’t think it has been answered. It was about how the work has influenced the way we are working. For instance, let me say what Caitlyn was talking about the issues of multinational and national issues. In Kenya, we can give an example. Through the civil societies, Kenya was to launch a digital ID on 2nd of October. But through this platform and a lot of engagement, they suspended it. And through also working together, we’ve seen countries like Uganda, they want to learn more on how Kenya has worked. We’ve worked with Adhar from India and also Jamaica. So at least there is a lot of issues that is happening. Unlike before, not so many people used to know about the issues of digital identification card. But right now, so many people, and the way we are here, there are so many people who are learning a lot from this. So let’s keep it on. Let’s continue. Let’s make more noise. Thank you.

Moderator:
Did you hear that? OK.

Audience:
Hi, I was wondering, I mean, I think we’ve been tracking digital identity for, what, five years or more, probably close to 10 now. And it seems like, and maybe I’m wrong, that there’s like a lot more momentum from a governmental perspective and also from a private sector perspective, kind of that digital identity is going to be, I think it is perceived to be the entry to the digital economy and to digital society. So I’m wondering, over these last years, does the coalition, has the coalition come to a conclusion of what digital identity done right might look like? And is that possible, given that, you know, there’s just so much pressure from a national perspective and from a private sector perspective to implement this, as we’ve seen in, you know, Uganda, Tunisia, you name it. Can it be done right?

Moderator:
Okay. Uh-huh. Laura? Hey, quickly.

Laura Bingham:
Well, I did want to mention something about the strategic litigation question down here, which is to say that that was, in the heat mapping that we did, that was one of the areas where there was a lot of interest across many different members of the community. So in the sharing and learning piece that we talked about, we’re holding a strategic litigation training workshop later this year, so you should join up now and you can come. But there’s a lot of, that was one of the main interests, I think, that got on people’s radar within the civil society communities for transnational exchanges, especially. I had one thing I wanted to say about the question on digital ID done right. You know, I think we get that, I get that question a lot. I think a lot of us get that question a lot. I think it’s the wrong question, because I think just in a lot of what folks have been saying in responding to other responses, other inquiries that have come up, is that things really are contextualized in every single local, national, regional context. And digital ID is never done. It’s the fact that it is implemented and it needs to be monitored and society changes. That’s what we mean when we say it’s a socio-technical system. It’s not done. So it’s not done right. It needs frameworks so that we have constant feedback about people who are being excluded, about the way things are going wrong, because they’re going to continue to go wrong. So I guess that’s, in thinking about the structures that we put in place around it as human beings, that’s how you can get more right.

Moderator:
And they nod their heads again. Okay.

Audience:
Peter, you had something to say about litigation? Yeah, thanks. Peter. from Access Now. We coordinate the Digital Rights Litigators Network. I know there’s some fierce advocates in this room, some folks in the network, some folks who are not yet in the network, but we’re gonna meet on Thursday afternoon, 3.30, and I think digital ID is definitely gonna be on the agenda, so there is an opportunity here for a private meeting on litigation, and we need a better acronym too.

Moderator:
Okay, we’re working on that. I said we are ruminating. We’re thinking, we’re thinking, we’re thinking. Okay, all right. We have a special guest. We have a special guest with us today. We have, who? Who do we have? Who do we have, Laura? Who do we have? We have a special guest. Who’s the special guest? Right there. Who’s the special guest? Who is the special guest? Hey! Yes, we have the UN Secretary General’s tech envoy here with us. Can we welcome him? Welcome, welcome, welcome. You see, when you hang out with this community, you see the kind of people who come into your spaces. Yeah. Okay, welcome, sir. I’d like to give you an opportunity to say something.

Amandeep Singh Gill:
Thank you very much. It’s a great pleasure to join you, and such an important topic. So, the interface of, as Laura put it, socio-technical systems, but I might even add socio-legal technical systems. These interfaces are creating opportunities, but they’re also creating potential problems, even existing problems. So, we need to get them right. And we are very keen to bring together multi-stakeholder partners to build some safeguards, a framework of safeguards around digital public infrastructure at large. So, not just digital ID, but also payment gateways, things that work at the data layer. There is, because of the G20 discussion, many other developments, great interest in DPIs today. More investments are going to come in. So, we have to make sure that these investments don’t result in digital public infrastructure, don’t result in these socio-legal technical infrastructures that violate. safety, security, human rights, sustainability considerations, and that lead to exclusion of marginalized groups. So for that, we’ve launched with UNDP an initiative on DPI safeguards last month, so at a very formative stage, and we would like to invite all of those who are part of this coalition to help us get to that safeguards framework and to help us maintain that, like an international standard that people in the civil society can use as a reference, but also those who are investing in DPIs, who are development cooperation partners on the ground, can use as design principles, can use it to inform their decisions, inform their investments. Tomorrow, and this is a plug in C1 at 9.45, we will be doing an event with UNDP, jointly with UNDP on this issue. It’s the beginning of a conversation, so please help us get this right, and the insights from Kenya, Uganda, India, so if you can, the Caribbean, if you can, Jamaica in particular, we can get those together and put that into a framework that we maintain as a kind of living framework, so version one could be next year with the summit of the future, and we can maintain it after that. Thank you so much.

Audience:
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is this? Yeah. Thank you very much. My name’s Caitlin Shafi. I’m a member of the coalition, and I’d just like to say thank you very much to the tech envoy for joining us. I think it’s a fantastic opportunity. There’s been a lot of energy in the room tonight, and a lot of, we’ve already picked up some new members, so I think it really shows the kind of importance and power of this coalition, and it seems to many of us, I think that this is a really pivotal moment with the lead up to the summit of the future, the launch of the safeguards initiative, the critical point that we’re at with the sustainable development goals, and in this room, I think we have a lot of learning about the problems, the solutions, where things can go wrong, and where things can go right, and one of the themes of the beginning of this session was that as a coalition, and as individual members, I think we’re seeking to become more proactive in engaging in some of these multilateral processes, in some of the national level processes, and I think it would just be great to hear from you since we have you in the room today, to hear a little bit about what you see the next six months looking like in this safeguards process, where will be the key opportunities to engage so that we, as coalition members, as a group, can be prepared for them, and I think the final question is really how do we ensure that the engagements go deeper than a kind of unilateral consultation process, which I think is always something that civil society is keen to engage in, I think a lot of members here are very active in contributing inputs, but I think what we’re really seeking here is a real exchange, the opportunity to give feedback, receive feedback, and be more engaged in a truly participatory process, so how can we work together with you to make sure that that is a reality in the kind of next six months?

Amandeep Singh Gill:
That’s a great question, so we are currently in the process of putting together a governance structure for the initiative, so there’ll be an advisory board, there’ll be a steering committee, and also in the process of putting together a list of learning partners, those who have been engaged on these issues, whether it’s the Digital Public Goods Alliance, DILE, the GovStack initiative, so that we can bring these players from the DPI ecosystem into this initiative and learn from their experiences. In terms of the engagement, the consultations with civil society, also with the private sector, in some cases they may be the lead actors in developing digital ID and other layers of DPIs, if they are arranged in a stack, so we will develop a plan for engagement all the way up to the summit of the future, where version one can be stood up next to, hopefully, a good, ambitious global digital compact, so that this is seen as a concrete manifestation of, yes, we want to advance on the SDGs by leveraging DPIs, but we want to do it responsibly in a human-centered, human rights-respecting manner. But I do want to ask my colleague Moritz, who’s into the design of this initiative, check if he has anything to add.

Speaker 5:
Thank you, Amandeep. Pleasure to be here. My name’s Moritz. I work as an advisor on Amandeep’s team. Just referring to your question on how civil society can engage in the process, we will have multiple convenings up to the summit for the future, where we will collect input on the process. We are also planning to set up a platform where you can share the experiences that you’ve made, should you not have the possibility to engage in person during the convenings. Yeah, and we will be sharing updates on that process in the next two months, I would say, something like this. And yeah, if you have questions about that, feel free to reach out. We are looking forward to engage with you.

Moderator:
Fantastic, thank you. We’ll just see, do we have any other questions? We’re having a conversation here. Yes, yes, behind. I think that microphone works. You can give him that one. Thank you. Yes, please.

Audience:
Good evening. I was really asking myself, should I ask this question? But let me just ask. My name is Mustafa from Kenya. In Kenya, for example, UNDP signed an MOU with the government of Kenya without engagement, community engagement in terms of civil society, in terms of community, and without any policy in terms of launching a digital ID until the civil society were up in arms and all that when the government was actually launching it in September. But it was pushed. So I was asking, at this level where there’s already an existing MOU, how do we engage with the UNDP? Because there’s a lot of risk of digitizing exclusion because we are digitizing 5,000 services and all of them are pegged to a digital ID. And in Kenya, there’s no access, the accessibility of digital, leave alone digital ID. The current ID system is less than 50% penetration level. And now all 5,000 services, including health services are going to be linked to a document that is not accessible. So how do you protect that the UN does not? as a bit exclusion. And it also promotes issues of accountability. For example, this one, we don’t even have a data protection impact assessment, leave alone a human rights protection impact assessment. So how do we hold the UN accountable in that situation and also get to get information, right to information from the UN sector? Because in this sector, we don’t clearly alienate you from government actor or civil society compatriot. Because we are like, which side do we put you? Are you part of the government now? Are you going to support civil society? Sorry, I don’t want to look combative, because that’s the situation that we are in. You’re just engaging. Yes. And I’m very passionate, because my community has been locked out of these systems for 100 years. So seeing it, we look at it as digitizing marginalization. So how do we hold the institution accountable and even get information in terms of what are the lines of engagement with the government? What are the protections, mechanisms that you have negotiated in terms of on behalf of civil society and all that? I would love to interact more on that. But in case, I know my questions are ambiguous. But in case you pick any that you feel like you can address now, I really appreciate.

Amandeep Singh Gill:
Great point. And I have a very simple answer to that. Help us build it. So build it together with us. And help us maintain it so that we can all be held accountable. If UN agencies are the ones who are kind of building out DPIs and digital services on the ground, you can hold them accountable as per the safeguards framework.

Moderator:
OK. So working together in community, right? OK.

Audience:
Just to add a bit to what the Secretary-General just said. The best thing a government can do is to develop their critical systems, their main systems, the central systems that sustain main public services, world public services, should be using open source technology. Because open source technology help us to not just to understand how things work, but also opens up the possibility for the technical communities from our same nations or other countries around the world to contribute and to see what we’re building upon. It gives us the possibility to understand that most government systems can be safe, can be secure, and also develops trust. Especially in the context where we’re digitizing everything. And in the context of digital, it’s the same. So in order to prevent most of the situations that most countries are facing with their digital systems, an open source technology should be the best. And that’s the thing that we’ve been doing in the DR.

Moderator:
Great. So there’s an experience to learn from there. OK. Any other comment? Any other question? OK. One more, and then we’ll be wrapping up. OK.

Audience:
Just to respond on, there is, we’ve worked with UNDP. And one of the things that we were told, actually we had a very direct conversation, was kindly work with the government. Because you said, have a simple, we give you ideas on simple way to work. But in most cases, when we give out these ideas, we are told, you have a very good government. You can go and listen to them. But in real sense, the government doesn’t listen to you. For instance, we were brought into a room to agree that we’ve decided to work together with government as civil societies. To an extent, there was a white paper that was provided. We did not know. To an extent, public participation, the government was saying they have done. It hasn’t, it has not been done. So what room is there for us to really work with the UNDP and UN to be able to share the same ideas? To be able to share this? Because there is platform, as you can see, but now having that conversation, it’s not there. And also, there is one question that Brett asked that has not been answered. There has been progress, as we cannot say that the government is really not doing so. For instance, through advocacy in Kenya, we’ve seen some communities have been recognized as a community. They can be able to access these digital platforms. And also, things like Data Protection Act, which weren’t there, they’re still there. So there are still opportunities that we’ve seen.

Moderator:
And your question?

Audience:
Yeah, I don’t have a question.

Moderator:
That was it, okay, okay. So I think what you’re, do you want to respond to?

Amandeep Singh Gill:
I think if you come to the event tomorrow, our colleagues from UNDP will be there, because I don’t have the background to this white paper and the interaction with the government. So we can discuss it tomorrow.

Moderator:
Exactly, the conversation will continue. You said nine what? 9.45, 9 a.m.? You can plug in again. 9.45. 9.45, where?

Amandeep Singh Gill:
C1.

Moderator:
C1, did we hear that? No? 9.45, where? C1, okay. An opportunity to continue the conversation. Can you imagine? The conversations don’t just end here, they continue, they continue online. Oh my goodness, oh, this community. Okay. Any other comments, any other questions? Okay, I think I can wrap up, anything? Four minutes, we have four minutes. Okay, yes, it seems you’re joining the community. By the way, members, can you put up your hands so that if people want more information, you know who to talk to? Okay, fantastic.

Audience:
I don’t have a question, I just want to make a statement that, you know, I’m from India, and India is always glorified with our DPI structure as like the outstanding model, and it’s going to push your economy to blah, blah, blah levels, and you’re gonna gain like trillions of dollars, and et cetera, et cetera. But I think there is a lot of myth that surrounds. And I think that’s the reason why I want to join the community, because, you know, to address the myth before even thinking about starting this kind of an infrastructure in your country, because you should ask whether you needed or not, and are you going to face the problems that India suffered? Because India suffered massively, because it started when I was studying law, and now I’m in the position where I’m researching in this kind of structure. So I myself have seen that it had its own problems, and you need to work it out. I guess that’s it.

Moderator:
Thank you. All right, okay, you can also ask her about the community. Okay, any other comments, any other questions? Can I wrap up now? Yeah? Okay, okay, thank you all so very much for being part of this conversation. The conversation continues. Please get the one-pager if you want to get to know any other information about what the community does. Please enjoy the rest of your evening, the rest of your day. Asante sana. Thank you.

Audience:
I don’t know if you have someone to speak to. Yeah, I mean, actually, I’m happy to have you. Yeah, me too. I’m really happy to join the conversation. That’s lovely. I don’t know, just send an email, or? I just received this email. The best is to send to this IE admin at system.org. Okay. And then our community will receive the email, and we should maybe also just introduce you to a few of the people, so. Laura Bingham, the blonde lady over there. And it’s like, but you are absolutely right. We have many members from Africa, and. No one is speaking Arabic. I can, we have like a. Ah, you could be right, yes. I’m a partner of T4Beast. T4Beast, we do supervision, digitalization, security. So, we think that we are the biggest in the MENA region as a practitioner. We are close partners in META, and also we are certified by AFC International for our tech area as well. That’s a perfect match. Yeah. So, let me. Yeah, yeah. I am, I am the founder and president of the organization. Which is, I’m living in the Netherlands, because of, you’re right. Yeah, yeah. And you can Google me, like, I’m very easily found. Yeah, me too. You can. No, no, no. It’s brilliant, so you are a perfect match, let’s send that email and we’ll get the ball rolling. Thank you very much. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you.

Sharon Polsky

Encryption plays a vital role in maintaining confidentiality and privacy across various sectors, including law and healthcare. Lawyers, doctors, and policymakers rely on encryption to safeguard sensitive information and prevent unauthorized access. The positive sentiment towards encryption is driven by its crucial role in protecting client confidentiality and patient privacy. Encrypted communications ensure secure strategy discussions for lawmakers and policy analysts.

Another important argument supporting encryption is the universal need for privacy, whether it is for personal, business, or national security purposes. Encryption is viewed as a fundamental tool that helps individuals protect their privacy. This positive sentiment emphasizes the significance of maintaining encryption as a fundamental aspect of upholding privacy rights.

However, there are concerns about the lack of understanding of technology implications in legislation. The negative sentiment surrounding this issue suggests that uninformed legislation can lead to unintended consequences. Many people use technology without fully comprehending its intricacies, including lawmakers and policymakers. This lack of education and understanding poses challenges in creating effective and well-informed legislation.

Child protection is a pressing concern, but the negative sentiment arises from the concern that laws aimed at protecting children through breaking encryption could result in harmful consequences. These laws might create vulnerabilities in encryption, potentially endangering everyone’s privacy. Furthermore, it is argued that children reporting abuse might be mistakenly flagged as suspects if encryption is compromised.

The need for lawmakers to have a correct understanding of the technology they regulate is highlighted. The negative sentiment stems from the observation that many current lawmakers lack a thorough understanding of encryption technology. Some members of parliament come from non-technical backgrounds, which hinders their ability to comprehend the nuanced aspects of encryption.

Canadian legislation, such as Bill C-18 and Bill C-26, has raised concerns about potential infringements on privacy and freedom. Negative sentiment arises from the observation that these laws allow Canada to govern internet content globally. This broad regulatory reach can undermine privacy and freedom, raising questions about the potential overreach of government intervention.

It is also worth noting that other platforms outside Canada may face challenges in complying with Canadian legislation, as they are not bound by the Canadian Charter that protects individuals against government overreach. This negative sentiment stems from the observation that foreign companies are forced to execute censorship measures, which may conflict with their existing policies and obligations.

The importance of regulators having a proper understanding of what they regulate is emphasized. This positive sentiment highlights the criticalness of regulating technology with a thorough understanding of its impacts and consequences. Sharon Polsky’s argument supports the need for regulators to possess comprehensive knowledge of the technologies they oversee.

Education is proposed as a long-term solution to bridge the gap in understanding technology implications. The positive sentiment suggests that starting from the youngest grades, education should include topics like laws, political structures, and critical decision-making related to technology. This approach aims to equip future generations with the knowledge to create effective legislation and understand the potential risks associated with technology.

Tech companies are criticized for prioritizing shareholder returns over user privacy. The negative sentiment arises from the observation that corporations primarily focus on maximizing profits for shareholders. The promise to prioritize user privacy is viewed as unreliable, as companies are seen as bound to eventually fail in protecting user privacy.

There is a growing awareness among the general public about the monetization of personal information. This positive sentiment suggests that people have become increasingly frustrated with seeing their personal information being used for financial gain. The expectation is that individuals should have control over their personal information and how it is used.

In conclusion, encryption is seen as an essential tool for maintaining confidentiality and privacy in various sectors, but there are concerns about the lack of understanding of technology implications in legislation. The legislation aimed at protecting children through breaking encryption has raised concerns about potential unintended consequences. Education is proposed as a long-term solution, and there is an increasing focus on the need for regulators and policymakers to possess a comprehensive understanding of technology. Tech companies are criticized for prioritizing shareholder returns over user privacy, and individuals are becoming more aware of the monetization of their personal information. The expectation is that companies will have to adapt their practices to meet the demand for better privacy control.

Rand Hammoud

Encryption is widely regarded as crucial for ensuring online security, safety, and trust. It plays a vital role in safeguarding human rights by providing a secure means of communication and organization for activists, lawyers, and human rights defenders. These individuals rely on encryption to protect their freedom of expression and assembly.

However, concerns have been raised regarding the vulnerability of encryption to exploitation by the surveillance industry. It has been argued that these vulnerabilities are harnessed by a billion-dollar surveillance industry, leading to human rights abuses such as enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. Such abuses pose significant risks to activists, undermining their ability to protect their rights.

Governments often assert that undermining encryption is necessary for national security. However, there is widespread fear that such actions would make surveillance cheaper and easier, potentially resulting in privacy infringements. There is growing use of spyware against human rights activists and journalists, highlighting the urgency to ban spyware vendors and technologies associated with human rights abuses. Spyware is unregulated and unchecked, and despite the existence of legal frameworks branding surveillance as illegitimate, it continues to be used.

Existing international standards already render surveillance capabilities invasive. The argument that law enforcement requires spyware to maintain national security and safety is contested, as there is no evidence to support its effectiveness in these areas. On the contrary, there is ample evidence indicating that spyware infringes upon individuals’ rights and diminishes their safety.

Undermining encryption is tantamount to assuming everyone is guilty until proven innocent, fundamentally contradicting the existing surveillance system. This highlights the need for an international framework to define surveillance and encryption. Such a framework should be aligned with the spirit of existing rights protections, fostering greater accountability and transparency.

However, advocating for the use of surveillance technologies in autocratic governments presents its own challenges. Limited advocacy avenues and the difficulty in implementing rights-respecting frameworks in such contexts hinder progress in this area. On a contrasting note, economic arguments can be employed to protect the economic advantages of certain companies.

Overall, there is a pressing need for a more comprehensive, global, and international framework governing the use of surveillance technologies. Given the borderless nature of technology, jurisdiction-dependent regulations are inadequate. By establishing clear guidelines and regulations, a more balanced and accountable approach can be adopted, ensuring the protection of human rights and promoting global security.

In conclusion, encryption is integral to online security and the protection of human rights. However, the vulnerabilities of encryption and the misuse of surveillance technologies pose significant risks to individuals and their rights. Upholding encryption and establishing a global, rights-based framework for surveillance technologies are crucial steps to safeguarding privacy, enhancing accountability, and preserving fundamental rights in the digital age.

Tate Ryan-Mosley

This analysis explores various arguments regarding end-to-end encryption and backdoor access. Advocates emphasise the importance of end-to-end encryption in ensuring internet security, particularly in messaging apps like Signal, Telegram, and WhatsApp. These apps employ end-to-end encryption to safeguard user data, ensuring that only the intended recipients can access and decipher messages. Notably, tech companies that create such encrypted apps do not possess decryption keys, enhancing their security.

On the contrary, critics argue that creating a backdoor to encryption would compromise its security. They contend that establishing a master key or any form of backdoor access would be challenging to control, potentially enabling misuse by bad actors or governments. Tech companies vehemently oppose compromising encryption security, as weakening it could have significant implications for user privacy and data protection.

The United Nations (UN) supports strong encryption and concurs with those who assert that encryption backdoors contravene freedom of expression. The UN underscores the imperative nature of robust encryption to enable human rights advocates and journalists to function securely, preserving confidentiality and security.

Lawmakers are currently grappling with the task of addressing harmful online content moderation while maintaining encryption security. They are deliberating ways to gain access to secure communication channels, particularly given the increasing migration of internet users to private platforms like messaging apps. This shift has made monitoring and preventing the dissemination of abusive or harmful information more challenging.

Furthermore, it is essential for lawmakers to possess accurate knowledge of technology to prevent unintended consequences in their legislation. A pertinent example is the scrutiny of the UK online safety bill and similar legislation in Canada, which may inadvertently compromise encryption in an effort to safeguard children. Concerns have been raised that such well-intentioned legislation could endanger everyone, including children, by enabling unauthorized access through encryption backdoors.

Alongside discussions on encryption and backdoor access, the analysis highlights the media’s coverage of non-Western countries. It argues that the press should strive for better representation and reporting of international stories, acknowledging issues such as biases and racism that can influence media coverage. The press is encouraged to maintain openness to improvement and be accountable for their reporting.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the crucial role of encryption in internet security, while emphasizing the need to strike a balance between public safety and preserving privacy and human rights. It underscores the significance of encryption in protecting free speech, human rights, and the work of journalists. It also highlights the necessity for lawmakers and the press to possess a comprehensive understanding of technology to make informed decisions and enhance their practices.

Roger Dingledine

The discussions revolved around the topic of encryption and privacy, specifically examining their impact on society. Encryption was highlighted as a vital tool that allows individuals to have control over their personal information, offering them the ability to determine who can access their data and ensuring a sense of privacy and security. It was particularly emphasised that encryption is invaluable for vulnerable groups such as minorities and human rights activists, as it plays a crucial role in ensuring their safety.

However, the proposal for backdoor access to encryption was strongly rejected. The argument put forth was that incorporating a backdoor feature in encryption would undermine the entire concept, compromising the safety of everyone. It was emphasised that if a mechanism to break encryption is created, it can be exploited anywhere in the world, regardless of the country, leading to potential misuse. This raised concerns about the weakening of society and the possible dangers associated with backdoors in encryption.

The discussions also highlighted the intrinsic connection between security and privacy. It was argued that security and privacy are essentially two sides of the same coin, both being crucial aspects of individuals’ lives. Instances of identity theft were cited to illustrate the intertwining nature of security and privacy. Furthermore, the reliance of FBI agents, who play a significant role in maintaining security, on tools like TOR was mentioned, underscoring the importance of both security and privacy in their work.

Another significant point of discussion was the adverse effects of false positives generated by automated content moderation tools. It was highlighted that AI-powered systems are not infallible and can produce false positives. This means that innocent users may be falsely reported and labelled as criminals due to errors in content moderation. The potential consequences of such misreporting were stressed, as they can have serious implications and ruin lives.

The discussions also touched upon the unrealistic expectations of politicians who desire technological solutions that provide both privacy and enable surveillance. It was argued that such a solution is currently not technologically feasible and can potentially result in exploitation. Tech companies were criticised for deceiving governments by promising to develop such technology for significant sums, despite its impossibility. The need to strike a balance between privacy and surveillance was emphasised, particularly considering the long-term effects of compromising safety.

Regarding specific tools, the discussions highlighted the significance of encryption in Tor. It was mentioned that Tor is not solely for resisting surveillance but also for resisting censorship. The widespread use of tools like Tor was deemed vital for their effectiveness and safety. It was emphasised that as more common tools incorporate real encryption, it becomes a normal part of everyone’s daily life, rather than being perceived as a sign of political dissent.

Additionally, the discussions raised concerns about the compromising stance of some tech companies on privacy. It was noted that certain tech companies prioritise profit over users’ privacy rights, especially when accessing large markets like China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and India. This practice was criticised as it enables dangerous actions against user privacy.

In conclusion, the discussions on encryption and privacy shed light on the importance of encryption in safeguarding personal information and the need to have control over its access. The idea of backdoor access to encryption was strongly rejected, highlighting its potential for misuse and the weakening of society. The inherent connection between security and privacy was underscored, with a particular focus on the negative consequences of false positives from automated content moderation tools. The unrealistic expectations of politicians in balancing privacy and surveillance were criticised, while the importance of widespread use of tools like Tor was emphasised. The compromising stance of certain tech companies on privacy for market access was also challenged. Overall, the discussions provided insights into the complex and multifaceted nature of encryption and privacy in contemporary society.

Speaker

The analysis reveals that companies often fail to prioritize privacy, despite claiming to do so. This can be attributed to their primary focus on maximizing returns for shareholders, which raises concerns about the genuine value placed on privacy in corporate decision-making.

Another pressing concern is the negative impact of cybercrime and spyware on economies. Billions of dollars are lost to cybercrime each year, with industry statistics supporting these claims. Moreover, the economic damage caused by cyber threats can surpass the economies of certain nations, emphasizing the need for effective measures to combat cyber threats and protect against economic losses.

On a more positive note, it is acknowledged that Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the potential to contribute positively, particularly in the field of medical advancements. The application of AI in healthcare can drive innovation, improve patient outcomes, and enhance overall well-being. This suggests that if properly harnessed, AI technology could play a significant role in advancing healthcare and addressing societal challenges.

In light of the alarming statistic that millions of people’s genetic identities have been compromised through privacy breaches, it is concluded that government action is imperative. Government intervention is needed to protect individuals’ privacy rights, maintain the integrity of sensitive data, and establish robust regulations that hold companies accountable for any lapses in privacy protection.

In summary, the analysis highlights the tendency of companies to overlook privacy concerns in their pursuit of maximum shareholder returns. The negative impact of cybercrime and spyware on economies serves as a wake-up call, emphasizing the need for comprehensive cybersecurity measures. While opportunities for positive contributions through AI exist, safeguarding privacy must remain a priority. Ultimately, government action is necessary to address privacy breaches, protect individuals’ data, and safeguard the interests of society as a whole.

Smith

The speaker at the event politely requested participants to form a queue at the microphone and introduced herself. She emphasized the limited time remaining and expressed the desire to address both of the upcoming questions within the given timeframe. The speaker’s request for concise questions was to ensure enough time for comprehensive answers. Additionally, the importance of participants introducing themselves before posing questions was highlighted, fostering respect and engagement.

As the queue formed, there was a sense of urgency to address the remaining questions. With only one minute left, the speaker urged the next person in line to promptly ask their question to not miss the chance for a response. This showcased the speaker’s commitment to effectively addressing all inquiries before the session ended.

In conclusion, the speaker’s management of the Q&A session demonstrated professionalism, consideration, and a strong focus on maximizing the remaining time to accommodate participants’ questions.

Audience

During the discussions, various important topics were explored, shedding light on the challenges and complexities surrounding technology, human rights, privacy, and accountability.

One significant point of discussion was the danger posed by encrypted apps in countries with authoritarian regimes. It was argued that the use of encrypted apps can actually endanger users in such countries. The Turkish government was cited as an example, using the presence of encrypted apps as evidence against individuals, highlighting the fact that autocratic nations often learn and adopt oppressive policies from each other. The call was made to consider the context and oppressive governmental practices when assuming the safety of encrypted apps for all users globally.

The biased media coverage of technological issues and human rights abuses was also extensively addressed. It was argued that Western-centric media tends to give more attention to issues in Western countries. Non-Western governments’ tech requests or laws often do not receive as much coverage, despite the potential replication of policies in similar geopolitical contexts. The need for a more global perspective in technology and human rights reporting was emphasized.

The lack of accountability for big tech companies in their interactions with autocratic nations was another key concern. It was pointed out that big tech compliance in autocratic governments is increasing, and these companies are often willing to compromise on human rights for financial gain. There was a call for increased scrutiny and accountability to ensure that these companies are held responsible for their actions in autocratic nations.

The potential for mandated encryption backdoors was also raised, particularly in the context of the UK’s online safety bill. One audience member expressed concern about this possibility and the implications it may have for privacy. The stance was against the implementation of mandated encryption backdoors.

Surveillance capitalism, the practice of tech companies using user data for profit, was identified as a concerning aspect of privacy. It was acknowledged that while governments are mostly blamed for surveillance, tech companies also play a significant role in exploiting user data for financial gain.

The rights of victims of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) were highlighted as often being overlooked. This raised the issue of the need for greater attention and support for victims of such abuse.

The discussion also revealed that, in many cases, tech companies prioritize their revenues over human rights. It was pointed out that companies encrypt data extracted from users primarily to prevent competitors from accessing it, rather than for the protection of user rights.

Double standards in abiding by privacy laws were identified as a problem. Tech companies were found to comply with laws in autocratic states but often ignore those in democratic states, indicating a lack of consistent and ethical practices.

The potential cybersecurity risks associated with data encryption on internet protocols were highlighted. It was argued that the inappropriate use of encryption can weaken cybersecurity, emphasizing the need for careful consideration and implementation.

Finally, the importance of adapting advocacy messaging to different regions was raised. It was noted that different parts of the world may require tailored approaches to effectively communicate and advance human rights and justice.

In conclusion, these discussions shed light on the complex issues surrounding technology, human rights, privacy, and accountability. They highlighted the dangers of encrypted apps in authoritarian regimes, the biased media coverage of technological issues, the need to hold big tech companies accountable, concerns about privacy and surveillance capitalism, overlooked rights of CSAM victims, tech companies prioritizing revenue over human rights, double standards in privacy laws compliance, potential cybersecurity risks of encryption, and the importance of adapting advocacy to different regions. These discussions call for greater awareness, scrutiny, and efforts to ensure the protection of human rights, privacy, and justice in the rapidly evolving digital landscape.

Tate Ryan-Mosley:
plain text. And so with end-to-end encryption, even the tech companies that make encrypted apps actually do not have the keys, as they would call it, to break the ciphertext. But more on that later. Most commonly, when we talk about end-to-end encryption for the average internet user, we’re talking about messaging apps like Signal, Telegram, and WhatsApp. But there are different variations of encryption. So HTTPS, for example, protects websites and website activities, and even some devices are fully encrypted with passwords and passcodes, like an iPhone, for example. And encryption has actually been debated from a policy perspective really since the beginning of time, for 20 or 30 years, as authorities have sought access to encrypted messages and devices. This access is commonly called a backdoor, and authorities or law enforcement agencies that have advocated for backdoor access often will say, you know, we just want access to some messages on a case-by-case, restricted, small-scale, targeted allowance. In the past, of course, tech companies argued that doing so would have pretty substantial risks to encryption as a whole, because the creation of a sort of master key, which doesn’t exist today, would be really hard to control from bad actors, inappropriate government uses, and just generally weaken encryption. Opponents of backdoor access say that, of course, law enforcement can’t really be trusted with this type of access, plus it’s not really how the technology works. And additionally, strong encryption is necessary for human rights advocates, journalists, and free speech more generally. Historically, the UN has actually sided on the side of the opponents of backdoor access, saying that encryption backdoors are contrary to the freedom of expression. So in the past, we’ve seen the encryption debate pop up really during times of crisis, when law enforcement agencies are looking for a particular piece of intelligence in a high-profile case like the San and Bernardino shootings in the US or the Paris bombings, both of those in 2015. But currently we’re seeing this debate crop up in the form of online safety and content moderation most commonly. There’ve been a handful of bills in the US and globally, US at the state level, but also Australia, UK, places, Canada that we’ll talk a little bit about today that are threatening encryption. So we’re gonna talk about all of this today in light of also the growing use of surveillance technologies by governments around the world and what we might do to strengthen encryption protections. So as a reminder, we will have some time for questions at the end. So please do think of them throughout our chat so that you’re ready to shoot them out to our lovely panelists at the end of this. So now that we’re kind of all on the same page about what we’re talking about, I wanna pass the first question to Roger, which is Roger, why do governments, law enforcement agencies, anybody really want backdoor access? What are they getting at?

Roger Dingledine:
Yeah, so that’s a broad question. I mean, the fundamental conflict here is between society being safe and national intelligence, law enforcement, governments wanting control in these cases. So the way that I look at this is the question is about privacy. And by privacy, I mean control or choice about your information. So if you are successfully having privacy, and one of the ways to get that is through this encryption that we’re talking about, then you get to choose who learns things about you. So that’s my definition of privacy. And one of the interesting characteristics of it is vulnerable populations need it more, find it more valuable. So if you already have a lot of power, if you’re a nation state or a Russian mafia or whatever large powerful group, you already have power. It’s not so important for you to have. an extra layer of privacy. Whereas if you’re a minority, LGBT, journalist, human rights activist, and so on, then it’s much, then this is one of the most important things for you to retain control of your own safety. Yeah, and Roger, kind of sticking with you on that point, when governments or law enforcement agencies, you know, whatever party is in control, asks for backdoor access to encryption, from a technical point of view, why is that a slippery slope? Like, why is that such a risky request? Yeah, so there are several problems here. One of the big problems is, math doesn’t know what country it’s in. Technology doesn’t know what country it’s in. So if you, let’s say you have a country with perfect rule of law, I don’t know where you’d find one of those, but let’s say you have one of those. And in that situation, the judicial process gets to decide who can break the encryption and whose messages we’ll look at. That same tool is going to be used elsewhere in the world, and there are other countries who are going to try to reuse the same mechanism for breaking the encryption. So even if in the US we had a perfect judicial system, which we don’t, what do the tech companies do? What do the tools do when the judge in Saudi Arabia asks for that same access? So the fact that there are different countries in the world is one of the main challenges to having this whole backdoor concept make any sense at all. And I guess the other way of saying that is this notion of a backdoor that law enforcement keeps asking for weakens society as a whole. It makes everybody less safe. That’s not a worthwhile trade-off.

Tate Ryan-Mosley:
Rhonda, I want to pass it to you because. you work with protecting free expression and people on the ground who are doing human rights work, how have you seen encryption being used to protect activists or even citizens who are just expressing their voices?

Rand Hammoud:
Thanks, Tate. I think one of the main things that comes up when it comes to encryption and protecting or safeguarding or enabling even fundamental rights is the fact that it is one of the biggest technologies today that is the foundation of security and safety and trust online. And so it’s enabled activists, lawyers, human rights defenders, dissidents to securely communicate, organize and protect their freedom of expression and assembly. And so if we go ahead and undermine encryption, we are thus undermining their ability to do so. And we need to place this conversation within the context of an already pervasive surveillance industry where even with strong encryptions and even when we do have data that is now encrypted and safe, we already have a large billion dollar industry that is working day in and day out to find vulnerabilities to exploit and already survey these individuals and place them at risk and thus putting them in harm’s way and even causing and enabling grievous human rights abuses such as enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings. And so the conversation around safeguarding encryption needs to also be aware of the already existing surveillance capabilities of governments and malicious actors.

Tate Ryan-Mosley:
Yeah, I think that’s such a good point. And one thing, Sharon, I want to ask you about is even from an economic perspective, encryption is essential to data protection activities at normal businesses, right? So, yes, as Roger spoke about, you have these grave power imbalances between activists and states, but also you have people at their jobs who are protecting sensitive information who rely on encryption. Can you talk about that use case as well a little bit?

Sharon Polsky:
Absolutely, and you’re right, it’s not just the human rights people and the advocates, but it is every day people in business, and the one area that is seldom mentioned is also the lawmakers themselves. Whether you are a lawyer who has to maintain client confidentiality, or you’re a doctor and you have to maintain confidentiality of your patient information. If you’re a lawmaker, a strategist, a policy analyst, and you’re in discussion with your colleagues, you don’t want somebody else being able to infiltrate and figure out what you are strategizing. So everybody has privacy issues, whether it’s for personal privacy or for business and economic, and actually for national security reasons. Maintaining encryption is absolutely fundamental.

Tate Ryan-Mosley:
Yeah, and I think, Rhonda, I want to pass it back to you. We’re in a room, I’m sure with some policymakers, at a policymaking conference. How do you think we should respond to governments who want backdoor access to encrypted technologies, and who stands to gain and who stands to lose? Do you trust them?

Rand Hammoud:
I think to piggyback on what my fellow panelists just said, undermining encryption is also a national security issue. And so when you look at it that way, no one stands to gain. It will place national governments at risk, the same governments that are advocating for undermining encryption will be themselves at risk. And then democratic processes are included within those risks. Because when you think about journalists, activists, essential people that uphold democratic processes being at risk, or having to self-censor because they know that they could be surveyed in such a way that is mass scale, really, when you talk about undermining encryption, then that whole process is lost. And so I think from my point of view. view, there is no one left to gain except, you know, individuals or malicious actors who want to survey those people, and who want to gain access and, you know, who want to exercise population control, because essentially, that is what undermining encryption will do, it will make surveillance so much cheaper, it will take us into, you know, pre Snowden revelation days when, you know, there was mass surveillance from governments and companies. And so there is no one to gain, there is no one that is going to gain and as we shouldn’t be trusting backdoor accesses, or any sort of pretexts that really are not even technologically sound.

Tate Ryan-Mosley:
Yeah, and I feel like you’re picking up on one kind of key tension that has been in this narrative for a long time, which is, you know, our security and privacy opposing things. Can we have both? How do you achieve both? And Roger, I wanted I wanted your perspective on that, like, to what extent is this binary of security and privacy real?

Roger Dingledine:
Yeah, so security and privacy are the same thing in a lot of ways. Imagine you give out your financial data, and then somebody does identity theft on you. So going back to your example of encryption being a national security thing, I was at an FBI conference years ago. And the I talked to a bunch of FBI people, and some of them use TOR, and some of them fear TOR. And one guy was saying, surely you have some sort of backdoor, right? Surely you have some way to learn what people are doing on the TOR network. And I explained to him, I pointed to his colleagues and said, these people just told me today that they use TOR and rely on TOR every day for their job. Do you want me to have a way to learn what they’re doing on the internet? So from that perspective, it’s a, it’s a national security. It’s a security. It’s a privacy. They’re all the same. They’re all the same sides of the same coin.

Tate Ryan-Mosley:
Yeah, Sharon, do you want to expand on that?

Sharon Polsky:
I have to agree with Roger, it is all connected, and it’s all too often that people will talk about one aspect or another without relating, without connecting the dots, and you absolutely have to. But the problem I’ve found through my career, and that’s been dealing with governments and policy people and corporations, there’s been very little education about these things. We use the internet, we use computers, but a lot of people, unless you live it, unless you’re a Roger and you design these protective mechanisms, most people just use them. And that’s a problem because they know how to use it to a very small degree, they don’t understand the implications of what they’re doing quite often, and that also falls over to the lawmakers and the people who prepare the research and the briefing notes for the lawmakers. If they don’t understand what the technology is about, what the risks really are, and the unintended consequences of the legislation they draft, then they are building something that is going to create a world of problems, and for that I look to things like various pieces of legislation in Canada, some have just come in, some are still on the books being debated, and the so-called Online Safety Act in Britain. They’re all being promulgated as necessary to protect children, and doesn’t everybody want to protect children, that’s the argument. Of course we want to protect children, they are among the most vulnerable, but if you undermine encryption to ostensibly protect children, other people will also be able to get through that back door and endanger not only the children, but everybody else, and it is the very children who will be endangered because the way the laws are being written, the content will have to be scoured automatically, proactively, automatically reported to police if it is suspected as potentially, maybe, possible. being in child sexual abuse material. So what happens when a child has been abused and wants to report? Their content gets stopped and reported and they are the ones who become the suspects. In Canada, a child is chargeable under the Criminal Code of Canada as of 12 years old. Imagine the possibilities and the unintended consequences of breaking encryption.

Tate Ryan-Mosley:
Yeah, and I’m really glad you brought that up and I want to get a little bit further into the specifics here because I think, you know, this is where we’re hearing a lot of the encryption debate. You know, if we have a lot of encrypted messaging, if we have a lot of really secure portals for communications, we can’t moderate those spaces. And we know that internet users are increasingly moving to private spaces in this age of, in this current, you know, moment of social media. And so lawmakers are saying, hey, you know, what can we do about all this abuse information? What can we do about, you know, all of this, you know, bad, harmful content that’s being passed through people that that tech companies themselves and governments have no visibility into. And you brought up the UK online safety bill. This was obviously a big one. Australia, India, the U. S. We’ve also seen some discussions of, you know, providing either technical or real backdoor access to encrypted messages. I’d love to know, Sharon, like, can you tell me something kind of specific about some of the bills in Canada, where you see, you know, an unintended consequence or a misunderstanding from lawmakers of, you know, the technology or the ramifications?

Sharon Polsky:
Absolutely. And really, I don’t have the imagination to make up the stories, the examples that I will cite. I had a conversation with one of our current members of Parliament about a year ago. We were talking about this because the legislation in Canada was just being formulated. And I said, but if you break encryption for some, so that all the content can be monitored and she stopped me and I went, break encryption? No, I don’t think that’s how it works. And changed the subject. She, like many of our current members of Parliament, come from journalism. They’re educated, they’re worldly, that’s great, but they don’t get it. We have, you might have heard of Bill C-18 that just became law to update the Broadcast Act and that sounds wonderful except it now includes not just radio and television but it includes governing the Internet globally. Canada has taken it upon themselves to declare that they will govern the content. Combine that with another piece of legislation on the books, Bill C-26, and we refer to them by their numbers because unlike the United States, Canada has a history of creating legislation with very lengthy, hard to say names, not nice, concise, easily said acronyms. So Bill C-26 is another piece of legislation and that one is going to amend the Telecommunications Act to create the Critical Cyber Systems Protection Act and like the others it’ll infringe on privacy and freedom. All of these will narrow identified gaps. They do, if you look at it from a certain perspective, have a legitimate application protecting children, preventing terrorism, preventing all the ills and harms that we see so often, the very same things that were going on long before the Internet became a thing. But the problem is everything is going to be surveilled, as Ran said. That is a problem particularly because when everything is surveilled and the various pieces of legislation say some content And we will deem, we will have our separate agencies deem as misinformation, disinformation, unwanted content. The government will not be the one to do the censoring. The law will have the platforms do the automatic, routine, mandatory proactive screening. Those are outside of Canada, outside of the reach of Canadian law, of course. So it’s actually a very interesting way that they’ve created it, because similar to the Americans who have constitutional rights to freedom of speech, we have charter and protected right to freedom of expression, and the charter protects Canadians against overreach by government. So it’s not going to be the government committing overreach, it’s going to be the companies that the charter doesn’t cover. The companies will just do as the law requires. And that affects everybody, including everything from children to the elderly in every walk of life, including the politicians themselves.

Tate Ryan-Mosley:
And on that point, I mean, luckily for us, we have someone on this panel who runs a tech company, Roger. How do you think about balancing privacy with content moderation? I mean, I know this is not the Tor Project’s bread and butter, but we do know that there have been the proliferation of child sexual abuse material on some private messaging apps. So is there an approach that balances these two things? Can you achieve some level of moderation and encrypted privacy?

Roger Dingledine:
Yeah. So, fortunately, Tor is a communications tool, not one of these platforms. So we don’t have content to moderate in the way that Facebook and so on have. But from… from the So everything Sharon said is right, but it’s worse than that because you were talking about If the technology behaves in a perfect way, then it’s still bad for society But the reality is for example in the UK online safety bill. They’re imagining there will be magic AI machines that perfectly just look at pictures and perfectly decide correctly if they’re bad pictures or not bad pictures and The reality is AI doesn’t work that way. It’s not perfect You’re going to have some false positives and let’s say you have 2% of the time It says that’s a bad picture and it shouldn’t and there are 10 billion pictures being sent each day Then 2% of the users are going to get reported each day for being criminals And maybe they can drive the false positive rate from 2% down to 1% So now it’s only tens of thousands of people being misreported and having their lives ruined because the the math screwed up a little bit for them, so it’s definitely a challenge here because the politicians want this reality to be possible and it isn’t but they want it to be possible and There are all sorts of for-profit tech shark scam companies that say oh, yes yes, yes, give me millions of dollars and I’ll build a magic thing for you and it will be magic and The reality is it’s not going to work. It’s not going to do what what people want But the politicians really want it. They they they would love to have a technology solution to be able to give people privacy while also Surveilling all of them, but the reality is that the tech does not support the things that they’re wanting

Tate Ryan-Mosley:
Yeah, and just some context if people aren’t familiar these are you know, I’m sure you’re referring to a handful of technologies some of which are you know, message franking, client-side scanning, server-side scanning, and really the idea behind these types of technologies, they are different, so I’m sorry for painting with a broad brush here, are technologies that basically allow a machine to evaluate the content underneath the encryption, so that there’s not a person, you know, reviewing necessarily the content of encrypted messages, but there’s a machine checking and saying, oh, you know, this might be child sex abuse material, for example, and in the UK law, you know, it was a stipulation of the UK online safety bill that, you know, technically feasible, I think, was the terminology they used, you know, had to use those type of technologies, and then it was recently, just a month ago, repealed because the technologies do not exist or change, that part of the bill was changed, and I really like, Roger, how you said, you know, let’s talk about reality today, and Viranda, I want to pass this back to you, so talking about reality today, what sort of protections do human rights advocates, journalists need right now when it comes to, you know, protecting their own privacy and protecting themselves against government surveillance?

Rand Hammoud:
So, I think there are two main subjects to this kind of answer, and when it comes to protecting themselves from government surveillance, it mainly takes us into the idea that, you know, even before we get into undermining encryption, we already are in a space where spyware is largely used against, you know, human rights activists, dissidents, etc., and with the most recent reports that Amnesty put out, it’s become even cheaper today, for example, a predator infection costs €9,000 only, when years ago it was much, much more expensive, and so the technology is proliferating, and it is off the shelf, it is unregulated, unchecked, and governments, and who knows what other actors, are just using it against human rights activists, lawyers, journalists. And so the first thing that we need to tackle or the governments need to tackle is firstly ban spyware vendors and technologies that have already been used to enable human rights abuses. And then talk about establishing the safeguards that are needed in order to have a more human rights respecting framework to use certain digital surveillance technologies in a way that does not infringe on human rights. If that framework exists, but we first need to be able to have multiple safeguards that would ensure that even if these technologies are used, there is a mechanism to access remedy, a mechanism for investigations, et cetera, which largely even in spaces that it exists today is not respected. And we see that where there are multiple democracies where there are legal frameworks that deem the surveillance illegitimate, but it is still happening. And so the conversation around the protections, the legal protections that we need should also look into why the technology is proliferating in such a way and the pretext behind why it exists or the need behind why it exists. And the pretext that law enforcement needs this kind of technology today to ensure that everyone is safe is completely false. We have not seen any evidence that this technology has helped in any way to maintain national security or make anyone safe. But we have plenty of evidence of it making people less and less safe and infringing on their rights.

Tate Ryan-Mosley:
Yeah, absolutely. I think that’s a really interesting point. And Roger, I wanna pass it back to you. I mean, so what can tech companies do and how are tech companies responding to both, I would say, increased surveillance, increased demand for access to citizen data and also to this kind of policy moment? I mean, tech companies are beheld to the laws that govern them. So what are you seeing from the tech side?

Roger Dingledine:
Yeah, so tech companies. is not a monolith. There are a bunch of different sides to the technology world. In terms of the huge companies like Apple, it’s interesting to notice that Apple is mostly on society’s side in this, where their users want safety, and Apple wants to give them safety. And it’s actually in Apple’s interest to give them safety, because if Apple had the ability to watch everything that they’re saying over messaging, then they’re a target for people trying to break in and harm the users. So in this sense, we’re aligned with groups like Apple. On the other hand, we haven’t said the word crypto wars yet, but we have to look at history and we have to look at the fact that governments have been asking for weakening security over and over for years. And for example, in the West, for internet routers, like the backbone pieces of the internet, each router has a port called a lawful intercept port. And the idea is you go to a judge and you say, I want to be able to watch all the internet traffic going along this part of the internet, because there’s a bad guy and I want to be able to watch him. And the judge thinks about it and says, okay, sounds good. And then you plug into the lawful intercept port and you get to listen to all of the internet traffic there. And I was years ago talking to a group in the German foreign ministry, and they were trying to figure out, should we regulate, as Rand was talking about, should we regulate these spyware tools? How do we decide what counts and what doesn’t count? And there was an engineer from Dubai telecom there who was like, you guys put the lawful intercept port in. And when my prince in Dubai asks, what’s that port? And I say, oh, that’s the lawful intercept port. And he says, plug it in. Like the jurisdiction is is wildly different, but the tool works the same in Dubai versus the US versus Europe. So to bring it back to Tate’s question, part of the things that the tech companies need to think about here is this is a recurring theme where governments keep asking for more and more access, more and more weakening. And there are side effects, such as having lawful access ports on backbone internet routers, which can be used well and wisely and are often not used well and wisely. So every time we think about weakening safety for society, we need to think through where that’s going to go in the future.

Tate Ryan-Mosley:
Yeah, and we’re just about ready to take some audience questions, but Roger, I wanted to ask you to just expand on that last point before we bring in any audience questions. So have your questions at the ready. But when it comes to thinking about this globally, as you said, technology doesn’t know boundaries. There is this kind of competitive market for both spyware and privacy technology. How do you think about how might we foster a global approach to encryption protecting framework for governance? Again, a big question for you.

Roger Dingledine:
Yeah. So the answer isn’t to make all of society less safe. That cannot be the answer. And it is frustrating that the US and the UK and Europe are so excited to do that. And it’s especially frustrating at the same time as each of these countries is signing the Freedom Online Coalition, the Declaration for the Future Internet, the Global Compact, all these acronyms we’re hearing about at IGF this week. We’ve got countries saying that they value safe. for society, yet here they are trying to to pass these laws each year. So yeah, how do we, I guess, so it can’t be mass weakening. A lot of countries then look at the targeted attacks, the ones that Rand was talking about, where they go to some Israeli company and they buy the ability to break into their specific target’s phone and bypass encryption and other mechanisms. And in a sense that’s better. At least it’s not mass attacks. At least it’s not harming everybody. But the reality there is we keep seeing these targeted attacks being used against not just journalists and bloggers and activists, but French politicians and the Parliament members in Germany and so on. So that’s, I’d like to live in a world where the targeted attacks are the better answer, but that seems like a pretty bad answer also. I guess the, as a technology person, I’m good at explaining why things won’t work. But the best solution that I have is we need to maintain strong security for all of society, meaning we need encryption to work well. And as Rand was saying, we need to start regulating and deciding what small arms dealers are allowed to do in the software vulnerability exploit space. And I mean, yeah, we could go on and on about this, but I’ll pause for other people to jump in.

Sharon Polsky:
And I’m gonna do just that, because I think for the people who are going to create the regulations, if they don’t have a proper, correct understanding of what it is they’re regulating, what the impacts of not regulating, regulating in a certain way, regulating completely, if they don’t get it, then regulating is going to be… a Band-Aid approach. The long term that should have started many, many years ago is education from the youngest grades, not just in how to use a computer, how to use these wonderful devices that do provide convenience for the good among us and the opportunists among us, but educate people about everything from how are laws made, what is democracy, what are different types of political structures. Give them the education so they can make critical decisions and grow up to build systems that don’t provide the very same problems we’re tackling and struggling with now.

Roger Dingledine:
Ultimately, we need to normalize what encryption is. So one great success story is HTTPS. It used to be that governments and law enforcement said, but if everybody has encryption when they go to websites, society will collapse. Think of the children. What would happen if we aren’t able to watch what you do when you connect to a website? And now, whenever you do your online banking or you log into the IGF website or any website, you use HTTPS. It’s normal. They fought that fight. We won. Let’s look to that as an example where we need to somehow figure out how to make society safer for the next round also.

Tate Ryan-Mosley:
Yeah, and I want to pass it over to Ron to get your perspective on this. What can we do to take a positive step forward globally?

Rand Hammoud:
I think the answer is actually quite simpler than many policymakers would like to hear, because they would want to know that it’s a complicated manner. And so use that to not pass progressive laws. But really, the international standards that we already have are quite strong. We already have many rights respecting laws and rights pushing laws. And so when we look at international standards for due process, for fair trials, for freedom of expression, et cetera, they already render surveillance capabilities as invasive as they stand right now illegitimate. Surveillance in the sense that would be promoted when encryption is undermined is basically assuming that everyone is guilty until proven innocent, which is the opposite of what should be, what should happen. And it brings to the consciousness of the state people who are not guilty of anything. And so it already is sort of an unlawful kind of attack. So really what we need to do is be able to enshrine in an international framework what surveillance and encryption means, inspired by the spirit of what we already have, which is strong international protections for our rights as they stand.

Tate Ryan-Mosley:
Yeah, and I feel like the infrastructure approach is something that is increasingly, I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, but it feels like that’s a similar approach that you’re advocating for that has also been applied to areas like anti-censorship technologies and that space as well. So I want to pause and see, are there any questions either online or in the room? If it’s online, you can just add them to the chat. And in the room, please make yourself known and I will take care of you.

Roger Dingledine:
We’ve got some hands in the room. So go to the microphone and-

Smith:
Yeah, go to the mic and get in line, please and thank you. Please introduce yourself before your question, that’d be great.

Audience:
Can you hear me? Yeah. Hi, I’m Handa Nuslu. I work for Google at the Trust and Safety Function and Policy Implementation for a while. And then I founded Turkey’s Internet Observatory, Gözlemeve. So what I want to ask is I actually have questions for three of you. So for Roger firstly, so when we talk about protecting human rights activists, I feel like the conversation is sometimes assuming a functioning democracy and the functioning government that kind of is really willing to protect the citizens. So that really doesn’t apply outside of Western Europe and outside of the US. So what we see in here, for example, in Turkey, we see that people are, so when there is any encrypted app found on someone’s phone or someone’s computer that can be used as evidence to support a case that someone is doing something illegal. So if TOR project, if I’m using TOR on my computer, that can actually endanger me. So it might be more safe in terms of surveillance, but it’s not safe if we talk about the tools of oppressive governments, for example. So I was just wondering if you’re discussing, if you’re talking about human rights activism and if you’re talking about protecting democracies, is there any context or any information that you ever get on how autocracies work? Because the problem is these countries, they learn from each other. So any law that pops up in a country is likely to be transferred. And so, for example, as someone who works in technology and human rights and democracy, we do not suggest some of the telegram or signal. Yes, it is encrypted. Yes, it’s open source, but it might put you in more danger because of this. So that’s my question to Roger. I also have a question to Tate, actually. So when we see about, because I’ve been following MIT Tech Review and we do have a lot going on in Middle East and in other countries, and what we see is that these are not being reported often. So there might be an issue in the US and it will get a lot of news and presence. But when the Turkish government or some other government or any government has a big tech request and this big tech company complies or some other stuff happens, these things would get a lot more, I feel like, coverage if it was happening in other countries. But like I said, when problems happen in a country, it’s not just for that country. It’s probably going to be replicated. If there is a law popping up in a certain country, for example, against encryption, it is very likely to be replicated in a similar geography. So I was wondering if you have any insights on maybe improving the coverage on just going beyond the Western look on how human rights issues and human rights activists could be protected. And for you, sorry, Sharon. Yes, I’m bad at remembering sometimes. But my question is, because you mentioned that you do talk a lot with the government’s bodies. and you are in interaction with them is, what percentage of your work is actually focusing on holding big tech companies accountable? And if that is a perspective, because, again, big tech compliance in autarkic governments is growing a lot. And these companies, they really want to earn a lot of money, and they are willing to give up every single human rights. And so, for example, Messenger is encrypted, but we have learned from Facebook officials that they do actually give information, chatting information, once it’s requested. And these are not requests based off of security reasons. So it’s not a request to identify someone who has been missing for a while. They’re mostly politically motivated. So these are my three big questions to you. Thank you.

Roger Dingledine:
Should we try to answer them now, or should we take more? What’s the right way to… One at a time. One at a time. Okay. So you’re absolutely right that there are not as many functioning democracies in the world as we would like. In fact, if you know a good functioning democracy, please let me know. In terms of the safety of having tools like Tor installed in dangerous places, there’s actually a really interesting synergy, because Tor is not just for resisting surveillance, it’s also for resisting censorship. And in a lot of countries, like Iran, and now Russia, and Turkey, and so on, there’s a lot of censorship. So the average Tor user in Iran is using it to get to Facebook, because they blocked Facebook. And that means the average Tor user in Iran is an ordinary Facebook user who’s just using it to get around the censorship. Yes, there are some political dissidents in there, but the average user is an ordinary citizen. And that ordinariness is an important security property for having these tools. And similarly, as the whole world moves to not just Telegram or Signal, but WhatsApp and iMessage, and as more ordinary tools… tools get real encryption, it becomes a normal thing that everybody has, not a sign that you’re a political dissident. So you’re absolutely right. And the tools need to become pervasive and ordinary in order to be safe.

Tate Ryan-Mosley:
I can briefly answer the question, and also just a reminder so that we can get to all the questions. We can all try to be brief in our responses. Thank you so much for that question. It’s a very important question. I don’t know if I can give you a very satisfying answer, other than it shouldn’t be that way. And I, as an individual reporter, and us as Technology Review, are constantly trying to be better about this. I think, frankly, you get into all of these issues with journalism, and local journalism, and journalism business models right now. And racism, and where people pay attention, and who people pay attention to, I think those are all parts of the answer to your problem. But certainly, the press can and should do better at covering countries outside of the West. And so thank you for encouraging me to do so. And feel free to send me tips at any point as well. And I will do my best to cover international stories more.

Sharon Polsky:
I appreciate your question. Do we deal directly with the tech companies? No, we tend not to. We deal with putting on the record what is going on. So when we spoke to the Canadian Parliament about facial recognition, or about spyware, we put on the record the billions of dollars, the statistics from industry, as to what sort of contribution those industries, cybercrime, spyware, what do they contribute to an economy? And often, it’s larger than some nation’s economies. And we put on the record what the impact is. And of course, it’s very simple. As you said, companies are not interested in your privacy or mine. They are interested in providing the greatest return possible for their shareholders. That is their raison d’etre. So for them to say, and this isn’t specifying one company or another, for them to say, we take your privacy seriously, we will protect it. I think that’s a promise that nobody should try to make because it’s inevitably going to fail. We need to see governments recognizing what the problems are, realizing that the tech companies, yes, they certainly do provide employment, innovation, and for perfectly legitimate and wonderful purposes. You know, using AI for medical advancement, that’s great. Using AI so I can pay whatever the fee is today to spit into a vial and have my DNA analyzed by a company in the United States that says in their so-called privacy policy online, we will protect your privacy, and then they are breached. This just happened. And millions of people’s genetic identities have been spirited away. You can’t change your genetics. You can change your password. Do governments understand? Do the bureaucrats and the lawmakers and the policymakers understand? No. When it happens to them, that, I find, is when things might start to change. So we do a lot to increase their awareness of these risks.

Speaker:
Thank you for these questions and answers. Why don’t we get a question from this line here?

Audience:
Good morning. I’m Masayuki from Japan. I’m academic. This may be a bit extreme, but it’s kind of related to the previous question. Do you have a plan of action for when the backdoor is somehow, I mean encryption backdoor is somehow mandated, since we finally avoided the worst with the UK online safety bill barely and I think the fight will be continued, especially in Japan or anywhere, so thank you.

Roger Dingledine:
Do we have a plan of action for when the backdoors are really, really required? Is that the question? We will never put a backdoor in Tor. We will never undermine Tor security. I don’t care what the laws say. So we’re going to have to wrestle with whatever the political policy implications of that is. We’ve got EFF, ACLU, a bunch of legal organizations in Europe and the US and around the world who want to fight these things and I hope they succeed. We will never weaken Tor security.

Sharon Polsky:
If I can add to that, I think the most important part is that people are now becoming aware and I don’t mean just people in technology or in the privacy realm or certain policy makers, I mean the general public has gotten fed up with seeing their personal information monetized. They are starting to ask questions. I’m working with some people who are developing systems so it will completely change the dynamic. No longer will you have to submit to whatever the so-called privacy policy is on a website. You will have control over whether, when, how much, to whom your personal information goes. You will be in control to flip things around. Companies aren’t going to like it but when the people who are their bread and butter now say we’ve had enough, they will have to change how they do it and that’s going to be a plan of action.

Smith:
So we have four more minutes. I want to try to get both of these questions in. So if the answers could be brief that would be great. This line next.

Audience:
Andrew Campling, I’m a consultant on Internet standards and a trustee of the Internet Watch Foundation. A couple of quick comments, and I’ll try to be brief. In the discussion, the title is about human rights and it’s mainly been about privacy. We’ve largely, up until the last answer, ignored surveillance capitalism, if we’re going to talk about privacy. We focus on evil governments, and it seems to deflect attention from what the tech sector does itself to users, and arguably that’s a lot worse. We’ve ignored the rights of the victims of CSAM to focus on the rights of others at their expense, and I think we need to acknowledge and talk about that. We’re treating privacy as an absolute right, whereas certainly in Europe it’s a conditional right. Other human rights are absolute rights. Often now we’re protecting the conditional right to privacy at the expense of the absolute rights of people whose other rights are being infringed, such as the CSAM victims. We need to acknowledge that when we have the blind use of encryption, that can weaken privacy. So when you apply encryption to Internet protocols, that can actually weaken cybersecurity, and if you don’t have good cybersecurity, you have no privacy, even when you think you do, and I think that’s a significant problem. We need to acknowledge that most of the tech companies, and I accept not the ones here probably, they’re not defending my human rights, they’re defending their revenues because they’re encrypting the data that they’re extracting from my endpoint to… when they surveil me, and they don’t want their competitors to access that data. That’s why they want the encryption, not to protect my rights. That’s an interesting byproduct to justify the encryption. And then finally, and acknowledging the comment you just gave on Tor’s position on backdoors, almost all of the big tech companies absolutely compromise their approach to privacy in order to have market access in some of those very problematic states. So you don’t have a private relay in China because it’s illegal. But they will cheerfully ignore the laws in democracies, but will comply with the laws in more autocratic states. And I think that’s pretty problematic as well. And I’ll stop there. Thank you.

Roger Dingledine:
Yeah, we could definitely have a session on surveillance capitalism and the evils of large tech companies and how they’re attempting to primarily maximize their profit rather than actually caring about their users. One of the points that we tried to make here is there are some synergies, some overlaps, where at least in this case, Apple is interested in privacy, first of all, because it’s good for marketing. People ask for it this year. But also because it helps them have less surface area for attack so that they don’t have as much that they have to worry about for people trying to attack their users. But you’re right that that doesn’t make Apple great. And it’s also an excellent point that many tech companies choose to design their approaches with China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, all the other interesting big markets around the world, India in mind, and that causes them to do bizarre and dangerous things for their users.

Smith:
I think we have. like one minute left so if you could ask your question hopefully we can fit in an answer.

Audience:
I just want to build on the the first question really and ask about the mechanics of advocacy in different countries and and parts of the world so take one of the examples you mentioned was India and I’m just wondering whether there’s a sense in which you need to adapt the messaging and and the arguments around this to different parts of the world.

Tate Ryan-Mosley:
Ron do you want to take that I feel like you have a good perspective better than I would certainly.

Rand Hammoud:
Yeah sure I think that’s a very good point of course you know using the same narratives within different contexts doesn’t always or isn’t really fruitful it’s not as productive as you would hope of course when we are trying to do any advocacy within autocratic states that have no regard for human rights we cannot be using a human rights kind of based argument which is when you kind of talk about national security and how that is also kind of in the interest of the state or also use economic advantages or economic kind of arguments to say you know there is business espionage how do you protect kind of the economic advantages of certain companies a competitive advantage of certain companies and that’s when you know other companies come on board and try to as you know as Roger was saying and try to become allies in this space and so it is definitely incredibly important to make sure that we’re using the appropriate narrative within the advocacy spaces that we are using but also to be very mindful that you know the advocacy avenues in some contexts are just not there it is really difficult to talk about you know a rights respecting framework for the use of surveillance technologies in autocratic governments or even in democracies these days which is why we need to look at it as sort of a more global or international framework because you cannot depend depend on the jurisdiction where this technology is utilized. The technology doesn’t, the infrastructure is there. And so we cannot control how well or how bad it is utilized. And so that’s why we need to look at a more international framework for the use.

Tate Ryan-Mosley:
OK, I just want to say thank you so much to everybody for all of your questions, for your comments, to all the panelists, and Al for the participation in today’s panel. I hope you all learned something. I certainly did, and I hope you have a great time at the rest of the day’s events.

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

Siva Prasad Rambhatla

The analysis highlights various important aspects relating to the impact of technology on education. Firstly, it emphasizes that technology is a medium that is guided by humans, and it has proven to be extremely useful in facilitating education during the COVID-19 pandemic. The supporting facts provided in this regard include the fact that humans play a crucial role in feeding into technology and guiding its development. Moreover, it is acknowledged that technology has been instrumental in enabling educational continuity while traditional in-person learning has been disrupted.

However, another significant finding of the analysis is the existence of a digital divide that poses challenges to education. This digital divide is characterized by disparities in access to technology and online education resources. The research highlights the fact that not everyone has access to the necessary equipment and broadband connectivity, thereby hindering their ability to fully participate in online learning. An illustrative example is given where students had to resort to climbing trees to receive internet signals. This digital divide is particularly pronounced during the COVID-19 pandemic and it disproportionately affects individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, exacerbating existing inequalities.

To address the educational needs and promote inclusivity, it is argued that education should be more inclusive, multicultural, and locally relevant. The analysis stresses the importance of adopting AI learning models that are designed to be inclusive of diverse perspectives and cultures. Furthermore, it highlights the need to recognize that subject learning cannot be universal and should be tailored to the specific cultural contexts and needs of different communities.

The analysis also sheds light on the challenges posed by generative AI, particularly in the context of copyright and plagiarism. It is pointed out that generative AI technology has the potential to bypass traditional learning processes and facilitate easy content generation, which can have negative consequences on the creative thinking ability of learners. This aspect raises concerns about copyright infringement and plagiarism, indicating the need for safeguards and ethical considerations in the use of generative AI in education.

On a positive note, the research suggests that AI technology can fill gaps in the shortage of teachers and instructors, and it also provides opportunities for innovative course design. However, it is emphasized that the design and implementation of AI technology should be approached with caution to fully harness its potential. This implies considering ethical implications, promoting transparency, and ensuring proper oversight to mitigate potential risks and biases that may be embedded in AI algorithms.

The analysis underscores the existence of a real and persistent digital divide, which is influenced by socioeconomic and cultural factors. It is observed that individuals with access to infrastructure and resources benefit more from digital advancements, while socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds contribute to the perpetuation of this divide. The presence of international groups is found to slightly reduce this divide, indicating the potential of collaboration and global initiatives to address the issue.

It is also highlighted that biases and discrimination in AI algorithms pose a significant challenge. The analysis acknowledges the existence of biases and discrimination in AI algorithms and emphasizes the need to address these concerns. The research does not provide specific supporting facts in this regard, but it implies that efforts should be made to identify and rectify biases to ensure fair and equitable outcomes.

A noteworthy observation from the analysis is the importance of governmental intervention and the involvement of private firms in bridging the digital divide and countering exclusions and biases. The research suggests that governments and private firms should invest in initiatives to reach larger sections of society and ensure that technology is accessible to all, regardless of their socioeconomic or cultural background. This would require strategic planning, substantial investment, and collaborations between various stakeholders to create a more inclusive and equitable educational landscape.

Finally, the analysis highlights the need for academics to propose alternatives to address biases in the digital medium. Further research and discussions are needed to explore innovative approaches and strategies that can mitigate biases and promote fairness in the use of technology in education.

In conclusion, while technology has played a valuable role in education, it is important to address the challenges posed by the digital divide, generative AI, biases in AI algorithms, and the need for inclusivity and local relevance. Governments, private firms, and academics all have a crucial role to play in ensuring that technology is harnessed ethically and equitably to enhance access to quality education for all.

Renata de Oliveira Miranda Gomes

The presence of digital platforms has significantly increased in higher education, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. These platforms have incorporated artificial intelligence (AI) to revolutionise the learning process and facilitate new ways of exchanging knowledge. One such tool, chat GPT, has emerged as a valuable resource in enhancing learning experiences.

The speakers highlight the advantages of incorporating digital platforms and AI in higher education. Firstly, the ease of access and availability of digital platforms have made learning more accessible, especially during the pandemic when in-person classes were disrupted. Additionally, the incorporation of AI has allowed for innovative learning methods and the exploration of new ways to deliver educational content.

One of the major concerns expressed is the gap between students and educators in accepting these new platforms. Some resistance stems from the fear that these platforms may facilitate plagiarism or promote shortcuts in assignments. However, this stance is neutral, indicating a need for further dialogue and understanding between students and educators to address these concerns effectively.

Despite the concerns raised, chat GPT emerges as a promising tool for learning. It has the potential to save time by generating bullet point summaries or highlights of reading material. Moreover, its use can foster the development of critical thinking and analytical skills among students.

The speakers emphasize the importance of collaboration between educators and students in the effective use of AI in education. They highlight the significance of users influencing AI’s functionality and tailoring it to meet specific learning requirements. This collaboration can lead to a more beneficial and effective integration of AI in education, ensuring its positive impact on achieving SDG 4: Quality Education.

Furthermore, the inclusion of AI in initial learning processes is seen as an important step towards transforming education. The state of Piauí in Brazil has taken a notable stride by including AI in its high school curriculum, making it the first state in Brazil to do so. This initiative demonstrates the potential for AI to enhance teaching and learning methodologies at an early stage.

Overall, the speakers express a positive sentiment towards incorporating digital platforms and AI in education. They acknowledge the potential benefits of these technologies in improving access to quality education and fostering a more innovative and effective learning environment. With further collaboration, dialogue, and understanding, the successful integration of AI in education can be realised, ultimately contributing to the achievement of SDG 4: Quality Education.

Lee Rainie

Elon University is taking a stand in upholding the essential principles for the Internet and Artificial Intelligence (AI), which are crucial for safeguarding human rights, autonomy, and dignity. The university is diligently following these principles, which bring time-tested truths to the age of AI. By doing so, they ensure that the development and use of AI technology align with ethical considerations and respect for individual freedoms.

As the influence of AI spreads, universities like Elon recognize the need to study and disseminate insights about how this technology impacts people. They understand that AI is rapidly surpassing our cognitive capacities and becoming a prominent part of our lives. Therefore, it is essential for higher education institutions to promote new literacies and best practices to empower individuals and equip them with the necessary skills to navigate this AI-driven world.

In the age of AI and smart technologies, human traits such as critical thinking, sophisticated communication, teamwork, and emotional resilience are becoming increasingly valuable. These unique qualities distinguish humans from AI and need to be honed. Universities like Elon acknowledge this and emphasize the importance of identifying and exploiting these distinctively human traits and talents. By doing so, individuals can find their place in a world where AI is becoming more integrated into various aspects of society, including the workforce.

It is crucial to recognize that AI should serve humans and not the other way around. This principle is advocated by experts like Mr. Rainie, who emphasizes the importance of domesticating technologies to serve our needs and enhance the well-being of individuals and communities. Acknowledging and implementing this principle ensures that AI technology is developed and utilized in a manner that prioritizes and respects the interests, autonomy, and dignity of human beings.

In conclusion, Elon University’s commitment to upholding the principles for the Internet and AI is commendable. Their efforts in studying the impact of AI on society and promoting new literacies and best practices are crucial in preparing individuals for an AI-driven future. Recognizing the distinctively valuable human traits in the age of AI and advocating for AI technology to serve humans are essential for maintaining a balance between technological advancement and human well-being.

Audience

The discussion centered around the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in education and its potential impact. One argument highlighted the gap in expectations between university administrators and students regarding the use of AI. The law faculty at Leiden University expressed opposition to AI implementation, revealing a negative sentiment. On the other hand, the argument in support of using AI with caution emphasized proper attribution and the need to address misinformation. It advocated for alerting students about the dangers of misinformation and displayed a positive sentiment towards AI in education.

Another concern raised during the discussion focused on the potential for AI to worsen the digital divide, particularly among marginalized groups. This concern was exemplified by the significant digital disparities in countries like Bangladesh. It was feared that AI would primarily benefit technologically advanced individuals, further marginalizing those without access. This argument conveyed a negative sentiment towards AI, suggesting that it could exacerbate inequalities.

The discussion also emphasized the importance of embracing technology in education and ensuring AI is accessible for lifelong learning and marginalized groups. It stressed the need to integrate AI in lifelong learning while addressing the challenges faced by certain demographics in accessing AI-based public services. This perspective showed a positive stance towards AI, advocating for inclusivity and reduced inequalities.

Additionally, the lack of sensitivity and ethical standards in AI development by STEM professionals was criticized. The argument highlighted a negative sentiment towards the apathy or lack of interest among STEM workers in developing AI ethically. This raised concerns about the ethical implications of AI development and the need for stringent ethical standards.

Furthermore, there was a call for diversifying AI engines beyond corporate control. This view expressed a neutral sentiment, advocating for the exploration of open-source alternatives and diversification of AI engines. The aim was to move away from the dominance of corporate entities in AI development.

In conclusion, the discussion on AI in education highlighted various arguments and concerns. While there was an expectation gap between university administrators and students regarding AI, there was also support for using AI with caution and proper attribution. The potential exacerbation of the digital divide and the importance of inclusivity and accessibility in lifelong learning were significant considerations. Additionally, the lack of sensitivity and ethical standards in AI development by STEM professionals raised concerns. There was also a call for diversifying AI engines beyond corporate control. These insights shed light on the complex considerations and diverse opinions surrounding the use of AI in education.

Connie Book

In their discussion, the speakers emphasise the importance of taking into account human well-being and inclusivity in the face of artificial intelligence (AI) advancements. They argue that while AI can bring about many benefits and innovations, the focus must always be on the welfare of individuals and society as a whole. To achieve this, they stress the need for strong policies and regulations to guard against the negative consequences that AI can potentially have.

The speakers advocate for digital inclusion, asserting that access to AI technologies should be a right for all, particularly within educational institutions. They believe that universities and colleges play a crucial role in ensuring that AI is not only accessible to everyone but also integrated into the educational curriculum. They call on the higher education community to become active advocates for digital inclusion, providing opportunities for individuals to gain knowledge and understanding about AI.

Furthermore, the speakers assert that teaching and learning are experiencing significant transformations as a result of AI. They highlight the importance of academic leaders in shaping these changes by creating policies and designing new approaches to education that incorporate AI technologies. Faculty members are encouraged to adapt to these advancements and collaborate in the development of innovative teaching methods.

The need to prepare learners for the ongoing AI revolution is another key point addressed by the speakers. They stress that education must go beyond imparting theoretical knowledge and focus on equipping individuals with practical skills that enable them to adapt to the rapidly changing landscape of AI. They believe that by fostering a mindset of lifelong learning and providing hands-on experiences, individuals can be better prepared for the challenges and opportunities brought about by AI.

In conclusion, the speakers highlight the importance of prioritising human well-being, inclusivity, and education in the era of AI. They call for the implementation of strong policies, digital inclusion, and collaboration within the educational community to ensure that AI advancements benefit everyone and do not leave anyone behind. They urge universities and colleges to lead the way in incorporating AI technologies into the curriculum and preparing learners for the ever-evolving AI landscape. By doing so, they believe that individuals can be empowered to thrive in a world marked by accelerated change and innovation.

Francisca Oladipo

The analysis focused on several key aspects of artificial intelligence (AI) and its impact on education, ethics, policy-making, diversity, and continuous learning. The speakers argued for the role of universities in providing a comprehensive AI education that goes beyond technical skills. They stressed that AI students should be encouraged to study subjects like philosophy, finance, healthcare, and social sciences to develop a well-rounded understanding of AI’s applications in various fields.

In terms of ethics, the speakers acknowledged the importance of safeguarding against the abuse and misuse of AI. They emphasized the need to promote ethical AI practices and educate individuals on the ethical implications of AI. It was suggested that ethical AI education should be incorporated into AI curricula and training programs to ensure that future AI professionals possess the knowledge and skills to develop responsible AI solutions.

Another key point raised during the analysis was the importance of engaging with policymakers. The speakers highlighted the need for continuous advocacy to effectively communicate the potential benefits and challenges of AI to policymakers. They also stressed the need for collaboration between AI experts and policymakers to develop responsible AI governance frameworks that address societal concerns and ensure the ethical and safe use of AI technologies.

Promoting diversity and inclusion within the AI field was another noteworthy argument made by the speakers. They highlighted that AI has applicability across all fields and is not limited to computing. Thus, it was suggested that the AI field should be more inclusive and diverse, encouraging participation from individuals with diverse backgrounds and perspectives. The speakers emphasized the importance of including arts and humanities in AI education to foster social good and ensure that AI technologies benefit all segments of society.

Lastly, the speakers underscored the significance of continuous learning in the rapidly evolving landscape of AI. They pointed out that AI is evolving rapidly, and professionals in the field must keep pace with the latest advancements and developments. Continuous learning was identified as a key factor in staying updated and maintaining the relevance of AI professionals.

In conclusion, the analysis highlighted the multifaceted dimensions of AI education, ethics, policy-making, diversity, and continuous learning. The speakers advocated for universities to play a central role in providing comprehensive AI education, incorporating ethics into AI curricula, engaging with policymakers for responsible AI governance, promoting diversity and inclusion in the field, and emphasizing the importance of continuous learning to keep abreast of the evolving AI landscape.

Wei Wang

The analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) and emphasizes the necessity for legal considerations. One of the key findings is Wei Wang’s research, which primarily focuses on global AI governance. Wang’s work acknowledges the crucial impact of AI on higher education and underscores the need for legal frameworks to address this issue.

Another critical aspect highlighted in the analysis is the data supply chain of AI, which intersects with three legal areas. Data protection emerges as a priority, as AI services rely on personal data for training. The analysis mentions that investigations have been conducted globally to examine the use of personal data by AI services. Notably, Italy has been at the forefront of such inquiries.

Furthermore, AI services raise concerns regarding research integrity and content safety. The analysis points out the challenges posed by fake citation links in AI services, which can compromise the credibility of research findings. Additionally, there are worries about the use of unverified information in machine learning processes. These concerns highlight the need for safeguards to maintain the integrity of research and ensure content safety.

The analysis also draws attention to the impact of AI services on copyright law. Specifically, it argues that AI services challenge our traditional understanding of fair use. Litigation experiences related to AI services have raised questions about the fairness of generative AI services in terms of copyright infringement. This observation underscores the need to reevaluate and adapt existing copyright laws to keep pace with advancements in AI technology.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the importance of legal considerations in relation to the implications of AI. It emphasizes the need for data protection, research integrity, content safety, and fair use in copyright law. These findings provide valuable insights into the various legal aspects that must be addressed to harness the benefits of AI while ensuring ethical and responsible AI practices across diverse domains.

Divina Frau-Meigs

The speakers in this discussion emphasise several key points about AI. Firstly, they argue that there is a need to resist the panic and fear surrounding AI systems and the possibility of them developing super intelligence that surpasses human intelligence. Instead of succumbing to these concerns, they advocate for a human-centred approach to AI development. By keeping humans at the focus of AI technology, it can be harnessed to benefit society rather than posing a threat.

Moving on, the speakers assert that media and information literacy are crucial in understanding AI. They highlight the importance of education that familiarises individuals with media and information, narrowing the knowledge gap and enabling them to acquire the necessary competencies to comprehend AI. By enhancing their literacy in this area, people can make informed decisions and be better equipped to engage with AI technologies.

Another pertinent point emphasised by the speakers is the need for proper guardrails in AI education. While some guardrails are currently proposed by AI systems, there is an acknowledgment that they can be bypassed. Therefore, universities are encouraged to develop their own solutions to provide teachers and learners worldwide with the necessary guardrails. This will help establish a responsible and ethical framework for AI education.

Furthermore, the speakers stress the importance of source reliability and ethically sourced data in AI. They note that currently, there is a lack of ethically sourced data and a lack of consensus on the use of data scraping and models. This highlights the need for a careful and thoughtful approach to ensure that AI systems are built on reliable sources of data and adhere to ethical considerations.

Lastly, the speakers advocate for a focus on explainable AI. They argue that it is crucial to have access to the motivations behind the creation of AI systems and to validate their operations. By having transparency and explainability, AI technologies can be more trustworthy and accountable.

In conclusion, this discussion underscores the importance of taking a human-centred approach to AI development, fostering media and information literacy, implementing proper guardrails in AI education, ensuring source reliability and ethically sourced data, and prioritising explainable AI. By addressing these key points, individuals and society as a whole can navigate the realm of AI in an informed and responsible manner, maximising its potential benefits while mitigating potential risks.

Alejandro Pisanty

In an article discussing the role of universities in the era of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Alejandro Pisanty highlights the importance of approaching this technological advancement in a rational manner and resisting panic. He firmly believes that universities should serve as the depositaries of rational thought. Pisanty argues that in order for universities to adapt to the AI age, they need to ensure their relevance. He suggests that they play a major role in the mainstream of things and develop a solid academic system with reasonable infrastructure and faculties.

However, the article also raises concerns about brain drain in universities. Pisanty points out that higher-paying jobs in AI development at companies are attracting researchers away from academia. This brain drain is seen as a cause for concern, as it affects the quality of education and research at universities. Researchers also tend to move to places where they can actually conduct experiments and get their work published.

Regarding ethical considerations in AI, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) is developing a set of standards for ethical AI. However, translating these ethical codes or laws to AI developers is proving to be challenging. The difficulty lies in avoiding subjectivity and effectively implementing ethical standards in the development of AI systems.

Furthermore, Pisanty highlights the need to resist panic in the face of AI advancements. He suggests the development of tools to analyze conduct online, as problems in the digital realm often have a human and social element. Pisanty himself has developed a tool for analyzing online conduct, emphasizing the importance of addressing online misconduct proactively.

Universities also face the challenge of addressing the lack of pre-university ethical and mathematical education. It is seen as crucial for universities to cultivate ethical consciousness and mathematical competence among students, as a lack of these fundamental skills poses a significant challenge to education.

In conclusion, universities are encouraged to approach the AI era rationally and resist panic. The article emphasizes the need for universities to ensure their relevance in the AI age by playing a major role, developing a solid academic system, and addressing the challenges posed by brain drain. The development of ethical standards for AI and tools to analyze online conduct are also deemed essential. Additionally, universities must focus on cultivating ethical consciousness and mathematical competence in students to meet the demands of the AI age.

Eve Gaumond

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in education has both positive and negative impacts. On one hand, AI has the potential to greatly improve the quality of education. It can provide students with personalised learning experiences, tailored to their individual needs and learning styles. This has the potential to enhance student engagement and motivation, leading to better learning outcomes. The ability of AI to analyse large amounts of data can also enable educators to identify areas where students may be struggling and provide timely interventions to support their learning.

However, on the other hand, there is a lack of data that supports the notion that personalised learning actually increases retention of information. While AI may be able to deliver content in a customised manner, it does not necessarily guarantee that students will retain the information more effectively. Some argue that the hype around educational technology (EdTech) can be akin to “modern snake oil” – promising transformative effects without concrete evidence to back it up. In fact, there are concerns about the negative impacts of EdTech, such as increased screen time, decreased social interaction, and the potential for data breaches that compromise student privacy.

Another important aspect to consider is the regulation of data collection and usage in education. The ‘datafication’ of students’ lives, starting from an early age and continuing throughout their academic journey, has raised concerns about the potential encroachment on students’ privacy and autonomy. The collection, storage, and analysis of vast amounts of data about students can have a discouraging effect on their engagement in meaningful formative experiences. It is crucial that policies and regulations are in place to prevent harm and protect students’ freedom in the context of data collection and usage in education.

In conclusion, while AI has the potential to revolutionise education by improving its quality and providing personalised learning experiences, there is a need for critical examination of its impacts. The positive effects of AI in education are not guaranteed and should be constantly scrutinised. Additionally, regulations must be in place to ensure the responsible and ethical collection and usage of student data. It is essential for stakeholders in higher education to understand AI sufficiently well to ask relevant questions and make informed decisions about its implementation.

Connie Book:
of Elon University in North Carolina, USA, and chair of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in the United States. That organization represents 1,000 private and independent colleges. This is my second time at IGF and the 12th time that Elon University has sent a delegation to this important global gathering. Our engagement at IGF since 2006 has been through our Imagining the Internet Center. It is Elon’s public research initiative focused on the impact of the digital revolution and what it does and impact on individuals and institutions. We have a booth over in the village and our team is recording video interviews at IGF. And I encourage you to take a few moments to stop by and share your thoughts with us at some point this week. Today’s launch event highlights the urgent issues related to artificial intelligence and higher education. We are releasing a substantive position statement titled, Higher Education’s Essential Role in Preparing Humanity for the Artificial Intelligence Revolution. If you work at a college or university, you know how timely and important this statement is. The statement introduces six holistic principles and calls for higher education community to be included as an integral partner in AI development and AI governance. The statement provides a framework for leaders at colleges and universities around the world as they develop strategies to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow. At Elon University, faculty are adapting the statement as they create policies on AI and design new approaches to teaching and learning. In writing this statement, we worked with higher ed leaders, scholars, and faculty members from around the world to synthesize ideas from authoritative sources on AI. I want to thank everyone who spent time considering this statement and contributing their thoughts and support. Today, more than 130 distinguished academic leaders and organizations from 42 countries are initial signatories to the document. And we invite you to join them. Study the document on our website and sign on if you wish. There are printed copies available for those in the room today and our moderator will post a link for remote participants. Let’s briefly look at these six principles. First, principle number one, people, not technology, must be at the center of our work. As we adapt to AI, human health, dignity, safety, and privacy must be our first considerations. Two, digital inclusion is essential in the age of AI. We must be an advocate and ensure people at our universities and colleges and beyond gain access to these technologies and be educated about AI. Principle three, digital and information literacy is no longer optional for universities. We must prepare all learners, no matter what their discipline, to learn and act responsibly with AI and other digital tools. Digital literacy gives us power and that must be part of every post-secondary education. Principle number four, teaching and learning is already undergoing dramatic change because of AI and we must carefully navigate the use of these tools in education, using them transparently and wisely, and protecting the interest of students and faculty members. Principle number five, we are just at the beginning of the AI revolution, so we must prepare all learners for a lifetime of growth and help them gain hands-on skills to adapt to accelerating change. Principle six, this final principle has to do with AI research and development, research conducted in higher education institutions around the world. These powerful technologies carry great rewards and great risk and therefore great responsibility. We need strong policies in place to guard against negative consequences of digital tools that could go beyond human control. These are our core principles and this sets the stage for a great discussion by our distinguished panelists today. After their remarks, we will open the floor for all to share their thoughts on higher education’s role in advancing the future of humanity in the AI age. Let’s begin with Mr. Lee Rainey, who spent the past 24 years as Director of Internet and Technology Research at the Pew Research Center in Washington, DC. We’re very excited that Lee has joined Elon University to lead our continuing research on imagining the digital future. Lee, please get us started today.

Lee Rainie:
Thank you so much, President Book. It’s a pleasure to be here and to be associated with this really important initiative. We believe that the six principles for the internet and artificial intelligence in our global petition are essential for maintaining human rights, human autonomy and human dignity. The principles bring time-tested truths to the age of artificial intelligence. There is evidence of plenty that societies advance as their educational systems emphasize how people’s adoption of new skills can help them become smarter as people discover new ways to create, connect and share as diverse populations are given the wherewithal to control how new technologies are used and as people adjust their lives to the emerging practices that the new technologies afford, including lifelong learning. As President Book noted, we at Elon University think that institutions of higher education can be the vanguard of civil society forces that enable beneficial changes for humanity. Since the earliest universities were created centuries ago, they have cultivated the grandest purposes of humankind, discovering and advancing knowledge, training leaders, promoting active citizenship and, yes, critiquing the societies around them and sounding warnings as troubles loom. Importantly, we know that as technology revolutions spread, one of the major jobs of universities is to pass along the best ideas and most effective strategies for learning new literacies, especially to other institutions and those involving children in particular. Clearly, we are at a singular moment now as AI spreads through our lives. In the past, tools and machines were created to enhance or surpass physical capacities of humans. The advent of AI for the first time brings technologies that enhance or surpass our cognitive capacities. This revolution will cause a big sort that will force us humans to identify and exploit the traits and talents that are unique to us and make us distinctively valuable. What will be the differentiators between what we can do and what our machines can do? How can we domesticate these technologies to make sure they serve us and not the other way around? At Elon, we are planning to be in the forefront of universities studying and disseminating insights about how AI is affecting people. We have an ambitious agenda of fresh research that will build on several decades of exploration of digital trends and future pathways for digital innovation. In fact, we are gathering data right now in a survey of experts and a separate survey of the general population in the United States to explore how both groups’ views about possible benefits and harms of artificial intelligence are going to unfold in the coming years. We will be releasing those findings in early 2024. Beyond that research, these are some of the questions that will guide our work in the age of artificial intelligence metaverses and smart environments. What are the new literacies that people would be wise to learn? They might include things like media and information literacy, the accuracy and inaccuracy of information, judging it and making the right decisions based on it. Data literacy, privacy literacy, algorithmic literacy, creative and content creation literacy. In addition, we at Elon seem destined to explore how well we are doing to hone our singular valuable human characteristic, means things like problem solving, hierarchical decision making that makes pattern connections and makes decision trees about how to move forward. Critical thinking, sophisticated communication and the ability to persuade which machines can’t yet do. The application of collective intelligence and teamwork, especially in diverse environments. The benefits of grit and a growth mindset. Flexibility, especially in fluid creative environments and emotional resilience. In the end, big issues await exploration. What are the signposts and measures of human intelligence? What are the qualities leaders must possess? How do people live lives of meaning and autonomy? What is the right relationship between us and our ever more powerful digital tools? Our past studies have shown that there are a wide range of answers to questions like those, and yet there is a universal purpose driving people’s answers. They want us to think together to devise solutions that yield the greatest possible achievements with the least possible pain. Thank you so much for your interest. Please feel free to reach out to me here or find me in our booth in the exhibit hall. If you’re interested in furthering this campaign, signing our petition and maybe getting involved with us, we are always on the hunt for new partners, new collaborators and new ideas. Again, my thanks, President Book.

Connie Book:
Thank you, Lee. We now have two distinguished speakers who are joining us remotely. First is Professor Davina Frau-Miggs, who helped with the research and writing of this statement and connected us with thought leaders around the world. She teaches and researches at Sorbonne Nouvelle University in Paris and has been quite active for years with UNESCO and at IGF. Dr. Frau-Miggs, you’re up.

Divina Frau-Meigs:
Hello, everybody. Thank you very much for having me so far away. It’s two o’clock in the morning in Paris, but it’s really worth it to be with you and for me to return to IGF as I saw it being born since I participated in the World Summit on Information Society in 2005, representing academia for the Civil Society Bureau of the summit. And I’ve worked on these topics ever since and followed ever since, from the beginning of social media in 2005 to what we could call now the beginning of synthetic media. And this is maybe one of the tags I will take. I wanted to thank before that Dana and Daniel Anderson, as well as Lee Rainey and the Elon University for including me in drafting the document and fine-tuning it. And I wanted to stress the importance also of IMCR, my NGO, the International Association for Media and Research, that is a UNESCO observer status NGO, which has supported fully all members of the statement and added a statement of its own. And I think, I hope that one of the impacts of this big statement by us all and contribution to IGF will also encourage other entities to make their own because we each and all have to appropriate what we feel is going on with the internet and make sure that the cultural diversity of our universities continues so that we don’t fall under two problems. One which would be a kind of homogeneity brought by the control of some sources and some types of AI models in the world and therefore creating more digital divides. And the other one, which is something I think we all feel, is that as researchers we have to resist the panic, the current panic about AI systems and the fact that they could produce a super intelligence that is more intelligent than us. I think we all agreed, as we discussed and went around the world, that this has to remain human-centered and that actually the humanities have a possibility of being back, not just STEM, as fields because more than ever we need to be human-centered and get down to what it really is to be human. So I represent also, it’s true, a network of researchers at UNESCO called MILIT, the Media and Information Literacy and Intercultural Dialogue network of universities where we also try to think these items. We push, of course, for media and information literacy first because it permits a kind of familiarity that allows us then to move to AI literacy. So one of the focuses of how to go about it for us would be to go with familiarity so that people don’t have the feeling there’s a huge gap before getting all these competences. So as to prevent the panic and, on the contrary, leave a space for understanding and for adoption, we need to lift fear and anxiety. And for that, we have to go also at policy level. And I think for us, we would emphasize, and that’s the nice thing about the six items that we’ve put in there, they can all be unpacked. They can all be unpacked and updated. So if I were to unpack and update our work, continuous way, I would say that one of the most important things is proper guardrails for teachers and students. And we know, and research has shown, that the guardrails proposed currently by AI systems, tech companies, can be bypassed. So this is a problem. And we as universities have to come up with our solutions for teachers and learners worldwide. Also, we need explainable AI. It’s probably one of the most important elements, because we have to have access to the motivations for creating AI systems, for funding AI, for the validity of the AI, the fact that the scraping of the data has to be lawful, unbiased, safe, because that’s how we can make proper decision-making. And we know at the moment that there’s no really ethically sourced data. They’re not consensual. The models of data scraping are not consensual, especially in certain parts of the world like Europe, where I come from, and where we have a feeling that there is a lot of violation. And for us at university and in research and teaching, source reliability and ethically sourced data are crucial. We must, we can’t let go of fake information, fake news, including those proposed by synthetic media that are coming up, without being scared about what happens with proliferation of pseudosciences. And this undermines the whole remit of our university and our research approaches. So I would call on a lot of reflection on source reliability, because we probably are facing a new kind of source, a source that is not a primary source, nor a secondary source, with the intelligence AI models. So these are elements that I wanted to put into the discussion. And soon, at the moment it’s under embargo because it’s not out yet, but UNESCO will release, during Media and Information Literacy Week, at the end of October in Jordan, will release the approach, its approach on AI and media and information literacy. And I hope you’ll see that it buttresses everything that is being done here. Clearly at IGF level, we would support, I think all of us, the creation of a body on information and AI, information and AI, with all stakeholders, and especially, of course, universities and researchers, because we probably are the best place to facilitate the relatively asymmetrical dialogue right now between the edtech companies and the AI edtechs, which are becoming extremely proprietary, extremely commercial, and what we would like to have as independent research spaces that are universities and policy-making spaces. So definitely at IGF, you guys who are there could push for the creation of a global body of this kind, but this is actually more or less being delineated at UN, but IGF could be a very good space for continuous discussion about these items that I’ve underlined, like source reliability, AI explainability, and of course, all of this within our human, very human rights. Thank you very much.

Connie Book:
Thank you, Frau Meggs. Lots to consider there. Thank you for those thoughtful remarks. We are honored today to be joined by Internet Hall of Fame member Alejandro Pisanty. Dr. Passanti is a legendary leader in global Internet governance circles. He is a professor of Internet governance at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. Dr. Passanti, please give us your thoughts on the future role of higher education in the AI age.

Alejandro Pisanty:
Thank you, Professor Buch. Can you hear me well? Sorry, it is awful manners to begin a speech by correcting the previous speaker, but legend. That’s Divina from Mikes. That’s Elon University. Legend. That’s Jana Anderson and Lee Rainey. And I don’t want to continue with the list because it’s very long. I’m very honored, and I hope, Professor Buch, that you realize how highly many of us think of the effort that Elon University has done. You really made a world-worthy mark with Jana Anderson’s and Lee Rainey’s work with the Internet Governance Forum. They have done so much from having students over, documenting by video things that no one even thought were worth recording, and now they are that document to their deep thoughts and understanding, their identifying leaders, bringing young people. I followed a few of them, of your former students who have become really brilliant media analysts or figures or communicators. So they have increased the aura of Elon University to immense heights. This is really, really wonderful. So thank you for supporting this work. Thank you, Dr. Pisanti. That’s very nice. Thank you. That’s really amazing. I come from a very large university. It’s very hard for us not to look at things through a lens of size, and Elon is especially remarkable when we see that you have done far more than universities like mine with probably 20 times as many students as you have. We have two zeros to your numbers. I want to enter now the subject matter of this speech, make it very brief, and try to make it concise. First, I join Divina from Maximum. It’s one of my most admired figures in this world. From the era that she has mentioned, from the early times of the World Summit on the Information Society, when people like her and IEMCR were championing these alternative views to state-controlled media or to the large private interests. At the time, it was mostly media and carriers, network operators, who needed opposing, and we have now a much broader spectrum and a much more complex one because we simultaneously need to oppose and platformize many of the entities that are now considered troublesome. I want to join her statement in particular of resisting the panic. I think that the first thing that universities have to do, universities and schools all over, is sober up and tell everybody, sober up, calm down, cool down, look at this rationally. What are we, if not as post-depositories of rationality, rational thought, not of the truth, but of the way of approaching whatever becomes the truth and letting it be built on fact and reason. That’s, I think, the very first thing. I have a second question here for the universities. I want to thank Jana Anderson and Lee, and Jana particularly because she made much of the follow-up, for sharing with me drafts, early drafts of the statement that has now become the statement for this. And I was a little bit shocked at the beginning because I thought it was conceiving the universities in a very partial and small role in the corner of things, where they should be part of the mainstream and even the leading edge of things. First world universities, let me abbreviate things by calling just advanced economy or first world universities, are seeing now what we have suffered in developing countries for decades, if not centuries, which is a brain drain. One of the things that you are so concerned about comes from the fact that AI development pays a lot better in companies than it does in universities. Universities were sort of the Santa Santorum, where even the winters were weathered out. Even the several AI winters were weathered out by universities, where this slow research kept going on. Algorithms were developed. The mathematics was developed, not only the computational technique, but the basic math of neural networks was developed in academia. And we’re suddenly out of our best people because they are working for companies which have not only large funding, but the other thing that drives researchers, the opportunity to actually do it. When our researchers leave, when our PhD students leave for the US or for Europe or Japan, they’re not only looking for a place which will pay a better salary, but they’re looking for a lab that is actually equipped for work, where they can actually do the measurements, do the experiments, get them published. It’s significance, it’s impact, it’s actually doing the thing that moves them. And you are suffering the same thing now. There’s just a new echelon of that. So the question here, and I’ll stop with that question for this intervention, is the most expensive thing we have in developing countries, is the highest cost we incur in, is the cost of not doing. The cost of not having developed a solid academic system with tenure, with infrastructure, with diversity. The cost of not developing a government that is rationally driven, that creates policies with continuity on an evidence basis, that invokes rights, invokes pragmatism. We never know where we actually are. So rights are invoked as a way of pulling the handbrake, instead of finding the way of calling rights, not for the other guys to go faster, but for us to be able to go as fast or faster. So that cost of not doing is now being clearly manifested in the shortcomings that the universities are trying to overcome with this statement. Thank you.

Francisca Oladipo:
Thank you, Dr. Pisanti. Really interesting. Calm down, cool down. So next we have Dr. Francisca Oladipo, Vice Chancellor and Professor of Computer Science at Thomas Adewame University in Nigeria. Dr. Oladipo? Thank you very much, and thank you for the opportunity, Ellen University. Speaking from the perspective of an African university and an African researcher, we were probably just still catching up with the rest of the world. But then you look at it with an emerging technology, or like everyone else, experiencing something new for the first time, there is that risk of a wrong adoption, or even possibility of abuse. And so I believe that universities, most of our roles should be centered around the educational aspect of artificial intelligence of AI. So if you look at not just interdisciplinary education, but also interdisciplinary collaboration, AI is applicable in practical every field. So AI researchers should not think of just collaborating with subject level experts, but students in the field of AI should be made to study other subjects like philosophy, finance, healthcare, social sciences, to give some basic kind of domain knowledge. And universities also need to promote ethical artificial intelligence and do a lot of education around ethical AI, because students are, you know, to kind of guard against that abuse and misuse. And then there’s a lot of questions in the society about the role of AI in education and on the educational space. So not just educating the student, but also there’s a need to educate the society, generally, maybe through seminars, or handbills, or, you know, to have a town and gown on artificial intelligence. The curriculum these days needs to be centered around AI, because whether we like it or not, it’s going to be with us for a very long time. I mean, it’s always been here, but the awareness is now higher. So most of the curriculum, whether it’s in the humanities, or in the arts, or sciences and technology, even medicine needs to build around AI to ensure that AI literacy for everyone. Universities, we need to do a lot of advocacy to engage with policymakers. The issue of we can contribute our expertise to responsible artificial intelligence in governance, but how can we effectively do this if we don’t engage with policymakers and do a lot of public outreach? We must continue to promote more diversity and inclusion. In Nigeria, we see AI as more of, oh, it’s for you computer people, but it is no longer the case. Students in arts, they use chat GPT now to get answers. They use other online AI tools for one reason, to listen to research papers and so on. So there is always that indirect application of AI across every field. And so we need to be more inclusive to embrace everyone and not make AI look more like it’s for computing people. When we talk about AI for social good, the people primarily at the center of ensuring social good are mainly in the arts and humanities. They’re the ones that study behavior. They’re the one that look into issues and how factors affect people due to different reasons. So it is important that these people are also included in the study of AI. There is a need for every one of us to engage in continuous learning. The fast pace at which AI is emerging now with the large language models and before we know it, something new is out there. We all need to continue to learn to keep up, keep abreast and be able to educate others. Thank you all very much for this opportunity. Again, I’m sorry, it’s 1 to 3 a.m. in Nigeria, and pardon me. Yes, it’s very, very late. I know, Dr. Aladipo, thank you.

Connie Book:
Now joining us remotely from India is Dr. Sivaprasad Rambihatla. He is a retired professor and leader of the Center for Digital Learning, Training and Resources at the University of Hyderabad. Dr. Rambihatla.

Siva Prasad Rambhatla:
Very, very good morning or good night, good afternoon, wherever we are. I must thank Professor Diana Anderson for this opportunity. I let me, because I’m an anthropologist, so I don’t know if I’m going to be able to answer all the questions, but I’m going to try my best. I look at it differently. Technology is a medium which we, as humans, feed into it. We, as humans, guide it. Our biases are also put into it. When I am looking at the field of education, education is one of the challenges that makes access to a large number of people who have been denied on account of their poor economic condition. If you look at the statistics of education in many countries, especially in the Global South, because we must remember there is a large disparity between the Global South and the Global North. In the Global South, those who have no access to education are from the disadvantaged sections. During COVID-19, digital technology, especially using online education technologies, played an interesting role. After that, AI and other technologies are really useful. What we find is that this itself has thrown up new challenges for academics. When I say new challenges for academics, you find a major problem that lies in the digital divide. Access to the equipment, access to the technology, and many of the people, especially children and others, during COVID-19, they never had broadband connectivity. Some of them were climbing trees to catch the signals. It was such a horrible thing. Online courses also need to be designed and articulated in a way that captures the minds of the learners. That is also a big challenge. What we find is the lack of skills and the ability to design courses using multimedia or even the kind of new technologies that people are using. That is where we find designing them in an imaginative way to keep the attention of the learners is an important thing. That is where we even try to train the teachers or the persons who are designing the courses. That is where capacity building was one of the important things that we need to undertake. We need many specialists, including experts from the visual media, to sensitize the online content and course developers. This is where AI technology is trying to fill the lacunae of a shortage of teachers or instructors. The moment you design it carefully, it can fill the gap. It only fills the partly knowledge gap. The challenge posed today is from the generative AI, especially charge and this challenges the use of issues of copyright, laserism and other issues. There are some tools developed to capture whether the content is taken from the other sources, online sources. That is where the problems of others are mentioned. Copyright, the debt of sovereignty, the kind of importance and security. This is where they are impeding the creative thinking among the younger learners . They try to bypass the process of learning. They can ask for a copy and the content writing becomes easier. It does not help them to think. The challenges are real and they require multidisciplinary approaches. Another important thing is education has to be inclusive and multicultural . It has to be more local. We need to have local AI models of learning. That is local AI models of learning because the subject cannot be universal . Most of the things are local . We need to make people learn better . Thank you very much.

Connie Book:
Thank you. Next to speak is a doctoral student at the University of Hong Kong School of Law and a member of the FGV think tank in Brazil. Dr. Wang?

Wei Wang:
Thank you so much. Thank you so much for having me here. Thank you so much for everybody for coming. I am so sorry that I cannot be physically with you in Japan but I am excited to be here virtually. I will probably brief you with some legal aspects but before moving to the legal aspects of AI’s implications upon higher education , I think I will have some very general points as well. As the chair has mentioned, we are currently in a dynamic on data and AI governance . Our first research report on global AI governance , probably tomorrow. If you are interested in this topic , you can probably get a hard copy as well. Some of my colleagues propose a data supply chain of artificial intelligence. This supply chain is relevant to three legal aspects. The first is data protection for sure. As you may know, some AI services are using personal data for training. We need a lot of data protection globally to investigate those AI services like Italy. I think it is our first authority to investigate these AI services. The second area is so-called content safety. The most significant is what we call machine learning. For example, if you use some AI services , their citation links are fake . It would definitely produce a lot of challenges . For example, research integrity . I am currently volunteering . I think it is a good mechanism . It is a contractual mechanism for copyright. There is a lot of litigation in terms of AI services . I think that would be a big issue . Those services are challenging our perception of fair use in copyright law. Many years ago, there was a book . The judges thought it was fair use. What about the generative AI services in the near future? I think these are three areas . Thank you so much for having me.

Connie Book:
Thank you. We will now hear from law researcher of the University of Montreal. Her research focuses on the impact of artificial intelligence on higher education. She is currently working on that research here in Japan. Good morning.

Eve Gaumond:
Thank you very much. I would like to thank you for inviting me to comment . I would like to build upon three elements contained in the statement . The three elements are improving teaching and learning , and increasing literacy. I will walk through these three elements in order to make the following point. It is crucial that people who develop and deploy AI in higher education understand it sufficiently well to ask relevant questions . Let’s start with enhancing learning and teaching. AI has the potential to improve the quality of education. It can help create personalized learning experiences . Students can learn at their own pace, focusing on their strengths or weaknesses. It can also be used to contribute positively to the students-teachers relationship. There are some educators who report that they use data analytics to reach out to students that are suddenly disengaging from the classes. But it is far from guaranteed. These positive impacts are far from guaranteed. Even though AI promoters say that personalized learning increases retention of information, there is no data that supports that claim. Oftentimes, EdTech looks like modern snake oil. Modern snake oil can have real negative impacts. The datafication of students’ lives can discourage them from engaging in meaningful formative experiences. It is especially worrisome when we know that data starts being collected as early on and continues following them through high school and university. Some students, for instance, can refrain from writing essays about controversial topics out of fear that it might limit future opportunities. They avoid learning the formative experience of engaging with challenging ideas. College students can refuse an invitation to go to the bar on a Monday night because geolocation data can be used to predict their likelihood of success at school or predict if they are at risk of dropping out. It can influence their admission to grad school or their scholarship application. It can prevent people from engaging in meaningful formative experiences. Remember when you were in college, these are things that promote increased human flourishing. What if an immigration officer can access immigrant student classes attendance data, for instance? Is it really what we want for higher education? Is it really fully promoting the development of the human personality as international human rights law says it should? I don’t know. But these are questions we ought to be asking. And this is why it is so crucial that professors, university administrators understand how AI and data works so that they can ask relevant questions. What kind of data is being collected? What is it used for? Who can access it? Only professors or third parties as well? And if third parties can access it, what for? So, yeah, this is why I believe that the statement is so interesting and so important and particularly principle 4.1 and 3 because they can contribute to protect students’ freedom. That’s it. Thank you, Evi.

Connie Book:
Our final panelist is Renata de Oliveira, Miranda Gomes. She is an IGF 2023 youth delegate representing Brazil who recently earned a master’s degree in communication at the University of Brasilia and she’s here with us today. Welcome, Renata.

Renata de Oliveira Miranda Gomes:
Thank you. Thank you so much. Good morning. I’d like to thank the opportunity to participate in this panel as a youth representative. I am part of the Brazilian youth delegation this year and I have been studying for some time how we use Internet and specifically digital platforms to communicate science. I’ll be mindful of my time here and pass to the main point that I wanted to bring to the debate and it’s how new digital platforms are extremely present in higher education and I believe that the COVID-19 pandemic actually showed us this quite significantly. During a time of social isolation, we had to quickly adapt to a new way of learning and exchanging knowledge and AI was certainly very much part of it but the thing is I believe that there is still a gap between students and educators when we think about the acceptance of new platforms and ways of learning and I’ll give an example which resonates a bit with what Professor Oladipo mentioned just now. For example, chat GPT can be used as a tool for learning in multiple ways and I am aware and agree with arguments that point that chat GPT can facilitate like plagiarism or cutting corners when producing assignments. However, and I was discussing this with some friends from the Brazilian delegation, that chat GPT can also make our lives easier. For example, at a post-graduate level, we are faced with a lot of challenges and we have to adapt to the new technology and we have to adapt to the new environment and we have to adapt to the new environment and we have to adapt to the new environment with long, long lists of reading materials. And although CHAT-DBT does not substitute comprehensive reading and understanding of text, it can certainly aid by producing perhaps bullet point highlights and aid us in gaining some time actually. So it can also be a tool to develop critical thinking and analytical skills. So my argument here is that educators and students should work together. And the principles here presented are proposing to find solutions that can help all parts involved. Specifically, I wanted to point out principle number five, learning about technology is an experiential, lifelong process. And new platforms such as AI depend much more on the users than on the software itself. So it is crucial that we educate ourselves and work collaboratively to ensure that it can be the best possible. So this is why I believe that these spaces of debate are so important. In Brazil, the approximation between AI and education is going beyond the scope of higher education also. For example, the state of Piauí recently announced that it is working to including AI in the state’s high school curriculum. So it will be the first state in Brazil to do so. So this is a great way to begin the dialogue of good platform usage from the initial learning processes. So I think this is pretty much what I had to say to bring to the debate for now, but I look forward to discussing it further with you. So thank you for the opportunity.

Connie Book:
Thank you, Renata. We do now want to engage the community here with us and broaden our conversation. So we’re going to open it up for questions. There are microphones at the table. So the floor is yours. Does anyone have any questions? Yes. Say your name and your association. Certainly.

Audience:
My name is Christa Tobler. I’m a professor of European Union Law at two universities, Basel in Switzerland and Leiden in the Netherlands. I would like to react to the point made by the youth delegate just a moment ago. I can absolutely underwrite that. There is in my experience, this gap in expectation. I can see that, for example, at my Dutch university, Leiden University, the law faculty at the moment is trying to formulate an AI policy. They’ve not yet quite managed it. But for the time being, they said, actually, we are against using it. My students, of course, are from a wholly different generation. They’re all digital natives. They know how to use these things, and they want to use them. So I can see the gap that you’re talking about. And I personally, in one of my courses where people have to write an essay, have taken the approach suggested by our own department that deals with these matters, which has said that one way of doing it is to alert students to the possibilities and the dangers, especially in the legal field. You may all be well aware of the fact that a lot of wrong legal information is provided by these models. So you alert them to them, but you also tell them that, yes, you can use it, because it makes no sense to say no. It’s just not realistic, in my opinion. So I have followed the approach of telling them, yes, you can use it, but with proper attribution. So in your papers, you have to state whether or not you have used AI and how you have used it. I think this is a better approach, because as I just said a moment ago, it’s totally unrealistic to expect that people will not use it. It’s also not clever, because as you said, quite rightly, there are positive elements in these systems, and we should use them in a positive sense. So thank you for your contribution. Renata, I believe, was your name, is entirely reflecting what I have seen in my work. Thank you. I think we had another question here, yes? Thank you very much. This is, my name is Nazmullah Hassan. I came from Bangladesh. You work with an NGO called ActionAid Bangladesh. So I take my liberty, actually, to bring down a little bit of root of the discussion, since I work with the community and the excluded group and marginalized communities. So I was thinking, in our country, there is a huge digital divide, so in between the urban and rural, in addition to that, even also in the different age groups and generations, and also based on their sexual identity. Let’s say male or female, you know, men and women. So I was thinking, since still there is a huge digital divide, so we are talking about the AI in universities. So if it is becoming more and more kind of pertinent technologies in our lives, so how the divide will increase, and how the people will be excluded and more marginalized. Some people will be, you know, so super tech people, and they will be using the AIs and other technologies and getting more and more opportunities, access and rights, everything. I imagine public service will be based on AI in future. So then people like us, you know, in our countries, global south, and living in a very interior place, how they will have their basic rights, let’s say education and health and other spaces. Whether, you know, do we think of how the AI can be also, you know, as a part of our lifelong learning? You know, so sometimes we are thinking, you know, technology will come, definitely we need to embrace the technology, this is for sure, but how it can be also, you know, people can acquire the knowledge and the skills by their lifelong learning. What are the educational institutions are taking that kind of tools, curriculum, or developing that tools and curriculum for the community, or the excluded groups, so that they are also not being left behind. They are also taking this, you know, becoming this part of this new technologies. So I don’t know who could reflect on that, but this is actually the point came in to my mind. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Connie Book:
Would anyone like to react to that? Yes. Yes, feel free to open the mic. Shall I? Yes. Yeah.

Siva Prasad Rambhatla:
I think this is exactly what I have been talking about. The digital divide has many shares of it, because it has something to do with the socioeconomic backgrounds, cultural backgrounds, and also the nearness and away from the towns or cities, and infrastructure. And those who have this infrastructure, they are the ones who will benefit, and those who do not have will not benefit. So the digital divide is real. In fact, there are people now, they say that it has come down. It is true. It has come down as the, you know, the kind of availability of the international groups in some of the remote areas, but still there are problems. And how do we, in fact, it is, that is one aspect. Second aspect is that we have something, what we call the algorithms that are written, and the biases themselves reflect the kinds of discrimination exclusion, because the moment you perpetuate them, because whether it is generative AI and other kinds of forms are real challenge, because that is where, how do we counter these biases? How do we counter these exclusions are the challenge. This is where academics have to think about alternatives of this thing, because one way is using the traditional medium, but the traditional medium reachability is lesser, whereas the technology that we have can reach large sections, but then governments have to intervene, governments have to invest, and even some of the private firms have to invest. This is the alternative.

Connie Book:
There is no other way. Thank you. Thank you. Any final question? Yes. Yes. I think the microphone’s right there. They’ll turn it on for you. Yeah, yeah. Hello. Okay.

Audience:
My name’s Julia. I am a youth delegate for Brazil. I’m here with my colleagues, and I am very proud to participate in Renata’s and the group’s presentation panel, for she is also a colleague of us in our youth delegation. But jumping to my question, I asked myself during this presentation, how are the participants see and act to work sensibility and empathy on the ethics perspective of using AI, and is there a connection to using like different engines for AIs, like not feeding only to a corp, like, oh, we work about AI, but let’s see different engines and different groups and corporations that have worked, like the open source and the closed source engines, and like diversifying, because if there is that sense in using the diversity of engines to help building sensibility and to see for the ethics problem. I see it as a problem, because there is a lot of apathy or uninterested STEM academics or STEM operators, not necessarily academics, only workers that are uninterested in developing and working with AI in a ethical or a moral, over ethical and moral standards.

Connie Book:
Thank you. Dr. Pisanti, that is right up one of your observations. Would you like to respond to that?

Alejandro Pisanty:
Yes, thank you. There are, at the last counts a few months ago, around 1,300 ethics codes for AI around the world that have been collected, and there must be 10 times as many that have not been collected anymore. No one cares. Some of them are very solid. They were built from the ground up, starting from an inventory of ethical systems by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, the IEEE, which is now developing a set of standards for ethical AI that can be used by companies and governments for developing, for guiding the development of systems and for guiding the assessment of systems. One problem these have is that it’s very hard, first, to avoid subjectivity. You look at the whole big 30 pages of ethically aligned AI that is age appropriate for children, and in the end, it’s a value judgment. Someone has to make a value judgment, whether something is appropriate for 13 years old and not 13 and a half years old. So that’s one problem. The other one is that it’s very hard to bring these codes, or the law, by the way, because some people say that codes are a way to, ethical codes are a way to avoid the law, not have the strict legal observance. But either way, it’s very hard to bring this down to the person who’s actually doing the coding, who’s actually selecting data and saying how you, how you actually develop the system and put data into it. That has to have a large part of contribution from the universities. We’re in exercises. We challenge our students at all levels, the people who are doing the hard computer science, coding, and so forth, and all the way to people, as was mentioned, students using ChatGPT for their essays. We have to work on that, and we cannot solve that at the university level alone. If our students arrive from high school, from pre-university education, without this ethical, and without the mathematical competence, there’s a huge challenge for universities to compensate for 18 years of non-education. This, again, goes to the cost of not doing it. And one other contribution here. As I said, I second Divina from Mike’s statement of resisting the panic, but I don’t only say, okay, please, calm down. I think that we can develop tools. I personally, I’m going to bring in a little plug for a tool I have developed, which is not for AI, but can be extended, which is when you look at all the panics around the internet and also the ways that the internet is seen as a panacea, as a saving all, you can actually see that most of the things that we either like very much or dislike very much that are happening on the internet have a human, social, pre-online or offline component, and a disruptive, sometimes radically revolutionary change that brings through the internet. It’s like phishing or Wikipedia, you know, the bad and the evil and the good. They are all, either phishing is simple fraud, hugely enabled by the internet, and Wikipedia is, you know, plain human, warm-hearted cooperation, the will to share knowledge made big. So we have six elements there, identity, scale, identity, trans-jurisdictional border crossing, barrier lowering, friction reduction, and the management of humankind’s memory and forgetfulness. We can analyze every conduct that we like or dislike online or every project, divide it into these pieces and reassemble it, and then decide, where do you want your ethical code? Where do you want your police? Where do you want, totally change human minds. Human minds will not, if you don’t change human minds, you will not stop having fraud. You will not stop people trying to cheat people and people falling for cheats. So let’s not blame the internet and let’s not blame artificial intelligence or it’s a very small niche thing called chat GPT without looking at this broader picture, and as I said, rationally. This may be too Cartesian, we still need some fluffiness and some fuzziness, but this is the kind of tool we can have. Final point, universities can contribute to this in an institutional way. We have been providing our individual academic contributions, the technical contributions, the institutions have their own role that transcends the activism that sometimes comes with situated academic social science and bridge with the technical community that’s actually doing all this development. Thank you.

Connie Book:
Thank you, Dr. Pisanti, and we couldn’t agree more, and that’s why we think that having an articulated set of principles to begin the work of higher education, and I love Dr. Frau-Miggs encouraging each organization to make it their own so we have that diversity of thinking with this set of principles. So we’ve reached the end of our time, and I’d like to conclude with an invitation. Please go to our webpage and see the list of signatories and consider adding your name. This will give our statement more reach and credibility. Our site will provide updates as the statement reaches new audiences and begins to influence institutions around the world. Thank you all for your participation in our event today and your support of this important initiative. Thank you. flaws

Vera Zakem

The analysis highlights the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration in addressing tech-facilitated gender-based violence and gendered disinformation. The speakers stress the need for joint efforts and engagement from various stakeholders, including survivors, civil society activists, and members of the private sector. The Biden-Harris administration has announced the Global Partnership for Action on Gender-Based Online Harassment and Abuse, in association with 11 other nations.

The speakers also emphasize the significance of women, girls, LGBTQ+ communities, and youth in decision-making processes and civic engagement. They argue that investment in these groups is essential for bringing about meaningful change. USAID’s Transform initiative is mentioned as an example of efforts to promote the participation of these groups in civic life.

It is strongly emphasized that governments alone are insufficient in addressing these issues. Collaboration between governments, civil society, and private entities is necessary. The notion of multi-stakeholder solutions is advocated as the way forward, and it is suggested that such solutions should be developed at global, country, and sub-national levels. These solutions should involve governments, civil society actors, and private sector entities. The importance of multilateral cooperation and public-private partnerships is highlighted.

Overall, the analysis highlights the need for inclusiveness and collaboration to combat tech-facilitated gender-based violence and gendered disinformation. It calls for action that involves survivors, civil society, the private sector, and governments. By working together and investing in women, girls, LGBTQ+ communities, and youth, meaningful change can be achieved.

Daniela Cuspoca Orduz

Digital violence against women is a significant problem in Colombia, highlighting the urgent need for a specific regulatory framework to address it. Currently, there is a lack of legislation and guidelines that specifically target and prevent digital violence. This legal gap creates challenges in effectively dealing with these crimes and developing appropriate public policies.

One crucial issue highlighted by the analysis is that women who experience digital violence often face blame and re-victimization. Instead of receiving support and protection, they are often held responsible for the incidents or accused of provoking the violence. This victim-blaming mentality exacerbates the problem and adds to the challenges faced by the victims. Shifting this narrative is essential to ensure that women experiencing digital violence are provided with the necessary support and protection without being blamed or stigmatized.

Furthermore, there is a lack of interest and awareness in investigating digital violence cases. This lack of attention may be due to a limited understanding of the seriousness and impact of these crimes. Raising awareness among law enforcement agencies, policymakers, and the general public about the gravity of digital violence against women and its profound effects on victims is crucial. Increasing awareness can help direct more resources and attention towards investigating and addressing these crimes.

The analysis also emphasizes the need to recognize and prioritize digital violence as an issue requiring immediate attention in policy generation. The current legal gaps present challenges in creating effective public policies that specifically address digital violence against women. The nature of digital violence calls for tailored protective measures and responses that are distinct from those applied in offline contexts. Empowering women online is another crucial factor in combating digital violence and ensuring their safety and well-being in the digital space.

Advocates are urging the development of a dedicated framework against digital violence. Several initiatives related to framework development are currently pending approval in Congress. This demonstrates a growing recognition of the need to address digital violence comprehensively and proactively. Additionally, the Court has acknowledged the issue by recognizing instances of digital violence against women journalists.

In conclusion, digital violence against women is a serious issue in Colombia, necessitating the establishment of a specific regulatory framework and effective public policies. It is imperative to shift the blame from the victims to the perpetrators and increase awareness about the severity of digital violence. Tailored protective measures and responses are required to address the unique challenges posed by digital violence. Empowering women online is crucial in preventing and addressing digital violence. Ongoing initiatives in Congress and the recognition from the Court signal positive progress towards addressing this issue. However, further concerted efforts are needed to create a safer and more inclusive digital environment for women in Colombia.

Umut Pajaro Velasquez

The analysis highlights the challenges faced by women and gender-diverse individuals in the online world, focusing on issues of internet safety. It acknowledges that the internet is not always a secure and inclusive space for these groups, specifically addressing concerns such as cyberbullying, gender-based violence, and the digital divide. These challenges undermine the goals of gender equality and reduced inequalities, thus necessitating discussions and efforts to create a safe and inclusive digital environment.

The session aims to address the intersection of gender and youth online, with the ultimate objective of fostering a safer and more inclusive digital environment. By specifically considering this intersection, the session aims to tackle the unique challenges and concerns experienced by women and gender-diverse individuals in the online sphere. The ultimate goal is to establish an environment where gender equality is prioritised and where the rights and voices of these groups are not compromised.

To achieve this aim, the analysis proposes various strategies encompassing policy, education, and digital literacy. It emphasises the need for policy measures that protect the online rights of women and gender-diverse individuals, ensuring their safety, privacy, and digital well-being. Additionally, it suggests that educational initiatives and efforts to promote digital literacy should be intensified to empower individuals within these groups, enabling them to navigate the online world confidently and securely. By raising awareness and knowledge, it is believed that women and gender-diverse individuals will be better equipped to protect their rights and actively participate in discussions concerning internet governance.

Umut, a supporter of the cause, strongly advocates for a safe and inclusive digital environment for women and gender-diverse individuals. Through endorsing the objectives of the session, Umut actively contributes to the collective endeavor of creating a digital space that respects and acknowledges the rights of all individuals, regardless of their gender. Umut’s support signals a growing recognition of the importance of addressing these challenges and promoting inclusivity in the online world.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the urgent need to address the challenges faced by women and gender-diverse individuals in the online world. By highlighting issues such as internet safety, cyberbullying, gender-based violence, and the digital divide, the session aims to establish a safe and inclusive digital environment. The proposed strategies, encompassing policy, education, and digital literacy, seek to uphold online rights and include diverse voices in discussions regarding internet governance. Umut’s support further reinforces the significance of these endeavors, underscoring the collective commitment to creating an inclusive digital space for all individuals.

Luisa Franco Machado

The analysis examines various aspects of the digital space and its impact on marginalized groups. One major issue discussed is shadow banning, portrayed as a form of online censorship that disproportionately affects discussions on women’s rights and systemic issues. Shadow banning is defined as a phenomenon that appears to be a technical glitch but is actually a manifestation of deeper systemic problems. The author’s personal experience is highlighted, where her political posts discussing these matters mysteriously vanished from her followers’ TikTok feeds. This serves as evidence of shadow banning’s negative impact on radical discussions.

The discussion then shifts to the oppressive nature of the digital space for youth, women, and gender diverse individuals. While the digital realm offers a platform for advocacy, it also becomes a breeding ground for backlash and harassment. Misogynistic and alt-right groups are specifically mentioned as organized contributors to the unease in the digital space. This evidence underscores the negative sentiment associated with the experiences of these marginalized groups.

Furthermore, the analysis explores the issue of personal data collection and its implications. It asserts that almost every institution collects personal data and digital footprints, which are subsequently used to reinforce oppressive structures and drive profits. This criticism raises concerns about the motivations behind data harvesting and how it often fails to contribute to public welfare or policy shaping.

Another point examined in the analysis is the erasure of marginalized groups resulting from restrictive binary thinking in digital spaces. An example is given of online forms typically offering only binary gender options, thereby neglecting non-binary and other identities. The erasure of diverse identities and the perpetuation of binary thinking is viewed as a negative aspect of the digital realm.

On a positive note, the analysis underscores the importance of celebrating diverse expressions and championing critical thinking in the digital space. These values are believed to contribute to a more inclusive and empowering environment. Additionally, it asserts that government intervention and accountable content moderation are necessary to address the issues discussed. Europe’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA) are cited as promising steps in the right direction.

Regarding representation, the analysis argues that feminist, queer, and diverse representation should be non-negotiable in both public institutions and major tech companies. This stance emphasizes the need for diversity in decision-making processes and the creation of inclusive digital spaces.

In conclusion, the analysis presents a comprehensive exploration of the impact of the digital space on marginalized groups. It highlights issues such as shadow banning, online oppression, data privacy concerns, erasure, and the need for diverse representation. The ultimate call is for the digital realm to celebrate diverse expressions, champion critical thinking, and for government and public intervention to ensure accountability and create a safer online environment.

Chilufya Theresa Mulenga,

The analysis highlights several key points made by the speakers. Firstly, it is noted that education and skill development have played a crucial role in fostering increased youth participation in Internet-related fields, particularly among young women. This is supported by the increase in online platforms that promote gender-related initiatives, as well as the implementation of STEM programs aimed at engaging young learners, including girls and gender diverse individuals. These efforts have led to a positive sentiment, as more and more youths are being empowered to pursue careers and opportunities in the digital sphere.

Moving on, the analysis underlines the impact of social media activism in raising awareness about inclusivity and social change. The speakers mention that online communities have provided a safe space for individuals from different backgrounds to connect and support each other. This sentiment is reinforced by the ability to share challenges and innovative solutions across different countries. By utilising social media platforms, activists have been able to amplify their messages and reach a wider audience, further strengthening their efforts towards reducing inequalities. Overall, the sentiment expressed towards social media activism is positive, as it has proven to be an effective tool for driving social change.

Furthermore, the analysis emphasises the significance of policy involvement in supporting youth-led organisations. In particular, it highlights a concrete example from Zambia, where members of parliament have actively invited young people to partake in discussions and initiate tailored development in local communities. Additionally, the creation of the CDF fund in Zambia has provided support for projects initiated by youth-led organisations. This positive sentiment towards policy involvement suggests that engaging young people in decision-making processes and providing them with resources can lead to sustainable development, as indicated by the alignment with SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities and SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions.

Lastly, the analysis points out the role of gender advocacy groups in promoting equality and safety for gender diverse individuals. Noteworthy evidence includes the presence of online petitions and campaigns led by young people, addressing issues related to gender, youth, and women. These efforts contribute to the pursuit of SDG 5: Gender Equality and generate a positive sentiment towards the advocacy for gender diversity.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the positive impact of education, social media activism, policy involvement, and gender advocacy groups in empowering youth and promoting key social and gender-related goals. These findings underscore the importance of providing opportunities, resources, and support to young people, as they play a crucial role in shaping a more inclusive and equitable society.

Ayden Férdeline

The analysis provides a comprehensive overview of various arguments and perspectives on several topics. One argument focuses on the issue of inadequate representation of women, youth, and LGBT+ individuals in internet governance and coordination bodies. This is supported by researched participation data spanning the past 20 years. It is argued that these marginalised groups are not given enough influence in decision-making processes, resulting in a lack of diverse perspectives and potential biases in internet governance.

Another critique discussed in the analysis pertains to civil society’s approach to making change. It is pointed out that there is a lack of a clear theory of change, which may hinder effective strategies for addressing key societal issues. Furthermore, civil society seems to struggle with managing trade-offs that may arise in the pursuit of their goals. The sentiment towards this critique is negative, indicating dissatisfaction with the current approaches employed by civil society to bring about meaningful change.

On a more positive note, the analysis highlights the need for advocacy from a position of power instead of victimhood to achieve sustainable results. It is argued that advocacy efforts should not solely rely on portraying oneself as a victim, but rather focus on empowerment and leveraging existing positions of influence to drive real change. This argument is supported by the observation that exclusion is often intentional and that setting goals, prioritising, and fighting one battle at a time would yield more effective advocacy outcomes.

The analysis also includes a stance that supports focus and goal-setting in advocacy, despite the inherent difficulty in doing so due to the presence of multiple pressing issues. It is acknowledged that advocacy efforts tend to be scattered amidst numerous important causes, making it challenging to channel resources and efforts towards achieving specific goals. Nonetheless, the importance of setting clear objectives and concentrating efforts is emphasised, as it enables more targeted and impactful advocacy work.

In conclusion, the analysis presents a range of viewpoints on different topics. It highlights the need for greater representation of marginalised groups in internet governance, the necessity for a well-defined theory of change in civil society’s approach, the importance of advocacy from a position of power, and the benefits of focus and goal-setting in advocacy work. By considering and addressing these perspectives, it becomes possible to enhance the effectiveness and inclusivity of various societal initiatives.

Hollie Hamblett

The analysis reveals that women face significant inequalities as consumers, despite representing 51% of the global population and making the majority of global purchasing decisions. Shockingly, their needs are often disregarded in policy, product design, and service provision. This inequality is evident in the form of the “pink tax”, financial barriers, and sexism in advertising.

The “pink tax” refers to the practice of charging higher prices for products and services marketed to women compared to similar products marketed to men. This discriminatory pricing perpetuates gender-based inequalities by forcing women to pay more for essential items such as personal care products and clothing. Additionally, financial barriers prevent women from accessing financial services and resources, limiting their economic empowerment. Sexism in advertising further exacerbates inequalities, as it perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes and objectifies women, often influencing their choices as consumers.

One of the key arguments put forward is that consumer protection frameworks lack gender equality. Despite the significant purchasing power and influence that women have, these frameworks fail to adequately address their specific needs and concerns. The analysis highlights the urgent need for consumer protection policies and regulations to incorporate a gender lens, ensuring that women’s rights and interests are protected and promoted.

To address this issue, it is suggested that gender-disaggregated data be collected and used in policy, product design, and service provision. Such data can reveal the truth about women’s experiences in the marketplace, aiding in the identification and elimination of sexist biases. Without reliable data, gender biases may persist, and misguided policies may unintentionally cause harm to women. Therefore, prioritising the collection and analysis of gender-disaggregated data is essential for promoting gender equality in consumer protection.

Furthermore, the analysis emphasises the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach. It is suggested that designers, developers, researchers, and marketing authorities work together to create gender-equal products and policies in digital spaces. This collaborative effort can help address biases and discriminatory practices present in the design and development of digital products. Additionally, raising public awareness about consumer rights can empower women to assert their economic interests and demand gender-equal treatment in the marketplace.

In conclusion, women continue to face inequalities as consumers, with their needs often overlooked in policy, product design, and service provision. The “pink tax”, financial barriers, and sexism in advertising are examples of the challenges they encounter. The analysis underscores the need for consumer protection frameworks to embrace gender equality, highlighting the importance of gender-disaggregated data and a multi-stakeholder approach. By prioritising women’s experiences and empowering them in their consumer choices, a more gender-equal marketplace can be achieved.

Agita Pasaribu

Since the start of the COVID-19 lockdown in 2020, Indonesia has witnessed a staggering 300% surge in online abuse cases. One prevalent concern is non-consensual intimate image abuse, which predominantly affects young females. This increase in online abuse has become a significant issue in the country during the pandemic.

Despite the passing of a law on sexual violence crimes, prosecuting online abuse perpetrators across different jurisdictions remains a considerable challenge. Cross-border jurisdiction issues complicate and hamper the process of holding these perpetrators accountable for their actions.

To effectively tackle online harassment, it is crucial to strengthen global partnerships and involve all stakeholders in policy development. By engaging tech companies, particularly online platforms, in policy-making processes, it becomes possible to comprehensively address and prevent online harassment. Incorporating both global and local perspectives is essential to ensuring that policies are effective and inclusive.

Ethical AI practices can play a vital role in protecting individuals online. Deepfake pornography using AI has become a pressing issue, violating the rights and mental well-being of women and gender diverse individuals. Policies should actively protect digital citizens and ensure that technology serves as a force for progress rather than harm.

Preventing online harassment requires the collective efforts of various stakeholders. Governments, tech companies, schools, parents, and civil society all have unique roles to play. Stakeholders need to advocate for safety measures, embed digital literacy in education systems, support victims of online harassment, and promote ethical digital citizenship.

In conclusion, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to a significant increase in online abuse cases, with non-consensual intimate image abuse being a prevalent concern in Indonesia. The prosecution of online abuse perpetrators is hindered by cross-border jurisdiction issues. Strengthening global partnerships, involving tech companies in policy development, advocating for ethical AI practices, and engaging all stakeholders are essential in effectively combating online harassment.

Umut Pajaro Velasquez:
Hello, we can hear you Ahmad. Okay, I was scared that you can’t hear me for a moment. Yeah. Well, thank you very much to all the people there. We’re going to start the session. This is a roundtable session that is called a digital me being you, woman, and or gender diverse people online. In this session, we wanted to highlight that the internet plays a vital role in our lives, but it’s not always safe or an inclusive space, especially for two women and gender diverse people. In this session, we’re going in the discussion in the roundtable that we’re going to have, we’re going to try to address the intersection of gender and you online, aiming to create a safe and inclusive digital environment. We will try also to highlight the challenges we face, like cyberbullying, gender based violence, and digital device with the different panelists, we share their expertise from the different backgrounds they are coming from. Also, at the end, we will like to discuss on strategies to encompass policy, education and digital literacy. to hold online rides for these groups and involve diverse voices in internet governance discussions. The session aims to offer recommendations for multi-stakeholder to take some practical steps in addressing these internet challenges and fostering inclusivity and safety. The structure of the session will consist in a short introduction that I’m doing right now. And so then we going to pass to the part of the speaker when they going to have five minutes to present their perspective or their vision to share any knowledge related to the topic and the policy question that were shared before with them. And then we’re going to have a second part of the session that we’re going to allow the public to also share their visions and make some question if they want to. And finally, we’re going to have a final remarks or a conclusion if we can have a conclusion in this session. So we going to start this round on interventions. We Agita Pasarigu, she is from Indonesia and she is a test developing and designing on a bully idea that was launching in 2020. I wish she will be sharing some insights about online gender violence in the context of the country and also in the Asia Pacific region. So the floor is yours, Agita.

Agita Pasaribu:
Thank you, Umut. Hi, everyone. I am Agita, and I’m currently the founder and executive director of Bullied Up. At Bullied Up, we are focusing on addressing online harassment in Indonesia by providing psychological legal support and anonymous reporting platform through our web-based application. On the issues regarding on the policies that can be developed to address the challenge faced by youth, women, and gender diverse people in digital space, I think I would like to touch on and provide a little bit of a background of what happened in Indonesia. So since the COVID-19 lockdown in 2020, Indonesia has witnessed a staggering 300% surge in online abuse cases, and this leaving victims without access to essential legal and mental health support. And from our statistic, non-consensual intimate image abuse, or NCNI, has been a prevalent concern, and its majority impacting young females. This issue also becomes very intricate due to its cross-border nature, and often law enforcement feels powerless due to jurisdictional constraint. And even with the recent passing of the law on sexual violence crimes in the country, which recognized NCNI, the persecution of perpetrators across different jurisdictions remains a significant challenge. So considering these, we did policies that facilitate international cooperation to forge global cooperation amongst law enforcement to address cross-border jurisdiction issues, emphasizing what our governments can do. I believe it’s pivotal to strengthen global partnership to tackle online harassment. Engage tech companies, especially actively involving them, the online platforms, in policy development. We need social media, online dating, online gaming platforms. to focus on both enabling reporting mechanism and also addressing past report needs, making sure that perpetrators are refrained and victims are supported. It also important to incorporating both in global local views, especially in the policy, knowing that the emerging issues like deepfake pornography using artificial intelligence, it affecting women and gender diverse individuals online, violating their rights and their mental wellbeing. So therefore our policies must not only respond after, but must actively protect our digital citizens. Ethical AI practices and rules need to ensure that technology becomes a helper, not an enemy in our fight against online harassment. Also policy should be our shield and made with the complexities of technological advancement and the ethical consideration of its application in mind. And I believe that policies should safeguard every digital citizen, ensuring that technology serve as a beacon of progress, not a tool for perpetrating harm and fear. Coming to the aspect in terms of multi-stakeholder challenges and what we can do, I believe the responsibility of multi-stakeholders is a paramount in constructing a safe online environment. Government, social media, tech companies, schools, parents, civil society, each of us hold a unique and significant role in the prevention of online harassment. Government needs to advocate and enforce policies that foster a secure digital environment across legal enforcement. Social media and tech companies have to incorporate safety by design principles, focusing not on the enabling report mechanism. but also effectively addressing false report issues, preventing further perpetrations and partnering with NGOs to further support victims with psychological or the support they need. Schools, parents should embed digital literacy and ethical online behavior within educational structures. And civil society organization, we must continue to advocate for digital safety and support victims, driving policy development and ensuring accountability. And lastly, as netizens and young people, I believe we need to promote ethical digital citizenship, promote an upstander culture and be committed to create a digital environment that is respectful, inclusive, safe, and empowering for all regardless of age and gender. So I’ll stop there.

Umut Pajaro Velasquez:
Thank you. Thank you to you for that valuable insights about the situation in Indonesia and how this kind of risk that we have in face if intercross with mental health and policymaking and another stuff that are actually really important to protect online. And now we’re going with Holly Hamblett. She is a policy specialist at Consumer International. She leads the digital consumer rights work including trust in digital marketplace, virtual economies, and data rights. Holly previously managed CIS Global Consumer Protection and Empowerment Index, measuring the consumer landscape of 80 countries worldwide. Holly, the floor is yours.

Hollie Hamblett:
Thank you. So I’ll be talking about gender in relation to consumer protection and how consumer protection frameworks are not gender equal. So women represent 51% of the population which means that is also half of. consumers worldwide as well. And they have the majority of the purchasing decisions, they have the potential to drive the marketplace and with their purchasing power, about 65 to 85% of global purchasing decisions are made by women globally. And yet whilst they have this potential to influence the marketplace with these decisions, their specific needs and experiences as consumers are still not considered in the design of policy, products and services. And we see this from sexist advertising to online scams, male default products and services, barriers to financial accessibility, gender-based pricing discrepancies, toxic and harmful products. The marketplace is not a level playing field for women. So when we look at the experiences of women in the marketplace in relation to consumer protection principles, and this is based on the UN guidelines for consumer protection, we can see that women’s rights as consumers are not being upheld and that these consumer protection frameworks are not gender equal. So let’s give some examples of women’s experiences in the digital space. We have a lack of access to essential services. In Rwanda, 84% of women have access to mobile phones, but of those 84%, only 55% have access to mobile money. Women’s economic interests are not protected in the same way as men. The pink tax, as we all know, is a gender-specific form of offering products, which is translated from traditional markets into the online space as well. So in e-commerce platforms, we see the same pink tax occurring there. In the US, we have personal care products for women costing 13% more money for women than men. Products are. designed by default for men to contribute to an equal health outcomes as well. So we’ve seen this with VR headsets. They don’t account for the eye width of women, and so women are experiencing cyber sickness as a result of this. We have product design, again, just ignoring women’s needs with the mobile phones being the size for men’s hands instead of women’s hands. It’s more difficult to hold, to type. We have existing data contributing to gender discrimination. So any data that is used for AI algorithms are based on the reflections of society that we have at the minute, and that includes gender biases and discriminations. One common example is AI used for lending. There we have women are more disproportionately likely to be rejected for loans, especially black women as well. We have poor design allowing women to be sexually harassed online in spaces, VR, AR, with the metaverse. This is a design fault. There is no form of consent. There’s no consequence of what will happen to women, and this is then further compounded with difficulties in redress. Women are a lot less likely to seek redress when their consumer needs have been infringed or disregarded. A lot of the times they won’t seek redress unless they have the backing of a man in their household in a lot of countries. So we have all these harms that are absolutely gender issues, but they’re compounded by consumer interests, and this is a framework that is meant to protect consumers worldwide, but we can see that the framework itself is not being respected for women, and so the framework is designed, again, for men, with men in mind. But thinking about how we can address these policies and develop them so that… these challenges are mitigated at least. Gender equality in terms of access, inclusion, skills, and leadership can only be understood and addressed through internationally comparable gender disaggregated data. So there is an urgent need for this data in policy, product, and services design. Without this, policies can be misguided, gender biases can remain and be reinforced, and harm can occur. So even if we have gender intentionality in the design of these policies, products, and services, without this data, we have no evidence and real understanding of how women are experiencing these things in the marketplace and how they have such an impact on them. To be able to develop further and make sure that we have gender equality in digital spaces, in analog spaces, just generally as consumers in the marketplace. And so thinking of practical steps to move forward as well, to work together in a multi-stakeholder approach. We can, of course, apply a gender lens to any work that we have and ensure that women are in designer development roles. But this doesn’t offer a global change that we need. To be able to get the data that we’re looking for, this gender disaggregated data, we need to conduct more research. This includes product testing, product comparisons, looking into research for policy, testing out redress mechanisms, and seeing if women can go all the way through with them, whether they’re stopped through the time constraints, the cost of this as well. And having this data, just knowing how women are experiencing this is gonna help a little bit more than just having women in the spaces. So that we can, this is so that it’s. reflective of women everywhere, and not just personal experiences shared in individual rooms. And this is something that consumer organizations can help with, especially. National consumer organizations do product testing. They do product comparisons. And a lot of them will share this on their websites. So this can be, we can plug consumer organizations into different spaces. But with that, we need bridges for organizations working in silos, and making sure that we do have this multi-stakeholder approach. And this isn’t just your traditional policy, business, consumer organization. We also need to link in marketing agencies or marketing authorities to make sure that messaging around products and services is also not gender biased. We can create public awareness campaigns to make sure that women are aware of their consumer rights. And enforce them, and they can try and live a more fair life in the marketplace if they’re a little bit more aware of the consumer rights that they have. And then finally, just creating a little bit more visibility of the issues that there are, and making sure that there’s space for this influence of consumer issues. Because consumer protection can be a means to an end of trying to get to gender equality, particularly with the links to economic interests that are in the UNGCP. This might be an easier way to gather interest and gain a little bit more influence. Thank you.

Umut Pajaro Velasquez:
Thank you, Holly, for the intervention. It was really insightful. Because you put into cross how some details, how some economic rights can also affect another human rights. And then so how gender data is needed to actually improve the system in general. Not only in the consumer aspect, but in all the system in general. So thank you very much for that. Now we’re going with Chilufya Theresa Mulenga, she’s from Zambia. She’s a certified gender equality chain maker who founded the ICD4Head club. She has over six years experience in the STEAM ICD sector, where she has advanced in her development in innovation in local communities, and as I say, she’s involved in the Internet Society Zambia chapter. Lucia, the floor is yours.

Chilufya Theresa Mulenga,:
Thank you so much, Umed. I hope I’m audible enough. Am I audible enough? Yes, we can hear you. All right, thank you so much. I’ll be touching a little bit on how youth and gender diverse youth groups are present currently on Internet-related initiatives. So we have seen a prominent number of growth increasing in the youth and gender diversity groups and increasing and actively participating in Internet-related initiatives across various fields. And it’s initially because of a lot of education and skill development that has been advocated for youths and young women in various industries. So we have prominent youths and young women, young girls, young men actively participating in Internet-related fields because of the online platforms that are advocating. for gender-related courses and gender-related initiatives. So mostly these online platforms offer opportunities and also a chance for most of our youth and also various diverse groups to gain tech-related skills. And also there’s been some prominent growth in STEM programs that are promoting a lot of science technology and a lot of engineering in all diverse groups and which mostly aims to engage young learners including girls and gender diverse individuals in these groups. There has been over the years an increase in a lot of social media activism that has helped most of the inclusive individuals and groups to use, like I said, learning platforms and social media platforms to raise awareness about various issues that promote inclusivity and also mainly just advocate for social change nationwide and also global wide. And also these social media activism has promoted a lot of online groups that encourages a lot of online communities to provide a safe space for individuals and diverse group members from different backgrounds and different tech-related industries to connect and share experiences and just support each other. Also prominently, there’s been a lot of events locally, nationally, and just globally like the IGF that help to promote a lot of diversity and inclusive initiatives. Most of the events actually help to focus more on… inclusion and encouraging participation from a lot of youths and a lot of groups, marginalized groups, I would say, and individuals to give them a platform where they can be able to share various ideas and also engage with diversity, people from different backgrounds, from different countries, share their challenges, and also some innovative solutions that can help increase their advocacy and also their work to amplify our voices in interrelated issues. We do have a lot of open source and tech communities also to contribute that help engage a lot of youths and young women and allows them to contribute to any tech-related solutions that may help them develop some of their local communities and some of the initiatives go as far as collaborating with developers to develop a software application or even technology innovations that can help them just engage with their local communities and find some of the solutions that can help grow their local communities and also it helps them have a voice so that they can be able to talk to their local government and people that are making policies in their country. So, with that, there has been a lot of youth-led organizations that advocate for internet policies that promote accessibility and digital rights and online safety and this has helped a lot of people participate in discussions and also campaigns that help to shape the related policies. I’ll give an example for Zambia. We do have members of parliaments that invite us to sit down and discuss with them and we’re able to voice out our challenges and also provide solutions that may help to, that may help to increase youth participation and also provide tailored development in our local communities that mostly bend on youth. They have been initiatives like the CDF, that’s the youth fund that helps fund youth-led organizations to come up with projects and initiatives that mostly help develop their local communities. It can be a small business, it can be a small learning platform, but all these initiatives have been, they have increased participation in all gender diverse groups, more especially in marginalized groups. And also just as a way of introducing the digital environment to certain communities that don’t have the internet or don’t have access to actually participate on these online platforms. So the CDF has grown largely in the country and it has helped a lot of youth engage to certain groups of people who are learning and some who are not learning it to just kind of actually voice out what they need. These also, they have helped provide tailored solutions because it’s not everywhere where they have access to water, it’s not everywhere where they have access to good health facilities. So the CDF fund has enabled a lot of youth-led organizations to provide tailored solutions to these communities. by empowering the communities to learn what they can do instead of just waiting for the government to offer them money or to come and offer them a solution to the problems that they are currently facing. There’s been also some gender advocacy groups that have been created that helps to promote a lot of gender diversity by actually engaging in policy discussions and advocating for inclusivity, equal opportunities, and also safety for gender individuals online and as well as offline. So a lot of online activism has led to some online petitions and also youth-led campaigns that allow the gender diverse active groups to use any online platforms to launch petitions and awareness campaigns addressing a lot of prominent issues that still affect us even in the 21st century in relations to gender, youth, and also women at a large scale. And mostly of these issues have been addressed due to technology and it has helped a lot of youth engage themselves in various topics that affect them in their society like justice, climate change, and also gender equality and so on and so on. So just in summary, the youth and gender diverse individuals are very much prominent participants and they have leveraged a lot of online platforms to learn, create, and innovate and as well as advocate for local change and also become policy changemakers in their communities and also nationwide. And this contribution has played a very crucial role in shaping the digital landscape and also promoting inclusivity and diversity in the community. online world. Thank you so much. Thank you to you, Lucia, and for reminding us that the combination

Umut Pajaro Velasquez:
of advocacy with some grassroots work and technical, in general, multi-stakeholderism can be a benefit for getting more digital rights for Jewish women and gender diverse people. Now we are moving to our fourth speaker. She is Luisa Franco Machado. Luisa, the floor is yours.

Luisa Franco Machado:
Thank you so much, Umut. Well, good evening, Kyoto. Morning, Berlin. And hello to everyone in between. I’m Luisa Franco Machado. I’m a Brazilian feminist social scientist. Last year, the UN appointed me as a young leader for the Sustainable Development Goals for my work in digital rights and data justice. And currently, I advise GIZ, the German Development Corporation Agency, on the use of ICTs for development. However, today’s thoughts are purely mine, not affiliated with any of these organizations. That’s an important disclaimer. But now let’s dive right in. And I would like to actually begin with the shadows. So the silent, unseen, censorship that many of us face online. So have any of you ever heard of shadow banning? For those who haven’t, this is a sneaky form of online censorship. You post something and suddenly it’s like shouting into a void, you know, especially if you’re discussing something as radical as women’s rights or systemic issues, you know, or even if you have a perceived female body and show a little bit of skin, unless you’re a big influencer, TikTok will take you deep into this uncharted caves of the internet. My post on TikTok, for example, when I try to talk about something slightly more political, they really vanish from my followers’ feed. And sometimes shadowbanning might seem like a tech glitch, but actually it’s often a manifestation of deeper systemic issues, right? But the challenge is they don’t stop there. The digital space can really be a minefield, especially for youth, women, and gender diverse people. So while it offers a platform for advocacy and change, as we’ve heard in previous speeches, the backlash, especially from misogynistic and alt-right groups is real and it’s intense and they are super organized and it sucks. But it’s not just about facing threats though. Sometimes oppression is much more subtle. Our personal data and our digital footprints, they are really constantly harvested by nearly every single institution out there, not just the tech giants. But does this data really contribute to public welfare, to understanding the needs of, let’s say, gender diverse people or shaping policies? No, countries know close to nothing about their LGBTQIA plus population. Instead, the data collected is used to reinforce oppressive structures and drive profits, all the stuff we already know, right? Then of course, there’s erasure. How many times have we encountered online forums asking gender, male or female? They’re not just forms, right? They’re a symbol of the binary restrictive thinking that should have no place in our diverse world. The occasional other option, it’s a slap in the face, right? A gross oversimplification of our complex identities. Okay, so now what’s the way forward? First, let’s take a step back, because I know most of us have the attention span of a goldfish, so if you spaced out, now it’s time to come back. I mentioned at least five issues in the past three minutes. Shadow banning, fear of persecution, organized hate, data exploitation, and erasure of marginalized groups. That being said, our call to action is clear. First, we need and we demand a digital realm that celebrates diverse expression. And that’s not, you know, just kind of like a buzzword. We really need and want spaces that champion feminist discourse and critical thinking and not suppress them. Of course, this doesn’t mean allowing harmful content, but rather distinguishing between genuine critique and hate speech. Second, we need smarter content moderation. Governments must invest in and reinforce rigorous content moderation to protect marginalized voices and dismantle hate-driven narratives. I know this almost sounds like too much to ask, but it’s really not. But we don’t just need to hope for that to happen, right? Which takes me to my third recommendation. Responsible public intervention in the online space is not a choice anymore. Creating digital spaces or the data that is at the backbone of these spaces is just necessary. You know, look at Europe’s DSA and DMA. They are steps in the right direction, but they are just starting points, right? We need global yet localized efforts. So we really need to ensure that data collection of non-sensitive data, right, serves for what actually matters, understanding our community’s needs and shaping policies tackling them. Last but not least, representation is non-negotiable. To every public institution or tech giant out there, If your team doesn’t have queer, feminist, and diverse voices, you’re doing it wrong. Stop sidelining us into the other box and start recognizing our worth. Institutions they must not just include, but rather prioritize marginalized voices on decision-making. To wrap up, let’s dream of an internet where every voice matters. But let’s not just dream, let’s act. So find me online, all my contacts are here, but if you can’t see it, just search for Luisa Franco Machado online. It’s a huge step that we’re making space for these conversations. So thank you so much for Umut and everyone organizing this session. So let’s keep this conversation going and let’s foster a digital world that truly includes and celebrates all of us. Cheers to that. Thank you so much for that, Luisa, you touched a topic that is close to my, to everything that I do. So yeah.

Umut Pajaro Velasquez:
Thank you. Thank you so much for it. Well, right now we’re moving another online speaker. She is Daniela Cuspoca from Colombia. She is, wait a minute, she’s a lawyer with a study in economics and public policy. She worked several years in the sixth commission of the Colombian Congress in charge of technology and policies and regulation. Additionally is part of the ISO Foundation as a volunteer and she leads a project, focuses on the gender digital divide through digital literacy programs. So Daniela, the floor is yours.

Daniela Cuspoca Orduz:
Thanks so much. Thanks to everyone. So today I’ll be talking about the Colombian case, especially I will talk about the digital gender balance in the. country. The challenge that Colombia has by developing a policy that faces the phenomenon, since violence is the main human rights violation against women in the country, has become a problem of justice. So technically digital violence is any painful action carried out with the support of information and communication technologies in terms of distribution, exhibition, commercialization of images, videos, intimate sexual content, without the concept of the person, which definitely causes psychological and emotional damage to the victim. In Colombia, we have a generic law devoted to prevent violence against women. However, we don’t have any specific regulatory framework. We don’t have a name that can maybe emphasize with legal enforcement about digital violence in the country. And since we don’t have a name for that, we don’t have data, and it still is not clear how the way that government can act when this type of violence happens. So digital violence against women takes many shapes. It could be doxy, it could be non-conceptual dissemination of intimate images, and so on. Now Colombian authorities lack the necessary awareness to respond, and sometimes women victims tend to be re-victimized or even blamed for what happened. There is also a lack of interest to investigate this type of crimes. And at the end of the day, this legal gap makes it difficult to have reliable and comprehensive data to create better public policies. And at the same time, digital violence needs a particular response from the state, from the government, from the actors, and the protective measures we need to, in this type of cases, certainly are different. In the case of dissemination of intimate images, for example. We need to have, we need to take into account the impact that has this phenomenon for the victim to put the victim at the centre, give them psychological attention, for example. In September 2022, the Colombian Constitutional Court studied the first case of women whose intimate photos were disclosed without concept by another woman on Facebook. This woman showed the photos to her colleagues, and it was clear that releasing the images was intended to humiliate her using the traditional idea of how a woman should behave. And the purpose, obviously, was to damage her reputation in the workplace. However, in this case, the Constitutional Court only focused on the protection of sensitive data. However, this year, fortunately, the Constitutional Court ruled in relation to online attacks that certain women journalists have received with sexualized and misogynistic content. The court in this time is different, and forces multiple state actors to act against this violence. So, it asks all political departments and movements to create a code of ethics with guidelines to punish acts of violence, or incitement to violence online, implement an acts rule for women victims of any type of violence. So, as a consequence of this rule of the Constitutional Court, several initiatives have been presented in relation to the development of framework inside the Congress, but it is still pending of approval. Without adult, the state needs to recognize the digital phenomenon as a priority aspect to generate policies to support victims, but also to empower women online. Women need to know that they have a healthy and safe space to also defend their rights. And I appreciate the invitation to participate today, and I give the floor again to Umut, so that I can give our way to our next panelist, it was a pleasure to share the Colombian experience to all.

Umut Pajaro Velasquez:
Thank you so much, Daniela. We vote on the Colombia right now, we are live for in the morning, so thank you for the time. So I’m sharing this video in the case of Colombia. Now we moving to one of the speaker on site, he is Ayden Férdeline, I’m hoping that’s your last name, right? He is a public interest technologist, and Landecker Democracy Fellow, we human in collaboration with Alfred Landecker Foundation, so the floor is yours, Aiden.

Ayden Férdeline:
Thank you so much, Umut, I’m really pleased to be here. And the reason why I am on the stage today is because I wrote a report last year that was published by the National Democratic Institute that was exploring who is involved in making decisions within internet governance and internet coordination bodies. And we looked at the participation data over the past 20 years, and it was pretty clear that there was inadequate representation from women, from youth, from LGBT plus people. There were also other demographics that were missing too, and there were demographics that were given more influence than others, law enforcement, intellectual property interests, for example, and so of course… intersectionality plays into this. So what I wanted to really talk about was to build off of Louise’s call to action at the end of her talk about let’s act. What can we do about this? Part of the research that I did last year was speaking with leaders within internet governance institutions to understand how they perceive different stakeholders. How do they assess contributions that they receive? How do they act on the evidence that is presented before them? Something that I heard quite frequently was around that, aside from the fact that there are disputes over what adequate representation looks like, it’s also really hard to explain what adequate representation constitutes and is representation what we really want? Is it being on panels like this where with full respect to everyone in the room, we don’t actually have many decision makers in this room? We don’t have the IGF leadership panel. We have a few empty seats. What does it actually mean to have representation? Do we want outcomes instead? What would be outcomes that we’re happy with? And I would argue that effectiveness starts with how you conceptualize your work. And when I was interviewing different stakeholders last year for this project, something that came across very clearly to me when I spoke with civil society representatives who have very strong mission-driven goals that they’re working towards that are very important is the lack of a theory of change. There is this idea that the problems are so huge that we must solve them because they’re so urgent and pressing, and that is definitely true. But I do think civil society in general is not very good at being able to manage trade-offs, is not very good at being able to. to assess what is enough and what is not enough. And so to have a loud voice and to be able to give a good speech when you don’t have a problem statement, it doesn’t get you very far. When you can’t or you’re not doing the stakeholder analysis, when you’re not doing a power analysis, when you understand your own context but you don’t necessarily understand the context that others are working within, I fear that it can undermine what we’re all working towards. And so I think that for traditionally excluded stakeholders who are, I would argue, by design being excluded from some of these institutions, you have to be able to tell your story from a place of power. You have to be able to be an example of not how horrible and unfair the world is because you are, of course, a victim. You are intentionally being excluded. But you do have to also have agency. And it’s very difficult to develop agency when you are perceived by other stakeholders as victims of something. And you may be a victim. Again, you probably are. But if your advocacy comes from a place of victimhood, you just don’t get sustainable results, or at least what I saw is you don’t get sustainable results. You need to know how to set goals, how to prioritize, how to fight one battle at a time. And this is really difficult, particularly for advocates who are volunteering their time to focus on issues, who care about multiple things. It is so easy to be pulled this way, the other way. To be able to just really condense what you’re focusing on to one or two issues and to follow them through, it’s really difficult, but I think it’s something that’s really important for us to try to focus on. We are running out of time, so I’ll leave my remarks there. But very happy to expand on any suggestions, if you like. Thank you both.

Umut Pajaro Velasquez:
Thank you very much, Aiden. And thank you for sharing the call to action that is actually needed for all of us. in this kind of processes. Now to finally finalize this panel speaker, we have Vera Zakem. She serves as USA Chief Digital Democracy and Rights Officers. She’s situated in the Center of Democracy, Human Rights and Governance and she leads the agency’s agenda on digital democracy to ensure technologies advances democratic values and respect for human rights globally. Vera, the floor is yours and thank you so much for actually being there at the hour because I was so worried about it. I don’t know, it’s just me, but I cannot hear you. How about now?

Vera Zakem:
Okay, perfect. So yeah, thank you so much for hosting this. I’m delighted to be here. Actually, literally just got off the flight from the United States, so I’m glad I was able to make this. And then also, I represent the voice of government, but also the voice of the United States government. And I have some colleagues in the room as well that I would be remiss not to acknowledge, including my very dear friend and colleague, Cailin Crockett, who represents the White House, who may and others may have a few things to say on this topic. So what I wanted to do is bring not just the US government, but the government perspective to this topic. First thing is first, for multi-stakeholderism, we know in the digital realm, multi-stakeholderism is everything. And it’s from both in the global, in the normative settings and also in convenience like this, but also at the local level in a lot of the countries where a lot of the countries are operating in. And multi-stakeholderism. does require governments, civil society, and yes, private sector, like really private sector at the table, and not just the big tech but emerging tech. So on the government side, the United States has been doing quite a bit along with a number of other countries, 11 countries to be exact. The Biden-Harris administration announced recently, not too long ago, the Global Partnership for Action on Gender-Based Online Harassment and Abuse, and it really is in concert with 11 other nations. It really also has a multi-stakeholder advisory group composed of survivors, civil society, activists, private sector, and others. And the reason is because we in the United States are extremely committed to investing in preventing tech-facilitated gender-based violence and also related gendered disinformation and all of the ills that are happening to women, girls, gender diverse LGBTQ plus people. And so I do want to tell you a little bit about a couple of goals of the partnership, and again I’d be delighted for Caitlin and others to highlight as well, but I do want to kind of highlight a few goals and what the U.S. Agency for National Development, which is the United States foreign assistance arm, is doing. And some of it, quite frankly, I’ve actually been able to see it myself through a lot of the work in a lot of the places I’ve been to already in my current role. So the first is, there’s three big goals that I want to just cover real quickly. One is to close the gender divide, the gender digital divide, by promoting online safety, accountability, and meaningful connectivity. That’s foremost. We see so fundamentally access and connectivity are everything. I can tell you from the USAID, we have been investing in the space quite significantly. in a number of countries, one with the Reliance Foundations, we announced actually seven winners of Women Connect Challenge in India as one example, but we’re doing this in different parts of the world in a number of countries that we operate in. The second is really promoting meaningful participation, and meaningful participation for women and girls and LGBTQ plus in gender diverse populations. Did I lose you guys? Okay, good. By countering tech-facilitated gender-based violence and gender disinformation. I cannot begin to tell you how important this piece is. When women are at the table, that’s when meaningful change happens. We have seen it again and again. There’s data, there’s research on this, and this involves not only making sure that we are investing in women and girls and LGBTQ plus communities to ensure in all sectors of our society, including in political life and civil society, but also, I think you mentioned also in the tech sector as well, how critical this is. And here’s why, and I can even speak a little bit on the tech sector, having come from the tech sector into the role that I’m currently in. Because when women and girls, when women are at the table, this is when we’re talking about to ensure that human rights assessments are part of the product features. It is also making sure that we are in the room when meaningful decisions and change happen in all facets of society. But also most especially in the technology sector where a lot of the, if you will, decisions are being made. And by the way, when I talk about tech, I’m not just talking about the big tech, but I’m also talking about emerging technologies as well. Because again, having that cultural knowledge, having that. gender, if you will, or LGBTQ plus knowledge, and the contextual knowledge on how these products need to be designed is just so important. One of the things I can tell you at USCID, one of the things we announced at the last summit for democracy is the transform initiative where we’re actually trying to bring and really increase that participation in the civic life for women and girls, and we’re actually doing a number of pilots in the coming year, most especially in Guatemala, Georgia, and Kenya. But I actually, I will tell you on this one, I actually was able to see this myself. In May of this year, I was in the Middle East and North Africa, and this is where I saw, first and foremost, where women have been especially victims of tech-facilitated gender-based violence as well as gender disinformation, online hate and harassment online, so much so that they could not actually go back to where they were from. They were completely shunned, and also when we talk about shadow banning, that’s also shadow banning. But in that, I also saw glimmers of hope, and glimmers of hope were, for example, when I was in Jordan, I met a number of technologists who are developing digital apps and products that ensure that women are safe online. One of them is called Amanha, and it’s actually really just truly designed to promote digital security and digital safety for women. So it’s just, again, giving you one example. And the last but not least, I think this goes without saying, but I just think this is so important. We need to make sure that youth are at the table. Youth are the next generation, and as we’re here sitting, talking in person. person and in virtually around these issues. We need to make sure that youth, the investment in youth on these issues is paramount and it’s really critical. It is critical in all, again, facets of society, whether we’re talking about to ensure that they are, we inspire them to take positions in the public life and civil society, in the private sector, other forms of private sector as well as technology sectors and of course we’re making investments as well. But again, the last thing I’ll say, and I know we’re short on time and Kayla, I don’t know if you wanna add anything to this, is this, no government can do this alone. Even though I’m here representing the government perspective here in the U.S. government, no government can do this alone, no civil society actor can do this alone or private sector entity. That is why it is so critical and I firmly believe in the multi-stakeholder, not just convenings, but ensuring that we have multi-stakeholder solutions to this problem. That I actually think is the beauty of the global partnership, why I think it’s really great. But also, again, it’s part of the solutions building, which is so important that we take these big ideas, everything that’s happening at the global level, all of these amazing convenings that we’re having this week and so many other for us and translate them to action at the local level because multi-stakeholderism needs to be built at the country level and as well at the sub-national level. And then when you marry the two, from global to local, then I think we’re gonna, we can, not gonna start, but can continue to start making and seeing meaningful progress. I’ll stop there.

Umut Pajaro Velasquez:
Well, as we are running out of time, this is where we don’t want to have time to actually hear from the people on the floor about the topic. So I will really thank you to all of you for reminding us first like the importance of having grassroots movement working in different aspects of digital rights, how economic rights are related with other human rights and how this is important to get data on gender data to improve the quality of life, not only women but also gender diverse people, how multistakeholderism is essential in all the processes that we want to address and all the changes that we want to, also how the own agency or individuals that are women, gender diverse people or are part of the homogenised or underrepresented population is important in this factor, and finally how policies are necessary also in all these processes and how representation should be meaningful and we have always called to actions in order to get the changes that we need, and having always as I said before the multistakeholder approach. Thank you very much for your interventions and for your time and yes if you want to reach any of the panelists you can find the information on most of them in the session page, and also you can reach me as Umu Pajaro, I will share some information about them if you authorise me, and also you can follow the gender standing group and I will… share with you anything that you wanted to know. Thank you very much. And that’s all for now.