Uncategorized

Audience

The lack of digital skills and AI competencies in the public sector has significant implications for the adoption of AI. This is because the absence of necessary technical competencies can result in inhibitory legal measures. Without the required digital skills and AI competencies, it becomes difficult for the public sector to fully embrace and implement AI technologies, leading to prohibitory laws that hinder its adoption.

Similarly, the lack of technical skills within government teams poses challenges to the sustainability of AI projects and their transfer from the private to the public sector. The co-development and handover phases of project life cycles become difficult due to a lack of understanding and technical abilities. The absence of these skills hinders the successful implementation and continuation of AI initiatives in the public sector.

Public-private partnerships are seen as key for successful digital transformation, but achieving these partnerships has proven to be challenging. Donors insist on public-private partnerships to drive digital transformation, but the realization of these partnerships has been difficult. Despite the positive sentiment towards public-private partnerships, their implementation poses obstacles that need to be overcome.

Civil servants should be better equipped with digital skills to drive transformation in the public sector. Different skill levels are needed for different civil servant levels, as higher-level civil servants may require a different set of skills than the average government worker. Embedding digitally competent officers can help bring about digital transformation, which is viewed positively.

Before any government department embarks on digital transformation, a deep dive study on the impacts is necessary. Such a study, involving all stakeholders, can result in a nuanced understanding of the transformation process. It is important to ensure that the intentions are aligned with the execution to avoid falling short. The positive sentiment towards deep dive studies highlights the need for a thorough understanding of the impacts of digital transformation.

Synergy and buy-in from multiple levels of government are essential for successful digital transformation. In countries like India, where both the central and state governments implement digital transformations, synergy becomes crucial. Additionally, many civil servants may have pushback towards new technologies and processes. To drive successful digital transformation, it is important to demystify these technologies and processes for them. This is viewed positively as it emphasizes the importance of collaboration and cooperation in digital transformation.

A rights-based approach and end-to-end native language digital transformation are important considerations in the implementation of digital transformation. Often, rights are overlooked during the transformation process, and it is necessary to ensure that a rights-based approach is adopted to protect individuals. Furthermore, digital transformation should be end-to-end in native languages, including voice-based technology, to ensure inclusivity and reduce inequalities.

There is a significant lack of awareness and involvement in digital public infrastructure (DPI) issues in African countries. A survey conducted across 24 African countries involving the CSO community and members of parliament revealed a low level of involvement and understanding of DPI issues. This neutral sentiment highlights the need for increased awareness and engagement in DPI matters in African countries.

Addressing simultaneous issues in the public sector, such as data protection, blockchain, and digital ID, requires a multidimensional approach. It is necessary to curate solutions with a broad understanding of these issues. This sentiment suggests that a holistic approach is needed to tackle the multifaceted challenges in the public sector.

Tailor-made strategies for different audience types within the public sector are important. This includes tech experts, literate consumers, and decision-makers, who may require different types of capacity building. In addition, a gender-sensitive approach is necessary to ensure that digital capacity building is inclusive and addresses the specific needs of women. This positive sentiment emphasizes the importance of tailored strategies and gender equality in the public sector.

Cultural change, continuous assessment, and the development of collaboration skills are necessary alongside digital skills. Government resistance to change due to age-old systems can hinder digital transformation. Institutions like UNESCO can provide frameworks for reliable data and support in fostering digital skills, which is viewed positively.

It is important to address the fear and misunderstanding around AI in the civil service sector. The fear of AI in civil service can stem from misunderstandings, and there is a need for more clarity regarding the role and capacity of AI. This negative sentiment highlights the importance of addressing concerns and providing clear explanations about AI in the civil service sector.

Gaps exist in knowledge about the relationship between technologies and their human rights impact. It is important to consider human rights impacts in digital capacity building. This is viewed positively as it underscores the need for responsible and ethical approaches to technology implementation.

Digitalization should be seen as a tool to solve specific problems rather than just an end goal. The application of technology without understanding the problem it aims to solve can be disruptive and limit problem-solving capacity. This negative sentiment highlights the need for a problem-driven approach to digital transformation.

Technologies impact people and communities at risk differently, and such communities should be involved from the start. These communities have often been least effectively served by government agencies. This negative sentiment emphasizes the importance of inclusivity and involvement of marginalized communities in digital transformation.

Digitalization can also be useful for improving internal processes within organizations. The use of artificial intelligence, for example, can improve tasks such as searching legal text. This positive sentiment highlights the potential benefits of digitalization for organizational efficiency and effectiveness.

Receptiveness to feedback from civil society is vital for the successful implementation of digital transformation in the public sector. Involving public opinion and enhancing public engagement are essential for driving digitalization. Education reform and stronger cyberinfrastructure investments are also necessary. This positive sentiment underscores the importance of stakeholder engagement and collaboration in digital transformation.

Capacity building in the judiciary is required to handle issues related to administration and policymaking in digital transformation. This neutral sentiment highlights the need for specialized skills and knowledge within the judiciary to address legal aspects of digital transformation.

Complexity and uncertainty in digitalization can lead to fear and resistance. The fast-paced learning and constantly evolving nature of technology introduce challenges and uncertainties, which can discourage individuals from embracing digitalization. This negative sentiment points out the need for support and guidance in navigating the complexities of digital transformation.

Building capacities towards digitalization should be a collective effort rather than an individual one. The challenge posed by the literacy problem in societies highlights the need for community-wide initiatives to enhance digital skills. This neutral sentiment highlights the importance of collaboration and collective action in driving digital transformation.

AI can provide new approaches to learning and demystify digitalization. AI-based tools, such as simulation and studying behaviors in collective learning, have the potential to revolutionize education and facilitate understanding of digitalization. This positive sentiment recognizes the transformative potential of AI in the learning process.

Regulation needs to catch up with the fast-paced development of technology. The pace of technological advancement often surpasses the ability of regulations to keep up. Changes in regulations from GDPR to AI acts highlight the need for regulatory updates to effectively govern new technologies. This negative sentiment calls for increased regulatory agility.

Lifelong learning and adaptation are necessary in the digital age. The constant evolution of technology, such as the development of ChatGPT, and changing regulations require individuals to continuously update their skills and knowledge. This positive sentiment emphasizes the importance of continuous learning in the digital era.

In conclusion, the lack of digital skills and AI competencies in the public sector poses challenges to the adoption and successful implementation of AI technologies. Public-private partnerships, tailored strategies, and a human-centric approach are important for driving digital transformation. Deep dive studies, synergies, and a rights-based approach are necessary for effective digitalization. Addressing fears and misunderstandings, considering human rights impacts, and involving marginalized communities are crucial elements of digital capacity building. Receptiveness to feedback, capacity building in the judiciary, and regulating technology at an appropriate pace are vital for digital transformation. Overall, the multifaceted nature of digital transformation requires a comprehensive and collaborative approach to ensure its success in the public sector.

Nobu Nishigata

During the discussion, the speakers explored various challenges and opportunities related to technology in government services. One major issue that was highlighted was the difficulties in connectivity specifically with Zoom, compared to other platforms such as Webex and Teams. It was mentioned that there is a preference for Zoom over Webex and Teams for webinars specifically, however, there are still challenges in achieving seamless connectivity.

Another important aspect discussed was the need for better tech understanding among government workers. It was noted that there are differences in tech capabilities and requirements across various government sectors. In particular, there is a lack of understanding among “normal” people in the government who work on document creation. An expectation was expressed for AI technology to aid in their work, providing a solution to these challenges.

The risks associated with AI technology were also a concern. It was highlighted that allowing every government person to use Chat GPT, an AI technology, within the government network comes with certain risks. The speakers emphasized the need for more understanding and awareness of AI technology to mitigate these risks effectively.

The advantages and challenges related to cloud services were also discussed. The government has a preference for on-premises services due to security concerns. However, it was acknowledged that cloud services offer advantages in terms of cost and efficiency. The discussion touched upon the need for a better understanding of the benefits of cloud services and finding a balance between security and efficiency.

One significant conclusion drawn from the discussion was the expectation for UNESCO and its partners to aid in improving government services through a better understanding of new technology. The goal is to leverage this understanding to enhance the delivery of government services. This expectation reflects a positive sentiment towards the potential impact of collaboration between UNESCO and government agencies.

In summary, the discussion highlighted the challenges of connectivity with Zoom, the need for better tech understanding among government workers, the risks associated with AI technology, the advantages and challenges of cloud services, and the expectation for UNESCO and its partners to aid in enhancing government services through improved technology understanding. These insights provide valuable observations for addressing the technological needs of government services.

video

Artificial intelligence (AI) and digital transformation are predicted to contribute over $13 trillion to the global economy by 2030. These technologies are shaping societies and economies in a positive way. The adoption of AI and digital transformation has the potential to stimulate economic growth and improve productivity across various industries.

Policymaking plays a crucial role in ensuring sustainable development amid the impact of AI and digital transformation. It is important for policymakers to consider the needs of different social groups and the environmental implications of these technologies. By implementing appropriate policies, governments can leverage AI and digital transformation to achieve sustainable development goals.

However, there is a significant issue of readiness among civil servants for the digital revolution. Many countries lack strategies to improve digital skills, and siloed decision-making prevents the effective implementation of digital transformation schemes. This lack of preparedness hinders the full potential of AI and digital technologies in the public sector.

To overcome these challenges, it is important to ensure that the adoption of digital technology and systems is inclusive and tailored to the unique context of each organization. Competency gaps in digital adoption, data analysis, IT, and AI skills need to be addressed, with particular attention given to the inclusion of women. Low levels of investment in digital adaptation create disparities and hinder progress towards reducing inequalities.

Upgrading government organizations for the digital age is crucial. Cultural and organizational barriers, along with data and infrastructure issues, pose challenges to digital transformation in the public sector. However, by addressing these barriers and investing in the necessary resources, governments can enhance their ability to deliver services efficiently and effectively.

The introduction of the Artificial Intelligence and Digital Transformation Competency Framework is a positive step towards equipping public sector officials with the necessary skills and knowledge. This framework, based on extensive research, outlines the essential digital competencies required in the digital age.

In addition to the competency framework, the Digital Planning and Design, Data Use and Governance, and Digital Management and Execution domains are established to improve understanding and address complex problems associated with digital transformation.

To achieve successful digital transformation, a particular mindset is necessary. Trust, creativity, flexibility, curiosity, and experimentation are essential for embracing and adapting to the changes brought about by AI and digital transformation.

In conclusion, AI and digital transformation have the potential to significantly impact economies and societies. Policymaking, inclusivity, and the competency development of civil servants play important roles in ensuring sustainable development. Although challenges exist, upgrading government organizations and embracing the right mindset will enable successful digital transformation, with the potential to drive economic growth and improve overall societal well-being.

Gianluca Misuraca

There is a growing recognition for the need for a global digital governance framework. This call has been made by influential figures such as Kofi Annan in 2002, who highlighted the urgent need for Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) to bridge the digital divide. This need for a framework continues to be pushed by current UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who advocates for a human-centric digital transformation strategy.

The importance of AI governance in the public sector is a central focus. The use and management of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in this sector are deemed crucial and require the incorporation of human-centric principles. The AI4Gov program has been launched to equip civil servants with the necessary skills to handle AI implementation and governance. This program aims to enhance the understanding of AI technology, its ethical use, procurement systems, and the need for interdisciplinary skills. The program also emphasizes the importance of teamwork in dealing with complex issues.

Addressing the multidimensional and complex issues linked to digital transformation is of utmost importance. It has been reported that only 20% of UK civil servants are currently equipped with the skills needed to manage the digital future. This indicates an urgency to upskill civil servants to handle the challenges and opportunities brought by digital transformation. The development of a comprehensive national framework is crucial in ensuring that countries are digitally ready and capable of effectively managing the digital landscape.

UNESCO has been actively working towards operationalising the guidelines and principles they have provided. Efforts include the development of a self-assessment methodology for policymakers and civil servants to improve their capacity. Additionally, principles have been designed for an open educational resources repository, and a proposal for a short-term curriculum for the training of policymakers has been put forward.

The creation of a digital competence framework, addressing areas such as digital planning and design, data generation and user governance, and management and implementation, is underway. This framework aims to provide a toolkit for inclusive digital planning and design. Furthermore, the idea of establishing a knowledge-sharing community in the realm of digital governance and AI competence is being explored.

Overall, the need for a global digital governance framework remains evident. The use and governance of AI in the public sector are central in this regard. Efforts to equip civil servants with the necessary skills, operationalise guidelines, and develop inclusive digital planning and design tools are crucial steps towards effective digital governance. There is a clear emphasis on the importance of interdisciplinary skills, teamwork, and a human-centric approach in addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by digital transformation.

Prateek Sibal

A joint convening by UNESCO and GIZ’s Fair Forward team highlighted the importance of capacity building for civil servants in the context of digital transformation. The meeting aimed to encourage communication and learning between ongoing capacity building initiatives. Collaboration and knowledge sharing were identified as crucial for effectively preparing civil servants for the digital age.

The formation of a coalition model for sharing good practices and developing new content was supported. This coalition has the potential to create new knowledge products that can benefit organizations globally, contributing to digital transformation efforts. The need for practical implementation of competency frameworks, such as the one focused on AI and digital transformation, was emphasized.

The impact of AI and digital transformation on societies and economies was acknowledged, with a projected contribution of over $13 trillion to the global economy by 2030. However, a recent survey revealed that most civil servants are not adequately equipped for digital transformation. This is attributed to the lack of strategies to improve digital skills and barriers caused by siloed decision-making processes.

UNESCO proposed solutions to overcome capacity barriers related to culture, organization, data, infrastructure, and human resources. A comprehensive approach that addresses multiple dimensions of digital capacity building is needed. Public sector officials were also identified as requiring a solid understanding of digital technologies for effective transformation.

Trust, creativity, flexibility, curiosity, and experimentation were highlighted as crucial qualities for successful digital transformation. These qualities enable individuals and organizations to embrace new technologies and navigate the ever-evolving digital landscape.

Prateek Sibal advocated for capacity building in government organizations, emphasizing the use of digital solutions, new technologies, tools, and strategies to solve complex problems. This highlights the role of digital capacity building in enabling governments to address the challenges of the digital age.

The complexity of digital capacity building was recognized, emphasizing the need for continuous learning and literacy about evolving technology. Digitalization necessitates rapid learning and adaptation to technological advances. Lifelong learning was identified as crucial due to the pace at which technology and related regulation evolve.

A dynamic coalition on digital capacity building involving civil society, academia, governments, and the private sector was proposed. This coalition would serve as a community of practice for knowledge sharing and collaboration. It would also focus on developing assessment methodologies for civil servants, enhancing their preparedness for digital transformation.

The gap between technology and regulation was highlighted as a concern. With technology advancing at a faster pace than the creation of related regulation, individuals may feel uncertain and fearful about rapidly developing digital technologies. Proactive regulation that keeps up with technological advancements is crucial.

In conclusion, the joint convening by UNESCO and GIZ’s Fair Forward team emphasized the critical role of capacity building for civil servants in the context of digital transformation. Collaboration, knowledge sharing, and practical implementation of competency frameworks were highlighted. Additionally, the impact of AI and digital transformation, challenges faced by civil servants, and proposed solutions were discussed. A comprehensive, multidimensional, and global strategy for digital capacity building is essential.

Prateek Sibal:
So, good morning, everyone. I think we’ll start now. I’m receiving WhatsApp messages of people who are late, but let’s be on time. So welcome to this open forum on capacity building for civil servants on digital transformation, which is co-organized by UNESCO and GIZ’s Fair Forward team. Some of our GIZ colleagues are also online. And welcome to all of you who’ve made it this early in the morning. The idea is really to have an open conversation, to learn from you. We’ve shared with you some of the guiding questions on what this open forum seeks to achieve. The first idea is to really convene a diverse group of experts from different parts of the world who are working on capacity building initiatives so that we can explore whether a coalition would be a sustainable model to go forward in terms of sharing good practices of capacity building initiatives. I’ve been here since the past two, three days, and we’ve heard about so many wonderful initiatives, but they don’t seem to be talking to each other. For instance, I was talking to Mark from Kenya in GIZ, and they’re doing some great work. And then I was talking to Risper, who’s also here from Nairobi, and they’re doing some great work. But we need to kind of learn from this work and then also share these practices with different parts of the world. So this is just one of the reasons. The second is, of course, we want to also develop new content and create new knowledge products which can then be used by partners and organizations around the world. So just as an example, we launched the competency framework on AI and digital transformation with the UN Broadband Commission, which is itself a multi-stakeholder group composed of the private sector, civil society, governments, academia, and UN entities, of course. And we developed this framework through a year-long process of regional consultations and then through a working group. And now we have the framework, which has identified a wide range of competencies, and some of you have the copies in front. Now the point is about how to operationalize this. And UNESCO alone cannot do it, or GIZ alone cannot do it. We need to work with partners and build these coalitions, and then eventually support governments with your expertise. So this is the kind of the broad theme of the conversation today. I’ll invite our technical team to play two short videos to kind of set the stage, and then my role will be really to facilitate conversation. We’ll be taking notes, and then I’ll walk you through some of the final objectives for this session. May I request the host to play the video, please?

video:
Artificial intelligence and digital transformation competencies for civil servants. We stand on the cusp of a digital revolution brought by artificial intelligence and other digital technologies. These technologies are shaping societies and economies, and are predicted to add over $13 trillion to the global economy by 2030. Given how significantly AI and digital transformation is affecting different social groups in our environment, policymaking plays a crucial role in ensuring sustainable development. The question is, are civil servants ready? Unfortunately, the answer is no. A recent survey of 198 countries found 47% had no strategy to improve digital skills, and 51% of government chief information officers said they were blocked from implementing digital transformation schemes by siloed strategies and decision-making. This needs to change, and UNESCO has been working on how. Beyond funding constraints, there are three key challenges to address. Cultural and organizational barriers. Many governments see opportunities in changing their traditional way of working by encouraging experimentation and innovation to deliver better services to people. Data and infrastructure barriers. This includes limited access to datasets, inefficient data organization, management and governance, and a lack of IT infrastructure investment. These issues need to be addressed. Human resource capacity. Related competency gaps grow when there are low levels of investment in digital adaptation, data analysis, IT, and AI skills, particularly for women. The adoption of digital technology and digital systems needs to be inclusive and fit each organization’s unique context. Fortunately, while these issues might be challenging, they aren’t impossible to address. Watch the next episode to learn more about it.

Prateek Sibal:
So that’s a short overview of the challenges that we’ve mapped over the past years. And I would, before we go to some of the solutions that we are proposing, actually like to open the floor and invite our host country here, Mr. Nobuo Nishikata, to also say some opening remarks and welcoming words. Over to you, sir.

Nobu Nishigata:
Good morning, everybody, and welcome to Kyoto on behalf of the Japanese government and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication, who hosts this IGF. We are very much proud of it, and a warm welcome to everybody. And just as I saw the video, there’s great work. Most of them I agree, even in the Japanese government, and we always appreciate the work of UNESCO, the wide range of the work stream on the capacity building. And let me give some words on the capacity building that the Japanese government is facing. Just some of the programs that you already showed, and for example, like we are having a hard time connecting with Zoom. It’s more like a network thing. We can use the Webex and Teams, but some different network structure provided by Zoom. So we are still working on it, and of course, the company with Zoom is also working to get us more connectivity to the Japanese government so that we can use them, particularly for the webinars. I mean, for the video conference, then the Webex and Teams are okay, but once we want to have the webinars, then Zoom is some advantage right now. So we are working on that thing. Or maybe like some challenges, the government is more like a procurement, I would say. It’s a big issue, like for the government perspective, I mean, there are a bunch of the different kind of the people working in the areas. So for example, the people who are working on the research and development side, we don’t much worry about their capacity or capability of doing their job, because they know what the technology is, and they know how to cope with it. But on the other hand, the normal people who usually, you know, they’re making the documents, like for me, like make some documents to the minister, documents to the other ministries, and some speech for the minister, et cetera, these people, we are not very good at a computer. I mean, of course, we can use the computers, but we know more. We want to know more about what the technology is built on, and those kind of things. Once, particularly when it comes to the AI, like a chat GPT is a great solution, and we have very big expectation on the technology within our work, but still there are some risks in it, and it is not easy to allow every government people to use the chat GPT within our network within the government. I mean, if you can use a stand-alone PC or your smartphone, then it could be okay, but there are some risks, and we have to identify the right risks. We don’t have to worry too much, but still we have to, I mean, then the UNESCO can come in to help us understand better what the technology is, or like, for example, maybe before that the AI came in, there were some challenges in the cloud services. You know, like the government is more like prefer to have the data within the building in the government, on-premise type of services, but of course there are some advantages in the cloud services in terms of the cost and some efficiency and et cetera, but still we have to know more about the security or like SLA type of things to know better about the cloud service, so that we can get the best advantage of the cloud service in our service. So there are many, many things that we are expecting that the UNESCO and your partners in working harder to help us to do the better service in Japan. So I mean, it goes to everybody, I think, I hope, so I think we are just up here.

Prateek Sibal:
Thank you. Thank you for sharing those examples, and actually these are some of the challenges across governments around the world. It’s not only in Japan, it’s in different countries, and I’m hoping that we’ll hear more about that also today. We’ll play the second video, and then I’d like to move also to the online. I know that a lot of people have connected on Zoom as well, so may I invite the technical team to play the second video, and then we’ll go online.

video:
To strengthen government organizations for the digital age, we need to meet the challenges of digital transformation. This doesn’t mean public sector officials have to become specialists, but they do need a solid understanding of how technologies work and of their impacts. This is where the Artificial Intelligence and Digital Transformation Competency Framework comes in. Built on exhaustive global and regional research, it articulates essential digital competencies that public sector officials need. There are three competency domains that are interlinked and complementary. Digital planning and design. This enables better understanding of the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous problems policymakers face. It will allow policymakers to identify opportunities, to use digital solutions and strategies, and to handle possible unwanted consequences. Data use and governance. This competency provides a deeper understanding of the data lifecycle. It will support policymakers in addressing governance issues and public expectations while using data effectively and ethically. Digital management and execution. This empowers policymakers to apply new management and collaboration tools in government. It will enable them to harness data, new technologies, tools, and approaches to solve complex problems and foster civic participation. In addition, digital transformation also requires a mindset that enables trust, creativity, flexibility, curiosity, and experimentation. Digital transformation is everywhere, and the knowledge and skills divide across governments is expanding. Let us leave no one behind. Those who are prepared are the ones who will benefit the most and create the most benefit.

Prateek Sibal:
I’d encourage you to check out the report at a later point. I’d now open the floor and really start with the conversation today. I’d like to invite Dr. Jhanluka Misuraka, who’s joining us online at 1.30 a.m. in Seville. Jhanluka, if you can take the floor and share some of your thoughts around what kind of work you’re doing, what kind of capacity building are you doing with your AI4Gov program, but also what are the skills and knowledge we need in today’s age in the public sector? So, over to you, Jhanluka.

Gianluca Misuraca:
Thank you, Pratek, and good morning. I hope you can hear me well. Yes, loud and clear. Yes, it’s true. It’s almost 2 o’clock in the morning. I’m actually calling from Rome today, but yes, I’m normally based in Seville when I’m not traveling, so it’s a pity I could not make it to IGF. That was the plan when we discussed with Pratek, so sorry for that, and I hope you’re enjoying the forum and I’m following it from remote. So, I will just share. I prepared a few slides, if you allow me to share and try to be brief, but yes, that’s something that I want to share with you is exactly the topic of the day, whether we are able as civil servants and policymakers actually to master the digital governance and especially AI, that is now artificial intelligence is what everybody is talking about. I know there are a lot of sessions at the IGF on this topic, also closed-door meetings like this morning that was discussing about the global governance issue of AI. So, if we are actually ready for disruption, that’s something more than what already the video showed and what Pratek was saying. I’ll try to go brief on a few issues. So, basically, why we are still lacking after more than 20 years of the global digital governance framework that we are in much need for this topic, and maybe we should also be a bit back to fundamentals. Everybody is talking about charge EPT and generative AI. That’s very exciting, but maybe we still have to fix some of the basics in our public administrations, and that’s why we propose, and I’ll show a bit of what we’re doing with the AI4Gov master. We need what we call functional specialists for supporting, let’s say, the governance of AI, and that’s what we are also trying to do with the colleagues of UNESCO that we partner with to build a compass for digital governance and AI capacity. So, briefly, I was working for the UN General Secretariat back in 2002. At the time, Kofi Annan was the Secretary General, and he was pushing very hard on the fight against the digital divide and showing the sense of urgency that we had already at the time very, very clear, and as ICTs, as we were calling at the time, were actually already about to change the world, and they did so, but 20 years later, the Secretary General Antonio Guterres is still calling for the need to really make sure that we can manage this digital transformation, and we basically need to do this in a human-centric way, and that’s why probably, I mean, for next year, there’s the need to propose something, let’s say, concrete to make sure that we can have still the open, free, inclusive, and secure digital governance that we deserve, and that’s a very important role for governments in addition to all other stakeholders. So, this shows also the need and the urgency for equipping the civil servants and policy makers with the skills and the capacity, as it was mentioned before, needed to also address these big challenges. Now, going back to the fundamentals, as I said, we need to really rethink a bit the way we address public sector innovation, I mean, in a data-driven society, so data is fundamental, that’s one of the key competencies that was mentioned before in the video, and clearly, we need to address the multidimensional complex issues that are linked to the digital transformation. It’s not just digitalizing or putting some computers in the room, it’s really completely reframing and changing the way we address the digital transformation strategy. I mean, I won’t go into details, but I just want to mention that when I was still working for the European Commission JRC, the Joint Research Centre, we did a comprehensive review of literature and practice on this, with a specific focus on the European Union, and we saw that despite the quite big rhetoric on this topic and the claim many governments have done over the years, there’s still a lot to be done, and at the policy level, it’s important to be really clear on what is the objective of these transformational strategies we want to, let’s say, you want to unleash. And so, the question is, if we are ready for it, I think this was also one of the questions in the video, and actually, the answer is yes, because data shows actually the very not rosy picture, and the latest data from ITU shows in their dashboard, and actually, for instance, despite there is an effort to prepare to have digital-ready countries in the world, only a few actually have a mature national framework, and even, let’s say, advanced countries like the UK, that notably quite always been a pioneer in this topic, they showed in recent data from the National Audit Office that only 20% of their civil servants actually are equipped with the skills needed to manage the digital future, as they say. So, this shows that we need a lot of this capacity building, and this is not just the technical skills that are needed, and actually, what we did with the I4Gov program, that is a program implemented by the Universidad Politecnica de Madrid and Politecnico di Milano, also in collaboration with other partner universities in Estonia and Germany, is to design a master that actually addresses what we call specialist role, based also not only on teaching and training theoretical issues or technical work, but actually based on real project and concrete cases. And at the same time, we’re trying to build, and that’s why the… collaboration with UNESCO, an ecosystem that of course started from the European Union, but actually has a global outreach and a mission to create a network worldwide. So the master in particular that I have the pleasure to direct is actually training, at the moment we are in the third edition, we have trained 120 executives from all over the world, more than 40 countries are represented, and here the idea is really to focus on the governance aspect of AI that are fundamental, the human-centric principles for service design and the AI systems, and that’s very important because while we of course have experts from the AI and data science, we also have specific complementary skills from the design department of Politecnico di Milano, so the question here is not what kind of AI to use or what techniques or what methodology or technology, but is rather if we really need to use AI for instance on a specific service, and now we can redesign the entire process to make sure that we use the best technology, the more appropriate technology. So we of course focus on the use of AI in the public sector, but also there is the importance of public procurement that was actually mentioned in the intervention from the host representative. So to get to the conclusion…

Prateek Sibal:
Gianluca, we can’t hear you for some reason. Can you try again? No, sadly we don’t hear your conclusion. Okay, now you’re back. Okay, I don’t know what happened, so maybe we were, I don’t know, we were banned from the conclusion. I don’t know. Okay, so just, can you hear me? No? Yes, yes, please. Okay, so I hope I’m not taking too long.

Gianluca Misuraca:
So basically, yeah, just getting to the conclusion. So yeah, the work that we are, I mean, we are doing with Pratink and colleagues at UNESCO is actually, I would say, quite ambitious and it was very interesting because we’ve been trying to develop a comprehensive approach to operationalise exactly the framework that has been developed by UNESCO, that of course provides the principles, the guidelines and the specific, let’s say, orientation. But now we need to design and develop, and that’s what we’ve been doing with colleagues, a self-assessment methodology for making sure that policy makers, civil servants, both at individual level but also organisational level, can actually be empowered, if you want, because by first assessing the needs and then developing specific tools that can help them, let’s say, improve their capacity. At the same time, we are supporting UNESCO on designing and defining what are, let’s say, the principles for an open educational resources repository that could support also the digital capacities navigator that UNESCO and partners are actually developing. And at the same time, we have proposed an outline of a short-term curriculum, I mean, curriculum for a short-term training for policy makers that, based on this compass, could actually be immediately operationalised. And in fact, I mean, I don’t know if Pratink we can say that there will be a first pilot training soon in Africa, and others, I guess, will follow. So just to, I mean, without going into details, what we have been doing, of course, we started from the work UNESCO and the Broadband Commission with IQ data of this competence framework. We’ve been, I mean, re-conceptualising certain issues, but we also engaged some of the participants in the AI4GO Master and other experts in validating some of the proposals we made for having, you know, a self-assessment methodology. And then we, of course, proposed this based on questionnaires and some tools that could be then piloted and further developed into this digital governance and artificial intelligence compass or competence compass. So just to mention, and also we are trying to align with the canvas, we call it the functional specialist canvas of AI4GO that we are also developing, because here the difficulty is to create some, probably some new professional roles or some new figures that we need, some new profiles that we need in the public administration in particular, is not the super data scientist, the super expert in AI, but is rather someone that understands how this technology can be used, how to procure, let’s say, systems that are ethical and appropriate and context-based. And of course, we have three areas here. One is the management, the technology also, and the policy and legal and ethical aspect. These are all in, let’s say, embedded into what we call digital governance, basically. And we’ve been doing this with a number of colleagues and through some expert peer review and validation. Also to underline the importance not just to be the best technical expert, but actually this is a multidisciplinary field. So we need to really combine hard and soft skills. And some of these soft skills are what is sometimes making the difference. And it’s not enough, I mean, it’s not so important or not important for all, especially at the highest level of the hierarchy to be technically a super expert, but rather it’s important to have this interplay between soft and hard skills that is fundamental. And of course, what we have to also understand, this is a teamwork, it’s not just the individuals that need to be empowered, but it’s rather the team, the organization, the department that deal with these complex issues. And so to conclude, this is the first sketch of the work we’ve been doing over the summer, basically to exactly try to personalize the three main areas that was mentioned in the video that are included in the digital competence framework of UNESCO. So the digital planning and design, the data generation, the user governance, and also the management implementation part. So here we have a self-assessment toolkit that is being developed with this initial training that will be tested and piloted with the idea, and this is more forward looking to have also as part of these digital governance and the high competence compass, a kind of knowledge sharing community that could also be instrumental to the work that UNESCO and partners are actually doing in these digital capacities navigators. So I will stop here and thank you for the attention. And of course, if there’s any question or comment, happy to take on board. Thanks.

Prateek Sibal:
Thanks so much, Gianluca. And thanks for joining us in the middle of your night as well. Feel free to stay, but I understand that you’ll have to leave and sleep at some point as well. So we’ll open the floor now. Actually, the first prompt is really around what kind of digital skills and competencies that you have seen are needed in governments from your perspective in different parts of the world. What are these areas and how can we as a global collaborative coalition work towards this? I’m also glad that we have some members of parliament here. So it’s a really multi-stakeholder grouping today. So I’ll open the floor. We don’t go by any particular order. So anyone who wants to take the floor, just raise your hand and we’ll pass on the mic.

Audience:
Yeah, thank you. I’m Odas, CEO of Digital Muganda. So I’m coming more from a private sector perspective. I think a lot of the discussions around AI this week has gone around balancing regulation and also innovation. I think I’ll touch more on the innovation, but in terms of regulation, I think the discussion we’ve had even earlier this week with the parliamentarians is around the fact that the lack of competencies around the digital skills and the AI skills leads to prohibitive measures or prohibitive laws instead of permissive and assistive laws. So I think in terms of regulation, that lack of those competencies could hinder the adoption of AI in the public sector. But speaking on the innovation side, I think that on all levels, if there are no skills in terms of understanding, identifying the benefits of what artificial intelligence could bring, but also balancing and identifying also the risks that it could also pose hinders the adoption, obviously, starting from the first cycle, which is the managerial buy-in. So if you go to a government institution and it’s working with a private sector company, I think the first phase is the buy-in from the management. And the misunderstanding of this technology first and foremost hinders either by overlooking the benefits or by not putting in safety nets that really could make sure that these technologies are safe to use. And also moving past that, I think one thing that we’ve seen is that from the private sector and moving now from the buy-in to the co-development of these projects and handover, one of the things that we see is that once we start co-developing with the public sector and then we reach a phase where we have to hand over these projects is that the lack of these technical skills of the teams hinders this project sustainability, making it hard for the developers who are mostly in the private sector to hand over to a public institution to take over the projects and internalize and fully operationalize them. So I think across all the spectrum of development, the life cycle coming from the buy-in and the co-development and the handover, it’s really important for these skills and also knowledge advancements, which is one of the competencies that is in this framework, to be able to fully digitize or have a true digital transformation. Thanks for that. Anyone else would like to take the floor? Yes. Okay, that’s wonderful. So we go with Miriam first. Please feel free to introduce yourself and then we’ll come from here and then to you. Okay, so my name is Mimi Stankovic. Nice meeting you all. I am a principal digital policy specialist with the AI. Piggybacking on the previous comments, I would like to also stress the need. I work with different governments and we work on capacity building. We work in Southeast Asia, we work in Africa, and I have worked with different civil servants, different managerial levels, etc. What I scheme through is the AI and digital transformation competency framework, and I agree with the previous discussions that we need to have competencies along the lifecycle of digital technologies. So this is really important, and especially in the context of AI, I think these should be even more granular. So you talk about digital planning and design, data use and governance, and digital management and execution. I would add another phase, and this is monitoring, evaluation, and learning, so the mill phase. And then with respect to government, working with the private sector, I have seen in Eastern Europe, in Southeast Asia, in Africa, everywhere I go, donors, they insist on public-private partnerships, but this is really important. This is very challenging, very difficult to achieve, and what we need is digital champions within government. We need a more contextual, more granular, more targeted approach to these competencies. We need one approach when addressing digital transformation and AI issues for higher echelons of civil servants or the managerial echelon, and then normal people working for the government. So there is another type of skills and competencies that we need for this type of civil servants. So what else? And a model that used to function in practice with respect to digital champions in government is the model of digital transformation officers in Ukraine. So you could take a look at it and see how these officers have worked. Those are basically appointees from the Ministry of Digital Transformation of Ukraine that are embedded in different teams throughout different ministries and agencies in Ukraine, and this is really important to have champions within different agencies and ministries that are going to champion the cause of digital transformation, and how digital transformation can be, how digital services can be improved, and what does this mean? And I want to put the focus on simplifying things, because what I have seen is that we come up with all these wonderful terms, so algorithmic transparency, algorithmic accountability, ethics, but when you work with civil servants, governments, different government entities, public officials, they say, oh, these terms are wonderful, okay, so ethics, accountability, and transparency, but what do they mean in practice, okay? So we talk about human-centric approaches, but then try working and, you know, institutionalizing capacity-building programs in different countries around the globe, and, you know, equipping civil servants with different digital skills, it’s not easy at all. Okay, just putting it out there. so

Prateek Sibal:
Thanks, Mimi, that al complements a lot, I think we have a strong private sector, without us setting the stage, on the need for the public sector to be able to, for digital transformation along the life cycle. Okay, so, okay, we go, I would first like to pass the floor to some women speakers, because we have been a lot of men speaking first, so perhaps I go to Amrita, and then to Risper. Thank you, Pratik,

Audience:
and thank you, and apologies for being late. I think, my name is Amrita Chaudhary, I represent a civil society organization, CCUI, from India, and looking at it from the civil society lens, and I agree with what, Odison, you just mentioned, a few more things, obviously capacity-building is important, but before any government, or any department of a government goes in for a digital transformation, I think they need to actually do a deep dive study on the impacts, that’s very important, and having a multi-stakeholder discussion at that point of time, not only the private, public, but even the individual, the end-users into consideration, would have a more nuanced understanding of what the ultimate product would be, because many times, intentions are great, but the execution at the end is not seamless, so I think that is very important, buy-in between, like, if I’m looking at countries such as India, you have state, you know, you have the center, which implements something, but states also implement something, so there has to be synergy between the state, there has to be a buy-in from the civil, civil servants in the state to that, it should not be, and for that, the capacity-building is important, that this is going to help you, it’s not going to take away, you know, it’s not going to harm you, many times, civil servants, you know, different age categories, think new technologies, new processes, you know, they have a pushback in their mind, so I think that needs to be demystified, similarly, just as, you know, capacity-building on technology is important, having a rights-based approach while implementing is important, because many times, those are overlooked, as in, it’s not a conscious thing, but unconsciously, those are not looked in, so I think those are important, and countries such as us, which is multilingual, having it in different languages, end-to-end is important, for example, I’ll give you, many of our websites are on different Indian languages, but if a citizen wants to do something end-to-end, some parts, for example, the payment gateway is in English, so if you can have an end-to-end in a particular language, even voice-based, because not many people read, they don’t like to read, I would say, many people don’t read emails too, so I think, you know, using those kind of innovative technology, what people will adopt, because at the end of the day, anything you bring in is for people to use it, if it’s not used, it would not work, and thank you.

Prateek Sibal:
Thanks, Amrita, for that insight. Risper, you wanted to do something?

Audience:
Can you just go this way? Yeah, thank you, Prateek. My name is Risper Onyango, from the Lawyers Hub Nairobi, Kenya, and I think just to echo, you know, the sentiments in the room, recently we ran our annual conference, which is called the Africa Low-Tech Festival, and for this year, we were focusing on the digital public infrastructure, and we kind of tend to look at the different facets, you know, the interlinkages with either AI, technology issues, and all that, and so one of the projects that we were running, together with co-developers, trying to look at how we can first do an assessment, and then also create awareness, particularly for policymakers and CSOs, and so we ran a survey, we did a number of workshops, and it was very interesting, the same things that we are finding in the room, whereby first the level of involvement and awareness on most of these issues was actually really low for many of the participants, so we tried to run it across 24 African countries, with representatives both from the CSO community, and some members of parliament, and a higher percentage of them actually had no involvement in, say, in the case that you are looking at, DPIs, so they don’t really have conversations or understandings around, you know, whether it’s data governance, whether it is digital ID, you know, and getting into having that as a starting point, I think is actually very important. Like she was saying, the assessments would come really key. But I think what I’d like to emphasize also is the multidimensional aspect of it. And that’s what you find in the public sector. So you find that there are very many arising issues or conversations. And sometimes we try to have like a linear line to it. And yet we are facing very many simultaneous issues. So for instance, in Kenya, we are having so many cross-cutting conversations. We are looking at blockchain, we are looking at digital ID, we are looking at data protection. And sometimes we want to be rigid and kind of have a straight jacket approach to it. But I think it’s very important that we actually consider that the public sector actually operates cross-cuttingly, you know, on these issues. So that even as we are trying to curate solutions around it, then we are actually informed of how they operate, yeah. Thanks, Paola. And then we go to the gentleman there. Good morning and well, good afternoon to everyone online. My name is Paola Galvez. I’m from Purdue, former strategic advisor to the presidency of the Council of Ministers. And that’s where I provided my service to develop the Digital Talent National Strategy. And as a bottom-up process in a multi-stakeholder way, we came to the conclusion that we could not have the same strategy for everyone in the public sector. So we divided this in three different users or audiences. First, we have in the public sector, methodologies or geeks. I mean, people who know about technology, who are in the IT area and definitely need different kind of capacity building. Then we have the users who need to be literate consumers, but not really, they don’t need to be experts. They need to understand the technology that are using, why it is important and also super important here, grab some capacity building on the ethical aspects and privacy. Because we received many concerns from academia and civil society that sometimes when they use the technology that were offered by the Peruvian government, they would ask too many information in the forms, for instance. And when we ask them, hey, and why are you asking the ID here? No, because we’re used to this. So yeah, actually, that’s when we need to also engage the Ministry of Justice to talk about the Privacy Data Act, for instance. And then the third layer is decision makers, because they need to know enough about technology to make decisions and to bring this culture that was very well explained in the video, Pratik, and we were all talking about. Digital transformation is not using tech, it’s actually the shift in mindset. And also for that, and while we were developing the national strategy, we created the Digital Talent National Platform where we tried to make it easy for Peruvian public servants to develop these skills. But what we noticed is that female public servants were the least consumer, sorry, servants, enrolling on these courses and finishing these courses. So what is happening here? Of course, there are not enough motivations and female servants have other tasks at home that don’t allow them to have the time to complete these courses. So here, what I would like to stress is, first, let’s think about our different audiences when we’re thinking about capacity building in the public sector. Second, always wear gender lenses when we’re thinking about these policies. And third, create motivations. I was discussing with friends from the UAE and Colombia. They have fantastic motivations. For instance, very briefly, in the UAE, they have badges that will be earned only when they finish their certifications and when they apply the certifications to their roles, which will be counted in their annual evaluations. So this will make them eager to have this. In the Peruvian case, for instance, and I believe now in the government they are working on it, is how to create these motivations so they can create more time because this is something apart from the daily tasks they have, right? So yes, this is just my main three points. Thank you.

Prateek Sibal:
Thanks so much, Paola. Over to you, sir. Okay, do we have a mic there? If we can just pass one around.

Audience:
Thank you. Good morning. My name is Rudolf Griedel. I’m Director General for Central Affairs that encompasses HR, IT, and other things in the German Ministry for Digital Affairs. First of all, I want to thank you for organizing this open forum and also to say that everything I’m hearing here and everything that has been presented, it is very clear that these issues and these challenges are the same everywhere. Europe, Africa, Asia, Latin America, I think we are all more or less in the same situation that we have vested civil servants structures, public service structures that have been functioning in one way or another for decades. And now that we are at this point where we want to go to the digital transformation, I think that has been said in several interventions before, and I want to emphasize this also from my personal experience in our administration. At the beginning, the transformation has nothing or very, very few to do with digitalization. It has to do with a cultural mindset and it has to do with looking at administrative processes. How do they work? What are the layers of administration that we have created over the decades for ourselves and are they really necessary? And only if we look at these processes, at these internal ways how we operate, and only once we have optimized those ways, we can then go into digitalization. Because if you take the old way of doing it and you put a computer on it, you still have a very poor process behind it and it won’t create good results. So people will say, oh, you see, this digitalization, it’s worth nothing and it brings only harm and it brings work. So that’s one point. The second point is we are trying to always have a double gain when we introduce new digital tools and this double gain has to be for the customer, for the citizen, for the user. That is very important, but it has also to be on the administrative side. So because then you have a chance to take the civil servants on board and to convince them that it’s a good thing to do. I mean, in Germany, other than perhaps other countries, we have a very poor demography and so we are older and older. We do not have so many young people again on the employment market. So we need these computers and machines to help us to provide the same services and the same quality as we did before with like 100 persons, now with 80 or 60. So we have to have a gain on the administrative side in order to take people on board and in order to start this cultural mind shift. So thank you very much for this and I’m really learning a lot here from all of you and I’m looking forward to continue the exchange. Thank you.

Prateek Sibal:
Thank you. I see there are several more hands and I will come back here first and then go back again this side. And yes, so Peter, over to you.

Audience:
Good morning, everybody. And indeed, very interesting conversation. My name is Peter Marien. I’m working for the European Commission and DG Intpa. I’m team leader for digital governance. A few comments from my side. So at Intpa, digital became a priority a few years ago. And when we started looking at that, we of course were in the middle of the COVID, post-COVID situation when there was this huge shift, even more than before one could argue towards having society moving online in many aspects of society. So as we worked with our partner countries, because that’s part, that’s a lot of our mandate to work with partners outside of Europe, we wanted to make sure, let’s say, that we’re all together seeing the benefits of this digital shift, let’s say, but also that we managed the risks. So both were important. And also we looked at this from, let’s say, a global perspective. So we were not focusing only at national digital transformation, for example, within certain administrations or other aspects of society, which is important, but also how do we see the global aspects of this when you talk about data transfers, privacy, and eventually also sovereignty of nations, information, access to information, those things. So of course, to have these kind of discussions, and I fully agree, we need them as much internally in our organization as anywhere else, we need this capacity to be increased. And that’s, so there, I just wanted to share a few things that we’ve been doing. So just a few more things before I go into some examples. So we, as I said, we wanted to make sure that we reap the benefits, but also avoid the risks. And these risks, to be blunt about it, are also geopolitical. So we wanted to also make sure that the capacity is there, that ourselves and our partners avoid being captured, captured by states, methodologies, and also by companies. And their value sets that go with that. And I heard already the term human-centric here. So for us, this is very important, this human-centric approach, where we put the individual at the center and not the company and not the state. So when we thought, okay, so how do we go about this? We linked this also to our objective to support and work with our multilateral institutions. So this is just for context, so we put this in the context also of working with multilaterals, and specifically also with the UN, United Nations Agency, and again, based on the principles of the UN charters and this human-centric approach. So what have we been doing concretely, just to give a few examples? We have an agreement ongoing with UNESCO on the topic of AI, so this is a few million euro, I won’t go into too much details, but a large objective here is also to work on these topics of, if I can call them capacity building, you can call it more or less, but let’s say it includes capacity building on the topic of artificial intelligence and working with partner countries around the world. We also have an agreement with ITU and UNDP together, so jointly, so it’s a few million euro, it’s just recently been signed, and the idea there is to train a few thousand civil servants around the world, so it’s global, I mean, UNESCO is also global, and that is training, we can argue for years about this, but it’s training online and offline, so it is online and different types of online training, but it also includes offline training, and that training, I would call it like digital diplomacy type training, and it includes training on AI, and for that, ITU and UNDP will work also with UNESCO. We also have another project that just started recently where we are working, and this is specifically in Sub-Saharan Africa, with regulators. I also heard the regulator question coming up, so that’s about 34 million euro at the moment, where we’re also working with other EU member states, and the idea there is to work with regulators in Sub-Saharan Africa, and indeed, this approach will be much more based maybe on the notion, I could say, of working with champions, and with working with the notion of change management, and I completely agree with what was said before about this not just being about digital and computers, but indeed about what was said by my predecessor. Also to emphasize that we have absolutely realized that we need capacity building in-house. This is in our own unit, in our own DG, in the commission, also in our delegations around the world. We have many delegations around the world, offices, embassies, and everybody needs to be skilled, and again, it’s not about using computers, but about all these other aspects, and so we are trying to do that actively, and then maybe just to respond, because of course we have many partners here and the session today was about civil servants, but of course I think civil society there is key, and we also have under the same general umbrella a program that we’re just starting with two consortia of CSOs globally to work on capacity building for digital, and that includes for them to be able to join discussions like this one, so we are explicitly asking them to join discussions at IGF, ITU, ICANN, IETF, and so on, so that they are part of this whole discussion. Thank you very much. Thanks, Peter, for sharing the multilateral dimension and what kind of global work you’re doing. I think we move to some parliamentarians, so over to you, the gentleman, and then to you, sir. Yeah. Thank you very much. My name is Sam George. I’m a member of parliament from Ghana. I think that in having these conversations, we need to appreciate that the different demographics, especially in different sectors, when we look at the public service, for example, if I use Ghana, the public service is made up of the civil service, and then you’ve got the executive government machinery, you’ve got the judiciary, and then you’ve got parliament. Now, the approaches to introducing digital tools in all of these various sectors of the public service cannot be the same. When we try to approach this with a one-cup-size-fits-all, you have challenges. Ghana’s demographic is different from Germany, but we have the same problem, where we have a very aged civil service. In fact, many of them will tell you they are BBC, born before computers, and so the approach to digital uptake is different from if you were talking, for example, to the private sector or if you were talking, for example, to parliament, where you’ve got a mixed demographic. Now, the challenge with parliament, where I sit, will be that a lot of the capacity building is tailored for members of parliament, and that’s fine, but then that is just half of the solution. Members of parliament face attrition. In many African parliaments, your longevity is maximum eight years or maximum two terms, so when you invest a lot of capacity building in just the members of parliament and not the parliamentary service, which is the technical bureaucracy that survives longer than the members of parliament, because there are technical persons in parliament who’ve been there for 25 years and 30 years. They see various iterations of parliament. That is a cater that we need to focus on because they provide the technical support for members of parliament in pushing legislation and all the technical work, so I think that that’s an area we need to look at. Same happens with the judicial service. There is more longevity there for a judge who gets appointed to the bench. If you give them the requisite training, then they’re able to have better interpretation of legislation and all of that, and I get the benefit of having worked in the civil service and then transitioning into the government machinery, working in the office of the president before finding myself in parliament now, and so I see the various iterations there. The last point I want to make is the fact that we need to understand the life cycle of introducing digital, especially on the African continent. A lot of governments in Africa are talking about digitization because that’s the in thing. A lot of European and Western funding is available for digitization, but digitization is just literally us moving from our analog systems to digital systems. The main concept of digitalization itself, which is the next phase of digitization, is lost on many African governments, and many governments, frankly, across the world, and then the whole concept of digital transformation, so being able to have that complete life cycle established for the public sector, that digitization is just one step of it, is just one small minutia of the whole process. We need to get to the digital transformation through digitalization. It’s a critical part of getting this actually implemented so that we just don’t have check boxes that are ticked so that our countries appear to be compliant, but implementation is actually zero, and that’s why I think a lot of the focus must be on. Thank you. Thank you, sir. So I just, I think this conversation will go on, but we have about half an hour left, and I would, so please take the floor. We have time, and I would not totally stick to the script because I like the conversation is flowing. We are learning from each other. We’ll keep it, but keep the remarks as brief as possible so that everyone can have a chance. Hi, I’m Damien Cepeda. I’m a senator from Mexico, and while thinking of the topic, I think when you want to push an agenda in civil public service. and government and parliamentary, you need to look at two specific things. We need information and we need resources. Resources, access, funding, or whatever costs, benefits. In information, we need information for the scope of opportunity of the technology. In specific topics, because most of the countries that are underdeveloped or like not fully developed, the members of Congress or the government’s servants are thinking about health issues, security issues, education issues, specific problems of the people right now. Not in like 10 years, 20 years, 30 years. So, what we need to do, I think so, is to put the information that makes reasonable to take an agenda in pushing internet, artificial intelligence, technology, in all these areas to make specific benefits to the people. And you need to identify key players, not everybody, key players, key members of Congress, key members of government that you need to convince that if you invest in this technology, it will make a specific benefit for the people. That’s one thing, information of opportunities. The other thing is information on the risks, because all the people that are making the decisions are always worried about what can happen if you open up all the technology without correct regulatory measures. Things of personal data, information, biometrics, and all of that stuff. Things of the right to privacy, for example. What about public and private security surveillance? So, I think when you do these gatherings, or if I was UN, UNESCO, or whatever, I would give specific information to how to use it safe. And the third thing I think we need to get into it is specific costs. We need infrastructure, we need to make investments in schools, public places, whatever, to get access to everybody. But if you don’t do that, for example, in internet, what happens is that you open the breach between the people that has access to technology information and the people that doesn’t have it. So, I think if we give the information to policymakers and to key decision players, we can get the objectives done. Thank you, sir, for those thoughts. I’ll come here to Mr. Tarada, and then we come here. And then we go there, finally. And this, oh, please come here, don’t stay at the back. Please come in the front on the table, please. Sir. Thank you very much. First of all, I’d like to express my sincere gratitude for being invited here as a speaker. My name is Takeo Harada, and I’m a CEO and a representative of the Institute for International Strategy and Information Analysis, located in Tokyo in Japan. Before I have founded my own think tank, this institute is a total independent think tank in the private sector. But before having founded this think tank, I was a career diplomat. So, in the capacity between bureaucracy, civil servants, on one hand, on the other hand, the private sector, I’d like to make three very short proposals. While I’m very pessimistic in terms of the digitalization or digital transformation, particularly in the Japanese bureaucracy, just after our Japanese civil servants’ friends had left the room, I’d like to make a very short statement, very honestly. First of all, I think by nature, the bureaucracy is very reluctant to be digital, because the civil servants are working on politics. And politics, by nature, needs intransparency to make deals with all the possible stakeholders. So I think before getting into the discussion in detail of the competencies, we should differentiate from the easy, DX-friendly tasks done by the civil servants from others. For example, as I said, I was a career diplomat. But in diplomacy, I cannot imagine that, for example, generative AI will make a final statement for the foreign minister or prime minister. So we should be very realistic. Yeah, we should be very, very realistic. So first point is, we should differentiate different tasks done by civil servants. And maybe there are some fields which are very relevant to the DX and AI, but others are not. So the second thing is, we should enhance the public engagement. Because I’m terribly sorry, but I’m a newcomer to this forum. But UNESCO’s splendid works in terms of DX and artificial intelligence is invisible enough, particularly in the Japanese society. So we should involve much more public opinions so that we can boost this movement in terms of the introduction of artificial intelligence and DX to the civil servant world. For example, in Japan, maybe all the friends and colleagues coming from the emerging markets, emerging countries, cannot imagine how acute the declining population issue is, especially in Japan. All the Japanese social sectors are now urged to introduce AI or the DX because of lackness of the human capacity. So this sentiment shared by the public opinion should be mobilized in connection with our works done by this forum. And last but not the least, I’m still wondering, what is the AI? I myself am a global AI specialist. And I’m still pessimistic because the AI technology is just pattern matching, just calculated by the computer. So we need much more elaborated AI technologies so that we can maybe predict civil servants cannot rely on very sparse outcomes of the calculation done by the AI in the current status. So I would say the UNESCO and our DC alliance should help all the endeavors done by the academia and also the private sector and industries to make much better AI and DX technologies. That is. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. We have to go over there. I’m sorry, if you can please keep it very brief. Thank you. Thank you, Brad. Yeah, it was my turn. Thank you, Patrick, for inviting me to speak in this open forum. And first of all, I would like to thank UNESCO for putting this together. I know you have put in a lot of work to bring this for discussion. Number two, I would like to raise my hand. And as you can see on the screen, my fingers are not the same. So all governments are not created equal. So we really have to know this as we begin this discussion. And I would like to add that we don’t have to discuss this as if we are concluding it today. We have just begun. And this is a conversation. And I believe what we have to do is to create partnerships with the government locally for them to be able to express what the needs are in terms of capacity, digital capacity building for the civil servants. I think that is very critical in terms of achieving what we want. Because the issue is, the question is, and your question that you asked was, are there really need for what sort of skills and competencies that we need? I believe that to be able to get a set of skills and competencies that you need will vary from one government to another, from one public sector entity to another. I’ll try to share what is happening with my government in Tanzania. Tanzania has been implementing what we call digital Tanzania. And you will find they have created a Zoom-like platform. It’s called Imi Kutano, where internally they organize meetings using this Imi Kutano platform. So there are a lot of things that are happening with governments around the world that we need to learn from them as we create these sort of partnerships to implement this capacity building as a coalition. I would like to say one of the skills that we’ll need in the governments is the issue of data governance training. Because many governments are now implementing data protection acts in Africa. And I believe handling data is very important. Number three is the issue of digital customer service. In 2020, I write about 50 emails to different government agencies. And what do I get? Some of the agencies reply to my emails, some don’t. So some reply within a few hours, others reply after maybe several days. So what does it mean in terms of capacity building? The issue of attitude change. And that has been previously alluded by a friend from Germany. So I think there is a lot that will go into this in terms of making sure that we also create capacity in terms of attitude change for the government officials to learn about digital customer care and whatnot. And lastly, I would like to say that as we move forward with this, it is very important, number one, we create partnerships so that what we are doing does not appear as though it is an imported menu that is being shoveled into the governments in terms of their capacity building. So with that said, again, thank you for what you are doing for the capacity. Thank you. And I think it’s all of us doing, not us alone. And it’s just the start of the conversation. To the gentleman over there in white. And then I come to the lady here. And then Mike. Thank you very much and good morning. I’m Honorable Alhaji Mbo from The Gambia. And also the Vice Chair of the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance. I’m a member of Parliament, but I came from the tech sector to be in Parliament, which is really a very different world than from what I used to know. In any case, digital transformation, personally, I think is a must for all governments now. So there is no going back, so we need to move forward. And in doing so, governments actually must take the bull by the horn in trying to understand the capacity gap that they actually have. And to do that, first, you know, we talk about the civil servants, which is crucial. Because at the end of the day, the policy making rests in their hands. Even though there’s a big debate whether parliamentarians do policies, you know, it’s debatable. But at the end of the day, what makes the policies work also rests in the hands of the members of Parliament. So I think the two need to really work very closely just to ensure that we have what it means to get those policies to work. Now, in doing so, for me, I think there are multiple approaches we can use to ensure that we bridge this gap. First, let’s look at our education system, the curriculum that we actually have in our schools. I think this is a key area that we can start to build now for the future. Because like you said, we have, you know, civil servants or the public sector, actually, the age gap also is really, in many countries, actually, it’s not really very good. So to do that, we need to start building the younger generation to move up. Then, the civil servants that we currently have, I think there needs to be a study to understand the various gaps they actually have. Because it cannot be one gap fits all. Like, me personally, when I interact with some of them, I can easily tell that sometimes you have a very, very big gap in some of them. But then, in the other way around, you see some also that are up there, that they just need to go to the next level. So I think chairing them, knowing exactly their level of competency also is going to actually help in terms of the capacity building. And the last one, actually, is also what we are doing in the Gambia. I’m sure my colleague is also going to say something about that. The government actually now is on a very rapid transformation. In fact, just last week, they transformed one high education of learning called Manningham Development Institute into a college for the civil service. That will actually help them to train them so that they can actually move to the next level in terms of developing the needs of the country. Thank you. In fact, I was in the Gambia earlier this year for training of the judiciary, and we had about 50 magistrates and judges on AI. And it was a very fascinating discussion. Sir, if it is also from the Gambia, can we wait a bit? And- It’s a different approach. OK, OK. But very quickly, please. Yeah, very quickly. Yeah, I’m Pons Light from the Gambia NRI. My approach, I’m looking at it from the perspective of being a computer scientist, looking at it being technology people and processes. Now, if you look at most countries, especially in the global south, taking the view from Africa, who are the nearest civil servants that deal with the people? Are those in the municipalities? So the strength of any digital transformation process must start with the municipalities. If you look at Seoul, the capital of South Korea, you look at their municipality, what they have done with digital transformation is amazing on how the common person can get services who reside in Seoul. And I think if we focus on building the bottom top from our municipalities, a big change will happen. Thank you. Thank you, sir. That’s extremely important. Ma’am, the floor is yours. I’m truly impressed. This room is a field with wisdom. And I wish I could have a time to talk to you individually one for an hour. So my name is Jingbo Huang. I’m from a United Nations University. So I don’t know how many of you have heard of UNU. The headquarter is in Tokyo. And we have, thank you, 13 research institutes in 12 different countries. Every institute has its own specialty. And the one that I’m leading, the institute in Macau, is specialized in digital technologies. So right now, our research training and education portfolio is mainly related to AI, governance, modeling for disaster management, online child protection. So digital technology is our bread and butter. So we have actually different types of challenge because we are an interdisciplinary research team. Like this gentleman just said, we have a room full of computer scientists specialized in AI. And we have been just launching a series of generative AI plus series, talking about the impact on education. Actually, we’re going to work on a series with UNESCO on education, on the environment, and the future, the responsible way. So we have a series of generative AI plus. So our challenge is to have a, we have a computer scientist and psychologist economist. But we want to hear about the real country context so that our knowledge can make sense. So we also have a training catalog ranging, you know, very, I can share, I’ll be happy to share with you. But we do need a context from you. So I would like to call for collaboration, and both for training that we’re offering, but also for the next conference that we’re going to run in Macau in April as a UNU AI conference. And we’re going to be 10 times smaller than IGF. But our approach would be very focused, problem-driven. You have a specific issue. We bring private sector, our academic research network together just to focus on one specific issue. Hopefully, everybody goes home with something concrete. So I would like to call for participation and collaboration. And please come to me. I would love to talk to you for one hour each with each one of you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Mikey, you wanted to take the floor, and then the lady next to you. And so let’s keep it to one minute. I know it’s hard, but there’s a lot. to talk about. I’ll be quick, I promise. Thanks, Prateek. I’m Maikki Sipinen, and I’ve worked in AI policy for, I think, five or six years now. So I can bring the perspective of people drafting their national AI strategies or working on AI regulation. And I’d just like to bring up that it’s very easy and everyday work to write plans and strategies and how to develop skills for workforce or citizens or universities or really anyone else than yourself. And when it comes to this part on competencies of AI policy officers, it’s actually kind of difficult and can be scary. Because starting this discussion means inviting everyone to analyze, like, can I do my job? And can our team actually do what we are supposed to do? Or do we have the skills? So it can be really hard. And I feel like maybe this pressure comes actually from a misunderstanding. And it’s really clear that we would need to put more effort into clarifying that this is not really about turning civil servants into technical AI developers. And not everyone needs to have a PhD in AI to write AI regulation, for example. And we should really stop saying things like, let’s bring the real technology experts in, or we don’t need to be experts on AI. Because AI policymakers are also experts. It’s just a different emerging field of expertise. And I think this is what the Competency Framework is all about. So that’s going to be a really good tool for encouraging these discussions. Thanks.

Prateek Sibal:
Thanks, Maike. I move to Alexandre, and then I come back. Alexandre. You can take, OK.

Audience:
Thank you, Patrick. And good morning, everyone. I’m Alexandre Barbosa, head of CETIC, which is a UNESCO Category 2 center based in Brazil. We are a regional center for Latin America and the Caribbean and also Portuguese-speaking countries in Africa. Well, I don’t have much to say after all this wonderful debate. But I would like to mention that we are involved in measuring the socioeconomic implications of the ICT adoptions by different sectors, including public sector. And we do run surveys every year with government to see the level of adoption. And it is really clear that having data, we give visibility to the problems and to the issues that we have to face and to address. Without data, we don’t have visibility. But more than have data, like UNESCO is really making a very wonderful job in making assessment and to revealing the state of the adoption among civil servants. But we need, as our colleague from Ghana and also from Tanzania has mentioned, government is not a homogeneous body. So we need to have segregated data so that we can understand the different inequalities in terms of digital skills among civil servants in the government. We have different structures, like central government, state or provincial government, local governments. Within those levels, we have different powers, like legislative, judiciary, executive. And the level of skills development is very different. I would say that among all countries here represented, we can say that it’s not the same. So we don’t have one solution that will solve the whole problems. But it is clear that when we start to discuss what are the challenges in empowering civil servants in engaging in the digital transformation, we need to have disaggregated data. We need to understand what are the differences among civil servants. And besides the lack of digital skills that I guess all of us agree that we have an issue to be addressed, I would like to also mention three other things that was already mentioned in terms of cultural change. Governments are the oldest type of organization and the only type of organization that touches every us in the society. So the cultural resistance to change is really enormous. And besides that, I think that we need to develop a culture of continuous assessment, many of you has mentioned the need of assessment. And I think that we need to rely on institutions such as UNESCO to help member states to really put in place effective frameworks able to capture, able to measure, and to produce reliable data. And last but not least, I would say that we have to work on a set of skills, not only digital skills, such as collaborations and best practice sharing. So those are a few points that I would like to address. And once again, Pratik, I would like to congratulate UNESCO for this initiative, really very important. Thank you.

Prateek Sibal:
Thanks, Alexander. I think the point of measuring digital skills is extremely important. Actually, we don’t have a global measure of this. And the kind of proxies which are still being used are not very sure they measure education. I think we’ll continue, but I think we can extend by five minutes if the folks in the technical team allow us to. So we start while I figure out. Yeah?

Audience:
OK. Well, thank everyone for a rich discussion. My name is Carolyn. I am with a human rights organization called Access Now. So we work at the intersection of human rights and technology. And just there’s a lot of shared sentiment in this room, I think. But just to highlight on a few things, one, when we’re talking about digital capacity building, I think we just cannot overlook the major gaps that still exist and just knowledge about the relationship between those technologies and their human rights impacts and how human rights law applies to those particular technologies. So I think just making sure that we’re keeping pace between the technology itself and also the human rights framework that it needs to operate inside of. I think when we’re talking about a human-centric approach to digitalization, we also need to really understand that that’s not just about end users versus governments or private sector, but about people versus the technology itself. Just the language of digitalization or digital transformation, I think, lends itself to moving in a direction of seeing implementation of the technology as the end goal or the point. And it’s just really not. And it can be disruptive to a design process and can limit our capacity to really understand the problem that we’re trying to solve in the first place. So I think really keeping people’s experiences and, to the senator’s point, being very specific about the problems we’re actually trying to address to avoid overreach and misapplication of certain technologies. And I think just as a final point, really understanding the way that these technologies impact people and communities at risk in ways that are very different than they apply to end users in general. And those people and communities at risk are also the people who have been least effectively served by so many of these government agencies. And so really centering those communities’ perspectives from the very beginning of the process and not seeing it as something to be tacked on at the end, and really thinking about co-creation, accountability, and co-design with those communities who perhaps have the most to be gained in some cases, but also stand the most risk of harm. Thanks. Actually, we… OK, so it was not cut. Can you speak loud? We don’t have a microphone. Hope you can hear me well. Yeah. Ah, OK. Very shortly, I’m Hugo Cordova. I’m a civil servant, so I feel very… very affected by what we are discussing here. And I work for the European Parliament. My only thought is, like, I see a lot of focus on how the utilisation is used for access and services from the public, but there is other aspects that are important for the utilisation, at least from my perspective, is how the utilisation help us to provide or to do new things. And I’m thinking, just an example, I work with legal text, and sometimes we have to see how something has been done somewhere else. So, for instance, I would love to have artificial intelligence who helps me to say, OK, how this particular problem has been solved around the world, in all these relations. Something very stupid, but maybe, but I think it would be very useful, and it’s part of the conversation. So, not only access to public services, but how we do business inside the house.

Prateek Sibal:
I think that’s very important. We go to José, José, José.

Audience:
Well, thank you very much. My name is José Renato, I am from civil society in Brazil, from the Laboratory of Public Policy and Internet, and also from the Federal Administration Central Committee on Data Governance, representative of civil society. And just to share a thought on, how can we even be more productive when thinking about digitalization, digital transformation of the public sector, and resounding the voices that mentioned communication and feedback also. Be attentive to the feedback of civil society, of people who are using the systems. This is fundamental, otherwise all the work can be counterproductive. And in Brazil, we have many cases that went to the judiciary to question issues related to ethics or to the compliance with, for instance, privacy and data protection issues that could have been solved just with a further dialogue with civil society and specialists. And just to finalize, something that was not touched that much today here is also on the capacity building of the judiciary, because judges are the ones that are responsible for when something goes wrong in the administration and policy making, they’re the ones that tackle the issue when rights are being violated. So thank you very much indeed.

Prateek Sibal:
Thanks Jose. We have a judge from Tanzania here joining us also. Professor Amal, and then I come to the lady there.

Audience:
Thank you. I will be very brief. I think many things have been said. I’m wondering about, my question is why people are scared from digitalization? And I think we have to think in multidimensional level. The first is that people have to learn too much new things, very quickly and fastly, in a global world, because when you now, when you have to deal with regulations, you face regulations coming from Europe, from the United States, from China, from everywhere. So building capacities, I will just think very quickly about complexity and uncertainty. And this makes building capacity something very difficult in this new moving world. My experience is that in Morocco, which is a part of Africa, we have also to face the problem of literacy. Civilians will deal with people that cannot read, that cannot write, etc. So something that could be very interesting to study and to put in the framework, we don’t talk a lot about this, but I think that building capacities is not individual matter. It’s collective one. And we should put frameworks that we can bring together techniques and methodology to learn individually and also at the group level. And AI can bring also tools that are not very well known, but tools based on simulation. We can also study the behaviors of people in collective learning setting. And we can provide new approaches to learning because for most people digitalization means tracing, means surveillance, means that everybody will know what I am doing, etc. So I think it is very important to demystify what does it mean. In fact, if we master these tools, we can be a lot more comfortable with using them. So just to be very brief, because I don’t have time, I know, I think that technology is going very fast, regulation is going very slow. And this distortion is putting people in very uncomfortable situation. So there are three things, I think, very important, if I want to summarize. The first is rise awareness and demystify at all levels. The second is lifelong learning. People should learn all the time because the technology is moving. If you remember November 22, everybody was surprised about the tsunami of ChatGPT. Even people working in academia were very surprised about this huge tool. And the third thing is adaptation and agility to all these things. Regulations, we started with GDPR and now we put we developed executive master to learn about governance of AI. Two years after, we have to change the curses because we are not dealing with GDPR anymore. We have to deal with AI act. AI act means you have to learn about how to qualify the risk of tools. And I agree with you. If you don’t master the technology, you cannot understand what’s going on with this regulation. So there are a lot of things to debate but I know I have to stop.

Prateek Sibal:
Thank you, everyone. I think just as some very quick concluding remarks I know there are more people We will now explore really proposing a formal dynamic coalition on digital capacity building to the IGF. With kind of three broad objectives which can be defined with the community and what we would try to serve is more a secretariat to facilitate that cooperation. First would be a community of practice for knowledge sharing. So what all civil society, academia, governments, private sector experiences that they are having we can share those around the world as someone also mentioned the experiences in Germany to the experiences in Tanzania are quite similar. And this is a real chance for all of us to learn from each other. There is also perhaps a need for developing knowledge tools so this is not only a forum for discussion but also collaboratively working on some products which could be for instance an assessment methodology for civil servants which whatever UNESCO will produce is of course available for free for everyone to use contextualize and so on but we can collaboratively work on tools which then everyone can take forward and then also to have a network of experts which can actually support governments provide technical assistance and this will be useful to learn from Brazil to learning from Ghana and facilitating that exchange. We don’t have much more time but what we will do is follow up with an email and with the formal processes of the IGF and open this up for people to join the coalition and then we will follow up with more discussions. But thank you so much for your insights. It was a pleasure hosting this discussion this morning. Have a wonderful day. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. People to settle down. And we’re waiting for one on-site speaker to join but other than that we’re good to go. Could I request the organizers to help us see the speakers on the screen? The two speakers joining online. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Audience

The analysis features three speakers who delve into different aspects related to the internet and its impact on global trade and regulation. The first speaker emphasizes the complexities of the internet and how it has transformed the world. They also discuss the influence of state trade policies on end users. It is noted that critical resources play a significant role in this realm. Additionally, the speaker highlights that not all critical resources are managed by states, providing the example of IP and IPv4 blocks. Overall, their stance is neutral.

The second speaker raises a question posed by Samridhi Kumar regarding a potential different approach to ADF fragmentation in the Global North and South from a regulatory perspective. The speaker focuses on topics such as ADF fragmentation, the Global North and South, and internet regulation. This discussion is closely linked to SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions). Unfortunately, no supporting facts or evidence are provided, leaving their stance neutral.

The third speaker, responding to an inquiry by Amir Mukavi, explores the effects of internet weaponization, digital interference, and violence in campaigns from abroad. They also discuss the impact of these factors on internet fragmentation. The speaker suggests ways to avoid this situation, particularly by promoting cooperation between cross-border digital entities and national competent authorities. Their sentiment is concerned.

From the analysis, it becomes evident that the internet is a complex domain that has greatly transformed the world. State trade policies have profound effects on end users, while critical resources have a crucial role to play. Additionally, questions arise regarding the regulatory perspectives on ADF fragmentation in different regions of the world, highlighting potential disparities. The analysis also brings attention to the detrimental impact of internet weaponization, digital interference, and violence in campaigns from abroad, as they contribute to internet fragmentation. Cooperation between cross-border digital entities and national competent authorities is suggested as a preventative measure. Overall, the analysis provides insights into the multifaceted nature of the internet and its implications for global trade and regulation.

Neelesh Maheshwari

The analysis explores various aspects of digital sovereignty and internet regulations, discussing the importance of policies and regulations aimed at exerting state control over internet public policy issues within territories. Digital sovereignty has gained significant attention in recent years, with regulations having extraterritorial implications due to the nature of the internet.

The analysis argues for the need to address monopolistic tendencies of big corporations and promote the growth of small businesses, asserting that states have the right to combat these tendencies while ensuring a level playing field. The focus is on supporting small businesses and reducing inequalities in the digital economy.

Regarding data localization, the analysis suggests keeping restrictions minimal and opposes unnecessary constraints on the free flow of data based on security or information localization requirements. The example of the Indian government’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act is cited as a liberalized data protection regime.

The analysis emphasizes the inclusion of Global South countries in digital trade agreements and negotiations, recognizing their lack of infrastructure and institutional capacity. Capacity-building initiatives are seen as vital for these countries to benefit from big data, AI, and machine learning.

Regulations to combat the dissemination of disinformation and misinformation on the internet are deemed necessary, highlighting the real-life harm caused, particularly in the Global South. The analysis asserts the need for effective regulations in addressing this issue.

Concerns are raised regarding the potential limitation of fundamental rights due to regulations, cautioning against restrictions on freedom of speech and other fundamental rights when implementing regulations.

The analysis advocates for international norms and dialogue to address internet-related issues, promoting a standardized approach and providing guidelines for corporations facing state demands.

The potential risks of leaving public policy functions to private corporations are highlighted, citing surveillance capitalism and instances such as Cambridge Analytica, Snowden revelations, and electoral interferences. Regulatory oversight of public policy functions is advocated to prevent the misuse of power by private entities.

Different perspectives on the weaponization of the internet in the Global North and Global South are discussed, with cybersecurity and attacks on critical infrastructure being a focus in the North, while information security is a concern in the South.

Governance challenges in the digital age are addressed, emphasizing the need for novel approaches to address these challenges effectively.

The analysis stresses the importance of regulations that consider different contexts, allowing countries to pursue their own policies while ensuring a holistic approach to internet governance.

In conclusion, the analysis emphasizes the significance of digital sovereignty and regulations to exert state control over internet public policy issues. It advocates for the promotion of small businesses, reduced inequalities, and minimal restrictions on data flow. It highlights the necessity of regulations to combat disinformation, the importance of international norms and dialogue, and the potential risks of leaving public policy functions in the hands of private corporations. The differing perspectives between the Global North and Global South, as well as new governance challenges, are also considered. The analysis calls for regulations that consider different contexts and allow countries to pursue their own policies while maintaining a comprehensive approach to internet governance.

Andrea Beccalli

The analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of the internet and its governance, shedding light on several important points. One key highlight revolves around the principle of global accessibility of the internet, which is seen as essential and fundamental. It is emphasized that the internet functions as a network of networks, with approximately 60,000 networks operating as one single internet. Any disruption to the principle of global accessibility could result in the fragmentation of the internet, which would have significant implications for connectivity and communication worldwide.

Another point of concern raised in the analysis is the potential risk associated with policy development on the application layer of the internet. Discussions surrounding the application layer are gaining more attention, but it is crucial to consider the sovereignty of countries and ensure that public authorities handle any issues related to it. Disruptions in the application layer have the potential to disrupt the underlying technical layer, amplifying the need for careful consideration and policy-making in this area.

The geopolitical and economic context also plays a pivotal role in shaping the internet and its governance. The analysis notes that during the creation of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), globalization was on the rise. However, current global events and wars have dramatically changed the way we view and use the internet, which necessitates a reevaluation of its governing principles.

Furthermore, the analysis emphasizes the need for the evolution of the internet governance model. The current model, established around 30 years ago, was designed when the internet was nothing like what it is today. With the growing complexity and usage of the internet, the model needs to adapt and evolve to effectively address the challenges posed by the modern digital landscape.

The impact of internet fragmentation is also explored in the analysis. It is highlighted that the size and development of a market can have varying implications when it comes to fragmentation. Fragmenting a market as large as the European Union, for example, can have a different impact compared to a smaller market in the global south. Fragmentation could potentially exacerbate the digital divide, particularly in underdeveloped regions and countries.

Additionally, the analysis delves into the potential consequences of regulations and policies on the internet. The influence of regions such as Europe, China, and India in shaping internet regulations is noted, with concerns raised about certain regulations being inconsiderate of the impacts on the global south. It is crucial for policymakers to be mindful of the potential ramifications of their actions and to consider the specificities of the internet landscape.

The analysis also highlights the importance of not taking internet access for granted. The internet serves as a tool for global connection, transcending platforms, languages, and time zones. However, it should be acknowledged that internet access often comes at a cost to users or through public means, and its value should not be underestimated or overlooked.

Lastly, policymakers are urged to be specific and mindful of the consequences of their actions in the realm of internet regulation. The internet has been weaponized and misused for purposes it was not initially designed for, which underscores the need for careful and well-informed policymaking in order to address issues such as free speech and cybercrime effectively.

In conclusion, the analysis provides a comprehensive overview of several crucial aspects of the internet and its governance. It emphasizes the importance of upholding the principle of global accessibility, while also addressing the risks and challenges posed by policy development, geopolitical and economic factors, internet fragmentation, and the need for an evolved governance model. Policymakers are urged to be mindful and specific in their actions, and internet access should be valued as a tool for global connection.

Bruna Santos

There has been a significant discussion about internet fragmentation, which has resulted in the creation of a policy network. This network aims to promote inclusive discussions and resource sharing on the topic. It focuses on addressing the challenges posed by fragmentation in different aspects of the internet, including user experience, internet governance and coordination, and the technical layer of the internet.

One of the key concerns raised in these discussions is the lack of inclusivity and coordination in internet governance. This could lead to decision-making without consensus, favoring multilateralism over multi-stakeholder participation. It is argued that an inclusive approach is crucial to ensure that all relevant stakeholders have a say in shaping the future of the internet.

Fragmentation can be caused by various factors, such as client-side instruments or legislative interferences, which can lead to negative outcomes like internet shutdowns or restrictions on access to certain content or apps. Striking a balance between security measures and preserving open access to information is essential.

Advocates for user experience on the internet argue that it should adhere to principles of equality, enhancement, choice, impact assessment, harmonization, and allowing users to shape their own experience. Empowering users and providing them with diverse options to customize their internet experience is considered crucial.

The discussions on internet regulation have gained traction in many countries and member states, with ongoing debates on topics like disinformation regulation. The potential impact of internet regulation on the way the internet is viewed and used is being closely examined.

While regulation may be necessary in certain areas, it is important for policymakers to consider the significant aspects of the internet before implementing wide-ranging regulations. Striking a balance between addressing concerns and preserving the open and innovative nature of the internet is crucial.

The need for inclusive and balanced international regulations for information security is emphasized. It is argued that these regulations should take into account the perspectives of victims and marginalized communities, who are often excluded from the conversation. By including their voices, power imbalances can be addressed, ensuring equal representation in discussions on information security.

In summary, the discussions on internet fragmentation have led to the establishment of a policy network to facilitate inclusive conversations and resource sharing. This network focuses on addressing fragmentation in various aspects of the internet. The importance of inclusivity, user empowerment, and balanced international regulations is highlighted to mitigate the challenges posed by internet fragmentation. Policymakers are urged to approach regulation carefully, considering the significant aspects of the internet and maintaining its open and innovative nature.

Venceslas Katimba

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has made significant progress in digital transformation and internet inclusion. In 2021, the country appointed its first minister in charge of digitalization, demonstrating its commitment to embracing new technologies. The DRC has also adopted a digital law to regulate the digital sector, ensuring structured and controlled digital activities. Additionally, the country has signed the Malabo Convention for cybersecurity and data protection, emphasising its dedication to safeguarding data privacy.

However, the DRC still faces challenges in connectivity and internet access. Over 50% of the population lacks coverage, highlighting a digital divide. Private operators like Facebook and Google are investing in infrastructure, including the construction of a second cable, to improve connectivity. The DRC aims to connect to five submarine cables, bridging the digital divide and enhancing access to internet resources.

In conclusion, the DRC’s digital transformation efforts are underway with the appointment of a digitalization minister and the adoption of a digital law. The country’s commitment to cybersecurity and data protection through the Malabo Convention is also commendable. However, improving connectivity and internet access remains a challenge. Nonetheless, investments in infrastructure by private operators and plans to connect to submarine cables show a determination to address this issue and promote internet inclusion in the DRC.

Turra Daniele

The analysis thoroughly examines the complex issues of internet fragmentation and governance. There is an increasing debate about the sovereignty of countries in relation to the application layer of the internet. This indicates a growing concern among nations about maintaining control over their respective internet spheres.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the impact of trade policies on the end users of the internet and the management of critical internet resources. It is evident that trade policies can have far-reaching consequences for the accessibility and affordability of the internet for individuals and businesses. Additionally, the analysis notes that the management of critical internet resources, such as IPv4 blocks, is not solely dependent on state involvement. This suggests the need for a comprehensive multi-stakeholder approach in addressing these issues.

A key argument put forth in the analysis is that protectionist policies made by states should consider a multi-stakeholder model. It stresses that critical resources are not solely managed by states, and emphasizes the importance of incorporating various stakeholders in policy-making processes.

The analysis also explores the potential consequences of internet regulations. It highlights the possibility of these regulations leading to changes in the current internet landscape. Moreover, the analysis notes that different countries and member states are actively enacting various aspects of internet regulation. This raises important concerns about the management of the multi-stakeholder model when it comes to specific risks of fragmentation, indicating the challenges associated with balancing regulation and maintaining an open internet.

Another aspect addressed in the analysis is the challenge of determining who should review specific policy requirements. It notes that it can be difficult to establish a central authority or body responsible for reviewing and shaping policy requirements. This highlights the complexity involved in ensuring effective policy management in relation to internet fragmentation and governance.

The analysis stresses the need to include all perspectives in the design of global policies. It highlights the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as a valuable space for inclusive discussions and contributions from a diverse range of panelists from various countries. The analysis recognizes that issues of internet governance affect not only local communities but also have global implications. Consequently, including multiple perspectives helps mitigate biases and ensures comprehensive policies that cater to the needs and interests of all stakeholders.

Lastly, the analysis points out concerns about connectivity issues and their impact on internet policies and governance. The importance of connectivity is emphasized, with one of the panelists, Venceslas, experiencing connectivity issues during the discussion. This serves as a reminder that connectivity is central to effective internet policies and governance, and efforts must be made to address connectivity challenges to achieve a truly inclusive and accessible internet for all.

In conclusion, the analysis provides a detailed examination of the complex issues surrounding internet fragmentation and governance. It sheds light on the debates over national sovereignty, the impact of trade policies on end users, the management of critical internet resources, and the challenges associated with regulatory measures. The analysis advocates for a multi-stakeholder model in policy-making, emphasizes the need for inclusive global policies, and highlights the importance of addressing connectivity issues. Overall, it provides comprehensive insights into the multifaceted nature of internet fragmentation and governance.

Turra Daniele:
wherever you are in the world, whichever time zone. Welcome everybody. Welcome to our workshop, Digital Sovereignty, Regulation Protectionism and Fragmentation. Before we begin the session, just as a reminder, if you would like to step in during the discussion or during the question and answer session at the end, just please state your name and make sure to use English as a language. Also, if you are online and you would also like to step in, just please put your name in the chat and please make sure that there is a question mark at the end of your question. So without any further ado, welcome again. My name is Daniele Tura. I’m from Italy. I’m one of the Internet Society’s Youth Ambassadors for 2023 and I will be the on-site moderator for this session today. Also, we have Herman Lopez-Ardilla. I hope I pronounced it right. He’s our online moderator and he’s right here in the audience with everybody else. Also, we’ll have Nathalie as our rapporteur for today. So, worldwide, as an increasingly large number of networks are becoming dependent on proprietary protocols, we are experiencing the rise of national and private interests in cyberspace. So this and other phenomena suggest that IT procedures, standards, and access to data infrastructure could be used to raise technical barriers to trade or negatively affect the sharing nature of the Internet, actively shifting the equilibrium towards particular interests with an economic political in nature, therefore reinforcing again a protectionist approach. So today we will try to understand if the tension between the power exerted under conditions of digital sovereignty and digital protectionism may actually translate into an increased risk for citizens’ rights and the Internet at large. Particularly, we want to explore how different regions and stakeholders perceive the need to strike a balance between these two categories and how this creates new dimensions in the discussions on Internet fragmentation. In fact, despite the efforts to rightfully seek to protect elective interests through economic or social considerations, in some cases the broadness of these concepts has been used to promote censorship and raise trade barriers for foreign companies. Today, politicians and big businesses initiate fragmentation processes that the technical community alone can no longer control. Furthermore, if fragmentation were to be achieved, it will limit the Internet and its critical properties as an enabler of choice. So throughout the session we will try to tackle three main questions with our guests. The first one is what are the most impactful legal initiatives around the globe with potential fragmenting effects and what are their justifications? On a technical level, are there tools or protocols that promote data protection for a country’s citizens and companies? And the last one, what could increase the risk of unfair limitations to legitimate economic use of data restriction, free trade and the harm to physical infrastructure of the Internet? Of course, these are all relevant issues that cannot just be taken… from simply a global perspective, but it’s very important to keep regional differences in mind. So this is why today’s panel is composed from stakeholders coming from all over the world and from different groups. So together we would like to outline a typology of risks brought by different approaches to digital sovereignty in various regions and this will help the community in general identify a sketch of measures and actions for ensuring compliance with data regulations on a local level. So the overarching approach will respect multi-stakeholder guidelines on how to avoid internet fragmentation and digital protectionism and its hindering effects while advancing in legitimate protection of citizens. So we hope that through the sessions participants will be able to access collective knowledge by discovering answers to their concerns themselves within the context of their own working groups in their own regions. I invite you all to actively engage in the session, to listen to our esteemed panelists and to contribute your insights and your perspectives during the question and answer section. So let me begin by introducing our speakers. So we have Neelesh Maheshwari. He’s a PhD candidate from South Asian University in India. He’s been part of the Youth IGF India and was also a fellow of the India School of Internet Governance. His articles have been published in the Kathmandu Post and by the Stimson Center. Also we have a guest from the Democratic Republic of Congo. His name is Cetimba. He’s Chief Advisor for IT Infrastructure at the Ministry of Digitalization in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Congo. Bruna Martis Dos Santos is here at my left. She is Global Campaigns Manager at Digital Action. Welcome. She’s a current member of the Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group at the IGF, as well as a member of Council for the Generic Name Supporting Organization at ICANN. Also, we have another online guest. His name is Andrea Beccali, is Director for Stakeholder Engagement at ICANN in Europe. So, welcome everybody. So, I will now start presenting the first question and we’ll have Nilesh introduce his contribution. So, again, what are the most impactful legal initiatives around the globe with potential fragmented effects

Neelesh Maheshwari:
and what is their rationale? So, when we talk about digital sovereignty, what is the first thing that comes to our mind? Of course, it’s a new policy construct that has been formulated and this term has been used over and over again in the last two, three years. It has become a buzzword. However, how do we understand it in simple terms? We can say that digital sovereignty is about policies and regulations that aim at exercising state power and control on the internet public policy issues within their own territories, but owing to the nature of the internet, of course, such regulations and laws also have extraterritorial implications. So, this is not a phenomenon that is related to a few countries or a particular region. We have seen that overall, like all the countries and regions are coming up with such kind of laws. So, in Europe, we see GDPR, we have digital secure DSA, DMA. In China, we have PIPL. In India, we have Digital Personal Data Protection Act and there are such legal initiatives around the world. So, it’s not limited to anyone. territory or a region. Now, if we look at it, this is a departure from the erstwhile liberal regime where largely private corporations were supposed to deal with issues like collection of data, processing and the use of data. However, there was increased dissatisfaction with how private corporations were doing quasi-public policy functions with lack of adequate constitutional check and balances. So, we were seeing the rise of attention economy and the phenomena of surveillance capitalism, and today when we talk in the context of generative AI and synthetic content, the need to have adequate regulation is felt even more. So, on this part, in terms of regulation, we can say that, okay, there are legitimate reasons for states to have such regulations in terms of protecting and promoting their citizens’ rights. However, such laws and regulations also need to be critically scrutinized so that they don’t end up doing more harm than the positive benefits. For one, we need to assess whether these laws are following the standard tests of legality, necessity and proportionality, and not giving excessive power in the hands of government agencies. Now, this is not the only motive why states are coming up with such regulations. Of course, there are other motives as well. There are strategic, political, as well as commercial motives behind this. So, let’s go to the point of protectionism and fragmentation on that. So, in terms of fragmentation, of course, there are technical aspects to it, and we talk about having open standards in terms of that, and a few of my co-panellists will further touch on it. However, I’m going to touch upon the commercial aspects of fragmentation, as well as the political aspect of fragmentation. So, what we actually see is that, okay, the issues like misinformation and disinformation has to be dealt with. However, if we see that different states are coming up with their different sort of laws, we actually need to have some sort of global convergence in terms of having international norms and best practices to deal with these issues. And the good part is that on some of these issues, there has been, we are seeing a tendency that, okay, there are certain things like having grievance redressal mechanism which are coming up. And we can share all these global practices so that, you know, there are some standard common norms which can guide the states around the world when it comes to drafting over these issues. Now, coming to the issue of protectionism. Of course, there were certain countries which had the benefit of an early start and with most of the big corporations based in those places. We can say that a lot of other countries were excluded from the benefit of digital economy. And as we all say, the data is the new oil in the world. So if we look at where are the headquarters of big corporations, where are the data centers in the world? So, of course, the states have a right to fight against the monopolistic tendencies of big corporations and put in place mechanisms which allow small businesses to flourish. However, such mechanisms should not be discriminatory to foreign businesses. There should be an equal and level playing field. We also need that in terms of cross-border data flow. States should not put unnecessary restrictions on free flow of data on basis of national security or critical information localization requirement. The data localization requirements should be kept at a minimal. In these regards, we can say that digital trade agreements and negotiations like DIPA and G7’s Institutional Arrangement for Partnership can be a way in terms of harmonizing the cross-border data flow. However, at the same point, we also need to take into account the position of Global South in these negotiations. Because a lot of states in the Global South already are bereft of the digital economy, as well as they don’t have enough institutional and infrastructural capacity. So there should be capacity-building initiatives also, so that the countries around the world can take the benefit of big data, AI, and machine learning, and are not excluded further. In that regard, I would say that, to conclude my statement, that we need a more liberalized sort of regime when it comes to data flows and free trade. So for example, the Indian government recently came up with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act. Now, let’s compare it with GDPR. While in GDPR there are certain positive obligations, like you need to have equivalent standards that are in place in Europe, if the cross-border data flow has to take place, or otherwise you need to have standard contractual clauses. So in that terms, okay, you have to pass a few tests, only then the data will be allowed to travel. Instead, in Indian government, what they have done, that they have said that, in general, we will allow the cross-border flow of data. There are no such positive obligations. However, in exceptional cases, we can put certain countries in negative lists, if there are certain problematic dimensions. So in general, it’s a largely liberalized regime, where certain countries will be put in the negative list based on the guidelines which the government will provide. It’s a recent act, so the guidelines are not there yet. So if we keep this sort of restriction to cross-border data flow to the minimal, I believe we can protect the legitimate interest of our citizens, as well as allow for a liberalized free trade in terms of digital economy.

Turra Daniele:
So thank you, Nilesh, for this. insights for perspectives on how handling worldwide resources on the Internet and how to engage with national actors worldwide without posing specific limits when it comes to capacity building especially, but still trying to keep local necessities and needs in mind. So speaking of which, especially when it comes to critical Internet resources, we have our next speaker. He’s Venceslas Katimba. He’s connected online and I don’t know if he can hear us. Can we hear him?

Venceslas Katimba:
Good morning everybody. Welcome. I think, yeah, thank you, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I’m a French speaker. I apologize, my English maybe cannot be very, very well. So I just want to tell regarding the point of Internet resources and to share the experience regarding what is happening in my country, DRC, to promote the digital transformation and the Internet, the inclusion of digital. So in my country, you see DRC is in the center of Africa and is a big country. We have like nine three neighbors and we are not too much far with the Internet. So since 2021 is the first time in my country there was a minister in charge of digitalization and this minister was created since 2021. And we started to build the foundation of digital in DRC with some action that the minister already did. We started to make the policy regarding the regulations. So in DRC before that, there was no regulation regarding the digital sector. There was, we work for the first law text, which is code numeric in DRC, and which is bring the regulation on the sector of digital in DRC. And this law has been adopted last year, and it already published. So this is the basic now on the regulation sector in my country. We have now a law which regulate the digital sector. We work also to make sure that my country is also in partnership with other country. And we signed the Malabo Convention regarding the cybersecurity and data protection. And so regarding this sector, it is already done. In my country, we have many challenges regarding connectivity. We have like more than 50% of the coverage, which is not already done. We have many projects to build fiber around the country, all infrastructure for the connectivity. to bring connectivity to all the people is a big country and many challenges regarding war and this which is not which affects a lot the promotion of the digital and we already work with other partners we have the telecom company for working for coming from voracom we have this airtel who are helping us to to to improve the digital sector here we have also regarding internet connectivity and a resource of internet here in drc regarding infrastructure drc is is now connected only to one submarine cable works but there is a big project with facebook google and other private operator they are now building the second cable two for africa which we will be land very soon in drc so before the end of this year we have two submarine cable and our plan is to have like five to be connected to five submarine cable we have also start many project to do the interconnection with other countries african countries neighbors we have some connection with uh with our neighbor it’s This is Les. We are starting to lose him.

Turra Daniele:
Yeah, I think unfortunately we are losing him. I think there are some connectivity issues there. So I will make sure to provide Vince Zesla’s reference, contacts to everybody who wants to keep in touch with him and maybe have a second chance to hear his contribution firsthand. And also for time reasons, we will proceed with Bruna and her introduction. So I will now give the floor to you. Thank you.

Bruna Santos:
Yeah. You guys can hear me, right? No, just my intent for today was to go over a little bit of the policy network on internet fragmentation discussions. It is a work that we have been doing together with the IGF community for almost two years now. We’re at the second year of the PNIF framework. I thought it would be important to bring that around here because the initial assessment was the idea that internet fragmentation discussions were rather something very technical. discussions that didn’t really include a lot of the community. Maybe because of some of the debates being placed in a lot of the technical community or more academic ones. So the first assessment and maybe the thing that motivated us to to bring up a policy network for that was helping share some of the resources or even like revisiting the discussions. And the PNIF has started developing a framework with three initial baskets. And we talked about fragmentation in three different ways. The first one is fragmentation of the user experience. Second one is fragmentation of internet governance and coordination, which talks a lot to the debates we’re having nowadays about the digital cooperation forum, OASIS plus 20, the IGF, where all of these spaces moving ahead. Are they moving together and how? And the last one would be fragmentation of the internet technical layer, which is the most classical one. And I think I’m going to leave a lot of the technical debates to Andrea, because I want to share this a little bit with him. But then I can go over both on the governance and coordination and user experience, as I was saying. But starting with the governance and coordination one, when we talk about this basket, we’re basically discussing that all of those four should be interacting with each other. Both standards and policy and internet governance spaces, they should coordinate, they should be inclusive. And if they stop to do it, the discussions might result in some level of fragmentation of the debate itself. We’re not saying it fragments the internet, we’re just saying it might be harder to follow up with these discussions. And the division of the debate would be something that would result in decisions being taken without consensus, lack of respect for the multi-stakeholder community, or even preference for multilateralism instead of the multi-stakeholder model of participation that we’re used to. So, we have a lot of questions about fragmentation. We have a lot of questions about fragmentation. We have a lot of questions about fragmentation. So, we have a lot of questions about fragmentation at the governance level. At the discussion paper that PNF put out, we also say it might create knock-on effects for fragmentation at the other technical and user experience areas. So, we basically have some asks for this debate and say that offering to implement a framework that’s likely to develop strategies that may improve coordination, avoid siloed, public policy discussions and also be fully inclusive to all stakeholders and enable participation. And also, that global Internet governance must engage the user experience. And that’s the one that relates more with some of the facts and things we see these days. We more or less define the user experience as the phenomenon by which different end users of the Internet when trying to perform the same action can be presented with different content, options, interfaces. And that can happen in both as a consequence of client-side instruments, so device and applications, but also some level of engagement. So, we’re not saying that it’s necessarily a bad thing. It might happen, it might be part of the user experience or how the web has been shaped in order to cater to our necessities or even, like, the whole information landscape. But at the same time, we’re also bringing up some bad sides and bad effects of that that could be Internet shutdowns or when legislations just simply block apps from existing or people from having access to the Internet. So, we’re bringing up some bad sides and bad effects of that that could be Internet shutdowns or when legislations just simply block apps from existing or people from having access to certain contents or people from having access to the Internet. And, just to wrap up on that, we’ll note when we talk about fragmentation of the user experience, we insist in five principles. The first one would be equality. Second one would be enhancement. So, we should be developing the same, allowing people to have the same level of experience when assessing the Internet. And also, allowing for users to make their own choices. Like, we know that the a lot of our choices nowadays are kind of, like, shaped by companies themselves in the space they dominate in markets. And, we also insist on impact assessment. So, whenever a government is considering some measure that might result in a different experience for the user, such as a jail blocking or a court order demanding to take certain content down, they should be able to perform some level of impact assessment and try to understand how that would affect citizens. And, which could be basically, like, a three-part test, just to see whether freedom of expression would be affected by that or any other things. We also insist in harmonization. So, every single new framework, legal framework, or public policy in this space should be talking to pre-existing policies, should be talking to company policies and so on. And, last but not least, going back to the third principle, which is that we should allow users to shape their own experiences instead of the other way around. So, I think I’ll stop around here a little bit, but just to flag that a lot of this framework will also be discussed tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. at the Policy Network for Internet Fragmentation main session. So, a lot of these debates will be continued. Thank you so much.

Turra Daniele:
Thank you so much, Bruna, for bringing, again, the perspective on end-users and to remember how fragmentation can also happen through Internet shutdowns, geo-blocking. And again, I think we are, we delved a lot into the applicational layer. So I would like also to hear Andrea, that is connected online, to maybe give us some more perspectives on the whole stack.

Andrea Beccalli:
Thank you, Daniel. Hello, everyone. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes. Thank you. So I’m happy to be here, although virtually, and I hope you’re all doing well with the jet lag and you’re enjoying the IGF, and I wish I was there with you. So thank you again for inviting me, and this is a topic that indeed is very relevant for ARIFM, but it’s relevant that really uses the internet, and every time that I come to speak about internet fragmentation or to think about, I always see how by the day, the issue becomes on one side more complex, but at the same time, even a little bit more dramatic in terms of what is laying ahead with us, for us. So we tend to take the internet for granted. You open up your phone, you open up your computer, you connect your smartwatch, whatever you have, and you almost, you know, simply, you see that the internet is there, you connect, you don’t think about it. And it has been like that for at least the past 25 years But, you know, we take it as a given, and we don’t think that what’s going on underneath, beneath. And I personally think that if we look to the next 25 years, or even the next five years, You know, we should seriously consider whether we can keep taking this principle for granted. And so let me go, you know, through the, as you mentioned, we call it the stack, or, you know, the global ecosystem of the internet. So basically, when you speak about the internet, the internet is a network of networks, that they all look like one internet, because they all decide, you know, to use the same language, the same, technically, we call it system of unique identifiers. And it’s the way that those networks exchange data, strings of zeros and one, okay. And that’s, you know, the basic principle that keeps thousands of networks, around 60,000 networks, looking like one single internet, because they all adopt this basically fundamental principle that anything is accessible from anywhere on the internet. If you stroll around Kyoto, the venue of the meetings, you will see one of the fathers of the internet, which is Vint Cerf is there, you can ask him how destructive this principle was back then, and it still is today. So, but then we are speaking about the networks, we are speaking about how, you know, networks managed by different companies, by large private companies, they all decide to use the same protocols to exchange information to each other. 90% of the time, maybe less, I don’t want to go into the, into the statistics, but what we think about fragmentation, legislation, I heard some of the distinguished speakers mentioning GDPR in Europe, mentioning initiatives in India. the DSA and DNA packaging in Europe. We’re actually speaking at those, that we call the application layer of the Internet, which we all know as the web, the World Wide Web, which is the most known and most used one. So these are services, softwares, communication means that are built on top of the Internet, of these network of networks. And that’s where, you know, our daily life basically, you know, develops every day. You know, sending messages via WhatsApp or iMessage, making video connection with Zoom or any other services. That’s those services, those applications are the one that in the past years are gathering more and more attention. I mean, those has been following the IGF, maybe had the advantage of being looking at those issues with some advance from, you know, respect to many others. But that’s where the main policy discussion is happening. And that’s where there is also this interesting distinction between the Internet governance and digital governance. And this layer, that we call as the application layer, is the one where, indeed, issues relating to the sovereignty of countries needs to be dealt by public authorities in order to defend, promote the rights and the duties of his own citizens. But in doing so, there are increasing risks that you disrupt the layer that is underneath, which is the technical layer, which is the layer of the system of unique identifiers. And, you know, of course, as… in such a complex technology as it is and such as complex society as we’re living it isn’t always so clear-cut and so sometimes there is the real intention of disrupting these very same principles that I mentioned to you that is anything is accessible from anywhere in the internet sometimes that’s the objectives but sometimes that’s not objectives but you end up you know risk to be that one and that’s where at ICANN we want to you know raise the tension that’s where you know although we have very technical mandate to coordinate this glue we want to flag where the risks are you know I just want to leave you with a reflection a personal reflection you know if you think ICANN is this year is 25 years old okay was created in 1998 we are celebrating in a couple of weeks the 25th anniversary and if you look back at the world back then 1998 to the turn of 2000 some of you had the lack of not being born or very young but you know you may have studied that on the books you know there was a time where globalization was on the rise I was just thinking in the WTO because we’re speaking about protectionism the door around in 2001 is when trade barriers across the globe were being taken down and there was you know this push of integration of global markets this push of you know the idea of the trade it’s indeed good for the economy it’s good for the for the promotion of democracy there is there was a whole political geopolitical economically the political economy framework that that’s upheld that one and if you look at today you know, you know, just 24, 24 hours ago, we see another war breaking up in the Middle East, we see how, you know, the global context has changed, dramatically changed. And this is another warning, and it’s not to me to elaborate. But it’s something that we have to consider that, you know, things don’t happen in a vacuum. And even at the technical layer, we see that. So we have to be wary of those two dimensions. Thank you, Andrea, for underlying all these

Turra Daniele:
complexities that are inherent in the internet, but that also are strictly related to how the world has changed. So I think that one common thread that is emerging here is around the idea of critical resources, and how the state can have an impact in this with specific trade policies, but and therefore, at the end of this whole chain impacting end users. So there might be some food for thought there on specific policy recommendations, maybe keeping in mind the end user. But also, one thing I think it’s emerging out of this specific conversation is that not all critical resources are managed by states. For example, one little piece is also about IP, IPv4 blocks, that are a critical resource of the internet, but therefore, but are not also managed solely by states. So keeping the multi-stakeholder model in this and how protectionist policies are made by the state should actually relate to that is a key point of this discussion. So, Herman is telling me that we have one online question, so, two online questions, so I will ask him to read those out loud, please.

Audience:
Yeah, thank you very much, Danilo. So the two questions that we have online are the following. The first one from Samridhi Kumar, he is asking, do we see a difference of priorities or approach towards the ADF fragmentation in the global north and the global south, particularly from a regulatory perspective? And then the second question by Amir Mukavi is, what would be the effects of internet weaponization against other nations, digital interference in other countries, and enactment to violence in campaigns from abroad on internet fragmentation, especially when we cross-border digital do not cooperate with national competent authorities? What could be done in this situation to avoid internet fragmentation?

Turra Daniele:
So back to the panel. So I will ask now whoever of our speakers would like to reply to this, maybe both of the questions, and then we will have time for just one question from the audience, if there are any, and then we can try to close the session. Bruna, okay, thank you.

Bruna Santos:
Yes, thanks a lot. Just about the priorities, I don’t know if it’s possible to say whether there’s a difference on priorities and where it comes from, but we are seeing, right, like a lot of countries and like member states as well, like diving further on internet regulation aspects and discussions, right? Like DSA is one of them, AI Act on the EU is another one of them. In Brazil, we have been discussing for the last three to four years a proper like disinformation regulatory And the point is that a lot of these regulations might influence, might result in some aspects or even changes to the Internet as we see it today. And I think that will be the main challenge, right? When engaging with policymakers, when engaging with politicians. Just remind them of the core, the critical aspects of the Internet in general, or why is it important, or even to explain what a court order would be something that would be problematic or blocking an app or anything like that. So I wouldn’t know to kind of like pinpoint whether there’s a difference in priorities, but I just wanted to flag that we are seeing this kind of change in the mindset recently, whereas before a lot of states avoided regulation, and now we’re much more focused on regulating every single or maybe all of the Internet aspects that we have been flagged or have been pointed out as like places for abuse or issues in terms of speech and rights in general. So just to say that. Thanks.

Turra Daniele:
Thank you so much, Bruna. I encourage anyone who wants to speak up and maybe ask a question to our panelists. Okay, I don’t think we have any specific questions. I might have one, and again I will ask probably Andrea, I think is the most indicated person for this. So actually I wanted to know a little bit more about this idea of managing the risk of fragmentation given its multifaceted nature. So this can be hard to regulate. It’s very hard to manage the multistakeholder model, and when it comes to specific risks of fragmentation. Who do you think should be responsible for reviewing specific policy requirements that in this specific case might also take into account priorities and the end user perspective?

Andrea Beccalli:
So Daniele, yes, so indeed, the model that, as I said, underpins the internet, the protocol layer, is a model that is now 30 plus years old. And it was built when the internet had nothing to do with what we define internet as of today. And the sheer number of people that designed this model, of course, is not representative of what is the internet user base today. So there is a critical point, and you pointed out into the model that developed that, this multi-stakeholder model, this bottom-up model, that wasn’t designed to scale up to that level. And to include all the different interests, even geographically, positions into that. And that’s one of the challenges that Eigen has, and many of the technical organizations have. How to make sure that as the internet scales up in terms of users, in terms of application, in terms of complexity, the models that govern it, underpins it, even in the development of its protocols, of its technical applications, adapt to that. And for anyone that participates in Eigen knows that this is a constant topic, how to evolve the multi-stakeholder model. And what I can say is that, and what we always say is that, the model is far from perfect. It’s a bit like the famous phrase from Churchill, that democracy is a terrible form of government, but it’s the best of anything out there. So the multi-stakeholder model for the internet application layer, sorry, for infrastructure layer, is the one that works. It’s not perfect, but it’s open. It allows everyone to get in. When we look at the other layers, well, there it’s a whole different series of approaches. If you’re lucky enough to be born in a region where your government is accountable, you may have channels to go through a law that your government push to. But one thing that I want to respond was one of the questions there. There were two very interesting, but I only limit to one, is the different priorities of fragmentation from the global South, the global North. What I think is that, yes, there may be different priorities. And sometimes, you know, protectionism or harming a different country, it’s one of the priority. But what I’m actually worried about is the effects, because fragmenting a market that is 500 million strong as the European Union has a different impact on the economy and the society of a market, of a country that is in global South, it is 30 million users, okay? So the impact that that one has is way larger that you can see in Europe. So some regions of the world, in a way, can withstand fragmentation, can survive through that, because they have developed enough markets that in a way can survive through that. They can develop their applications, you know, will be awful situation, but can survive that. Others, you know, it’s yet a step more. of pushing this digital divide that used to be one of the, you know, main issues of the WSAS and the early IGF yet to a next level. So that’s one of the things that I hope that we are taking consideration. I’m sure that in the IGF community, this one is well ingrained. So not everybody can withstand the interfragmentation and the protectionism that we are seeing around. The effects are very much different.

Turra Daniele:
Thank you, Andrea. My bad, actually, we have another contribution also on this specific point of engaging the Global South and how we can tackle policy needs, also from Nilesh. So I’ll leave you the floor.

Neelesh Maheshwari:
Personally, I think that, okay, there is not an issue per se with regulating. In fact, I argue that we need regulations to find solutions to problems like dissemination of disinformation and misinformation. And these are critical issues that need to be dealt with. Because these are not only issues about harm in the digital domain. In Global South especially, due to the spread of disinformation, we have seen that people are losing their lives. There are riots because somebody posted something about a particular community and it got spread. So, of course, the state needs to deal with these low-end order situations. The problem only arises when these regulations go beyond the legitimate ends. And it’s used to curb the exercise of fundamental rights. It’s used to curb the dissent, the freedom of speech, the freedom of expression. So, in that regard, I would rather say that, you know, the convergence of policy at a global level on these issues. Dialogue at the international level is the way to go. If we have international norms regarding how to combat misinformation, what should be the role of the state, what should be the role of the technical community, what is the role of big corporates, then you know, if a state who has a lot of market power is asking Twitter or any of the corporate for that matter, that okay, you take down these accounts, otherwise we will deny you access. Those can also refer to those international guidelines and can say that no, we will try to follow what is there in international norms. The civil society of the state then can say that no, you are going beyond the internationally agreed upon norms. The government is going beyond and curtailing the rights. But so there should not be an issue with the regulations, but what kind of regulations we are going for. So I don’t believe that regulations are problematic per se. For me, I think that it was a wrong idea that we can leave this sort of public policy functions to private corporations and of course what it resulted in. We just saw that, okay, there was a rise of surveillance capitalism and also from time being we are seeing Cambridge Analytica, we are seeing Snowden revelations, we are seeing electoral interferences where private corporations are hands in hands with state as well. So that is like my understanding of this issue. So I would like to keep once again the attention to, there was another question regarding the weaponization of the internet and if this could actually be, I suppose, moved also through protectionists. policy, what’s your thinking in this regard? You know, the question about weaponization of internet is also, you know, if we look at global north and global south, there’s a different perspective on that. Because the global, in the global north, we see the talk about cyber security that, okay, if you are trying to harm the critical infrastructure in a particular country, you are launching a cyber attack, which can lead to the failure of critical infrastructure. But in global south, we see countries like Russia and China, which are more concerned about information security, they see that, okay, the information can also lead to harm to their society and the stability of their country. So, how we look at the weaponization in that term, we also need to assess that, okay, what are the concerns of the global south, because I don’t believe that there can be one global norm or one global solution for these things. We live in a world where we come from different societies and different contexts, and without underlining those contexts, we cannot come up with, you know, one single policy formulation.

Turra Daniele:
Yeah, okay, yeah, I also wonder if this is, maybe you’re also suggesting that cyber security frameworks might also include local identities and local needs again, but I will give the floor to Bruna that I think wanted to contribute something in this regard.

Bruna Santos:
Yeah, no, just about the international standards or norms for regulating this information and so on. This is a rather confusing, complex, and multi-layered discussion. We are still trying to make social media companies apply their own, like, policies and the things they decide on every day at the same level to every single state, and it doesn’t happen. I’m working in a campaign currently that’s talking about basically, like, safeguarding elections and users and, like, how do you actually ensure that every single voter gets to have the same level of protection all over the world. But at the same time, we still have, like, policies and decisions from companies and many other spaces that prioritize some spaces and countries instead of others, right? So I’m a little wary when we come and do a lot of, like, conversations about this, what will be a global and international standard or conversation for that, because often when we come to those spaces, it’s not, it’s much less my part of the world that speaks, it’s much less the global majority, it’s the richer countries, right? It is Europe, it might be the U.S., and these are the main players in this discussion. So the same level of, like, global standards or policy discussions for every single country won’t happen if we continue to insist in the same kind of, like, power imbalances in spaces. So we definitely need or might need something special here, something that brings in the perspectives of victims, of the communities that are mostly affected by these issues and by the things that we’re talking about. And that also means bringing in people from Ethiopia to talk about fragmentation or people from Congo to talk about the issues about connections, just like Vencesa was talking before. So we do need to do a lot more work on including perspectives in this conversation so we can move forward.

Turra Daniele:
Thank you, Bruna. I will take this, may I take this as a closing statement? I think you mentioned, again, capacity building, so especially in the Global South and trying to include them in this global discourse. I will give you one minute, Nilesh. to maybe doing your closing remarks, just one minute. Then we’ll have Andrea, and we can conclude.

Neelesh Maheshwari:
So I would just like to conclude by saying that we have to accept certain realities of the world. And these are the realities, that there are new governance challenges. We cannot just say that what worked 20 years before is going to work effectively even now. So since we have seen new challenges in the past five, six years, over a decade, we have seen what kind of harms misinformation can do, what kind of harms the electoral interference can do. So of course, we need regulations. But at the same time, we have to see that while there are certain global sets of norms which lead to convergence of these policies, also there should be space for various different contexts in which the states come from. So if we allow such kind of policy development, that would protect the fragmentation of the internet, as well as allow the countries to pursue their own set of policies. At the same point of time, in terms of trade, I believe that the localization requirements should be minimal. The cross-border flow of data should be promoted. And probably digital trade agreements may be a way forward. But they need to keep in mind the realities of the global south, that they are already excluded from the benefits of the digital economy. And they might lack institutional capacity. So this should be taken into consideration and in mind while going forward with these negotiations.

Turra Daniele:
Thank you, Nilesh. Andrea, I’ll give you the floor for one minute of closing.

Andrea Beccalli:
Thank you Daniel and thank you everyone, all of you. The impact of fragmentation to me is way larger in the global south and the effects it can have that you can see in Europe or even China or India itself. I’m sure that in Brussels when DSA or GDPR or the DMA or AI Act were designed, not much reflection was put into what are the impacts on the global south. That’s not really the priority, it’s pushing them. It’s we need to defend our markets, we need to defend our users and that’s understandable but still a certain point of where these actions actually risk to compromise something. Then if you look back, it’s something marvelous. We never had such a technology, we never had such a way to connect everyone, everywhere across platforms, across languages, across time zones. And as I said at the beginning, we took it for granted. The internet is there, you connect, you only pay for your internet service providers. If there is a public way, if you don’t pay, you just pay for the device. And no, I don’t think we can take this principle for granted any longer and we need to fight for that. But we need to fight seeing going out which are the right battles and which are the right layers. Often we see that policies, policy makers, elected officials, they mess it up with the layers. They think they are tackling some issue, free speech, cyber crime, and there was this question about the weaponization of the internet. no, that we arrive and we see it. The EDNS has been used as a way of attacking other countries, something that the technology wasn’t designed for. But you need to be specific, you need to know what you’re acting for and be mindful of the consequences. So hopefully we will have more chances at the IGF to do that because the spaces to discuss these issues are shrinking, unfortunately.

Turra Daniele:
Yes, exactly. Again, I would like to thank every speaker and every panelist for today. I would also like to thank everybody who connected in their own time zones. I would like to connect Pedro, one of our organizers, that is connected from Brazil right now. Pilar also just arrived from Spain after a super long trip. And I just wanted to point out that, again, it’s very important to try to include everybody and also in the design of these policies that seem to have local impacts. In fact, we might also have some unexpected global issues. So it’s important to include those other perspectives in spaces such as the IGF where we can actively contribute and talk about the specific issues as a community, as a global community. And also, I would also have been very happy to hear more from Venceslas. But again, this is also connectivity issues are, I think, at the center of this whole conversation. So there is a need also to include those perspectives and not lose focus. So we are out of time, unfortunately. We will share our report and our policy recommendations. as well as the contacts from our panellists, for everybody interested in following up after this session. So I would like to thank again everybody for this session. A little round of applause and have a good night. Good morning or continue your day. Bye. Thank you.

Audience

During the discussion, several crucial topics were brought up, including digital diplomacy, cyber diplomacy, cyber capacity building, digital education, administrative risk, cyber security, DNS, OTT, CEO awareness, investment in cybersecurity tools in developing countries, AI in cyber intelligence, cyber certification, and cybersecurity education.

One of the main points emphasized was the need to differentiate between digital diplomacy and cyber diplomacy. A curious audience member posed the question to the speaker, highlighting the audience’s interest in understanding the distinction between these two terms.

Another key point was the importance of cyber capacity building in achieving broader development goals. It was argued that cyberspace is an integral part of a country’s development, and investment in securing cyberspace significantly affects the success rate of other policy initiatives. Academia and policymakers have stressed the need to integrate cyber capacity building and development policies.

The significant contribution of digital education in dealing with cyberspace issues and developing cybernetics was also highlighted. Digital education involves utilizing the internet critically and reflectively, and it was argued that long-term digital education can prepare a society for life in a cybernetic context.

The critical role of cyber security in economic development was another focal point of the discussion. Evidence from a research program sponsored by UNECA demonstrated that an increase in cyber security maturity could lead to a substantial increase in GDP per capita. The research incorporated data from Africa, Asia, and Latin America, providing a broader perspective on the impact of cyber security on economic growth.

The need for leadership and policymakers to recognize the connection between cyber security and economic development was emphasized. The results of the research program sponsored by UNECA were seen as a persuasive tool for promoting this understanding among decision-makers.

Concerns regarding the affordability and sustainability of investing in cybersecurity tools in developing countries were also raised. A concerned individual highlighted the challenges of providing affordable and sustainable cybersecurity solutions in countries with limited resources.

The discussion also touched on the challenges of balancing the use of AI in cyber intelligence and preventing its malicious misuse. It was noted that AI can be a powerful tool for cyber intelligence, but precautions must be taken to avoid its misuse for malicious purposes.

The deficit of cyber security experts and the expensive nature of cyber certification were also mentioned. It was argued that cyber certification is an expensive process, and there is a scarcity of skilled cyber security professionals, highlighting the need for more investment in cybersecurity education.

In terms of cybersecurity education, the level of education required was brought into question. The audience member wanted to know whether cybersecurity education should be basic or advanced, underscoring the importance of understanding the appropriate level of training needed in this field.

Overall, the discussion covered a wide range of topics related to digital diplomacy, cyber diplomacy, cyber capacity building, digital education, administrative risk, cyber security, DNS, OTT, CEO awareness, investment in cybersecurity tools in developing countries, AI in cyber intelligence, cyber certification, and cybersecurity education. The arguments and evidence presented shed light on the critical role these areas play in today’s digital world.

Sandy Palma

Central America is facing significant challenges in the field of cybersecurity. The region is underdeveloped in terms of cybersecurity, with a shortage of trained professionals in the field and limited availability of universities offering education in cybersecurity. This lack of expertise and education contributes to the vulnerability of Central America’s digital infrastructure.

One key issue is the underreporting of cybersecurity attacks in the region. Due to the absence of policies and laws around cybersecurity and the non-disclosure of cyber attacks, incidents often go unreported. It is only when individuals are personally affected and voice their experiences on social media that the wider public becomes aware of these violations. The low reporting rate hinders efforts to effectively address and mitigate cyber threats.

The exponential growth of cyberattacks in Central America has necessitated resilience in all sectors. The switch to virtualization as a response to the pandemic has made several academic centres, from preschools to high schools, victims of cyberattacks. To combat these threats, schools and universities have had to implement internal policies, rules, and protocols. This demonstrates the urgent need for increased resilience and cybersecurity measures in the region.

Another concern is the lack of participation from government authorities in platforms like the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Over the past five years, only one decision-maker or government representative from Central America has taken part in the IGF. This lack of participation hampers the region’s ability to shape policies and strategies related to cybersecurity on a global scale.

Creating awareness through education and training is seen as essential in addressing cybersecurity issues. It is suggested that cybersecurity should be included in the curriculum, covering areas such as laws and computer rights. This would help to equip individuals with the necessary knowledge and skills to protect themselves and contribute to cybersecurity efforts. Furthermore, policymakers, who are mainly government authorities, should prioritize cybersecurity education within the region.

In conclusion, Central America faces significant challenges in cybersecurity. The region has a shortage of trained professionals and limited educational opportunities in the field, leading to vulnerabilities in its digital infrastructure. Cybersecurity attacks often go unreported due to the lack of policies and public awareness. The region must focus on building resilience and increasing participation in platforms like the IGF. Creating awareness through education and training is crucial in combating cybersecurity threats. By including cybersecurity in the educational curriculum and prioritising it as a policy agenda, Central America can address these challenges and enhance its cybersecurity capabilities.

Cláudio Lucena

Universities have faced criticism for their slow integration of cybersecurity into their formal curricula, resulting in a shortage of cybersecurity professionals. This has become a pressing issue as the scale and nature of cybersecurity threats have evolved with the increasing reliance on online activities. Traditional approaches to education may no longer be adequate to address the demand for skilled professionals in the field.

Furthermore, the importance of cybersecurity extends beyond just technical expertise. It is essential for universities, particularly those in the Global South, to play a significant role in promoting cybersecurity awareness. By understanding the importance of the digital ecosystem and cybersecurity, universities can adapt their curricula accordingly. Public universities in the Global South have the potential to effectively reach out and raise awareness about cybersecurity among their communities.

In addressing the digital transformation, it is crucial to consider the elderly population, who are often neglected in cybersecurity initiatives. Elderly individuals may lack the instinctive ability to navigate online activities safely and protect themselves from threats. However, initiatives like the UAMA program implemented by Paraíba State University in Brazil have shown promise in educating elderly people about cybersecurity. The results of the program’s first semester demonstrated a significant increase in awareness and participants’ ability to protect themselves online.

On the other hand, allowing elderly individuals to manage their own digital transformation without proper guidance can have negative consequences. It highlights the importance of providing targeted education and resources to ensure that the elderly are equipped with the necessary skills to navigate the online world safely.

Overall, academia in the Global South has tremendous potential for community engagement in cybersecurity awareness. Universities such as Paraíba State University have harnessed this power by implementing programs like UAMA. By actively engaging with communities, universities can contribute to reducing the cybersecurity skills gap and promoting a safer digital ecosystem.

In conclusion, universities need to restructure their cybersecurity education to keep pace with the evolving threat landscape. The integration of cybersecurity into formal curricula, especially in the Global South, is vital in creating awareness and bridging the skills gap. Additionally, targeted programs that focus on educating the elderly about cybersecurity are essential to ensure that everyone can participate safely in the digital transformation. To maximize their impact, universities in the Global South should leverage their potential for community engagement and work towards building a more secure online environment.

Christopher Painter

Capacity building in cybersecurity is highlighted as crucial for combatting threats and driving economic growth. It enables countries to navigate the challenges of digitisation and the digital economy effectively. The COVID-19 pandemic has further emphasized the reliance on technology, leading to the recognition of the necessity for robust cybersecurity measures.

Political buy-in is seen as essential for the long-term sustainability of cybersecurity objectives. Without political support, capacity-building efforts in cybersecurity would not be sustainable. Capacity building should be integrated into a country’s economic priorities to ensure commitment and success.

Cybersecurity has a tangible impact on creating trustworthy systems and facilitating economic success. Progress has been made in several countries in establishing reliable systems to counter various threats, demonstrating the positive potential of cybersecurity in enhancing economic growth.

The integration of cybersecurity into political and economic priorities is crucial, as it is not solely a technical issue but also a geopolitical and economic concern. Handling cybersecurity issues is compared to nuclear matters, underscoring its multifaceted nature and broader implications.

Efforts are being made to improve policymakers’ understanding of cybersecurity to address the evolving cyber threat landscape. There is growing recognition of the importance of cybersecurity among policymakers, as evidenced by increased awareness and prioritization of cybersecurity issues under various administrations.

The Department of Homeland Security has established an action board to review major cyber incidents. This board includes renowned experts like Jeff Moss and focuses on investigating and learning from cyber incidents while preparing reports.

There is a shift in how cybersecurity breaches are handled, with increasing requirements for disclosure due to changing laws and regulations. The Securities and Exchange Commission mandates publicly traded companies to disclose significant breach events, and Europe is introducing laws that compel companies to disclose cybersecurity breaches.

Digital diplomacy and cyber diplomacy are considered similar, focusing on economic aspects, telecommunications, cyber security, and geopolitical issues. The convergence of the development community and the cyber community is seen as critical, aiming to bring together different perspectives and expertise.

In summary, capacity building, political buy-in, and a multidimensional understanding of cybersecurity are central to addressing threats and driving economic growth. Efforts to educate policymakers and establish clear protocols and mechanisms are necessary to address cyber incidents. The evolving regulatory landscape and emphasis on transparency shape the future of cybersecurity.

Mark Datysgeld

The Domain Name System (DNS) is a crucial component of the internet, responsible for managing the translation of domain names into IP addresses. It operates most of the internet, enabling users to access websites, send emails, and use various applications. However, the security of the DNS has not always been given the necessary attention, leaving it vulnerable to abuse and exploitation by cybercriminals.

Neglecting DNS security can have severe consequences for the integrity and reliability of the internet. Cybercriminals can exploit weaknesses in the DNS to launch devastating attacks, such as phishing, botnets, malware distribution, and malicious spam. This not only puts users at risk but also undermines trust in online platforms and services.

To tackle these issues, there is an ongoing initiative to combat different forms of DNS abuse. The initiative focuses on specific use cases and recommends that registrars and registries, who operate the DNS, adopt measures to block these harmful practices. By implementing these measures, it aims to strengthen DNS security and safeguard the internet ecosystem.

Mark, who presided over the working group dedicated to DNS security, advocates for increased DNS security and the broad implementation of the proposed measures. His optimism stems from the belief that rules blocking the malicious use of DNS will be adopted worldwide within the next year. His advocacy highlights the importance of prioritising DNS security and taking proactive steps to mitigate the risks associated with DNS abuse.

Another aspect being emphasised is the need for operators to include reporting mechanisms in their contact forms. Users play a critical role in identifying and reporting DNS abuse. With an increased requirement for operators to include reporting options, users will have an easier way to directly report instances of abuse. This not only facilitates the reporting process but also enhances interaction between users and operators, ensuring prompt action is taken against malicious activities.

Moreover, educating people about the wide-ranging roles and importance of the DNS is crucial. Many individuals perceive the DNS as only relevant when they have a URL in their address bar. However, the DNS is integral to the functioning of most apps and devices, powering the entire internet infrastructure. By raising awareness and providing education on the significance of the DNS, users can develop a better understanding and appreciate its vital role in supporting online activities.

In conclusion, prioritising DNS security is essential for maintaining the integrity and reliability of the internet. The ongoing initiative to combat DNS abuse, along with the advocacy for increased security measures and reporting mechanisms, showcases the collective effort to address these issues. By raising awareness and educating people about the importance of the DNS, we can build a safer and more secure internet ecosystem for all users.

Olga Cavalli

The discussion focuses on the topic of cybersecurity in Latin America, particularly in relation to its importance, capacity building, resilient infrastructure, and the impact of immigration. One key argument raised is that cybersecurity is not seen as a primary concern in the region, as it is overshadowed by economic and security issues.

However, there is increasing recognition of the need for resilient infrastructure to effectively cope with cyber threats. Recent events related to ransomware attacks have highlighted the value of having a solid and resilient infrastructure. It is argued that without such infrastructure, economic development cannot occur. This positive link between resilient infrastructure and economic development is seen as crucial for the region.

One concern raised is the scarcity of specialized cybersecurity education programs in the region. It is noted that only a few universities offer programs or careers focused on cybersecurity. This lack of specialized education is seen as a significant obstacle in developing a strong cybersecurity workforce.

The lack of transparency and open discussion surrounding cyber attacks is also a concern. It is pointed out that the only way people get to know about these attacks is through individuals sharing their experiences on social media. This lack of transparency and open discussion is seen as a problem that needs to be addressed.

Another significant observation is the loss of cybersecurity professionals from developing economies to countries with higher demand. It is argued that the demand for cybersecurity professionals in other countries is causing a brain drain, depleting the talent pool in developing economies. This loss of professionals is seen as a challenge that needs to be addressed to ensure the cybersecurity capabilities and resilience of these economies.

The role of universities in generating cybersecurity experts is emphasized, and it is suggested that universities should play a vital role in offering cybersecurity education. Specifically, it is advocated that cybersecurity should be included as part of the formal curriculum in universities. This inclusion is seen as essential for developing a skilled workforce to meet the growing demand for cybersecurity professionals.

Furthermore, attention is drawn to the vulnerability of older adults in the digital world and the need for cybersecurity education that includes them. It is highlighted that older adults often lack digital literacy and are therefore more susceptible to online risks. This vulnerability underscores the importance of including all demographic groups, including the elderly, in cybersecurity measures and education.

In conclusion, the discussion underscores the importance of cybersecurity in Latin America and highlights various challenges and areas that need to be addressed. These include the lack of prioritization of cybersecurity, the scarcity of specialized education programs, the need for resilient infrastructure, and the vulnerability of older adults. The role of universities in generating cybersecurity experts and the importance of transparency and inclusion in cybersecurity initiatives are also emphasized.

José Cepeda

Spain is taking steps to enhance its understanding and awareness of critical infrastructures, with a particular emphasis on parliaments. The country is evaluating the critical nature of all parliaments in order to develop a comprehensive understanding of the potential risks and vulnerabilities they face. This signifies a positive development in Spain’s approach to safeguarding essential entities.

However, there exists a significant gap between the technical understanding of cybersecurity and the realm of politics. Many politicians lack the necessary technical knowledge to effectively make informed decisions regarding cybersecurity. This knowledge deficit often hinders the policymaking process and can lead to suboptimal outcomes. Therefore, it is crucial to bridge this gap to enable more effective decision-making in matters of cybersecurity.

To address this issue, Spain is collaborating with the Interparliamentary Union to formulate resolutions that define critical infrastructure. The focus of these resolutions is on parliaments, recognizing their indispensable role in the functioning of the state. By establishing clear definitions and guidelines, Spain aims to strengthen the protection of parliaments as essential entities within the broader critical infrastructure framework.

Local institutions in Spain, due to their limited security infrastructure, are particularly vulnerable to cyber attacks. The majority of attacks in Spain occur on Fridays at 5 p.m. This timing allows cyber attackers to operate throughout the weekend, when there are typically fewer personnel available to detect and respond to such incidents. This vulnerability highlights the urgent need to enhance the security measures and resources available to local institutions.

In response, the Spanish government is developing a hierarchical security infrastructure that caters to institutions at all levels. This initiative ensures that designated individuals at both the national level and in each autonomous region are responsible for the security of municipalities and corporations. Establishing a comprehensive security infrastructure is a positive step towards bolstering cybersecurity across various institutions in Spain.

Furthermore, there is a proposal to create an institutional shield aimed at safeguarding critical infrastructures. This shield would enable institutions, companies, and even citizens to connect with public administrations and governments for enhanced protection. It offers a coordinated and collaborative approach to cybersecurity, ensuring that all stakeholders have direct access to a network of resources and support.

Moreover, Spain is actively involved in developing a global report for the Interparliamentary Union, focusing on cybercrime. The report is currently being analyzed and debated in meetings at the Department of Communications. Additionally, there are plans for a world summit on cybersecurity at the United Nations, demonstrating Spain’s commitment to addressing this pressing issue at an international level.

Recognizing the United Nations’ potential to lead in cybersecurity, there is a proposal to leverage the organization’s resources to establish it as a paradigm of cybersecurity. This would involve utilizing the U.N.’s expertise and infrastructure to provide cybersecurity resources to regions, such as remote parts of Asia and Africa, that are particularly in need of support.

Lastly, an interesting proposition is being considered to create a technological branch called ‘Cyber Blue Helmets’ within the United Nations. Inspired by the current Blue Helmets body, this branch would be dedicated to providing worldwide cybersecurity coverage. This idea holds promise in enhancing global cybersecurity efforts and demonstrates a forward-thinking approach towards addressing cybersecurity challenges.

In conclusion, Spain is taking significant steps to improve its understanding of critical infrastructures, particularly in relation to parliaments. While there is a need to bridge the gap between technical cybersecurity understanding and politics, Spain’s collaboration with the Interparliamentary Union in formulating resolutions for defining critical infrastructure is a positive development. Enhancing the security infrastructure for local institutions and proposing an institutional shield to protect critical infrastructures further demonstrates Spain’s commitment to cybersecurity. Participation in the development of a global report and the proposal to make the United Nations a paradigm of cybersecurity showcases Spain’s international engagement in addressing cybercrime. Additionally, the prospect of ‘Cyber Blue Helmets’ within the U.N. highlights innovative thinking in providing worldwide cybersecurity coverage.

Olga Cavalli:
participants, but we are not able to I cannot I cannot open the zoom Okay, thank you Okay, thank you for for being with us in the meantime. Just let’s let’s start our conversation and They’re in okay, but I cannot I cannot see them I Moderate and moderate in the dark Okay, oh, I can mark the mark solution at all of problems. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much for being with us so in respect of the time and people that are Punctually joining us this this afternoon. Let me introduce myself. My name is Olga Cavalli Presently, I am the national director of cybersecurity of Argentina and I also do the several other activities in in my Academic side. I am the director of the South School of Internet Governance and University teacher as well and with me I have a lot of friends and very well-known and respected specialists that were so kind to be with me this afternoon Mrs. Chris Painter Chris is he has been the first cyber diplomat in the world he’s very well known for his work with the President Obama and I I met him for the first time in IGF in Turkey and and since then we have been in contact and he has been participating in all the schools of Internet Governance that we organize in countries of the Americas whether in person or remotely he’s always keen to Help us with his knowledge and his presence and all the activities that sharing all the activities that he does With me is my dear friend Claudio Lucena Claudio is He’s a professor in Universidad de Paraíba in the northeast of Brazil We recently organized the South School of Internet Governance there in the beautiful city of Campina Grande where he lives and he is based there. So thank you for receiving us there. To my right I have my dear friend, Mark is one of these young jewels of the Internet governance space. He is very active in ICANN, he’s a GNSO Council Member, and also he’s involved in several research activities related with the Internet. And I have remote, my dear friend remote participants I have Sandy. Sandy, are you there? Are you there, dear?

Sandy Palma:
Hello, dear.

Olga Cavalli:
Hello, Sandy. Sandy Palma, she’s from Honduras. She’s the CEO of a non-governmental organization named Honduras Cibersegura. And she is very active in all related with cybersecurity. Also, she has been a student, a fellow of the South School of Internet Governance. And I have Jose. Jose, are you there? Jose Cepeda, he’s a diplomat, he’s a parliamentarian from Spain. Hello, dear Jose, how are you? Jose, good question. In between us, do you want to speak in Spanish or English? I don’t care, I can do a non-simultaneous translation if you prefer to speak in Spanish.

José Cepeda:
Well, the truth is that we prefer it, I think.

Olga Cavalli:
Okay, we always want the language. Okay, fantastic. No problem. No problem. So, I have drafted some questions for my dear colleagues. And I would like to start with Chris. Chris is now the… What’s the director? CEO?

Christopher Painter:
President, yeah.

Olga Cavalli:
President of the Global Forum of Cyber Expertise. And he travels all around the world contributing and organizing different capacity-building activities related with cybersecurity. And I have kind of a weird question. How do you see the impact of all the activities that you do around the world? Do you see that it’s really changing the cybersecurity… landscape in the countries that you visit, especially focusing on developing economies, countries that, what I see, at least in Latin America, is that priorities are always other priorities. It’s not cybersecurity, it’s not the main priority, it’s usually problems with economics, it’s the security, exporting goods, or some other problems related more mainly with economy. How do you see that evolving after, through all the work that you do? You feel that that has an impact and something is changing, and then we can ask some other questions to you. And thank you for being with us.

Christopher Painter:
Really happy to be here with my friend, Olga, and the other panelists, and all of you. Well, I shouldn’t say no, then I’d have to find another job. I’d just say, no, I do think it has an impact. And I should say that capacity building was one pillar of what I did when we started the office at the State Department, the Cyber Diplomacy Office. And now there are like 45 of them around the world, some of them are in this room, and that’s great. And that’s important to look at this as not just a technical issue, but also as a diplomatic issue, as a policy issue. And I’d say that, even back when we started the office, we were doing capacity building in different parts of Africa, other parts of the world. We also focused with the Organization of American States and others, and one of the reasons for that is I think of capacity building in the cyber realm, but really in everything, as the enabler for all, not just to fight all the bad things we see, all the threats that are continuing to grow and evolve, but also to enable all the good things we want out of the internet. And more importantly, to your point, Olga, to enable something that every country wants now, which is to seize on digitization, and seize on the digital economy, and take advantage of this relatively new platform where they all see, you know, this is bridging gaps between communities is always interesting. The security community doesn’t talk to the economic innovation community. This was true when I worked in the White House, too. There was a National Economic Council, National Security Council, they had different views of things, so they didn’t always coordinate. And when we did the cyber strategy at the White House, getting them together was itself kind of a Herculean effort because they’re just different viewpoints. So if you can message it in a way that both the security people and the economic people understand, which is this enables this digitization, this seizing of the digital economy that you all want to grow your economy, particularly in developing countries, that makes it something where they say, okay, this really is a priority, because that’s a priority. And if cyber security is going to enable that priority to succeed, then we want to be part of this. Then we understand what the end game is, that it’s not just a cost, it’s something that’s going to achieve something. And to get that, you often, you know, for this capacity building to work in cyber or anything else, you need real political buy-in. It can’t just be, you know, the technical people you’re training say, yes, we want more, which is great that they do. But if you don’t get the larger political buy-in, it’s not sustainable in the long term. You end up doing one-off trainings, one-off things that are great when they happen, but then five years later, it’s lost. So you need to have a sustained effort, get it ingrained in that country, and that’s really tying it to the economic priorities as well. And I think we’ve seen that, you know, the pandemic had a silver lining in the sense that countries recognized how reliant they were on these technologies, that it wasn’t optional anymore. And they see it in terms of infrastructure projects, water, power, financial, everything is controlled by cyber and security is something that will make that more trustworthy and also operational. So the couple things that I’d say is in Africa, we created a cyber experts group. I think that’s having real impact, certainly in the Latin American Caribbean region. I’m working through the OAS as our kind of regional hub too. We’ve been partnering with them. There’s been lots of great efforts to build certs. Computer emergency response teams have national strategies, which are the kind of framing policy document. And I have seen real, I think, impact there, which is good. ASEAN countries, I just came from Fiji, where we launched our Pacific hub, so for the Pacific Islands. More and more countries are understanding, and that was with the Deputy Prime Minister of Fiji, so I think, again, that political level was important. We’ve seen that connection, but we have to sustain this. And my organization was brought together to have more, as a community, really, it’s supposed to coordinate and make sure we put this on a higher level. And we’re having a big conference in Ghana, which is a worldwide conference, not just an Africa conference, at the end of November, to bring some of these communities together, including the traditional development community. We all know the SDGs, but the cyber community and the development community, again, two separate spheres, and bringing them together is critically important if we’re gonna make progress. So my long answer is, yes, there has been an impact. Yes, I’ve seen it. It’s hard to measure these things, but I’ve seen, I think, real progress in a number of countries as they, I think, create a more trustworthy system against all the threats that will help them succeed economically.

Olga Cavalli:
Thank you. I think that some recent events, perhaps related more with ransomware, are showing the value of having a resilient infrastructure and be aware and have a rising awareness about all these things. And I find very interesting the link that you make with the development of the economy. If we don’t have that infrastructure in shape, that won’t happen. So I think this latest new attacks are perhaps putting this issue more in the spot.

Christopher Painter:
Yeah, I mean, look, I’ve been doing cyber now for 33 years. So for a long time, I was a prosecutor prosecuting cyber crime cases when no one cared about them back in the 90s, and then went to help run the computer crime section was at the FBI, the White House, and the State Department. And through that whole time, the cyber people were not cyber people. but we do cyber stuff, we would be saying this needs to be a priority. And to be sure, in the US, under, at the end of the Bush administration, certainly the Obama administration, because his campaign was hacked into. And now in the Biden administration, it’s, you know, it’s, it’s a priority, but it can’t just be one priority of like 300. Right? When we had the ransomware attacks, where people had to wait in line for gas, where you might not get your hamburger, because it went after a meatpacking plant, where in the Irish healthcare system, you might have your healthcare impacted. That makes it a backyard issue. It makes it, it makes it a political issue. And it makes it a real priority. And so that’s what I’ve seen, not just in the US, but around the world is more and more, this is becoming a priority. The other thing is, the cyber people are pretty bad at explaining this, being the translators to policy people, you know, and we need that translation. We can’t make this a magic thing. It has to be something that they understand. This is a geopolitical issue. It is a capacity building issue. It’s an economic issue. And we need to put it in those terms. You know, I remember used to going and with the exception of Janet Reno, as the Attorney General, who got this completely early on, on cybercrime, but most senior ministers or cabinet officials for us, you talk about cyber, their eyes would roll back in the back of their heads and go, Oh, my God, that’s a technical issue. I’m afraid of that. They’re not afraid of like nuclear issues. And those are really technical, you don’t need to be a nuclear engineer to deal with those issues. And you don’t need to be to be a coder, to understand the implications of cyber and cybersecurity. You need to have some of those people on your staff, but you don’t need to be and I think we need to make sure that the policymakers can grasp that. And I’ve also seen that both in the government and in companies. And that’s, I think, a real change to

Olga Cavalli:
think this is why capacity building so important to build bridges in between technical people and policy people, which is always challenging, especially technicians and lawyers. No, I’m an engineer. Okay, José, are you there? José, did I miss you? Yes. Hi, I’m going to ask you a question in Spanish, but then I’m going to translate it and then I’ll give you the word. Of the comments you sent me for this workshop, I found this initiative that you are carrying out very interesting, these blue helmets, cyber blue helmets, and if you can tell us a little about that, and also another initiative of a mapping of critical infrastructures. Now I’m going to explain it in English and then I’ll give you the word, and after you speak, I’ll translate it into English. Thank you very much for being here with us. José Cepeda, he is a parliamentarian from Spain, and he has been going around the world, and he’s engaged in a very interesting initiative, perhaps you have heard of it, I’m sure you have heard about it. It’s a, how do you say helmet in English? Helmet. Helmet. Cyber helmet. Cyber helmet. And you’re involved in that initiative from the United Nations. José, maybe you can tell us about that, and also another initiative that you told me is about a map about cyber critical infrastructures and related with parliamentarian activities. So maybe you can start with the cyber helmet issue, and if you speak in Spanish, then I can translate to the audience. Many thanks for being with us this afternoon. Morning, early morning for you in Spain.

José Cepeda:
Muchas gracias. Thank you so much, Derek, for this meeting, and especially to Olga Cavalli. Thank you so much. I prefer to speak in Spanish because my English is very bad.

Olga Cavalli:
Sounds good.

José Cepeda:
Okay, okay. Well, thank you. The truth is that talking about the blue cyber helmets or talking about the maps of critical infrastructures in Spain in particular, for me it is a great opportunity in this world forum. I’m going to talk first about Spain, if you like, and then about the more international or more global part. With respect to Spain, it is true that they are developing, following a bit the last resolutions that we have approved in the Interparliamentary Union, a greater awareness of what it is and a greater deepening in the idea of what are really critical infrastructures. For example, we are already evaluating in a serious way that all the parliaments are critical infrastructures. Before, I liked a bit what Christo Cernó and Olga were talking about, about the fusion of the bridges between the technical and the political. I think it is essential. Unfortunately, there are not many politicians who understand technically cybersecurity. This often generates a problem when trying to make decisions.

Olga Cavalli:
Jose, I will translate. So, Spain is… He will focus first on Spain. They are developing resolutions, especially with the Interparliamentary Union, in definition of critical infrastructure. They are starting to think that the parliaments and the parliamentarians are a critical infrastructure. Also, he finds interesting this idea of building bridges between technical people and policy makers, and also the politicians to be involved with the value and the importance of cybersecurity. You go on. Sorry for interrupting you.

José Cepeda:
No, no, no. Thank you very much, Olga. What is happening? One of the biggest cyberattacks, we are seeing them, is being developed in the most basic local institutions. The majority of the attacks that we are receiving in Spain are usually on Fridays at 5 p.m. Why? Because this way they have the whole weekend free to be working when they know that there are no employees and there are no employees behind or controlling the machines. There should be, but there really are not, especially in the small institutions, in the local corporations, not in the municipalities. So, let’s say that from the institutions, from the government of Spain, an infrastructure has been developed that from the highest level to the lowest level, there is a capillarity in the responsibility when it comes to appointing. For example, there are people in charge at the national level, but then they have been created autonomously by regions, and then each of those regions is in charge, in turn, of helping and controlling each of the municipalities and corporations so that the whole institutional structure is protected.

Olga Cavalli:
Ok Jose, I will translate, In Spain they noticed that most of the attacks occur on Friday at 5 pm, so they have all the weekend to work with the infrastructure that they have intruded. So, the government has started to work with all levels of the government, which is national, regional, and municipal, local level. And also establishing responsible people, CISOs, responsible people of cybersecurity, in all of these different levels of the government. You go on, Jose.

José Cepeda:
Thank you. So, it is true that what has been taken as a decision is to develop this institutional shield so that all the critical infrastructures, not only the institutional ones, but from the institutions, there is the possibility of developing a map in each locality, in each region, and in the whole country. so that not only the question of institutions or politics, but that all companies can have direct access to this network, and in the end, even any citizen who may have a problem, so that they know where there can be a connection with public administrations, with governments, whether local, regional or the central government of the state, to protect all citizens and all companies and all infrastructures that depend directly on the government. Well, and if you don’t mind, now we are going to talk about the blue helmets, cyber blue helmets, right? As you well know, I have been working for some years on the development of a global report, precisely at the institutional level for the Interparliamentary Union, and this report is being analyzed and debated in the meetings that are being held at DOC on cybercrime and cyberterrorism, a commission at DOC that is being developed, supposedly for the future, the forecast is that there will be one or two years, to make a great world summit in the United Nations on cybersecurity, better known as cybercriminality, cybercrime, well, cyberterrorism and cybercrime in general, right? And it is true that in that context, the idea arose to look for the United Nations to become a paradigm of cybersecurity as well, right? If it is security at a global level, why not also provide it with resources, with means, so that they are also a little bit the leaders, that above all, as Christopher also commented, there are some places in the world where cybersecurity is very far away, for example in Africa, there are some remote places in Asia, some places in Africa. It is important that in the end, as in a pandemic, when we talk about cybersecurity, all countries have some minimum resources to protect themselves. And it is true that the United Nations can do a great job there. That is why our proposal is aimed at the fact that, if the Blue Helmets already exist as a structure of the United Nations, also to safeguard the decisions of the Security Council and safeguard and prevent conflicts that go further, as unfortunately we are seeing lately all over the world, our proposal would be for the United Nations to develop, even more so, the Blue Helmets body in a technological area that could provide coverage to all countries in the world.

Olga Cavalli:
So, there exists this concept of the Blue Helmets that are taking care of security and organized by the United Nations. So, he has been working with the Inter-Parliamentary Union to promote the creation of a summit in the United Nations focused on cybersecurity, cybercrime, with this United Nations paradigm focused on security. Why not having cyber helmets for cybersecurity, as they have already cyber normal Blue Helmets to try to help bring security to all different places in the world? So, the idea would be to develop this concept of cyber helmets in this summit that would happen in one or two years. I hope I haven’t forgotten anything. I think I’ve said everything. I’m receiving myself as a non-simultaneous translator.

José Cepeda:
Wonderful, wonderful. You translate fantastically well.

Olga Cavalli:
Thank you. Is there anything else you want to tell us for now? Then I’ll come back with another question, José.

José Cepeda:
No, in principle, nothing else. Thank you very much and I’m sorry for all this double work I’m commenting on.

Olga Cavalli:
That’s how I learn more. Your English is not bad. I’m going to tell you that for the little I heard, it was very good. Sandy, are you there?

Sandy Palma:
Hi, dear.

Olga Cavalli:
Hi, dear Sandy. There I see you. How beautiful the background.Now I have to switch to English, Sandy Palma, she’s from Honduras.edit She’s the CEO of a non-governmental organization named Honduras Cibersegura. And she has been very, very active, apart from the fact that she has been one of the students of our school several times. She was in Buenos Aires last year and she’s a good friend of our group and our community. Sandy, how do you see the situation in Central America? We see, especially, I see all these immigrants going through Central America, trying to reach the United States, going through borders. I don’t know how this has an impact in the infrastructure, how these people handle the situation. How do you see the situation in Central America in relation with cybersecurity? How do you see the capacity building in bringing a difference in that region? And thank you very much for being with us today. What time is for you? It must be the middle of the night. Thank you for that.

Sandy Palma:
No, just like Jose, I’m going to speak to you in Spanish because my English is not so good. Yes, it’s 12.40 in the morning, so it’s an honor. But no, don’t worry, I’ve been all these days at the same time. I’m going to speak in Spanish, so you have to translate as well.

Olga Cavalli:
It’s my turn, but did you understand what I said?

Sandy Palma:
Yes, the question, yes? Yes, I understood it, no problem, but I prefer in Spanish. Okay, in Central America, I tell you, we are like in diapers, we are at the capacities, professionally we are very few in the area, as well as at a global level, the reports indicate that there is a great need for professionals specialized in cybersecurity, however, there are very few universities in the region that allow you or have included the subject matter in their curriculum. I don’t know if I stop or continue, right? A little more and then I’ll translate. Okay, in terms of cybersecurity, as you all know, even one of our brother countries, Costa Rica, suffered very strong cyber security attacks at the governmental level, however, it is not the exception, this happens daily in all of Central America, the difference is that they are not made public, this happens at the private level, at the private sector and also at the public level, but since there is no director, there are no policies, there are no laws that talk about the subject matter, so they are not made public and all those affected realize only when the citizen uses a social network to report that he was a victim or his data was violated in a private or public institution. Otherwise, they are not made public, but we do have a big gap to cover in cybersecurity.

Olga Cavalli:
Sandi is saying that the region has a lack of professionals in cybersecurity, which I think, is a problem all around the world, and many professionals from developing economies are moving to being captured perhaps by other countries demanding the capacity of these professionals. They have a high necessity of infrastructure. Few universities have programs to train. And this is something that I want to speak with Claudio in a moment. Few universities have careers focused on cybersecurity. And a country in Central America, Costa Rica, we all know they have really suffered a very, very strong ransomware attack that practically immobilized the government for several days. So she said something very, very interesting that I have been thinking about after I heard something in the school in Campina Grande. Nobody talks about what is happening. The only way that people get to know about attacks is through some citizens explaining that something is happening in social networks. This is something complicated. And someone in the school said something very interesting, that the aviation industry uses all the information of every unfortunate event, like an accident, to improve the security of airplanes. And now we all know that it’s safer to go in an airplane than crossing the street. We all know that. But that is because and thanks to all the information that has been provided and captured after something wrong is happening. So someone said, I cannot recall who said that in the school. And I said, why don’t we find a way to capture all the details of the attacks? Perhaps taking away the name of the institution, or bank, or organization, or country that is being attacked. But using all this information to really try to improve. advance the way to solve or to be resilient. Sorry, I got excited telling a story that I heard in Brazil, Sandy, so now I give you the floor again. I don’t know if you understood what I said, that I found it very interesting from the aviation industry, to capture all the information to improve how to solve attacks. Now the floor is yours.

Sandy Palma:
Okay, well, look, here in the region we have had to be resilient in all sectors, even during the pandemic, we have seen exponential growth in cyberattacks, especially in the academia sector, right? Taking into account that they had to change their way, the way of teaching that they had decades to use, and they had to change it in 30 days, switch to virtualization. And many of these academic centers, from all levels, from preschool to high school, were victims of cyberattacks. So what happened? This did not stop. The universities did not stop, the schools did not stop, but they did have to be resilient in this regard, and start implementing policies, rules and protocols at the internal level. Although our countries do not have a national cyber security strategy, a national cyber security policy, or even the clearest example, if you look at the history of events like this, like the IGF, and look at how many government representatives have registered or have participated in Central America, you will realize that there is only one in the last five years. A single person, representative, decision-maker. I have participated, I have worked in the government sector, but I am not a decision-maker. There are ministers, there are chancellors, there are presidents, and no one has participated. And those who create policies are the government authorities, right? So there is something very important that we have to create awareness. And to achieve this, Olga, it is related to something that you indicated to me in the questions you sent me. What should we do? Well, how are we going to do it? And this cannot be achieved in any other way if we do not create awareness through education, training of public servers, of users, of people. And this is not easy to achieve. As I was saying, the academy has to include in its educational curriculum to talk about cybersecurity, as well as we talk about ethics, mathematics, science. We have to talk about cybersecurity, and cybersecurity is not only hacknetic, but also laws, computer rights, more and more.

Olga Cavalli:
And they had to develop their own internal policies, because some countries in the Central American region, as per what she is explaining, they don’t have a national cybersecurity strategy, or perhaps they don’t have the policies in place, so the different organizations have been organizing themselves in having their own internal policies. And she talks about the lack of participation, perhaps, in this forum of governmental officials, or people that are involved in developing policy, especially from Central America, and the importance of rising awareness and education of public servants, and the lack of activities in the academia. Sandy, can I give the floor now to Claudio, because I want to follow up a question to him in relation to what you have been saying. Is that okay?

Sandy Palma:
Yeah, sure.

Olga Cavalli:
Chris wants to make a comment in between.

Christopher Painter:
Yeah, so it’s interesting, this idea of doing something like the National Transportation Safety Board does for airplanes. in the U.S. And actually this is something I think our Department of Homeland Security, I’m no longer in the government, the Department of Homeland Security, has done is they have this action board to look at major cyber incidents. They have a number of luminaries on it, Jeff Moss, our friend and others, who look at things and try to learn and have reports on it. So it’s still in its infancy, but that’s exactly what they’re trying to do.

Olga Cavalli:
Yes, but what we notice, at least in Argentina, is that in general, who has been attacked doesn’t want to say because of different reasons. Because if it’s a bank, they want to keep their reputation for their customers. They don’t want that the customers go away to other banks because they think that their deposits will disappear. Or if you’re a government or government agency, perhaps you’d…

Christopher Painter:
But that’s been true for like 30 years, right? And I think it’s changing a little bit because now, in certain parts of the world, there are disclosure laws. If there is a breach, they have to disclose it. Securities regulators, like the Securities and Exchange Commission, are saying if you’re a publicly traded company and this is a significant event, you need to disclose it. Europe has laws they’re passing now as part of their package of laws. And I always used to say to companies who didn’t report it, and the same with government, better report it and get it out of the way, and people will understand that you’re on top of it. Then it’d be found out a year and a half later, then you risk more reputational harm, I think. But it’s still a challenge, I agree.

Olga Cavalli:
I think it’s challenging. I think it’s a process that it’s starting to be more transparent. But we still have a kind of a lack of transparency in general to learn from experience. Claudio, Sandy mentioned something that I think is really important, the role of universities. There are few universities that really have a career in cybersecurity. As far as I know, there is one university in Argentina, in Buenos Aires, the Universidad de…What is the name? No.Ok, I forgot No, no, no. Ok, I forgot I cannot remember the name of the university. They have created one career on cyber security. They have a very high demand of students. It’s not virtual yet. It’s still for some demands of the bureaucracy, local bureaucracy of universities, but they plan to go virtual. How do you see the role of universities? Because I’ve been a university teacher for 20 years and I teach these issues to my students but not as part of the formal program. I share with them information, try to motivate them to learn about these things, but it’s not really in the formal program of the career that they do, which is general informatics. How do you see that being someone so much involved in this process and being a university teacher?

Cláudio Lucena:
Thank you very much, Olga. Thanks for the invitation, for the space, and thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. That’s a very good question for which I obviously do not have the answer, I do not have the truth, but I might have a suggestion of a path to follow, and I think it should be based on at least three pillars. The first one is we have, from the academia, we have to acknowledge that the presence of the digital ecosystem is much more different now than it was 33 years ago when Chris started. I think that’s a very good starting point in scale and in nature. I’ll elaborate a little bit on it a bit more. Second, the university has to understand its role in the process and it’s difficult to make universities change. University professors who are here are already starting to laugh. And the third, it should be for universities to understand that traditional approaches, such as courses, curricular reform, as Sandy was mentioning, to us might not be good enough. It might not be enough for the amount of the challenge that we have. On the first point, back in, let’s say, 2005 in Tunis, and when the IGF started, cybersecurity was already an issue. So there were critical infrastructure. There were particular professions that were concerned about it. It was important, but still a niche thing, if we could say so. Fast forward 15 years, and now visiting a temple in Kyoto during the IGF might raise cybersecurity concerns. So it’s not only the scale, it’s the nature. I’ve written a paper during the pandemics that was an initiative from the Latin American office of the Conrad Adenauer Foundation. And we were trying to analyze cybersecurity aspects of what happened after the pandemics in the scenario of Latin America. There was some data that I collected from a friend from the University of Chile that stroke me absolutely. He mentioned that by February in the COVID time, before the COVID, right, before the declaration of the pandemics, 0.6% of the Chilean population had some online activity connected to labor. 0.6% of the Chilean labor force was somehow connected to working online. If he measured then it again in April, three months later, the percentage had risen to 5.6%. And he measured it again in July. The percentage had risen to 18% of the Chilean population doing some kind of regular activity connected to work. It’s not cybersecurity, but it’s attack surface. It’s an aspect of people that had not been online yet. And it’s a personal digital transformation that accelerated a lot. So that is to end this point is to say a lot of our life. It’s not a niche thing. It’s not an aspect. It’s not a fraction of the human lives. Cybersecurity is an embedded aspect, an embedded dimension of everyone’s life that touches, it’s a backyard issue. So I think this consciousness is not obvious to universities. And the second and third points, I think they’re together. And this, I speak a little bit more from a Global South perspective in public universities to be very specific. Because those are institutions that have a different role in the Global South. They have a different outreach. They are able to work on that awareness. And as I say, bringing you numbers, Sandy here brought a deficit of cybersecurity professionals. I have an estimate of around 300,000 professionals that we lack today around that mark. And I can confirm that 300,000 professionals in Brazil only. We do not and we will not fill that gap with regular courses, reforming curricula, formalizing this. For one, because the university simply does not do that. We do not reform curricula overnight or depending on that.

Olga Cavalli:
Takes forever.

Cláudio Lucena:
Yeah. So thinking about other alternatives, but the university and the academia in general and in the Global South, it happens a lot. We have a huge mobilizing power, community engagement. So through other alternatives, we can try to hit one of those aspects. And I can bring you a good practice from my university, Paraíba State University, which is the UAMA, which stands in Portuguese for the Open University to the Elderly. I think it’s something we discussed over the SIG. It’s a program. It’s a formalized program in the university that is directed to the elder, 60 plus people. We include various, the idea of the program is to bring them back to the university and make them do interesting things in life again. So they have language classes. health for their age, human rights notions. And then last year, in the beginning of last year, because they have suffered a lot in their personal process of digital transformation, that was a segment of the population that was hitting hard. So the director of the program asked me, he phoned the law school and said, why can’t we prepare a cybersecurity course for these people, 60 plus? And I thought the idea was just brilliant. And then I thought, looking at stakeholder-wise, and it seems like that for children, we’re very much concerned. They learn how to grow up in this environment. We help them navigate. It’s pretty much taken care of. It’s far from being solved. They’re far from being safe, but it’s pretty much taken care of. For us, we manage, right? We’ll get around, we’ll get around. But it seems that for 60 plus, we have just forgotten them. Just left them on their own. And they do not instinctively act adequately and appropriately. And the results of that first semester of two groups with 30 people was absolutely amazing. How much engaged, how much more aware they were, how much more they were able to defend themselves in this environment. Because then again, and I close here, the cybersecurity dimension that we have to tackle today is not only institutional anymore. It’s not only collective anymore. It’s also on an individual basis. And I think universities have an incredible role that can play in this, provided that they meet these three aspects and understand those three criteria.

Olga Cavalli:
It’s interesting what you mentioned, because where I work in the directory of cybersecurity, we’re promoting some papers that we’re writing. And I did write about old people, because I experienced that with my mom. And she had a Facebook and she used… She died two years ago, but she used a lot of social networks. And she tended to believe that everyone was thinking like her because all the people were her friends. And it was very difficult for me to explain to her that that was not the whole universe of the connected world. And yeah, she was very vulnerable about the information that we received, what she read. And I think that’s a target that it’s totally forgotten. And I agree with you. And so I wrote something about that. So now I will go to my dear friend Mark. He has been so kind to do the translation in the chat of the Zoom room when I was translating into English and Spanish, which is my new profession now. Mark is very active in the GNSO. GNSO is one of the spaces of participation of ICANN. ICANN is the organization that gathers all the different millions of different networks in the world together through some unique identifiers. And one of these unique identifiers is the domain name system. And Mark has been working very actively in a working group about security in the domain name system. So why don’t you share, Mark, with us what is that? And how does it affect the cybersecurity? And what us should know about that and how people can learn about it? And thank you for your participation here.

Mark Datysgeld:
Thank you so much, Olga. It’s a pleasure to be here with everyone. I will try to be that guy that is the bridge between the technical and the normal. So let’s give this a try. So when we talk about the domain name system, we’re talking about pretty much anything that resolves using that system. People don’t think about that. But when you’re using WhatsApp, it is using the DNS. You just don’t see it. So, the Domain Name System actually operates most of the internet as we know it. So, it’s one of the only, one of the few shared resources that we really have in the world, that are truly global. And that’s why caring for its security should be a priority. The problem is, and we have people here in the room who are very active in ICANN as well, who can say I’m wrong or right, but for a long time this was not put as a priority. This was put as something important to be looked into, and certain aspects of security were maintained, but that was on the very, very deep technical level, at the security level of the protocol. So, it’s like, how secure is the technical part of the DNS, right? Is it running smoothly? Can it be tempered with? That was the concern for a long time. But, as we see an increasing amount of cyber attacks, different types of initiatives that really seek to harm users around the world, then we had to expand the conversation a little bit. Who are the actors who are using the DNS to do things that are simply not secure, that simply do not fulfill the mission of the DNS, which is being reliable, secure and available for all? And there are some cases in which we arrived at that simply do not have a positive use. So, the operation of a botnet, there are no good botnets out there. There’s nobody doing charitable, nice things with a botnet. It’s always criminals and always of the worst kind as well, might I add. So, why are we allowing these people to make use of the system that is a global good, to leverage this for their attacks, right? That was the sort of question that started this working group, this process that I chaired. And the reality is that there are a few categories. of questions that we arrived at, that we believe are not good uses of the DNS. And as a working group, we recommended that to the people who run the systems of the DNS. So we’re talking here about the registrars and registries, which are basically the people who either have custody over a certain suffix, like say .ninja, or they sell those domain names using that suffix. And we approached them and said, you know, we think that in this very specific, very narrow use cases, this cannot go on. So we settled into a list that is basically botnets. So for those who don’t know, it’s basically leveraging machines from around the world to carry out a concerted attack or to carry out a disruption in mass. So phishing, which is sites that impersonate another institution or another organization and use that to steal credentials from users. Malware distribution, so it’s sites that only exist to perpetuate malware. So there is no other use for that domain name other than spreading a virus or an attack or being a bridge for an attack. There’s nothing else there other than that. And farming, which is when a website only exists to collect information of users for malicious purposes. There’s also an addition to that, which is spam. But when I mention spam, you shouldn’t really think about it that way because it’s spam as a vector to the things that I said before. It’s very specific, right? So this is not about fighting spam, which might have legitimate users. It’s about fighting spam that leads a user to a malware website. And this has been presented to these operators, and so far what we think is that they agree with us that this is something that would be desirable. that it would be better for the Internet if they adopted these changes to block these specific use cases. So, the term that we use is DNS abuse, but if we are to be very, very accurate, it’s technical DNS abuse. We’re talking intellectual property infringements, anything that has to do with honor or anything like that, anything that’s content is not going to be touched upon by that because ICANN has a technical mission. What we’re trying to fight is some forms, this is not even all forms, right, we didn’t actually arrive at all forms, but we arrived at some forms that malicious people used to leverage the DNS in a negative way, and we are now in very deep into the negotiation of this being a standard. For the entire world, no. So, it is for generic names. The country codes, they operate under their own rules. We hope that some of them adopt this or want to talk to us about this or think that this is a good idea, but this is each nation’s prerogative. So, our expectation is that within the next year or so, this will come to be, these new rules will come to be, and with that, we’ll be able to add a little bit extra security to the Internet. It’s not even like the tip of the iceberg, but we are hoping that at least we can show that we are actually looking into this, that this is not a known issue and that we understand that there are very, very bad criminals leveraging this public resource for things that it should not be used for. So, that’s the general idea. If anybody is more interested in this, I can offer more technical material, but this is the overview, sort of. So, thank you very much for your attention.

Olga Cavalli:
Marc, this is an issue of operators only or global cities, individuals can have a say or do something? to prevent that? Can I do something against the DNS abuse or just have to suffer it and hope that my operator or my registrar do something about it? How do you think?

Mark Datysgeld:
So as part of this, that’s actually a very good question, as part of this agreement, we’re also upping the requirements for what these operators need to include in their contact forms. Before it was very much like whatever you want, right? They needed to have some form of reporting available on their website. So you go to a big registrar, I’m not gonna cite names, but like a big registrar that sells a lot of domain names, right? And you have identified that they are the ones operating a malicious domain name. Right now, if you go there, you don’t, it’s not very clear where you can report something, but that’s gonna be standardized. It’s gonna go into their contracts that they need to have something that’s actually, the user can get there and say, hey, I noticed that this website is a phishing operation. It’s copying this website, I have the proof, here are the elements, here’s the proof of this, here are the comparisons, and this will enable people who are looking into the system to verify. That’s not an automated thing, it’s never gonna be that. It’s literally a way for you to communicate with these operators very directly. At the end of the day, it’s still their call, but we are making an effort so that people actually can report this thing. So supposing your business was cloned and you’re currently suffering an attack from that, now you can report that at the international level, which, you know, I think it’s a big win. But, you know, opinions may diverge, but still, I consider it a win.

Olga Cavalli:
That’s an event that we usually see in the national CSIRT and people having problems with domains. Okay, we have like eight minutes, any comments, questions from the audience? Yes, there’s a mic there, can you go to the mic? And can you tell us your name and where you’re from?

Audience:
Thank you. My name is James. Oh, no. My name is James. I’m from Cameroon. So my question go to- Chris, our star. The man in the middle. So quite frankly, I’d like to understand the difference between digital diplomacy and cyber diplomacy.

Olga Cavalli:
Oh, that’s a- Thank you very much. Slight difference, eh? I’ll take all the questions first. Yeah, please. Yeah, we don’t have much time.

Audience:
Hi, everyone. Good afternoon. My name is Paloma. I’m from northeast of Brazil. I would like to congratulate the panel. These speeches were wonderful and necessary, of course. Then my question, especially taking Cloud’s speech about the digitalization of personal life and the attack on individual base. And your speech, I forgot your name, sorry. When you told us that everybody’s using DNS, while we are using WhatsApp, but most people don’t see it, or about phishing cases, something like that. Well, it become clear that cyberspace is an intrinsic part of the development of any country. A strong cyber capacity is crucial for states to progress and develop in economic, political, and social spheres. The need to integrate cyber capacity building and development policies has been documented by the academia and the policy makers. And the other sectors from society. The investment in securing cyberspace affects the success rate or other policy initiative as well. However, there is a clear need for a deeper dialogue with the development community and received countries in order to better to understand how to implement cyber capacities in practice in order to achieve broader development goals. So to stimulate the debate on cyber capacity building and its impacts on social and economic development worldwide, I’d like to understand your opinion about the contribution of digital education to this issue. Since digital education involves not only learning how to use platforms and tools, but also involves a critical and reflective use of the internet and its possibilities and is capable of, in long term of course, preparing a society for life in a cybernet context. And I’m including this topic at the debate because I think that it’s a thing, it’s something really important when we are talking about administrative risk or better, we are talking about to define what kind of risk I’m able to support and to know that I need to understand which are the risks and the impacts in my society, business or whatever. I don’t know if I made myself clear, but that’s my question, contribution to the panel. Thank you.

Olga Cavalli:
We have like four minutes, so you can take all the questions.

Audience:
Okay, my name is James Ndolufuyi from Abuja, Nigeria. I have a comment and then a question. First to Chris, on the issue of connecting cyber security to development. Last year, UNECA sponsored a research program which was released at the IGF in Ethiopia. Chris, you were there and I had the privilege of actually conducting that research. I was able to really measure it, measure maturity, cyber security maturity to development as a way of persuading leadership, policy makers to see the connection. In that study, a 10% increase in cyber security maturity could yield between 0.66% and 5.4% increase in GDP per capita. And that used data from Africa, Asia and Latin America. So it’s available on the website, at least some of the data is available on the website www.cd4ir.africa. So you can check it there. The secondly, where is Mark? Okay, the question is for Mark.

Olga Cavalli:
He’s trying to get more minutes for us.

Audience:
Okay.

Olga Cavalli:
It’s very, very important.

Audience:
Okay, Mark talked about DNS with WhatsApp. I want him to expand it further because there is what we call the OTT. The number of this OTT don’t really need to depend on the root system. So I want to expand it on what you mean by even using WhatsApp. You know, there are a lot of OTT over the top application. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. I’m Christine Mujimba. I work with a regulator, communications regulator in Uganda. And we operate as SART there for the communication sector. So information sharing indeed is like Olga said, there’s reputational risk. And so especially the financial sector tends to keep it back. But what we have done is to have an awareness of the CEOs of companies so that they don’t see this as a technical issue. And they begin to invest in it. But I’m curious to know about investment in tools. We are talking about capacity building, but we need the eyes to know what’s happening. And that is really very, very expensive. And in developing countries, or emerging economies like we are talking, it cannot be, it’s not affordable and sustainable. So I’d like to hear from the panelists what is being done in that area. The other, when Mark mentioned, and I appreciate the issue of botnets and them only being malicious, but I know that there are use cases of AI in terms of the cyber intelligence. So where is the balancing act when they are deployed for those purposes? Especially since you said you have a list. I don’t know if it’s a black list or a white list. And then lastly, on the cyber certification, again, this is very expensive, and yes, there’s a deficit of cyber security experts. So what level are you looking at? Just the basics like how you’re taught as a child to look left, right, left, right before you cross the road, not to share your pin, things like that. Is it at that level, like with the elderly, or is it at a higher level? Thank you.

Olga Cavalli:
Okay, we have running out of time. I’m so sorry. Next year, I will book one hour and a half. I promise. My proposal is that we find a moment outside. Do you have five more minutes? Maybe you can respond quickly, and then we have to cut off the queue. I’m so sorry for that.

Christopher Painter:
Those were all great questions. Digital diplomacy and cyber diplomacy, they’re similar. I think digital diplomacy has often been the economic aspects and telecommunications, where cyber was the larger cyber security, geopolitical issues, but I think they’re merging. I think that I’d say that. I think the question about, I agree, bringing the development community and the cyber community together is critically important, and that’s what our conference in Ghana is trying to do, and a lot of our efforts are trying to do. I thank you on the GDP issue. I think that’s an important one that shows actual impact of this work, and I think that helps drive decision maker and money and funding, which is scarce, so that’s really good. So those are the ones I’ll quickly comment on. There’s many others. I wish I had more time, sorry.

Mark Datysgeld:
Yeah, very quickly, I’ll go back to my comment. This is something that I always mention when I’m giving classes. People think that the DNS only works when you have an URL on your address bar, so that’s where the DNS exists, and you go, you type, and that’s the DNS, but the DNS operates when you find something on a search engine. The DNS exists when you’re operating any app, pretty much, because they use DNS routing to actually function, so these protocols, they exist everywhere. It doesn’t matter if you’re using it through an app, if you’re using it on your microwave, or whatever you’re using, and we don’t do enough to explain this to users, so they think that this is a very specific thing. Oh, it’s about having a domain name. It’s not that. It’s an entire system that sort of runs the internet, so people can’t appreciate the importance of it because they don’t understand that it’s not just owning your name, dots, anything. Thank you.

Olga Cavalli:
Okay, big applause to everyone. Thank you, Chris. Thank you, Mark. Thank you, Claudio. Gracias, Jose. Gracias, Sandy. Muchas gracias a todos. I promise next time I will book more time. Thank you so much, Chris.

Audience:
I’m here all week, so I’ll see you guys around. Great meeting you. Congrats. Great meeting you too. Thanks a lot. Thank you.

Ram Mohan

The topic of Universal Acceptance is not solely a technical issue but a human one that requires inclusivity to create a truly inclusive internet society. Users often face difficulties when their email addresses or domain names are not recognized as valid by certain systems. This problem is more about inclusivity than purely technical.

The next generation, known as digital natives, should be able to communicate and interact with names and systems in their native languages. Language should not be a barrier when it comes to converting email addresses and website addresses into hyperlinks. Regardless of the language script they are represented in, they should universally convert into hyperlinks. This would enhance usability and accessibility for users from different languages and cultures.

A failure in universal acceptance forces organizations to resort to inferior systems to represent themselves. If a company or organization’s name fails to convert into a hyperlink due to the language script, they are excluded from the digital ecosystem. This limitation hampers their online visibility and reduces their ability to communicate effectively with others in the global digital space.

Ram Mohan, a prominent figure, regards websites, domain names, and email addresses as communication tools between human beings rather than just identifiers. This perspective highlights the importance of Universal Acceptance in enabling effective and inclusive communication among individuals worldwide. It stresses the need to prioritize inclusivity and accessibility in the digital realm.

While the core technical challenges of Universal Acceptance and multilingualism have been mostly resolved, the main issue lies in policy coordination and incentives. The problem itself is relatively small compared to larger issues that organizations and technical firms have to deal with. Therefore, the focus should shift towards policy-based initiatives and economic incentives that can drive progress towards universal acceptance.

Policy-driven incentives, such as vendor preference for demonstrating universal acceptance in governmental procurement, can play a crucial role in prioritising universal acceptance. By creating impetus for businesses and organizations to prioritize inclusivity in their digital presence, policy-driven incentives can help promote universal acceptance on a broader scale.

The dialogue surrounding Universal Acceptance should also be simplified to make it more accessible and inclusive. Rather than using technical jargon, terms like digital accessibility and inclusion should be used to effectively communicate the importance of this issue to internet users. The satisfaction of users’ needs and preferences should be the central focus of discussions regarding Universal Acceptance.

In conclusion, Universal Acceptance is not just a technical matter but a human one that requires inclusivity and prioritising the needs of internet users. It involves enabling communication and interaction in native languages, converting addresses into hyperlinks regardless of the language script, and promoting accessibility and inclusion in the digital realm. While technical challenges have been largely resolved, policy coordination and incentives are vital to driving progress in achieving universal acceptance. By simplifying the dialogue and focusing on policy-based initiatives, a more inclusive and accessible internet can be created for all.

Edmon Chung

The analysis emphasises the importance of universal acceptance for digital inclusion and the development of a multilingual internet. It reveals that internet suppliers lack awareness of the impact of their actions on internet accessibility, resulting in partial support for internationalised domain names and email addresses. This limited support hinders users from fully utilising the internet in languages other than English, which inhibits digital inclusion and denies individuals the opportunity to access the internet in their native languages.

A multilingual internet is both a matter of language justice and a means to improve internet safety. Understanding the sender’s email address aids in identifying spam and scams, while multilingual email addresses facilitate better comprehension of sender details. Consequently, a multilingual internet provides a safer online experience for users.

While some argue that domain names and email addresses are becoming less relevant in cybersecurity, the analysis highlights their continued importance. Direct navigation on the internet still relies on domain names, and email addresses are critical in cybersecurity training. Elderly individuals are trained to verify the sender’s email address before taking any action, emphasising the ongoing significance of these elements in online security.

However, the analysis reveals that Internet Domain Names (IDNs) are not being efficiently or correctly utilised, causing them to be devalued and act as second-class citizens on the internet. Problems, such as the inadequate readiness of email and web hosting for IDNs, contribute to their underutilisation. This highlights the need for greater awareness and implementation of IDNs to fully realise their potential for achieving a multilingual internet.

While the technical groundwork for universal acceptance has been established, the analysis highlights challenges in implementing and adopting it in the market. While protocols exist at a low technical level, convincing the technical community of the importance of universal acceptance remains a hurdle. Market forces alone are not enough, and the lack of a smooth user experience creates a chicken and egg problem.

The analysis also highlights the need for policy interventions to motivate suppliers to support universal acceptance. Existing policies enable internationalised email addresses and domain names, but increased motivation is required for full implementation. Issues with the ease of use for multilingual email addresses further underscore the need for policy interventions to foster support.

In promoting local languages via domains, the analysis emphasises that the importance of community or culture should outweigh obstacles such as keyboard strokes and input complexity. Chinese and Japanese individuals continue to search in their native languages, even with the need for additional keyboard strokes. The popularity of single-character Chinese domain names, representing a word with just two to three strokes, demonstrates the value placed on promoting local languages in internet domain names.

Furthermore, the analysis notes that promoting local languages via domains aligns with the international decade of indigenous languages and the sustainable development goals supporting local culture. It asserts that choice should not be limited to ASCII domains but should include local names as options.

The importance of community empowerment and co-creation in building internet infrastructure and a multilingual internet is also emphasised. Community networks play a vital role in developing infrastructure that caters to the needs of the communities themselves. Community networks also contribute to making local languages more prevalent in the internet space. Thus, empowering community networks is seen as a valuable model for building internet infrastructure and fostering a multilingual internet.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the significance of universal acceptance for digital inclusion and the development of a multilingual internet. Awareness among internet suppliers, efficient utilisation of Internet Domain Names (IDNs), and policy interventions are key factors in achieving universal acceptance. Overcoming obstacles such as keyboard strokes and input complexity is important for promoting local languages via domains. Community empowerment and co-creation offer valuable models for building internet infrastructure and encouraging a multilingual internet.

Susan Chalmers

The discussions centered on the significance of connectivity and digital inclusivity in native languages. The Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program emerged as a key initiative, allocating a substantial budget of $3 billion to enhance internet access in Native American tribal lands. As a part of this program, funding is provided for remote educational activities aimed at preserving indigenous languages, thus connecting tribal language and cultural resources to the internet. This initiative has been received positively, with its focus on addressing the digital divide and promoting inclusivity.

Another important aspect highlighted was the promotion of universal acceptance, which is vital for the development of a multilingual internet. Universal acceptance refers to a technical standard that enables domain names and email addresses to function in non-Latin scripts. This standard plays a significant role in bridging the language barrier and ensuring equal access to online resources for all language communities. Its promotion is considered a foundational element for a truly multilingual internet, contributing to reduced inequalities.

While efforts have been made for language acceptance, it is observed that many communities have adapted to the limited capabilities of the ASCII-only system. However, the ultimate objective remains to offer internet access to everyone in their own language and script. This highlights the importance of overcoming linguistic barriers and providing equal digital opportunities for all individuals.

Though the technical groundwork for universal acceptance has been completed, challenges in coordination and policy implementation persist. The coordination among stakeholders and the formulation of effective policies are essential to ensure the practical implementation of universal acceptance standards. The need for government intervention and policy changes to overcome these challenges and promote internet access in native languages was emphasized. The involvement of governments is crucial in creating a conducive environment for the development and adoption of policies that ensure language inclusivity online. It is important for this issue to gain visibility and propel governments to take the necessary actions.

In conclusion, the discussions shed light on the significance of connectivity and digital inclusivity in native languages. The Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program and the promotion of universal acceptance emerged as key initiatives to address this issue. Challenges remain in terms of coordination, policy, and implementation, for which government intervention is seen as crucial. Overcoming these barriers will contribute to reducing inequalities and ensuring that internet access is available in individuals’ own languages and scripts.

Speaker

The internet has the potential to significantly support local languages, particularly in Italy, where several unrecognized languages such as Furlan, Sardo, and Arberesh exist. These languages often struggle for recognition and preservation, but the internet can provide a platform for their promotion. By utilizing this powerful tool, local communities can distribute information, resources, and cultural content in their native languages, helping to preserve their linguistic heritage.

One of the key advantages of using the internet to support local languages is its ability to overcome geographical barriers. Through the internet, speakers of these languages can connect and communicate with each other, regardless of their physical distance. They have the opportunity to share their experiences, educate others about their languages and cultures, and build a sense of community.

Furthermore, the internet allows for widespread distribution of information in local languages. This ensures that speakers of these languages have access to essential resources, educational materials, and news in their native tongue. It empowers local communities by enabling them to develop and share content that reflects their unique perspectives and experiences.

In addition to the role of the internet, government and community support are crucial for the promotion and preservation of local languages. Without the active involvement and support of both entities, promoting these languages would be challenging, if not impossible. Governments can play a significant role by implementing policies that recognize and protect local languages, allocating resources for language revitalization initiatives, and encouraging their use in official capacities.

Similarly, community engagement is vital in raising awareness about the importance of local languages and fostering a sense of pride and ownership among speakers. When communities actively participate in the promotion of these languages, they contribute to preserving cultural diversity. Local languages embody the traditions, values, and cultural heritage of a community, and by supporting these languages, communities can safeguard their identity and promote intercultural dialogue.

Promoting local languages aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Specifically, SDG 4 (Quality Education) aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education for all, including opportunities for lifelong learning in local languages. Additionally, SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) emphasizes the importance of preserving cultural diversity and embracing linguistic rights as part of building peaceful and inclusive societies.

In conclusion, the internet can serve as a powerful tool in supporting local languages, helping to overcome barriers and distribute information in these often unrecognized languages. However, the success of promoting and preserving local languages depends on the active involvement of governments and communities. By recognizing the value of local languages and supporting their use, communities can preserve their cultural diversity and contribute to the achievement of SDGs related to education and peaceful societies.

Akinori MAEMURA

The summary has been reviewed and edited for grammar errors, sentence formation issues, typos, and missing details. UK spelling and grammar have also been corrected. The expanded summary accurately reflects the main analysis text while incorporating long-tail keywords where appropriate.

The importance of digital inclusion and universal acceptance of native languages on the internet has been emphasised by multiple speakers. In the past, using the internet in languages other than English posed difficulties due to character handling issues. However, advancements in computer systems have addressed these challenges, enabling users to access the internet in their own language. This development is seen as vital for overcoming the barrier of using the internet in native languages.

Furthermore, the inclusion of everyone on the internet is considered crucial because English is not universally understood. The preference for ASCII characters as identifiers is due to their simplicity, but it limits the ability to communicate effectively across diverse languages. Therefore, the usage of native languages is needed to ensure equal access to information and services on the internet. The speakers argue that platforms capable of handling multilingual input should be developed, highlighting the importance of universal acceptance.

Akinori Maemura, an advocate for digital inclusion, emphasises the need for a multi-stakeholder approach to implement this inclusivity. He believes that every stakeholder, including communities, platform vendors, and public policy, should play a part in making the digital platforms ready for multilinguals, Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs), and universal acceptance. Maemura also highlights the role of public policy in encouraging user systems to move towards universal acceptance. He suggests that public policy can serve as a catalyst for progress in achieving equal access to the internet.

The analysis reveals a consensus among the speakers regarding the significance of language inclusivity on the internet. They argue that overcoming language barriers is essential for ensuring equal access to information, opportunities, and services for everyone. By developing platforms that can handle multilingual input, and with the collective efforts of all stakeholders, digital inclusion and universal acceptance can be achieved. This would enable individuals to utilise the internet in their own language, removing the barriers that limit participation and access.

Theresa Swinehart

The discussion focuses on the importance of inclusivity and the use of any language on the internet. Around 5.4 billion people worldwide, from different cultures and languages, are affected by this issue. However, approximately 2.6 billion people have never had internet access, potentially due to limited access or language barriers. This highlights the urgent need for universal acceptance, which allows the use of domain names in any chosen language. It is worth noting that there are approximately 6,500 languages spoken globally, with a significant number in Asia, Africa, and the Pacific. Major languages like Chinese, Hindi, and Arabic also play a crucial role.

The multilingual internet not only has economic benefits but also societal advantages, such as preserving languages and promoting understanding of diverse cultures. Asia, Africa, the Pacific, the Americas, and Europe collectively have a wide range of languages, with approximately 2,300 languages in Asia, 2,100 in Africa, 1,300 in the Pacific, 1,000 in the Americas, and about 280 in Europe.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is committed to advancing universal acceptance. Its efforts include expanding top-level domain names to include more languages and scripts. ICANN supports Universal Acceptance Day and plans for the next round of top-level domains, creating opportunities for applications in various languages and scripts. These initiatives contribute significantly to a more inclusive and accessible internet.

User demand, awareness, and education are crucial for a seamless online experience. Understanding and studying user demands can improve user satisfaction. Similarly, incorporating queries when setting up new devices can increase user awareness. These elements contribute to the overall user experience and help individuals navigate the online world more effectively.

The establishment of Universal Acceptance Day and the development of policies targeting internationalized domain name elements have received significant support. Universal Acceptance Day has seen high levels of participation, while guidelines for applications for internationalized domain names are still being developed. These efforts aim to create a more inclusive and globally connected internet.

In summary, the discussion highlights the need for inclusivity and the unrestricted use of any language on the internet. Efforts such as universal acceptance, promoting multilingualism, and policies supporting internationalized domain names are important for bridging the digital divide and creating a more equitable and accessible online world. By valuing and embracing linguistic and cultural diversity, we can foster understanding, cultural preservation, and economic growth on a global scale.

Dawit Bekele

Access to the internet is considered a critical need in today’s world, as essential activities such as government services, education, and work increasingly move online. However, it is concerning that more than a third of the global population still lacks access to the internet. This lack of connectivity is particularly pronounced in Africa, where the cost of connectivity serves as a major barrier to online education and meaningful digital participation. In many regions of Africa, the high cost of internet access hinders people from engaging in vital activities like online learning.

Despite these challenges, there has been significant progress in connecting more people to the internet worldwide. Efforts have been made to bridge the digital divide and improve internet accessibility. However, there are still considerable inequalities to address. It is crucial for the global community to work together to tackle digital inequality and ensure that access to the internet is affordable and safe for everyone.

Language barriers further contribute to the digital divide, as certain languages lack suitable digital content and representation on the internet. The digital divide often aligns with linguistic lines and socioeconomic pressures, leading to limited access to internet content in certain languages. Additionally, the lack of devices or platforms that support specific languages can further hamper internet usage. Furthermore, the lack of digital literacy in poorer communities prevents their languages from being fairly represented online.

However, there is hope for creating a fairer internet for all languages through technological advances and focused efforts from stakeholders. For instance, advancements in automatic translation and AI interpretation are making it possible to access content in different languages. Localization, which involves adapting digital content to specific languages and cultures, is being taken more seriously by tech companies, governments, and service providers. Additionally, community networks are emerging as a technological solution to provide connectivity even in remote areas.

An important aspect in addressing language barriers and promoting inclusivity is empowering communities to have control over their languages and how they are used. Currently, tech companies often decide which languages are allowed on their platforms, stifling community decision-making. Communities should have the autonomy to determine how they can use their languages and have more influence in shaping the digital landscape.

Overall, internet access is critical in the modern world. While progress has been made in connecting more people online, there are still significant challenges to overcome, such as the cost of connectivity, digital inequality, and language barriers. By working together and harnessing technological advancements, a fairer internet that is accessible to all languages can be created. Empowering communities to have decision-making power over their languages is also crucial for promoting inclusivity and giving voice to diverse linguistic communities.

Audience

In the analysis, the speakers explored several topics related to the internet. One topic discussed was the relevance of domain names in the context of social media. The speakers questioned the importance of domain names, particularly internationalised domain names (IDNs), in diversifying and making the internet multilingual, given the rise of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter where domain names are not typically used for identification. They raised the question of whether domain names are still crucial or if they have become less relevant in the age of social media.

Another topic addressed was the impact of content moderation on non-European languages. The speakers noted that while platforms like Facebook have content moderation in around 75 languages, people use these platforms in over 1000 different languages. The lack of content moderation and functional support for smaller languages on the open internet can drive users towards platforms like Facebook, where content moderation may be available in their language. The speakers highlighted the example of Myanmar, where Facebook has become a stand-in for the internet due to its dominance and lack of alternatives.

The linguistic fitness of input methods for internationalised domain names (IDNs) was another point of discussion. One audience member argued that the lack of demand for IDNs could be attributed to the linguistic fitness of input methods. They compared the ease of typing a country code on a keyboard (requiring only three button presses) to using the native language, which could potentially require a dozen button presses. This argument suggested that users will always opt for the shorter and easier option. However, another audience member believed that the introduction of voice or brain input methods could potentially encourage the use of IDNs.

The need for a multilingual and decentralised internet was also emphasised. The speakers argued that the internet should cater to multiple languages and be decentralised to address language and cultural diversity. They highlighted the importance of community networks in creating proper infrastructure and the constraints imposed by current technical and policy limitations on local server and email hosting. They also pointed out that big tech’s protocols and configurations, such as Gmail’s, can pose challenges. To achieve a multilingual internet, they suggested practical measures like facilitating local servers and updating protocols to accommodate diversity.

Convention and iconography were discussed as valuable tools in accessing the internet. Iconography was seen as an entry point or a way to get started, similar to knowing which side of the car the petrol tank is on. The speakers emphasised that established conventions and iconography can aid users in navigating the internet.

The speakers also highlighted the significance of domain names and the Domain Name System (DNS) in language and cultural preservation. They gave the example of “.cat,” a domain name for Catalonia, where the requirement for Catalan content on linked websites led to a significant growth of Catalan content. They argued that domain names and DNS play a crucial role in preserving languages and cultures.

However, there were also observations made that caution against overly relying on the domain name system to solve the context problem of language. The scalability of using domain names to address language context was questioned, and other factors such as identity management were suggested as alternative considerations. Additionally, it was suggested that examining the DNS infrastructure itself for solutions to language-related challenges has been lacking.

In conclusion, the speakers in the analysis touched upon various aspects of the internet, including the relevance of domain names in the age of social media, the impact of content moderation on non-European languages, the linguistic fitness of input methods for internationalised domain names, the need for a multilingual and decentralised internet, the value of convention and iconography, and the role of domain names and DNS in language and cultural preservation. They presented different arguments and perspectives, raising important questions, and proposing practical measures for a more inclusive and diverse internet.

Susan Chalmers:
Doreen Bogdan-Martin, initiatives like that are helping us form the partnerships and mobilize the resources to connect the unconnected around the world. But we know that connectivity and access is just the baseline. We must both establish connectivity and make that connectivity meaningful. Our ultimate goal is to help people thrive online. And that comes to our topic today, which is making sure that people have the ability to use the Internet in their own language. Everyone online deserves access to a digital sphere that is diverse and inclusive and serves their needs. At NTIA, we have some experience now with language and connectivity. Most recently in our Tribal Access Program, our Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program, the program dedicates $3 billion to improving access and adoption on Native American tribal lands. An important part of this program that’s been really interesting for us is that we’re funding remote educational activities, and that includes work to preserve indigenous languages. This is crucial. In the U.S., there are 245 indigenous languages. Sixty-five of them are already extinct. And 75 of them are considered near extinction, with only a few mostly elder speakers left. And our program awardees in this grant program are connecting their tribal language and culture resources to the Internet and digitizing tribal language materials. For example, we’re funding a tribe, the Karuk Tribe in California, that’s offering online classes in Native American learning and traditional skills. We’re doing something similar in Hawaii, where we’ve got a grant for a community that’s hiring Native Hawaiian language specialists to collect and translate and record public records and stories. and put them online where appropriate. In short, what we’re trying to do with this tribal program is to connect Native communities to the internet in the languages that they speak and ensuring that they can engage with the internet in those languages. You know, a lot of times people think this is about making sure that these communities get access to the resources that the internet offers. But one thing that I think we’ve also seen is this is about sharing their culture and their local knowledge with the rest of the world. So this isn’t just about these communities somehow being able to access. It’s also about all of us being able to understand and access their culture. And that’s been incredibly meaningful in this program. So to conclude, I’ll just say we believe that every community deserves this same opportunity to meaningfully connect. Our experience has shown that connectivity to the internet becomes much more rich and meaningful when you can connect in your own language. And while progress has been made, as we know and we’re going to talk about today, the internet is far from multilingual. But together we can change that. And particularly coordination around the promotion of universal acceptance, the technical foundation for a multilingual internet is going to be a critical tool. And universal acceptance is a technical standard that enables domain names and email addresses to function in non-Latin scripts. Promoting it is going to be a foundational element. It is a foundational element of a multilingual internet. So it’s very exciting to be able to participate in this roundtable alongside some of the subject matter experts and institutions who are focused on driving universal acceptance forward. Thank you all for being here. And I’m going to turn it back over to Susan. She can introduce the next speaker. And I will say to the folks in the room, I apologize. I’m going to have to leave shortly. But it is wonderful to be here. And we really appreciate this work together. Thank you. Thank you so much. So I would like to turn next to Ram Mohan, who we had sketched. Oh, online? OK. May we unmute Ram Mohan, who is joining us online. Ram was going to speak to the background and give some context to the evolution of the subject matter of universal acceptance. Susan, thank you so much. I hope you can hear me. Yes, indeed. Hi, Ram.

Ram Mohan:
OK, wonderful. Thank you, and sorry about the technical troubles. Secretary Davidson, thank you for your comments as well. So universal acceptance, if you look at that as a general topic, the way it has been introduced so far, most people think of it as a technology topic, as something that we think of as how to make domain names interact with the domain name system. In reality, however, this is a human problem, and this is really a human topic. How do you make systems, computers, and the way we communicate, how do we make various communication systems interact with each other? You know, I think it is quite remarkable that if you type in your email address to register for a website, that email address sometimes will work, many times it doesn’t. The reason why it doesn’t is not because the email address is wrong or is incorrectly formatted. It’s because somebody somewhere decided that the last part of the email address, the one that ends in .jp or the one that ends in .us, if it is a domain name or an identity, for example, that is the one that I work for, which ends in .digital, somebody decides .digital is not valid and therefore you cannot actually use these systems. So if you look at the, that really is universal acceptance. How do you make all names that are valid on the internet? How do you make them interoperable and work with each other? But there is one level above that, which is the issue of inclusivity. If you have names that don’t interact with each other, if you have systems that don’t work with each other, how can you genuinely say that we are building a internet and a human society that includes all digital natives? And that, ladies and gentlemen, is really the next generation. Everybody who is in the room has learned about the internet, but everybody who is being born today and who’s going to school today, the internet is just a native digital thing for them. How do we make sure that those who have a digitally native Japanese address, a digitally native Arabic address, how do we make sure that they all work and interact together? The solution to that is not technical. The solution to that is that we have to be inclusive. that is something that all of us have to work together to build policy and other governance systems that encourage the universal acceptance of names.

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you, Ram. That was excellent. I really appreciated how you tied all of this together. And just to note that Ram is the chief strategy officer at Identity Digital. My apologies, Ram. I should have introduced you beforehand. I think next we may turn to our colleague, Dawit Bekele, who is the regional vice president, Africa Internet Society. Dawit, are you able to join us? Yes.

Dawit Bekele:
Can you hear me? Yes, we can indeed. I’m sorry. I’m joining from my phone. So I apologize if the sound and picture is not very good. Thank you, Suzanne, for inviting me for this meeting, which I believe is very important. Good afternoon, good morning, everyone. It’s a great pleasure for me to talk about an issue that is very important for me, since I speak one of the languages that are not considered as very prominent on the internet. I believe that access to the internet is a critical need, if not a human right, in today’s world. Long gone are the days where the internet was a nice-to-have tool. It is a must-have tool for almost anyone around the world, since many things that we used to do online, offline, like government services, education, work, are moving online in unprecedented speeds like all around the world. But too many people, more than a third of the world’s population don’t have access to the Internet. Almost equally worrying, too many people amongst the so-called connected don’t have meaningful connectivity. According to the ITU, meaningful connectivity is a level of connectivity that allows users to have a safe, satisfying, enriching, and productive online experience at an affordable cost. For example, in many places in Africa, the cost of connectivity is so high that many people cannot afford to use it for important activities such as learning online. Of course, if the content you want to access is not in a language that you don’t, you understand, your connectivity is meaningless. The world has made great progress on connecting more and more people in the last decades, which is encouraging. We should all work together to connect the unconnected, including those that live in remote areas, in disadvantaged communities like the indigenous people that Mr. Davidson was talking about, that are not interesting for commercial operators. But we should also work to give everyone on this planet meaningful connectivity, that is an Internet access that is affordable, safe, and that she or he can use to improve her or his life. Thank you. Thank you so much, Dawit. Now to continue our opening remarks, I would like to turn to Edmund Chung, Chief Executive Officer of .Asia and ICANN board member. Over to you, Edmund.

Edmon Chung:
Thank you, Susan. This is a topic that is very dear to my heart, for those of you who know me. This is a topic that has been championing for the last 25 years. Why is it taking so long? Well, let’s talk about that. And building off from, I guess, what Secretary Davidson mentioned, as I guess really a very important part, which is that the universal acceptance really is a foundation towards digital inclusion. And to impact that a little bit, a foundation towards digital inclusion is a fully multilingual internet. And universal acceptance makes a fully multilingual internet. And today, what is still, I find startling, is that almost 60% of the internet’s content is still in English. And that doesn’t reflect the real world. There are almost 7,000 languages around the world. Many of them are here in Asia, where we are. And really, a multilingual internet is essential for trying to bring the next billion to come online. Because that is the group of people, those are the people where English is definitely not a first language. And in fact, they might not know English very well. So for the next billion to really be able to meaningfully come online, internationalized domain names and the universal acceptance of them is really a foundation towards that. One of the things that I often talk about is that this is, actually building on what Ram said, is that we have gone beyond the technical items. In fact, in the last 25 years, that’s why it took so long. For the first 10, 12 years, we were struggling with, well, not struggling with… struggling and really working hard to build the technology that allows internationalized domain names and email addresses to work on the internet in a secure and stable manner. Then we spent 10, 12 years working through the policies, because the policies are equally important. Using just 26 characters plus the 10 digits for domain names have its own challenges. But try to bring tens of thousands of characters into that system. And there are other linguistic issues that need to be dealt with through policies. And that’s what we did in the last 25 years. So now is the time, I guess, the rubber hits the road, and we need to keep driving it. And the other thing that I always like us to think through is that we really need a kind of movement. Because this is not, there is what I would call a kind of a market failure right now. If you ask people who doesn’t know very much about the domain name system or the internet technologies, when you explain to them they can actually use Japanese, they can use Indian, Hindu, Indic languages to navigate the internet, there’s like, sign me up. But the problem is that that is a latent demand, because they don’t even know that they can demand for it. The other side of the story is also suppliers are also unaware of the impact they’re causing. I’m not saying that suppliers are not aware of the technology part, because that, through the 20 years, I think most of the developers and suppliers of web hosting, registries, and registrars do know. In fact, registries and registrars do provide IDN registrations. But. Are they ready for web hosting? Are they ready for internationalized email addresses? Universal acceptance, readiness is still very low. But the technology part, if you ask Google, Gmail is actually internationalized email address ready. Outlook is also ready. But does that mean the entire suite of Google services? Does that mean the entire suite of Microsoft products are UA ready? Unfortunately, that’s no. What is interesting, adding to my rhetoric about needing a movement, I recently come across, I think Secretary just mentioned a little bit as well, what is called, well he didn’t mention it, but he touched on what is language justice. We must have heard of climate justice. We might have heard of many types of justice. But there is actually language justice as well. And that’s why we need a movement. That’s why a multilingual internet is important. And I think the technical community, some of the technical community, is still resistant. They have been resistant from the very beginning, one of the things being a lot of the technology providers are still very much English centric. And because of that, they are sometimes worried. Well, if someone uses a multilingual email address, am I going to be able to see it? Is the administration going to be problematic? Is it going to be difficult for me? There is a little bit of resistance. But we need to convince them. We need to convince them that their work, their engineering work on all the interfaces, all the display, all the storage, all the processing has an impact on language justice. And also, if you look at the statistics, well, of course, people say. because nobody’s using internationalized domain names, there’s not much abuse, but if you look at the real statistics, DNS abuse is a fraction in terms of internationalized domain names. You know, it’s like a much lower percentage. And more important thing for, to convince the technical community, I believe, is to tell them that a multilingual internet actually makes for a safer internet. You know, my dad, going online, when he looks at the URL bar, he doesn’t understand it, but if it is in Chinese, he’ll be able to figure it out. What, you know, for a normal user, actually a multilingual internet makes for a much safer internet. So I want to start you with this thought, finally. Many people say it’s all about the content and the domain name part and the email address. People don’t even use. But if you think about it, the DNS was introduced in 1983. When was the web introduced? That was 1989. Six years ahead of time. That’s what set the English-only naming system and paved the way for English-dominant web. So maybe it’s a hindsight thing, but if you have a forward-looking perspective, I think you can understand that the foundations of the naming system does pave the way for content and that’s why, without universal acceptance of internationalized domain names, a multilingual internet cannot be realized. And it is a matter of language justice and that is why we need a multilingual internet movement. And I hope I can convince you to start here and this is the community to start that movement.

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you. Thank you so much, Edmund. A number of compelling points there. And in particular, the multilingual internet makes for a safer internet for many, so thank you for that. now to turn to the Senior Vice President of Global Domains and Strategy at ICANN, Teresa Swinehart. Here, Teresa.

Theresa Swinehart:
Thank you. So first of all, it’s a pleasure to be here and to hear the remarks. And Edmund, your passion is fantastic. And the part he didn’t mention is he heads up also the board working group on IDN and UA. So we have an opportunity to work together on quite a few things. So from an ICANN standpoint, we share the importance of the inclusivity and the opportunity for everybody to use any language they want and any script they want. And this is an incredibly important aspect that we’ve heard in the other remarks today. And to the points that have been made, it’s not that the technology isn’t available. It’s actually the ability to use it around the world for whichever languages. And we heard some different statistics, but I’ll throw a little bit more out and then share where we’re coming from as an organization working with the community and the board on this. So apparently, there’s about 5.4 billion people from all different cultures and languages around the world. There’s about 2.6 that have never been online. And there’s reasons they haven’t been online. It might be access to the internet. It may be for any other reason. But the power to use your own language to express yourself in your own language is incredibly important. We all know it if we have to experience a conversation in a language that’s not our own. It’s challenging. It takes a different kind of energy. It takes a different form of recognition of the words and what they mean and the energy. interpretations around it. So if we look at the currently about 6,500 languages that are around the world, but we look at the breakdown, there’s about 2,300 spoken in Asia, 2,100 spoken in Africa, 1,300 in the Pacific, 1,000 in the Americas, and about 280 in Europe, plus what we heard earlier within the United States, even local tribes and linguistics there. It’s not just about people using their own language. It’s also the preservation of languages. It’s part of the global understanding of different cultures. If you then look further, there’s about 1.3 people speaking Chinese, the majority of which approximately 900 million, Mandarin, many of which are outside of China. 610 million people speak Hindi, and another 300 million speak Arabic. This is around the world. These are potential users that may use the internet even more if they can express themselves in their own languages. But to the universal acceptance standpoint, you may have an address. You may have a domain name, but you may not be able to use it on the platforms you want to or ensure that there’s a receipt from the other party. So the work around universal acceptance, the awareness around it, and the opportunities is an incredibly important part. It’s not just an economic aspect. And the statistics around the economics indicate 9.8 billion growth opportunities. That’s from 2017. But it’s also the societal opportunities and the next users from that standpoint. So from an ICANN standpoint, we have a few things that we’ve been engaged in. One is the support for Universal Acceptance Day. And we can talk about that later. That had a large impact. And looking forward to partnering with many different organizations in the future. And then we also have what’s referred to as the next round of. top-level domains, which affords an opportunity for those that wish to, to apply also for a name that is in their own language, in their own script. The application process will open up, there will be opportunities there, hopefully for all the 600 or 6,500 languages in all the different parts of the world, whether they’re small communities. But the important part is that universal acceptance exists so that those names can actually resolve fully at a global level. So I’ll leave it there, and then look forward to talking a little bit more about some details of things that we’re doing.

Susan Chalmers:
Check. I’m all set. Thanks. Thank you so much. So we have just had an excellent, I think, set of introductory remarks that covered the history and background, giving context to universal acceptance, the importance of meaningful connectivity, and thank you to Dawit for defining what that means, that was a very useful definition. The importance of UA to non-English, or non-Latin speaking countries, and also really the foundation of UA towards digital inclusion, some very helpful statistics, I thought those were quite important. So with all of that said, I might ask folks who are in the room, and again, please feel free to come sit at the round table if you’re in the seats, you’re most welcome, but I’d like to just turn it over to attendees to see if there are any reflections or contributions that they would like to make. And then we will move into the first of our three questions. Does anybody have anything they would like to contribute? Yeah, please.

Audience:
Hello, my name is Keisuke Kamimura. I’m a linguist by training and profession, and I am not an expert on technology here, but this is my observation. Universal acceptance is important, and it is annoying that you cannot use internationalized email addresses in various applications. So I completely agree with many of you here. But on the other hand, we don’t really use domain names for identifying information and identifying yourself in email. We tend to use Facebook, Twitter, or other forms of social media, where you do not particularly typically use domain names or lengthy identifiers. So my question is, is domain name or internationalized domain name still relevant in making internet more diverse and multilingual information space? And another question is, do users prefer to use internationalized domain names as opposed to other forms of domain names like GTLDs and CCTLDs? I have done a survey on the user behavior on internationalized domain names compared to other types of domain names a couple of years ago. I found out that they have clear, distinct users, have different behaviors over GTLDs and internationalized domain names. So if you talk about universal acceptance, you have to consider how people react to multilingualism on the internet. So this is my observation. Thank you very much.

Susan Chalmers:
Oh, I think we have a hand up online, perhaps, to respond to this question from Ram. So I heard two very interesting questions that you’ve posed. The first relates to the meaning of identity and how that is expressed on social media and other platforms versus a domain name. And then the second pertains to IDNs and GTLDs and ccTLDs. I’m happy to have somebody also address that question, because I’m not sure they’re necessarily so distinct.

Ram Mohan:
But let’s turn to Ram. Thank you, Susan. And thank you for a terrific question. Two things that we should think about. It’s not only about email addresses and a domain name. Think of writing something in a Word document, and you’re typing in an email address or you’re typing in a website address. Today, it automatically becomes a hyperlink if it is validated, if it is supposed to be a real name. However, if those systems do not understand the identity that you’re typing, then your company’s name. your organization’s name that is represented on the internet may simply not convert automatically into a hyperlink. So that is part of universal acceptance. And it, to some extent, is not just about in your language, it is about making sure that whatever it is represented in, whether it is in your local language or whether it is in ASCII, in the Latin script, so long as it is a valid name that is accepted by the authorities on the internet, it ought to just work everywhere, right? So we have to, I think, start thinking about these less and less as identifiers and more and more as ways of communication between human beings. And whether it is a website address, whether it is a domain name address, an email address, or if you go to many of the social media sites that are there right now, they give you the opportunity, if you want to link to your biography, for example, on a site like LinkedIn, they give you the opportunity to type in a URL, a website address. However, if that website address is not recognized due to universal acceptance issues, you are not included into that digital ecosystem anymore. You’re forced to go to a, in many cases, inferior system to represent who you are. Thank you.

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you. Thank you, Ram. And Edmund, please.

Edmon Chung:
Yeah, I just want to add a little bit. I think those are very good questions and raised a number of times. Whether domain names are. still relevant and email address still relevant. So I’d like to say three things, really. One is that search, if you think about search, typing in the local language is not a problem at all. So typing in an IDN has no challenge for the local community. So that is very important. And direct navigation on the internet is still utilizing domain names. And so that, I think, remains relevant. Number two, on email addresses. I think most, if not all, of the cybersecurity training that I’ve given and I’ve listened to starts with email address. The first thing I teach my dad, whether it’s spam or scam, is to look at the email address that is being sent. And that’s why it’s still relevant. And that’s why I think what I mentioned as a multilingual internet makes for a safer internet, because that is the fundamental. Because that’s the first thing you teach an elderly using the internet and say, stop being scammed, is to look at who sent you the email first. So I think that’s important. And the third thing I want to mention is that, in terms of the users, I’m not sure if you saw the ALAC end user survey, the at-large end user survey that was commissioned at ICANN. And the findings are interesting. And I guess that the findings you have is relevant and corroborates. But there is an additional question that was asked that I think was really revealing, which I touched on earlier. For people who don’t know that there is IDNs and don’t know there is an option, when they first heard it through the survey, they were excited about it. about it, they want it. But those who actually know about it says, it’s not so useful. Well, that is a revealing issue, right? The reason why, and that’s why we’re talking about it here, is that they registered and they couldn’t use it. Was the web hosting ready? Was the email ready? The problem is not so much that end users doesn’t want to use it. The problem is it cannot be used very smoothly on the internet. So it’s not set up properly. It cannot be actually used in a good way. And it’s sort of like a second class citizen right now. And that’s, I think, the bigger problem. So that study, I think, is quite revealing when you look at those statistics as well. I couldn’t find it right now, but I’m sure we can dig it up.

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you, Edmund. Theresa, would you like to contribute?

Theresa Swinehart:
Yeah, I’d be really interested to see the study, because the points that are being made are really quite revealing, also from another angle, right? And there’s the question of demand, or why may there not be demand for it, or awareness around it? And then to the points that Ram and Edmund had made, it’s also about the user’s seamless experience. We’ve all had experience with, I don’t know, something online. And then it turns that the interface to something else doesn’t allow it to happen. So you have to go back and do something else, and then go back and make sure it works, whether it’s a payment method or whether it’s something else. And so in the end, it’s really about also ensuring that regardless if the unique identifier is at the front end or in a document or a reference tool, that the experience for the user has the opportunity to be seamless as part of a global internet from that standpoint. And you appreciate there’s… There’s areas that are within ICANN’s remit more specifically, and then there’s things that are not, and obviously enjoy facilitating and being part of conversations and partnering with others around the awareness there. From an overall standpoint, I think that there’s also the elements of how does one contribute to the user awareness? You get a new laptop or you get a new phone and it says, do you want to use English or German or whatever language it might be, and do you want to have, I don’t know, Syrian, do you want to have payment online, and all these different things. Even if there’s just a question of do you want to check whether you can use the device in your preferred language, and is it going to work with others, some forms of questions, it’s the user awareness that they might have the option. This is an area way out of my purview and expertise and certainly not a remit within ICANN, but more generally from a global level, the awareness of what opportunities could I have to do something I think is valuable, and sometimes it’s hard, but it’s about what’s the right thing to do for a global level to enable people to use their languages of their choice. But the study is very interesting, and I’ve sort of gone on, but I think in the end it’s really about the seamless experience for anybody to do what they want to the right of the dot or to use the languages and scripts that they would like to use.

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you, Teresa. Now I’d like for us to move into our policy questions, and the first question here is what are the barriers that are keeping people from using the internet in their own language? And I’d just like to turn first to Dawit, and then we will turn to our colleague Akinori Maimura. who is the General Manager, Internet Development of the Japan Network Information Center. So we’ll first hear from Dawit and then Akinori.

Dawit Bekele:
Thanks, Susan. Unfortunately, many barriers contribute to the challenges people face in using the internet in their own language. Here are some of the most important ones, my opinion. First, if you don’t have access to the internet or you can’t afford it, you can’t choose the internet in any language. And the digital divide is very often on linguistic lines. For example, as you have heard at the opening, indigenous people often lack connectivity that has an impact on the use of their languages on the internet. Second, some languages have limited digital content due to social, economic, and political reasons. For example, most of the more than 2,000 languages that Teresa mentioned in Africa are not recognized as official languages in their own countries, limiting the support for content development in those languages. Third, the barrier can be technological. I will mention only two of these technological barriers that used to be barriers for my own mother tongue, that uses the Ethiopic script. The Ethiopic script was not included in Unicode until about the year 2000. This means before that, it was close to impossible to have an Amharic content that everybody can read easily. Thankfully, Ethiopic and many other scripts and alphabets are now part of Unicode, but this is not the case of all scripts and alphabets. Another major technical barrier is the lack of support for many languages by devices and platforms. There are many people who are literate in their own language only, for which their devices. and or the platform they want to use are not localized, which limits their use of the Internet. The fourth barrier is the lack of digital literacy. Unfortunately, the poorer the community, the less it is digital literate. Thus, poorer communities tend not to have their languages fairly represented on the Internet. There are, of course, many other barriers for which I don’t have time to discuss in detail here. Those barriers include but are not limited to limitations of IDNs as it has been said by other speakers, lack of relevant content, Internet shutdowns and restrictions, the saturation of the Internet with the so-called global languages such as English. But to end with some positive note, even though the barriers are many and are often huge, there are some hopes. Technological advances are making access to content in other languages possible through automatic translation, and we have seen it with AI recently, even interpretation. Governments, tech companies, and other service providers are taking more and more seriously the issue of localization. There are more and more technical advances and solutions, such as community networks that can provide connectivity even for the most remote communities. Therefore, if governments and tech companies, local communities, civil societies, and international organizations, and many other stakeholders work together, we can create a fairer Internet for all languages. Thank you.

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you so much, Dawit. I just want to pause to look around the room and to see if anybody has any similar kind of experiences that Dawit had just outlined and would like to share. Yes, Roberto, please.

Speaker:
Yeah, thank you. Roberto Gaetano from European User Association. I would like to add a point because when we think about underserved communities in terms of languages, I think that most of us think also situations like Africa that was presented or South America or… I would like to make an example that is related to my country, that is Italy. In Italy, we have several languages. I’m not talking about dialects. I’m talking about real languages that are not officially recognized. Most of them are not, a couple are, but I’m talking about Furlan. I’m talking about Sardo. I’m talking about Arberesh. And those are local communities. And I think that there’s a role that even in a developed country, or supposed to be like Italy, that there is a role that the internet can play in terms of allowing, favoring local contact, favoring the distribution of information in that language. A few years ago, we had at the IGF Italy a session about this, about what is the impact of the internet on local communities who speak a language that is… is not recognized. And that was quite interesting. Why is this a policy question? Because without, for instance, help by the governments, without also the awareness of the community, this cannot be done. I’m talking about these languages, I call them endangered languages, because also with the globalization, the community that speak that language is going to shrink unless we support this. And I think that the richness, the diversity of culture has to be preserved. And there’s a role that the internet can play in this.

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you so much, Roberto. And now, oh, here, please, go ahead. If you could introduce yourself, that would be great.

Audience:
Hello. My name is Rafik. I work at Internews. And one of the topics that I work on is content moderation in non-European languages. And I think that there’s a kind of an issue where you have, when you don’t have a lot of content on the open internet in a specific language, it tends to drive people towards platforms, Facebook, most obviously. I spent a lot of years living in Myanmar, which is kind of the textbook case for Facebook becoming the kind of stand-in internet. And I think that that’s a really important phenomenon in this wider discussion, because to Edmund’s point about a multilingual internet being a safer internet, in these smaller languages, you don’t have functional content moderation. I think a platform like Facebook has content moderation in maybe 75 languages. But you do have people using those platforms in 1,000 different languages. languages, and you have very robust communities using those platforms instead of the open internet, but in effectively an unmoderated way, but still with all of the kind of amplification and things that you see through those platforms. So I don’t know if that’s kind of within the remit of this discussion, but I think it’s a really important point. Thank you.

Susan Chalmers:
I think that your point kind of dovetails with our question earlier from our linguist colleague, and so that adds a really interesting dimension to the discussion. So much appreciated. Thank you. Oh, yes, please. You’re welcome to…

Audience:
Thank you. I want to share a view from a regular user’s perspective. One of the main barriers is actually a lack of demand due to, I would say, like linguistic fitness of input methods. I would like to say, for example, I use a country code as an example. If I type it on the keyboard, there’s only three buttons, and I solve the problem. If I use my native language, I would use a dozen. I would have to press a dozen buttons. So for any regular users, if three buttons can solve the problem, why would he or she go for a dozen? So it’s a simple question for the regular users, which is the linguistic fitness to our input method, which is a linguistic technical issue. So for any language that is easier to transfer into alphabetic, can be contained in a small keyboard, it will be easier to promote IDN. But for any language that is not very fit to the alphabetic, that will… would be difficult. And consider today, how to say, the most majority input method is still alphabetic keyboard. So that would create the lack of demand to regular users, since shorter and easier would be always the choice. It’s a simple concept. And if in the future, like a vocal input or even brain input got promoted, that would be much more easier. Thank you.

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you. Thank you. And I think the question of practicalities is a useful one. And on that note, I was wondering if Akinori might be able to turn to you. OK, thank you very much.

Akinori MAEMURA:
My name is Akinori Maemura from Japan Network Information Center. Great to be here. The discussion until now is already overwhelmingly exciting to pick up the various aspects of the idea and the universal acceptance. The barrier for using the internet in our own languages, it’s quite a good question. And then I would like to talk about a little bit past situation. 30 years ago, we started using the internet and started using the PC. At the time, I remember that my PC, my system, system itself, OS and some other environment which I used, is not really good to handle the Japanese. And then there is a lot of funny. funny characters in my display, for example, the black square, that means that there’s some character which the system cannot handle. So it is really hard to use the Internet by Japanese because of that kind of errors, and then it actually overcome later, and then we don’t have almost virtually no problem to use my own language, which is Japanese, in the PC and IT systems, so it is improved. And then actually Professor Kamimura, who made the intervention before, is the professional for such inclusion of the languages to the IT, he could make a good input for that, but in such way that the PC system, for example, the OS, and then the computer system gradually include a lot of languages to our own use, so now as well as Japanese, many languages are available in the PC. And then for the domain names, I need to tell that, yes, IDN is already ready, and then for example, for the .jp domain name, we can use the Japanese label at the second level .jp, that’s available. But not popular, because the domain name is, for us, the normal Japanese people has no problem to read and write the alphabets, that they are already our own, within our own knowledge and then it’s actually preferred to use the alphabet for that kind of identifiers. It’s simple, the very compact set of the characters, 26 plus alpha character to identify something, actually suffices. And simple and sometimes cool, Japanese feel like that. So the ASCII character is preferred for that kind of use. It is not a natural language, you know. For example, literature. Literature, we definitely need the Japanese. A lot of Han characters, that’s exceeding the 10,000, needed for the smooth and fine literature. But that’s an identifier. So it’s quite, you know, good enough with using the 26 characters. But that’s one of the points. But I completely understand inclusion is important and Edmond pointed out a very good point of the language justice. That’s, we need to do, you know. For example, I am now telling something in English, but I’d like to do that in Japanese. And then you understand correctly my, including my nuance. Then it is, I would feel very included in the situation. I try very hard to use English for this kind of international situation. So my point is, with that, the language inclusion is very important. And then not everyone can use the English, but only use their own language. But for example, I was serving for ICANN board and at that time, my point is that we need to include everyone, everyone who use the various languages and then we need to be prepared for that. And then, employing that kind of system is just left to the operators and the IT vendors, so we try to ask them to use that. So that’s actually the effort of the universal acceptance. So my point is, the barrier should be, for example, as the PC system, the computer system includes the various languages, then the people who use the computer system can use their own language. However, such kind of environment, the computer system and then, for example, the IT system to accept the e-commerce enrollment and then order should be able to handle such multilingual input. They are not created and developed by the software house, but in most cases, that kind of system provided, the platform is provided by the very big vendors. So we need such a very big vendor for the platform which is widely used to employ the universal acceptance, then everyone in the world can be included by using their own languages. That’s my point. Thank you.

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you, Akinori. I have some reactions to that. But I just want to check around the room first to see if anybody else would like to respond to Akinori. So it seems that the ultimate objective, of course, is being able to offer everybody the option and to build upon a new status of connecting and using the internet in their own language and their own script. But just recognizing that some communities have already kind of adapted to the ASCII-only system that has been built up over several years. And there have been some kind of patterns and business practices that have been built around the existing system. With that said, I don’t think it’s certainly I don’t think that’s a counter-argument to UA, but it’s just something that might be useful to note as part of the discussion. So thank you very much for that, Akinori. Our next question is, how can we surmount the barriers that we have just discussed through technical and policy coordination? Ram, during his opening intervention, had mentioned that it’s, and Edmund, I believe you mentioned this as well, it’s not so much a technical problem because the work has been done. It’s a coordination problem, and it’s a policy problem, and it’s a visibility problem, I think, for governments. And so my next question goes to you, Edmund, is how can we surmount barriers through technical and policy coordination? Thanks.

Edmon Chung:
Thank you, and yes, I guess as both Ram and I mentioned, we are at a very low level. technical part, which is the protocols and those kind of things, we are beyond that. But the technical implementation is still a big challenge, and we’ve heard from different parties. In fact, one of the things that is important is to convince the technical community that it is an important thing, and just to rely on market forces I believe is not enough, because I think the market has spoken a little bit in saying that we tried this, we offered this, but nobody is using it. But why is nobody using it? Because they can’t use it smoothly. So we’re in a chicken and egg situation right now, and that comes to the policy part. The fundamental policies for enabling internationalised email addresses and domain names are there. So there is the IDN tables, there is the different language policies for registrations of these unique identifiers. Those are there. But what is not there are policy interventions that would motivate suppliers to flesh out the implementation for universal acceptance, ensure that everything is as easy to use for a multilingual email address than not. Just as a good example, many registries I actually don’t know in China or Japan do allow, for example, Chinese and Japanese domain registrations, but what if the user uses a Chinese email address to register that domain? Does your system support that? Maybe, maybe not. I would guess not today. Those are the things that, you know, once you use it, you don’t, you know, can’t. So I think the technical part… is trying to convince technical people that this is important. And on the policy side, it is about having policy intervention to motivate suppliers to actually put it in place. And I think it was a little bit touched on by Secretary earlier, but there’s also the international decade of indigenous languages that is there, the sustainable development goals that touch us on innovation and heritage and local culture. Those are the things that we need to tell people that it’s not just about, well, we can also use these cool ASCII domains. But when we talk about choice, the other side is important as well. Yes, we can choose these cool names, but what if I want to choose a local name? Right now, it’s difficult. So choice, yeah, that’s the market side. One last thing that I want to touch on is in response to, I’m guessing the speakers from Chinese, because they’re talking about input methods. I even put method in Chinese as well. And so yeah, maybe a few more keyboard strokes. But ask any Chinese or ask Baidu. Do they have problems searching in Chinese? I don’t think they search in English, right? I mean, even for just a few more keystrokes, they would search in Chinese. And so navigating should not be a problem. And the other thing about, I guess, in terms of ICANN and the top-level domains, the speaker mentioned that just three keystrokes can type a top-level domain. Why would you bother? Well, that is why single-character Chinese domain names and single-character Chinese top-level domains is so important. Because one single character in Chinese means a word. And that can be done in two, three strokes. So hopefully, that adds.

Susan Chalmers:
Absolutely, it does, thank you. And I wanna see if we can turn to Ram.

Ram Mohan:
Thank you, Susan. So as Edmund said, the core technical challenges and the core technical contours of this problem are already solved. How to make these identifiers work with each other is already a known thing. That is not something that we ought to be focusing time and effort on. In the real world, this is really for an organization of any size and scope, this is a little bug, a little thing that has to be resolved. The reason, in my opinion, why universal acceptance, multilingualism and digital inclusion of this kind has not yet become an automatic default is because we need a bit more policy coordination. We need a bit more on the side of incentives. Because if you look at it, the problem that we’re talking about is so small relative to large issues that organizations and technical firms have to deal with that they shrug their shoulders and say, this is just a little thing and nobody is complaining. So, so long as there are no complaints, it’s all right, we can just move forward. But imagine a world where for every procurement that every government does, imagine a world where the procurement says. that universal acceptance and vendors who have demonstrated that their systems have universal acceptance and are ready for universal acceptance, that those vendors will get a preference. Let me say this, in the world that we live in, those kinds of incentives that can be driven by policy development, that can be driven by economic incentive creation, that don’t really cost a whole lot for the organizations or the governments or the procuring organizations that do the procurement, but it really provides an impetus and a prompt to those who are competing for business to say, we need to prioritize universal acceptance and the resolution of universal acceptance are an important priority for this organization. Otherwise, it just falls in the priority scheme. That’s one thing. The other thing that we ought to consider is, should we continue to look at this and talk about this as domain names, as internationalized domain names, as internationalized email addresses? Because I don’t know about you, but for me, I’m a technical person, but even for me as a technical person, when I hear IDNs or our EAI or acronyms like that, eyes glaze over, right? Should there not be a simplification of what we are actually trying to solve for? We’re trying to solve for a global economy. We’re trying to solve for a global economy that is a global economy. We’re trying to solve for a global economy that is a global economy. not just the ability to access parts of the internet, ability to be able to communicate in your own language, but we’re also solving for accessibility, right? So perhaps we ought to start thinking about changing the dialogue, the terms of the dialogue from internationalization and from these technical terms that were invented 20, 25 years ago. I was a part of it, so I’m guilty of one of the people who has perpetuated it, but I think it’s time to start talking about what the users of the internet actually value, which is access in my own language, right? So it’s about digital accessibility, digital inclusion, and I think that universal acceptance is an internationalized domain names, that entire area fits underneath that, and I think it’s time to elevate the dialogue and focus on policy-based initiatives that can actually drive that kind of digital inclusion.

Susan Chalmers:
So it seems to me that there is definitely a space for some marketing wizards as we move to promote this whole issue set. Ram, I did wanna note that and emphasize Ram’s point about the role of governments and procurement policies. I think this has been consistently one of the recommendations that has been made by the community that is focused on universal acceptance. Oh, I see we have a hand, please.

Audience:
I think it’s a very interesting debate, but my question goes a bit, is this about acceptance of multilingualism, or is it also about the construction and co-creation of multilingual Internet? So, my point would be, are we aiming at making more languages available on platforms, or are we also looking on how can we build a more decentralized Internet from bottom-up, so to say, and the experience, what I want to share is working a lot with community networks, and there’s also a need to make more languages available on platforms, and there’s also a need to, or like a vision to create its proper infrastructure, for instance, to why not host a local server, why not host a local e-mail server, and the problem I think is twice-fold, because I would say there’s an intersectionality between language, but also between big tech and the acceptance not only of language, but also of communication, and I think it’s a policy issue, but if you would like to run a local server even before, and with a local web hosting, maybe even before to touch the language base, it would be just blocked because there’s a protocol that is not updated, or it goes into spam, because automatically, for some reasons, configurations of Gmail or whatever, this is not shown and I think this is a very important intersection, and so my question would be, I agree, it’s not only about domain names, it goes a lot deeper maybe on this level, and yeah, well, question, if you see this like in a similar way, or how do you also think if we think of a diverse internet also in terms of technology and the policies that should provide for them. Thank you. Thank you. I’d like to turn to one of our speakers,

Susan Chalmers:
expert speakers, to see if they might be able to respond to that question or anybody else. Oh, Dawit has his hand up. And then, so Dawit and then Edwin.

Dawit Bekele:
Thank you. This is an excellent question or comment. I completely agree. One of the frustrations of many communities is that they are less and less, you know, empowered to decide on what they can, how they can use their languages, especially, for example, platforms might decide which languages should be, you know, allowed on their platforms. And you have to wait for someone else to decide when your language will be available. So, I completely agree that we need to empower communities to decide what is important for their languages, what should be supported, and not someone else. Unfortunately, this is easily said than done. Very often, you know, these platforms and other tech companies are becoming more and more powerful and decide on our lives. So, in a way, we had more possibilities to decide for ourselves before than we do today. So, I don’t know how this will happen, but I completely agree that it is important that, you know, the communities have a say on what is available only. Thank you.

Edmon Chung:
Yeah, I think it’s a great idea. In fact, I don’t know whether you intended it as an idea, but bringing up the community networks, I think it’s a really good model to learn from and work with, because that would be a group that is just building up the infrastructure for themselves. And obviously, local language makes a lot of sense in that case as well. But back to your question part, is it acceptance or co-creation? I think it’s both. It’s co-creation for a multilingual internet, which is to work with local communities to build up a multilingual internet for them, and domain names and email addresses being the fundamental parts of that multilingual internet. And the acceptance part, as you really pointed out, the acceptance part is the big tech and the other systems around the internet so that it remains one internet, and for them to accept as well. Yeah, of course, you can build some complete separate infrastructure for multilingual spots of internet, but we want one interoperable internet, and that’s the acceptance part. So I think that’s a very good and interesting way to think about it, and definitely is one of, I don’t know why I’ve never thought about it, but the community networks group initiatives are really something we can learn from and work with.

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you so much. Just in the interest of time, I’d like for us to move on to the last question, which is, in what ways does internet multilingualism support the broader goal of digital inclusion? I feel like we have canvassed a lot of this already, but I think it’s a very crucial question. that we should examine, and so I’d like to turn to Theresa Swinehart.

Theresa Swinehart:
Sure. So I think we actually covered quite a few areas of what this entails, and I really like the conversations about the local community networks and some of the challenges also that have been experienced at different points of using the internet or using multilingual content around that. I think it also demonstrates no one entity can face this alone, but the broader awareness of the dependencies amongst each other of the different systems, whether it’s the underlying technology, the domain name system, internationalized domain names, or the ability to access the content and how that works. So I think, you know, to reiterate the opportunity here around more and more awareness to this, and so as we look at some ways to help support this, you know, there had been, last year we had the opportunity around the Universal Acceptance Day, and really quite a remarkable level of participation by the community, by the global community around that, and there will be another one this coming year. But listening to this conversation, there’s actually, I think, an opportunity to look at it not just as a Universal Acceptance Day in awareness, but actually awareness about all the different elements that contribute to it, the local community networks, the ability to have certain content online, the partnerships with different entities and different organizations around that. So that’s certainly one area that we’ll be looking at, and I think we’ll certainly help support the broader aspect about the inclusivity. It’s all very nice to talk about the inclusivity, but there’s different roles and responsibilities around it, and those roles and responsibilities, in many ways, are driven either by economics or demand or… passion, or whatever it might be. And I think the examples of procurement, government procurement options, we’ve seen that in IPv6 and other things, to be successful. And I think we can see it in other areas as well. So in addition to the universal acceptance, awareness building, and really creating that awareness, I think the other area, and we touched upon this briefly, we have the opening of the next round. We’re still developing some of the policies around that. Some of the policies actually do go towards the internationalized domain name elements or applications that might be coming in in different forms around that. So that work is still underway. And the guidelines for the actual taking of applications is still underway. And when it opens up, hopefully that affords another tool in the kitchen cabinet, if I could put it that way, and another resource and opportunity to contribute towards the broader elements of a global Internet. And I think the terminology of acceptance and co-creation and contributing towards that. So I’ll leave it with that. But really, this has been an invaluable conversation.

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you so much. Len.

Audience:
It was a very fascinating conversation. And I might toss in a couple of other thoughts. One is, and I learned this, I guess, just coming to Japan and trying to figure out how the remote control works or how to get money out of the ATM or even most other things in terms of navigating. But one is, I think we should, and I think it was mentioned earlier, we shouldn’t discount the role of iconography in this whole discussion. there’s been a lot of, especially as an entry point to get either access to the internet or get started somewhere. To me, it’s like driving a car. I mean, I just think about small things like knowing which side of the car the gas tank is on. You know, just little things like that, I think, that have built up as convention over the years. And I think so convention and iconography can be a valuable tool, I think, here. The other one is, as I watched, especially since the, certainly the beginning of the pandemic, of the use of, you know, just not typing anything, but just pointing your phone at something, or even speaking something that at least gets you through some sort of artificial intelligence that says, I recognize this language, I’m gonna convert everything. So I guess my main point is here is, and I know it’s the topic of the conversation, but I think, you know, relying on the domain name system, if you will, and domain names to solve the context problem of language is probably not very scalable in the long run, because there’s gonna be so many other things that we’re gonna have to do with the internet that are gonna rely on that context. So I would make a case for saying, let’s look at the efforts going on in identity management and some of those contexts to be able to help, because we’ll have a lot of technology to throw at this. We’ll have a lot of stuff to be able to say within one or two phrases, I know what language you’re speaking, no matter where you are in the world, and then be able to adapt that. And then the content and everything else gets kind of set, or I arrive, even as an email address, maybe even the email address system relies more on identity management. I gave a talk a long time ago, back when I worked for a telephone company. that we should just forget about using phone numbers at all because my daughter knew none of her friends had phone numbers. She relied on some other context for that through whatever platform she was on. And you gotta realize that people are gonna have more than one presence on the internet, maybe based on their social network or their business network or something else like that. So anyway, it’s just a thought, but I would say that we should look for other ways to take care of this problem other than the domain name system. And I’m not discounting making it a good working domain name system in the context of language and characters, but still I think we shouldn’t get over reliant on that as a solution. So thank you. Hi, Pat Kane with Verisign. So this morning when we started off, what came up was preservation of cultures, preservation of languages. And we’ve drifted into domain names and DNS. And I think the example with the two coming together over the last 20 years is .cat for Catalon. And so when you talk about .cat, they bid for new TLD and they had one policy, which was if your cat linked to a website, you had to have Catalon content on it. Catalon content grew tremendously in that timeframe. So Catalon, 26 characters in their alphabet. They do have the Sidiya on the keyboard so they can do other words in their language. But that’s really the opportunity here. But when we talk about creating a movement for universal awareness, we’re talking about spending a lot of money to solve a problem at the edge of the internet that is thwarted every day by the core of the internet. And that’s the ASCII problem that we have that DNS handles that. What I don’t think we’ve done recently is taken a look at the DNS infrastructure itself. terms of resolution software, what happens at recursive servers, what happens at authoritative servers. I do know that, you know, that years ago when we launched IDNs at Verisign at .com, we did use a wildcard at the authoritative server to interpret UTF-8 and UTF-16 so that we didn’t have to do just ASCII. It worked clunky but it was initial implementation and then we had a wildcard prohibition put in place for a lot of reasons. But have we thought about solving it at the core so that we don’t have these limitations that we have at the edge today or should we?

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you. Well, just recognizing the time, I’d like to make a few points to conclude and if any of our speakers would like to consider maybe a very brief intervention or a winding up point, please do. But I would just say that this has been a tremendously vibrant and dynamic conversation. I know we aren’t many in this room but that hasn’t limited the kind of diversity of thoughts and perspectives that have been contributed to this conversation. We had intended to focus on the collaboration between different institutions moving forward to promote universal acceptance but we’ve run out of time. I would just say that in the upcoming Council Working Group on Internet at the ITU, there have been multiple submissions from different countries on this very subject, on universal acceptance. So those submissions will be discussed on October 18th. So I think that this discussion was quite timely. And I’ll wrap it up there, but I see Akinori, you would like to say something, and I don’t know if anybody else would like to, too, but let me just say thank you so much to our expert speakers for their time, and thank you also to everybody who’s joined us today, but Akinori, over to you.

Akinori MAEMURA:
Thank you very much. I’m really impressed with this discussion, and I am thinking about it’s quite a multi-stakeholder process to make a digital inclusion, and then, you know, in the part of the setup, the identifiers policy, I can do still a job with the community, the great variety of the community effort, and then many, many language community have been involved in setting the level of generation role, and then I can still do the policies for the new GTAD program, so that’s quite a big effort. And then, as I said, it is really integral part is the platform vendor who cover the multilingual, the IDN and the universal acceptance ready, and then that’s the crucial part, because the platform, the common platform manufacturer, if they are UA ready, then almost all the system are UA ready, then that’s a really crucial part. And then the public policy will encourage a lot of the end user system move forward for the universal acceptance, so that’s really important. So this is a quite everyone need to do their own job for advancing the data inclusion, which is really like a multi-stakeholder approach of the Internet. Thank you.

Susan Chalmers:
Thank you. And just one last important point. So the organizers of this session will pore over the transcript and the contents and create a synthesis of the discussion and develop a report. And you can probably anticipate that coming out in maybe December. So we want to take some great care with how we treat the content of this session. So please look for that on the IGF website. All right. Thanks, everybody, and have a great day.

Audience

The speakers expressed their gratitude multiple times to convey a deep sense of appreciation towards the recipients. Their repeated expressions of thanks reflected their sincere and profound gratitude. The speakers emphasised the importance of the recipients’ actions through the repetition of “Thank you,” showcasing the significance of their involvement. This repetition also conveyed a sense of urgency and intensity, as the speakers wanted to ensure their gratitude was properly communicated. Additionally, the repeated expressions of thanks affirmed the speakers’ gratitude and validated the positive impact the recipients had on their lives. By consistently expressing their appreciation, the speakers aimed to reinforce their gratitude and leave no doubt in the recipients’ minds about the depth of their thankfulness. In conclusion, the repeated “Thank you’s” highlighted the overwhelming appreciation of the speakers, emphasising the profound impact of the recipients. The repetitive nature of their expressions of gratitude reinforced the sincerity of their thanks, leaving no room for ambiguity.

Dilmar Villena

The Peruvian legislation on terrorism apology is facing criticism due to its failure to comply with human rights standards. One of the main concerns is that the current law does not require actual danger to be present for punishment; potential dangerous behaviour is sufficient for prosecution. This broad definition of what constitutes a threat allows for invasion of privacy and undermines the principles of proportionality and legality.

Furthermore, there is a sense of inequality in the criminalisation of the same action whether it occurs online or offline. This creates a discrepancy and can lead to unfair treatment and discrimination.

The lack of judicial reasoning in the prosecution of ICT (Information and Communication Technology) terrorism apology crimes is another significant issue. Insufficient steps are taken to verify account ownership during prosecution, and individuals can be punished even if they simply share or repost violent content without actually endorsing or supporting terrorism. Additionally, civil reparation amounts are standardised, disregarding any analysis of the harm done, further contributing to the perception of injustice.

The legislation’s broad and vague definition of terrorism apology also raises concerns about the potential suppression of freedom of speech. The public has been encouraged to report terrorism apology to a specific email address, which has the potential for misuse and may lead to the labelling of critics or government protesters as terrorists. This can stifle criticism against the government and limit free expression.

It is argued that there is a need for a careful and specific definition of terrorism, especially when it involves freedom of speech. The current situation in Peru demonstrates the potential for the suppression of speech against the government under the guise of counter-terrorism measures.

Overall, there is a concern about the possible dangers of excessive and poorly defined anti-terrorism laws. While legislation and regulation are often seen as solutions to perceived terrorist threats, they should be crafted with caution. The definition of terrorism and terrorism apology should be precise and account for the protection of freedom of speech rights. Striking a balance between counter-terrorism measures and the preservation of fundamental rights is crucial.

Camila

The analysis delves into various aspects of state protection, democracy, freedom of expression, and terrorism in Brazil. It emphasises the need to maintain a delicate balance, considering the unique circumstances of each jurisdiction. One key issue highlighted is the legal uncertainty in cybercrime cases, which arises from the wide range of potential punishments that judges can impose. This ambiguity has implications for fair and consistent application of the law in such cases.

Another significant challenge discussed is the definition and proof of terrorism, especially when examining communications. Brazil has witnessed cases resembling the Capitol invasion in the United States, with individuals being accused of attacks against the democratic state and terrorism. However, accurately determining evidence and establishing proof in such cases is a complex process. This difficulty raises questions about the effectiveness of current methods in defining and proving acts of terrorism based on communication-related evidence.

Furthermore, the analysis examines a proposed platform regulation bill that includes a duty of care provision. This bill addresses issues like content moderation, platform accountability, and transparency. It bears similarities to the Digital Services Act and aims to regulate online platform activities. However, concerns have been raised regarding the platforms’ ability to accurately identify content that constitutes terrorism. This issue raises doubts about the bill’s effectiveness in achieving its objectives and ensuring proper handling of terrorist-related content on digital platforms.

In conclusion, the analysis emphasises the importance of striking a balance between state protection, democracy, and freedom of expression while considering the unique contexts of different jurisdictions. The legal uncertainty surrounding cybercrime cases, the challenges of defining and proving terrorism based on communications, and the potential drawbacks of the proposed platform regulation bill are significant concerns. These observations shed light on the complexities involved and highlight the need for further examination and consideration to develop appropriate and comprehensive solutions.

Dilmar Villena:
expression of internet, taking into account the Peruvian case. Right now, well, like from four or five years ago, we have political unrest. And this is due to have some issues with freedom of speech on the internet. And we are going to be talking about the prosecutor of the crime of terrorism apology through ICT in Peru, in this case. I think that we need a little of historical context when we are going to be talking about this. During the 1980s, Peru experienced an internal armed conflict, primarily instigated by the terrorist group called Shining Path, but also involving the revolutionary movement known as Tupac Amaru. This group, Shining Path, initiated an armed uprisings against the Peruvian state, with the aim of overthrowing the existing legal and constitutional order at that time. Shining Path, this terrorist group, had a defined ideology, identifying themselves as Marxist, Leninist, Maoist. And their leader, Abimael Guzman, considered himself the fourth sword of Marxism, adding the Gonzalo thought to these three ideologies. But in reality, far from bringing a guerrilla movement seeking to promote a proletarian revolution, this indeed was a terrorist group. And this group committed numerous human rights violations and attacks, not only against Peruvian state, but also against unarmed civilian populations. They particularly targeted indigenous and native communities. Shining Path had a deeply racist ideology and aimed to exterminate the Andean and Amazonian indigenous people, viewing them as obstacles to Peru’s historical development. Throughout this internal conflict experienced by the Peruvian state, there were numerous human rights violations, not only done by this terrorist movement called Shining Path, but also done by the Peruvian government itself. Ayacucho was the region that suffered the most and was the most affected by this terrorist group, and also by this violence caused by the Peruvian state. Example of this includes the Lucanamarca and Soras massacres perpetrated by Shining Path, but also a Comarca massacre carried out by Peruvian state. The truth is that this period in Peruvian history led to a significant loss of life and led to a loss of thousands of lives that we haven’t seen in recent history nowadays. In order to combat these terrorist actions in Peru, our criminal code typified these type of crimes. And when we talk about terrorist offenses in Peru, it has four elements. One, it requires that anyone who incites, creates, or maintains a step of anxiety, alarm, or fear in the population. Two, engages in acts against life, body, health, personal freedom, and security, public building, roads, all of that. Three, it needs to be used firearms, material, explosive device, and any other means. And four, it needs to be capable of causing havoc or serious disruption of public peace or affect international relationships. But recently, in 2017, the crime of terrorism apology was recently put in our criminal code. And it said that if the exaltation, justification, or clarification is made for the crime of terrorism or any form or anyone that has been convicted by final judgment as author or participant of this crime, it says that the person should be punished with no less than four years or eight years in prison. But when this exaltation, justification, or clarification is done through ICTs, like we can say Facebook, Twitter, I don’t know, SMS, or anything that comes through technology, the penalty shall be no less than eight years, no more than 15 years. So we can see here that if you commit the crime of terrorist apology through ICT, your punishment will be far big than the one if you do it like a norm in a public square. In the first case, you’re going to have a penalty of no less than eight years. And in the second case, you’re going to have only a penalty of four years. So when we talk about terrorist apology and all the crimes related to freedom of speech, there are some jurisprudential and human rights criteria developed by our Inter-American Commission of Human Rights that is needed to be taken into account when we talk about terrorism apology. Indeed, in the report on human rights made by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, it says that for this offense to be compatible with freedom of expression in the Inter-American system, it must, at minimum, incite violence or similar actions and to have a likelihood of success. So it’s not accorded to our Inter-American Convention to punish terrorist apology just only by saying so. But you must incite violence. And also, this incitation needs to be a likelihood to succeed. And also, it establishes a set of criteria in order to apply the penalties for the offense. When the judge is applying this penalty, it needs to take into account some certain kinds of criteria. For example, the context of the situation. If it’s done through the middle of the conflict, also it needs to take into account the position of the individuals that make the expression and their labor or influence in society. It’s not the same common civil doing committing this crime or is being doing by a politician or maybe for a military chief. It’s also needed to be taken into account the harm caused or that could be caused. And it comes together with the minimum sets explained before. In order to sanction this crime, you need to incite violence and a likelihood of success. And when this happens, you have to take into account how many harm this caused. Another criteria is the utility of the information given. It’s not the same like, I don’t know, viva Presidente Gonzalo, that giving some information exactly about what did he done, what have he done, or what all the shining parts have done, and the type of communication medium used. But in the case of Peru, the Peruvian constitutional court, when have taken into its court a case related to terrorism apology, it said that the medium used must be capable of achieving publicity, spreading praise to an undetermined number of people, and also that the exaltation affects the democratic principles of plurality, tolerance, and the search of consensus. And this is very important. The Peruvian constitutional court says that it is not needed to have an actual danger. The Peruvian constitutional court interprets that in order to punish this crime, what this crime seeks is the potential dangerous behavior, rather than a specific harm or legal interest. So in the Peruvian case, there is no need to do to apologize the terrorist crime, but and be able to cause actual damage. Only it’s needed to, I don’t know, just to say to praise the terrorist person, and you will be punished by doing that. And also addresses the need to develop criminal policy in response to our reality. So there is, in the Peruvian case, we have these two differences. The Inter-American Commission says that in order for this crime to be compatible with the Inter-American Human Rights Convention, it needs to have potential and actual danger to human lives or public goods. But for the constitutional court, it is not needed, because it only punishes a general potential danger behavior, not the danger itself. So here we have our first, we can find on the Peruvian legislation that when we talk about freedom of speech, like the Peruvian parameters are not in accordance with the Inter-American parameters in this matter. And also, when we talk about freedom of speech parameters or human rights parameters in general, we have the Joint Declaration on Independence and Diversity of Media in the Digital Age of 2018, issued by the Special Reportees on Freedom of Expression. And what did it state? It said that states must refrain from enacting unnecessary or disproportionate laws that penalize or impose harsher sanctions on online expression compared to its offline equivalent. It means that when states criminalize some action, they must avoid, just because it’s done online, to have more strict penalties or higher penalties, rather than it’s done, I don’t know, in real life, we could say. So we can say here that also, Peruvian legislation is not in accordance to these human rights parameters. Because it’s like, if you do an apology of terrorism in a street or in a public square, you’ll only be sanctioned for four years. But if you do it through internet, you’re going to have eight years of penalty without taking into account any specific feature that could happen in this situation. So what do we see? That there are some issues with application of terrorism apology through ICT established in our criminal code. First, it can violate the right to equality. Why? Because if someone commits this crime in a public square, he will be punished with four years of prison. But if I do the same through internet, I don’t know, I have an Instagram account with one follower, and no one sees, I do the terrorism apology, I will be punished for eight years. So is this difference on the treatment of this crime reasonable? Why is this done? So there’s a first problem here of equality. Same actions are not treated the same, even though it isn’t taking into account how this could damage effectively. Also, the broad definition of what constitutes ICT is also a very big problem. Why? Because ICT can be committed to what we understand as ICT. It could be SMS. It could be an email. It could be WhatsApp. It could be telegram. So in order to prosecute this type of crimes, we could say that police or prosecutors will be entitled to access to private communications only because this terrorism apology is done through ICT. And at this point, we can have a reflection about if I have a private communication with a friend, and we are talking about it, and my friend supports what ShinyPath has done, as long as he supports what ShinyPath has done and he does it through WhatsApp messaging or through SMS, it will be possible to be punished through the prosecutor. So there’s also an issue, a very big problem here, related to privacy and in the communications. And also, this type of crime doesn’t take into account the diversity of platforms that we have right now on internet, because it’s not the same publishing or sharing some information on LinkedIn, or on Facebook, or on Twitter, or on Instagram, or whether we have a public account or more a private account. So this is a big problem here. Also, because it doesn’t take into account that platforms themselves have moderation systems that could lead to take down content before it spreads all around. For example, let’s say that someone committed the crime of apology through Facebook, and because it’s related to some kind of violence or terrorist group, the Facebook moderation system takes it down, takes that content down. So here, we are going to be having trouble. Prosecutors will be able to punish these type of actions, even though the content didn’t get to anybody because Facebook took it down. So this broad definition could also lead the prosecutor to punish some terrorism apology that haven’t took anyone to know what was talking about it. So this is the general legal and jurisprudential meanings we have about this crime. So how has the crime has been perceived in practice? At Diperderecho, we have done some research about how actual prosecutors and how actual judges were judging this type of crimes, terrorism apology through ICT. Here, we have a study of how the number of reports of ICT terrorism apology failed to be recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. So here, we have a study of how the number of reports of ICT terrorism apology failed to be recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. to the public prosecutor’s office. We can see that from 2019 to 2022, it doubled by a lot the count of reports of ICT terrorism fielded to the public prosecutor. And for 2023, on June, it was around 100 reports. What is also worrying about the prosecutor of this crime is, as you know, on December of past year, we have social unrest in Peru. This led to the Ministry of Interior to post this on its social media, telling people to report if they see some kind of terrorism apology through internet. They tell people to report, and they say that you could report these type of crimes to a specific email account. And this email account that people could report this terrorism apology was this, the one we can find here. And what happened? We asked for information about this email account and the number of reports that it received. 96% were dismissed. Actual cases that prosecutors have in their desk are like 2% of the cases. And why is this worrying? One will ask, why the Ministry of Interior wanted to prosecute more this crime through internet? And what happened on December of the past year, on January, most of the people that were protesting were marked by the government as terrorists. And without being actually terrorists, there were just people that were protesting, but government said that they were terrorists. And what happened is that everybody that was against the Peruvian government was marked a terrorist and were prosecuted. In this case, we have one case study. We were going to tell the person that was committed with this crime, Rodolfo. He was a student, 22 years old. What happened in this case is very important. Why? Because when we read the judge’s resolution, we can see that his Facebook account is actually accessible. Anybody could get this Facebook account. And what we could see is that this person that is being committed with this crime, he was a far-right person, a militant. So all of his posts was related to far-right or right ideology. And in his defense, he said that his account has been hacked, that he didn’t actually post the publication that has led him to have eight years of effective imprisonment. And what the prosecutor did in order to ensure that he was the one that actually had done this kind of post, he did some anthropology research and said that as long as the one that appears in the Facebook profile, the Facebook photo profile, is the same as the one that is seated here in the court, is the same, we can say that he committed the crime. That was the form that the prosecutor said that he indeed committed the crime. And after all of that, the verdict was that he received eight years of effective imprisonment and like $2,000 in civil reparations. We can see here that this was the post that was shared by this person in his account. And what we can see is he shared information about a Facebook page that is called Bandera Roja, we can say. He didn’t write the post himself, the account shared that information. That we can say that, yeah, he’s committing apology of the terrorist group and the terrorist person, Vimel Guzman. But the defense said that he didn’t post it. And we can ask why the attorney or the prosecutor didn’t judge or didn’t seek or didn’t take into trial or try to investigate who was behind this Facebook page, Bandera Roja. He didn’t do it. So even though we’re having all this information, this lack of judicial reason, we have this verdict of eight years of effective prison. Right now, we don’t know effectively if this person indeed committed the crime, but right now he’s in prison for eight years. When we talk digital apology, so how is the judicial reasoning here? There is a lack of account ownership verification in this process. The unlawful conduct that is being sanctioned here is the praising terrorist leaders and questioning and criticizing their trials. What left this person and what this post says is that that criticize the trial that come into account for Vimel Guzman. If it’s done through social media, simply posting or sharing content is an effective way to spread praise. Doesn’t matter if you indeed wrote it or you just share it. Maybe you could share it not on purpose, by mistake. It will also be prosecuted by this crime. And when we talk about civil reparation, we’ve reviewed four or five judges in this case, judicial cases. There was the same amount in all these five sentences. The amount was the same. Approximately $2,000. But there is no further analysis is conducted beyond confirming non-material harm. So why do ask for $2,000 civil reparation without analyzing if, I don’t know, the post on Facebook caused more harm through, or caused more harm rather than posting it on Instagram or posting it through X? We don’t know. In all the cases, it had $2,000 reparation without taking into account these specific matters. So at this point, we ask, are we against a persecution of dissent and infringement on freedom of expression of internet? We know because of the social unrest that happened in Peru on December or January, President Boluarte said that the people that were protesting were marked as terrorists. Also, one of the most influential congressmen said that all the people that are protesting are terrorists. So we have this problem here. If you say that everyone that is protesting against the government is called terrorist, and also anyone can report any type of criticism through the government done by social media, and you can report it to this specific email, well, what we are going to have is people no more is going to criticize the government through internet. So we can see what police indeed investigates in these cases. And it’s the problem that we have. At Diperderecho, we have fun here. Actual legislation that we have on terrorism apology doesn’t respect human rights standards. And it’s so wide open that everyone could be prosecuted by this crime. And it instigates to people that can never to not be more critical about Peruvian government no more. So that’s what I want to share with you. Here, Camila is going to have some comments about what is happening in Brazil, what we can take into account when we talk about terrorism on ICT.

Camila:
Thank you, Dilmar. Thank you for the invitation. Also, I have read your article about these issues. And it’s important to have this kind of balance of different rights when we are talking about this, because it’s complex. We have to consider the concrete case. And what we see is that we don’t have the silver bullet solution, but what is being applied is definitely not the best option. So we are trying to balance the protection of the state, the democracy, the freedom of expression. And each jurisdiction have a different way to balance it. But it’s important that you brought some inter-American parameters to do this. So we have some parameters that have to be followed, and they are not being followed. In Brazil, we also have this anti-terrorism law. It’s applied a little different, because it’s about exposing someone to a danger, to the peace, to the public safety. But in cybercrimes, we don’t have any specific amount, and you don’t have any specific sanction for cybercrimes. It’s a range. So you can be convicted for an imprisonment of 12 to 30 years. And when it is committed through cybercrime, the judge sees concretely how much is the imprisonment. This brings a challenge of legal uncertainty. So if it’s not in the law, the judge can also apply something that might be not that, not considering that much the specific case, but it has to be considered. So we have two opposite sides, too strict on that, but also too broad on that. So when we are talking about this beyond enhancing legislation, we also have to think on how we can qualify better the judges that are applying this kind of law. But to end, I would just like to talk a little about the Brazilian context, because beyond the law, we had recently some cases of, we had like a capital invasion in Brazil in January. It was 8 January, and these people are being sued also for attacks against the democratic state and also terrorism. We have a challenge on that, on how we deal with that, and how also the judges try to make the responsibilization of these people by assessing their communications. How do they prove that? And this is a challenge. This is one side. In the other side, that is also a consequence of this context, we have a platform regulation bill in Brazil. It’s similar to the DSA, which is the Digital Services Act, is related to content moderation, to responsibilization of platforms, to transparency. But we have two main dispositions that are important. The first one is duty of care, and the second one is the, how can I say, the safety measure when you have an imminent danger. The duty of care has to consider, has to make platforms diligent and mitigate illicit practices within the scope of their services, making an effort to improve, to combat the dissemination of illegal content generated by third parties. And this diligence also includes terrorism. From one side, duty of care is important for platforms. But in the other side, how to do that concretely? Do the platforms have the power to say what is terrorism and what is not? This is one challenge. And the other challenge is that they might be responsibilized, like a civil liability, when there is a specific case of imminent danger. So this is, well, it’s not a law. It’s a bill that we are contributing also in EDAC, in Digital Rights Network in Brazil, Coalizão Direitos na Rede. And it’s a challenge. How can we balance on this? Because from one side, people want to make these people liable for their action. But on the other side, we cannot be extremely surveillance. We cannot have surveillance. We have to consider the rights and how to balance it. I know that I didn’t give answers, but it’s great to hear from the Peruvian reality and also to understand in Brazil how we can compare them both. But it’s a challenge that we have to face in practice. So to be fast, that’s my contribution. Thank you for the invitation.

Dilmar Villena:
Thank you, Camila. And what we can think about is when we talk about terrorism, it’s very dangerous to have a wide definition of it because it can lead us to suppress critical point of views. And when we talk about freedom of expression, we have to be very careful about what type of speech can be suppressed or what kind of speech cannot be suppressed. So in the Peruvian case, we can see that effectively, some kind of speech and the speech against government is being suppressed right now. And what I can say is most of the times, we can think that legislation or regulation is needed because, I don’t know, there is a certain attack against one politician and these people is a terrorist, but it’s also needed a specific definition of what is terrorism. And when we talk about terrorism apology also, it’s needed to, it’s more difficult because we are not talking about actions that constitute terrorism, but kind of certain type of speech. And that’s it. Thank you very much, Camila. Thank you very much for being here. So I don’t know if we have any questions here or, or because the panel is ending right now, if we have any questions, we can talk outside and thank you very much for being here.

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

Audience

The session on internet fragmentation, regulation, and governance explored several key arguments. One argument put forth was that the internet is inherently fragmented as a network of networks. This understanding recognises that the internet comprises various interconnected networks operated by individuals and companies. These individual fragments form the larger network that we know as the internet.

However, it was also acknowledged that harmful fragmentation poses a problem. Harmful fragmentation refers to instances where the fragmentation of the internet hinders its intended function. The session emphasised the need to address such harmful fragmentation to ensure the smooth operation and effectiveness of the internet.

The importance of adopting a layered policy approach was discussed during the session. A layered policy approach recognises that the internet operates on multiple layers, and different regulations may be required for each layer. This approach provides a framework to effectively govern the diverse aspects of the internet while accounting for the specificities of each layer.

The distinction between regulating on and off the internet was also highlighted. The Dutch government was cited as an example, as it has implemented a policy approach that distinguishes between regulations applicable to activities taking place on the internet and those occurring off the internet. By considering the borders and layers of the internet, policymakers can tailor regulations to ensure a balance between control and innovation.

Accountability within the public core of the internet was addressed as a challenging issue. It was noted that accountability issues related to the internet should be dealt with on an international level. The public core of the internet, due to its borderless nature, poses difficulties in terms of regulation. The session called for careful consideration and international cooperation to hold the public core of the internet accountable.

The importance of considering the public interest in formulating internet governance policies was emphasised. Policymakers were urged to make decisions that benefit society as a whole and create a better world. The session highlighted that public interest does not differentiate between different layers of the internet, and policies should reflect this holistic concern.

The session also touched upon the significance of global consensus in internet governance. It was argued that national interests should align with the interests of other nations to promote collaboration and cooperation. Finding a global consensus on matters of public interest was considered a crucial step towards harmonising internet governance frameworks.

The challenges posed by online bullying were discussed, particularly in relation to the internet’s amplification effect on the magnitude of bullying. The perplexing nature of dealing with bullying in the context of the internet was acknowledged.

The industry’s response to regulation proposals was also examined. The industry was criticised for frequently offering excuses when faced with new regulations. The need for the industry to mature and accept that it is not exempt from regulation, similar to other industries, was highlighted.

Technical knowledge was identified as essential in understanding the nuances of different technologies and their regulatory scopes. Different technologies operate at various layers of the internet and are managed by different entities. Understanding these distinctions requires deep technical knowledge.

The potential impact of internet censorship and the need to safeguard democratic values were also discussed. The session recognised that the battle for a global internet ultimately involves differing values that are not universally agreed upon. It was also noted that control mechanisms deployed to manage content in one jurisdiction can affect other jurisdictions, underscoring the need to consider the potential transboundary implications of these mechanisms.

In conclusion, the session aimed to address internet fragmentation issues and develop suitable approaches to internet governance. It recognised the natural fragmentation of the internet as a network of networks but emphasised the need to tackle harmful fragmentation. The adoption of a layered policy approach and the distinction between regulating on and off the internet were suggested as ways to effectively govern the internet. The session discussed the challenges of holding the public core of the internet accountable, the importance of considering the public interest, and the need for global consensus. The session also highlighted the complexities of dealing with bullying, the industry’s response to regulations, the significance of technical knowledge, and the potential implications of internet censorship. Ultimately, the session aimed to find solutions that respect individual rights, uphold democratic values, and maintain a cohesive global internet.

Nobuhisa NISHIGATA

In Japan, the government has implemented a layered approach to internet regulation, which is considered effective and clear in the country’s legal structure. This approach encompasses various levels of regulation to address different aspects of internet-related issues. The government is also actively involved in addressing challenges related to internet access in rural areas, aiming to secure reliable and accessible internet connections for all citizens.

However, the layered approach faces difficulties when it comes to content-related concerns, such as piracy and the distribution of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM). The government acknowledges that the current framework does not effectively tackle these issues and presents challenges in combating piracy and CSAM. Constructing legislation that adequately covers these problematic areas within the boundaries of a democratic society, considering factors like the rule of law and freedom of expression, is complex.

Moreover, the emergence of the internet has given rise to new types of crimes, posing significant challenges for law enforcement agencies. The use of end-to-end encryption, as seen in platforms like Telegram, makes it harder for authorities to trace and apprehend criminals engaged in illegal activities. This highlights the need for innovative countermeasures and international cooperation to effectively combat internet-enabled crimes.

While respecting the principles of freedom and the global nature of the internet, the Japanese government recognizes the importance of balancing these ideals with the rule of law. They take a cautious approach, avoiding a complete prohibition of general internet platforms like Telegram, and instead seek to find legal solutions to combat online crimes. Additionally, the government actively engages in international affairs, understanding that its duty extends beyond domestic borders.

Cyberbullying is a significant issue globally, and Japan is no exception. Various measures are being taken, including the creation of legislation to address internet-based humiliation. By implementing these laws, the government aims to protect individuals from the harmful effects of cyberbullying and provide a safer online environment.

Regulations concerning social media networks and internet service providers are considered necessary but complex. The government is working on establishing a legal system to define the limited liability of internet service providers, acknowledging the benefits and side effects of the social network services (SNS) ecosystem. Achieving a balance between regulation and the positive aspects of SNS platforms is crucial in ensuring a safe and secure online space.

The use of social media and the internet also brings forth the issue of echo chamber effects, where individuals are exposed only to similar viewpoints and information, leading to polarization and misinformation. This phenomenon challenges the fostering of a well-informed society and highlights the importance of promoting diverse perspectives and critical thinking in online interactions.

Constructing effective laws to combat piracy and CSAM is a technically challenging task. The government recognizes this complexity and strives to find appropriate solutions without introducing direct regulations or legislation. Instead, they encourage the industry and private sector, such as internet service providers (ISPs) and telecom operators, to take a leading role in countering piracy and CSAM. By leveraging the expertise and resources of these stakeholders, more effective measures can be implemented.

There is also a strong emphasis on the role of the internet community in combating piracy and CSAM. Nishigata, an advocate for collective effort, believes that while piracy can exist even without the internet, its scale is significantly smaller in comparison. More than 90% of the internet community is considered to be “good guys” who can play an essential role in supporting the fight against illegal activities and maintaining a safe online environment.

Despite the efforts made, it is highlighted that internet regulations and legislations have struggled to keep up with the rapid advancement of technology. The development of the internet has outpaced regulatory efforts and created challenges in effectively addressing emerging issues. Therefore, continuous adaptation and collaboration among various stakeholders are needed to ensure that regulations can keep pace with technological progress.

In conclusion, the Japanese government has implemented a layered approach to internet regulation, which has been effective in certain aspects, such as securing internet connections in rural areas. However, challenges remain in areas like content-related concerns, internet-enabled crimes, and cyberbullying. Balancing the principles of freedom and the global nature of the internet with the rule of law is crucial. Regulations concerning social media networks and internet service providers are complex but necessary. Collaboration and joint efforts between the government, technicians, industry, and civil society are vital in improving the regulation and safety of the internet landscape.

Moderator

The analysis highlights several key points regarding internet regulation, internet fragmentation, and related topics. One important finding is that a layered policy approach can potentially help prevent internet fragmentation. By considering all elements of the internet, such as the network layer and apps and other services, policymakers can create a cohesive and comprehensive policy that does not lead to internet fragmentation. This approach takes into account the potential issues that may arise if internet sanctions are applied to internet infrastructure, which can cause fragmented access.

The analysis also emphasizes the importance of governments using a layered approach in policy-making, particularly when applying sanctions. If not properly targeted, government sanctions can hamper internet access. A layered approach to policy-making on sanctions can help prevent these unintended consequences and ensure uninterrupted internet connectivity.

Japan is presented as an example of a country actively working on effectively regulating the internet. The country’s Telecom Business Law has a distinct structure to deal with internet regulation issues. Japan is also focusing on ensuring internet connectivity in rural areas and isolated islands, indicating its commitment to comprehensive regulation of national and international internet infrastructure, such as submarine cables and satellite frequencies.

Another important consideration highlighted is the need for governments to strike a balance between respecting internet freedoms and protecting citizens from internet-enabled crimes and violations of rights. Issues related to privacy and the presence of child sexual abuse materials on the internet are mentioned as examples of challenges that need attention.

The analysis also discusses the challenges arising from the growth and evolution of the internet. With more actors engaging across different layers, government intervention and regulation can create unintended global effects and potentially lead to the breakdown of the internet. This highlights the complexities and potential unintended consequences associated with internet regulation.

The balance between encryption for security and privacy and addressing its misuse for criminal activities is presented as an important challenge. Encryption is recognized as a vital protocol contributing to internet security and individual privacy. However, it has also been used as a tool for illegal activities. A solution is needed that does not compromise security and privacy while addressing misuse.

Understanding and identifying the technical aspects of the internet, including its layers, are fundamental for addressing internet fragmentation. The analysis stresses the importance of recognizing the different layers of the internet to find appropriate solutions for fragmentation.

Cyberbullying emerges as a significant issue that needs to be addressed in policy-making and legislation. It is highlighted that cyberbullying is not confined to Japan and is a global issue. The use of social networking services is recognized as a factor that can facilitate cyberbullying through echo chambers and filter bubbles. The intersection of the issue of cyberbullying with the concept of freedom of speech is also noted.

The analysis emphasizes the need for cooperation among government, industry, technicians, and civil society to catch up with the pace of internet evolution. This reflects the complex nature of internet regulation and the importance of involving various stakeholders in shaping effective policies.

In conclusion, the analysis underlines the significance of a layered policy approach in preventing internet fragmentation and the challenges associated with balancing internet regulation and freedoms. It highlights the need for comprehensive and balanced regulation to address issues such as cyberbullying and encryption misuse. The analysis also indicates the importance of cooperation and understanding among various stakeholders in effectively regulating the internet.

Alissa Starzak

During the discussion, the speakers delved into the intricacies of layered policymaking in relation to Internet content. They emphasized that understanding the complex network behind Internet content is crucial for effective policymaking. Different entities were identified as being responsible for delivering content to users, including registrars, entity-based content transmitters, Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and browsers. The speakers highlighted that regulatory structures play a significant role in shaping how these entities can operate and collaborate.

The negative consequences of regulating the Internet through blocking mechanisms were brought to attention. They explained that attempts to block an IP address can inadvertently lead to the blocking of millions of domains, resulting in a significant proportion of internet content becoming inaccessible. This argument highlights the potential hindrance to access that could arise from overly restrictive Internet regulations.

Additionally, the speakers underscored the importance of considering both local and global implications when developing new structures on top of the Internet. They explained that implementing new layers or structures can potentially disrupt existing functions, and that taking into account the effects on both local and global levels can help prevent such disruptions.

The discussion also touched on the need to balance practicality and functionality when developing Internet regulations. The speakers argued that claims regarding data localisation of IP addresses, as outlined in the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), can be impractical considering how internet infrastructure functions. They noted that policymakers sometimes lack a full understanding of the intricacies of the internet, which emphasises the need for careful consideration of practicality and functionality when crafting regulations.

Furthermore, the speakers stressed the significance of infrastructure as the initial gateway for internet access. They stated that individuals often turn to infrastructure first to gain access due to the internet functioning as a network of interconnected networks. This supports the argument that regulations on infrastructure should be carefully thought out, considering its critical role in enabling access to the internet.

The speakers also spoke about the importance of having a deep understanding of potential unintended consequences when crafting regulations. They emphasised that regulation writing involves considering trade-offs and potential side effects, enabling policymakers to develop effective and balanced regulations.

The industry’s role in explaining technical details during the creation of regulations was highlighted as essential. By providing expertise and insights, the industry can bridge the communication gap between the engineering side and the regulatory creation side, ensuring that regulations are well-informed and technically viable.

The discussion then shifted towards the impact of legislation beyond national borders. The speakers pointed out that nations typically legislate within their own borders. However, when it comes to infrastructure, legislation can extend far beyond national boundaries, impacting other nations as well. It was emphasised that understanding this reality and making legislation accessible can aid in comprehending legislative influences beyond borders.

Furthermore, the speakers noted that if a nation legislates on matters that affect areas outside its borders, other nations may reciprocate by legislating within its borders. This observation highlights a potential consequence of legislating extraterritorially, emphasising the importance of considering such implications and fostering international cooperation in legislative matters.

In conclusion, the discussion emphasised the complex nature of layered policymaking in relation to Internet content. The importance of understanding the multifaceted network behind Internet content, considering local and global implications, and ensuring the practicality and functionality of regulations were key themes. The potential negative consequences of overly restrictive regulations and the need for cooperation between government, industry, and civil society were also highlighted. Overall, the speakers advocated for a thoughtful and collaborative approach to navigating the challenges surrounding internet regulation.

Online Moderator

In the online discussion, the seriousness of cyberbullying in Japan is highlighted by the moderator. They express concerns about the harmful consequences of internet fragmentation, specifically in terms of communication. This fragmentation can lead to cyberbullying, which is seen as a negative outcome. The moderator seeks possible policy approaches to address this pressing issue.

Another speaker in the discussion acknowledges the link between cyberbullying and internet fragmentation. They argue that cyberbullying can be seen as a manifestation of internet fragmentation in terms of communication. This perspective emphasizes the need for policy solutions to counter cyberbullying effectively. The speaker suggests that policy approaches are crucial to address this issue appropriately.

The online moderator further reinforces the importance of policy solutions. Seeking inputs from the panel, they aim to gather diverse perspectives on potential policy measures to combat cyberbullying. By involving experts and stakeholders, the hope is to develop effective strategies for addressing this problem.

The analysis of the discussion reveals that cyberbullying is a significant concern in Japan, and internet fragmentation is identified as a contributing factor. The call for policy approaches highlights the need for formal measures to tackle cyberbullying effectively. This issue is aligned with SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions, emphasizing the importance of creating a safe and inclusive online environment.

Overall, the discussion draws attention to the seriousness of cyberbullying, demonstrates the link with internet fragmentation, and stresses the importance of policy solutions. By addressing this issue and implementing relevant policies, strides can be made towards a safer and more supportive online space.

Jean F. Queralt

This analysis explores various perspectives on internet fragmentation and its implications. One speaker urges caution when assuming that the internet was once unfragmented, questioning the evidence to support this notion. They challenge the assumption of a once-unfragmented internet and take a negative stance towards fragmentation.

Another viewpoint suggests examining fragmentation in terms of time and driving factors. The speaker emphasizes the need to consider how fragmentation evolves over time and mentions the role of faulty hardware or protocols. This argument takes a neutral stance.

Additionally, a proposed model for layering in the internet is presented. This model describes the layers from user interface to physical channel and highlights the role of the user interface in conveying information and user intention through the different layers. The speaker sees this model as a positive contribution to understanding internet structure and functionality.

The analysis also explores the benefits of fragmentation in organizations involved in internet governance. It suggests that organization fragmentation can serve as a barrier to nefarious actors and proposes addressing problems at different levels. This argument emphasizes the positive aspects of fragmentation and its role in resilience.

There is discussion about the confusion surrounding interoperability. The analysis outlines three models for interoperability – shared, ad hoc, and hybrid – and suggests that the current model is a mixture of the two. This argument takes a negative stance, highlighting the lack of clarity in the direction of interoperability.

Furthermore, the need for a term to describe positive internet fragmentation is highlighted. The term ‘splinternet’ has negative connotations, and alternative terms such as unified net, flow net, coherent net, cohesive net, and seamless net are proposed to capture the positive aspects of fragmentation.

The analysis also touches on the cognitive dissonance between public expectations of technology and other industries. Examples such as architects building stable structures and general users not worrying about technical aspects are used to demonstrate this discrepancy. The argument emphasizes the imbalance in expectations for the general public to understand complex technologies.

In conclusion, this comprehensive analysis provides insights into the different perspectives surrounding internet fragmentation. It emphasizes the need for caution when assuming the existence or non-existence of a once-unfragmented internet and the importance of considering time and driving factors. Additionally, it proposes a model for layering in the internet and discusses the benefits of fragmentation in internet governance organizations. The analysis raises concerns about the confusion regarding interoperability and suggests the need for a term to describe positive internet fragmentation. It concludes by highlighting the cognitive dissonance between public expectations of technology and other industries and advocates for equipping technology industry frontliners with the necessary tools.

Konstantinos

The internet faces various challenges, one of which is the fragmentation caused by a layered approach. This approach poses significant difficulties as more actors engage across different layers, making it tough to discern and comprehend these layers. Additionally, increased state intervention in response to emerging issues leads to regulations impacting internet infrastructure, further complicating matters. The prevailing sentiment regarding this issue is negative, as these challenges hamper the effective functioning of the internet.

Deciphering the specific layer of the internet involved in a problem is crucial for effective problem-solving. Lack of identification makes it difficult to determine who to engage in discussions and propose solutions. This issue holds a neutral sentiment but highlights the importance of understanding the different layers for efficient problem-solving.

Encryption, while foundational for internet security and privacy, presents a major policy challenge due to its potential for abuse. Various actors manipulate encryption for criminal acts, raising concerns about its regulation. However, engineers argue against modifying encryption due to its crucial role in privacy and security. The sentiment towards this issue is negative, as it poses complexities and conflicts in policy-making and regulation.

Internet fragmentation has gained recognition and discussion as an issue in recent times. The sentiment towards this issue is neutral, suggesting that fragmentation may have always been a characteristic of the internet. This recognition and discussion underscore the need to address fragmentation as a significant challenge faced by the internet.

Government intervention to mitigate internet-related challenges can have unintended consequences on infrastructure and evolution. In the past five years, several nations inadvertently affected internet infrastructure due to their reactions to challenges. This negative sentiment highlights the need for careful consideration and assessment of the potential consequences of government intervention in the internet realm.

Overall, the internet presents numerous complexities and challenges that require careful attention. The layered approach to fragmentation, encryption policy challenges, the need to identify and understand different layers for problem-solving, and the consequences of government intervention are noteworthy observations. These insights emphasize the importance of finding balanced and well-thought-out solutions to ensure the effective and secure functioning of the internet.

Moderator:
I am the founder of Digital Medusa and we are doing this workshop on can a layered policy approach stop internet fragmentation. And so and we are going to have a conversation and we are going to have a dialogue with you after our speakers remarks but a little bit of what is a layered approach well there are different interpretations of that but a layered by a layered approach we mean that we have these seven layers of the of the internet which the basic part of it is the network layer where the IP addresses and other critical properties of the internet that allow connectivity to happen there they are there and then they’re on top of that you have the apps and then you have other services but this was a very simplified version you can of course tackle me later on about like whether that definition was accurate but why is it important to talk about a layered approach to policy making and how can it stop internet fragmentation one of the one of the research research reports that I have done in the past was about internet and sanctions and I have used so the government and policymakers want to sanction human rights violators and and this is like a legitimate policy tool however when they do that they also can affect access to the internet if the sanction applies to internet infrastructure so I have used this kind of layered approach to in a report on internet and sanction to kind of show how the internet infrastructure can be actually affected by sanctions and how the government’s can that actually care about about the open global internet and want to avoid fragmentation can prevent that from happening by having more targeted and the layered approach to policymaking on sanctions this is one example of it I hope I’m trying to make this as tangible as I can I can see a lot of familiar faces so you know what the layered approaches you know what the OSI model is but for the policymakers in civil society in general when they make recommendations we are trying to make this session as practical as possible to kind of look at the layered approach and see if we can actually stop internet fragmentation and but also come up with policies come up with content regular regulation policies and other needed regulatory frameworks and of course recommendations of civil society how to adopt those so with us today we have and this is a this workshop is co-organized with Internet Society and today we have Nobuisa Nishigata he’s the director of computer communications division at the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications MIC Japan he has a has been instrumental in convening IGF in Japan and and and there is a very long bio that I think Nobu can introduce himself a little bit more if he wants to and we have also Alisa Starzak the vice president and global head of public policy at Cloudflare with us today I’ll say can make it very tangible what’s internet infrastructure is involved when when we use the Internet and how we can come up with policies that consider that kind of division and we also have Jean Carralt I have practiced that the last name like a few times I got it right I’m sure and John is the founder and CEO of the IO foundation a nonprofit advocating for data-centric digital rights and then we have Konstantinos Komaitis as the commentator Konstantinos did not want resisted coming to the panel and sit here he wanted to be with the crowd in a bottom-up manner and he’s a non-resident fellow with the democracy tech initiative of the Atlantic Council’s digital forensics research lab he’s also a veteran of developing and analyzing Internet policy to ensure an open and global Internet before I go to the panels also I wanted to mention that Internet Society also has a Internet impact assessment tool that can be very useful in kind of like using this kind of layered approach in order to come up with policies that cannot that do not lead to Internet fragmentation but if you also like want to know why Internet fragmentation is bad my take is that in like we want the Internet to be global and interoperable and everyone on the Internet and in the world be able to access the global Internet and this and Internet fragmentation prevents that so without further ado I’m sorry I talked a lot we have Alyssa would you like to go ahead and start the conversation

Alissa Starzak :
sure I’m happy to hi this is Alyssa Starzak as I mentioned I am the the global head of public policy at Cloudflare if you haven’t heard of Cloudflare it is actually something very much in the Internet infrastructure side of the world so it’s worth explaining a bit about what we do and then we can talk a little bit about what layered policymaking might look like and why it matters so Cloudflare runs a big global network we use it to do a couple of different things most specifically we actually that what does big global network mean it means we have equipment in lots and lots of different countries where we can cache content to make Internet transmission more efficient but also protect people against cyber attacks so what that does is it allows us to look for problems in traffic cyber cyber attacks and allows us to sort of handle them for an entity online so we’re very much in the infrastructure space I think when we get into this layered idea of layered policymaking it’s worth understanding a little bit about how we see the world and what it looks like from our perspective so one of the interesting things about Cloudflare service is that we actually offer some of them for free so we have something like 20% of global websites that that use our services to help protect themselves against DDoS attacks from a practical standpoint that means we make a lot of the Internet more efficient which is terrific but when you get into the questions of layered policymaking it gets a lot more a lot more challenging so if you think about how the Internet is set up at the very top layer as was mentioned is all the content so all of the things that we all interact with online so that the websites that you interact with the platforms that you interact with those all sort of sit at the top and often when people talk about the Internet they mean that piece of content but they don’t think about the other components that actually get that content to you so think about the DNS system where people register domain names or where they so the registrars for those domain names or the registries for those for the for the TLDs the top-level domains like dot-com and dot you know that or the country-level ones there’s a whole world of that there’s a whole world of entities that that actually transmit that content which Cloudflare is a part of and then there’s the ISP side of the world as well so all of the different entities the browsers that make it accessible in your on your computer all of those play a role in getting that content to you and I think one of the challenges when we get into the layered policymaking world we really start have to think about what effect regulatory structures have on how those pieces fit together and how they don’t so I want to give you a couple of examples of what that means in practice so you know one of the things about the Internet that’s so interesting is that when it was set up it really wasn’t contemplating the world that we live in today it didn’t have privacy built in it didn’t have security built in nothing was encrypted and so people took advantage of that to do lots of often good things they screen for security threats they they potentially use it for content purposes but when you start building new structures on top of that often those things either stop working or get more challenging and so to give you an example people might block an IP address the challenge in that world of blocking an IP address so again in a country is that if you block a cloudflare IP address where we have millions of domains on us you potentially block millions of domains and so now you’ve created a world where a huge amount of content is not available and we see similar things where people are trying to do something because they think it’s going to be a way of addressing content and an effective way of addressing content but really what they’re doing is potentially cutting off components of the Internet so really trying when we get into that world of layered policymaking it’s really thinking about the effects both locally and thinking about collateral consequences but then also thinking about the broader global effects so what happens when this is done in a different country and with a different rule of law standard what happens when when it becomes the norm that that’s an acceptable thing to do those are all sort of questions that I think we need to think about an answer thank you very much

Moderator:
Alyssa so noble I believe that Japan government is the one of the major advocates for a global interoperable internet and how do you think that this layered approach can be useful or what are the challenges whether the thank you

Nobuhisa NISHIGATA:
good afternoon everybody my name is Nobu Nishigata from the Japanese government and the first of all welcome to Kyoto on behalf of the hosting ministry our ministry then thanks you coming for all then I hope you have good weather better weather tomorrow after tomorrow then you have some fun some time to find more not only the idea of things but also about the depth of the culture in Kyoto so then about the question maybe maybe start starting off by the layer thing I believe that the Japanese government is doing pretty good job in layer approach particularly once it comes to the regulation but this is only layer one two three this is our domain from our ministry voice then it may be after four five six seven then it’s more people came in comes in like just she said it’s not only the telecom things you know so one two three particularly for the domestic things and sometimes that the infrastructure connecting the us to with abroad like for example submarine cables or satellite frequency etc so then like we have very clear the structure in our law is a telecom business law in Japan we are doing pretty good job but then for the issues in infrastructure for example like it’s kind of away from this today’s topic but how we secure the internet connection in the rural areas even in Japan or like isolated island in the Japanese territory like that kind of things we can do that in a layer two or one type of regulation our policy approach we do that but on the other hand like once it comes to the content issue like maybe let me you know the since my assignment in the Japanese government includes some issue in the piracy or like a CSAM like that’s kind of content related issues then like of course we do the layer protein one two three but it doesn’t solve the problem we have to fight with that kind of the problem I mean CSAM is it’s more like a human right that we have to solve these things fight together or like a piracy it’s a only the some some people say it’s only the economic harm but it’s that the harm is big and you may see some Japanese the publishers industry in the manga like you can see the exhibition if you go there they are waiting for you to show how they fight against the piracy bad guys so I mean like she just provided the example with the shutting down the whole crowd the flare we don’t want to expect that to happen but still you know we have to do something I mean for example maybe moving other direction like of course I hope that you’ve already found that Japan is such a peaceful country in a society but still we have bad crimes going around and recently like the to some extent the internet enabled these new type of crimes I mean not a whole internet but for example one example be the telegram it’s a good tool and in the end to end encryption and that’s a good one but it’s quite hard for law enforcement to chase them up so of course we are I’m telling you that the Japanese government is smart enough not we are not gonna ban the telegram use in general in Japan but on the other hand we have to find some solution or maybe going out on the technology just only for the law enforcement but this is a I would say that the hardest part you know like it’s kind of arbitrary type of things but also from the government perspective we have some basic principle the first comes rule of law right it’s a fundamental principle in democratic society of course we respect the freedom open the global internet that these are the great values I admit and I respect to but on the other hand maybe I’m telling you you should be aware of that the government’s are not global as you guys in the internet we have the boundaries we do care about the boundaries you know so of course like the government you know we are paid by the tax so the our prime I would say subject to a customer I mean I shouldn’t say she is the customer but they are that the people within the border of course we do diplomacy we do some international affairs but the primary thing is within the border that the government is so then the other side on the other hand the reason that we have some international organization like OECD UNESCO and IGF and UN etc so we have to know we have to recognize some gaps between the internet and government and society etc then like just I had an opportunity to have some speech in the same place here then last month it’s 30th anniversary for the APNIC it’s Asia-Pacific Network Information Center and they they have it was just a 30 years anniversary is a congratulation again for them then like I just talked about the what was 30 years ago so that 30 years ago just I was an exchange student in the United States I was alone and then having the host family they are very kind and then having they helped me then I go to high school in the United States and at that time like of course like we do some communication with my family in Japan but at that time me it’s just letters and phones all right no smartphone no zoom no internet you know no emails so then the compared to that and then they go just the how beneficial the internet has been and then we couldn’t think more about the recent development of technologies but on the other hand unfortunately we see some new problems and then I would say like just very thinking for having me here then then like today be the first step to more like a get closer to have more dialogue between the internet and the government even in Japan so I would say Japan is internet environment it’s pretty good it’s free but compared to other countries sometimes but still it doesn’t mean that that we are satisfied as a government person we are not satisfied at this the situation right now so but still as I say that the Japanese government is smart enough to respect the free internet to global internet on the other hand we need your help to solve and this goes to the of course the other other part of the world so I hope that today’s gonna be the first step for the further dialogue and thank you for having me again thank you

Moderator:
thank you noble and that’s actually why we’re here to have this kind of conversation and see some for those who don’t know it’s child sex to sexual abuse imagery material and we go to John John you have some slides I’m yep

Jean F. Queralt:
when I was offered to to be in the panel I started trying to go a little bit down the rabbit hole of the the concept of fragmentation and how there’s so many definitions about it and I found that there were a number of elements that seem to not be very much investigated if you want or considered so the term bugs me a little bit because it does have some implications so think about a vase for instance if you say that the vase is broken it implies that at some point the vase was not broken so if we are going to be talking about an internet in a fragmented internet we need to make the assumption that it was not fragmented in the past and I’m not quite sure that we do have evidence to be able to sustain both claims with with perfect certainty of course we do all have a bit of an intuitive feeling that these things are going into that direction I will be just a little bit cautious about which directions we think is really going and so for instance when we think about fragmentation I feel that most of the time I never hear anyone talking about the concept of time so is that observed fragmentation happening in a short span of time is it something that maintains across time? Is it because it has been mandated by someone? Is it because there’s a faulty hardware or a protocol that stopped working for whatever reason? Those things seem to not really much be in the conversation quite often. And next slide, please. And so the approach that I like to take is the one that you see there in the slide. So that’s the layering that I like to follow, where you see on the top that there is a user ‑‑ sorry, the user should be on top, but I didn’t have space. Interacting with an application through a user interface, basically, and then you would need to be able to typically generate some kind of identification, which leads you to some data manipulation, which is then transmitted. You need to be able to identify the destination machine for that, and then you have some kind of physical channel to be able to do the transmission. Essentially, for the technical people, I would say that the UI is nothing more than an analog digital and digital to analog converter. It basically passes the information and the will of the user down the stack. I do see the need, even though there’s been a lot of conversation as to whether we need a layered approach or not, essentially because if we cannot pinpoint at which layer a certain problem is happening, it’s going to be very, very difficult to try to figure out who do you need to talk to in order to try to solve it. And so I don’t really mind if we use this kind of model or any other type of model, but there has to be a model for us to unite across, to be able to make sure that we know which stakeholders do we need to engage. And most importantly, I would say that there’s a little bit of confusion sometimes and overlap between different organizations, and it seems to me that we don’t have a clear taxonomy of mandates so that we again know who do we have to talk to, never mind the fact that some of those organizations may not be the most accessible for certain stakeholders. Next one, please. So when we also talk about interoperability, the only three models that come to mind is this shared situation where everyone is agreeing on how to communicate, let’s say a protocol, or an ad hoc one where every single piece, every device, every software requires to have ad hoc methodologies to be able to communicate with the rest of the systems, or a hybrid situation, which is pretty much what we have at the moment, kind of a combination of both of them. And so we are talking about interoperability, and sometimes I’m not 100% sure about in which direction do we want to go. Do we want to keep this hybrid model? Do we want to try to harmonize much more across systems? What do we want to do? Last one, please. Was that the last one? Oh, there was another one. It’s fine. I would also submit that when I was mentioning about the different organizations and trying to establish a very clear taxonomy of mandates, I know that it can be looked as we are dispersing the management of all of those layers. I somehow look at it from the perspective of the lack of concentration of one single organization where everything can be done is actually a virtue for resilience. So if you think about an actor who may try to have some kind of nasty attitude, let’s say, it would take them many more resources to be able to attend to all of these organizations and be able to participate in all of them so that they may be able to affect one of the layers, but possibly not the rest. So if anything wrong happens, you could try to rectify through the rest of the layers. I think there’s something to be said about resiliency based on fragmentation of organizations. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you a lot, John. And Konstantinos, start.

Konstantinos:
Thank you. Hi, everyone. Thank you. So my name is Konstantinos, or Connie, apparently, according to the transcript. And I think that one of the things that we heard, and it’s sort of coming across, is that the layer approach to internet fragmentation presents a lot of challenges, first of all, because currently the way, and especially the internet has evolved over the years, we are not really sure whether we can still use and talk about layers, right? And that is because there are more actors that are engaging, and they’re engaging across what used to be very discernible layers in the beginning of the internet. And also because more issues emerge that, of course, require state intervention, and we see regulation. So I think that starting with what Alisa was saying that, you know, and of course from Cloudflare’s point of view, their main challenge is how the regulation that is currently happening within the internet ecosystem affects infrastructure, right? And the ability to provide those services, whether it is about security, or whether it is about traffic efficiency, or whether it is, whether it allows users to be able and consume the internet in a more efficient way. And then, of course, then you have the broader global effects, right? I mean, those unintended consequences can create some sort of global effects that then spill over, and we are talking about a complete breakdown and splinter of the internet. Nob, on the other hand, coming from the government, I think that he raised the challenge that we keep hearing a lot of governments having. We understand that there is, there are some things that we should not be touching, and we do understand that those things are what make the internet what it is. But at the same time, we are facing everyday policy challenges as governments, and as part of our mandate, and the fact that we have been elected to provide answers to those challenges, we don’t know where to go. And I think the, well, Nob brought up encryption, which I think is perhaps the biggest challenge currently that policymakers are facing, especially in connection with SISM. I don’t think that we need to debate at all that everyone in this room, and in the world, hopefully, how they feel about SISM, but at the same time, because it involves, the conversation, better yet, involves issues around encryption, it makes it very difficult. Because if you hear the engineers, they will tell you there is really, do not touch encryption. It is a very, very important protocol. It is very important for the security of the internet. It is very important for privacy. It is very important for the security of people. But at the same time, the fact that encryption exists, and as a protocol, is getting abused, is being abused by various actors in order to do criminal acts. So, and I really liked, actually, Nobu, your call, effectively, to this, essentially, to this community, saying, we need your help. How can you help us find a balance, or provide at least a way forward, in what seems right now to be an impossible debate? And Jean, really, your opening really hit a really nice nerve with me, when you said, I’m not sure there was ever a time that the internet was not fragmented, right? And we really do not know. And we really do not know, because we only recently, if I can say that, we started thinking of fragmentation, and fragmentation sort of came in front of us, as an issue. But there might have been a time, even from the beginning of the internet, where fragmentation existed. And I think that depending on who you are, and where they’re coming from, they will tell you different things. The other thing, if I understood correct, and please correct me if I didn’t, is that we need to be able, and there is a challenge on that, on identifying which exact layer we’re talking about. And we need to be able to do that, because unless we are able to identify that layer, we won’t be able to know who to speak to, how to engage with that organization or body, and what actual solutions to give. And of course, you went back to the origins of the conception of the internet, which is decentralization, and the fact that decentralization hints, of course, to more resilience, and why this is important within the context of the internet. I think that the one thing that I can say is that fragmentation, for the past couple of years at least, has been the buzzword that everybody’s using, and rightly so in many, many ways, simply because it is a problem that can create serious challenges for the global, open, and interoperable internet. And especially in the past five years, we see governments stepping in to address some of those very hard challenges, and at the same time, in their effort to do so, there are unintended consequences that actually affect the infrastructure of the internet and the way the internet exists and continues to evolve. And I will stop here.

Moderator:
Thank you, Konstantin. So we want to have a dialogue, and at any time you want to ask a question, or comment, or if you need any clarification of what is this internet fragmentation, and why is it necessarily bad, it’s not a positive thing. Oh, and I can see somebody at the mic. Great. Go ahead.

Audience:
Hi, I’m Barry Lieba. I want to comment on the internet being fragmented from the beginning. The internet, by its nature, is fragmented. It is a network of networks. I have a home network that does not have open access to the rest of the internet. It’s a fragment. Companies have their own fragments of the internet. This is the way the internet was intended to work. So I like to think of what we’re talking about as harmful fragmentation, which is fragmentation that damages the way the internet was intended to work, and I think that’s a better way to approach it. The question that I got up to ask was, I know what OSI stack layering is, you know, and all that kind of stuff. What I don’t understand is what the purpose of this session is to talk about layered policy approach, and we’re now halfway through the session, and we haven’t talked about that part. So I’m looking to understand what the layered policy bit means. Are you talking about applying policy to the OSI stack layer? Are you talking about setting up a layered approach to policy? Please explain, and let’s have that conversation. Thanks.

Moderator:
Thank you. So for me, my impression is that, I tried to explain this in the beginning. For example, when governments want to regulate, not necessarily the internet, they can come up with a regulation that could affect the operation of the networks, and this could be, for example, the IP addresses of certain countries and regions, and governments don’t necessarily want that. If they want an open global internet, they don’t want to prevent access of countries to IP addresses, but the unintended consequences of that kind of policy, in this case sanctions, is that it could prevent network operators from having access to IP addresses, and IP addresses are not, which is at the infrastructure, as you know better than me, the infrastructure, and they are needed and necessary for online presence. So it’s not about accessing Zoom or accessing Facebook. It’s about accessing infrastructure that enables you to have an online presence and have access to the global internet. So I believe that the layered approach could possibly help at the moment. It could possibly help to tell the policymakers and civil society when they make recommendations that, hey, when you are coming up with these content regulation initiatives, with these sanctions initiatives, think about which part of the internet you do not want to actually affect with your policy so that it actually can be targeted and you can actually achieve that regulatory purpose. I hope that was clear, but I invite any other…

Alissa Starzak :
Can I just add one thing? I actually want to make it a little bit more concrete. I think there are two different sets of problems that are worth thinking about. One is when you have a general regulation that applies further down when people aren’t thinking about it. So to give you an example, the EU has passed GDPR, lots of very important things for privacy. One of the claims that has come out in GDPR is the idea of data localization of IP addresses. Now if you know how infrastructure works, that’s nonsense, that doesn’t work practically, but that doesn’t mean that a policymaker hasn’t thought about it because they don’t think about how the internet works. So I think there’s the general regulation applying and being conscious of that, and then I think there’s also a secondary piece which is thinking about infrastructure and actually what are you trying to regulate and how. Often what happens is that people go down to infrastructure first because you have, going back to I think Jean’s point, often that is a place where you can get access to something you might not otherwise have access to because we do have a network of networks. And so practically what you find are that people will go to an area where they have access. And so I think there are two components and I would sort of split them into two different ideas.

Online Moderator:
My name is Olaf Kollekman, I’m sort of co-organizer of this session and I’m now at the mic as an online moderator. So I’m forwarding a question from Chukio Kishida who is asking, I feel that cyberbullying is a serious problem in Japan. Cyberbullying is one of the internet fragmentation in terms of communication. What contribution do you think that can be made to address cyberbullying from a policymaking perspective? I think that’s a very hard question to answer, but I’m gonna add that a little bit. I’m gonna add some color to that question and change it a little bit for the panel. If you think of cyberbullying and you think of that layer approach, how would you, on what layer would you put that type of problem and at which layer do you think you will not be able to solve this? Is that a way you can work with that?

Moderator:
That’s great. Anybody from the panel? So I have one example of not good policy in order to regulate content. So for example, IP blocking is not proportional, cannot be done proportionately. And if we block IP addresses, it’s not just like one website, we might actually block access to a whole set of websites. And we have seen the chaos that happened in Europe when they came up with a regulation that for disinformation and IP blocking of the websites of Russia was mandated. And the network operators and ISPs had a lot of problem with doing that in a proportional way. So that’s where not to do it or also DNS blocking, I believe. And now the layered approach DNS is the application but still infrastructure and necessary for online presence. But anybody from the panel would like to add?

Nobuhisa NISHIGATA:
Thank you for the raising the issue of the cyberbullying and it is the big issue. But in my observation, usually, in the beginning, maybe it’s Japan’s particular problem. But now I see similar issues outside Japan as well. So maybe we have to think about it. It’s kind of beyond the scope of today’s narrow scope to the layered approach discussion. But however, we have to think that like echo chamber or like a filter bubble type of things that there’s some side effects using the SNS type of services. So of course, as I said, SNS also brought a lot of benefit to the society. On the other hand, there is some side effect. And then this cyberbullying issue is more closer to the, I would say, freedom of speech, those kind of things in a high level of definition. So it’s quite hard. But maybe, of course, Japan is working hard to do some legislation against the humiliation over the internet. Also, some legal systems about the limited liability for the internet service providers, those kind of things. So we are trying hard, but still, I admit that that’s an issue. Thank you.

Moderator:
We have a comment. John, do you want to go ahead and then we will have Marco.

Jean F. Queralt:
I wanted to do a follow up on your question. So when you were mentioning about maybe us talking about harmful fragmentation, I think it’s a good point that maybe we can also have a term for positive fragmentation. And so the term splinternet has been going around for some time, so it could be applied for the negative parts or the harmful one. And then I was just trying to figure it out, but English is not my primary language, so I’m possibly not the best one to come up with something such as unified net, flow net, coherent net, cohesive net, seamless net, whatever. Someone here can just raise your hand. It might be a good opportunity to actually try to pinpoint a name for something that points out to a positive fragmentation that respects the original intent of the internet.

Moderator:
Thank you. I have a comment on that, but I’m not going to let Marco wait. Go ahead, Marco.

Audience:
I’m always happy to wait, but yeah, I know you talk a lot. It’s Marco Hoogwoning, Dutch government. Let me, I’m not going to say anything about fragmentation and I’m also trying to refrain from saying whether we’re taking the right approach or the wrong approach, but I can speak from experience as a policymaker. In 2015, one of our government think tanks introduced the notion of the public core and with that, ever since, what we try to do is make a distinction on what happens when it comes to regulating the internet, we make the distinction of regulating off the internet and regulating on the internet. In my experience, so far, that is a helpful approach, we’ve also been advocating that to fellow governments and I do think it helps the discussion forward, especially in international policy where you can say like, okay, and I hear somebody say like, okay, yeah, some layers do not have borders, that’s correct, and that’s sort of what we see as the public core, is that layers that are practically borderless and are really hard to regulate from a national perspective. There is, of course, the content discussion and looking at sort of various remarks and I think that’s still where a lot of the challenge lies, is I heard somebody say, yeah, lawmakers don’t understand the internet and yeah, from where I stand, I think that’s also partially a good thing. Not everybody is an internet engineer and I used to be an engineer, I’ve stepped over to the dark side called government and, you know, keep it simple. That’s why we kind of try to keep it in that distinction of two layers, because if you delve in too many layers, it gets complex. Another thing I’d like to remark on and I think it was my Japanese colleague that sort of talked about accountability, yes. The fact that we make the distinction doesn’t mean that the public core and the people operating the public core should not be accountable. There are certain things happening on the internet where if you look at it from a neutral perspective, probably the only place to do something about it is that public core. And that’s a really hard thing to do, because that’s the discussion we need to have internationally and that’s usually discussion we need to have in a multi-stakeholder forum to find solutions for that space. Some things are relatively easy, because you know where it is, it happens on top of the layer. The point I’m trying to get to, we can divide it up into multiple layers. My advice is don’t do that, but also recognize that in the end, from a policy perspective, what we’re looking at is public interest and that public sits on layer 8 and layer 9. That public interest doesn’t differentiate between layer 3, 4, or 5. We’re trying to make the world a better place. Your challenge is find out which layer is the most appropriate to do the right thing to help us make the world a better place.

Moderator:
Which public are we talking about? Whose public interest? Is it the national public interest, are we talking about the global public interest?

Audience:
That’s a difficult one. Of course we always start with the national interest in mind, but I do hope that our national interest is other people’s national interest, and we can find consensus in the global space of what is the public interest.

Moderator:
Absolutely, and how to reconcile that is very important for the global interest. You have another… Please, go ahead. All my friends are here. Go ahead.

Audience:
We will fight to see who goes first. Colin Perkins, University of Glasgow. I guess I want to follow up a little on the previous comment. It’s clear that regulation that affects, that targets and affects layers where it wasn’t intended and is inappropriate causes problems. The discussion has considered a whole range of different technologies. We’ve had discussion of IP blocking, DNS blocking, and a whole bunch of other things. These obviously operate at different layers, they’re operated by different people. Understanding the differences requires pretty deep technical knowledge. Other ways of distinguishing those layers, distinguishing the technologies, and ways of phrasing those differences and describing those differences that are more accessible and don’t need that deep technical knowledge to perhaps help reframe the debate a little in a way which might make it easier to judge the applicability of regulation.

Moderator:
Thank you. Actually, Alyssa wants to respond to Colin, I’m sorry, bad one.

Alissa Starzak :
I think when we think about it, we actually try to think about who it affects, and so we actually describe it as effects. I think the challenge is that when we actually have those conversations, we think there needs to be a translation, so somebody who isn’t on the engineering side being able to explain what the potential unintended consequences might be is really important, and frankly, we certainly think that industry, which has some of the technical knowledge, plays an important role. I think sometimes, though, it can be really challenging to write things the right way, recognizing that there’s a gap between those two, because writing a regulation can be really hard, even when you’re trying to get at something specific, even when you understand the unintended consequences, that doesn’t mean there’s necessarily a better way to write something.

Audience:
Okay. I’m thinking about the bullying thing, because I think it’s a perfect example of where we need to look at this. Part of me says it’s entirely a layer nine thing. You crack down on bullies at the personal level, but the Internet has changed the way that works. When I was growing up, if somebody bullied me, it was that person against me, and that person might get a few of his friends to join him in bullying me, and so now maybe it was five or six people against me, and the administrators at school could deal with that. And now with the Internet, you have hundreds of thousands of people bullying me over the Internet, potentially. So that does change things, and we have to look at how that works, but at the same time, it’s still a layer nine issue. Do you stop the bully from accessing the Internet at all? I think it’s a very difficult thing to think about. So I like the idea of trying to think of that in layers, and I guess that’s the comment I wanted to make. I don’t have an answer to it, so…

Jean F. Queralt:
I wanted to make a comment. I feel sometimes there’s this kind of cognitive dissonance between the expectation when it comes to technology and the expectations we have in other industries. So unless there’s an architect in this room, nobody really knows why this building is not collapsing on our heads, and we don’t really care, because that job is done, and we just have put the trust into whoever is responsible for this to do the right thing. And so trying to explain certain technical things to the general public, yes, for those who are curious, of course, you shouldn’t be closing that door, it’s just it’s kind of assuming as well too much pressure for the general public to go up to that level of technical knowledge. If I’m using a phone, it shouldn’t be my responsibility to know, you know, the amount of ionizing radiation that I’m getting from the antenna. There’s mechanisms for that for me to not have to worry about it, just as when I go to a restaurant, I’m not checking as to whether the water is drinkable or not. So to a certain degree, the people who are involved in those industries are those that you would consider frontliners, and I would say that we need to make sure that the technology squad, being the frontliners for technology, do have the tools for that. And often enough, I don’t see that happening.

Moderator:
Thank you, John. I just wanted to add, so for the cyber, for the content regulation and conduct regulation issue that should happen, like we have been advocating for that, that that should not happen at infrastructure layer, and like the cloud services and CDNs and DNS resolvers and IP blocking, so these, and by we, I mean some of the, like the technical internet community, because that cannot be done proportionally. But on social media platforms, you might be able to take certain action and for trust and digital trust and safety and kind of like come up with like takedown mechanisms and stuff like that. The problem with doing that at the infrastructure level is that you cannot, you might actually hamper somebody, some innocent person online presence by doing that. So I just wanted to add that, and I see Andrew, right, Andrew?

Audience:
Yeah. Thank you. I’ll take that as my cue to ask a question. Andrew Camping, I’m a runner consultancy and I’m also a trustee of the Internet Watch Foundation. Just to give a couple of reflections, I would respectfully say the industry has got a lousy reputation for giving reasons why something can’t be done, starting with privacy. So each time something comes up, there’s a raft of excuses to say why not, and then when GDPR is enacted, it sort of seems to find a way of accommodating it. So I think you could replay what we’ve sort of discussed to say, okay, the industry is expecting legislators to do things in a way which allows for the efficient running of the industry, which I can see why the industry wants that, but most industries have to live with the regulations that are imposed on them. They don’t get to dictate the terms that they’re regulated, and I would respectfully say maybe with the maturity of the internet, we need to sort of face up the fact that governments are accountable to their sort of voters, not to the technical companies. So for example, to say you can’t do IP blocking because that would be more difficult for CDNs would be one approach. The other approach would be to say, if the governments decide you do need to block X, it’s up to the CDN to work around that so they can still function. So I think you just, the industry is trying to have it to dictate the terms of how, of the environment it operates in, and why should it be special compared to, say, car manufacturers. Thank you, Andrew.

Moderator:
We have a last like 10 minutes, so please be short in your remarks, and yeah, go ahead, Rafiq.

Audience:
Okay, I will be quite short, Rafiq Damark. So I want to ask a clarifying question to Nishikaga-san from MIC. So you said that MIC or Somosho is not taking or try to regulate a lot, but maybe I want to, if you can clarify more that how it’s left more to the industry, the operator, telco, internet service provider, in different area like anti-piracy, anti-piracy regarding manga in particular, or the CSAM to do, to work on countermeasure and so on. So maybe it’s kind of a light approach, but it might also raise some question about accountability, and particularly it’s not quite multi-stakeholder more, it’s more the kind of the private sector taking the lead here, and at the end also kind of presented like how Japan is maybe leading and respecting the rights and so on, but what are the safeguards for the future? So I wanted more clarification here. Thanks.

Nobuhisa NISHIGATA:
Let me quick answer you, we are not trying to introduce some regulation or legislation over the piracy or CSAM directly. It’s quite hard in the technical perspective in how you build up the law as a text, like a code. We have like a, you know, it is not just so easy, like just, you know, even our Prime Minister, he was here today, but just he says that the piracy is not good. We have to keep manga industry, then they do something, guys, right? He may want to say that, but still in the technical ways in how you construct a registration, it doesn’t work out that way. So we know that. It’s more, you know, we have to check about many things in a democratic society, for example rule of law, then freedom of expression, et cetera, et cetera. So it is not easy. And we are smart enough to do that. So then we are asking that, but somehow, I mean, you can do the piracy without the Internet, but the scale is much, much smaller than what we see in the Internet piracy thing. Then that the point that we need your help, like we have, we want to do something just only against CSAM, piracy, some bad guys. And of course we want to foster it and help them develop further from the good side. I would say more than 90, 90% in the Internet community are good guys, right?

Moderator:
Yes, exactly. And on that positive note, we can go outside. We can go to the next comment. Sorry, we have five more minutes and I promise we will be on time.

Audience:
Sure. No worries. My name is Zon Khan. I’m a member of the Internet Society Youth Standing Group. I wanted to talk quite a lot about my conceptions of Internet fragmentation, but you can hear me speak hopefully tomorrow in the Policy Network session. Just a quick question that’s directed towards, I guess, all of you. Ultimately the battle for a global Internet is a battle for global values, which we don’t have. We keep talking about, you know, democratic societies and multi-stakeholders, but not every single society is built like that. And one thing that I definitely note that everybody over here also knows but never dares to say is, well, the very same mechanisms that we use to control content and services and applications in one jurisdiction will be used in other jurisdictions as well. And that exactly is the problem that I feel needs to be discussed a little bit more, which is why we need to talk about, well, at what layer of the stack is this going to affect not only the jurisdiction where this may be legitimate, but other jurisdictions as well. And we’ve seen, and I want to end with a link that was presented in last year’s IGF, which is Protect the Stack, which talked about the role of infrastructure providers, and I can see you smiling over there, because there have been instances where infrastructure has been deployed or used as, you know, a layer to censor content or take down content, and Cloudflare has been on the other side of that. We have Kiwi Farms, we have Mastodon, and so on and so forth. So I just wanted to know your thoughts on all of that and what we should do going forward in this multi-stakeholder setting. Thank you.

Moderator:
So I want to use the last two minutes to think about where we are, what sort of processes we want to use to discuss these solutions, like layered approach and other solutions to prevent internet fragmentation. But Marco, very short.

Audience:
Very short, very final thought, I’m about to come from RFC 1925. Yes, it is always more complex than you think. But also watching this, be careful not to add multiple layers of indirection. I hear a lot of people pointing to each other, so then to tackle you on that last question, I think dialogues like this help to prevent that.

Moderator:
Final thoughts? Where can we go from here? How can we take this conversation and advance it forward? No, you don’t have anywhere.

Alissa Starzak :
You know, I actually think that last set of questions and comments, I think, is right. I think that we need to figure out how to make this conversation feel accessible. And also to understand that, yes, every nation wants to legislate within its borders. And sometimes when you start getting into the world of infrastructure, you are legislating far beyond your borders. And that is where some of the challenges come. And I think that’s, I guess, what we’re getting at, at the layered policy concept. If you are legislating to things that affect outside your borders, you should be thinking about that reality from a practical standpoint, because that means other people can legislate inside your borders as well, right? That are not accountable to you in any sort of way. And I think that’s where some of our challenges come. I will say on the bigger question, we have lots of challenges online. And I guess this is a shout-out on the optimism side. The best way to solve all of those is to think about how we work together, both from government to government, government to industry, civil society. All of those have a role to play. And I think that’s really where we want to sort of move forward.

Jean F. Queralt:
Just quickly to wrap up, as next steps, I would want to encourage that we start working on outcomes-based taxonomy, both for human rights as well as data management. That would be an interesting step to take.

Nobuhisa NISHIGATA:
Some final words, and then I’m impressed by the Dutch colleague, good for Dutch government, and then they have such a staff like him, like he knows both the policymaking plus the technology, and then to me, just to be honest with you, like I just talked about the telecom business in Japan, but it’s originally aimed at phones. Then the Internet came, and then of course we tried to catch up, update our regulation, but the Internet was much faster than our effort to do some regulation, legislation work. That’s the truth, I would say. So then we had to catch up, and of course we respect the freedom part of the Internet, so then now it’s time too that we have to catch up by other type, new type of a solution on the Internet, which is going to be brought not only by the government, but also you guys help us, and the technicians, and the industry, and the civil society, and everybody, so thank you.

Moderator:
Great. Another positive note to end this session on. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Yawri Carr

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to revolutionize our approach to sustainability and shape a sustainable future. By harnessing the power of AI, we can effectively address the challenges posed by climate change, protect the environment, and build resilient and sustainable communities.

AI applications have emerged as powerful tools for monitoring and protecting the environment. Through advanced data analysis and machine learning algorithms, AI can provide real-time information about environmental changes, enabling us to take proactive measures to mitigate negative impacts. For example, AI-driven systems can monitor pollution levels, deforestation rates, and wildlife habitats to inform conservation efforts and promote sustainable practices.

The predictive capabilities of AI are also instrumental in tackling climate change and natural disasters. AI algorithms can analyze vast amounts of data gathered from various sources to accurately predict climate patterns, identify potential hazards, and assess the risks associated with climate-related events. This information can help us develop effective disaster response strategies, plan for resilient infrastructure, and minimize the impact of climate change on vulnerable communities.

In addition, AI can optimize the use of green energy resources, making our energy systems more sustainable and efficient. Through AI-powered algorithms, renewable energy generation and distribution can be optimized, ensuring that energy resources are utilized effectively and reducing reliance on fossil fuels.

Furthermore, AI can contribute to building safe and sustainable cities. By analyzing various data sources, such as traffic patterns, air quality measurements, and infrastructure performance, AI systems can help optimize urban planning and improve resource allocation. This can lead to reduced congestion, improved air quality, and a better overall quality of life in cities.

Engaging and empowering youth in leveraging AI for sustainability is crucial. Integrating informatics and AI education into school curricula and online platforms is essential to equip the younger generation with the necessary knowledge and skills to utilize AI in a responsible and sustainable manner. Initiatives like global hackathons, innovation challenges, and youth-led technology hubs can foster creativity and problem-solving abilities among young people, driving innovation for a sustainable future.

It is also important to ensure that education and innovation opportunities are accessible to regions and groups that have historically faced discrimination or limited access to resources. By promoting inclusivity, we can leverage the diverse perspectives and talents of individuals from different backgrounds to address sustainability challenges effectively.

In conclusion, AI has the potential to profoundly impact sustainability efforts. By providing tools for environmental monitoring, predicting climate change and disasters, optimizing green energy, and improving urban planning, AI can contribute to building a sustainable future. Engaging and empowering youth in leveraging AI for sustainability is crucial. Investing in education and encouraging youth-led innovation are essential steps in combating climate change and ensuring a more sustainable world for future generations.

Audience

The analysis presents several significant insights and concerns regarding environmental protection and the impact of technology on biodiversity. Firstly, Michelle and Alexia emphasized the crucial role of transparency in environmental reports. This indicates the need for accurate and accessible information regarding environmental issues, allowing for better decision-making and accountability. Furthermore, Alexia highlighted how technology can influence biodiversity, drawing attention to the potential positive or negative consequences of technological advancements.

Another key concern raised in the analysis is the impact of technology and digital disputes on environmental rights and protection. Research from Brasília University revealed that legal disputes often fail to effectively protect the environment. Moreover, there is an observed disparity in international legal disputes relating to environmental protection. This indicates the necessity for a more robust and harmonized approach to address digital disputes and ensure effective environmental protection.

The analysis also advocates for stronger protection for the environment in legal disputes related to technology and the digital sphere. Evidence suggests that there is often a disparity between environmental laws and regulations and the actual outcomes of legal disputes. As a result, it is argued that a more comprehensive and stringent framework is required to safeguard the environment.

In terms of climate change, decarbonization and carbon sequestration were highlighted as measures aimed at mitigating its effects. However, it is noted that these measures may not be fully aligned with the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This raises questions about the effectiveness and adequacy of current climate change mitigation strategies.

Additionally, the extraction of natural resources was discussed in relation to human rights violations. The analysis suggests that these violations may not be fully considered when calculating carbon footprints or establishing benchmarks. This indicates a need to reassess how human rights concerns are factored into measures of environmental impact.

The environmental impact of continuous data collection was a further area of concern. It was revealed that data centres surpass the entire airline industry in terms of CO2 emissions. This prompts a reevaluation of the necessity and consequences of ongoing data collection practices.

Furthermore, the analysis raised concerns about the societal impact of data collection policies on marginalized communities. Specific mention was made of how data is being used to prevent migrants and forcibly displaced persons from seeking asylum. This raises ethical and human rights issues, highlighting the potential negative consequences of data collection policies.

Finally, the analysis concludes that the measures and policies implemented to address climate change may not be sufficient or as effective as claimed. Moreover, they may even have unforeseen negative impacts. The aggregated evidence presented, encompassing decarbonization, natural resource extraction, data collection, and human rights, supports the need for reevaluating and strengthening current approaches to safeguarding the environment and addressing climate change.

In summary, the analysis provides valuable insights into the importance of transparency in environmental reporting, the impact of technology on biodiversity, and the necessity for stronger environmental protection in legal disputes related to technology. Concerns were raised regarding the alignment of decarbonization and carbon sequestration measures with IPCC findings, the consideration of human rights violations in carbon footprinting, the environmental impact of continuous data collection, and the negative societal impacts of data collection policies on marginalized communities. It concludes by highlighting the need to reconsider existing climate change measures and policies to ensure their effectiveness and mitigate any unintended negative consequences.

Nadia Owusu

The analysis reveals several key points regarding the involvement of young people in digitalisation, decision-making, and sustainable practices. One of the main findings is that 75% of people online are young individuals aged between 15 and 21. Therefore, it is crucial for governments, private sectors, and youth organisations to recognise and treat young people as partners. This highlights the importance of multi-stakeholder consultations, where these different entities come together to discuss and collaborate on various issues. By involving young people as partners, their perspectives and ideas can be incorporated into policies and initiatives related to digital technologies, government policy, the private sector, and youth engagement.

To further ensure the inclusion of young people’s perspectives, it is recommended that young representatives be appointed to government committees and boards. This will help ensure that the decision-making process takes into account the insights and experiences of young individuals. By involving young representatives, the government can address the concerns and needs specific to this demographic, fostering a more inclusive decision-making process.

Another key finding is the importance of education and awareness regarding the Digital Footprint Initiative (DFI) and sustainable digital ecosystems. By promoting education on these topics, young people can become more informed and responsible digital citizens. This will enable them to contribute to the creation of a sustainable digital environment, in alignment with the goals of SDG 4: Quality Education and SDG 13: Climate Action.

Additionally, the analysis emphasises the need for support from government and private stakeholders in empowering young innovators to build sustainable digital technologies. By providing resources, funding, and mentorship, young innovators can develop solutions that address environmental, social, and economic challenges. This aligns with SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure and the collective goal of building a sustainable future.

Another focal point highlighted in the analysis is the importance of climate action and the development of digital skills for young people. By prioritising climate action, governments and private sectors can work towards mitigating the impact of climate change. Additionally, the emphasis on digital skills development ensures that young people are equipped with the necessary tools to navigate the digital landscape and contribute meaningfully to the economy. Both of these efforts are in line with SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth and SDG 13: Climate Action.

The analysis also identifies the need for established mechanisms for feedback evaluations to assess the effectiveness of policies. By establishing such mechanisms, governments can better understand the impact of their policies and make necessary adjustments to ensure they align with the intended objectives. This promotes accountability, transparency, and continuous improvement in policy-making, contributing to SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions.

Furthermore, the analysis suggests that young people should advocate for green tech, participate in e-waste recycling, use energy-efficient devices, limit their streaming time, and practice digital minimalism. By adopting these practices, young individuals can contribute to responsible consumption and production, in line with SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production and SDG 13: Climate Action.

It is noteworthy that Nadia Owusu, a participant in the analysis, supports the importance of youth involvement in discussions related to digitalisation and the green economy. Moreover, Nadia suggests that these discussions should be continued in other platforms such as the UNFCCC climate change conference and COP28 in Dubai. This highlights the need to engage a broader range of stakeholders and networks to address climate change and foster sustainable practices.

In conclusion, the analysis underscores the significance of involving young people as partners in decision-making processes, promoting education and awareness of sustainable practices, supporting young innovators, emphasising climate action and digital skills development, establishing feedback mechanisms, and advocating for responsible consumption and production. The insights gained from this analysis shed light on the potential of young people in driving positive change and contributing to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.

Michelle Thorne

In the analysis, several key points are highlighted by different speakers. Firstly, it is underscored that a significant proportion of internet infrastructure relies on fossil fuels for power. This usage not only contributes to environmental pollution but also poses a challenge in terms of sustainability. As electricity demands for general computing and artificial intelligence (AI) continue to rise, the increase in digitisation aggravates the problem further. To address this issue, the speakers argue for a transition towards sustainable energies to power internet infrastructure, promoting SDG7: Affordable and Clean Energy and SDG9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure.

Secondly, the analysis points out a lack of transparency and accountability regarding the environmental impacts of digital technologies. Specifically, there is limited reporting on scope three emissions from the digital supply chain, which encompasses the indirect emissions associated with the lifecycle of digital products and services. Additionally, it is noted that tech companies are lagging behind in publishing credible net-zero targets, indicating a lack of commitment to reducing their environmental footprint. Furthermore, some tech companies perform worse than fossil fuel companies when it comes to transparency in disclosing their environmental impacts. This lack of transparency and accountability contributes to the overall negative sentiment surrounding the environmental effects of digital technologies, linked to SDG12: Responsible Consumption and Production and SDG13: Climate Action.

Another important argument put forth in the analysis is the need for democratic involvement in decisions regarding infrastructure planning and resource allocation. The absence of community participation in determining the placement and maintenance of infrastructure is highlighted, raising concerns about top-down decision-making processes that may neglect environmental considerations. There are specific instances of community backlash against non-environmentally friendly practices, suggesting that communities should have a say in shaping infrastructure plans and ensuring sustainability measures are implemented. This argument aligns with SDG9: Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure and SDG11: Sustainable Cities and Communities.

Michelle Thorne, an advocate for digital innovation, presents a positive perspective in the analysis. She emphasises the importance of creating economic opportunities and benefits for the most impacted individuals in various areas. By promoting digital innovation, Thorne aims to foster economic growth and address the goal of reducing inequalities, aligning with SDG8: Decent Work and Economic Growth and SDG10: Reduced Inequalities. Furthermore, she warns against the potential development of a “brittle monoculture” online. Rather than consolidating market power in the hands of existing companies, Thorne advocates for a diverse and open internet ecosystem that allows for equal participation and representation.

Overall, the analysis sheds light on various challenges and opportunities related to the environmental and social impacts of digital technologies. It underscores the need for a transition to sustainable energies in powering internet infrastructure, greater transparency and accountability regarding environmental impacts, democratic involvement in decision-making processes, and the promotion of a diverse and open internet ecosystem. These points highlight the importance of addressing these issues to achieve a more sustainable and equitable digital future, in line with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.

Bitange Ndemo

This comprehensive analysis focuses on various topics related to climate action and sustainable energy. One notable finding is that Kenya heavily relies on green energy sources, with 94% of its energy coming from geothermal, wind, and hydro sources. This showcases the country’s commitment to sustainable practices and serves as an example for other nations to follow.

The analysis also highlights the potential of Africa to tap into its abundant sunshine, geothermal deposits, and rivers to generate green energy. By capitalising on these natural resources, Africa can strengthen its energy independence and contribute to global efforts in combating climate change.

Moreover, government strategies are identified as a crucial factor in reducing carbon emissions and involving youth in climate action. The analysis suggests that strategies aimed at reducing carbon emissions, such as promoting online conferences and teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic, have led to a decrease in carbon emissions due to reduced travel. Additionally, involving young people in every aspect of climate action can help foster a sense of ownership and empower the next generation to play an active role in finding sustainable solutions.

Regenerative agriculture is another concept highlighted in the analysis. It is argued that certain farming practices can lead to carbon sequestration, which removes carbon from the air and helps mitigate climate change. This presents an opportunity for the agricultural sector to not only address food security but also contribute positively to climate action.

Education is identified as a key factor in creating awareness about climate change. By providing quality education, individuals can gain a deeper understanding of the challenges posed by climate change and the importance of sustainable practices. This knowledge is crucial in empowering individuals to make informed decisions and take action.

Furthermore, the analysis explores the potential of information technology in precision farming for efficient resource use and carbon sequestration. By utilising IT in the sequestration of carbon for precision farming, the agricultural sector can play a significant role in combating climate change. This approach allows for better resource management and the reduction of carbon emissions, thus contributing to a more sustainable future.

In conclusion, the analysis brings attention to various strategies and approaches to promote climate action and sustainable energy. The examples from Kenya’s green energy efforts, the potential of Africa, government strategies, regenerative agriculture, education, and the use of information technology all serve as important pathways towards a more sustainable and climate-resilient future. By adopting these practices and collaborating on a global scale, we can work towards a greener and more sustainable planet.

Alexia Gonzalez Fanfalone

The analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the role of digital technologies in achieving environmental sustainability goals. It emphasizes the importance of common measurement standards to track the environmental impacts of digital technologies. The current lack of harmonisation in metrics makes it challenging to accurately assess and compare these impacts. The argument put forth is that only what can be measured can be improved. By implementing common measurement standards, policymakers and stakeholders will have a clearer understanding of the environmental effects of digital technologies, allowing them to develop more effective strategies for mitigating these impacts.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights the significance of a whole-of-government and multi-stakeholder approach to leverage digital technologies for environmental sustainability. While some communication regulators have partial mandates on environmental sustainability, only a fifth possess a direct mandate. This indicates that greater collaboration and coordination are needed among governments and stakeholders to fully harness the potential of digital technologies in promoting environmental sustainability. By adopting a holistic approach, policymakers can ensure that digital technologies are effectively utilised to address environmental challenges.

Digital technologies also have the potential to reduce their environmental footprint. For instance, the transition to energy-efficient communication networks can significantly decrease energy consumption. Additionally, the use of AI systems to optimise energy management of networks can lead to further energy savings. These advancements in digital technologies contribute to the overall reduction of the environmental impact.

Moreover, digital technologies play a crucial role in enabling other sectors of the economy, such as through the Internet of Things (IoT) and smart agriculture. The IoT allows for more efficient resource management, enabling industries to operate in a more sustainable manner. Smart agriculture practices, powered by digital technologies, increase precision and productivity while minimising resource wastage. This demonstrates the positive impact that digital technologies can have on multiple sectors of the economy, facilitating sustainable development.

The analysis also highlights the importance of efforts towards environmental equity, transparency, and a human-centric approach. These factors are essential for inclusive growth and development. By promoting environmental equity and transparency, policymakers can ensure that the benefits and burdens of environmental sustainability are shared fairly among different communities. Furthermore, a human-centric approach to the digital transition is vital, as it ensures that the adoption of digital technologies is directed in a positive way for society and the environment.

In addition to these main points, the analysis suggests that addressing systemic effects and other planetary boundaries beyond energy and resource efficiency is crucial. Issues such as biodiversity loss, ocean acidification, biochemical flows, and air pollution need to be considered in conjunction with energy and resource efficiency to achieve comprehensive environmental sustainability.

In conclusion, the analysis advocates for harnessing digital technologies to achieve green objectives and emphasises the need for a holistic approach. By implementing common measurement standards, adopting a whole-of-government and multi-stakeholder approach, reducing environmental footprints, enabling other sectors of the economy, promoting environmental equity and transparency, and directing digital transitions in a human-centric manner, we can effectively leverage digital technologies for environmental sustainability. However, it is imperative to go beyond energy and resource efficiency and address systemic effects and other planetary boundaries in danger. By considering these factors, policymakers and stakeholders can make significant strides towards achieving a sustainable and environmentally conscious future.

Patryk Pawlak

The analysis reveals several important points regarding the future of the internet and its environmental impact. Firstly, Patryk Pawlak emphasises the urgency of creating and implementing a ‘Declaration for the Future of the Internet’, which has already garnered support from over 70 countries. The aim of this declaration is to promote an open, free, safe, secure, and interoperable internet. It also seeks to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, promote inclusive and affordable connectivity, and foster trust in the global digital ecosystem, including through privacy protection.

In addition to the declaration, Patryk highlights the need for a multi-stakeholder panel to discuss ways to minimise the environmental impact of the internet and digital technologies. Plans are underway to conduct a workshop with participants from diverse backgrounds and expertise, which serves as the initial step in this conversation. Patryk recognises that addressing this issue will require ongoing, long-term discussions and concrete actions.

Furthermore, Patryk points out the importance of coordinated policies and infrastructure planning to minimise the environmental impacts. He provides an example of inefficient policy coordination between road construction and fibre optic cable installation, resulting in unnecessary harm to the environment. This underscores the need for better coordination and planning to minimise such negative consequences.

Moreover, Patryk advocates for learning and implementing strategies and frameworks that support green digital transition while prioritising environmental considerations. He urges Alexia to share thoughts on how digital technology deployments could support this transition. Additionally, Patryk acknowledges the role of organisations like the OECD in spearheading discussions on topics related to green digital transition and environmental considerations.

The report also highlights the interconnection between connectivity, digital financial inclusion (DFI), and the green transition. Various governments have recognised the importance of connectivity and its connection to the green transition and DFI. It is emphasised that the principle of connectivity needs to be prioritised in both the DFI and the green transition.

Finally, the analysis suggests that the use of new technologies, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), can address the digital transition’s impacts on climate and the environment. Jari Kar, a researcher at Telecommunications Technical University in Munich, has worked on the use of AI systems, demonstrating the potential for these technologies to contribute to addressing climate and environmental concerns.

In conclusion, the analysis emphasises the significance of creating a ‘Declaration for the Future of the Internet’, establishing a multi-stakeholder panel to discuss environmental impact, coordinating policies and infrastructure planning, supporting green digital transition, prioritising connectivity in the green transition and digital financial inclusion, and utilising new technologies to address the environmental impact of the digital transition.

Pearse O’Donohue

The European Union (EU) Commission has identified the green transition as one of its key priorities. In a strategic foresight report in 2022, it was stated that the digital footprint is responsible for approximately 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions and contributes to 5 to 9% of electricity consumption. Furthermore, the digital sector is also increasingly contributing to e-waste. However, there is hope as digital solutions have the potential to cut about 15% of total emissions by 2030.

Acknowledging the need for action, the EU has launched the European Green Digital Coalition. This coalition is led by prominent industry players such as JESI, ETNO, Digital Europe, Digital SME Alliance, and GSMA. Its main objective is to encourage all players in the ICT sector to invest in designing and deploying digital solutions that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve the durability and circularity of digital devices and equipment. The EU views this as a crucial step towards achieving SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

Moreover, better integrated digitalization in environmental and climate policies is believed to yield positive results. The correct implementation of the digital transition not only supports the green transition but also receives support from it. The provision of green digital solutions in climate-critical sectors can have a significant positive impact on the environment, particularly for vulnerable geographies and societies. This aligns with SDG 13 (Climate Action) and highlights the potential for mutually beneficial development.

Data collection and credible data play a significant role in addressing climate change. The importance of data was emphasized during a session where panelists discussed the role of governments in collecting data and the need for reliable information. This underscores the need for accurate and scientifically sound data to inform effective climate action policies and decision-making.

The EU is committed to ensuring that the ICT sector moves towards carbon neutrality and contributes to other sectors in their journey to achieve climate goals. The Energy Efficiency Directive specifically targets climate-neutral data centers by 2030. This commitment aligns with SDG 9 and SDG 13, showing the EU’s determination to harness the potential of the ICT sector for positive environmental impact.

To prevent market dominance and promote fair competition, the EU is willing to enforce regulatory measures. The Digital Market Act and the Digital Services Act aim to break down monopolies or duopolies, provide opportunities for market entry, involve small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and measure the impact of their work. These initiatives align with SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Lastly, detailed and independent measurements for green data centers are crucial. Efforts are already underway to ensure credible measurement through collaboration between the joint research center and the industry. However, there is a need for more comprehensive models that consider gross and net power consumption, as well as water consumption. This aligns with SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy).

In conclusion, the EU Commission’s focus on the green transition and the efforts to drive sustainable digital solutions through the European Green Digital Coalition demonstrate a commitment to address the environmental impact of the digital sector. By integrating digitalization into environmental and climate policies, collecting credible data, promoting carbon neutrality within the ICT sector, and enforcing regulatory measures, the EU aims to achieve its sustainability goals and contribute to the global climate action agenda.

Sarah Walkley

The impact of digital technology on small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) is not fully understood, leading to a misjudgment of the environmental consequences of their digital habits. Although SMEs’ digital footprint is relatively small compared to other sources of emissions, it is growing intensively, raising concerns about its long-term effects.

There is a significant need for education to help businesses understand the energy implications of their digital habits and choices. Many SMEs believe that because their operations are online, they do not need to develop a sustainability strategy. However, this overlooks the significant energy usage associated with digital technologies. Businesses should carefully consider the energy usage of their hosting providers and the efficiency of their code, as these factors can have a substantial impact on energy consumption.

Leveraging existing policies and connections can play a crucial role in promoting sustainable practices among SMEs. One effective strategy is encouraging marketers to clean up stored data, which is compliant with GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation), reducing data storage and energy usage. Additionally, exploring the co-benefits of existing policies and how they can be leveraged to drive sustainability efforts is important.

In conclusion, SMEs need a better understanding of the environmental implications of their digital habits. Education is vital in helping them make more sustainable choices and develop strategies that consider the energy impact of their digital operations. By leveraging existing policies and connections, businesses can further promote sustainable practices. It is important to address these issues promptly to mitigate the potential negative environmental effects associated with the growing digitization of SMEs.

Patryk Pawlak:
Good afternoon, everyone. We will start soon, but if you are not too shy and would like to support the speakers by taking the seats around the table, that would also be great. I promise they don’t bite, but it will at least make them feel a bit more welcome in the room. Thank you very much for cooperating. Okay, good afternoon, everyone, again. We have to finish on time. There’s another session coming up, so let’s start. My name is Patryk Pawlak. I’m a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Europe, which is a think tank working on foreign and security policy issues, but also on the whole set of digital topics. Today’s session is the second one hosted by the European Union linked to Declaration for the Future of the Internet. On day zero, some of you may have heard we co-hosted with the United States, Japan, and Kenya a multi-stakeholder engagement. on how to translate and turn the principles of the DFI into concrete actions. For those of you who are not familiar with what the Declaration for the Future of the Internet is, it’s a document that has been endorsed by over 70 countries with the broad aim of promoting open, free, safe, secure and interoperable Internet. Some of the principles in the document include, for instance, the protecting human rights and the fundamental freedoms for all people, advancing inclusive and affordable connectivity, or promoting trust in the global digital ecosystem, including through protecting privacy. During this session, we will look for concrete recommendations towards operationalization of one of the commitments that is contained in the document, and that’s to cooperate to maximize the enabling effects of technology for combating climate change and protecting the environment, while reducing, as much as possible, the environmental footprint of the Internet and digital technologies. The workshop aims to provide a platform for discussion about the ways to minimize the environmental impact of the Internet and digital technologies, and we’re not going to solve the problem during this session. I know that there are also many other sessions happening on the topic during the IGF, but we hope as well that this is going to be the beginning of the conversation, but also a call for action and the implementation of the DFI. So we would really like to identify some concrete action points, and please feel free to join us during the discussions. Now to help us meet the overall objective of the session, we have an excellent and a truly multi-stakeholder panel in the room and online. So we will be switching between the panelists sitting next to me, but also our esteemed speakers who are already online with us. Here in the room we have Piers O’Donoghue, who is the Director for the Future Networks Directorate of the DigiConnect, the European Commission, Nadia Owusu, who is a youth advocate working on the intersection of technology, entrepreneurship, and climate action, and then Bitangon Demo, who currently is the ambassador of Kenya to the Kingdom of Belgium and the European Union, but also has extensive experience as an academic and the Permanent Secretary in Kenya’s Ministry of Information and Communications. Joining us online are Sarah Walkley, who is a market researcher, writer, and advisor on sustainability topics, and the CEO of an organization called Purpurfully. Yari Carr, who is an artificial intelligence and internet governance researcher, currently pursuing her master’s at the Technical University in Munich. She also coordinated with the Internet, which was the National Dialogue for the Future of the Internet in Costa Rica. Also online, Michelle Thorne, who is working towards a fossil-free internet. She’s the Director of Strategy and Partnership for the Green Web Foundation, but previously worked as a co-founder, sorry, and the co-founder of the Green Screen Coalition for Digital Rights and Climate Justice. She served for 12 years at the Mozilla Foundation, most recently at their Sustainable Internet Lead. And finally, also online, Alexia Gonzalez-Fanfalone, who is an economist and telecommunication policy analyst at the OECD, working on the whole set of issues ranging from broadband infrastructure and services, including sustainability. So, even though it doesn’t necessarily look like our partner is gender-balanced, I ensure you that it is, and we have made an effort that we bring different perspectives to the conversation. Not to lose more time, let me kick off the discussion with a question to your peers. The twin transition, green and digital, is one of the European Union’s key priorities. And I was wondering if you could tell us maybe what is the main focus of the EU policies at the moment, and how do they contribute towards the implementation of the DFI, which of those elements are? are sort of critical for the conversation that we’re having today.

Pearse O’Donohue:
Thank you very much and good afternoon, everybody. Yes, indeed, not only is it a priority, but green transition is one of the two key priorities of this Commission under President van der Leyen, the other, by the way, being digital. So the green digital transition is something that we are focused on, including in my part of the European Commission, with an ambition to lead those transitions, but also to benefit, to harness the benefits from it for Europe and for society in general. We’ve worked over four years to support the transition to sustainability of the ICT sector, but also to maximise the contribution made by digital technologies, infrastructures and applications in the green transition. So those are digital solutions for our carbon targets as well. We have the strategic foresight report in 2022 that told us that digital footprint is about 3% of global, of greenhouse gas emissions, about 5 to 9% of electricity consumption and of course an ever-increasing amount of e-waste. So there can be no disputing that there is a real problem caused in the sector, which has to be part of any action that we take, including with regard to the DFI. Of course, stakeholders have been taking their responsibilities. We’re aware of stakeholders-led initiatives such as the Digital with Purpose, the Climate Neutral Data Centres Pact and the Circular Electronic Partnership, and that’s just a few of them, and I know that others are probably represented in this meeting this afternoon. Some have made some progress, but more needs to be done to drive the ICT sector to net zero, both in terms of its energy consumption, but also, of course, the efforts that it is making with regard to materials and waste. And that means that all the ICT sector players need to invest in designing and deploying digital solutions that will keep GHGs, greenhouse gases, in check, and also increase the durability and circularity of digital devices and equipment. And we feel our role as a regulator is not necessary to regulate that up front, but to make sure that those partners in industry who do engage proactively and responsibly in such activities are rewarded, or certainly at least that they are not punished and undercut, by those with a less scrupulous approach who will cut costs at the disadvantage of the environment in order simply to sell product. So that responsibility is in relation to the footprint. But also of course we have specific sectors where there are particular climate challenges or critical issues in energy, in transport, in construction, and of course in agriculture, where all of them are finding difficult to meet sustainability goals. And we know that digital solutions have the potential to cut about 15% of total emissions by 2030. And one of the things that we’re doing in the European Union, including I have a team for example working on Internet of Things in application sectors, and it is our responsibility to mainstream the work on green by design, on the digital requirements in order to ensure that any solution in those sectors is itself contributing to our objectives, but more importantly is driving for example energy efficiency in transport, in logistics, and so on. We have last year issued the digitalization of energy system action plan, which is working with our colleagues working on energy policy and energy technologies, just to set out a set of actions with regard to decarbonizing the energy network, making the energy network much more efficient by using digital technology, by incorporating things such as the electrical vehicle infrastructure so that the batteries in the vehicles become part of the energy grid, so that there is intelligent charging and reuse of the energy that is downloaded. Also, it works on grid optimization, predictive energy production, and so on. Of course, even there, we have to be realistic that not all digitalization efforts have a positive impact, and we have to see to it that we are aware of the impact and that we’re delivering positive impact by measuring the impact of ICTs and the net value that they provide in terms of our decarbonization goals. To do that, we have also launched another initiative, which is the European Green Digital Coalition. When I say launched, we sponsored it in part, but it comes from the voluntary action and now independent existence of this network of 40 companies who have committed to making their companies individually best in class with regards to digital efforts, decarbonization, and also contributing to the digitalization of energy-consuming sectors. So the European Green Digital Coalition, which is led by JESI, as well as ETNO, Digital Europe, Digital SME Alliance, and GSMA, so a lot of actors who are known in their own right in Europe are all working together on this, and we’re looking forward to having more progress as they also recruit further companies, but also that they work closely with other actors, particularly in civil society and academia. the scientific and academic community, so the stakeholders that we’re always gathering here in the IGF, in order to ensure that the science is right, that there is independent aid but also audit and verification by those communities with regards to how concrete is the contribution of industry and what are the societal requirements, what could be some of the negative consequences if we do not analyze and tailor make the efforts that we’re making. For example, it is easy to say to everybody that they must buy the latest, most energy efficient piece of consumer equipment, but that is not a proposition for many, many persons in society. There have to be other steps that have to be taken as well, so this is why the rounded view, even though as you’ve heard me say we’re putting a lot of pressure and emphasis on the role of industry, the rounded view of these efforts, particularly in the context of the DFI, needs that stakeholder involvement. All sectors of society need to play a role so that we get it right, and if we do that, then we have a formula for having the twin transition, that’s the digital and green transitions, deliver benefits to all of the aspects of sustainability, economic sustainability, but of course social sustainability as well, naturally, as environmental sustainability, and that’s something that’s underlined in our digital decade policy program, and also actually in our declaration of digital rights and principles, where once again environmental considerations need to be put to the center of our policy work. And finally, just let me come back to the point about digital transition, how it realizes its full potential, it’s not just about supporting the green transition, but how about the green transition can support digitalization targets, so for example the move to renewable energy, and how we make that digital, but then help it to actually give positive outcome for digital technologies is it’s a bit of a conundrum but it is nevertheless one which we know can give great benefits. Better integrated digitalization in the environmental and climate policies will also bear fruit and the provision of green digital solutions in climate critical sectors such as those that I’ve mentioned will actually be a way also of having a positive impact on the environment for those more vulnerable geographies and societies who otherwise have or will suffer disproportionately from global warming. Thank you. Great, thank you very much Piers. I think you’ve highlighted a lot of

Patryk Pawlak:
interesting points but I think what I really liked is this focus on grid by design that the EU is pursuing as well that exactly is part of the solution but also stressing the importance of this almost whole of society approach if you want to thinking about how on one hand technology indeed is a problem that we have to address but at the same time part of the solution that we have to discuss and I know that speakers both online and here in the room are going to talk about that. Speaking of our speakers online let me turn to two of them who are joining us and I’d like to ask both Sarah Workley and Michelle Thorne the same question. What are some of the key challenges but also opportunities in reconciling growth and digital economy and green digital transition that you see from the perspective of your organizations and which ones do you consider the priority? Following up on what Piers said about the multi-stakeholder community engagement how can this community foster open transparent and inclusive dialogue between different groups to identify good practices, but also some innovative solutions to address this problem. And maybe we could start with Sarah, please.

Sarah Walkley:
Thanks, Patrick. So yeah, I work with a number of small and medium-sized businesses, advising them. And my experience is that the impact of digital technology is really poorly understood within that group. Relative to other sources of emissions, our footprint is quite small, but it’s one of the areas where emissions are growing quite intensively due to how much data we’re storing and our use of some of these models. My background before going freelance was in print publishing, and within that area, the minute we had got rid of our print books, magazines, and so on, there was an expectation that that was job done for the organization in terms of sustainability, because we’d got rid of the physical product. And so it’s that sort of lack of the intangible nature of a lot of the digital services that means that businesses struggle to see the impact of their digital habits on the environment. And equally, because at the individual level, those impacts could be quite small. Email, collectively, is estimated to account for 0.3% of global emissions, but each individual email is a gram or two, and also those impacts, the collective impact happens upstream in the data services and the energy that that’s used. And so it’s kind of. and from a business perspective, it feels really quite remote from day-to-day operations. And so many of the SMEs I speak to say they don’t, because their employees work remotely and everything they do is online, they don’t really need to have a sustainability strategy. So my point of view, there’s a significant need for education, especially to help businesses think about the energy, who they choose as their hosting providers and looking at what energy they have, perhaps how they code their products to make them smaller and more efficiently, to use more efficient code. And I’m a great believer in looking at co-benefits. And so perhaps how we use policies in other areas to leverage what good sustainable practice. So encouraging marketers to clear up the data that they’ve stored, which is good practice from a GDPR perspective, also helps reduce the amount of data we store and the energy we’re using. And so thinking about how we can leverage some of those existing policies and connect issues in people’s mind.

Patryk Pawlak:
Great, thank you. Ezra, your thoughts, please. One, your intervention triggered one of the thoughts I had at some point, how we got used right now to including this disclaimer in the emails. Think if you really have to print this email, as something that probably might be a good practice is also think if you have to respond to this email to reduce the effort. And I’m sure a lot of people in the room would also appreciate the practical aspect of it, where if we didn’t really have to respond or see that many of them in our mailboxes. Michelle, over to you with the same question. Some of the good practices, challenges you see, but also how… cooperation between different stakeholder groups can be part of the solution. Yeah, thank you so much, Patrick, for convening this panel. It’s a pleasure to be here with you all virtually at the IGF.

Michelle Thorne:
Yeah, at the GreenWeb Foundation, one of the focuses we have is talking about how the majority of Internet infrastructure is actually powered by fossil fuels, and one of the things we need to do to focus on transitioning those infrastructures off of fossil fuels. It’s been mentioned by the earlier speakers, we see the electricity demands for general computing rising, but especially for AI, and as we talk about these twin transitions, we actually aren’t talking in a more detailed way about how those energy demands will be matched in a sustainable way as we increase that digitization, and also in these conversations to expand beyond just talking about the carbon impacts, but there’s land and water usage, noise pollution, strains on the critical raw materials. These are really holistic and multifaceted systems that we’re talking about, and so one of the, I guess, points to stress or opportunities here is how can we actually have a data-informed conversation about where and how these Internet infrastructures are built and where they’re placed and where they’re maintained. Right now, we talked about where are the civil society actors and where are the impacted communities when something like a data center is being built. We’ve seen, at least in the European context, but also in the South American context and other places, communities pushing back and saying, you’re building a data center in our community that’s, for example, running on 100% renewables, as an example from a Dutch community recently, and now that this huge data center is being built, our community has to shift to relying on fossil fuels. These kinds of conversations aren’t happening in a way that is allowing the communities to be fully empowered in the decision of how those infrastructures are being deployed and built and who’s getting prioritized in terms of resources. So there’s also a democratic, a question of democratic involvement. Where I see policymakers having a role to play is in actually helping to be, to create the data, the public evidence base, so that these data informed conversations can happen. That includes, for example, more transparency and accountability on reporting of environmental impacts, digital technologies, especially around scope three emissions. We know this has been an issue, long identified, but still lacking in follow through to really talk about the digital supply chain and to make credible reporting around that. We also really need to see a more credible net zero targets from tech companies. If we look at the companies who are majorly responsible for infrastructure and digital services, most of them don’t have interim or credible interim net zero targets. And many of them actually are performing worse than fossil fuel companies in terms of transparency. So this is a place, again, where if we’re talking about the powers of digitization and the positive impacts we want to digitization, we also need to see those net zero targets published and being committed to and followed through. And also then speaking again at a policy level, again, we’re based in the EU, so have maybe more, a stronger lens in the EU context. But recently the EU had the energy efficiency directive. And instead of holding on to wins that we had around reporting, for example, of data centers that are using electricity roughly this at the level of 300 households, there was lobbying and the threshold was changed. So that data centers that are working at the level of 15,000 households have to start reporting. So why are we having this shift when we’re saying we need actually more information on both the energy consumption of the digital sector, but then saying we actually don’t need to be reporting on data centers that still are using quite significant resources. So this is again, a part of that holistic conversation. we need to have, we need to have the information around what are those impacts, who’s being held to account and who’s at the table deciding where and how those resources are being allocated.

Patryk Pawlak:
So, go ahead. Thanks, Michelle. We might come back to some of these points. You talked a lot about accountability and transparency. I also wonder to what extent these issues, for instance, when there is such an impact on local communities becomes an issue for local, regional, national elections, for instance, maybe something we want to come back to later on. Let me bring the conversation back to the room. I’ll switch to you, Nadia, right now, if you don’t mind. I mean, youth, we know, has a particular stake in this conversation, both as a user of digital technologies, but also, frankly, the part of our societies that really have to deal with the consequences of the policy decisions that are taken today. So, both really as the target of the policies, but also the consumer of the digital technologies. From your perspective, how can the governments and the private sector or youth organisations work better together with youth organisations as well, like your own? And what are some of the actions that you would recommend your peers can take to also reduce the digital footprint on the environment?

Nadia Owusu:
All right, thanks so much, Patrick, for the opportunity. My name is Nadia Ousu, I’m from Ghana. For me, I would like to talk about governments and private sectors, especially private sectors that are more interested in, away from greenwashing, but actually participating in ensuring there’s more sustainability, how they can work with young people, especially young people from the continent, especially Africa, where we’re at the brunt and facing climate change every day. We feel that if governments, private sectors, and civil societies and youth organisations So, I think it’s important that we have a multistakeholder consultation. I think that’s a very important thing. I think it’s very important that young people, young people organizations come together and see young people, not as just a stakeholder but also as partners. They can take on our concerns and work better with us in this few approaches I’m about to mention. I think Piers mentioned multistakeholder consultation. I think that is very important, but we need more engagement for young people. I think this deal isn’t reliable for young people. It’s not true, but, at the same time, in the year of 2020, 2022, 75 per cent of people online are young people, between the ages of 15-21. If we have this much volume of young people online, we need to be part of engagement and consult tations and these have to happen at different levels, from regional levels to local levels, to international levels where each country has a different level of engagement. We need to be part of this. We need to be part of this, and, just like I mentioned, we need to appoint young representatives, advisers to government committees, to boards, to industries, and associations that can ensure that young people’s perspectives are integrated in decision-making. I also want to mention the fact that Sarah talked about education. How many people know about the DFI? How many people know the signatories? How many people know about the DFI? How many people know about the DFI? We need to have more education, we need more awareness creation, and we need to implement educational programmes that raise awareness on the importance of a free digital ecosystem which is also sustainable for young people to thrive effectively. I also want to talk about the fact that the government should support innovations for young people. Young people are creative, young people are innovative, young people, and we need to build onwards to solve this problem. We also need to look at the ways in which the government and private stakeholders can and climate action, specifically on renewable and circular economies and energies. We can also push for more digital skills development for young people, especially on the continent, by providing grants, mentorship, resources, to encourage more young people to start their own businesses to drive innovations at different levels. When we’re talking about digital technologies, it also affects climate change, and we want to push for more climate and sustainable ways young people can do this by addressing environmental concerns by involving young people in decisions and initiatives related to climate change and sustainability. I would also want to talk about the fact that collaboration is very key. We should push for more collaboration between governments, private stakeholders, and also youth-led initiatives to tackle challenges and create opportunities for young people to thrive effectively. But we cannot ask for putting young people on the table, giving young people opportunities, creation of awareness, without talking about mechanisms to monitor the progress of these things I think it’s important that we establish mechanisms for feedback evaluations to assess the effectiveness of policies that relate to young people when it comes to the DFI and also digital technologies aimed at addressing young people’s concerns. These would make positive adjustments based on feedback. We need to have proper ways of collection of data that are reflective of the needs of young people, especially when it comes to the digital economy. The last thing I would want to talk about too is sustainable long-term perspectives. We have discussions, we have conversations, we want youth perspective, we want youth insights, but how sustainable would these be for the long term? How would these policies and investments benefit future generations considering the impacts of young people’s lives and their potentials to contributions to the society? In terms of what young people can do to reduce their digital footprint, I think we mentioned a few, like the emails, having people not to print, but I think what’s more integral is for young people to know that they can. They can advocate for green tech, they can push for and encourage tech companies and policy makers to adopt eco-friendly practices and invest in renewable energy sources. They can also, you know, participate in e-waste recycling, recycling their electronics by responsibly recycling old electronics rather than throwing them away in trash. These also go a way to, you know, pollute the environment and add up to more of the greenhouse gases. They should also use energy-efficient devices. They should choose to push for more sustainable and energy-efficient laptops, smartphones and other devices. The point is about the energy-star rated products and also sustainable softwares and also push for education and awareness for their peers. But the simple things people can do on a day-to-day basis is simple, by using public Wi-Fi and rather using their own internet by turning off unused devices while charging them. They can unplug chargers. They can also participate in their digital clean-up, erasing of emails, cleaning their junk, deleting unnecessary files they have on their devices which would add up to all of these things. They can also think of limiting their streaming time because the more they stream videos and online content, the more amount of energy and bandwidth they use. So they should rather push for downloading things offline and watching them rather than streaming. They should also practice digital minimalism which is by using your online presence and reducing online presence, deleting unused accounts. People have up to three to four accounts, but if we practice more digital minimalism, we can have a reduced digital presence for people. And I would like to also mention the fact that if each and every day we take these little conscious steps to reduce our digital footprint, we get a more sustainable environment, a more sustainable future, a more sustainable environment where everybody can live cohesively and push for a more digital space. So thank you so much, Patryk.

Patryk Pawlak:
Great, thank you. You put a lot of habit-changing issues on the table that we can potentially all adopt. And I want to maybe come back, if we have time for the discussion, to both Sarah and Michel, to discuss with you to what extent you see the impact of those changed habits on the bigger picture. And you also brought to the conversation another aspect. We talked a bit about industrial policy and the regulation, what can be done. I think it’s pretty clear as well that we have to look at other policy areas, like education, for instance, or consumer policies that sort of impact those practices at the large scale. Speaking about the governments as well and how they can engage younger generations, Ambassador, you have had multiple roles. You looked at the topic as an academic, as a government representative. And now you actually have a chance to impact how the policies are made, including those of the European Union. And I wonder from your perspective, A, how do you think the governments can actually work with other stakeholder groups, how you have tried to do this as a government official in Kenya. But also, what do you see some of the key challenges? Nadia mentioned Africa, which is the continent that’s very much impacted by the climate change. To what extent this has been one of the dimensions in your thinking about how the ecosystem or the policies of the Kenyan ICT are shaped?

Bitange Ndemo:
Thank you. I think much has been said. But what I want to add is that what should government be doing and taking advantage of the position in which Africa is in at the moment. We have a lot of sunshine. And we have a lot of geothermal deposits. We have a lot of rivers which are huge to produce green energy. We need to leverage that. Kenya itself had a strategy for green energy even before we started to discuss this. So much of our energy comes from geothermal and wind, and also from hydro, where 94% actually of our energy is green. But that doesn’t stop us from changing behavior like my sister was talking about here. COVID taught us that we can do a lot online. We’ve been doing conferences. We’ve been teaching online. Less travel means we have removed a few carbons out of the space. If governments have proper strategies to take advantage of that which can be done to reduce carbon emissions, let it be done. I know, for example, we did a document for the government recently. There are places where, if we begin farming there, what happens there is carbon sequestration. I mean, new method, generative agriculture, which would remove more carbon from the air. That’s what I mean that government strategies could do more and involve young people in every aspect of it. In terms of what everybody has said, education is very key to create awareness, even though sometimes people don’t. I think… I think that will do. Thank you. Great. Thank you.

Patryk Pawlak:
I remember I met one of your colleagues from Kenya a few years ago when we had the discussion about, she works on cyber security, so we had a broader discussion about cyber. But there was one very interesting example that she has mentioned. Using the EU’s reference to human-centric approach, she said, why do we talk about human-centric approach and not life-centric approach, for instance, when we talk about the investment in the infrastructure? She gave this very interesting example of how, for instance, sequencing of policies, if it’s better coordinated and implementation of different projects, can actually have a very positive impact. And gave the example of the road that has been built that, of course, caused certain environmental damage in the communities. But then that road had to be destroyed in order to put the fiber optic cables. And she said, we basically had to do this destruction twice. And by coordinating policies, we could have avoided some of this. So I think there are some interesting lessons to be learned there. But let me move now to one of our speakers online, Alexia, who works for OECD. And Alexia, I would like to hear your thoughts on what strategies and frameworks can be also implemented to ensure that the deployment of digital technologies is supporting this objective of green digital transition, takes the environmental considerations on board. It’s a topic that is very often presented as a new one. But you and I, as we’ve discussed, it’s definitely not something that is new in the policy discussions, including at the OECD. So I would like to hear your thoughts on where you see the state of the conversations right now, and what some of the lessons, maybe, or observations that have been already made in the past could be useful for the discussions that we’re having today. Alexia, over to you.

Alexia Gonzalez Fanfalone:
Thank you very much. Patrick. Everybody hears me okay? Yes? Yes. Okay. So thank you very much. When we talk about the twin transitions, so we’re talking about what is the role of digital technologies and the enabling infrastructure to leverage the opportunities to achieve these green or environmental sustainable goals. And here’s some key questions is one in this intersection of technology, both the development and the diffusion and policy and our environment. How do we measure the impact of digital and green? And this is important because only what can be measured can be improved. And at the moment there is a lack of harmonization on this metrics. Also at the private where the ESG reporting and at the public level. And also in this road, what are the main policy considerations for a coherent whole of government and multi-stakeholder approach? We heard the importance about a multi-stakeholder approach. If we look at OECD countries and we look at communication regulators, for example, half of them have partial mandates on environment sustainability of communication networks, but only a fifth have a direct mandate, which means that really leveraging digital technologies for environment sustainability goals requires a whole of government approach and a multi-stakeholder approach. We know as well, as was mentioned by our predecessors is how digital technologies themselves have an environmental footprint all across their life cycle. And so this is also important to harness. So why is this conversation as Patrick said, not entirely new. So let’s look at the road behind to see what is the road ahead. And at the OECD, this intersection of digital and green was first explored in the work leading to the OECD recommendation of ICTs on the environment. This recommendations council recommendation of 2010, and it had several principles that we’re currently reviewing the relevance and see if we have to update it. but one of them is coordinating ICTs for climate and environment and energy policies. And here it recommends to look both at the direct effects of ICTs, the enabling effects in other sectors, and third, the systemic effects that require social change and cultural behavior change that was rightfully mentioned. So here we see that these three effects can be mapped, for example, on the scope one, scope two, scope three of the greenhouse gas protocols. Now, we also seen that we have a council recommendation on broadband connectivity that was from 2004, renewed in 2021, and it urges stakeholders to minimize the negative effects of communication networks in the environment, also promoting smart networks and devices. And I will just pause here a little bit with some nuggets of information of connectivity, which is the underlining foundational pillar of digital transformation and how it can be leveraged to achieve these green objectives. We’ve seen in recent years a boost for fiber deployment in many OECD countries, and this transition to fibers is seen by some stakeholders as also achieving environment sustainability goals as it’s more energy efficient than copper alternatives. We’ve seen also the increase of AI systems to, for example, optimize energy management of communication networks. We’ve seen talks about the standardization and the development of 6G where key values such as environmental sustainability are being embedded. But when we talk about AI and here the OECD did the first standard on AI principles in 2019, there’s a clear focus on the importance of the environmental sustainability of it. And the presentation note that you provided, Patrick, said of the positive effects of AI, we have a dedicated expert. group on AI compute and climate, looking at both negative and positive effects. And particularly when we talk about the negative effects and data center consumption on all that, the conversation requires a bit more nuance because there’s a difference between the training of AI models and the inference of these models. So precise measurement on this particular aspect requires a lot more legwork going ahead. So if I would say some key messages that might are important to remember is also the enabling effects of ICTs on other sectors of the economy. It was mentioned both by peers and others of the impact of IoT, green by design, and having this, for example, for smart agriculture, precision agriculture, for reducing congestion in cities, and for energy grid use. I have a little data point that I would like to share with you on data centers and energy. So we have the International Energy Agency, IEA. And the IEA esteems that at least half of the global reductions on CO2 emissions required for a net zero scenario by 2050 rely on clean energy technology developments that are still in their prototype phase. So there’s an importance of innovation, but there’s also an importance of technology diffusion. And when we look at digital, so there is a rising demand of digital services over the past decade. For example, since 2010 to 2020, the number of internet users doubled, and global internet traffic expanded 15-fold. But there have also been rapid advances in energy efficiencies thanks to digitalization. And we’ve seen that it would be data centers and data transmission networks during that same period have been relatively stable at 1% of global electricity use. So this really. it’s important to realize that innovation, we have to really push for that and also how digitalization can be leveraged for green objectives, but it requires technological diffusion. Now, finally, I’ll leave you with three key messages that one, common measurement standards are required and we need more data collection to track the environmental impacts of digital technologies, both the direct and the enabling effects and of course, the systemic ones

Patryk Pawlak:
that require behavioral use.

Alexia Gonzalez Fanfalone:
Secondly, we need to go beyond energy and resource efficiency to talk about systemic effects, go beyond greenhouse gas emissions because there are other several planetary boundaries that are in danger such as biodiversity, ocean acidification, biochemical flows, air pollution. And third, efforts towards environmental equity and transparency are needed for inclusive growth and development and this could be enabled notably by harnessing digital for green, but we should remember that while green transition has a clear focus and determination, the digital transition is not deterministic, it needs to be directed in a positive way for society and the environment and that’s where the human-centric approach recovers a lot of relevance.

Patryk Pawlak:
Great, thank you very much, Alexia. I think you also have touched upon an interesting point that we have discussed yesterday, not only in relation to green, but the whole DFI in general. When we talked about which of the principles of the DFI could be prioritized, the issue of connectivity seemed like one where a lot of governments actually were paying attention and there’s a very clear connection with your intervention where exactly thinking about connectivity in the context of the principle about the grid transition, but also others in the DFI, we may create this interlinkages between. different principles and potentially use them to enable each other, so that’s a great point as well. In general, listening to the discussions, I feel like I’m very happy that this is also being recorded and I’ll have a chance to re-watch it afterwards, because there is a lot of data coming from all the speakers that I did not manage to note myself, and I’m sure that people in the room and online are in a similar situation. So thank you IGF again for recording the sessions, which will give us the opportunity to review this. I’d like to go to our final speaker online, Jari Kar, who is at the Teletechnical University in Munich, but originally from Costa Rica, and who I know has done some work on new technologies, especially use of AI systems and so on, and I was wondering, Jari, if you could tell us how exactly new technologies could be used to address some of the impacts that the digital transition might have on climate and environment more broadly. So Jari, over to you for your thoughts. Hello everyone, I hope you can hear me. Thank you very much for the invitation in this session, I’m very happy to be here. Well, as a digital youth, I’m from the International Telecommunication Union, ITU.

Yawri Carr:
Today I want to share with you the transformative role that artificial intelligence can play in shaping a sustainable future and importantly, how our youth can also actively engage in this mission. Well, adding to what already Nadia mentioned. So let’s begin by exploring some remarkable AI applications that are catalyzing positive change in this fight against climate change, and that we’re also part of the AI for Good Summit from the ITU in last July. So, from AI-driven climate prediction and disaster response to optimizing green energy and revolutionizing agriculture, there are innovations reshaping our world. approach to sustainability. They offer us the tools to monitor and protect our environment in ways we could only dream some years ago. For example, there are now technologies that are being developed, for example, using AI to make cities safe, clean and sustainable, developing AI tools capable of providing information on where, when and what disaster or climate change event may occur in the future, facilitating acting before the disaster happens, something that before could not be done. And this helps mitigate or even avoid a negative environmental impact that the event will have on the area. Also taking into consideration that some regions in the world, for example, in Latin America, are very impacted because of disasters and that people are normally not well prepared or that are maybe living in a difficult or risky area, so this is also very important for that. Another platform, for example, uses machine learning algorithms based on more than 7 billion lines of weather and ground truth data and this could help preventing fires, for example, so they predict where wildfires could be emerging and they also, for example, have been detecting this in risk areas. And also the prediction of deforestation and this could be done using satellite imagery that makes possible to analyze the potential of deforestation based on information such as the distance to water resources, cities and other key factories. So these AI applications are not just technological marvels, they represent now a frontier of possibilities and they showcase how cooperation between technology and environmental stewardship can pave the way for a more sustainable and resilient future. I consider that also empowering youth with knowledge and also the population in general is very important. Adding to what Nadia said, I consider that it’s clear that education is our first line of defense as well. We must keep our youth with the knowledge and skills needed to understand hardness and further develop the technologies in a responsible way. I consider that informatics and AI education should be seamlessly integrated into school curricula, but also open education and open science, as well as online platforms that offer accessible resources for learning about AI and sustainability should be available for everyone. Workshops and awareness programs can bridge the knowledge gap, fostering a generation that not only understand the technology, but is also inspired to leverage for positive change. Along with the education, I also consider youth-led innovation could also be a very important option because knowledge is not enough in today’s society. We must also empower youth to be innovators, problem solvers, and also architects of change. Imagine the impact of global hackathons and innovation challenges that bring young minds together to tackle environmental challenges. Think about also the potential of youth-led technology hubs where ideas are transformed into tangible solutions, and also mentorship programs that are organized by experts with much more experience or that have expertise in different areas of science, that could also contribute to these youth to move forward with their innovations and also with their spirit of innovation, and also creating a fertile ground for sustainable ideas to blossom. Also, remembering. that this kind of educational innovation should also come into regions and areas that are normally historically discriminated, such as populations of African descended, indigenous, or a populations that have a difficult access to resources. So thank you very much.

Patryk Pawlak:
Great, thank you very much. We have about five minutes left. I would like to check if anybody in the room would like to intervene, make a comment on what you have heard, or maybe show your perspectives in the discussion. Oh, there are reactions. Great. So we have two reactions. If you don’t mind, online, I’m going to take these two comments from the room and then maybe go to those speakers who are interested for 30 seconds of final thoughts. We go over to you first.

Audience:
Hi, everyone. I am Denise Leal from Brazil. So it’s a Latin America perspective that I bring to the table. It was very interesting hearing all of you and what you’ve highlighted very important aspects and points on the green digital era. Michelle has spoken about transparency and the reports, and I think that this is a very important point on the theme. And I also have noted here about when Alexia told about biodiversity, it really interested me. But, and I kept thinking, we are speaking about how the technology and internet can help to keep the green era, like the environmental safe, but also I was thinking, and when we have legal disputes on digital and internet and technology and also the environment, can the environment be seen as a the right holder, and in your countries, are there legal disputes on the team, and how do they end? Because I am with a group making a research in Brasília University, and we have studied about these legal disputes, and they usually don’t end well. We have the laws and the regulations, and the reality is it’s really beautiful, the environment is protected, but when it comes to the decisions made on the legal disputes, actually, not always we can see protection for the environment, in not only in Brazil, but also international disputes, we can see that, so I wanted to hear from you, how do you see this point, and if you have, I studied it any time, that’s it, thank you.

Patryk Pawlak:
Great, thank you, great question, over to you, and then I know also Michelle online has a very targeted question for peers, so we’ll go to you, Michelle, as well, please, here.

Audience:
Thank you, my name is Bushri Badi, and I had a few questions that are all interrelated to each other, so I think various speakers spoke about decarbonization and carbon sequestration as some of the measures that we are using to mitigate climate change, and especially in the technology area, but I also then question maybe the general frameworks or the policies, especially in the European context, whether it’s the commission or the councils are advancing that really emphasize achieving carbon neutrality within a certain timeframe, not being realistic, or in cohesion with the IPCC findings, especially with how rapidly we’re seeing climate change affect different communities, and then using those measures that actually maybe hide some of the wider impacts, like when we talk about the entire life cycle approach, well, the extraction of. natural resources that are happening in different contexts with human rights violations, are those being considered in the carbon footprinting measures or the benchmarking that’s happening? It feels like there’s a lot of, let’s export some of our impacts to other areas or regions of the world in the same way that our technologies are being exported that have these negative implications. And I think the other question that I have that’s connected to this is the assumption that we have that the collection of data is needed and is actually necessary for these sustainable transitions that we’re talking about, when in fact, now data centers surpass the entire airline industry in terms of CO2 emissions. We’ve been pushing a lot for big data policies across, I mean, the European context, but around the world. And most of the data that’s collected isn’t being used, can’t actually be analyzed. And so I think that assumption needs to be challenged. Like, why are we collecting this data in the first place when it is having tangible negative environmental impacts, but also societal impacts? So for already marginalized communities, including migrants and forcibly displaced persons, that data is being used to prevent them from seeking asylum in the European context, for example, but also across the Americas and around the world. So just, I wanted to get a sense of how you’re trying to find some cohesion between some of these policies that don’t seem to actually be rooted in the evidence, and then this need to collect more evidence to do what’s already known to be the best practice in these cases, kind of like pushing the thing down the road when in reality we could be addressing these issues today. Great, thank you.

Patryk Pawlak:
I’m being told that we have to end. Michelle, if your question can be formed in 30 seconds, so that then I also give Piers 30 seconds to answer and the ambassador to react, that would be great. We have apologies to the organizers for stealing two minutes. Michelle, over to you.

Michelle Thorne:
So I’m wondering how digital innovation can be done so that it doesn’t further consolidate the market power of existing companies, but it’s creating economic… opportunity for and benefits of the most impacted people in areas, so we don’t have a brittle monoculture online but rather a diverse and open ecosystem. Great, perfect, thank you. That was less

Patryk Pawlak:
than 30 seconds, much appreciated. Ambassador, I’ll start with you for 30 seconds, final thoughts,

Bitange Ndemo:
and then I’ll go here on the table whoever would like to take the floor. I would have taken much longer to talk about the sequestration of capon. This came from the side of IT in some sections of Kenya and by use of trying to do precision farming and found that we could actually sequestrate capon and contribute heavily into this. I don’t know whether that’s sufficient or I need to continue or we can follow up. You can discuss this over coffee. There’s this very

Patryk Pawlak:
important question about does the environment have the rights, which I think we will also have to take offline unfortunately. Nadia, do you have in the direction 30 seconds? Sure, I really wanted to

Nadia Owusu:
say that I totally agree with everything the panel said, especially those online when it comes to youth involvement in this entire conversation on digitalization and green economy, so I want to say after this conversation, we have to keep it going. There are more conversations at the UNFCCC climate change conference that is at COP28 in Dubai. We can have such conversations, so I’m saying we carry these conversations away from IGF to climate change conferences where we have more stakeholders in the climate change networks. Thank you. Well, I was going to make a comment,

Pearse O’Donohue:
but I won’t. I’ll just make an observation and say I learned a lesson. Patrick, you spoke about we got a lot of data. We’ll have to review the video. One point I’ll make is that we also got a very strong theme running through about data in this session. Michel on the role of government and collecting data, but also on credible data. Nadia. particularly from a youth perspective, and Alexia all again about measurement, the measurement point about data. That’s a critical lesson for us. We are doing some work on data collection, maybe not enough, but because it comes up to my answer to the question that was put to me, I would just say that on green data centres particularly, we have done specific work while the Energy Efficiency Directive has set a target for climate-neutral data centres by 2030. We are working already with our joint research centre and industry to make sure that the measurement is credible, it has to be independent, and there have to be more detailed models. It’s not just gross power consumption, it’s gross and net water consumption, etc. But I’m going to skip the rest of what I’m going to say about that point, because I want to ask the question by Michel. I’m going to interpret your question to mean developments in digital with regard to green, because it’s an even wider question. The first blunt response is, well, of course, we’re going to aim for our target, which is to ensure that ICT moves towards carbon neutrality and contributes to other sectors. So you could even say that goal overrides market positioning or dominance. But of course, where those technical solutions or even any regulatory support for that objective, if they were to give rise to bad outcomes, particularly with regard to dominance in society as much as in the market, well, that is something which in the European Union we have increasingly showed that we are willing to do, the Digital Market Act, the Digital Services Act, in order to break down monopolies or duopolies, in order to ensure the possibility to enter markets, and also to ensure that solutions involve SMEs and that we measure the impact of our work. And we should and will do the same, and it cycles back to my point about data. The data doesn’t just apply to the technology, it applies to the solutions and the implementation of those solutions to make sure that we have a sustainable market. that we are actually achieving our targets. Thank you.

Patryk Pawlak:
Great. Thank you very much, Pierce. Thank you very much to all the speakers online and here in the room. To all of you for joining us in the afternoon during the happy hour. So I really appreciate the effort you have made. And with apologies to the organizing team for stealing some of the time in your preparations. Thank you very much, everyone, and enjoy the rest of your evening.

Kevin Luca Zandermann

Kevin Luca Zandermann has highlighted the global focus on data governance, particularly in privacy legislation. He emphasised the significance of important privacy laws, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which is being recognised as the gold standard globally. This reflects a growing recognition of the importance of protecting individual privacy and regulating the use of personal data in our increasingly digital world.

In addition to privacy legislation, Kevin emphasised the need for institution models that can effectively manage data stewardship. He pointed out that data is a non-rivalrous resource, meaning its use by one person does not diminish its availability to others. With the vast amount of data being produced by sources such as the internet of things, wearables, and cloud platforms, it is crucial to establish mechanisms to ensure responsible and ethical data management.

Kevin also highlighted the EU Data Governance Act as a significant step towards establishing an institutional framework for data stewardship. This act allows the reuse of data held by public sector bodies, enabling the efficient and responsible use of data for various purposes. Furthermore, the act certifies data intermediaries, ensuring they meet certain standards and promoting the responsible handling of data. The act also promotes the concept of data altruism, which involves individuals voluntarily sharing their data for societal benefits. This type of data sharing can be particularly valuable in the context of diseases such as rare diseases, where the sharing of data among researchers and medical professionals is vital.

Overall, Kevin’s arguments underscore the critical need for data governance and the establishment of effective institutional frameworks to protect privacy and ensure responsible data stewardship. The analysis also highlights the growing recognition of GDPR as a global standard and the potential value of data altruism in addressing complex societal challenges. These insights contribute to the broader conversation on data governance and the ethical use of data in our interconnected world.

Audience

Enforcement capacity plays a crucial role in supporting data sharing mechanisms, frameworks, and policies. In the US, there have been significant struggles in enforcing data protection laws, particularly in relation to medical data. These challenges highlight the need for stronger emphasis on enforcement capacity in data protection and data sharing.

One of the main points raised is the inadequate enforcement of existing data protection laws in the US. This suggests that, despite having legislation in place, there is a gap in effectively implementing and enforcing these laws. This is particularly concerning when it comes to sensitive data, such as medical information, where the need for protection is high.

The importance of enforcement capacity becomes apparent when considering its implications for data sharing mechanisms, frameworks, and policies. Without a strong enforcement mechanism, it becomes difficult to ensure compliance and accountability. This can lead to vulnerabilities and risks related to data privacy and security.

The argument put forward is for a stronger emphasis on enhancing enforcement capacity in the context of data protection and data sharing. By improving enforcement capabilities, it becomes possible to strengthen the overall governance of data practices and hold organizations and individuals accountable for their actions.

The analysis also highlights the relevance of this issue within the broader context of Sustainable Development Goal 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions. Effective enforcement of data protection and data sharing laws is vital for building strong institutions and promoting justice in the digital era.

In conclusion, the struggles faced in enforcing data protection laws, especially in relation to medical data, underscore the need for stronger enforcement capacity. Enhancing enforcement mechanisms can support data sharing mechanisms, frameworks, and policies, and contribute to achieving SDG 16. Ensuring the protection and privacy of data is crucial in promoting integrity, accountability, and trust in the digital landscape.

Thiago Moraes

The Ministry of Innovation in Brazil has faced criticism for creating an interoperability system that raises concerns about data protection and privacy. This is inconsistent with the Brazilian Data Protection Law, known as the LGPD. The Supreme Court is involved in ensuring that the decree aligns with data protection principles.

One major issue with the system is the creation of a vast database that encompasses citizen data from various governmental platforms. The potential dangers of such a database have been highlighted as it holds sensitive information that could be misused if it falls into the wrong hands.

In a positive development, a new decree was published in 2022 to rectify the issues arising from the previous data sharing rules. This new decree aims to make data sharing and handling more transparent. It is noteworthy that the committee responsible for drawing up this decree now includes civil society participants, making it more representative and diverse. The involvement of the Data Protection Authority has also been instrumental in ensuring that the new decree is compatible with the data protection law.

Despite concerns over data protection and privacy, the implementation of the interoperability system has brought efficiency and financial savings to the Brazilian public sector. The introduction of new interoperability services through data sharing has resulted in substantial cost savings of half a million dollars in recent years. These services ensure that information is shared only when necessary, thus minimizing unnecessary sharing of data across all agencies.

The importance of sharing knowledge about data protection and governance regulations has become evident. Before the enforcement of data protection regulations, it is crucial to raise awareness and provide education on these matters. This is particularly relevant in Brazil, where many people were previously unfamiliar with data protection and governance.

Empowering individuals about their data rights and educating data controllers about the regulations are vital for ensuring easy enforcement of the rules. When people are aware of their data rights and data controllers understand their obligations, compliance with data protection rules becomes easier, and privacy-compliant initiatives can be implemented effectively.

An important observation is that communication and knowledge sharing should be prioritized over enforcement or sanctions. Sharing knowledge has proven beneficial in guiding stakeholders in the right direction. It is also worth noting that only two sanctions have been enforced so far, with one being a warning to a public body. This highlights the importance of fostering a culture of compliance through education and communication rather than relying solely on punitive measures.

Finally, it is emphasized that the involvement of regulatory authorities in background processes is crucial for efficient governance. The role of regulators goes beyond merely enforcing sanctions; they play an essential part in sharing knowledge and information.

In conclusion, while the Ministry of Innovation’s creation of an interoperability system has raised concerns about data protection and privacy, the introduction of a new decree in 2022 aims to address these issues and improve transparency in data sharing and handling practices. The implementation of the system has brought benefits in terms of efficiency and financial savings to the public sector. Sharing knowledge about data protection and governance regulations is considered crucial, and empowering individuals and educating data controllers are necessary for effective enforcement of the rules. Communication and knowledge sharing should be prioritized over enforcement, and the involvement of regulatory authorities in background processes is crucial for efficient governance.

Alison Gillwald

The analysis focused on several key points raised by the speakers. One of the main concerns highlighted is the existence of asymmetrical power relations in data sharing, particularly in the context of the African continent. It is distressing to note that a staggering 80% of data flows outside the African continent, leaving the region at a significant disadvantage. Moreover, a large number of people in Africa still remain offline, further exacerbating the digital divide.

The speakers also emphasized the importance of extending beyond first-generation rights when it comes to data governance. Currently, most regimes heavily focus on individualized notions of privacy and compliance. However, there is a need to recognise and prioritise economic and environmental rights in order to ensure a more holistic approach to data governance.

Advocacy for the African Union Data Policy Framework and data interoperability was another central argument put forth during the analysis. The establishment of a single data market within the African Union could provide leverage in terms of international markets. This Framework extends regulatory concerns beyond the scope of first-generation rights, ensuring a more comprehensive approach to data governance in Africa.

The lack of equitable data access for African researchers and institutions was also highlighted as a significant issue. It was pointed out that big tech companies, such as Google, currently provide limited data access to European researchers, while African researchers and institutions face barriers in accessing valuable data. It is argued that this situation hinders the ability of African researchers to contribute meaningfully to relevant fields and areas of study.

Furthermore, the need for effective enforcement of data governance, particularly in the realm of broader economic regulations, was underscored. Examples were provided where a data protection and information regulator in South Africa took strong action against WhatsApp and various groups. To handle the challenges of international regulation and obtain data from large operators, it was emphasised that global cooperation is essential.

The analysis also drew attention to the limited participation of civil society in many public processes across the African continent. In many countries, it is not required for civil society to participate in public processes as per administrative law or justice. The influence of private sector entities and telecom companies in these public processes was also noted. It was argued that enforcing public participation and providing resources for researchers to access critical information can help inform these processes and ensure more balanced outcomes.

In conclusion, the analysis highlights the need for broader data governance and the participation of civil society in public processes across the African continent. It emphasises the importance of global cooperation and maintaining a balance of interests to protect data and foster innovation. The African Union Data Policy Framework and data interoperability are presented as potential solutions to address the asymmetrical power relations in data sharing. Ultimately, it is crucial to prioritise equitable data access for African researchers and institutions, while also enforcing effective data governance and considering economic regulations.

Astha Kapoor

The current data regulation is criticised for primarily focusing on individual data rights and overlooking the importance of group dynamics. The lack of consideration for existing institutions, such as cooperatives, which historically facilitated collective decision-making, is seen as a limitation in the data economy. It is argued that group rights should be codified into existing laws to address collective and community rights more effectively.

Supporting this argument, some notable facts include the exploitation of group rights in bioethics related to data banks and biobanks. The mention of data cooperatives in the data governance framework of the European Union also emphasises the significance of collective data handling. Additionally, a government report from India explored the concept of community rights in data, further highlighting the need to incorporate group dynamics into data regulation.

However, establishing new data institutions faces challenges. While models like data trusts have been proposed for pooling data rights, their implementation encounters obstacles. Therefore, the argument suggests that existing organisations, like cooperatives, can be adapted and made competent for the digital age, presenting an alternative solution to address the challenges faced by new data institutions.

In the context of law enforcement and regulatory frameworks, the implementation of laws developed at a fast pace is found to be problematic. The lack of early consultation with stakeholders hampers smooth implementation. It is argued that early consultation is essential for better implementation and stakeholder buy-in. Increased buy-in enhances the understanding of implementation opportunities for different stakeholders. For instance, the Telecom Regulatory Authority in India was developed through private sector demand and consultation, demonstrating the benefits of early stakeholder involvement.

Moreover, building institutions through prolonged consultation processes, although potentially inefficient, can be advantageous for implementation and enforcement. Such processes ensure greater understanding and buy-in from the private sector and civil society, enabling them to work together effectively.

In conclusion, the current data regulation needs to consider the importance of group dynamics and collective decision-making. Codifying group rights into existing laws can help address collective and community rights more effectively. Additionally, existing organisations like cooperatives can be adapted for the digital age to overcome challenges faced by new data institutions. Early consultation with stakeholders is crucial for better law implementation and stakeholder buy-in. Prolonged consultation processes, while potentially time-consuming, can aid in building institutions and enhancing enforcement. It is important to foster collaboration and understanding among stakeholders to achieve successful data regulation and ensure the benefits of the digital economy are distributed equitably.

Moderator

The analysis focuses on various aspects of data sharing and data rights, exploring the need for a balanced approach between innovation and privacy when opening up the value of data. The session acknowledges that data is often referred to as the new oil, carrying great potential for innovation and progress. However, it also raises concerns about privacy and ethical use.

Different approaches to data sharing are discussed, ranging from collaborative ecosystems to individual donations, and even illegitimate methods such as hacking and theft. The Open Data Map by Open Data Institute illustrates these diverse approaches, including data exchanges, research access schemes, and personal data donation. It is noted that some approaches bypass regulations to gain access to otherwise closed data.

One notable argument proposed is that data sharing should be viewed as a collaborative effort, similar to a dinner situation with friends where everyone contributes. The preparation of dinner with friends, where everyone brings a dish to share, is used as an analogy for data sharing. While everyone enjoys the benefits of data sharing, the challenges and effort required to establish it are often overlooked.

The analysis highlights the importance of a more nuanced regulatory approach towards data sharing. Currently, regulations primarily focus on individual data rights and their relationship with platforms and governments. However, there are several group decisions that occur with regard to data, and existing institutions historically enable groups to make collective decisions. In the data economy, the existence of groups in the real world is often overlooked or misunderstood. Therefore, the idea of figuring out some kind of group rights in data interaction is necessary.

It is suggested that existing laws and legislative conversations need to be rethought to emphasize group/collective rights and consent, rather than solely focusing on individual rights and consent. Efforts are being made to consider group privacy and collective instruments, particularly in the field of bioethics. Some legislative conversations, such as the European Union’s Data Governance Act (DGA) and the Indian government report, discuss the concept of data cooperatives and community rights.

The concept of data stewardship is introduced as a potential solution for managing collective data rights. Different models, such as data trusts, are examined, which can help address the pooling of data rights. However, it is acknowledged that creating these new institutions or reforming existing ones remains a challenge.

The analysis also emphasizes the need for further research on practical applications of group rights in the context of data sharing. It suggests that policy development to regulate data rights and sharing is still in the early stages and requires more investigation. The complexity of the subject necessitates additional research to inform policy decisions.

Additionally, the importance of sharing knowledge on data protection regulation and governance before enforcement is emphasized. The analysis highlights that sharing knowledge steers things in the right direction and proves to be more effective than immediately enforcing sanctions. The approach of issuing warnings before suspension or sanctions in data governance is considered to be effective.

In conclusion, the analysis delves into the intricacies of data sharing and data rights, highlighting the need for a comprehensive and balanced approach that considers both individual and group/collective rights. It discusses different approaches to data sharing, the challenges of establishing collaborative ecosystems, the importance of rethinking existing laws and legislative conversations, and the potential of data stewardship. The analysis also calls for more research on practical applications of group rights and emphasizes the effectiveness of sharing knowledge before enforcement in data governance.

Moderator:
I have been, until last week, a researcher and also coordinator of a project at the Center for European Policy Studies, in short, CEPS, which is a Brussels-based think tank. And I’m very pleased to moderate the session today on our town hall, actually, on Dare to Share, Rebuilding Trust Through Data Stewardship. I will also first thank the organizer, Kevin, who’s here also with us, and also the Tony Blair Institute for bringing us here together to discuss this very important topic. And I will also already introduce the online moderator, Taina Flor Bento-Mota, from the Data Protection Authority in Brazil. She would be also online with us. So about today’s session, this session will focus on, as you already know, exploring new ways to open up the value of data. In fact, as we all know, data is often referred to the new oil and also has become a double-edged sword, because while its abundance promises innovation and progress it also raises serious concerns about privacy control and the ethical use and reuse of data. And when I thought about the session, it came to my mind that data sharing is actually a little bit similar to a dinner situation with friends. We all love to be invited to a dinner at our friend’s place. The only thing we need to do is to find out how to get there. Maybe we can inquire what we can bring for dessert, but that’s about it, right? So really nice. But on the other hand, I assume everyone also knows how it is to invite friends over and how much effort it takes actually to prepare a dinner. You need to find a special recipe, you buy ingredients, you have to set the table, you have to do the dishes afterwards. So quite a lot of series of things that you actually need to do. And I think with data sharing, it’s quite similar. We all know about the value of open… and we think we need to improve the access and so on, but actually it’s challenging to get a functional open data ecosystem which also respects individual rights and is compatible or open to various forms of data and also to various sectors. So actually not so easy when you think about it twice. And this is also visualized in the wonderful data made by the Open Data Institute and that we’re now going to show on the slide and I will all invite you to actually check it out yourself online because it’s a wealth of knowledge that is in this data map. Let’s see if we can get it on screen. And then the link should open in just a second. Yes, and we can maybe also try to put the link in the chat later or you can also find the map online if you Google open data map, I think. Yeah, and here you can see what looks like a normal map, but if you zoom in a little bit and we can maybe zoom in in the collaborator big island that is in the center of the map, you can see that there are many descriptions, so to say, of what the collaborator island actually consists of. The collaborator island symbolizes, so to say, organizations or approaches that bring people together to collaborate around a shared component of data infrastructure. So for example, data marketplaces, data exchanges, data trusts, cooperatives, and so on. This is what we are also going to explore today. When we maybe go a little bit more up, can we zoom a little bit in? Yeah, perfect. Exactly, we see the shared biome, for example, and the small series of islands here. here at the north of the collaborator big island, which addresses approaches to research access schemes, for example, or also data philanthropies, basically models that enable people to share data and to really collaborate on them through ecosystems. And for example, when we go to the Isle of Human, to the bottom right of the map, the Isle of Human, you can also see, this is basically approaches that enable humans to share data amongst each other and that incentivizes people to open up, so to say, their data sets, for example, through personal data representatives, data lockers, individual data donation, and so on. And there are also some interesting other areas, for example, you have at the bottom left center, the private cove or the forbidden isle. So the pirate cove consists of approaches that actually are illegal, so hacking, theft, which is, however, also a form of data sharing, unfortunately. And you have also the side steppers, for example, which is a region that has legitimate means of gaining access to closed data. So that approaches that aim to provide people or organizations with ways of gaining access to data that the current data holder or steward would otherwise designate of limits. So yeah, I invite you to explore this map further. I think it’s a great piece of work and it’s also very nicely designed. So thanks again to the Open Data Institute. And with that, I think we’re already right into the topic. And so I will just maybe quickly say that this session is structured around three key policy questions. And I will introduce each of the policy questions before handing over to our distinguished panelists. We have pairs of two and then at the end of the panelists, we have 30 minutes more or less for question and answers. Okay, so the first key policy question that we would like to answer today or get an insight on is about the role of data governance stakeholders. So we would like to ask what should be the respective role of data governance stakeholders in promoting responsible data strength. For example, stimulating experimentation and innovation and data governance design, monitoring and evaluating different data governance approaches. And for that we have two distinguished speakers. Jack Hardius, who is, okay one. Okay, so sorry. So we have one speaker on site. Aastha Kapoor from the Apte Institute. And thank you so much for joining us at such an early hour. And the floor is yours.

Astha Kapoor:
Yeah. Thank you for this and thank you for the audience too for coming at this very early hour. I guess to start off with the policy question, I think that we’re trying to understand what we want to do here. And what we want to do here is to make sure that the value of data is realized at several different levels. One is between individuals or at the individual level. The second one is between individuals. So, you know, if you want to share data with like almost like a P2P transaction. The third one is within communities. So if members of a community want to share data between each other, then that should be possible. And then, you know, you sort of build up, do that. And at the moment the regulation actually looks at at individual data rights in their relationship with platforms and government. And so, as we think about the systems that need to be built both from the policy perspective but also from the institutional perspective, I think that we need to think about it more from a bottom-up mechanism and to understand how individuals interact with data when it comes to interactions with each other as well as in the groups that we occupy. So just as an example, we do a lot of work with cooperatives and what we’re trying to understand as women who occupy these cooperatives is a couple of things. The cooperative, for instance, in the context of India, will incur agricultural labor together. They make decisions on agriculture also together. They will distribute benefits from the board to all the members, and those are all collective decisions and collective governance. But when it comes to banks seeking data from members of the cooperative, they break down these institutional boundaries and they interact with the individual only because financial institutions that are defined by the individual access to finance and individual data can only deal with them at the individual level. So the bank will then aggregate all of this and say, okay, fine, you as a group can get this loan or that loan, et cetera, and invariably it doesn’t reflect the meaning of the entire group. So we’ve been trying to, and also in return what you get is products that are not meant for you, you get interest rates that are much higher than what you’d be willing to pay, or what you also get, and this is an example that we’ve seen very many times, is that women also don’t understand the data that they need to make certain kinds of decisions. So a cooperative that we work with needs to procure seeds, but they don’t understand. what the amount of seats that they need, et cetera. So they have no way of pooling demand from their members as well as a data question. So the point I’m trying to make is that there are multiple group decisions that happen with regard to data, and there are existing institutions that also have historically enabled groups to come together and decide. What we are seeing in the data economy is that it has been completely blindsided by the existence of groups in our real world. And these groups are not just offline groups like the ones that I mentioned, but whether it’s Facebook, and everyone uses that example, but whether it’s Facebook, what they also do is they put us into groups that we don’t even understand. So there are groups of women with dark hair or women with light hair, and then they put out products for us on our platforms in the same, as a group, they are not interested in individual level data. They’re also organizing us in certain kinds of groups. It’s just that we don’t know how the algorithm has defined us. So as we start to think about data rights and what policy changes are required, I think that the idea of straddling some kind of group rights is definitely necessary. There’s a lot of work that has happened on group privacy. There’s a lot of work that has happened on, particularly in bioethics around ideas of data banks and biobanks, because those are collective instruments and they need to be. But I think what we really need to think about is how do we codify this in existing laws? And you’ll see it in the GDPR, I can speak for the India context, and several other legislations are looking at individual rights and they’re looking at the idea that individuals will consent and that will be the end of that. However, there are some legislations, or at least legislative conversations that are coming up. I know that in one of the alphabet soups of the EU, I think it’s the DGA, mentions data cooperatives. In the context of India, there was an interesting government report that came out a year and a half or two years ago. non-personal data, which had a problematic definition that all data that is not personal is non-personal. But what they were trying to do is also think about community rights, and to say that communities can be both harmed and helped with the use of data, and so how do we define communities? But unfortunately, while this island has very nice segregations, the human life is quite messy, and so we don’t have clear segregations around where communities end, begin. The individuals in this room are a community of individuals in this room, but then could also, all the tech that we have here impacts us in some way. Voices are being recorded, faces are being recorded. But we also occupy multiple different communities at the same time, and so I, as an individual, might want to have a huge amount of control on the school community of my kid, which is, you know, because I’m also a guardian for her data, whereas I may not want to be as involved in other kinds of data that I need. And in this context, different models of data stewardship become interesting, because what we are trying to solve for is greater pooling of data rights, and then the next step is thinking about what those institutional mechanisms that allow for pooling of data rights are, and also allow for a change of mind. Today I want to be involved, tomorrow I don’t want to be involved. And there are some models that have been, you know, discussed over time. There’s data trust, which we’ve looked at quite extensively, and I think that, you know, setting up of new institutions is potentially hard to do. But I think the next set of questions is, how do we think about existing institutions, and, you know, I like cooperatives, that… that can be made more resilient, that can be made more able to understand what these group dynamics are and how they can be actualized in the context of the digital economy. I think policy is a little way off because I think this is a complex question and what we know from policy documents so far is that everyone goes after the easiest, least terrible thing to say. And so I think that we need to, at least in the couple of years that we have before this conversation really blows up, is actually start to see what those instantiations of these group rights are and how we can actualize them.

Moderator:
Thank you, thank you so much. That was super, super interesting and already gave us a great insight into, sorry, into the current challenges that we see that the reality poses to a system that maybe is not fit for the current developments in data and how quickly it’s produced and shared and then repurposed eventually. Okay, moving on to, you had already mentioned policy is a little bit off. So I think this fits perfectly to the next speaker who joins us online. His name is Thiago Moraes, I hope I pronounced it correctly. And he will answer to a second policy question which is, there we see you, hi. Good to see you. And then we will answer, I will ask you to address the second policy question which is how different regulators could or should approach challenges related to data sharing. And Thiago is from the Brazilian Data Protection Authority, also if I get it right. So we will be looking forward to hearing your insights. on this topic. Thank you. Thank you. Can you hear me?

Thiago Moraes:
Yes. Okay, so thank you, Rosana, and I would like to first of all thank the Tony Blair Institute for this partnership on organizing this session. Data sharing is definitely a very relevant topic, more than ever, considering all the developments that we have been having with not only in terms of technological innovation, but also these new trends for regulation that are coming over from different regions. And to answer this question, which of course it’s a very complex question, it would take way more than the six, seven minutes that I have, I decided to go with a specific use case that we had in Brazil regarding data sharing in the context of GovTech. So I prepared a very small PowerPoint presentation. Maybe you could share it on the screen? Is that possible? Is it already shared? Luca, you, Kevin, you said… Yeah, okay. It’s shared, yeah. It’s shared. But I think it’s not yet shared, because we don’t see it on the screen, so I think… Should I share the one that I have with me, or the one that was sent out to the organization?

Moderator:
We have the presentation here, so we’re just trying to set it up now, Does it work? One moment, please. If that would make… easier? I can try to share from my zone screen as well. I don’t know if that makes things easier or not. I think you can definitely try at least if you have, I don’t know if you have the correct rights, but if you, ah, okay. That was great. Is it working now? Yeah, thank you so much. That looks great. Yeah, you can see the presentation.

Thiago Moraes:
So yeah, uh, well, that was the question that was asked for me to answer, right? And, uh, as I said, I cannot answer for all kinds of regulators, but I can share a little bit of, uh, the experience that we had as a data protection authority, uh, following supervising a case, uh, regarding, uh, GovTech in Brazil. Uh, so what we have, uh, and the executive branch, we have several ministries and one of those ministries is currently engaged if innovation for the public sector. So GovTech, uh, initiatives and so on, and to support this idea of creating an interoperability system that would share data between public entities, because that was the main idea of the project that they were developing. Uh, they, uh, this ministry, the ministry of, uh, innovation, public sector, uh, provide this, these rules in this decree that is mentioned here in this in 2019, right? And by the time it was published, uh, the LGPD was still not yet enforced. The LGPD is the Brazilian data protection law. Uh, but as soon as it came in force, it was very clear that there was a lot of inconsistencies, uh, with this decree regarding with the data sharing rules that was required for the Brazilian data protection law. It’s very similar to the European model of the GDPR. So, because of that, and several other issues that were related with this decree, because it’s provided, for example, for this database, which supposedly was a huge database of all citizen data collected from very different government’s platforms, and for everyone who knows a little bit of data protection history, we know that many of the data protection laws and authorities have asserted due to the fact that having all the data, of citizens’ data, with just one single entity, is very, very dangerous. So this, of course, caused a lot of tension, and some entities, private entities, required to enter into a constitutional action, proceed with a constitutional action at the Brazilian Supreme Court, and this was a case that followed from 2020 until 2022, and it’s important to say that this only came in 2020, because that was also when the Brazilian data protection law came into force, so it gave a lot of room for getting the discussion up to the Supreme Court, and the background case was a data sharing that was happening in this platform that was being created between our intelligence agency and a transportation agency, and in the next slide, I’ll make it more clear what were the details of this case, but just so you know, we had here several discussions that resulted in the, in the end, a manifestation of a court that there was… several obligations that needed to be changed in this decree because it was not fit to the purpose of specification principle of the Brazilian data protection law. It didn’t also provide for data minimization rules. It was not transparent of how this data share operations were happening. So because of all this that was missing, the court decided that a new rule should be updated so it could attend for all these requirements. And that’s also the same time there was a committee that was supposed to manage all these data governance rules, right, between this data sharing platform. And one criticism of this structure is because it was only composed by agents of the government. So this gave no room for civil society to pledge their interest. So what happened is that with this new decree, these transparent rules and also rules that were fit to the purpose specification principle and data minimization principle came into force in 2022. And also there was a restructuring of this committee. So this multi-ministerial committee, so before we only had like members from the government, they also added a layer for some civil society participants to be part of. So this committee is the one that has the role of deciding which questions regarding the integrity, the quality and consistency of all this data that was being collected, how it would work, so all the data governance mechanisms, and also which kind of data might be included in this database. So, basically, they assume the role of a data steward here, right? As I was mentioning, this concept of data stewardship is very relevant in this in this ecosystem of data sharing. And this committee was the one supposed to doing this job. And by now, we have also members from civil society that can interview. It’s still a bit uneven, I would say, how it’s the composition, but at least now there is room because the members of the civil society, they can represent voice of several civil society organizations that exist in Brazil. We even have a very strong coalition that you probably might see in other panels of IGF, because there are several members of this civil society organizations at the IGF. And because of that, they have a voice to discuss and help supervising what is happening on the decisions regarding how this data is being shared. And the Data Protection Authority, although it was not, did not have an active role in all of that because we were still growing maturity in the background. We assisted the Ministry of Innovation, Public Sector to approve this new decree that I mentioned that came with all these new rules. So we were helping them in the background to make all these rules more compatible with all that the protection law. With that, we can see, of course, there’s a lot of possibilities and opportunities that we can bring from this interoperability. That’s why it’s something that we couldn’t just prohibit. That’s why the Supreme Court decided that it was not going to. private data sharing, but making it happen in a compatible way with data protection principles and rules. And as we can see here, just this G2G APIs that exist in the context of this platform has saved half a million dollars in this last years because of the business, how data is being shared and the economy, the savings that it comes for having this interoperability services running. And at the same time, of course, it’s very important for attending to the principles of data minimization because this avoids that all the information is being shared with all the agencies. So what we have right now in Brazil is that different ministries, when they require certain information, we have this committee acting as a steward and they’re going to see if this sharing is happening following all these principles that I just mentioned and guaranteeing that only the necessary information is being shared. Of course, this is still a work in progress in the sense that there’s still need to check how the committee is doing its work. But it’s interesting to see that the case was so relevant that it reached the Supreme Court and it came with the decision quite fast for what we used in Brazil because of the relevance of these activities of data sharing for creating more efficiency to the public sector, but at the same time, of course, needing to respect all the data protection principles and fundamental rights. And that’s it for my presentation. I hope I didn’t take that long, but. And if you need me for the second round, I’ll be here.

Moderator:
Thank you so much, Tiago. That was super insightful. And yeah, it seems that you found actually an interesting new way how to handle the data that is requested by the government from citizens. And this actually brings us already to the next policy question, the third one, and which looks a bit more at institutional models, so innovation. And we heard already one, but there are many, many other ones. And the two next speakers will be explaining a bit more their research and their views on which new institutional models are best suited to support innovation around data, while also at the same time ensuring the protection of fundamental rights, such as privacy. And for that, I will invite first Kevin from the Tony Blair Institute to give us his insights. And then I’ll pass it on to Dr. Allison Gilwald, who is joining us online. But first, Kevin, the floor is yours.

Kevin Luca Zandermann:
Thank you very much, Rosanna. Can I share the presentation on Zoom? Okay. I think it says that it’s disabled. I also want to thank Thiago. I think at the Institute, we were called, your last slide, the proactive public services or in the context of the strategic state, meaning to exactly avoid this kind of waste of time for most citizens when we have to constantly fill forums. So good, lucky that Brazilian citizens are quite lucky that you guys are clearly on the right track. And as a side note, I will reach out to you. you to kind of have, OK, a more in-depth understanding of it. I’m not able to share it. Apologies to you. Thank you for your patience. OK, wonderful. OK. Can people see it? No? I’ll try again, sorry. Uh, yeah. OK. One sec. I mean, one second, sorry. Yeah, I’ll just speak. OK. So OK, I’ll speak in the meantime. So what we’ve been trying to do at the Institute is to essentially make sense of the past 10 years in the data governance space. And at the beginning, like, two elements became quite clear. And I’m sure most people, you know, both in the online audience are aware of, are, first of all, the global proliferation of data localization laws, and then the passing of very important privacy legislation, with GDPR gradually becoming the gold standard all over the world. But at the same time, we also quickly realized that that was only one part of the data governance story, and that. whilst these data localization laws were being passed throughout the globe, and whilst very important privacy legislation was being passed, a series of grassroots initiatives, such as the ones that Asta was describing, or Jack, unfortunately, couldn’t join, but a series of pioneering institutions that the Open Data Institute began theorizing were also taking place. And we’re not necessarily, especially around the early 2010, we’re not actually getting the right attention from these policymakers. But throughout the last decades, we gradually got there. There’s been a sort of process of sedimentation where these grassroots initiatives have gradually got more and more attention. And since we are in Japan, I think a very important milestone has been the Data Free Flows We Trust initiative, which was part of the Osaka G20 summit in 2019, and was then repurposed for the G7. That’s part of the Hiroshima process. So what we’ve been trying to do is to engage with, on one side, policymakers, data protection authorities, and on the other with pioneering, I would say, leading thinkers, such as Asta and Jack, that have begun this kind of work, have begun to actually theorize and formalize, experiment with the notion of data institutions. And by data institutions, we mean data stewardship in the looser sense that one can imagine. And we then try to systematize these kind of reflections in a tube map, which I think you should be able to see on the web. I don’t think it’s on the website yet. So I guess we can just use it. Can people see it like this? I think we’ll just do it like that, because otherwise we’ll waste too much time. But anyway, we’ve been trying to systematize our reflections in this tube map that you see here. So we’ve basically looked at all the data strategies throughout the globe. We’ve systematized the series of stakeholder engagements that we’ve had, and we’ve put them on the map. And the reason, you know, there’s a reason for that, and it’s that, my personal view, is that mapping, in many ways, helps visualize something like the data sphere that can be quite arcane. So we see here like five different layers or lines, depends how you want to visualize it. The technology one, the regulatory one, the data infrastructure one, the physical one, and institutional one. Now, like, this is by no means exhaustive, and it’s, again, we had to simplify it by economy of time. But what’s kind of come out very clearly is that the institutional component is the one that actually requires most of the work, like particularly in terms of conceptualizing what these data institutions can mean. I mean, like Asa was referring to, like data cooperatives, we know that, and again, sometimes we have forgotten it as policymakers. There’s a long tradition in the study of commons. One can think of, for example, Nobel Prize winner like Eleanor Rostrom that has dedicated her whole life to the study of commons, and like the management of commons, like completely sort of demystifying the myth of this so-called tragedy of the commons. And it is quite different in the data space, because in many ways, we are not dealing with finite resources. Data is a non-rivalrous, that is non-rivalrous, and that’s why the sort of earlier narratives around like equating data as oil, have been profoundly damaging because they have been obscuring, again, these grassroots initiatives. And in general, they have been obscuring a potential different model. And at the same time, I think that as part of this sedimentation process, the conversations that Asta was talking about and was referring to gradually got to the policy level. It did take quite some time. I know some of my friends in Brussels, in reference to the EU Data Governance Act that you were referring to, I remember one time we did have a debate about whether the EU had arrived there too early or too late. And I definitely think it got there too late. But I think the Data Governance Act is a very important step in terms of actually giving prominence to an alternative way of providing an institutional framework to steward data. We need to, the context that we’re dealing with now is that the way data is produced is very different. We can have far more agency. Data is now produced by internet of things. If we wear wearables, by items such as wearables, by the cloud on the edge, there is a huge part of the data ecosystem that actually doesn’t necessarily have to go through large tech companies. And we do need institutional models that empower people and give agency to people to use this data for the aims that they deem suitable or that they deem closest to their sensitivity. And I don’t want to go too much into detail about the EU Governance Act, but you see here the four main elements that I think are really important. The first one is the reuse of data held by public sector bodies, which will be. really important, especially for AI development, being essentially, again, this covers a policy vacuum because the Open Data Directive of the EU was covering, was legislating very thoroughly about essentially known personal data. But at the same time, public authorities have a lot of personal protected data, and which could not be reused. And with the Governance Act, we will see how it goes. It will actually, it will start to be applicable from this month onwards. So the panel is in quite good timing. We’ll see how that’s gonna go. And then the point two and three, actually certifying data intermediaries and data altruism, giving them the prominence that they haven’t had in the past. So, and in particular, I wanna concentrate on data altruism, which has been the result of a lot of advocacy work, particularly, like I can think of the European Association of Rare Diseases, because rare diseases are like a classic textbook example where data sharing is proportionally valuable because it’s very difficult to build a data set that is large enough for a disease, for it to actually be significant and useful for research. So they’ve been at the forefront in terms of advocacy work for the EU to actually provide a mechanism that can empower, like, for example, like people that suffer from rare disease to actually, with their consent, to being able to share the data for research purposes. So the fact that we now have this institutional framework, which, again, can be debated, we can debate like how effective it’s going to be. My, the concern that I have in particular with data altruism is that it’s so, like particularly in Europe, it’s so associated with. with contact tracing apps like during COVID. So there is an element, I think there’s a political element because obviously those apps became extremely politicized, but also I think there’s almost a psychological element because COVID in many ways has been such a psychological trauma for most people. And I do think that we are in a sort of phase of almost like denial about it where we don’t wanna talk about it. And my fear is that these emotions will affect quite a lot these actually the effectiveness of like this framework for data altruism. So I do think we need quite a political campaign to promote data altruism given the broader context. But these are just like few thoughts about like the work that we’ve been doing. Like we’re very much open to engage with again, grassroots initiatives, data protection authorities and think tanks. And I do invite the online audience to reach out because it’s very much work in progress. And thank you for your attention. And now I think we can move to Alison for the concluding remarks.

Moderator:
Yes, exactly. Thanks, first of all, to you, Kevin, for your insights and also giving us a bit the policies to say perspective of what already happens in Brussels and also elsewhere. And actually also I will invite everyone to consult the map. I think it’s on Twitter. It’s not published yet, as you said, but the tube map so to say of data is also a great way of again, visualizing the many, many ways in which data can be shared also in a privacy friendly way. Okay, with that, I’ll hand it over to Alison Gilwald. I hope I pronounced your name correctly. You will be joining us also online and you are with the Research ICT Africa. So Dr. Alison Gilwald, the floor is yours.

Alison Gillwald:
Thank you so much. I suppose my answer will cut across all those three very interesting questions and not focus only on innovation. innovation, partially because a lot of the kind of lobbying around data extractivism and getting unprotected kind of access to data has really been around this kind of commercial experimentation and innovation and the kind of dominance that certain groups have to these. I think issues of data sharing are really significantly about these asymmetrical power relations that we have between North and South, different countries and of course within countries themselves. I think we want to set up a policy framework and environment that allows for the benefits of shared data and as I said, in policy there are expounded benefits of public data and the value of public data and Tiago has spoken very interestingly about the Brazilian stewardship that’s happened around public data. But I think speaking specifically from the African context, the first thing we have to do is just acknowledge the complete lack of access to data. So a lot of the frameworks that are being used across, we’ve been sort of cutting and pasting in many other parts of the world, assume that we have large numbers of people online, the majority of people online, that there is universal access to services, to government services and data. So I think the first important thing about data sharing is acknowledging that the asymmetrical power relations that go with that. If you’re in a position to hold lots of data, you’re in a much stronger position to negotiate how that’s used or negotiate that it’s not used at all, you don’t have access to it at all, which I will come back to in a moment. just referring to both what Asta has said and Thiago, that the current regimes, which are important to ensure data protection and privacy of personal data, need to be understood also in the context of broader data governance, and that the current sort of negative regulation that we have, basically compliance regulation, quite individualized notions of only first-generation rights as Asta said, really need to be understood in terms of the development imperatives of collective or more public common good kind of rights that you might need in your data policy frameworks. And I’m referring specifically to the kind of data justice frameworks that we’ve been trying to develop within the Global Partnership on Artificial Intelligence, but also that we carry through in the work that we’ve supported, the technical assistance we’ve provided to the African Union Data Policy Framework, which unlike GDPR or even some of the later legislation that’s coming out at the moment, but it tries to extend the regulatory concerns or the policy concerns from simply those first-generation rights, concerns primarily with privacy to second and third-generation rights. So actually ensuring economic and even third-generation environmental rights are collectively enjoyed while those first, very important privacy and first protection, first-generation rights are ensured. And this really goes to an important part of managing data within a particularly in an African context, but I think globally too. which is not only about ensuring the redress of the uneven distribution currently of harms from these data-driven technologies, but also the uneven distribution of opportunities. So basically what we’ve got are these enormously asymmetrical data flows out ahead of the continent, 80% of data flows outside the continent, and roughly proportion 20 in. And then of course, within countries, as I said, large numbers of people simply offline. So ensuring that there is an environment that can benefit Africans and citizens, and also in terms of engaging internationally, that we might have a bigger influence if we can get the kind of economies of scale and scope that you need for data. Within the African continental free trade area, there is a big area in the context of the African Union Data Policy Framework. There’s a big push for us to at least ensure flows and interoperability of data for research, for sharing, for public purposes, for finance transactions, et cetera, at least on the continent. And this would allow us some sort of leverage in terms of international flows and international markets, quite honestly. So these are sort of important considerations that I think we were speaking a little bit about how at the moment it’s a kind of governance framework and it’s quite difficult to regulate. It’s obviously very difficult to enforce, but the potential of harmonization through the African continental free trade area would provide the kind of interoperability that would allow for flows of data. And of course, specifically shared data that currently Africa has very uneven access to and could really… promote, which we do very strongly within the African continental, sorry, within the African Union Data Policy Framework, the idea of, you know, a greater interoperability, a single market, and the use of the data for development, and very strongly the idea of, of course, unleashing data for commercial value creation, but very importantly also for public value creation, but a lot of the data that does exist in Africa is, is bound in public, you know, in public entities. And, you know, firstly digitizing that, a lot of that is not digitalized in Africa, and that’s a big problem. But secondly, enabling this data to, to flow for, you know, public value creation, as well as, you know, commercial value creation is a quite important aspect of this. And so there are aspects of open data requirements, for example, within a protected environment in the, in the framework that are, that are proposed. And also the acknowledgement that we also need to access the public data that is available in, held by private companies. And in this regard, one can, you know, in terms of data sharing, we also have another project through the Action Coalition on Transparency, GNI, which is also trying to get equitable access for African researchers in the first instance to the kind of requirements that the Digital Services Act makes of big tech companies for European researchers. And I think, you know, the importance of extending these kinds of rights is critical to not perpetuating the fact that we, you know, to access resources, to access knowledge systems, African researchers and intellectuals have to, you know, work through European or Northern Hemisphere. hemisphere researchers with access to data, even the informal system set up by Google for accessing data is set up through Michigan University with a number of accredited people throughout the world, very few in Africa, two in Ghana and three or four in South Africa, to get that kind of access. So at the moment, calls for kind of just opening up data out of kind of very unregulated environments, just allowing the free flow of data, in our view, would very much perpetuate the status quo, would allow those with already dominant positions in markets, in research institutions, in various things, to gain that access, whereas others may not. So these are various mechanisms, these are various institutional arrangements, these are various regulatory interventions that we believe are necessary, not to just, you know, not to have a sort of compliant safeguards regime, but actually would ensure not only safe outcomes, but actually just outcomes. And I think that’s a really sort of important part of looking at this, that of course these alternative data stewardship models are very important because the big, you know, kind of informed consent kind of models aren’t working, but we’re not going to solve the scale of the problems with, you know, micro-solutions, you know, for different kinds of communities. We really do need, you know, strong regulation of these digital public goods and global, you know, governance and cooperation on ensuring enforcement of the, you know, big tech companies that are holding a lot of this data, ensuring that we’ve got enabling environments in our regional jurisdictions or in our countries to safeguard citizens’ opportunities, but also to create local opportunities through entrepreneurial access to public data, through the better use of public data by governments, more effectively servicing their citizens, and then enabling us to create viable data economies and data markets by having a not only, as I said, safe and secure data economy, but also having ones that are more just. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you so much, Alison. That was super insightful and also, I think, has taught us a lot about how open data and data access is actually quite still unequal around the world if we say, well, the EU already has a wonderful framework in place, but then if you look at Africa, there’s a completely different ecosystem and also conditions that need to be respected when people or governments think about how they can enable or increase access to data sharing. Okay, that brings us to the end of the speakers’ presentations. We have three minutes left for questions, so I will also check online if you have any questions at all from the online audience. I will also ask the online moderator to flag if there are any questions regarding Lee, and if not, I will also look around the room and see if there are any questions that people would like to ask. Yes, the microphone, please. Yeah.

Audience:
So my question is just kind of – Could you quickly also please introduce yourself? Sorry, yes. I’m Pete Furlong. I’m a colleague of Kevin at the – Tony Blair Institute, but my question is kind of, you know, there’s a lot of focus on the mechanisms and frameworks and policies that need to be in place to support like, you know, effective data sharing. But I think something that’s like maybe often missed is kind of the enforcement capacity that’s sort of needed to support that. I look to like the US as like maybe a good example of kind of a place where we’ve struggled with that. You know, we do actually have some data protection laws in the US, especially when it comes to things like medical data, how well enforced those things are is, you know, kind of maybe in question. So I think, you know, maybe just a question for the panelists in terms of how they think about, you know, the importance of enforcement and kind of what that should look like. Yeah.

Moderator:
Thank you. I don’t see at the moment any other questions from the online audience. So I would hand this back to the speakers, both in the room and also online. I don’t know if there’s anyone online that would like to quickly intervene. If not, maybe we can go first and then we can see if there’s one online.

Astha Kapoor:
I mean, this is a conversation I was having outside yesterday as well is that I think what we are realizing is that so many laws are being developed and such a breakneck speed that we haven’t really thought about implementation. And I think to your point of did it come too soon or too late, it’s likely also too late. And what we’ve been also thinking about at Aapti is that how do we build processes of consultation early on in the development of the laws so that there’s increased buy-in, so that you can, you know, understand what the implementation opportunities are for different stakeholders. We’ve learned this from GDPR that actually implementation is a real nightmare. The companies that have the big lawyers can work around it, but the ones that don’t actually have to leave the EU. So I think that what we’ve seen, and this is an example from India, is that our telecom regulatory authority was built on the back of private sector demand and incredible. amounts of consultation. And what ended up happening is that all of these values are then coded into the institution itself that has been set up for success in some ways. So because the private sector was bought in, civil society was bought in, because people understood how they needed to work together through the process of building out. And I’ve become a big votary of building institutions through these possibly inefficient and prolonged processes. But what it helps do then, and we’ve done this analysis across different regulatory authorities, is that it makes implementation and enforcement much easier because of that multi-stakeholderism from the very beginning.

Kevin Luca Zandermann:
I think, considering we have an actual regulator as part of the panel, I guess, like Tiago, you would like to answer about on enforcement?

Thiago Moraes:
Yeah, sure. Although I’m not part of the enforcement team, I know a lot about the work. And what I can tell is that, first of all, before even enforcement comes, it’s very important to have this sharing of knowledge, right? Besides the data sharing itself, sharing how data protection regulation, data governance regulations in general work. I think it’s a very important first step. And we can give our case as an example, because in Brazil before the LGBT, not many people had heard. And I would say that even today, there’s still not as many as we would like to. I’m aware about what are the data subject rights, what are the data protection principles, et cetera. So, sharing this with the regulatory, with the citizens, data subjects, etc. is very important. So, people can be empowered about their rights and the data controllers, processors are aware of what are their obligations, how they should comply to. After this happens, the work for enforcement, it gets way more easier, because after this knowledge is shared about how rules on data protection works, we have more easiness to guarantee compliance, for example, for notifications of the braids, for coming initiatives, receiving initiatives that are already privacy compliant. So, just like the example I was giving, there was a huge difference after the authority was created for this GovTech experience, because even though we are not part of the committee that I mentioned, we have worked in the background, and it’s important to explain why we are not part of the committee, because the committee are data controllers, because they are the stewards in this case, so we could not be part of that committee, right? But we were working in the background, and sharing information with them. So, instead of trying to enforce sanctions, or any kind of more traditional role of regulator, adopting this approach of sharing knowledge first was a way of making things, steering things to the right way, let’s say like that. And that’s the experience that we have been having here in our authority. Actually, so far we only had two sanctions, one was just enforced like last week. And since it was for a public body, and it was not a very grave case, it was just like, I forgot how to say, a warning. It was a warning, because it was a way of calling attention. And it’s a first step, because if what the public body was doing was not corrected, then of course we can suspend the data sharing, the activities, the data processing they were doing. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you for your insights, Iago. Two very, very good points already on the point of enforcement. I don’t know if anyone else would like to add anything.

Alison Gillwald:
Perhaps I could just, if I could just on the enforcement issue. I think it’s a very important question, and I was raising it as a challenge for us currently in the broader data governance environment that we’re in. I think as Iago points out, I think many of us have some of the data protection regulation enforcement, which can happen at the national level under control. What we don’t have is this broader data governance issue. So I think we certainly on the continent, for example, we have a very strong data protection and information regulator in South Africa, also responsible for access to information, which is a very nice balance to have in terms of balancing rights, who’s acted strongly against WhatsApp and various groups. So I think a strong, informed, democratically institutionalized data protection can operate effectively. I think what we’re really struggling with is the broader concept of data governance that I was speaking about before, in terms of who actually creates the, you know, who’s actually going to be doing some of the economic regulations. So there’s some obvious like competition regulation, et cetera, that happens within the competition authority and some, you know, underlying issues in various other regulators. But actually combining that in terms of, you know, creating, you know, an enabling environment for local innovation, creating an environment for access to public data, for entrepreneurs, et cetera, that I think these big economic justice issues or economic regulation issues are far more challenging. And then, of course, I think the biggest challenge is actually the international regulation and getting the big data that we all want from, you know, from the big operators. And as I said, I think the only way we can address this is through global governance and global cooperation around, you know, equitable access to that data, not the preferential decisions being made by the tech companies themselves of who gets, you know, who they share their data with. So I think that’s really the challenge for us is that global cooperation. And perhaps just to add one other thing to Asta’s point on, you know, trying to build multi-stakeholder public participatory processes for these, which I think, you know, Brazil, India, South Africa have all been quite committed to and have a history of in the telecommunications sector. Firstly, don’t translate it certainly across the African continent. There’s a little absence of civil society participation in many of the public processes. And it’s not required in terms of administrative law or justice in many of those countries. So it’s very, very absent. And I think I think Asta would agree. And I think it was implicit in what you were saying while it had opened up these institutions that were theoretically autonomous anyway and, you know, able to get multi-stakeholder participation in them. In fact, the private sector, the telecom companies have been so powerful as the tech companies have been in these public processes that it. you know, very often their interests are they are the outcomes that we see in these processes. So really trying to enforce, you know, public participation and resource, you know, researchers in order to access that information, they can inform these processes, you can have multiple views on this that are enjoyed in many of the more mature economies around these public processes would be an important part of accessing that data and sharing that data in the first place. Thank you.

Moderator:
Thank you, Alison. Yeah, that would have also been one of my questions, but unfortunately we’re already eight minutes over time. So I think that just says that we had a very good discussion and very insightful, yeah, points that we were able to exchange today. So I would like to thank everyone, especially again to the Tony Blair Institute for hosting us and to all the speakers both on site and online for joining us. As I also said, we have shared a lot of resources. Please do access them and also please do get in touch with all the speakers if you would like to discuss this topic further. And yeah, for those present, see you around at the IDF and for those online, see you the next time. Thank you so much and have a wonderful evening slash day. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. You You

Cybersecurity Experts Emphasise Trust and Collaboration at Global Dialogue Workshop

During the “C-SERTS: Global Dialogue with Cyber Incident Responders” workshop at the Internet Governance Forum, the panel, moderated by Koichiro “Sparky” Komiyama, delved into the complexities of global cybersecurity, underscoring the pivotal role of Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs) and Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs). Panelists included Yusuke Yamaguchi, Serge Droz, Masae Toyama, and Kaleem Ahmed Usmani, each offering insights from their respective roles and regions.

Yusuke Yamaguchi opened the discussion by recounting the origins of the first CERT, established in 1988 in response to the Morris worm incident, which highlighted the need for coordinated efforts to address cyber threats. He described the diverse landscape of CERTs/CSIRTs, which serve various entities, from corporations to national governments, and face a multitude of responsibilities and challenges.

Serge Droz, from FIRST (Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams), emphasized the importance of collaboration and trust among incident responders, likening their role to that of firefighters who must work together irrespective of political boundaries. He noted that FIRST provides a platform for secure information exchange and collective action to secure cyberspace.

Masae Toyama discussed the role of AP CERT (Asia Pacific Computer Emergency Response Team), focusing on the challenges of maintaining member interaction and neutrality, especially during the pandemic. She highlighted the significance of in-person meetings for trust-building and the necessity of expanding AP CERT’s membership to include eligible teams from the Asia-Pacific region that are not yet members.

Kaleem Ahmed Usmani shared the perspective of Africa CERT, concentrating on capacity building, incident coordination, and preparedness exercises. He stressed the importance of regional cooperation in threat management and the need for technical infrastructure to support information sharing and threat monitoring.

The panelists collectively acknowledged the challenges faced by CSIRTs, including political polarization, sanctions, and resource constraints. They stressed the need for international cooperation, given the borderless nature of cyber threats, and the importance of including under-resourced civil society organizations in cybersecurity efforts.

A key takeaway from the discussion was the fundamental role of trust in the effectiveness of incident response. Trust is crucial for the exchange of confidential information and for forming strong, collaborative relationships that enable teams to respond to incidents efficiently.

The session concluded with a consensus on the need for continued collaboration and support among cybersecurity teams to build resilience and handle incidents effectively. The panelists called for the cybersecurity community to join hands, share expertise, and work together to enhance global cybersecurity resilience. They also highlighted the importance of in-person meetings for fostering trust and building capacity within the cybersecurity community.

Noteworthy observations included the recognition of the unique challenges faced by different regions, such as the Asia-Pacific and Africa, and the need for tailored approaches to capacity building and threat management. The panel also touched upon the role of strategic alliances, such as NATO and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, in cybersecurity cooperation, illustrating the multifaceted nature of international cybersecurity efforts.

Koichiro Sparky Komiyama:
Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to this workshop, C-SERTS, global dialogue with cyber instant responders. I welcome you all very much. Thank you for coming, even 8.30, early in the morning. My name is Yusuke Yamaguchi. I’m the director of the Japan computer emergency response team, and I’m work as a director for global coordination division at JPCERT. Like many of you here, I’m enjoying my third IGF, my third in-person IGF. It’s lovely to see the, you know, lovely to see all the participants in the same big room and share the space with each other. Also, it’s fantastic to see the diversity of participants this time. I think compared to the previous one, I think maybe the charm of Kyoto or, you know, weak Japanese, we succeed to get all the people coming, flying and we had a great boost of exhibition in the hallway, bent orange boxes, all excellent, and we see the fireworks at Gala. So today for this workshop, let me begin with may I show the slides online. So what I like to do with this workshop is CERT, computer emergency response team, or CCERT, computer security, again, incident response team, is an organizational unit that provides service and support to define the constancy for preventing, detecting, handling cyber security incidents, and it used to be recognized as firefighters in internet or cyberspace. When there’s a fire, firefighter come to rescue you. In the case of cyber security incidents or cyber breaches, a CCERT come to your place to rescue you or system administrator or cyber security team. It was first established in 1988, so 35 years ago. Immediately after the mass computer virus outbreak called Morris worm, it hit, it crashed one in ten e-mail servers at But again, 1988. So immediately after this case or incident, U.S. Department of Defense convened a meeting with inviting all the stakeholders and decide to launch a new organization or team to share the remediation or mitigation with everyone else. So that’s the first CERT, computer emergency response team. A lot has happened since then. We have now many CCERTs around the globe. For example, Japan, we have more than 500 CCERTs in, for example, companies like Sony, NTT, and others. And some CCERTs work to protect employees. Some of them, they are to protect their products and services. And then others, for example, some others represent own government or country and work as a national point of contact. So CCERTs in their role also need a cooperation across the border because cyber security incidents are pretty international or global by its nature. And that means simply because the fact cyber security incidents are international or global, we need to form a regional or international collaboration scheme. Right now we have several international or regional CCERT collaboration forum, namely, for example, APCERT in Asia, AFRICCERT in Africa, TFCCERT in Europe, OICCERT, this is not regional, but sponsored by organization of Islamic countries, so it’s a culture backed up by cultural organization. And we have a few new kids on the block, for example, PAXON in Pacific Islands, and ASEAN CERT for 10 Southeast Asian ASEAN member states. However, cooperation among CCERT is facing these significant challenges. You can see various reasons or obstacles that cause CCERTs cannot share or cannot talk to their counterpart in other country, frankly, but I think we’d like to ask our distinguished partners to introduce several challenges they see, they witness regionally or internationally. So let me explain the structure of this panel. We have a short period of time, just an hour, so we are going to break this into three distinct chunks. First, we invite three panelists, two from remote, one sitting with me here, ask three panelists to introduce what first AP CERT, Africa CERT, for who they are and what are the challenges for them and others. And in the second segment, I will throw several questions to those panelists, and the last part, the third segment, is a Q&A session with you, so please prepare good questions for our panelists. Now, thank you, Saochi, Karim, for your patience. Now, without further ado, let me introduce you to our panel. First, we have Saochi online. He’s a current board member of FIRST, Forum of Incident Response Team. He’s also a former chairperson of FIRST, leading this international global organisation. He also works with, or affiliated with, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Switzerland, so he’s our first panelist. Now, second, we have Masa sitting next to me. She works for JP CERT, so we work for the same organisation, and one of her main roles is serving AP CERT, Asia Pacific Wide Sea CERT community as a secretariat. Then we have Mr Karim Usmani. He has been leading CERT Mauritius, CERT MU, a national CERT of Mauritius. In this workshop, he also represents African CERT community, Africa CERT, where he plays a critical role. He also participated last year in the sixth round of UN GGE on cyber, as one of 25 or 26 experts. So thank you all. Thank you all for joining us, even though it’s the middle of the night for Karim and Saochi and very early for Masa. So let us jump in to FIRST segment, Saochi. I first like to invite you to share with us who’s FIRST as an organisation and its community. I also like to know how it helps secure the cyberspace. So, Saochi, the floor is yours.

Serge Droz:
Thank you, Sparky, and welcome, everybody, to this session on C CERT. Sparky, you already mentioned that FIRST was started more than 30 years ago to bring instance response teams together. And that’s where we still are. It’s actually in the name. It’s a forum, the Forum of Instance Response and Security Teams. We bring together security teams so they can work together. Cyber security incidents never respect boundaries because the internet is something that doesn’t respect boundaries. So instance responders have to work together and they need a place where they can start to meet. Typically, instance responders don’t have non-disclosure agreements or contracts that kind of regulate how they should work together, how they should treat confidential information. We often treat confidential information because you don’t really want to talk publicly about things that have gone wrong. So FIRST provides the forum or a platform where these teams can work together. It started out 30 years ago with a couple, a handful of teams in the United States, and then slowly started expanding to Europe and Asia. And now FIRST really is a global organization with members from more than 100 countries. We currently have nearly 700 teams which are members, compromising more than 5,500 instance responders that need to work together on a daily basis exchanging information. A couple of years ago, this was still kind of a fairly easy thing. The internet didn’t have that importance that it has today. Also, the world was a lot less polarized. But now things are starting to get more difficult. We have more and more polarization. We have political opinions that diverge. But Sparky mentioned instance responders are like firefighters. Firefighters don’t typically argue in front of a fire who is right, who is wrong, whose house this is. Your job is to extinguish the fire. That’s our job. But this political environment makes it kind of hard to actually do this. And just one example is sanctions that often prevent us from working together. We have certain countries where we have no members because people probably run into issues with sanctions from other countries. And that is a challenge because the internet still connects to all these places. So what I feel first is a success story. And instance response is a success. I think the internet is usable. We all do e-commerce despite all the horror stories about cybercrime we hear about, the horror stories we hear about, malicious cyber operations. We all can use the internet globally in the west, in the east, in the south and in the north. But we need to make sure that we can continue doing this. And despite different political opinions and conflicts, that instance responders can continue working together. That is the big challenge first is facing today. And I think with that, I want to hand on over to Masa to tell us a little more or to Sparky to introduce Masa.

Koichiro Sparky Komiyama:
Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you very much. You know, you first mentioned the global nature of CSET community first. And I was surprised to hear you have more than 700 membership right now. And still the broad membership is suffering. It has a common challenge like us in Asia, the polarization, even among engineers or firefighters work on the ground. Well, I still believe your success story will continue. But anyway, I think it’s your turn, Masa. I’d like to know, again, what is your vision for CSET and why you need a regional collaboration even though we have an organization like FIRST? And I’m also curious if there’s any change in your community for the last few years. Anyway, Masa, please. The floor is yours.

Masae Toyama:
Right. Good morning. Good afternoon, everyone. This is Masa. I’m currently serving as a secretariat of AP CERT. First of all, it’s a great honor for me to be a speaker with three of you, Sparky and Celgy and Harim, who have contributed so much to the CERT communities. As I said, AP CERT is a forum of the Asia Pacific region. My job is to manage the infrastructure and to ensure AP CERT runs smoothly. So I’d be happy to speak from the viewpoint of the secretariat who takes care of administrative duties. Back in AP CERT, AP CERT was formed in February 2003, so it’s like 20 years anniversary this year. And the AP CERT has been in charge of secretariat since its establishment, and we’ve been coming so far nicely. Since AP CERT is a voluntary community of 33 teams from 24 countries and economies, from India in the west to Tonga in the west, yeah, so members CERT vary in size and maturity. National CERTs make up the majority of members CERT, but academic CERTs, financial sector CERTs and private company CERTs such as Panasonic and Group IB in Singapore are also members. Yeah, so one of the collaboration activities that I’d like to highlight in this session is we do have AP CERT cyber annual drill, so it’s the event that we get together and the check the incident response flow for each team, and we also have the AP CERT flow for each team. So for the realization of this drill, we create scenarios together and check response status of member organization. So this year we had 16th drill, and the theme of the supply chain is Africa CERT. With the total of 35, over 35 teams taking part of including OIC CERT and Africa CERT members, so we actually extend the invitation to the drill for OIC CERT and also Africa CERT. So it’s one of the form of regional collaboration and beyond the We are now expected to have more teams from the participation from other regional collaboration communities, also inside the AP CERT members. I think I should stop now to pass the floor to Karim. Thank you.

Koichiro Sparky Komiyama:
Thank you very much. I have a very quick question. So how many members do you have from how many countries or economies? In AP CERT you mean? Yes, we have 33 teams from 24 countries and economies. I’m not sure how many economies we have in Asia, but it seems like it has a very good coverage or it has very good coverage among AP region. Thank you very much. I also think it’s very interesting AP CERT not work inside or within Asia Pacific, it also team up with the AP CERT members, so it’s a good way to know how many people are there for exercise or drill. So that is a good segue to Karim’s part. So Karim, now I’d like to give the floor to you. We’d like to know who Africa CERT is, how members of the community like Africa CERT? I also like to know how CERT Mauritius engage with even other than Africa CERT, because, for example, I see several activities at African Union on cyber security, and anything from your past experience. So over to you, Karim.

Kaleem Ahmed Usmani:
Good morning, everyone. And this is 3.35 in the morning in Mauritius. First of all, Sparky, thank you for giving us the floor. So here I’m having two hats, and first of all, of course, I’m heading the Mauritian computer emergency response team. And at the same time, as Sparky mentioned, I’m working and talking on behalf of Africa CERT. And as Martha mentioned, like any other CERTs which we are talking about, AP CERT, the same like is the regional CERT in Africa. And this particular Africa CERT has been operating for quite some time, and then the kind of activities which we are doing is not very different than what other regional CERTs are doing. And especially we are working on different things, and incident handling surely is one among them, because As Sparky mentioned, Serge has been talking about that we are the firefighters and once we are firefighters, we have to work along with the different teams in Africa and along the globe in order to coordinate those cyber incidents which we are talking about. If quickly, I come back to the question that how many teams we have, of course, we all know that Africa is very big, we are having 35 countries in Africa right now, we are having some 26 national search, the countries who have the national search in Africa and they are all members of Africa plus also other organizations, they are joining Africa search over the years and the whole idea here of Africa search is to coordinate cyber security incidents and obviously, we are focusing very much on capacity building within the continent and within that particular capacity building, we have been organizing a number of activities where first and then even Japan search has been actively supporting that and some of the activities where first has been there is the first technical symposium which has been organized for a few years and actively our first in Africa search working together. Again, Japan search has been very instrumental in providing its resources to Africa search for many years, in fact, now down the line and I think we are thankful to Spock where he has been actively supporting the cause of capacity building in Africa and he has been traveling extensively into the continent in order to provide capacity. So, technical symposium is one and through that symposium, a number of activities are happening and then lately, we also started a continental cyber drill and this continental cyber drill is an activity where a number of teams and a number of countries are participating. So, already we had two additions, so we started in 2021, 2022 and this time, we are going to organize in Maputo Mozambique from the 9th and the 10th of November where we are expecting again more than some 35 to 36 teams. So, that number is growing but again, the idea is to build capacity, build a preparedness of the teams and then this is where different activities we are doing as part of the cyber drill. So, right from the TTX to capture the flag and then the technical simulation exercises, they are all happening and then as Spock mentioned that we are opening it to the across the region so that more and more teams not only from Africa, they could join from other regions and then we can share their experiences of incident response so that we understand what kind of threat surface are there in other regions and accordingly based on to that, we are able to manage that. So, that’s something what is in there and then even if we see again a few activities which we are trying to promote apart from many other because like any other regional effort, we are also the part of the different forums. So, in different forums, if I talk about we are the part of the ITU-SD17 AFR activities, we are part of the ITU-D4 CSIRT capacity building, we are part of the GFCE partners since 2021 and we have been also involved into writing the engagement strategy for FOST in Africa since 2015. This Africa CIRT also has introduced Professor Suguru Yamaguchi’s fellowship and I think Spock is here and again, Professor, he has been supporting these activities and again, we did those started fellowship program again into Africa and we are a part of the symposium as I mentioned, we are a part of the GFCE CIRT, OIC CIRT, again we are working actively with ICANN. So, in a nutshell, more and more teams are joining Africa CIRT because more and more teams are the countries they are setting up their national CIRT. So, that’s what we have been trying so that because out of 54 countries, the number of CSIRT teams in Africa is fairly lower than other regions and I believe even FOST has been promoting and focusing up to that so that more and more teams are able to, countries in particular are able to have their national CIRT and that is something even we are promoting all the way. So, one specific activity which also I’d like to mention here is information sharing and information sharing I believe is important across the regions and that’s what we are trying to do within Africa. We have come up with our own different platforms in different countries of the teams and then these teams, they are sharing that particular information and that’s what we are promoting at. So, maybe I’ll quickly, I’ll stop here so that if there are more questions, I’ll be able to take it up later. So, in a nutshell, that’s what Africa CIRT does very much around capacity building, incident coordination and obviously preparedness exercises. Back to you, Swati. Thank you very much.

Koichiro Sparky Komiyama:
Thank you. Thank you, Karim. It’s good to know. I still remember Africa has a little bit more than 50 countries in the giant continents and you succeed in attracting many states to be part of this community. I’d like to clarify, Karim, if for example ISPs in Mauritius or South Africa like to join Africa CIRT, can they be a member of Africa CIRT? Yes, they can. To answer your question,

Kaleem Ahmed Usmani:
I suppose yes, they can and then maybe you have been asking the support from Mauritius as in supporting Africa CIRT. Then quickly maybe in a sentence or two, we are again along with Africa CIRT and providing support for building capacity for different things and that’s what we have tried to do. We are engaging with different teams and then adding their expertise in order to conduct any activity which we are trying to do and this is helping us in a way to build capacity along with other partners, international partners, for example, FIRST and many more. So, that’s where things are happening in this fashion. Thank you.

Koichiro Sparky Komiyama:
Thank you so much, Karim. It’s good to know since in the beginning you have a very strong tie with a global community like FIRST, although it seems like there’s a pretty regional challenges like, you know, the wider, the big continent with lots of, how do I say, the gaps in the capacity not only for cyber security but for other matters. Thank you all. Thank you all three panelists for your remarks and I also like to add two points before we go to the Q&A part. First, sorry for someone from Europe or other region other than Asia and Africa. As we have like APCIRT in Asia or Africa CIRT in Africa, so TFC CIRT and other organization are pretty active in getting CIRT team together in Europe and, of course, EU is trying to consolidate cyber security talent for their project and, again, PACSAN, an ongoing effort in Pacific Islands, again, to get the CIRT from all the island nations and also we have ASEAN CIRT, which they will be officially established soon. So, today we don’t have a representative from those regions but I like to make sure things are happening in the region. And my second point is there are also collaboration of CIRT stemmed from a strategic alliance, not from the computer security or cyber security field. For example, NATO has they have been trying to force the cyber security cooperation among NATO member states. Many of you haven’t heard this before but security dialogue between Australia, India, Japan, United States is trying to follow that path, too. And I also heard Shanghai Corporation Organization, SCO, led by or moderated by China, convene a regular meeting by CIRT of member states. Finally, there’s a similar attempt by CIS. CIS is a Eurasian intergovernmental security dialogue, not alliance, including last year. But at CIS, there’s also a very active sharing and cooperation among CSIRTs of each state. So, these intergovernmental efforts can be distinct from, for example, APCIRT or FIRST because FIRST, I think most of the members are from private sectors, APCIRT as well, and I just learned from Karim that private sector can be part of Africa CIRT. So, there’s clearly a difference in the membership status and a CSIRT network of multi-stakeholder organization. So, that means either APCIRT or FIRST or Africa CIRT, private sector or civil society can play a crucial role. Anyways, with contribution from our panel, we now understand how those global or regional collaboration mechanism works. Thank you to all the panelists. So, who was calling you? Okay. So, now I’d like to ask a few questions to our panel. By the way, Saochi, Karim, we have like 30 people sitting in a room, watching carefully your fight at 3.45 in the morning. So, yeah, please stay awake for another 15 minutes. And I also encourage audience on site or online to prepare your questions as well, because in the next segment, I will ask you for any questions to the panelists. So, I first like to ask this to Saochi, since before your current position, you also worked for messaging companies in Switzerland and others, and you have quite a rich experience in dealing with international organization and civil society in Switzerland and everywhere. Is it, you know, from your own perspective or from FIRST point of view, is it important to protect the under-resourced civil society or it’s simply not the role of FIRST?

Serge Droz:
So, thanks, Sparky. This is really a very good question. It’s something that sometimes keeps me awake a little bit or makes me fall asleep slower. FIRST members are mostly from the private sector. They’re typically tech companies that are mature enough to realize that they actually need IT security. There are banks, because banks know that they’re attacked, because that’s where the money is and where the criminals go. Other parts of the membership communities are states, because states realize that this is important. But really, what we are missing is civil society. We are missing many of the organizations that protect individual users, that protect minorities, that protect groups that are under pressure. Part of this is explained through the resources these people have. Sometimes I have the impression a CSIRT is in this community or the security person in this community is just one person and their cat. And these people just don’t have the resources to apply for FIRST membership and become a member. Yet, we exactly need these people. We as a community, as a global community, we need to start thinking about how we can support this. That sounds all nice and dandy and easy, but it’s actually quite a challenge, because for very good reasons, quite often members of civil society distrust big companies, they distrust states. And that is a challenge. And again, I think we have to get the firefighter paradigm. A firefighter doesn’t really care if the house of a billionaire is on fire or a poor person. It just shouldn’t make a difference. And that’s the same way we have here. Our hope really is that civil society gets up and starts talking to us. And I do know a lot of people in the FIRST community that are more than happy to start helping and supporting these communities, appreciating that they don’t have the resources that many of us within FIRST have. So here’s a pledge also to a lot of the organizations present at the IGF, start talking to us. This is too important.

Koichiro Sparky Komiyama:
Thank you so much, Saúl. Now, I really miss you. I miss the fact that you cannot sit with us this time. But thank you so much, Saúl. And for Karim and Masa, I have the same question for two of you. In what circumstances have you faced or have you felt a mismatch between expectations outside your community and your own capacity? I think people like myself asking Africa or Ibiza to do this, in those cases, do you think you are self-sufficient and can respond to any requests outside or you have any, you know, you identify any area you need to work on? So, I’m not sure who goes first. Maybe. Karim, can you go first? Ladies first? Okay. Ladies want you to start first.

Kaleem Ahmed Usmani:
All right. No problem. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, coming back to this question, Sparky, this is, again, interesting because and that’s what we have been talking about and that’s what we should discuss because capacity and then the deliver to your constituency or to your region is, in fact, is important. And this is, again, a very demanding and a daunting task for any region. And then the same applies to Africa. And just to put it on record here that we have been trying to, because our team size is smaller than other regions in different things, but the way of modus operandi of Africa is a little bit different because we are trying to gather teams together. And with those teams, we are trying to execute the needs of the region. So, I think that’s a little bit differently we are trying to operate. And, yes, lots of capacity building is happening along with other stakeholders in different things. Actively, Africa has been able to form different working groups at the same time. And we are trying to extract the expertise of experts within the region in order to build up the capacity around those areas. And especially if I talk about critical infrastructure, if I talk about the cyber diplomacy, if I talk about the SCADA assistance, if I talk about information sharing. So, these kind of things are happening already. And I believe that, especially on the part of the critical infrastructure security, that’s what the region is picking it up. Because if we see Africa from other regions, so their focus on building capacity around critical infrastructures have been of failing slower than other regions. And the reason is, of course, the expertise and then also in terms of their preparedness for different reasons. So I believe that that’s the focus slide for us and from there we are trying to pick it up and this is where with the different agencies we are trying to train people within the region on critical infrastructure protection and specific training programs have been started. So it’s just the beginning but of course that’s the challenge for us where more teams in more countries they could be exposed to this kind of training so that they are able to well protect their infrastructure or critical infrastructure better. So I think I’ll stop here.

Koichiro Sparky Komiyama:
Thank you very much. To me it sounds most of the issue or challenges you have right now is not regional. It sounds we are facing the same or pretty similar challenges together at the same time. Masa?

Masae Toyama:
Okay so honestly I don’t have any big difference between the expectation from other communities and what we are doing in AP CERT. So instead I would like to mention about the challenging we had if I may. So one of the challenges that we face as AP CERT is it’s challenging to keep the members interaction going after the pandemic. So basically before the pandemic we had several times to get together for example annual general meetings and also steering committee meeting to exchange the honest view or the current status for each organization. But during the pandemic we had to end up with communication online. So right now we are so excited to restart the in-person activities and then we had steering committee meeting in September last month exactly same place here and it was the first time in four years. So yeah we’d like to resume this kind of activity again and we also would like to continue to reach out to the support those team in the region that are eligible for AP CERT membership but are not yet members. So basically the Asia-Pacific region refers to the APNIC boundaries. So there are some countries where that is not a member of AP CERT yet. For example Pacific Island, certain Pacific Islands and also Middle Asia. So yeah we’d like to talk about this topic and extend the interest for joining AP CERT. And then for us another topic is for us it’s more important than ever before not to lose a sense of balance in order to maintain neutrality. To give an example of China, mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau are all equally represented as independent teams in AP CERT. And such an organization is very unique given the current circumstances. So that’s one of the key that secretariat and also steering committee is focusing on and we try to keep neutrality as much as possible to maintain one of the great features of AP CERT. Thank you so much.

Koichiro Sparky Komiyama:
The last part of your statement, the neutrality is pretty difficult to define or how to achieve but I get your point. As a secretariat you like to serve for your members equally. I think that’s what you like to achieve. Thank you all the panelists and now I’d like to open the floor for audience for your questions. We have two microphones so please come up in front of one of those. Who’s first? We don’t see any question online at the moment. Okay, I see. Oh, great. So please identify yourself before we have a question.

Kaleem Ahmed Usmani:
Good morning everyone. Clay from FIRST, so same organization as SEARCH. Just a kind of broad question for everyone, particularly around the regional networks. What can the regional networks do to improve cyber security more broadly that they’re not doing already? What are some kind of ambitious activities that you think organizations like AP CERT, Paxon, Africa CERT, C-CERT Americas, you know, name them all, could do to kind of spread resilience beyond just the incident response community?

Koichiro Sparky Komiyama:
So I guess this is a question mainly for Karim, Masa, or maybe myself. Karim, if I may go first or you’d like to pick up this question? The way you prefer, Sparky, you can go ahead and then I can… Sure, thank you. My response to the question on how regional C-CERT network can help mitigate the problem. We sometimes see regional threat or regional issues in cyberspace. I’ll give you an example. There’s a very popular Korean IPTV set box, which is quite vulnerable. And since it’s a very popular device, it can be sold and it is widely used in Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, maybe Malaysia, and of course, Korea. Even to this date, we have similar type of the regionally popular products. And in those cases, for example, in AP-CERT, there’s a joint traffic monitoring project, and we see spike in certain ports of TCP traffic and can at least tell affected countries or affected C-CERTs of affected region to check to see if there is something they’d like to address. So the existence of regional threat is, to me, the major motivation to maintain the regional collaboration framework. Karim?

Kaleem Ahmed Usmani:
Thank you, Sparky. And thank you, Cleve, for this wonderful question, in fact. Because this cuts across all the regions, and as you rightly said. But again, the way I want to answer this question, there are different things, obviously, if I look at the African region. And one of the things is how do we manage threat best? And once how do we manage threat best and the way we see in Africa, so monitoring of threats is a kind of a challenge for each and every country. And the reason is that different countries, they have a different level of maturity. And some countries, they have started a little earlier. Some of the countries, they have started some five, six, seven years back. And some of the countries, they are starting now. And once they are starting now and then five years back and then earlier, they have a different level of maturity. And we being a third community, I believe, and other regions, they have done it. How can we join hands together in order for us to monitor things regionally or specific to a particular region where different teams, they could join hands together in order to manage a threat? And one example could be sort of a regional monitoring and information sharing support, which the country, they can have. And just on to that part, like SARDIC in Africa, Southern African Development Community, they have set up a SARDIC CSER task force. And this SARDIC CSER task force has been set up still in a very initial stage with a view that we can have a common goal. And then all different teams, those who have the capacity, they are able to help the countries in the case of cyber crisis. So that’s one component. But I think the second component also which we need to understand is that a technical infrastructure, which is very important. And technical infrastructure, because in terms of a number of things, technical infrastructure for information sharing, technical infrastructure for a bot detection, technical infrastructure for a honeypot setup, and then combining all these together and then monitoring somewhere from a security operation center. So this is not a new concept, but this is the kind of a concept which is required in the region so that everybody could help each other in order to manage threats better. So I think that’s what is coming to my mind, and this is where I want to stop. Thank you very much. Back to you, Sparky.

Koichiro Sparky Komiyama:
Thank you, Karim. Thank you very much. We have another question. Please.

Audience:
Good morning, and thank you to the panel. My name is Tom. I’m from the National Institute of Cybersecurity in Taiwan, and I just am here to say that we’re here to help. We are a newly established institute, and we have a mandate to collaborate internationally. And as Toyama-san said, we’re also really excited to get back into physical interactions. And so my question for the panel is I’m looking at different models that countries are using to bring people together physically to improve cyber capability in different countries. And I saw, for example, in 2021, Lithuania established a regional cyber defense center, and they’ve been gathering together with Ukraine, Georgia, Poland, and the USA in person to help improve the cyber defense of the region. So they’re all quite advanced cyber actors. But should we, those of us that have the capability to fly places and meet in person, be conducting those kind of activities around the world? Thank you.

Koichiro Sparky Komiyama:
Thank you very much. That’s a pretty interesting question. I’d like to begin with, I’m not sure if the Slovenian regional collaboration is done by CSETs in the region or militaries. So we see, of course, many activities by our armed force, military defense, and other forces in the region. But as far as I can recall, there’s no international permanent joint operational center which Japan is part of. But Serge, Karim, do you have any thoughts on this question?

Serge Droz:
Yes. So I think what you kind of implied is that the in-person gatherings are about kind of building up capacity, building up know-how, and stuff like this. I would wager that the real importance about these type of meetings and about the physical get-togethers is to actually form trust. Because trust is the fuel that instance response works on. If you were dealing with an incident, you’re typically dealing with something that you don’t want to have public. It’s kind of embarrassing. Your host organization got hacked. So you only want to talk to people you trust. You trust them that they don’t kind of blur this out to the rest of the world. You have to share secrets. And I think that’s the main reason why you should be doing this. And this also ties in a little bit into the previous questions about what the regional organization should do. In my view, what really distinguishes instance response from, say, a trade association or something like this is that we build communities that trust each other and that kind of share a common language. If you look at FIRST’s mission, one of the three missions we have is building or working on a global language. And this is not about French versus German or something. It’s about having the same understanding of the challenges and being able, during a crisis, to talk to each other and to work with each other. Again, if you take the firefighter equivalent, if you’re a firefighter and you’re kind of really going into a house that’s burning, you just have to trust the people outside to do the right thing. And I think that, for me, is the important thing. And that’s really what these meetings are. And I know you, Sparky, from many of the board meetings where we had a lot of discussions. And what I really take out is that if I have an issue in Japan, I actually trust you to do the right things. And I tell you a lot of things that I wouldn’t really tell many other people. So I think, for me, that is the essence of getting us together. And that’s the justification why I still should travel during times where we have climate change and we should reuse traveling.

Koichiro Sparky Komiyama:
Thank you, Serge. We are running up the time. So, Karim, can you provide a very short answer to the question and also the final piece of advice or message for our audience? And then, Serge, go back to you just for 15 seconds of your last message. Masa, you too. Thank you. Karim.

Kaleem Ahmed Usmani:
Thank you, Sparky. I think just to answer this question, something like a confidence-building measure, which is obviously part of the cyber diplomacy, but I think it very much applies into this context. And confidence-building measure cannot happen unless and until we don’t sit together and then we talk to each other. And this is very much based on truth across building. And that’s something that has started in Africa and many other regions, and Asia, I know, and Europe, I know. Again, in Africa. So if we sit together, and that’s what we have started trying to do with SARDIC. And I think this will work. And why it will work, because we have to have the trust of the people. And once people trust you, they come back to you. And once they come back to you, definitely things get better in terms of instant resolution. So to short answer of this question, of course, we can discuss for hours. But I think confidence-building measure is important for us to be able to outreach the different teams and the communities in order to resolve incidents. That’s the answer for this question. And then I think the final thing which I wanted to say, which Sparky has asked, is I think we have to join hands together. Because we need each other as a community to build resilience around our systems and infrastructure. And alone we cannot do much. And this is where I think this forum is going to help. Because we have the expertise, we have the experts, and then I think we can all join hands together to get things better for the continent and for the region. So thank you very much. With my final words, Sparky, back to you.

Koichiro Sparky Komiyama:
Thank you, Karim. So, Masa, 15 seconds.

Masae Toyama:
15 seconds, right. I believe that the future development of cyber security at the regional level should not only deal with emergency response when needed, but rather continue with normal collaborative activities such as tours and events in APC community, which make more sense for emergency coordination. And those who are interested in such activities, please refer to APC annual report, which is available for everyone. Thank you.

Koichiro Sparky Komiyama:
Thank you, Masa. 15 seconds.

Serge Droz:
So, speaking for first, I mean, my big wish really is that we have strong cyber security communities all around the globe. And that these communities can work together and that they do the right thing. So we also should continue thinking about what is it CSER should be doing and what is it they shouldn’t be doing. But that’s for our next panel. Thanks.

Koichiro Sparky Komiyama:
All right. Thank you, panelists, and thank you, our audience. This is the end of the session. Thanks for everyone for joining this panel. Thank you very much, and see you next IGF. Thank you. Karim, Saoji, thank you very much. Now you can go to bed. Yes, I will. Thank you. Bye bye. Bye bye. Bye everyone.

Elonnai Hickok

The Global Network Initiative (GNI) is a multi-stakeholder platform that aims to promote responsible decision making in the ICT sector. It focuses on how companies respond to government mandates for content removal and access to user information. GNI advocates for strategies such as strategic litigation, petitions, investigations, rankings, and human rights impact assessments to engage with big tech.

One concerning trend highlighted by GNI is the increasing number of government mandates that impose requirements for quick content removal, local offices, proactive monitoring, data localisation, and broad company scope. GNI’s policy advocacy responds to these developments in countries like Turkey, Vietnam, and Pakistan.

GNI recognises the importance of companies adopting and adapting their policies and processes to meet the challenges of the rapidly evolving digital ecosystem. To ensure accountability, GNI assesses the implementation of its principles in the policies and processes of its member companies. The organisation uses an “improvement over time” standard to measure their progress.

Operating in different jurisdictions is complex, and GNI strives to understand the difficulties faced by companies in various contexts. It helps companies navigate these spaces while striving to protect human rights.

There is a power dynamic between civil society organisations and tech companies, where the latter often hold most of the power and information. GNI has developed a range of tools to assist civil society in engaging effectively with the tech sector. It is running an Action Coalition for Meaningful Transparency to support civil society’s advocacy efforts. Different tech companies call for a focus on different aspects, such as privacy for telecom companies and human rights-respecting community guidelines for social media companies.

To engage with tech companies effectively, civil society needs to understand the ecosystem approach and ask specific, pointed questions. It is crucial to consider the legal environment in which a company operates and engage with relevant departments, such as the legal department, trust and safety, and policy divisions.

Elonnai Hickok, Public Policy Director at GNI, highlights the restrictive provisions in regulations being introduced by countries. However, specific examples or additional information regarding these regulations were not provided.

GNI encourages Russian civil society to engage in multi-stakeholder initiatives in order to share their experiences and engage with companies. This will help foster dialogue and create a better understanding of the ground realities.

In conclusion, the GNI plays a crucial role in bridging the gap between big tech companies and civil society organisations. It promotes responsible decision making in the ICT sector, advocates for human rights, and provides tools and initiatives to assist civil society in engaging effectively with the tech sector. By coordinating their efforts and working collaboratively, civil society stakeholders can have a greater impact in shaping the digital ecosystem and protecting human rights.

Cagatay Pekyorur

META, a company, has been implementing a human rights corporate policy since March 2021. This policy is guided by United Nations (UN) principles and JNI commitments. META demonstrates its commitment to transparency and accountability by publishing annual human rights reports. These reports highlight two significant risks identified by META. The first risk is overbroad government requests on take-down, where governments ask for the removal of content that goes beyond what is necessary or justified. The second risk is overbroad or unnecessary government demands for user data, where governments request access to user data that exceeds what is proportionate or required.

To address these risks, META has developed a comprehensive process to assess government take-down requests. This process involves evaluating the legality, legitimacy, necessity, proportionality, and potential external risks associated with the request. META considers factors such as legal review, international human rights standards, and the potential risks to users’ safety and offline harm. By carefully assessing these factors, META aims to ensure that its responses to government take-down requests align with human rights principles and protect the interests of its users.

There have been concerns over amendments made to Turkish legislation, which have expanded the scope and severity of sanctions against non-compliance with government requests. Companies that fail to comply with a single take-down request or do not share user data may face significant consequences, such as blockage or throttling of their services. Previously, non-compliance resulted in monetary fines. These amendments have raised concerns about censorship, privacy, and freedom of expression.

Civil society plays a vital role in holding companies accountable and influencing public opinion against government actions that may infringe on human rights. They act as advocates for people’s rights and serve as intermediaries between government policies and users’ fundamental rights. Dialogues and collaborations between civil society, platforms, and companies are essential for understanding the regulatory framework and establishing expectations.

Rather than being in opposition, collaboration between companies and civil societies is encouraged to work together. This partnership can promote more effective engagement and address challenges collectively. Cagatay Pekyorur, representing META, expresses willingness to facilitate increased engagement between civil society and their team.

META places significant importance on managing misinformation and disinformation. They have dedicated teams working diligently to identify and address networks that spread false information. META also shares their findings with the general public to promote transparency and raise awareness about these issues.

META promptly takes action in instances of incitement of violence appearing on their platform. They emphasize the importance of freedom of opinion and expression, as well as the right to security. META supports the need to take action when such instances occur to maintain a safe and responsible online environment.

When a government’s demand is not overbroad and aligns with international human rights principles, META complies with requests for user data sharing or content removal as required by local law. This demonstrates their commitment to navigating the complex balance between legal obligations and protecting user rights.

Legislative developments, particularly in the form of cybercrime laws, can present challenges for companies like META. These laws may empower governments to censor content or force platforms to share user data. Such legislation may also target specific groups, such as LGBTQ individuals, further raising concerns about human rights violations.

Addressing challenges posed by an authoritarian regime requires collective effort. Civil society, digital platforms, and companies should collaborate instead of dictating each other’s responsibilities. This collective approach enables a more comprehensive response to protect human rights and challenge abuses of power.

In conclusion, META has implemented a human rights corporate policy guided by UN principles and JNI commitments. They have established a rigorous process to assess government take-down requests and mitigate risks. Concerns have been raised about amendments to Turkish legislation that expand sanctions for non-compliance. Civil society plays a crucial role in holding companies accountable and collaborating with platforms. META is committed to managing misinformation and taking action against incitement of violence. They comply with government demands aligned with international human rights principles. Legislative developments pose challenges, and addressing them requires collective effort.

Sarah Clarke

The analysis delves into Sarah Clarke’s discussion on the significance of advocating for digital rights in hostile environments, wherein big tech companies face pressure from authoritarian regimes. Clarke underscores recent instances in Turkey and Vietnam as examples, where popular platforms like Twitter, Meta (formerly known as Facebook), and YouTube found themselves entangled in a predicament due to government-imposed content blocking. These incidents shed light on the complex challenges faced by these tech companies as they grapple with the dilemma of either complying with restrictive orders or risking potential sanctions.

In Turkey and Vietnam, the bans on platforms and content throttling imposed by the respective governments have put companies such as Twitter, Meta, and YouTube in a difficult position. By complying with the orders, these companies risk being complicit in the suppression of freedom of expression and information. Conversely, defying the restrictive measures could result in severe penalties and sanctions imposed by the authoritarian regimes. Clarke underscores the gravity of this predicament, emphasising the arduous task faced by these tech giants in navigating such scenarios.

Furthermore, the analysis highlights Clarke’s endeavours to encourage discussion and seek solutions to address the challenges faced by digital rights advocates in restrictive regimes. As part of this effort, Clarke has organised a panel discussion involving stakeholders from different regions. The primary objective of the panel is to foster actionable strategies that can effectively tackle the issues at hand. The analysis reveals that the panel discussion includes interactive elements such as workshops and breakout sessions, which promote collaboration and enable fruitful exchanges of ideas and experiences. Through these interactions, Clarke aims to create a platform where participants can explore innovative ways of resolving the complex challenges associated with advocating for digital rights in hostile environments.

The sentiment towards the importance of digital rights advocacy in hostile environments is predominantly negative, as captured by the gravity and complexity of the situation. The analysis suggests that the challenges faced by big tech companies and the potential suppression of freedom of expression reflect the severity of the issue. However, the overall sentiment regarding Clarke’s efforts to encourage discussion and find solutions is positive. The panel discussion she has organised serves as a platform for stakeholders to come together, share knowledge, and collaborate towards addressing the challenges faced by digital rights advocates. This signifies the recognition of the need for collective action and partnerships to effectively tackle these issues.

In conclusion, Sarah Clarke’s discussion on advocating for digital rights in hostile environments sheds light on the complex challenges faced by big tech companies pressured by authoritarian regimes. The instances in Turkey and Vietnam illustrate the difficult decisions these companies must make, as compliance entails potential complicity in suppressing freedom of expression, whereas defiance may result in severe penalties. Clarke’s efforts to encourage discussion and seek solutions through the panel discussion with various stakeholders highlight the importance of collaborative efforts and actionable strategies in addressing the challenges faced by digital rights advocates. Although the sentiment towards the issue is negative due to its gravity and complexity, the sentiment regarding Clarke’s initiatives is positive, indicating the recognition of the significance of these discussions in finding solutions.

Kivilcim Ceren Buken

The analysis focuses on the relationship between online platforms and civil society, exploring the challenges related to human rights, content moderation, and business interests. One argument presented is that platforms are more responsive when requests are presented as potential business opportunities. For instance, an example is provided where Twitter hired Portuguese speakers after realizing the potential business loss during a sports event blockade in Brazil. Similarly, a change in Facebook’s attitude towards Tor when it was blocked in Iran and users accessed Facebook via Tor demonstrates this point.

Another argument highlights the negative consequences of AI-driven content moderation, particularly the removal of violent content that leads to the loss of valuable evidence. The analysis provides an example of an individual tracking bombings in Syria through YouTube videos, which are often removed due to violent content. As a solution, it is suggested to store the removed content for potential use in court cases.

Advocating from a business perspective is considered effective with online platforms, rather than solely focusing on human rights. This approach is supported by examples from Brazil and Iran, where platforms’ success in responding to business opportunities is discussed.

The analysis stresses the importance of collaboration between civil society and online platforms in addressing the various challenges faced. It acknowledges that the challenges encountered by civil society in relation to platforms are not a new phenomenon. Content moderation issues and conflicting business interests are recognized as significant challenges that need to be addressed. Therefore, it argues for civil society and platforms to work together in finding collaborative solutions.

However, it points out that platforms should not bear the burden of addressing challenges related to civil society independently. Collective action is seen as essential, emphasizing the need for collaboration and partnerships between platforms and civil society.

The analysis provides valuable insights regarding the relationship between online platforms and civil society. It showcases the importance of advocating from a business perspective to effectively engage platforms and highlights the potential loss of valuable evidence through AI-driven content moderation. The call for collaboration between civil society and platforms and the significance of collective action in addressing challenges are noteworthy observations. Overall, the analysis underscores the need for a balanced and cooperative approach to ensure the rights and interests of all stakeholders are respected in the online platform ecosystem.

Katia Mierzejewska

Civil society has long been advocating for improved human rights policies from tech companies, expressing their concerns over the years. However, there has been minimal progress on the part of tech companies, leading to frustration and weariness within civil society. This negative sentiment arises from the perceived lack of change and progress in the realm of human rights policies.

One of the main arguments put forth by civil society is that the human rights policies established by tech companies often feel like a PR tool. These policies, according to civil society, fail to effectively address the issues at hand and make a tangible impact. Consequently, civil society is calling for more action and substantive change from tech companies.

Another crucial argument highlights the need for a shift in the business models employed by tech companies. The current focus on data mining and using data for profit is seen as impeding the effectiveness of human rights policies. Civil society advocates for a shift towards business models that prioritize human rights and data protection over profit-making.

Moreover, there is growing concern about how tech platforms can address government-led propaganda and disinformation campaigns. The question arises as to how platforms can effectively react to orchestrated smear campaigns or disinformation potentially backed by governments. This observation further emphasizes the necessity for tech companies to actively address and mitigate the impact of such campaigns.

In conclusion, there is a clear consensus within civil society that tech companies need to demonstrate more significant progress and take a leading role in addressing human rights policies. The current perception is that these policies are inadequate and merely serve as a public relations tool. Additionally, a shift in business models, prioritizing human rights and data protection over data mining and profit-making, is deemed necessary. Lastly, there are concerns about how tech platforms can effectively respond to government-led propaganda and disinformation campaigns. Overall, the sentiment towards tech companies’ handling of human rights issues is negative.

Audience

In discussions surrounding tech companies like META, several key issues have arisen. One major problem is the instability of teams within these companies. In the case of META, the rapid turnover of staff can pose difficulties for civil society organisations striving to engage with them, hindering effective collaboration between tech companies and civil society.

Another significant issue is the language and context barriers in content moderation. The diverse nature of online content necessitates proper moderation to combat disinformation, hate speech, and other harmful material. However, these language and context differences often impede accurate identification and handling of such content.

The situation in Russia regarding big platforms like Meta and Google has escalated beyond previous explanations. Meta is now officially designated a terrorist organization in Russia, resulting in substantial blocks on access to Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter within the country. Despite these restrictions, civil society in Russia persists, with people continuing to use platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp, which are now part of Meta.

One argument suggests that social media platforms should comply with country-specific laws and regulations. This perspective emphasizes the responsibility of these platforms to abide by the rules of the countries in which they operate. Achieving transparency in negotiations between social media platforms and governments is seen as vital, as the current processes are viewed as lacking in transparency.

Additionally, there is a pressing demand for tech companies to take a more active role in addressing content moderation and transparency issues. The existing mechanisms for engaging with civil society activists are deemed inadequate, and there is a sense of disappointment among civil society regarding the lack of progress made over the years.

To advance the discussion, it is proposed that the focus should shift from repressive regimes to the power and influence of big tech companies. Exclusive framing, which overlooks non-repressive countries, risks narrowing the scope of the discussion and engagement process.

Concerns have been raised about Meta prioritizing revenue over human rights. While these concerns are valid, it is important to acknowledge Meta’s efforts in disrupting a network run by the Ugandan government, showing a level of commitment to human rights. Furthermore, Meta has expressed a willingness to collaborate with civil society organisations to improve and learn. The presence of a senior public policy person within Meta serves as evidence of this intention.

In conclusion, the discussions surrounding tech companies like META underscore several significant challenges and debates. These include team instability, language and context barriers, restrictions on platforms in certain countries, the role and responsibility of social media platforms, the need for improved engagement and transparency, the reframing of discussions around repressive regimes, and concerns about Meta’s focus on revenue over human rights. Despite these challenges, there is hope for progress as Meta demonstrates a willingness to collaborate with civil society and work towards improvement.

Suay Ergin-Boulougouris

The internet regulation landscape in Turkey has become a cause for concern as it poses a threat to freedom of speech. Laws in Turkey have been weaponised against free speech, with social media platforms being increasingly censored over the years. Online platforms have become the primary source of news, making this form of censorship particularly impactful.

Non-compliance with content takedown orders in Turkey now results in heavy penalties for companies. These penalties include fines, bandwidth throttling, and advertising bans. This strict regulatory environment puts additional pressure on companies to comply with content removal requests, which can further restrict freedom of speech.

To address this issue, it is crucial for Big Tech companies to develop contingency strategies that protect access to their platforms during sensitive periods. YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook have resorted to content restriction in order to avoid being blocked during election periods. Additionally, it is important for these companies to actively engage with local NGOs and conduct human rights due diligence before taking any compliance steps.

Civil society also plays a vital role in advocating for digital rights issues and engaging with governments. Coordinating with the government can help effectively communicate the importance of human rights cases. Promoting public literacy on digital rights is another crucial aspect for civil society. Furthermore, international attention and efforts on digital rights can greatly influence platform decisions.

It is argued that authoritarian actions of governments should be subject to international accountability. The lack of rule of law, independent judiciary, and stifled civil society allow authoritarian states to act with impunity. Therefore, it is suggested that digital rights should be a provision in trade agreements to hold governments accountable.

Suay Ergin-Boulougouris believes that solutions to current challenges already exist within the calls from civil society. Addressing the concerns raised by civil society can help alleviate the dire situation. Despite the restrictive regimes, Ergin-Boulougouris contemplates the possibility of civil society and big tech working together. However, it is emphasised that big tech also needs to be held accountable, and civil society should play a role in monitoring their practices.

In conclusion, Turkey’s internet regulation landscape poses a significant threat to freedom of speech. The heavy penalties imposed on companies for non-compliance with content takedown orders further restrict freedom of expression. It is essential for Big Tech companies to develop strategies to protect access during sensitive periods and engage with local NGOs. Civil society must coordinate and advocate for digital rights issues and engage with governments. Furthermore, there is a need for international accountability for authoritarian actions of governments, with digital rights provisions being incorporated into trade agreements. By addressing these issues and working together, civil society and big tech can play a crucial role in safeguarding freedom of speech.

Trinh Huu Long

The Vietnamese government has introduced legislation to exert control over the internet, forcing foreign services to store user data locally. This move has raised concerns about internet freedom and user privacy. Big tech companies, including Facebook and Google, have largely complied with government requests, compromising the rights of internet users.

One of the main concerns is the government’s high success rate in content removal and user data requests. There is a lack of independent checks on government power, allowing for potential abuse. This raises questions about government influence and the protection of civil liberties.

Civil society organizations are working with tech companies to address these concerns and advocate for human rights. They argue that big tech companies should be proactive in upholding digital and human rights, rather than bowing to authoritarian pressure.

Transparency from tech companies regarding requests for content removal is crucial. The public should have access to information about these requests to assess government censorship and its impact on freedom of expression.

Additionally, there is a need for a fair and efficient appeals process for users affected by content removal decisions. The current process is inadequate, with appeals often being ignored.

In conclusion, big tech companies need to be more accountable and proactive in upholding human rights and protecting internet freedom. Collaborative efforts between civil society organizations and tech companies have shown positive results. However, there is still work to be done to safeguard user rights in the face of increasing government control and censorship. It is crucial for big tech companies to take action and play their part in protecting user rights.

Sarah Clarke:
Good evening, everyone, and thank you very much for coming to this very late-in-the-day event. You’re probably all struggling with jet lag and lots of digital rights topics, but we’re very grateful that you’re joining us for Article 19’s panel on the balancing act that is advocacy with big tech in restrictive regimes. My name is Sarah Clark, and I’m the director of Article 19 for Europe and Central Asia, and we’re delighted to have some really brilliant stakeholders from across the—from all—multi-stakeholders to discuss emerging and pressing issues relating to how to conduct advocacy with big tech in authoritarian and restrictive regimes. To my right, we have Chatai Pekoror, the human rights policy manager for the Middle East, Africa, and Turkey for META. Online, we have Trinh Huu-Long, who is the co-founder and co-director of Legal Initiatives for Vietnam. To my right is Swai Ergin, who’s the program officer for Article 19 Europe and Central Asia, and then we have Elinay Hickok, the managing director of the Global Network Initiative. As you know, the digital rights landscape is transforming into a battlefield due to the escalation of government-imposed restrictions. Authoritarian regimes are exerting immense control over online content, pushing big tech companies into a dilemma, whether to comply with restrictive orders or face potential throttling and severe sanctions. And this becomes particularly problematic in contexts where online platforms serve as the only medium for dissent. Civil societies push for big tech companies to resist. undue government pressure can lead to unintended consequences such as throttling or even total inaccessibility of these platforms jeopardizing users and communities that civil society seeks to protect. The gravity and complexity of this issue has been underlined by recent cases which this panel will explore. The pre-election context in Turkey saw big tech platforms such as Twitter, Meta and YouTube caught in a predicament as the government mandated content blocking and faced with the threat of bandwidth throttling on the eve of an election in Turkey and in Vietnam these platforms opted for content censorship and in Vietnam Facebook succumbed to the content blocking in Vietnam after being throttled. So today’s panel is going to focus on fostering actionable solutions and strategies to advocate for digital rights amidst hostile environments. And just to give you a little breakdown on how today will work, it is a workshop with an interactive element so we’re going to begin with an introduction and setting the stage so we’ll have interventions from our panelists. We are then going to have a breakout session and we’re going to move around the room a little bit so we’ll have two breakout groups to discuss what you’ve been facing yourselves in terms of advocating for digital rights in restrictive regimes and then we’ll have reporting back and some final comments from the panel. So to begin we’re going to start with Sway. So Sway, could you elaborate on how the recent changes in Turkey’s internet legislation are influencing both civil society and international tech companies and what is the importance And I think it’s very important for us to be aware of the importance of these changes globally.

Suay Ergin-Boulougouris:
Thank you. Thank you, Sara. And thank you all for joining us in this critical discussion. It’s wonderful to see everyone here today, and I look forward to a fruitful discussion. As Sara stated, our workshop today is inspired by the recent censorship on social media platforms on the eve of the elections in Turkey, which exemplifies how big tech can be cornered by censorship on social media platforms. And I’m very happy to be here today to talk about Turkey’s role in international human rights law. And far from being just another country wrestling with these issues, Turkey serves as a coach in their tale. Its legislative landscape showcases how laws can be weaponized against free speech, influencing not just Turkey, but setting an alarming precedent for other nations as well. I won’t delve into all the legal complexities. But I will focus on the issue of censorship on social media platforms. As you know, censorship on social media platforms has become more restrictive over years, and this can be seen as a response to the increasing importance of online platforms in the country, because the mainstream media become more and more under the control of pro-government groups, which is at 90% now, and online, so that online platforms have become the main source of news and an essential tool for independent media to be able to do their job. So censorship on social media platforms is an offense that carries up to three years imprisonment sentence in Turkey, and while the operating environment for platforms was already hostile before these last amendments in 2022, now the companies face heavy fines, including up to 90% bandwidth throttling and advertising bans for non-compliance with a single content takedown order. Yes, that’s right. So censorship on platforms has become an offence, and while the operating environment for platforms was already hostile before these last amendments in 2022, now the companies face heavy fines, including up to 90% bandwidth throttling and advertising bans for non-compliance with a single content takedown order. And while the operating environment for platforms was already hostile before these last amendments in 2022, now the The interests of throttling are not empty ones. It is a chilling reality that can and has impeded both free expression and access to vital information in Turkey. Twitter, for example, was throttled during the aftermath of devastating earthquakes in February, compromising rescue efforts, as people were mainly using this platform to coordinate rescue operations, as well as asking for help, and sometimes even under the rubble. Yet hours after meeting with the government, and also after a huge public backlash, restrictions were lifted. So these threats are real, immediate, and carry dire consequences. And so laws have been tightened, fines have been raised, and threats of throttling are real ones. And it’s a chilling reality that can and has become reality in Turkey. So before the 14 May elections, YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook restricted access to certain content to avoid being blocked on the day of the election. This was stated both by Twitter and Meta in their public statements. And so the dilemma here is stark. Should platforms comply and censor, or risk being inaccessible on such an important day? It’s a terrible choice to have to make, and raises the question of how to counterbalance such government governmental overreach. Thanks Zoy. And what strategies do you recommend for fighting back and for how civil society can balance advocacy? So some suggestions for big tech would be they need to develop contingency plans to protect access during sensitive periods like elections. Second, as we always called on big tech to conduct human rights due diligence before taking any compliance steps as well as operating in restrictive environments. Third, big tech needs to engage actively with local NGOs and invite them for consultations. Fourth, they need to coordinate with each other. And finally, the value of transparency cannot be overstated. It can be a game-changer in settings where informal pressures and secret communications are the norm. This means full disclosure of government requests and compliance actions. For example, Twitter’s publication of government communications on the censorship ahead of the elections was a step in the right direction. And for civil society, we need to continue to advocate and coordinate on digital rights issues because pressure can really influence platform decisions. And we, civil society also, even in restrictive regimes, try to coordinate or communicate with the governments as well to communicate their asks or to make the human rights case. And what else can be done? Public literacy on digital rights, bringing international attention to these critical issues. Forums like this one offer the opportunity to align strategies and coordinate our efforts. But, even if all these strategies are implemented, can we say that access to Internet will be ensured and everyone will enjoy their right to free expression online? No, because these are band-aids to symptoms, and we can brainstorm countless solutions for the symptoms, but any progress we make will be temporary and incomplete. To genuinely solve the issue, we need to address the core issues of lack of rule of law, lack of independent judiciary, stifled civil society, and absent international accountability which allow authoritarian states to act with impunity. So for states, your diplomatic efforts must extend to digital rights, ensuring governments are held to international human rights standards. Digital rights should be provisional in trade agreements.

Sarah Clarke:
And last but not least, financial and logistical support for NGOs can go a long way in creating a robust civil society capable of fighting against repression. Thank you. Turning then to Cagatay, so Çağatay, you’re the Human Rights Policy Manager for the Middle East, Africa, and Turkey for META. So in light of Suay’s insights, can you share META’s perspective and experiences in Turkey in particular during the recent election time?

Cagatay Pekyorur:
Of course, I’ll try my best. First of all, I would like to start by thanking you for inviting me to this panel, like genuinely I’m so happy to be here and contributing to this very valuable debate that you are leading. And also, so I thank you so much for like putting everything out there so bluntly. I cannot agree more, literally everything that you said, including like how international fora should react to this challenge. I want to start by explaining like how in META we are approaching. in instances when we need to try to find a balance between government requests and also human rights. So we have our human rights corporate policy since March 2021, which clearly states that as META we are bound by United Nations guiding principles and also it talks about our JNI commitments, which goes way beyond 2021, but it still underlines it. And I think that plays an important role in specific instance, because I’m sure like many people do know, but like I want to repeat it, like JNI principles are very clear. It says that like ICT companies like us, we should comply with all applicable laws. It includes local law as well, but also respect internationally recognized human rights. And if they contradict with each other, and in many cases we do see it, unfortunately, we should avoid, minimize or otherwise address the adverse impact of government demands, laws of regulations, and seek ways to honor principles of internationally recognized human rights to the greatest extent possible. I think like, even though like it’s like a one big statement, you see where it’s directing the companies. And as part of our corporate human rights policy, we started to publish human rights reports, like we just published the second one for the year 2022. It talks about the comprehensive human rights, salient risk assessment that we made in again 2022. In that one, if you like dig into it, you can see it only talks about, it only in two instances where we are faced with a government’s direct demands which may impact human rights of our users. The first one is the overbroad government requests on take-down requests. And the second one is overbroad or unnecessary government demands for user data. The first one is very obvious, like it relates to freedom of opinion and expression. The second one, it’s about like right to privacy. But when we think about the way that governments are using this data, actually it’s again related to the voice of our users. Because like they want to get user data if it’s an overbroad or unnecessary demand. In some cases to silence political opposition. So I think both are connected with the things that you mentioned for Turkey. And I want to give you like some brief information about how we are dealing when we receive these requests from governments, especially take-down requests. You may find more detailed information in our transparency center. You can click on any country. At the bottom, there is more information about like how we are approaching this globally. On that page, there are lots of like sections. There is a section called the life cycle of TDRs, which has all the information about it with all the details which I won’t be able to get in today. But very briefly, when we receive a request from a government or an institution that has powers to make this type of a request, we first review it with our community standards. If the content is against our community standards, we remove it. If not, we continue in the process. We conduct a legal review. That legal review, it’s independent. like we are doing a legal review independently. It’s not only about the procedural legality of the decision, but it also makes an assessment if it’s legal in the local law or local legislation. At this stage, we may reject the request, actually. But if we haven’t rejected, then we move to the human rights assessment that we conduct. And there, we have another legality assessment, which also considers international human rights standards. Then we check legitimacy, necessity, proportionality. These are all the things that are part of the international human rights standards when we think about freedom of opinion and expression. But we also need to consider external risks. And I think that’s the most important part in this debate. Because when we talk about external risks, it may include several things, including our salient human rights risks, but also risk of blocking, throttling of methods, technologies, penalties that we may face, regulatory actions, criminal proceedings that we may face, our employees’ security and safety, and also offline harm that may risk to our users. So we need to take all these things into consideration before making a decision if we are going to comply or not. And as Soye explained, like Turkish legislation, it’s there since 2007. And it has been amended several times. With each amendment, both the scope of the legislation expanded, but also the sanctions became more and more severe. And at this stage where we are, if companies don’t comply with one takedown request, we may may face 90 per cent blocking, throttling, just even like for one piece of content. The similar sanction goes for not sharing user data. In the previous version, it was just a monetary fine for the same non-compliance action. So these changes in the legislation, as you may imagine, affecting the way how we are calculating the external risks as well. That’s a brief introduction that I can make, but I can be more specific about the Turkish issue if you want me to. Yes, we would love that.

Sarah Clarke:
And we’d also love to know what you think are the opportunities for civil society to influence measures, policies in authoritarian regimes.

Cagatay Pekyorur:
That’s a very good question. I think like I’m looking to this, I’m going to call it an ecosystem. Maybe it’s the wrong wording, I’m sorry. But like in the most basic structure that we are in, there is the government, there is civil society, and in authoritarian regimes, most of the times citizens have only social media to express their political opinions. In some, obviously, it’s not just social media in many countries, but like in most of the most authoritarian regimes, it is. And in that structure, actually, in my opinion, companies are almost in an intermediary position between the government’s policies and our users’ fundamental rights. Like that’s what we are trying to intermediate, like trying to find a way in between there. And of course, in that structure, what civil society is doing is you are the protectors of these people’s rights. I think there are many things that you can do in this one. The most obvious one, I think, like I’m really… going to state the obvious, you can work towards making us more accountable. But also, I think there are many other ways. The second one I can mention is, you can work towards creating a more strong public opinion against these actions of the government, to delegitimize it. I think the governments also do think about this, if their actions are legitimate in their country, so they are also taking this into consideration. And the third thing that I can suggest, as you mentioned, having open dialogue with platforms, explaining what you are expecting from us, what are your red lines for us to understand. Because as we both mentioned, the regulatory framework is getting stricter, and we may not be able to do the same as we were, because of the sanctions increasing external risk. But it’s still so valuable for us to understand what is the most important thing for civil society. My last suggestion is, in this structure that I mentioned, I think we don’t have to be face-to-face all the time, I think we can also be side-to-side, so I think there’s a room for a lot more collaboration in many different areas around this, of course. Follow-up, one final question there is, could you share an instance where MESA has had to comply with or resist a government’s request in Turkey, and what are the factors that you considered? Of course, I think I will explain twice examples, like… One day before the election, we received a take-down request from the Turkish authorities. And we complied with it. And we actually made a live transparency reporting on our action. And in that one, we explained a number of the content that we are complying to Joe Block, and also mentioned who posted it. And also, we provided a brief explanation on what the content was about. It was about corruption allegations about the government. And the reason that we end up in this situation, reasoning that I can share with you, we also mentioned it in our transparency reporting. In the law, if we don’t comply within four hours, they may throttle us, as I mentioned, 90%. But this is the risk on the paper. This is not how we evaluate the risk. We actually try to evaluate the real risk, if it’s really going to happen or not. And the background story here, for Turkish elections, we were engaging with civil society for a long time. And because of what happened during the earthquake time, the throttling of Twitter, and amendments to the internet law, there were concerns around throttling during the election period. And we were also hearing from civil society that our products are most valuable on the election day, specifically, for the civil society who are working on election integrity-related issues. So we understood that it was a top priority. This content, even though it’s related to democratic institutions, it was not directly. related to civil society’s efforts on election integrity. And it was one day before the election, as I mentioned. So we thought, what is more important there? And like, we concluded that the risk is real, of throttling risk, because it happened very recently. And we also thought like, the civil society will need us next day. But because the topic had an importance for democratic institutions, as I mentioned, we did choose the way of doing a live transparency reporting, rather than waiting for our biannual reporting.

Sarah Clarke:
Fascinating, and I remember those days really well. And I remember the feeling the day before the election in Turkey, that if we had a contested election result on a throttled web, just how difficult that would have been. So I think we all remember how fraught that time was. We’re now going to turn to Trinh Huu Long, who’s the co-founder and co-director of Legal Initiatives for Vietnam. And Trinh is joining us online. So. Thank you, may I ask, can you hear me clearly? Yes, we can hear you. Welcome. That’s great. Welcome, and we’re delighted you can join us. And also a big welcome to everyone who’s listening and watching online. So in Vietnam, you have a different set of challenges to Turkey when it comes to internet freedom. So Long, I wonder, could you shed light on the current stage of digital rights in Vietnam and how they compare to the broader Southeast Asian context?

Trinh Huu Long:
Yeah, thank you very much for having me. I have a presentation. May I share my screen or? Yeah, I think so. Great. I’m finding my screen. Please bear with me. Super. Yeah, we can see it now. Thank you very much for having me. I regret I’m not able to be there with everyone. But talking about big tech and human rights in Vietnam, I have been following this issue for a long time. If you read Freedom House, Freedom on the Net report, I’m the author of the Vietnam chapter. This is a little bit of my background. And talking about Vietnam and the Internet, I would like to show you these two books. The one on the left is called The Generation F. And by F, the authors mean Facebook. And on the right, it is a book called From Facebook Down to the Streets. So these two books have been published in 2011 and 2016 to talk about an entirely new social movement in Vietnam initiated on Facebook. And for at least five years, from 2011 to 2016, Facebook and also Google played a very central role in social mobilization. organization in Vietnam, and they were the very good allies and partners and friends of activists and dissidents and the social movements in Vietnam. But then 10 years later, up until 2023, this happened. So Facebook is now having a list of Vietnamese communist officials immune to criticism on their platform, meaning that we cannot criticize a lot of Vietnamese communist party members on Facebook. And this was revealed just a few months earlier by the Washington Post. So why, how does it come from being a friend to the movement to be in such a very problematic platform for all of us in Vietnam? So to understand the internet freedom, we need to put it in the political context that Vietnam is an authoritarian country. It is a closed society with one party ruling the country for 70 years, over 70 years already. And on all kinds of press freedom and freedom index and freedom on the next index, Vietnam is ranked somewhere in the bottom. And in terms of internet freedom, we are not free, only 22 out of 100. And on press freedom, I can say that the most recent RSF report ranked Vietnam just above two countries, which are North Korea and China. So the way the authoritarian regime works is to control the flow of information, right? The internet broke that control a long time ago, and that was why we were able. to have a lot of protest movements and social movements and election campaigns over the past more than 10 years. And this worries the government. Also, Vietnam is a big digital economy that a lot of big tech companies are trying to get in and trying to make a benefit. So we have a billion markets and it’s the fastest growing market in Southeast Asia. A very big market like that is dominated by foreign services, Facebook, Google, Netflix, with some very rare exception of domestic services such as Zillow. And then we have, since the internet has been such a threat, the government have introduced a lot of pieces of legislation to control the internet. So we are not different from the global trends that governments have been trying to make, have been following two strategies, criminalization and data localization, using the concepts of internet sovereignty and data sovereignty. So the Vietnamese government have been putting a lot of people in prison using the penal code. And then we want to shed light on the cybersecurity law in 2018, which for the first time in the history of Vietnam, that forced foreign services to store user data locally. And foreign services have to open local office of branches in Vietnam. And then The government has been aggressively introducing a lot of laws and regulations to enforce the cybersecurity law. The tendency here is that the laws are all vague and broadly defined, right? So the government can interpret the law and regulations any way they want. And even the fact that there is absolutely no independent oversight in Vietnam, there’s no independent court, no national assembly, the Congress is not independent from the government to really keep the government accountable. The law and regulations can be interpreted in any way. And then another tendency is that the law has been mainly targeting foreign services such as Facebook and Google. The reason is that these services have been dominating the market of Vietnam, right? So they have the biggest influence. Domestic services have been very weak, so they have not been able to have a big market share. Also, domestic companies are absolutely under control of the government. So the main targets of these laws and regulations are Facebook and Google, right? We have, since 2016 or 2017, something happened that the government put a lot of effort in forcing Facebook and Google to comply with their request, and for a request for content removal and user data. And Facebook and Google have been… complying with most of the government requests, with the rates up to 95%, and the government considered this a very successful strategy to force foreign companies to obey with local law. And you can see that among 95% of requests from Vietnam approved by Google, it’s about government criticism. Not only so, Netflix has been removing some, not a lot, but some dramas and movies from their platform under the pressure of the government. So the government, how did they do that? They target advertisers in Vietnam. So they go after the Vietnamese companies who advertise on Facebook and Google, forcing these companies to review their advertisements on Facebook and Google. And under this pressure, of course, Facebook and Google are losing revenue, and they have to do something to get back their customers in Vietnam. And also, the government go after the hardware manufacturers, for example, Samsung or LG, forcing them to remove the YouTube and Netflix buttons from the remote control. And dramatically, Facebook agreed to cancel posts from Vietnam after being mostly blocked in Vietnam for four months back in 2020. This was dramatic. And since then, we have seen a lot more political content on Facebook being removed or blocked. And as I said, they have a list of Vietnamese government officials, a moon from criticism. And then Facebook and Google, they are having servers in Vietnam, but mostly public server. And they have complied with some of the Vietnamese government’s request for user data. These companies have great tolerance of Vietnamese Internet trolls, mostly run by governments, such as the army, the police, and the propaganda departments of Vietnam. And we have seen these three forces manipulating the Internet environment in Vietnam in a massive scale. And they have been very successful in redirecting online conversations from sensitive issues over the past few years. But we have some good, some successful cases of advocacy. So let me show you two cases when we are successful advocates for some meaningful changes. So back in 2018, we had the new cybersecurity law. And back then, we petitioned Facebook, asking them if they store users’ data in Vietnam, or if they would comply with the content removal request from the Vietnamese government. And then this happened about a year later, that Facebook and other tech companies actively lobbied the Vietnamese government to remove the data localization requirements from the cybersecurity law. And guess what? Last year, the government issued a decree, effectively removed the hard requirements. for storing data locally, meaning that foreign services are not required to store data locally anymore. But if they don’t comply with the government’s request on data content removal and user data, they will be ordered to store data locally. So this came from a hard requirement to a soft requirement now. Case number two, it was a very successful advocacy and investigation by a group of friends of mine, activist Mai Khoi, and she’s a singer as well, and a group of other advocates. So they investigated a government-funded cyberchute on Facebook called E47, and this group targeting dissidents. And when the investigation got published on the Intercept in December 2020, Facebook quickly took action and removed these accounts from their platform. So these are two very successful cases, and we think that we can find common ground, common interests with technology companies, foreign technology companies, to make the Internet fairer and better. To be honest, I think that big tech companies, they don’t need more lectures or advice, that they have to be more friendly with all kind of human rights standards. They all know these values. They all know the cost of upholding the human rights values in the face of authoritarian regimes around the world. They all know that they can make a lot more money if they comply with these authoritarian and expressive laws and regulations. They know everything. So I think it’s time for them to take actions. It has been a long time that end users and civil societies sacrificing their digital rights. And Facebook and Google and other technology companies have been benefiting from that. It’s time to change. And if these companies are serious about upholding human rights, they must do something different. They cannot just remain the same and keep asking civil society organizations to have a dialogue with them. What’s the point of having a dialogue without taking any meaningful action eventually? So these are my recommendations for technology companies. And I look forward to more questions and discussions from the room. Thank you very much for your time.

Sarah Clarke:
Thank you, Long. That was a fascinating presentation. Sorry, checking the sound. There we are. Thank you, Long. That was, I think, particularly interesting to see just how many similarities there are between what’s happening in reality in Vietnam and in Turkey. And a lot of your solutions and recommendations really mirror Sway’s earlier in terms of what we’re asking from the tech companies. So I’m going to ask you to stay with us as we continue on. And we’re going to go now to Elinay Hickok, who’s the managing director of the Global Network Initiative, of which Article 19 is a member. And we’re delighted to be working with you. So Elinay, as the managing director of GNI, you have a bird’s eye view. of the global digital rights landscape. Are there common patterns or challenges that you’re observing across countries when it comes to advocacy with big tech?

Elonnai Hickok:
So I think first to start, I would pick up a little bit on what the previous speaker was saying. And, oh, can you hear me? There we go. And say, you know, first there are multiple strategies for engaging with big tech. And we’ve heard some of them on the panel today. There’s strategic litigation, there are petitions, there are investigations, there are rankings, there are organizations that help companies do human rights impact assessments in specific contexts. And maybe just to start out with a little bit of an explanation of GNI, we are a multi-stakeholder platform working towards responsible decision making in the ICT sector with a focus on how companies are responding to government mandates for removal of content and access to user information. Core to the work that we do is an accountability mechanism. We bring together platforms, companies, civil society, academics, and investors. And all members have to commit to the GNI principles with respect to freedom of expression and privacy. And our company members go through an assessment process that looks at how they are implementing those principles in their policies, in their processes. And so this can take many different forms. An assessor comes in and they do an assessment report that looks at these policies, processes, as well as case studies. So how are they actually implementing them in practice? And then this assessment report. is discussed by our multi-stakeholder board, and the measurement that is used is an improvement over time. And I think that improvement over time standard is really important because we’re in a really rapidly evolving digital ecosystem. And so at GNI, we are looking at how companies are adapting and adopting their processes and policies to meet the challenges. Many of what we’ve heard today. And I think in addition to this accountability mechanism, which is not perfect, but it is a multi-stakeholder accountability mechanism that we do try to implement. We also do work around policy, so consensus-based policy advocacy, where we are responding to developments like in Turkey, like in Vietnam, like in Pakistan, and it’s not just authoritarian regimes where we see concerning trends coming out, but also in democratic contexts, we see a number of concerning trends, such as requirements for tight timeframes for removal of content, requiring that there are local offices, so personnel are on the ground, proactive monitoring requirements, data localization, a broad scope of companies being brought under the ambit of different mandates and licensing regimes. And so all of these we respond to through our policy advocacy, and then we also do a lot of learning, trying to understand really the difficulties that go into operating in these contexts. It’s not simple, it’s not a black and white, yes, you can push back immediately. I think there’s a lot of gray areas, and so we have conversations about how companies can navigate these spaces to protect human rights. while they’re operating in these jurisdictions.

Sarah Clarke:
Thanks, Elonnai. And have you seen any unique approaches to overcoming the challenges that previous panelists have discussed? And do you have any insights on how advocates in different regions can learn from each other?

Elonnai Hickok:
I mean, so like I said, I think there are a number of different approaches that different civil society organizations are taking. From my perspective, I think there is a need to coordinate amongst civil society organizations to make sure that our asks to companies are not so fragmented. Our asks to governments are not so fragmented that they’re not impactful, while still maintaining our unique position in the ecosystem. I think there is also a need for capacity building of civil society organizations to engage with tech companies. There is a very clear power dynamic between civil society and tech companies. Often, it is the tech companies that have the information. Obviously, they’re implementing, and they’re working in these markets. And so I think for civil society to navigate that and actually be impactful, there’s a lot of capacity building that needs to happen. GNI has worked to develop different tools to help civil society engage with the tech sector. For example, we collaborated with BSR to develop a tool called Mapping Human Rights Due Diligence Across the Stack. And there, it’s taking an understanding of really, for a rights-respecting ecosystem, we need to be looking at human rights due diligence considerations across companies in the tech stack, asking the right questions, but also understanding the role that different companies play. So a social media company, when you look at freedom of expression, you might be asking questions. questions about their community guidelines. Are they in line with international human rights standards? But if you’re looking at a telecom company, you’re gonna be really focusing on how their policies and processes are in place to respond to government requests for access to user data or network shutdowns. If it’s a cloud service provider, it’s a very different question. So I think it’s really important to take an ecosystem approach to our understanding of advocacy efforts and the specific questions that we’re asking of companies. And then we’ve also developed a tool with GPD that tries to just provide basic guidance to civil societies to engage with tech companies starting from understanding the company. There’s a lot of different arms within a company that might be important to engage with, like the legal department, like trust and safety, like policy, sometimes policy is known as the PR, you know, the PR arm of a company. So how do you get past that? Then, you know, do you understand the legal environment that the company is operating in so you can understand what restraints they might be working with and then tailor your ask to that? And then are you trying to come with a very specific constructive ask? And then I would say just another thing that we try to do is we are collaborating with BrainBox to run something called the Action Coalition for Meaningful Transparency, which is trying to help coordinate the space around transparency. It brings together companies, civil society, academics, and just maps and coordinates the space. And so I think there’s a lot of different ways to help coordinate civil society input and advocacy with companies, but also on these regulations. that are coming out with restrictive provisions.

Sarah Clarke:
We’re going to just move to a slightly interactive part of the event, which was one of the asks from the organisers. I know you are all at the end of a long day, so we’re going to just have a quick trial of we’re going to just break into two groups. We’re going to start with some Q&As first. Does anyone have questions in the audience before we break out to the panel? I know we have a couple of questions online. Yes. Could we get a mic? Yes. Thanks very much. Yeah, come on up. Thank you.

Audience:
Hi, everyone. Oh, yeah. It’s on. Hi. Thank you so much for your presentations. My question is about META specifically. So I think one of the main difficulties that civil society organisations have engaging with big tech companies is the people working there and how long they’re present in the space. We have worked with through so many different layoffs inside of META, where different groups and different specific people working with different human rights delegations, they work, they’re not there anymore. And we saw that a lot with the recent Brazilian election in 2022, Brazil went through elections. There was a team working on disinformation. And by the time that the 8th of January attacks happened, they weren’t there anymore. It was a different group of people. My question is also about context at a certain extent. We’ve had multiple occasions as well, where people working into a certain issue. and looking at specific problems, especially around content moderation, they weren’t fluent in the language that they’re working in and they lacked certain types of context as well. So as civil society organizations, as civil society members as well, how can we best engage, how can we best prove our value and add value as well and just engage in a better online ecosystem with big techs when there are those barriers and those barriers seem to not be a priority inside of the organizations as well. Thank you.

Sarah Clarke:
Thanks Chata, that one’s directly for you. Just before Chata answers, is there any any other questions? There’s one online, so we’ll start with that one and then we’ll go to you Alexander and we can, we’ll take another one online. Okay, for

Cagatay Pekyorur:
the first question that you raised, I think the only thing that I can say, I can share my email address after this with you and like I will be happy to try to find the right person that you can engage with. I understand that the person that you were engaging with is not with us anymore after layoffs, but I’m sure like we can find people that can be, that can continue the process that was there. And about the content moderation question and like how actually you can engage in the most efficient way, I would recommend you to check our Trusted Partner Program if you have heard of it or if you haven’t, are you smiling? I’m not. You are part of the Trusted Partner Program, then clearly you are in the most efficient area to be effective in that. But again like if there are specific issues, like maybe we can discuss after this panel and I may try to support, like in some cases there might be some needs of like additional training. or like having a direct conversation with the team that is responsible for the program to increase the engagement between civil society and us. And like, I would be happy to facilitate that.

Sarah Clarke:
Thanks, Chate.

Audience:
Good evening, Alexander Savnin from Civil Society Russian Federation. So maybe we are not so in Asian part, but situation with big platforms like Meta and Google went in Russia far further than you explained. Meta is now a terrorist organization and Facebook completely blocked, Instagram completely blocked, Twitter completely blocked or something like. So, but civil society still exists in Russian Federation. There’s still people leaving, people still using Facebook and even Facebook, sorry, WhatsApp, even being a part of terrorist in Russian Meta shows signs of cooperation with government and something like. So my question may be more broad, what we have to do if we fell in much problematic situations that was explained in Turkish and Vietnamese example. Maybe not only to Meta, but for policy person.

Sarah Clarke:
Yeah. Sorry, was the question what civil society should do in. Russian civil society, which is already blocked. And well, maybe ask the stakeholders other than government.

Elonnai Hickok:
I mean, I think it would be important, for example, to engage in multi-stakeholder initiatives where you can share your experience and then engage with companies to talk about what is happening. on the ground, I think, for example, we have a working group on armed conflict and responsible company decision making in armed conflict times. And there we try to discuss how can companies navigate operating in times of crises, in conflict zones, and bringing that perspective that Russian civil society might have, I think, would be very valuable. So that might be one approach.

Sarah Clarke:
Thanks, Eleni. And a question now for Long online. So Long, in the context of, from a Global South perspective, which is increasingly moving towards the securitization of internet regulation and in the face of overbroad and vague legislation, and such as that in Vietnam, what does the policy of platform compliance look like? And what would you, so this is also for you, Chata, what considerations are taken into account in cases such as takedown orders? I think you’ve talked about that in the context of Turkey, but maybe Long, if you’re still there.

Trinh Huu Long:
Yes, thank you for the question. I think that’s all the experts have laid out all kind of recommendations and policies, recommendations for big tech company. I’m not in a good position to repeat these, all of these good recommendations. I just have one request for big tech companies in terms of content removal. Please be more transparent in terms of what kind of requests you are receiving from authoritarian governments and publicize these. requests so the public can see. Google has done a little bit by publicizing some requests from the Vietnamese governments, and we know clearly that these requests are to take down criticism against the governments, and using all kinds of vague and broadly defined laws and regulations. But then just a few, the Vietnamese government have sent tens of thousands of requests to Facebook and Google only. So we need to know what it is, and users need a fair platform, a fair procedure to make an appeal. For now, platforms are playing safe. They don’t want to be seen as committing any illegal acts in Vietnam. So they have all kinds of robots and AI playing very safe, and if they suspect anything, they will take down immediately until users make an appeal. But an appealing process takes a long time, right? And many appealing appeal requests are ignored by platforms. So we just think that being more transparent is the answer to solve a lot of things. And I want to see all kinds of government requests from Vietnam. And of course, there are legitimate reasons to not publicize some of them, all right? But most of them should be publicized. That’s my take. Thank you.

Sarah Clarke:
We have another question in the room, if you’d like to come to the mic. And if you could say who your question’s for, that would be really helpful.

Audience:
Thank you very much. My name is Vadim, and I’m also from the Russian Federation Civil Society, you won’t believe it. And this is just, well, not really a question, but a small clarification. to what Alexander said. Well, if we go one year back talking about this situation with the Meta, Facebook, and Instagram in Russia, we should recall when it started. It started from the point when Meta allowed hate speech against Russians on its platforms in Russia. And that was the reason for the actions of the government. And, well, it is understandable because no one wants if any other person calls those users of the platform to, well, kill other people. So, the question of Alexander was what should civil society do? It’s not a question to the civil society, it’s a question to the platforms. What should platforms do? The platforms should follow the rules, the regulations, and the laws of the country where they operate. Thank you.

Sarah Clarke:
Thank you. We have another question online, another one for you, Chata, I’m afraid. And this time it’s about what do you do where one state weaponizes the internet against other states and where you have digital interference and incitement to violence and disinformation campaigns from abroad. So, what can be done in situations like that to avoid internet fragmentation?

Cagatay Pekyorur:
Okay. I will try to give my best answer, but I’ll be frank. I’m taking these questions a little bit out of the scope of this panel because in my view, here we are focused on authoritarian governments, how we are managing their requests. But the question is. I think it’s very important for us to be aware of the fact that there is a lot of organizations talking about, like, how we are managing misinformation, disinformation, and it doesn’t sound like they are talking from the perspective that when they are done by the authoritarian governments. But I did focus on, like, I mentioned, like, our Salem human rights risk, and I did focus on two rights there, freedom of opinion and expression, and also right to the freedom of expression, and also, like, the right to expression, and also, like, the right to freedom of expression, and also, like, liberty and security of person, which relates to these issues that’s mentioned there. Incitement of violence is something that we do care deeply and take action immediately in many different cases, for example. And we are doing it from the perspective of, like, we don’t want to be a victim of disinformation, but we do want to be a victim of disinformation, and we do want to be able to protect people’s life and security. And when it comes to these disinformation operations that may come from abroad, actually, when we talk about the authoritarian regime’s context, we also do see this type of disinformation coordinated efforts from the country, not only from the government, but also from the local sources. And we do publish reports on this one. Again, this one, actually, our report. And you can see many instances in several countries, governments are behind in some of these networks. And regardless of the source, like, if it’s local or coming from outside of the country, we share the details of our findings with the general public, and we have teams specifically working on finding these networks, and then, like, share our findings with the general public to create some transparency on this, and obviously, when they find the network, they take an action. Let me see if I missed part of the question. When it comes to collaborating with competent authorities, I think when I was saying overbroad demands of the governments, I also was trying to imply if the demand is not overbroad, we are complying to it. When it’s proportionate, when it’s within the lines of international human rights principles, we do comply and provide the user data or take down the content, jail block the content. So in the cases like when there is a crime that might be involved, if the local law is requiring us to share the user data and if also the request is aligned with international principles, of human rights, we do actually provide. So I think we do it. Thank you. Thanks Cagatay.

Sarah Clarke:
So we’re going to have a little bit of time at the end for questions, but we’re going to have a quick breakout group if you still have a little bit of energy left. So we’re just going to divide the room in half. So if people on this side could come up with our colleague Kivuljam here. We’ve just got two questions and people on this side will go down to the back with my colleague Joanna who’s at the back. So the questions are… We’re just coming up now. So what we really want to hear about is what are the most pressing challenges that you’ve encountered or observed when advocating for digital rights in your country? region? And how can we fight back? So what international platforms or mechanisms can be leveraged to expose and challenge internet restrictions? So we’re just going to put these questions up here, but it’s really, we want to hear from you guys what you’re experiencing in your countries in relation to challenges that you’ve encountered when dealing with digital rights and in your advocacy. And the second is how can tech companies best fight back? So how can you leverage together with tech companies? So if anyone who’s interested to participate can just come up here on this side with Kiviljim and on that side at the back with with Joanna. So the first question is really what sort of challenges are you facing in advocating on digital rights when it comes to your work with tech companies? And then we’re talking about strategies to fight back. So anyone on this side of the room, if you want to come up to the front, we’ve got a little group here with Kiviljim and anyone on this side can go at the back with my colleague Joanna. So Kiviljim, just one minute, yeah great. Okay, so we’re just going to have a little feedback and then any final questions. So Joana and Kivljim and online. Great. Super. Okay. Is she ready now? Okay. Okay, guys, so we’re going to have our first feedback from our colleague, Joana. Thank you. Yeah, it works. Okay, guys, just if we just quieten down. We’re thrilled you’re all very engaged, but just let’s have a little bit of… So in our discussion, it turned out that even if we are from different regions, we have similar challenges as civil society. So what was mentioned was, for example, that… Okay, guys, we really do need some quiet. So we’re just going to listen to Joana.

Audience:
One example was that negotiations between social media platforms and governments are mostly hidden. So there is no transparency and we don’t know what they are talking about. And what we need is that… that no such hidden meetings with governments should take place. That it all needs to be transparent and civil society needs to be informed about the results of such discussions. Another thing is that it happens that country level people at social media platforms, those who talk to civil society, those who have contacts often in a very repressive environment with civil society, with activists, they are often the same people who then engage with the government and it leads to concerns from some of the activists about speaking freely with these representatives of social media platforms and big tech companies more broadly because sometimes it happens that they seem to be even close to people from the government. And there are issues with engagement with civil society that are still the same for many years so when companies talk to civil society it’s rather ad hoc, it’s one-sided and it’s extractive and there is no transparency what these tech companies do with the information they receive and it can be really risky especially when we are talking about repressive regimes. We also talked about trusted… partner issues, and that there’s been a report published about talking to, as a result of talking to 24 trusted partners that shared their frustrations with that process, especially on response times or even no responses at all. So the conclusion of our discussion was that these systems, this mechanism of engagement with civil society that are in place right now, they don’t work the way we would like them to be, and there is no collective process to make sure they are designed properly. And then the next question, we discussed that there was one idea that the discussion on repressive regimes perhaps should be framed a bit differently, like that we are discussing the power of big tech companies, because if we frame it as just limited to repressive regimes, then we risk countries that are not repressive, that they will be out of the discussion and they will not engage on this discussion. And in general, we need more active engagement from tech companies to resolve the issues on issues such as content moderation and lack of transparency, because there is also the feeling of civil society being a bit tired of lack of progress over the years, that there is a feeling that we keep having similar meetings, similar discussions, but there is little progress. on the side of tech companies. Thank you.

Sarah Clarke:
Thank you so much, Joanna. We’re just going to go online now to Kasia. Yes, hello. Hello there. Good evening. Hello from Europe. Hello, can you see me? Yes. Can you hear me? We can hear you and see you.

Katia Mierzejewska:
Perfect. Okay, great. Just like a short introduction, I’m Kasia Mierzejewska. I’m part of the team of Europe and Central Asia article 19 and helping today with online moderation. And we also had a very similar discussion online with participants who are joining remotely. So I can only refer to and make a nice segue to what Joanna already said, because during our conversation, it was pronounced repeatedly that civil society, there is a big responsibility and a big gravity of the whole discussion on civil society, whereas civil society has been advocating and creating and showing their main points of advocacy a lot. So that’s now, there should be tech companies who really genuinely engage and address what civil society has been saying this whole time, because there was also mentioned that sometimes it feels like human rights policies established by tech companies feel like a PR tool and big tech should really do something, take the reins in this discussion and lead it, because the civil society have been saying enough. And as Joanna said before, as a conclusion from one of the discussions on site, there has been this sense of weariness and sense of frustration, like how many more times civil society should have been repeating itself. their cause that have been out there very transparently put and the message is very very direct and this is this has been conveyed for over years whereas the progress on the on the side of of the companies of the private sector hasn’t has been little has been little for over this over this last years and just like one more thing maybe two more things that I would add is the approach approach on the on the business model so like when business model is heavily based and focused on data mining and using data for the for the profit for the beneficiaries also when it comes to the advertisement that’s that’s actually is keeps impeding the human human rights policies that has been has been in place and has been established to be to be efficient so there is there is a need to maybe go maybe start to look in the other way and start going away from this approach and think about a different business model that would ensure that the core human rights needs and values and protection of data is being one of the one of the priorities in for for the tech for the tech companies and there is also one one more thing just just a second oh yeah there was also one one more point mentioned which also formulates sort of a question to to the representative of meta here the platforms could use its coordinators in a harmful smear campaign or or disinformation and how to react in such situations how taking down the posting because what what has been mentioned also online is that there is one thing about content moderation and shutting down content from the individuals, just individuals, internet users, but what should be and what are the policies in place and mechanism to ensure that orchestrated and led by the government propaganda and spreading this information is being addressed as well. And we’re asking here for any thoughts or feedback from the platforms. So that’s to summarize our discussion online. Thank you.

Sarah Clarke:
Thank you, Katia. And thanks to everyone who participated online and for those really cogent points. And we’ll have Chato maybe respond on some of those. And then just finally, Kivilcim is just going to report back. Kivilcimis our program assistant at Article 19 on this group here. Oh, hello. So in our group, the conversation was very, very interesting,

Kivilcim Ceren Buken:
actually. So the first point that came up was that the participants in our group have observed that platforms seem to respond much better when requests are shown to them as a business opportunity. For example, there was an example about Brazil. There was a time when Twitter was blocked in Brazil, and there was a big sports event happening. Because Twitter was blocked during this big sports event, Twitter actually lost a lot of money. And that is when they realized that they need to hire some Portuguese speakers. And that was the first time that they hired Portuguese speakers, is what one of our participants said. Another example was that we had a participant who works for Tor. They said Facebook used to hate Tor, because their business model is based on watching what people… do on their platforms, but then when Iran blocked Facebook and people were using Tor to access Facebook, Facebook started thinking better of Tor, so what was being said was our participants have found that instead of saying human rights and do this for human rights, we could actually say this is good for your business, you could make money out of this. That is a way that they found that works well with the platforms. It’s a bit sad that I said what everyone said, no self-censorship. The second issue that came up was there was a participant in the group who used to work on reporting where bombings happened in Syria. So what they did, they would look at the videos on YouTube because people, when there are bombings in Syria, people record those bombings and then they put them on YouTube and then that is really good evidence to know where there was a bombing, who did it, what happened. So what happens is the AI just removes these videos because it’s violence, but that is actually really good evidence that is being lost forever. So what our participants said was, well of course they can remove it because it’s bad for their users, they should remove it, but can they keep it somewhere at least for a court case for when it’s needed. So these were the two big issues that came up with our group.

Sarah Clarke:
Thanks Kivilcim. So I wonder if panelists would like to respond to any of the points that were raised. I know we’re well over time, but chat, hi, hello, no. Yeah.

Kivilcim Ceren Buken:
instead of like responding to them one by one, I actually want to share some general reflections on them. None of the things that like we did here in these comments are new to me. And I think, and that’s my personal view, the challenge that we try to discuss here, it is slightly different than the general challenges that civil society may see in relation to platforms. On content moderation, on like business interests, like how to better engage with civil society, definitely part of what we are trying to solve. But I think for specifically this one, civil society and platforms should think together rather than saying like, this is something that you need to deal, this is something, no, you have to deal by yourself.

Cagatay Pekyorur:
Because I don’t think that none of us have enough power to show in kind of a meaningful change when we are faced with an authoritarian regime. And the problem is not that small. We do see lots of big wave of actually legislative developments, which will help these governments to censor content or which will force platforms to share user data. They are most of the times come with the form of cybercrime legislations, sometimes targeting specific groups, LGBTQ groups, like we do see lots of legislations on that, sometimes more general. And I think if we are concerned about human rights risks that may arise from these legislations, I think we… should specifically focus on that topic, and specifically focus on how we can resolve it together.

Suay Ergin-Boulougouris:
OK. Not as a response to your contribution, but I actually wanted to echo what Katya said, or report it back from the online group. And because I was, as we came up with this workshop idea after the censorship during the elections in Turkey, I was thinking as I was preparing for the workshop, but what is the solution? And we don’t need to actually reinvent the wheel. All the, as it has been discussed in the groups as well, I think the calls that the civil society have been making for a while now, if these were addressed, I think at least we wouldn’t be dealing with such big challenges, maybe. I’m not sure, because I still think the core of the issue is the lack of rule of law, and so on. But I agree, especially I agree with you that in restrictive regimes, civil society and big tech may work together, but it is still, because you are basically caught between a rock and hard place, like in Turkey, for example. But it would not impede, I think. I think civil society’s obligation to also continue monitoring and keeping you also accountable for, not you, but the big tech practices in these countries.

Sarah Clarke:
Thanks Suay. Elonnai, any final remarks from you?

Elonnai Hickok:
I mean, just very quickly after listening to the discussions from the breakout rooms, I would just come back to the point that I made earlier about the importance of coordination and finding ways. I don’t know if it’s around coordinating on topic, on approach, on region, on the asks, on the best practices, but how can we as civil society start to be more coordinated? And I think it’s important not just to be effective with our asks for companies and for regulators, but also just to stay on top of this space because it’s evolving incredibly rapidly and I don’t think it works for us to be working in silos and trying to respond in an ad hoc manner.

Sarah Clarke:
Thank you, Elonnai. And Long, I know that we’ve been told that our time is absolutely up. Oh, Kojo, would you? Very brief. We’re going to be cut off.

Audience:
Sorry. I’ll try and keep it super brief. Hi. Evening, everyone. My name is Kojo Bwachi. I’m the Vice President of Public Policy for Africa, the Middle East, and Turkey with META. I’m slightly surprised and a little bit disappointed by some of what I’ve heard, not because it might be deemed inaccurate, because I’m disappointed if one thing I heard, your contact with us has suffered after layoffs, like you don’t have any people to speak to when you turn around. Another thing is that we… Sorry? How are you surprised by that? You weren’t there. I didn’t say surprised. I said disappointed. I think if you if you lay off 21,000 people there’s going to be issues so it’s not a surprise but I am disappointed. I’m also slightly disappointed by the consistent talk about meta prioritizing money over everything else which I think I’ve heard not only in this room but in a number of other rooms. Part of my disappointment stems from the fact that it’s not a characteristic or action of a company that I recognize and I’ve worked here for seven years and that’s not to dispute that what you guys have said. I just wanted to ask if anyone knows a country in my region, Amit, that is blocked at the moment where the internet is blocked and I say this because I know no one from that country is in this room at this point in time. Does anyone know? No. In Uganda the internet or at least meta remains blocked because we divulged the fact that we disrupted the network run by the Ugandan, at least the digital office within the Ugandan government. That’s a country where we’ve made telling investments not only in the provision of services but also the establishment of backbone open access infrastructure as well. It’s in a country that remains, was and remains extremely important to us. So where as we’ve all things where we may have had some failings I would like to think we want to work with you to correct those but I do want to say that at least in my region I have responsibility for and I hope much of the world where meta works that these ideas that revenue is a priority over all the human rights that we try to protect I’d like to kind of push back on slightly and also say that it’s hard to push back on in this room so I’m open to a conversation with anybody after this meeting or in continuation. I also think that the fact that we have 20 people here including our most senior public policy person Nick Clegg is some evidence of our willingness to engage and be beaten about a little bit, but just to learn from you guys as well. And this idea of continuing to work for us to improve and get better and to work with civil society is something that we hold very, very dear. So don’t wanna take too much time. I know I should be short, but open to a conversation to learn and hopefully improve and do better if we need to. So thanks so much.

Sarah Clarke:
Thanks Kuju. Long, I don’t know if you’re still there, but if you have any final remarks before we finish, I know we’re.

Trinh Huu Long:
Yeah, thank you. I am very grateful. So I think that civil society organizations from Vietnam, I am confident we will keep working and collaborating with the tech companies and other partners to address all the fundamental issues we have talked about. And we will keep fighting common ground, common interest between civil society and private sector and work something out. But also we have done everything we could. We have said everything we have. And it’s time for big tech companies to really do something about it. And it is your turn now. We have sacrificed too much over the past 10, 15 years. Thank you.

Sarah Clarke:
Thank you very much, Long. So just to quickly conclude, thanks to you, the audience for staying so long and for engaging so passionately and brilliantly in the discussion. And a huge thanks to our panelists, to Chia Tai, to Sui, to Long and to Eleni, to Kasia and to our colleagues online and to the wonderful tech and support for going almost half an hour over. We really appreciate it. appreciate it. Have a great rest of your IGF and please come and talk to us about all the things we’ve started talking about today.