Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion focused on AI readiness in Africa within a shifting geopolitical landscape, hosted by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development with representatives from government, civil society, and private sector across multiple African countries. The session addressed how African nations can build sovereign and resilient AI ecosystems while avoiding digital neocolonialism and ensuring AI serves local needs rather than external interests.

Key speakers emphasized that AI is already impacting governance in Africa through both beneficial applications and harmful uses like automated disinformation campaigns and surveillance tools. Government representatives from Mauritania and South Africa shared their experiences developing national AI strategies, highlighting challenges including limited infrastructure in rural areas, capacity gaps, and coordination difficulties across sectors. Smart Africa’s leadership stressed the need for deliberate, intentional action rather than passive optimism, noting that over 1,000 African startups currently rely on foreign AI models, creating dependency risks.

The discussion revealed that 19 African countries have developed national AI strategies, but implementation remains challenging. Speakers emphasized the importance of inclusive, transparent governance frameworks grounded in human rights and constitutional values. Civil society representatives highlighted their crucial role as watchdogs, educators, and advocates for marginalized communities, stressing the need for mandatory public interest impact assessments and regional coalitions.

Private sector perspectives emphasized creating enabling environments and moving from “paper to pavement” in policy implementation. The conversation underscored Africa’s potential to define its own AI race focused on usefulness rather than raw power, particularly in agriculture, healthcare, and education. Speakers concluded that success requires blended financing, multi-stakeholder participation, and policies that foster homegrown innovation while protecting citizen rights and digital sovereignty.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **AI Governance and Policy Frameworks**: The need for African countries to develop inclusive, transparent AI governance frameworks that are grounded in local values, human rights, and constitutional principles rather than importing wholesale benchmarks from other regions. Multiple speakers emphasized the importance of harmonizing national AI strategies across the continent while respecting individual country sovereignty.

– **Digital Sovereignty and Data Control**: Concerns about AI-driven digital neocolonialism and the risk of African data being processed and trained on models located outside the continent. Speakers stressed the importance of keeping African data in African hands and developing locally-rooted AI solutions that serve African needs rather than external interests.

– **Infrastructure and Capacity Building**: The critical challenges of limited computing power, inadequate internet coverage (especially in rural areas), digital literacy gaps, and the need for significant investment in technical expertise and infrastructure to support AI development across Africa.

– **Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Inclusivity**: The importance of involving diverse stakeholders – governments, private sector, civil society, youth, and local communities – in AI development and governance, with particular emphasis on democratizing AI literacy and ensuring marginalized voices are heard in policy-making processes.

– **Practical Implementation and Funding**: Moving beyond policy documents to actual implementation, with discussions about blended financing models, public-private partnerships, and the need for realistic, actionable steps that governments can take to build AI readiness while addressing youth concerns about job displacement.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how African countries can build sovereign and resilient AI ecosystems that strengthen rather than undermine democratic governance, while navigating a complex geopolitical landscape marked by technological rivalry and economic pressures. The session sought to identify practical strategies for ensuring AI serves local African needs and values rather than perpetuating digital colonialism.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, characterized by cautious optimism balanced with realistic acknowledgment of significant challenges. Speakers demonstrated both urgency about the need for action and pragmatism about Africa’s current limitations. The tone was notably inclusive and pan-African in perspective, with participants building on each other’s points rather than disagreeing. There was a consistent thread of determination that Africa can succeed in AI development by defining its own terms and leveraging its unique strengths, particularly its youthful population and linguistic diversity.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Ashana Kalemera** – Programmes Manager at CIPESA (Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa), Session Moderator

– **Neema Iyer** – Founder and Executive Director of POLISI, a civil society organisation based in Uganda

– **Mlindi Mashologu** – Deputy Director General of the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies, South African government

– **Lacina Kone** – Director General and CEO of Smart Africa from Côte d’Ivoire

– **Matchiane Soueid Ahmed** – Special Envoy of the Mauritanian Ministry of Digital Transformation and Public Administration Modernization for the government of Mauritania

– **Shikoh Gitau** – CEO of KALA, a private sector company in Kenya (joined virtually)

– **Audience** – Various participants from the floor including representatives from Gambia, Ghana, and Liberia

**Additional speakers:**

– **Dennis Brumand** – Advisor of the Global Project on Digital Transformation, GIZ (mentioned as online moderator but did not speak in the transcript)

# AI Readiness in Africa: Building Sovereign and Resilient Digital Ecosystems

## Executive Summary

This comprehensive discussion on AI readiness in Africa took place at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Oslo, hosted by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. The session brought together representatives from government, civil society, and private sector across multiple African countries to address how African nations can build sovereign and resilient AI ecosystems while avoiding digital neocolonialism.

The discussion revealed both the urgency and complexity of Africa’s AI governance challenge. With AI already impacting governance through automated disinformation campaigns and surveillance tools, while simultaneously offering transformative potential in agriculture, healthcare, and education, African stakeholders face the imperative of moving from passive optimism to deliberate intentional action. While 19 African countries have developed national AI strategies, the implementation gap remains substantial, requiring innovative approaches to financing, capacity building, and multi-stakeholder collaboration.

## Key Participants and Perspectives

The session was moderated by **Ashana Kalemera**, Programmes Manager at CIPESA, with **Dennis Brumand** serving as online moderator from GIZ. The discussion featured diverse perspectives from across the African continent.

**Neema Iyer**, Founder and Executive Director of POLISI, provided critical civil society insights, emphasizing that AI is already undermining governance in Africa through automated disinformation campaigns, erosion of public trust, manipulation of political discourse, and surveillance tools used to stifle voices at scale. She outlined civil society’s role as “watchdogs, advocates, educators, and storytellers” in AI governance.

**Mlindi Mashologu**, Deputy Director General of South Africa’s Department of Communications and Digital Technologies, offered governmental insights into developing national AI strategies. He emphasized transparent, inclusive AI governance frameworks grounded in constitutional values, while acknowledging significant infrastructure challenges including the digital divide and limited compute capabilities.

**Lacina Kone**, Director General and CEO of Smart Africa, provided a continental perspective that proved influential throughout the discussion. His assertion that “we cannot be passively optimistic, we have to be deliberately intentional” set the tone for the conversation. He highlighted that Africa is the number one frontier for data availability to train AI, yet over 1,000 African startups daily download APIs from foreign models, with training data leaving the continent permanently.

**Machane Babakar-Ahmed**, Special Envoy of Mauritania’s Ministry of Digital Transformation, contributed insights from a country actively developing its AI strategy. He emphasized that data sovereignty is as important as territorial sovereignty and that AI governance must be co-created with African voices, grounded in human rights with civic oversight.

**Shikoh Gitau**, CEO of KALA, participated virtually and brought private sector perspectives. Her pointed question about democratization—”Every time I hear democratising this, democratising that, I say, what’s the definition of democracy you’re talking about?”—prompted deeper reflection on whose interests are truly being served in AI policy development.

## Current State of AI in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities

### Existing AI Impact on Governance

The discussion began with Neema Iyer’s assessment of AI’s current impact on African governance, outlining how AI is already undermining democratic processes through automated disinformation campaigns, erosion of public trust, manipulation of political discourse, and surveillance tools deployed at scale. This established that the conversation was about governing AI systems already actively shaping political and social landscapes across the continent.

However, speakers also acknowledged AI’s positive applications in governance, including improved service delivery, enhanced agricultural productivity, and expanded access to healthcare and education.

### Infrastructure and Capacity Constraints

Significant infrastructure challenges constrain Africa’s AI readiness. Machane Babakar-Ahmed noted that in Mauritania, approximately 20% of the population in remote areas lacks adequate connectivity. Lacina Kone highlighted that Africa collectively lacks the necessary computing power across its 50+ countries to train AI models locally, creating dependency on external systems.

This infrastructure gap extends to human capacity, with speakers emphasizing the need for massive investment in digital literacy, technical expertise, and institutional capacity to support AI development.

### The Data Sovereignty Paradox

A central theme was the paradox of Africa’s data wealth and digital dependency. Lacina Kone observed that Africa generates abundant data for AI training, yet this data is processed through models located outside the continent. The irreversible nature of AI training—once data is used to train a model, it cannot be retrieved—adds urgency to sovereignty concerns.

## National AI Strategies and Continental Coordination

### Current Policy Landscape

The discussion revealed that 19 African countries have developed national AI strategies, representing significant progress in policy development. However, speakers consistently emphasized the gap between policy formulation and practical implementation. As Neema Iyer asked, “How do we operationalise beautiful policies and frameworks into actual ground-level implementation?”

South Africa’s approach, outlined by Mlindi Mashologu, emphasizes transparent, inclusive governance frameworks grounded in constitutional values. The country’s upcoming G20 presidency offers an opportunity to advance AI governance frameworks with focus on “solidarity, sustainability, and equality.”

### Smart Africa’s AI Council

Lacina Kone outlined Smart Africa’s AI Council for Africa, which focuses on five critical areas: computing power, datasets, algorithms, AI governance, and market development. The Council’s work on benchmarking the 19 national AI strategies represents an attempt to identify common elements while respecting national differences.

The discussion highlighted practical tools being developed, including the African AI Governance Toolkit (available at qbit.africa) and the African AI Maturity Index (at datawall.africa).

### Harmonization Versus Sovereignty

An audience member from Gambia expressed concern about countries working in silos rather than converging on a common continental AI policy framework. Lacina Kone’s response—that “not one size should fit all, but all sizes should fit together”—captured the nuanced approach required, recognizing that while harmonization is desirable, individual countries face different challenges and priorities.

## Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration

### Civil Society’s Role

Neema Iyer described civil society’s role as watchdogs monitoring AI deployment, advocates ensuring marginalized voices are heard, educators democratizing digital literacy, and storytellers documenting lived experiences of AI impacts. She emphasized the need for mandatory public interest impact assessments before AI system deployment.

### Private Sector Engagement

Shikoh Gitau highlighted the private sector’s role in creating enabling environments and conducting awareness campaigns. Her experience with teacher training campaigns across six African countries demonstrated high demand for AI education. She emphasized the need for blended financing approaches combining government resources with private sector investment.

### Government Responsibilities

Government representatives emphasized their role in creating enabling policy environments while acknowledging capacity constraints. Mlindi Mashologu highlighted the need for regulatory sandboxes and startup support mechanisms to encourage AI-enabled economic transformation.

## Data Sovereignty and Cultural Preservation

Machane Babakar-Ahmed’s assertion that “data must remain in African hands” and that “digital sovereignty is as important as territorial sovereignty” provided a framework for understanding sovereignty in the AI era.

Lacina Kone emphasized preserving Africa’s 2,000+ languages through locally trained AI systems, highlighting the cultural dimensions of AI sovereignty. The potential for AI to reach indigenous people in rural areas and educate them in their own languages represents a transformative opportunity.

## Economic Development and Innovation

### Redefining Success Metrics

Lacina Kone’s observation that “Africa is not looking for the most powerful AI, it’s looking for the most useful one” represented a fundamental reframing of AI development priorities. Rather than competing on computational power, this approach focuses on practical applications addressing African development needs.

### Concrete Examples

The discussion included specific examples of African AI initiatives, such as the African scientific panel with 25 doctors of African heritage working on healthcare AI benchmarking, demonstrating practical approaches to developing contextually relevant AI systems.

## Audience Engagement and Concerns

The lightning round featured questions from multiple African countries. A participant from Ghana raised concerns about youth fears regarding AI taking over jobs, highlighting the need for trust-building and proper education. A representative from Liberia asked about realistic steps for implementation, emphasizing the need for practical guidance beyond policy frameworks.

## Education and Capacity Building

A consistent theme was the need to democratize digital literacy and make AI education accessible at grassroots levels. Neema Iyer observed that elite policy discussions often don’t apply to most people living on the continent, highlighting the need for accessible communication strategies.

Shikoh Gitau’s teacher training campaigns provide a model for building capacity and confidence simultaneously, with high demand for AI education when delivered appropriately.

## Key Challenges and Future Directions

### Implementation Gap

Despite progress in policy development, the question of how to operationalize frameworks into ground-level implementation remains central. This reflects broader challenges including limited resources, capacity constraints, and coordination difficulties.

### Infrastructure and Financing

Fundamental infrastructure challenges—including limited computing power, inadequate connectivity, and capacity gaps—require innovative financing approaches. The scale of investment required compared to available resources suggests difficult prioritization decisions ahead.

### Youth Engagement

Concerns about youth fears regarding AI and employment displacement highlight the need for effective communication strategies that build understanding of AI’s potential benefits while addressing legitimate concerns about economic disruption.

## Conclusion

The discussion demonstrated both the complexity and potential of Africa’s AI governance challenge. The emphasis on moving from passive optimism to deliberate intentional action captures the urgency of the moment. Africa’s abundant data resources and youthful population provide significant advantages, but realizing this potential requires coordinated action across policy development, infrastructure investment, capacity building, and institutional innovation.

The conversation revealed a mature understanding of Africa’s position in the global AI landscape, with stakeholders articulating a distinctive vision that prioritizes utility over power, inclusion over efficiency, and sovereignty over dependency. The path forward requires sustained commitment from all stakeholders, innovative financing mechanisms, and continued collaboration across national boundaries while addressing substantial practical challenges.

As Lacina Kone emphasized, the goal is not to develop the most powerful AI systems, but the most useful ones for African contexts, suggesting a sustainable development pathway that builds on existing strengths while serving African needs and values.

Ashana Kalemera: Music Good afternoon. Thank you so much for joining us this afternoon. I’ll also say good morning, good evening and good day, considering that there are participants joining us online from different time zones. Welcome to the session on AI readiness in Africa in a shifting geopolitical landscape. The session is hosted by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, BMZ, together with its partners on stage. I’m very, very, very honoured to be moderating this very timely discussion. My name is Ashna Kalemela. I work as programmes manager at CIPESA. CIPESA is the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa. I’m sure we’ll all agree with me that there’s huge transformative potential of AI in society, from innovation to socio-economic development. However, there are also very significant risks. These include inadequate governance frameworks, which risk deepening inequality, weakening democracy and reinforcing technological dependencies. In Africa particularly, countries are striving to build sovereign and resilient AI ecosystems in tandem with a fast-evolving geopolitical landscape. This landscape is marked by shifting alliances, intensifying technological rivalry and growing economic pressure. Whereas various stakeholders are engaging on these issues, the continent remains underrepresented in global AI development. as well as discourse. Locally driven solutions are constrained by limited investments in research, regulatory gaps, and the dominance of multinational tech companies. Meanwhile, concerns about digital exploitation and economic disparities when it comes to data processing, training of models, and low-wage labor markets in Africa also prevail. The risk of AI-driven digital neocolonialism is growing. As global powers compete for technological influence, Africa must strengthen its position to ensure AI serves local needs rather than external interests. African nations at the moment have a unique opportunity to establish AI governance models that are rooted in fairness, in transparency, and inclusion. These AI frameworks also have the potential to align with local realities and normative considerations. These frameworks are hopefully able to foster innovation, uphold democracy, and human rights. Our speakers today, who represent a very broad spectrum of stakeholder groups, will highlight the challenges and opportunities for securing an AI future that benefits Africa. The speaker lineup includes Shikoh Gitau, who’s joining us virtually. She’s the CEO of KALA, a private sector in Kenya. We have Mr. Lassina Kone, the Director General and CEO of Smart Africa from Cote d’Ivoire, Enchanté. Machane Babakar-Ahmed, the Special Envoy of the Mauritanian Ministry of Digital Transformation and Public Administration Modernization for the government of Mauritania. We have Melindi Msalango, the Deputy Director General of the Department of Communications and Digital Technologies, the South African government. And to my immediate left, a very old and good friend, Nima Ea. the Founder and Executive Director of POLISI, a civil society organisation based in my home country, Uganda. Our online moderation is being done by Dennis Brumand, the Advisor of the Global Project on Digital Transformation, GIZ. You’re all welcome once again, and we’ll kick off the conversation with a lightning round, which is a one-sentence response I expect from the speakers here. And the question is, what must be done today to ensure that AI strengthens rather than undermines democratic governance in Africa? I’ll start with my left over to you, Nima. Thank you so much for the question, and I’m very pleased to be here. I’ll start again. Hi, everyone. I’m very pleased to be here. Apologies for the mic malfunction.

Neema Iyer: So, I was saying that AI is already undermining governance in Africa, and we’re seeing this through automated disinformation campaigns, the eroding of public trust, manipulation of political discourse, and surveillance tools that are used to stifle voices at scale. These harms are often gendered, and a lot of our work is looking at a feminist perspective on new technological tools. And these harms are magnified in contexts that have weak data protection and limited digital literacy, which really opens the door to abuse. So, as such, I would say that we need AI that is based on accountability, trust, and a big component of public education. And this will include, for example, impact assessments, regional coalitions, investment in ethical and open-source alternatives that work within our context. and are based on our realities and that are focused on care and justice rather than control and extraction. Thank you, Ashna. Back to you. Thanks, Nimba. Same question to you, Mr. Malindi.

Ashana Kalemera: What must be done today to ensure that AI strengthens rather than undermines democratic governance on the continent? No, thank you. Thank you, Margaret. I think on my side, I just would like to say that what is important is that we need to institutionalize the transparent inclusive AI governance frameworks that are grounded in the constitutional values of public participation to ensure that AI supports accountable service delivery, social justice, as well as democratic resilience. But also some of the areas that I would like to highlight is the issue of removing bias from the data sets that are used to train the AI systems.

Mlindi Mashologu: Because if we are not removing these biases and also not including, you know, a large pool of, you know, demographics in terms of data sets, you’ll find that you can have, you know, the challenges, you know, and which will then undermine, you know, the democratic governance. But also, I think the last one that I just want to highlight is the explainable AI, whereby we would like to advocate to say that whatever decisions that are taken by the AI system, they need to be explainable and they need to be based on, you know, some human oversight, you know. So I think those are some of the areas that I would just like to highlight on my side. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Ashana Kalemera: Moving to my right, Mr. Kone. Thank you very much for inviting me. This is my application in honour of, of course, our partner, BMZ, In fact, can you hear me?

Lacina Kone: What you just mentioned, I would say the impact is actually worse than all of this. We talked about the bias of the AI. Don’t forget, today even if you have a PhD degree, you can still be ignorant in terms of AI. If we go based on a foundation that is not enough to go to school, but you have to adapt to AI, and we all know that the inclusions definitions in Africa is completely different from the inclusion definitions in the West. Because we believe that the AI will be the equalizer, be able to include people who do not speak any other language. Remember, we have more than 2,000 languages in Africa. So if we allow those languages to be trained on the AI system, but not trained by us, it basically means even indigenous people will be impacted by any cultural biases using AI. Therefore, all what my predecessors have just mentioned is very true. So what do we do about it? We cannot be passively, we can no longer be passively optimistic. We have to be deliberately intentional. That’s why Smart Africa put together last April Africa Council of AI Council for Africa. What does that actually mean? The Africa AI Council for Africa, the AI Council for Africa will look at five different things. One, computing power. Collectively today, more than 50 countries on our continent, do we have a necessary power and a computing power to be able to train our data. Two, it’s going to look at the data set. No matter what other people said, Africa today is the number one frontier in terms of availability of data. to train AI. Number three is going to look at the algorithm, algorithm which is actually the cultural bias, what goes on into the AI to be able to respond to people. And number four is the AI governance. In the AI governance side today, there are today about 19 countries in Africa who have already developed their national AI strategy. It’s our role at Smart Africa to be able to harmonize those policies, to be aligned exactly to be what the high level of the UN commissioners, they came up together with the AI governance, as well as looking into what European have put together in terms of safeguarding. Of course, all of these have to be aligned with the AI strategy developed by the African Union. And number five is the market. I think what is happening today, what has happened, happened. But what do we need to do about it? We need to be doing these things intentionally. It’s actually worse than you actually want to think. Because currently in Africa, on our continent, there are over a thousand startup who are downloading on a daily basis, the API from Open Frontier, Open AI Frontier model, as well as the DeepSeek, which is the Chinese. But they’re training those model. Those models are not located on our continent. They’re located outside the continent. And AI system is the way once you train the server, you can never get the information back again. So what do we do about it? It actually goes to even to look at the foundational model of our relationship with our partners in Europe. What do we do? Based on the fact that if you look at North America, everything is based on the private sector base, which is at the heart of the capitalism. When we look at this, it’s based on the control of the government. And Africa wants to go with the user-centric approach for everything. So it’s time for us, we actually be able to look at the AI, not the most powerful one, but the most useful one, by looking at our values, by looking or preserving our languages. to be able to create opportunity, not for a few, but for the many. Thank you.

Ashana Kalemera: Thank you very much, Mr. Kone. Over to you, Madam Ahmed.

Matchiane Soueid Ahmed: Thank you very much. Thank you very much, moderator. I’m fully agree with what my colleagues have mentioned right now, but I would like to summarize it in two words. First, to ensure AI makes democratic governance stronger in Africa, we must invest now in inclusive, transparent AI policy frameworks that are co-created with African voices. Second, these frameworks must be grounded in human rights and supported by strong civic oversight. Thank you very much. Thank you all for the very quick lightning round. We’ll now deep dive into specific questions, per sector, per experience, per expertise. And I’ll stay with you, Madam Ahmed. Mauritania was amongst the first African countries to launch a national AI strategy. What key challenges have you faced in translating this strategy into tangible actions? And how are you addressing coordinated institutional ownership and inclusivity to ensure a democratic and locally rooted AI in Africa? Thank you very much for this important question. Yes, Mauritania has developed an AI strategy with the support of German cooperation through BMZ and GIZ. But to implement that strategy, we are facing some challenges. Let me first start by infrastructure availability in rural areas. As you may know, Mauritania has a huge surface, about one square kilometer. And there is a lot of small villages. far away from each other. That makes it difficult to serve more than 20% of the population living in this area. So we are facing this reality, but we hope to address it as soon as possible with the support of government partners, like German cooperation through KFW, and European Union too, and World Bank. Another challenge is limited capacity and technical expertise, which slowed this strategy implementation. To address this, we are investing in partnerships with universities and international organizations to build local skills and knowledge. We faced also a coordination problem across government and sector, and to tackle this, we established an inter-ministerial working group to ensure alignment between the AI strategy and national development priorities with regular consultation among stakeholders. We are also aware that ownership and inclusivity are crucial. That’s why our approach has focused on creating a participatory process, engaging civil society, local tech communities, and youth in shaping policies and pilot projects. This will ensure that our AI applications are relevant, trusted, and anchored in local needs. Ultimately, our goal is to build an AI model made in Africa that reflects our values and development priorities, inclusive, ethical, and locally learned.

Ashana Kalemera: Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Ms. Ahmed. I’ll come back to you. Mr. Kone, having had the government perspective and being an intergovernmental organization, from your experience, how can Smart Africa help its member states build AIR governance models that protect national sovereignty while also advancing democratic values and public interest, as Ms. Ahmed has pointed out?

Lacina Kone: Thank you very much for the questions. In the current geopolitical situations, and I like to see this all the time, the multi-stakeholder multilateralism is a choice, but we’re living in a multi-polarity geopolitical moment. The only thing that should bind us together is our differences. That’s why Smart Africa is here. It means we are not looking for a national AI policy, it’s like a cookie cutter. One side should fit all, but all sides should fit together by preserving a human right and a digital right. And this is all drawn from the UN high level. If you look at the AI governance of the UN high level, they are structural. They are basically regulatory issue, they are national issue. The national AI governance may be a little bit different, but if you look at the common denominator based on ethical inclusion and sustainability, it has to be included in a national strategy. However, by saying that today Africa, no single nation will be able to build an AI system alone. My sister just mentioned about infrastructure. But you see, we need to understand, some people said, oh, Africa, you might be so behind because you only have a 40% of your population covered with the internet use, then why are you talking about AI? That’s not the question. Africa is not looking for the most powerful AI, it’s looking for the most useful one, looking at the agriculture, looking at the healthcare and looking at the education. Why? Because if you know the history, for the past 45 years since 1980, African continent has gained 1 billion people in 50. But in 45 years, if you gain 1 billion, has the number of school increased to that rate? No. Has the hospital increased to that rate? No. Has the school and the financial sector bank have grown to that rate? No. It means for us, digital transformation, when we look at the AI, it is the evolution within the ecosystem of digital economy. But it’s a revolution within itself, which means AI allows us today to actually reach indigenous people in the rural area, to educate them in their own language, so they become tech-savvy like anyone who’s been to the university. So the way we are doing that, Smart Africa, we do have a Council of ICT Minister, where Mauritania is a part of it. We have a Council of African Regulator. We have a Council of African IT Agency. And we have also the board member who are the head of the CID himself. That’s why we created AI Council, to be able to address all of this methodically and systematically in a way that we align and we mutualize our resources to be able to face this revolution, which is the AI. Thank you. Thank you. I don’t know about the audience, but I’m here nodding and taking notes frantically. We had hoped to have private sector perspective complement the government and intergovernmental ones, but unfortunately, our virtual speaker, Shiko, has not been able to join us. Oh, sure. Please go ahead, before I go to civil society. When we talk about a private sector perspective, I want ladies and gentlemen, all of you to remember, today when any nation talks about AI, they talk about a frontier model. We’ve seen the American talking about a frontier model, open AI, LAMA, GORC3, what name of. When we hear the French people talking, they are behind the mistrial. We hear about the Chinese talking about the AI, they’re talking about the deep-seek. All of these people are private sector, which basically means the government in Africa knows very well their role. They should be creating a conducive environment for private sector to have a kind of blended financing. Because when we talk about financing, America will declare about 500 billion, French about 200 billion. So what is Africa going to declare in terms of funding? This fund will be and should be a blended. Because don’t forget, we have over half a dozen MNO, which is a mobile network operator operating on our continent who owns data center. It is existential for them to be able to get into the AI because at the end of the day,

Ashana Kalemera: it’s about making money. So even in our financing, we should be taking that into account. That’s where the role of the private sector comes in. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Kone. Shiko has joined us online, but before we move to him, we’ll first hear from civil society and then additional perspective from government. So Nima, civil society is crucial for ensuring that AI governance serves the public good. What unique contributions can civil society make in this space and what kinds of frameworks or coalitions are needed to support effective oversight and inclusive participation? Thanks so much for the question.

Neema Iyer: So of course, civil society is extremely crucial to the entire process. And I’m not just biased in saying that, but we play a role as watchdogs, as advocates, as educators, as storytellers, and shaping the entire narrative about AI on the continent. And we’re also there to question the political, the economic, and the social logic on why we’re actually deploying AI. Shikoh Gitau, Dennis Mwighusa, Shikoh Gitau, Dennis Mwighusa, Shikoh Gitau, Dennis Mwighusa, We need to resist this quiet import of oftentimes harmful tools, you know, such as excessive surveillance or predictive tech. There’s so much good that can come from AI, but of course there’s also a lot of harms and I think we should have a very balanced view of both. So we can’t just be on the side of, you know, AI is harmful or AI is beneficial, but really having that balanced view to think critically about why we’re bringing AI in. The second one that’s really important is to track the funding. to understand who is funding what in the African context and what are these different foreign interests of all these players, of all the tech giants in shaping our AI agenda. I think we need to be very critical about that as well. The third one I would say is that we need to document the lived experiences, both of the benefits and the harms, especially to marginalized communities. And, yeah, we can do tech audits, of course, but I think civil society is uniquely placed to address these harms and benefits and to document them and to tell these stories so that they then go back and inform the policies. The fourth one I would say is we really need to democratize digital literacy. I feel like, you know, we’re in Oslo here having this conversation that doesn’t apply to most people living on the continent. I think there’s really a need to take these conversations to a grassroots level. It is extremely important for us to be represented at these high-level multi-stakeholder meetings, but that doesn’t mean we do it at the cost of not involving local communities at different levels in this conversation. And, yeah, I think the education needs to be accessible. It needs to be forward-looking. It needs to be for common people, for leaders, in local languages. We need to use creative ways of talking about it. We can’t always use these huge data governance languages, and then, you know, people’s eyes glaze over because they don’t really know what you’re saying. We really need to make it accessible. I think that that is a very urgent need. The fifth one I would say is that we also need to get back to making things. And, yes, I agree with the point. We do not have the investment of that value, but it doesn’t mean that we don’t do anything. I want to propose that we have alternative design of products, of AI products that are based on different incentives and that, you know, are really tailored to our needs. And so, moving to the question of, like, what kinds of frameworks I would say that we should really have mandatory public interest impact assessments, so I touched upon that earlier. But it would be lovely if before an AI system is deployed that, you know, we do assessments of what it can impact, who it will impact, and that, you know, throughout the process of having it, we continue to do these assessments. And we understand how it impacts, you know, social, economic, gendered, environmental impacts of these AI systems. The next one, I think we need regional civic coalitions, so it’s amazing to bring governments together to talk about AI, but what other groups are we leaving out? What silos are we creating when we bring these groups together? Who is missing at this conversation, at this table, for example? So, you know, women’s rights organizations, trade unions, journalists, researchers, can we all come together to shape these policies and that they’re not just done at a very high government level? The third one, again, going to my colleague’s point, is funding. We really need better frameworks for how we are going to fund AI on the continent. We need to come up with our own funding models for innovation in a way that is sustainable, in a way that we bring young people in to actually create product. I feel like that is quite a bit of a missing link. And then the last one, I think, is, yeah, just bringing as many stakeholders into the conversation as possible, and then just questioning how are we going to operationalize all these beautiful policies and frameworks that we’re talking about? So how do we take it from this table here, actually putting it on the ground and actually seeing it in action? So thank you so much. Thanks, Neema. What you’re saying resonates a lot with me, coming from civil society, but absolutely what was also said from the government and intergovernmental perspective. Malindi, I’ll move over to you. In anticipation of South Africa’s G20 presidency, How can AI maturity assessments be leveraged to strengthen context-specific governance across Africa? What role do institutional readiness, democratic safeguards and inclusive policy-making play? Thank you for that question.

Mlindi Mashologu: As the country, South Africa, we assume the G20 presidency and I think it’s important to note our banner there is solidarity, sustainability and equality. So we see that we are presented with a unique opportunity to lead a new chapter in the digital governance, not only for ourselves but also, you know, for the community at large. I think it’s important to note that, you know, one of the powerful tools that we can use is the AI maturity assessments. That is one that we did work with the GIZ in terms of South Africa, which we participated on and one of the areas that we picked up is that, you know, these assessments, they allow us as governments to diagnose the strengths, you know, identify the gaps, but also chart, you know, clear actionable pathways for the responsible AI adoption. But also it’s important to note that they are not just technical diagnostics, they are also political governance instruments. So if we apply them with PIPOs, you’ll find that they can actually be transformative in nature and I think they can actually assist in terms of the African-led, you know, governance frameworks. But now if I can just also look into, you know, how we can anchor them into the African realities, you’ll find that too often, you know, the benchmarks are normally imported wholesale benchmarks, which are normally failing to account for. and other governance challenges such as limited compute infrastructure, fragmented data ecosystems or linguistic diversity. And these are some of the area things that are very critical when you look into the African continent. So for then the South African and our continental peers, so we are advocating that we need to develop and localize these tools to reflect our developmental priorities, which then include inclusive service delivery, ethical public sector automation as well as community trust. But also it’s important to recognize that institutional readiness is the cornerstone for any AI governance framework. We do understand that as policy makers, policy alone are sometimes not enough. But we need some of the institutions that are technically equipped, policy-coherent and operationally agile. So one of the areas that we are currently doing as a country is the development of an AI policy for the country. And I mean the policy, you know, it does have broad statements that we are looking into. And I must say that we have been quite behind in terms of that. But at least we are on the final stages. And I think if I can just highlight just a few areas that we are looking on as a country. One is the area of capacity development, where we are looking at strengthening the AI-related education. And these are some of the things that also came, you know, from when we are unpacking, you know, the policy, you know, the frameworks that we looked into. But also we’re looking on the areas of AI for economic transformation, where we are looking in terms of AI as well in public service delivery, but also supporting the startups as well as through regulatory sandboxes. The other area we’re looking on is the area of responsible governance. So we are advocating on some of, you know, various bodies that needs to be established, which includes your ethics board, AI ethics board, national AI. the AI Commission and the AI Regulatory Authority because we feel that some of the regulators that we’ve got might not be, you know, up to people in terms of, you know, regulating AI, but also the areas of ethical and inclusive AI, where we’re looking at developing, you know, localizing ethical standards, but also cultural preservation and international integration, as well as human-centered approach. And, I mean, if you were to look on all these broad aspects, you’ll find that, you know, some of the work that the colleagues are saying, it also aligns to that, because you’ll find that, you know, while we’re developing these policies, you’ll find that there are some challenges that are deep-rooted into our societies, which include now currently, if you look on digital divide, you’ll find that we still have got digital divide as a continent, which we need to address to make sure that, I mean, whenever we put, you know, these frameworks, they can address that. But also, if you were to look on the compute capabilities, you’ll find that, you know, we still don’t have compute capabilities in the continent. So it’s one of the things, then, that we need to make sure that we address significantly as part of us developing the governance frameworks. But I also want to add the other area, that we also need to embed, you know, the democratic safeguards into every layer of the AI development and deployment, because we see that without the robust mechanisms for transparency, public accountability, as well as end recourse, AI can deepen exclusion, entrench bias, or even erode civil liberties. So a democratic governance in this age of AI means placing human rights and constitutional values at the centre, from the procurement processes to the algorithmic audits. And I think the last point that I want to add critically is the role of inclusive policymaking. AI governance cannot just be a technocratic rule, but it needs to be

Ashana Kalemera: Thank you very much, Melendi. We are looking very keenly and proudly at South Africa as it steers the G20 presidency and we hope these are issues that will be driven forward during the tenure. Our fifth speaker online, Shikoh Gitau, was able to join us and I would like to put the question on private sectors role back to him. Private companies are at the forefront of AI innovation, Shikoh. From your experience, what governance frameworks are necessary to ensure this innovation aligns with democratic values and how can the private sector contribute to trust, transparency and accountability of AI, which have been resounding issues from all the speakers here? Thank you so much for having me. Can you hear me? Yes. Thumbs up. Awesome, thank you. So, I’m joining in from very cold and rainy Nairobi,

Shikoh Gitau: and I’m really glad to be here. Thank you so much for having me. And apologies for joining in late. So, the question around private sector and what private sector can do is start with building an enabling environment. A couple of months ago, I was speaking to a group of, like, policymakers and government asking, what do you need? We just need governments to, A, understand the potential of the space we are in. AI is not a passing fad. It is not a buzzword that is going away. It’s a consequential technology for our generation. And we need to be able to take care of that. And by building an enabling environment, I was hearing the interventions from Engineer Kone, and those ones from the representative from South Africa, and they’re quite interesting. But how do you then move that from paper to pavement? How do we do that? Is incentivizing private sector to come? And I hear the conversation around compute, around talent development. What does that actually mean in actual sense? I’ll give an example is, we have been working with a number of, like, A, governments on one hand, but also startups. And trying to understand is, what do you need for you to succeed? Because there’s so many pilots that are happening on the African continent, but they’re not getting any traction. But then you soon realize is that we are building all these things in the AI space, but our market does not understand AI, does not know what AI is, and the potential that AI has to. And what’s the difference between what we’re doing right now and what they were being sold for five years ago with mobile internet? And being able to concretize that to our Our market base, our customer base, our user base is critical. And while it is the work of the government to educate the populace, it is the work of the private sector to actually create massive awareness. But if the government comes in to interrupt this, there is a challenge. So for example, this week, we are running an AI awareness and fluency and literacy campaign across the continent in six markets, in six countries, and what we are targeting is teachers. And you’re not going through the normal, going through ministries of ICT or ministries of education. We are working with teachers directly through their associations, through their communities to train them. And in this, we said it last week, and in this week, what the difference and the demand is very different. The first one, we did a baseline study, there’s a lot of fear around AI. What we are hearing right now is, can we continuously do this training over the next six months? What is the incentive that the governments that we are working with have done is they’ve given us free space to create this programming. And they said, once you’re done with the pilot, because we are calling it a pilot, send us a report. That is a very concrete way of showing private sector is we as government don’t know what actually needs to be done, but if you can pilot and give us results, you can be able to scale whatever you’re doing, or we can be able to create even more space for you. Similar to investment in the startup sector in compute. So enabling private sector to invest in compute does not mean hindering what government can do in compute. I agree with Engineer Connors saying that funding for Africa has to be a blended instrument. And it means that private sector will have to invest in some of these compute facilities. be extremely expensive. But on the other hand, government and donor organizations have to invest in the earliest stages of this compete because we need to be able to have researchers and startups building and they cannot be able to afford the enterprise-grade computing that will be sold to them by enterprise versions. So it is bringing this blended thinking and creating the enabling environment. From a democratic point of view, every time I hear democratizing this, democratizing that, I say, what’s the definition of democracy you’re talking about? And for me, democratizing means that it’s enabling everybody everywhere to have access to the same opportunities and resources. And if you’re going to be able to bring that democratic tenancy in AI, it means that even the policies that we are making are not being prescribed to Africa. So what we have seen is we need policies and policy frameworks, as rightly said by South Africa, that are enabling the ecosystem. But who is drafting these policies? What agenda do they have? Do they have Africa at heart when they are doing this? Those are the questions you should be asking. And who is doing this? It’s enabling young Africans to be able to contribute to some of this conversation. So, for example, one of these things we are doing with, we actually support from Smart Africa, is this African scientific panel that is calling to young Africans, both in the continent and in diaspora, to enable and support their governments and governments across the continent in drafting some of these conversations, some of these frameworks that you’ve spoken about. But beyond drafting and writing them out is bringing them to life. So, for example, there’s a compute project and a benchmarking project that is being run by 25 doctors from across the world with African heritage to look at. Are these models for health care responding to African needs and African reality? That is what democratizing means. It’s creating, again, it starts with creating the enabling environment, getting out of the way, but also then starting to resource and accepting health from the democratized environment.

Ashana Kalemera: Thank you so much. Thank you very much, Shikoh. The clock, I tell you, is moving much faster than it should, so we need to speed this up a bit. Because we’re here to learn and exchange, I’d like to give an opportunity to our participants to share any comments, reactions, or questions to the five speakers. There are microphones on either side of the room there. Please feel free to walk over, introduce yourself, and share your comment, reaction, or question. As those in the room make their way to the microphone, I will also check with our online moderator if there are any questions from the online participants. No questions from the online participants, but I see one participant walking to the microphone. The floor is yours, sir. Okay. Good afternoon, and thank you very much. I’m a little bit tall. Good afternoon, everybody.

Audience: My name is from the Gambia, and the question actually I have is with all, it seems like each African country, or most of them, are on the path of creating their own policy. And I’m trying to find out from Smart Africa in particular, what can you do to bring all these countries on the table where I know that each country has your own, you know, different way of doing things, but at least there must be a convergence where we can actually have a policy that could be used from all across the country, like we had in the African Union Convention on the Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection. Can we have something that, you know, that goes across the continent instead of everybody being in silos, and again, it’s going to take a very long time. before that is done. So I want to ask Mr. Kone to see if they can bring everybody on the table, at least try to work onto a common platform. Thank you.

Ashana Kalemera: Thank you very much, Alhaji. We have a second question. We’ll take that before coming back to the speakers.

Audience: Good evening, everyone. Is it? Okay. My name is Lydia Lamisa Akamvareba from Ghana. I’m looking at the team up there. AI readiness in Africa in a shifting geopolitical landscape. Yes, it’s true. But we need those kind of policies that will create the enabled environment that will bring trust in the African society. Because currently, Africa is one of the youngest population that we have in the world. And the youth has a challenge, whether AI is coming to take over their jobs. So we as policymakers need to build that trust. I want to find out what are we doing to bring that trust among the youth in Africa? Thank you.

Ashana Kalemera: Thank you very much, Honorable Lydia. Yes, sir. If you walk a little bit quicker to the microphone, we’ll take your question. Good day, everyone. My name is Peter King. I’m from Liberia. Mine is in the form of a comment as well. I realize that there are four key areas that I can

Audience: talk about. In Africa now, what are we looking at? A lot of people work on policies. But we’re forgetting to look at the issue of digital literacy, the level of infrastructure. And these are things that once we are looking at readiness, this should come to the fore. So to the panel up there, thank you so much for the nice presentation. Can you help us to understand better, from our context from Africa, what are the realistic steps that governments can do? to ensure that this is a reality in terms of being ready, to ensure that youth alone is claimed and is real that Africa has a youthful population. These are challenges. We’re looking at what are the opportunities. Can they be leveraged for the youth to use it? We are always looking at, we are always using it, the OpenAI, the ChargeGBT is not created by Africa. So where do we go from here?

Ashana Kalemera: Thank you so much. Thank you very much, Peter King. So we have 11 minutes to the end of the session. So we’re going to do a crash course in closing remarks, responses to questions and final thoughts, all in one go. So I’ll invite Mr. Kone to take the question that was directed specifically at you. And then for the rest of the speakers, we’ll reflect on the questions and issues around trust and realistic steps that have come from the floor, while at the same time, sharing concluding remarks on what the future should look like five years from now. So Mr. Kone first.

Lacina Kone: Thank you very much for the questions regarding policy harmonization on the national AI strategy. As I said before, what really matters is not like one size should fit all, because each country has a sovereignty you have to take into account. But we have to make sure that each size should fit together. So what we’ve engaged in since April, we’ve actually scanned our continent. We found there’s close to about 17 to 18 countries who already develop, including, of course, Nigeria, including Mauritania, who have developed already the national AI strategy. So what we did, actually, we took all of these national AI strategy, and we also looked into the AI governance regulatory environment developed by the high level of the United Nations. What it entails exactly and we actually look also into the African Union AI strategy So we try to do a comparison to come up with a benchmarking What are the countries saying are they addressing exactly what is required from the United Nations? How does it compare to Europe and how does it compare also to the African Union? so we’re coming out with the benchmarking and this is also part of the work we are doing for the AI Council for Africa Starting from this July, of course, we’ll be sharing we’ll be having a CMICT Which is a council of ICT ministers and we’ll be sharing with them We’ll said if you look at the national AI strategy of Nigeria What was the best lesson learned from that compared to what Egypt has? Because you might see that Egypt for example is probably skewed towards more startup Action the startup hubs and creations where you while you will see that Nigeria is actually focused on something else So we’ve compiled all of these and of course, we not only talking we actually walking or talk what I’m saying Exactly. This would be shared with our Council of ICT minister which from there it goes to the regulator But it’s very true so far now we have about 19 country who have a different AI strategy But we need to remember something if you look at the fundamentals which are the common denominator looking at the ethical use of the AI looking at the inclusion of the AI inclusion of the Inclusivity if I said and look at the sustainability 90% of those a national strategy it address it. However, you may Elaborate the best AI national strategy, but is it conducive for private sector investment? That is the one question we need to ask because at the end of the day Government should be creating law and regulation to create a conducive environment for private sector to be able to chip in. Thank you

Matchiane Soueid Ahmed: Thank you very much. Mr Still on my right Ms. Ahmed, reactions to the questions from the floor, as well as concluding remarks on what the future of AI and the continent should look like. Thank you very much. I want to comment some reaction of the audience. I totally agree with that, working in SILO will not solve the problem, at least we need to look after a synergy between different initiatives. But the important question is how, because as you know, the context of each country is different, and even the context of the region in Africa is different. So we need to think out of the box to find solutions that are suitable for everyone’s context. So about the future of Africa AI, as we shape African AI, we must lead with principles. Data must remain, in my understanding, data must remain in African hands. Because as you know, in the era of digital and especially in the era of AI, sovereignty is not just territorial, but also digital. Second conclusion that I can mention, that equitable and democratic AI is only possible if policies, power, local communities, protect citizen rights and foster homegrown innovation. Thank you very much. Thank you very much Machane. I’ll move to my middle now, because I see Chico on my screen in front of me.

Ashana Kalemera: Chico, reactions to the questions from the floor, as well as concluding remarks on AI’s future on the continent. Thank you very much. I want to respond to the question that the gentleman from The Gambia

Shikoh Gitau: asked. So for the past year and a half, we were looking and doing a scan on what is the right governance framework for Africa. And what we concluded is not everybody needs a strategy. A strategy needs to be thought through. But what are the instruments that need to be in place for you as a government to be able to start on this AI journey? And so what we have developed and what was launched in April was the African AI Governance Toolkit. If you go to qbit.africa, qbit.africa, you should be able to see it. And it enables you as a government official, a regulator, a ministry to be able to see, should I just have like AI principles that are guiding our work around AI? Should we have a policy framework? Should we have a strategy and a simple cheat sheet that you can walk through and work through to help you develop the principles? I mean, as outlined by Engineer Kone of safety ethics and such to be able to develop like a very simple policy framework or principle guideline or a strategy that will help you on this AI journey, because we recognize that not every country is able to invest in having an AI strategy. It’s a little bit premature. There are a couple of countries you’re working with in Central Africa where they’re starting with a digital strategy, not even an AI strategy, but they need to start working on AI. So a simple framework is what we are trying to work with them to be able to start on the journey. On the second one, I love the second question because from Ghana, and it’s a very critical question, but I always say you cannot… work on what you cannot measure? So we’re talking about talent, a maturity, all these questions. Does anyone know where you stand? Does Ghana know where they stand in terms of AI maturity on the African continent or in the world or where you stand about your talent readiness? So again, the other instrument that we’ve worked, and again, as Minister Kone, I mean, Engineer Kone mentioned around the AI Council is developing the African AI Maturity Index, which is a live document and a live tool, not a document, a live tool that is constantly being updated as the different strategies are being put in place, different policies are being put in place. So if you go to data wall, d-a-t-a wall, w-a-l-l.africa, you’ll be able to see the maturity. We’ve broken it down to very, very simple metrics, broken down to the schools that are teaching STEM in our country. So it’s very, very granular to help you realize, as you’re solving for this AI, maybe we should start introducing more STEM courses, not even AI courses in our country. The second one is the Talent Index, which is primarily focused- I’m going to interrupt you. I’m finishing. I’m finishing. This is my last one. All right. Go ahead. This is measuring what talent actually means and what you need to put in place. Again, it’s being very actionable. What should Africa do? I’m very bullish about Africa. If you’ve heard me speak, is I always say Africa can, and we can win this AI race because, as I always quote Minister LACINA KONE is, because we are defining what the race is about. We are not following other people’s rules. Thank you very much. Thank you, Shikho. Somelindi, and then Nima.

Ashana Kalemera: The race is on. One minute each. No, thank you. I think I just want to touch a bit on what the other questions were.

Neema Iyer: where I’m doing my PhD. A lot of students are submitting AI assessments. What are you grading as a teacher? So the whole way that we even assess skills needs to completely change. And in terms of my closing remarks I think we need to continue to have radical and critical questions about AI. Always, always, always question everything. What are the harms? What are the benefits? How is it serving our future? How is it serving the future of our youth? Thank you so much for having me. Thank you. 28 seconds for me to wrap up this very rich, rich discussions. Quite clearly, it’s not yet Uhuru for AI in Africa, but given what’s been discussed here with the right investments the continent stands to benefit significantly. I think the areas for prioritizations that have come through include pushing for accountability, public education, transparency, inclusion, not only from a language perspective, a gender perspective, and ensuring co-creation, infrastructure investments, multi-stakeholder consultation and participation, impact assessments, that was a very, very good one, funding, procurement, and ensuring that, you know, policies are not just prescriptions, but actually live up to reality. Thank you so much.

Ashana Kalemera: We appreciate the perspectives that have been shared from Côte d’Ivoire, from Mauritania, from Ghana, from the floor, from Gambia, from South Africa, as well as Uganda. Once again, thank you to the speakers. Thank you to the organizers, BMC. We appreciate the conversation and ensuring that discourse about AI readiness on the continent is making it to the global stage, i.e. the IGF. Thank you very much. We wish you all a very good evening, and thank you for attending the session. Thank you. Thank you for watching!

Agreement points

Need for inclusive and transparent AI governance frameworks grounded in human rights and constitutional values

Speakers

– Neema Iyer
– Mlindi Mashologu
– Matchiane Soueid Ahmed

Arguments

Need for AI that is based on accountability, trust, and a big component of public education

Need for transparent, inclusive AI governance frameworks grounded in constitutional values and public participation

AI governance must be co-created with African voices and grounded in human rights with civic oversight

Summary

All three speakers emphasize the critical importance of developing AI governance frameworks that are transparent, inclusive, and firmly rooted in human rights principles and constitutional values, with strong public participation and civic oversight.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Importance of addressing bias in AI systems and ensuring diverse representation

Speakers

– Neema Iyer
– Mlindi Mashologu
– Lacina Kone

Arguments

Need for impact assessments, regional coalitions, investment in ethical and open-source alternatives that work within our context

Importance of removing bias from datasets and including diverse demographics in AI training

Need to preserve 2000+ African languages through locally trained AI systems to prevent cultural bias

Summary

Speakers agree on the critical need to address bias in AI systems through diverse representation in datasets, cultural preservation, and ethical alternatives that reflect African contexts and realities.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Critical importance of data sovereignty and keeping African data under African control

Speakers

– Lacina Kone
– Matchiane Soueid Ahmed

Arguments

Over 1000 African startups daily downloading APIs from foreign models, with training data leaving the continent permanently

Data must remain in African hands as digital sovereignty is as important as territorial sovereignty

Summary

Both speakers strongly emphasize that data sovereignty is fundamental to African AI development, warning against the permanent loss of African data to foreign systems and asserting that digital sovereignty is as crucial as territorial sovereignty.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Human rights

Need for blended financing approaches combining government, private sector, and international support

Speakers

– Lacina Kone
– Shikoh Gitau

Arguments

Private sector investment essential as mobile network operators with data centers have existential need to engage in AI

Need for blended financing approach combining government, private sector, and donor investments in compute infrastructure

Summary

Both speakers advocate for comprehensive financing models that leverage private sector capabilities, government support, and international partnerships to address Africa’s AI infrastructure and development needs.

Topics

Economic | Infrastructure | Development

Urgent need for AI education and digital literacy at grassroots level

Speakers

– Neema Iyer
– Lacina Kone
– Shikoh Gitau

Arguments

Critical need to democratize digital literacy and take AI conversations to grassroots level in accessible language

AI can reach indigenous people in rural areas and educate them in their own languages

Massive teacher training campaigns across six African countries showing high demand for AI education

Summary

All speakers agree on the fundamental importance of making AI education accessible to all levels of society, particularly in local languages and through creative, accessible approaches that reach rural and indigenous communities.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Capacity development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers acknowledge the critical infrastructure gaps in computing power and digital connectivity across Africa as fundamental challenges that must be addressed for successful AI implementation.

Speakers

– Lacina Kone
– Mlindi Mashologu

Arguments

Africa lacks necessary computing power collectively across 50+ countries to train AI models locally

Digital divide and limited compute capabilities remain deep-rooted challenges requiring significant investment

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the importance of multi-stakeholder participation in AI governance, ensuring that diverse voices beyond government officials are included in policy development processes.

Speakers

– Neema Iyer
– Matchiane Soueid Ahmed

Arguments

Need for regional coalitions and bringing multiple stakeholders beyond just governments into AI policy discussions

AI governance must be co-created with African voices and grounded in human rights with civic oversight

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Both speakers advocate for proactive, intentional approaches to AI development that focus on practical utility and user needs rather than simply following global trends or being passive recipients of technology.

Speakers

– Lacina Kone
– Shikoh Gitau

Arguments

Africa needs deliberately intentional approach rather than passive optimism, focusing on user-centric AI models

Private sector must create enabling environments and massive awareness campaigns while governments provide supportive policy frameworks

Topics

Development | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Strong agreement on the existential threat of data dependency on foreign AI systems

Speakers

– Lacina Kone
– Neema Iyer
– Matchiane Soueid Ahmed

Arguments

Over 1000 African startups daily downloading APIs from foreign models, with training data leaving the continent permanently

Critical need to track funding sources and understand foreign interests shaping Africa’s AI agenda

Data must remain in African hands as digital sovereignty is as important as territorial sovereignty

Explanation

Unexpectedly, speakers from different sectors (intergovernmental, civil society, and government) showed remarkable consensus on the urgency of addressing Africa’s dependency on foreign AI systems, with specific concern about the irreversible nature of data loss to external platforms.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Human rights

Consensus on the need for practical, user-centric AI rather than pursuing the most advanced technology

Speakers

– Lacina Kone
– Shikoh Gitau
– Mlindi Mashologu

Arguments

AI should focus on agriculture, healthcare, and education as most useful applications for Africa’s development needs

Private sector must create enabling environments and massive awareness campaigns while governments provide supportive policy frameworks

Need for regulatory sandboxes and support for startups through AI-enabled economic transformation

Explanation

There was unexpected alignment across different stakeholder groups on prioritizing practical, contextually relevant AI applications over pursuing cutting-edge technology, suggesting a mature understanding of Africa’s development priorities.

Topics

Development | Economic | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated remarkable consensus on key foundational issues including the need for inclusive governance frameworks, data sovereignty, addressing bias and cultural preservation, infrastructure investment, and education. There was strong agreement on the importance of multi-stakeholder participation and the urgency of addressing Africa’s dependency on foreign AI systems.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for coordinated continental AI strategy. The alignment across government, civil society, private sector, and intergovernmental perspectives suggests a mature understanding of challenges and a shared vision for African-led AI development. This consensus provides a strong foundation for developing harmonized policies and collaborative approaches to AI governance across the continent.

Different viewpoints

Approach to AI policy development – harmonized continental framework vs. national sovereignty

Speakers

– Lacina Kone
– Audience from Gambia

Arguments

19 African countries have developed national AI strategies requiring harmonization while respecting sovereignty

Concern about countries working in silos rather than converging on common continental AI policy framework

Summary

While the audience member from Gambia advocated for a unified continental AI policy similar to the AU Cyber Security Convention, Lacina Kone defended the current approach of harmonizing diverse national strategies while respecting each country’s sovereignty, stating ‘not one size should fit all, but all sizes should fit together’

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Economic

Primary responsibility for AI awareness and education

Speakers

– Shikoh Gitau
– Neema Iyer

Arguments

Private sector must create enabling environments and massive awareness campaigns while governments provide supportive policy frameworks

Critical need to democratize digital literacy and take AI conversations to grassroots level in accessible language

Summary

Shikoh emphasized private sector’s role in creating massive awareness campaigns and working directly with communities, while Neema focused on the need for democratized digital literacy through accessible education in local languages, suggesting different primary actors for education efforts

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Capacity development

Unexpected differences

Limited explicit disagreement on fundamental AI risks and benefits

Speakers

– All speakers

Arguments

Various arguments about AI governance, infrastructure, and development approaches

Explanation

Surprisingly, there was minimal direct disagreement about the fundamental nature of AI risks or benefits. All speakers acknowledged both opportunities and challenges, with most disagreements focusing on implementation approaches rather than whether AI should be pursued or the severity of risks

Topics

AI Governance and Democratic Values in Africa | Development | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high consensus on fundamental goals (inclusive AI governance, data sovereignty, capacity building) with disagreements primarily focused on implementation approaches, institutional responsibilities, and policy mechanisms rather than core objectives

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers demonstrated strong alignment on overarching goals but differed on tactical approaches, suggesting a mature policy discussion where stakeholders share common vision but debate optimal pathways. This indicates positive potential for collaborative implementation despite methodological differences.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers acknowledge the critical infrastructure gaps in computing power and digital connectivity across Africa as fundamental challenges that must be addressed for successful AI implementation.

Speakers

– Lacina Kone
– Mlindi Mashologu

Arguments

Africa lacks necessary computing power collectively across 50+ countries to train AI models locally

Digital divide and limited compute capabilities remain deep-rooted challenges requiring significant investment

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the importance of multi-stakeholder participation in AI governance, ensuring that diverse voices beyond government officials are included in policy development processes.

Speakers

– Neema Iyer
– Matchiane Soueid Ahmed

Arguments

Need for regional coalitions and bringing multiple stakeholders beyond just governments into AI policy discussions

AI governance must be co-created with African voices and grounded in human rights with civic oversight

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Both speakers advocate for proactive, intentional approaches to AI development that focus on practical utility and user needs rather than simply following global trends or being passive recipients of technology.

Speakers

– Lacina Kone
– Shikoh Gitau

Arguments

Africa needs deliberately intentional approach rather than passive optimism, focusing on user-centric AI models

Private sector must create enabling environments and massive awareness campaigns while governments provide supportive policy frameworks

Topics

Development | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Africa needs deliberately intentional rather than passive approaches to AI development, focusing on user-centric models that serve local needs in agriculture, healthcare, and education

AI governance frameworks must be co-created with African voices, grounded in human rights, and include transparent, inclusive processes with civic oversight

Data sovereignty is critical – African data must remain in African hands as digital sovereignty is as important as territorial sovereignty

Blended financing approaches combining government, private sector, and donor investments are essential for building necessary compute infrastructure

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is crucial, requiring involvement of civil society, youth, women’s rights organizations, trade unions, and other groups beyond just governments

Digital literacy and AI education must be democratized and delivered in local languages at grassroots levels to build public trust

Africa has over 2000 languages that need preservation through locally trained AI systems to prevent cultural bias and digital neocolonialism

Civil society plays essential roles as watchdogs, advocates, educators, and storytellers while documenting lived experiences of AI impacts

Resolutions and action items

Smart Africa to share benchmarking analysis of 19 national AI strategies with Council of ICT Ministers starting July

Smart Africa’s AI Council for Africa to focus on five areas: computing power, datasets, algorithms, AI governance, and market development

South Africa to leverage its G20 presidency to advance AI governance frameworks with focus on solidarity, sustainability, and equality

Continued teacher training campaigns across six African countries based on high demand demonstrated in pilot programs

Development of African AI Governance Toolkit (available at qbit.africa) and African AI Maturity Index (at datawall.africa) for government use

Implementation of mandatory public interest impact assessments before AI system deployment with ongoing monitoring

Establishment of regulatory sandboxes and startup support mechanisms for AI-enabled economic transformation

Unresolved issues

How to effectively harmonize 19 different national AI strategies while respecting individual country sovereignty

Addressing the fundamental infrastructure gap affecting 20% of population in remote areas across the continent

Preventing over 1000 African startups from continuing to use foreign AI models that permanently extract training data

Building sufficient collective computing power across 50+ African countries to train AI models locally

Operationalizing beautiful policies and frameworks – moving from high-level discussions to ground-level implementation

Addressing youth concerns about AI taking over jobs and building trust in AI technology among African populations

Determining realistic funding levels for Africa’s AI development compared to America’s $500 billion and France’s $200 billion commitments

Establishing clear definitions and metrics for what ‘democratizing AI’ actually means in African contexts

Suggested compromises

Blended financing model combining government, private sector, and donor investments rather than relying solely on public funding

Flexible policy harmonization approach where ‘each size should fit together’ rather than ‘one size fits all’ to respect sovereignty while enabling collaboration

Graduated approach to AI governance where countries can start with simple principles or policy frameworks rather than requiring full strategies immediately

Focus on ‘most useful’ rather than ‘most powerful’ AI applications suited to African development priorities

Parallel development of both enterprise-grade computing for private sector and accessible computing for researchers and startups

Government role focused on creating enabling environments and supportive policies while private sector leads innovation and awareness campaigns

We cannot be passively, we can no longer be passively optimistic. We have to be deliberately intentional… Africa today is the number one frontier in terms of availability of data to train AI… But they’re training those model. Those models are not located on our continent. They’re located outside the continent. And AI system is the way once you train the server, you can never get the information back again.

Speaker

Lacina Kone

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it reframes the entire AI discussion from a reactive to a proactive stance, while highlighting a critical paradox: Africa has abundant data but lacks control over how it’s processed. The irreversible nature of AI training he mentions introduces urgency to the sovereignty discussion.

Impact

This comment fundamentally shifted the conversation from theoretical policy discussions to concrete action items. It led other speakers to focus more on practical implementation and sovereignty issues, and established the framework for discussing the five pillars of the AI Council (computing power, data sets, algorithms, governance, and market).

Africa is not looking for the most powerful AI, it’s looking for the most useful one, looking at the agriculture, looking at the healthcare and looking at the education… AI allows us today to actually reach indigenous people in the rural area, to educate them in their own language, so they become tech-savvy like anyone who’s been to the university.

Speaker

Lacina Kone

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it challenges the dominant narrative of AI competition based on computational power and instead proposes a value-based approach centered on utility and inclusion. It redefines success metrics for African AI development.

Impact

This perspective influenced subsequent speakers to focus more on contextual applications and inclusive design. It helped establish a distinctly African approach to AI that prioritizes social impact over technological supremacy, which other panelists then built upon.

AI is already undermining governance in Africa, and we’re seeing this through automated disinformation campaigns, the eroding of public trust, manipulation of political discourse, and surveillance tools that are used to stifle voices at scale… we need AI that is based on accountability, trust, and a big component of public education.

Speaker

Neema Iyer

Reason

This comment is insightful because it grounds the discussion in current reality rather than future possibilities, providing concrete examples of AI’s negative impacts while maintaining a balanced view that acknowledges both benefits and harms.

Impact

This comment set a critical tone for the entire discussion, ensuring that subsequent speakers addressed both opportunities and risks. It influenced the conversation to consistently include safeguards, accountability measures, and the importance of civil society oversight in their responses.

Every time I hear democratizing this, democratizing that, I say, what’s the definition of democracy you’re talking about? And for me, democratizing means that it’s enabling everybody everywhere to have access to the same opportunities and resources… who is drafting these policies? What agenda do they have? Do they have Africa at heart when they are doing this?

Speaker

Shikoh Gitau

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it challenges the casual use of ‘democratization’ rhetoric and demands specificity about whose interests are being served. It introduces a critical lens about power dynamics in policy-making processes.

Impact

This comment deepened the analytical level of the discussion by questioning fundamental assumptions about who controls the AI narrative in Africa. It led to more nuanced discussions about agency, representation, and the need for African-led solutions rather than externally imposed frameworks.

We really need to democratize digital literacy. I feel like, you know, we’re in Oslo here having this conversation that doesn’t apply to most people living on the continent… We can’t always use these huge data governance languages, and then, you know, people’s eyes glaze over because they don’t really know what you’re saying.

Speaker

Neema Iyer

Reason

This meta-commentary is insightful because it critiques the very nature of high-level policy discussions while participating in one, highlighting the disconnect between elite discourse and grassroots reality. It calls for accessible communication and inclusive participation.

Impact

This self-reflective comment prompted other speakers to consider implementation and accessibility more seriously. It influenced the discussion to focus more on practical steps for community engagement and the need to translate policy into actionable, understandable terms for ordinary citizens.

Data must remain in African hands… sovereignty is not just territorial, but also digital.

Speaker

Matchiane Soueid Ahmed

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it expands the concept of sovereignty beyond traditional geographical boundaries to include digital assets, framing data control as a fundamental aspect of national independence in the AI era.

Impact

This comment reinforced and crystallized the sovereignty theme that ran throughout the discussion, providing a clear conceptual framework that other speakers could reference. It helped establish data sovereignty as a non-negotiable principle for African AI development.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing three critical frameworks: (1) the urgency of moving from passive to intentional action regarding AI governance, (2) the need to define African success metrics based on utility rather than power, and (3) the importance of questioning who controls the AI narrative and ensuring African agency. The comments created a progression from identifying current harms to proposing African-centered solutions, while consistently challenging assumptions about democratization, sovereignty, and inclusion. The discussion evolved from theoretical policy considerations to practical implementation strategies, with each insightful comment building upon previous ones to create a comprehensive vision for African AI governance that prioritizes local needs, democratic values, and genuine self-determination.

How do we operationalize beautiful policies and frameworks into actual ground-level implementation?

Speaker

Neema Iyer

Explanation

This addresses the critical gap between policy development and practical implementation, which is essential for ensuring AI governance frameworks actually work in practice rather than just existing on paper.

How can we develop funding models for AI innovation that are sustainable and bring young people into product creation?

Speaker

Neema Iyer

Explanation

This highlights the need for research into alternative funding mechanisms that support local innovation and youth engagement, moving beyond traditional donor-dependent models.

What are the foreign interests and agendas of tech giants in shaping Africa’s AI agenda?

Speaker

Neema Iyer

Explanation

Understanding the motivations and influences of external actors is crucial for developing truly sovereign AI strategies that serve African interests rather than external ones.

How do we move AI governance from paper to pavement – from policy documents to actual implementation?

Speaker

Shikoh Gitau

Explanation

This emphasizes the implementation gap that exists between developing AI policies and actually deploying them effectively in real-world contexts.

What realistic steps can governments take to ensure AI readiness, particularly regarding digital literacy and infrastructure?

Speaker

Peter King (Audience member from Liberia)

Explanation

This calls for concrete, actionable research on practical steps governments can take to build foundational capabilities needed for AI deployment.

How can we create convergence across African countries for AI policy instead of working in silos?

Speaker

Alhaji (Audience member from Gambia)

Explanation

This addresses the need for research into harmonization mechanisms that respect national sovereignty while enabling continental coordination.

What specific measures can build trust among African youth regarding AI and job displacement concerns?

Speaker

Lydia Lamisa Akamvareba (Audience member from Ghana)

Explanation

This highlights the need for research into youth perceptions of AI and effective strategies for building confidence rather than fear about AI’s impact on employment.

How do we assess and measure AI maturity across different African contexts?

Speaker

Shikoh Gitau

Explanation

Understanding where countries stand in terms of AI readiness is essential for developing targeted interventions and tracking progress over time.

How can we ensure that AI models respond to African healthcare needs and realities?

Speaker

Shikoh Gitau

Explanation

This points to the need for research into developing and benchmarking AI systems that are specifically designed for African contexts and needs.

How do we completely change assessment methods in education given AI’s impact on traditional evaluation?

Speaker

Neema Iyer

Explanation

This highlights the need for research into new educational assessment frameworks that account for AI tools and changing skill requirements.

Summary

This discussion focused on women’s digital safety challenges in the Global South, presented by Safaa Sarayrah, a digital safety trainer from Jordan who works with activists and human rights defenders in the MENA region and Africa. Sarayrah emphasized that women in conflict-affected areas of the Global South face severe online violence, harassment, blackmail, and hate speech, with limited support systems available to help them. She highlighted that these digital threats can have life-threatening consequences in traditional communities, where issues like leaked private photos could lead to honor killings.

The presenter identified several key barriers preventing women from accessing digital safety resources, including language barriers since most resources are only available in English, lack of basic technical knowledge about security measures like two-factor authentication and strong passwords, and insufficient collaboration between governments, tech companies, and NGOs. Sarayrah cited alarming statistics, noting that 60% of women in the MENA region face online violence, with 80% of Lebanese women experiencing online harassment. She shared examples of Sudanese women displaced by war who struggle to access digital safety training due to language and resource limitations.

The discussion included input from audience members, including Lila from Brazil who mentioned her work providing digital safety training in Portuguese locally, and Catherine Muma, a Kenyan senator who inquired about policy frameworks for legislative protection. Sarayrah proposed solutions at three levels: governments creating suitable local laws, tech companies providing support in local languages, and NGOs offering awareness sessions in native languages. The discussion concluded with acknowledgment that while some regional efforts exist, there remains a critical need for comprehensive, cross-border collaboration to address women’s digital safety in the Global South.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Language barriers and accessibility of digital safety resources**: Most digital safety resources are available only in English or major languages, creating significant barriers for women in the Global South who speak local languages and cannot access critical safety information or report harassment on platforms.

– **Cross-border collaboration needs between governments, tech companies, and NGOs**: There is a critical lack of coordination between these three sectors to create comprehensive support systems for women facing digital threats, particularly those displaced by conflicts and wars.

– **Severe consequences of digital violence in traditional communities**: Unlike in other regions, digital harassment, blackmail, and privacy violations can lead to life-threatening situations for women in the Global South, including honor-based violence, making digital safety a matter of survival rather than just privacy.

– **Gap in policy frameworks and legislative protection**: There is insufficient legal infrastructure to protect women from online violence, with limited channels between NGOs working on digital safety and government bodies that could implement protective legislation.

– **Basic digital literacy challenges**: Many women, especially those displaced by conflict or living in traditional communities, lack fundamental knowledge about digital security practices like two-factor authentication, strong passwords, and identifying phishing attempts.

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion aimed to highlight the urgent need for comprehensive digital safety support systems for women in the Global South, advocating for multi-stakeholder collaboration to address the unique vulnerabilities these women face online, particularly in conflict-affected regions.

**Overall Tone:**

The tone was serious and urgent throughout, with the presenter expressing frustration about existing gaps in support systems. The discussion maintained a problem-focused approach, with the presenter seeking solutions and input from the audience. The tone became slightly more collaborative when audience members shared their experiences, but remained consistently concerned about the gravity of the issues being discussed.

Speakers

– **Safaa Sarayrah**: Digital safety trainer for activists and human rights defenders, specializing in the MENA region and Africa/Global South. From Jordan, Middle East.

– **Audience**: Multiple audience members participated in the discussion (specific roles/expertise not mentioned for this general category)

**Additional speakers:**

– **Lila**: From Brazil, part of trans feminist network of digital care, conducts digital safety trainings in Portuguese for Brazil

– **Catherine Muma**: Senator from Kenya

# Comprehensive Report: Women’s Digital Safety Challenges in the Global South

## Executive Summary

This presentation by Safaa Sarayrah, a digital safety trainer from Jordan specializing in the MENA region and Africa, addressed the critical challenges facing women in the Global South regarding digital safety. Sarayrah highlighted severe gaps in support systems, language accessibility, and cross-sector collaboration, emphasizing that digital threats in these regions can escalate to life-threatening situations. The session included brief contributions from audience members, notably Lila from a trans feminist network of digital care and Senator Catherine Muma from Kenya, who provided additional perspectives on current efforts and policy needs.

## Key Presenter and Audience Contributors

**Safaa Sarayrah** served as the primary presenter, bringing extensive experience as a digital safety trainer working with activists and human rights defenders across the MENA region and Africa. Her presentation was characterized by urgency regarding existing gaps in support systems, emphasizing the life-or-death nature of digital safety issues in traditional communities. She specifically mentioned her work training Sudanese women who moved to Kenya and Uganda due to war.

**Lila** briefly described her work with a trans feminist network of digital care, providing digital safety training in Portuguese for Brazil, illustrating both grassroots initiatives and their geographical limitations.

**Senator Catherine Muma from Kenya** asked about specific policy recommendations, inquiring about legislative frameworks for women’s protection online.

## Critical Challenges Identified

### The Life-or-Death Nature of Digital Violence

Sarayrah established that digital safety concerns in the Global South can have fatal consequences. She emphasized that digital harassment, blackmail, and privacy violations can lead to physical violence or death in traditional communities. As she stated: “if someone take my like private photos or videos, maybe something it’s lead to killing this women in the global south, unfortunately. So it’s a life matter.”

### Statistical Examples Cited

Sarayrah provided examples of the scope of the problem, citing that “60% of the women in [the MENA] region facing online violence” and “80% women in Lebanon facing a violence online” to illustrate the widespread nature of digital violence against women in the region.

### Language Barriers as Systemic Exclusion

A central theme was the critical barrier posed by language accessibility. Sarayrah highlighted that most digital safety resources are available only in English, creating systematic exclusion for women who speak local languages. This barrier extends to platform functionality—women cannot report harassment or access help because they cannot navigate English-language interfaces and support systems.

She specifically asked the audience: “Do you know any platform that provide this kind of support in the local language?” and noted that even when she searches for solutions, “I cannot find anything in Arabic.”

### Knowledge Gaps in Basic Digital Security

Sarayrah identified significant gaps in fundamental digital literacy, particularly among displaced women. She mentioned specific areas where women lack knowledge:

– Two-factor authentication

– Creating strong passwords

– Recognizing phishing attempts and avoiding clicking unknown links

These gaps are particularly pronounced among women displaced by conflict, such as the Sudanese women she trains who moved to Kenya and Uganda due to war.

### Fragmented Support Systems and Lack of Regional Coordination

Sarayrah emphasized the absence of regional coordination, asking the audience: “Do you know if there is any regional hub in the global south that working on supporting women digital safety?” She noted that organizations typically work within their own countries rather than collaborating across the Global South, limiting effectiveness.

## Stakeholder Challenges

### Civil Society and NGO Limitations

Sarayrah noted that many NGOs do not prioritize digital safety training, and negotiations with tech companies have shown limited success. She identified a critical gap: “Unfortunately we like do not have like open like a channel between us and the government’s and what we that missed unfortunately.”

### Governmental Policy Gaps

Senator Muma’s inquiry about whether work had been done “to define how policy would look like” highlighted governmental interest but uncertainty about effective approaches. Sarayrah emphasized the need for “suitable local laws in each country to help women understand their rights and access help.”

### Tech Company Inadequacies

The presentation highlighted that tech companies do not provide adequate support or resources in local languages, with their commercial priorities often conflicting with user safety needs in the Global South.

## Proposed Solutions

### Three-Level Intervention Strategy

Sarayrah proposed comprehensive action at three levels:

1. **Governmental Level**: Creating suitable local laws in each country

2. **Tech Company Level**: Providing support and resources in local languages

3. **NGO Level**: Offering awareness sessions and training in native languages

### Regional Hub Development

A key proposal was establishing regional hubs connecting governments, tech companies, and NGOs to support women’s digital safety across the Global South, addressing current fragmentation while maintaining local sensitivity.

### Immediate Practical Steps

– Creating digital safety resources and platform guides in local languages

– Conducting community assessments to understand specific risks

– Developing culturally appropriate policy frameworks

– Establishing formal channels between NGOs and governments

## Unresolved Challenges

Several fundamental challenges remain unaddressed:

– Lack of formal channels between NGOs and governments

– Tech companies’ limited responsiveness to Global South needs

– Insufficient infrastructure for local language support

– Particular vulnerabilities of displaced populations

## Conclusion

This presentation illuminated the urgent nature of women’s digital safety challenges in the Global South, where digital violence can have fatal consequences. While Sarayrah identified clear needs for multi-stakeholder collaboration, language accessibility, and regional coordination, significant gaps remain in implementation and resource allocation. The session demonstrated both the severity of these issues and the potential for collaborative solutions, provided stakeholders can develop more effective cross-sector cooperation mechanisms.

The life-or-death nature of digital safety issues in these contexts demands immediate attention from governments, tech companies, and civil society organizations, requiring not only technical solutions but fundamental changes in how these stakeholders prioritize and support women in the Global South.

Safaa Sarayrah: Hello, everyone. To this slide talking about the women’s digital safety, especially in the Global South. Welcome. And first I want to introduce myself. My name is Safaa Sarayrah. I’m from Jordan, Middle East. And I work as a digital safety trainer for activists, human rights defenders, especially in the MENA region and Africa, Global South. First, when I come my idea to come to the idea of that, because from my work, respect of point, because we are working in the Middle East, and we are working on the Global South, which we have a lot of wars, unfortunately, and a lot of a lot of conflicts. And as a woman, yeah, and a girl in the Global South, we are suffering a lot of the online violence, harassment, block mail, whatever, hate speech, because we are working, like for women, we are working on the human rights, or the women also they working on the journalists, especially in the hot and the wars, like spot. So I wanted to talk about some points in this session. And I would like from the people they are so like to share also their experience if they have. First thing that we will talk about that collaboration, the cross border in the Global South, and the rest of the world. Why this matter? Because in the Global South, this the risk and the threat of even the digital threat, or the physical digital threat, because they are women, they are traveling, they are like moving from, like a war or a conflict country to another country, and they are facing a lot of risk. And they do not have that support, much support, especially in the digital, because we do not have that support. For example, if I as a journalist, or a human rights defender, or a woman, and I face a harassment, or a hate speech, or a digital like a threat, I don’t know where to go. Who can help me? Who can support me? So this is like we need the collaboration, why this is very, very important issues and matters. Okay, so what is the key points to get from this session or from these conferences, how we can open channels between the governments, between the tech company and the NGOs? Because this collaboration is like that the secret point to make like a system to support women in the global south. Let’s take like the Sudan case. I trained a lot of Sudanese women. They are because the war in the Sudan, they are moved from Sudan to Kenya, or Uganda. And when I train them on the like a digital security safety, even the basic things is hard for them. Because like the language barrier for them, because most of the resources are in English, or in other language. And as you know, Sudan, they have a lot of language inside it. They took some Arabic, English newbies, and they do not have like the much knowledge how to access the resources. So this is a weak point we can work on it, like to make a platforms, especially from the big tech company, supporting the local languages for the women in the global south, because they have a languages barrier. They do not know how, for example, to report a harassment on the platform. They do not know. They do not know that they are, for example, a guides or something. Let me give you an example. Most of the women I trained them, they do not have how like to active, for example, the 2FA. It’s a basic thing, or to like to establish or setting up a strong password, or when they have like a links and their WhatsApp and their other social media, they just click connect without know who the sender, who it’s safe to click links or not. So they facing a lot of issues, and they facing a lot of phishing and hacking in their forms. And especially in the global south, and like a traditional community, it’s not easy to facing something like this. For example, if someone take my like private photos or videos, maybe something it’s lead to killing this women in the global south, unfortunately. So it’s a life matter. It’s not like, for example, in the other countries. So another case in Amina region as a study of the UN women, that 60% of the women in Amina region facing online violence, and this is a high rate. Another example, 80% women in Lebanon facing a violence online, even harassment, even blackmail, even hate speech. Especially women, they are working in a critical roles in politics. They are facing the hate speech, who look, they wanna voting for her and something like a lot of things. Let me take, so this is the issue, and this is why it’s matter. So what we can do? We can do like searching for solutions, depending on three levels. On the government levels, they build like a suitable local laws in each country that help women to take their rights or to know what they have to do if they have issues, have a risk, where I have to go, who can help me. Even the psychologist thinks on the women when they are facing, they are afraid to speak about these issues because in the community that if you speak about some like, for example, if you’re facing sexual online like a threat, if you speak there, you have a question marks and the community look at you. So this is like also one of the points. We miss this supporting. Also the tech company, they do not have like the supporting like steps or guides in the local languages, especially in the global south. So we need like to establish these like a regional hub that connecting the governments, the tech hub and the NGO. As NGO, what we can do? We can like give the women like awareness sessions in their local languages so they can know even the basic steps, the strong password, the 2FA, how to check the links, the attachments. If she like facing any issue regarding their digital safety, they like find a people who support these women. We’re working on this and we give a lot like of that digital safety like a training in Sudan, in the Middle East, in Iraq and other issues. But unfortunately, regarding to some like problems regarding, for example, to the FATCAN that recently happened, a lot of women, they are now without any digital security support and they have to search about the solutions by themselves. And this is hard for them because they are facing a lot of issues. They are in our countries, they are moving from place to other place. they have a pressure on them especially in their work if they are work as a journalist or human right defenders they have a little bit of knowledge about the technology what about the normal women the normal women they are like stay as a home and they care about the children they do not have any like a little bit of the tech knowledge they’re just using the phone and they’re just clicking on anything and they facing a lot of issues but no one help them I wanted to ask to attend this if anyone know that any platform that like treating this kind of risk in the local languages unfortunately no and this is like like a big issue because there is a resources but they can’t reach it and if I know what I want you should I have a language barrier even for me as a stick person I have a language barrier and sometimes I need to translate the resources to my language to have like a full understanding how like to implement these solutions exactly also I have like as an NGO they are focusing on like some another topics it’s important I know but the digital like safety tips and training awareness it’s not like take that much care from the NGO unfortunately but it is very important I want to also to ask that attendance like especially who are working on the global south is there any regional hub in the global south they are work on this issue yeah can you yeah just one minute like please.

Audience: I’m Lila from Brazil I’m part of trans feminist network of digital care so we do that kind of trainings and everything but in Portuguese for our country only yeah so it’s a local thing for a huge country but that’s it.

Safaa Sarayrah: yeah this is the most important point because she said in I work in only my country what about the other countries within the global South what about the Africa North and South and they have a like a different issues different traditionals even a lot of languages and Alex even in the same country so we need like a solutions we can like for example like innovation to create a like a regional hub for all the global South or even for the countries that have a little bit of common like languages or traditionals and make them like this to like open channel between the governments to make like a suitable laws for the human rights like the women especially the women digital safety rights also as a tech company we encourage them like to establish like a supporting the local languages in their platform so they can help women and normal women with their languages how to know to deal with these issues in the NGO we encourage them to make like more like efforts on these countries especially the countries that like facing a wars like Sudan because Lebanon unfortunately in the Middle East we have a lot of issues unfortunately that’s a little sad things so we need more efforts that specially in the digital safety and we especially in the main region we are facing a lot of hate speech against the women who are working specially in the political things because you are women while you talk in the politics and blah blah blah and these issues I will open the questions or example or any feedback because I wanted to like to hear from you that I’m happy yeah please

Audience: thank you my name is Catherine Muma I’m a senator from Kenya and thank you so much for your presentation and the issues you raise real issues in the global south I would want to know whether you have done any work that helps to define how policy would look like how if we were to put to review our penal laws to include offenses that are committed through the internet and the social media have you and your organization thought through the kind of legislative frameworks and policy frameworks you would want to see governments and parliaments pass for the protection of women I believe it’s protection of women and and children as well.

Safaa Sarayrah: thank you so much for your questions this is important point unfortunately we like do not have like open like a channel between us and the government’s and what we that missed unfortunately but we have like an some negation with the tech company like and Twitter we have a lot of meetings with them about like to creating the suitable policies that are will be fair and good for special countries in the global south but they have as you know it’s a commercial company and we have like their standards we do not hear from them that much but we are keep going to working on this at least we have like it’s not a formal policy we are like as NGO we like establishing policy framework for us for the people who work for the women and children who are working with us and even we are go and giving a like a digital training for any community in the global south we like have a meeting with them understand and make some like resurgent and a pre-assessment to understand all the risk and all like the points that they are care about it so after that pre-assessment we make the policy that fit them specially so what we are working with the special groups with a special civil society but unfortunately we do not have like the big policy framework for like oh even a one country not even for the global south any question or feedback I will happy okay thank you so much and yeah thank you you

Agreement points

Need for comprehensive legislative frameworks to address digital crimes against women and children

Speakers

– Safaa Sarayrah
– Audience (Senator Catherine Muma)

Arguments

There is a need for suitable local laws in each country to help women understand their rights and where to seek help

Governments and parliaments should review penal laws to include internet and social media offenses for protecting women and children

Summary

Both speakers agree that current legal frameworks are inadequate and need to be updated to specifically address digital crimes and provide clear pathways for protection and justice for women and children facing online threats.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Gender rights online | Children rights

Fragmented nature of current digital safety efforts limits effectiveness

Speakers

– Safaa Sarayrah
– Audience (Lila from Brazil)

Arguments

Current efforts are fragmented, with organizations working only within their own countries rather than collaboratively across the Global South

Local organizations like the trans feminist network in Brazil provide training only in Portuguese for their country

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge that while local efforts exist, they are limited to individual countries and lack regional coordination, which reduces their overall impact and effectiveness.

Topics

Gender rights online | Capacity development | Multilingualism

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize the gap between NGO work and government policy-making, with the need for better coordination to develop effective legislative frameworks for digital safety.

Speakers

– Safaa Sarayrah
– Audience (Senator Catherine Muma)

Arguments

NGOs lack formal channels with governments to develop comprehensive policy frameworks, working instead with specific groups and communities

Governments and parliaments should review penal laws to include internet and social media offenses for protecting women and children

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles | Gender rights online

Both speakers understand the critical importance of providing digital safety resources and training in local languages, though they also recognize the limitations of country-specific approaches.

Speakers

– Safaa Sarayrah
– Audience (Lila from Brazil)

Arguments

Most digital safety resources are in English, creating barriers for women who speak local languages

Local organizations like the trans feminist network in Brazil provide training only in Portuguese for their country

Topics

Multilingualism | Gender rights online | Capacity development

Unexpected consensus

Cross-sector collaboration necessity

Speakers

– Safaa Sarayrah
– Audience (Senator Catherine Muma)

Arguments

A regional hub connecting governments, tech companies, and NGOs is needed to support women in the Global South

Governments and parliaments should review penal laws to include internet and social media offenses for protecting women and children

Explanation

It’s notable that both a grassroots digital safety trainer and a government senator independently recognize the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration, suggesting broad consensus across different levels of governance and civil society about the inadequacy of siloed approaches.

Topics

Gender rights online | Legal and regulatory | Data governance

Overall assessment

Summary

There is strong consensus among speakers on the severity of digital safety challenges facing women in the Global South, the inadequacy of current support systems, the critical importance of language accessibility, and the need for comprehensive multi-stakeholder solutions involving governments, tech companies, and NGOs.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary perspectives – the speakers approach the issues from different angles (grassroots training, government policy, local implementation) but arrive at similar conclusions about problems and solutions. This suggests the issues are well-understood across different stakeholder groups and creates a strong foundation for collaborative action. The consensus spans technical, legal, linguistic, and institutional dimensions of the problem.

Different viewpoints

Scope of digital safety initiatives – national vs regional approach

Speakers

– Safaa Sarayrah
– Audience (Lila from Brazil)

Arguments

Current efforts are fragmented, with organizations working only within their own countries rather than collaboratively across the Global South

Local organizations like the trans feminist network in Brazil provide training only in Portuguese for their country

Summary

Safaa advocates for broader regional coordination across the Global South, while the Brazilian representative describes their work as intentionally limited to their own country with Portuguese-only resources. This represents different philosophies about whether digital safety work should be localized or regionalized.

Topics

Gender rights online | Capacity development | Multilingualism

Unexpected differences

Effectiveness of current localized approaches vs need for regional coordination

Speakers

– Safaa Sarayrah
– Audience (Lila from Brazil)

Arguments

Current efforts are fragmented, with organizations working only within their own countries rather than collaboratively across the Global South

Local organizations like the trans feminist network in Brazil provide training only in Portuguese for their country

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers work on the same issue (women’s digital safety) in Global South contexts, yet they have fundamentally different approaches. The Brazilian representative seems content with country-specific work, while Safaa sees this as a problematic fragmentation. This suggests a deeper philosophical divide about whether digital safety solutions should be localized or coordinated regionally.

Topics

Gender rights online | Capacity development | Multilingualism

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows minimal direct disagreement, with most tension arising around implementation approaches rather than fundamental goals. The main areas of difference involve the scope of initiatives (national vs regional) and the pathways to policy development (grassroots vs institutional).

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers largely agree on the problems and general solutions needed, but differ on implementation strategies and scope. This suggests that while there is consensus on the urgency of women’s digital safety issues in the Global South, there are legitimate debates about the most effective approaches to address them. The implications are positive – the shared understanding of problems provides a foundation for collaboration, while the different approaches could be complementary rather than contradictory.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize the gap between NGO work and government policy-making, with the need for better coordination to develop effective legislative frameworks for digital safety.

Speakers

– Safaa Sarayrah
– Audience (Senator Catherine Muma)

Arguments

NGOs lack formal channels with governments to develop comprehensive policy frameworks, working instead with specific groups and communities

Governments and parliaments should review penal laws to include internet and social media offenses for protecting women and children

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles | Gender rights online

Both speakers understand the critical importance of providing digital safety resources and training in local languages, though they also recognize the limitations of country-specific approaches.

Speakers

– Safaa Sarayrah
– Audience (Lila from Brazil)

Arguments

Most digital safety resources are in English, creating barriers for women who speak local languages

Local organizations like the trans feminist network in Brazil provide training only in Portuguese for their country

Topics

Multilingualism | Gender rights online | Capacity development

Key takeaways

Women in the Global South face severe digital safety challenges including online violence, harassment, blackmail, and hate speech, with statistics showing 60% of women in MENA region and 80% in Lebanon experiencing online violence

Language barriers are a critical obstacle preventing women from accessing digital safety resources and reporting mechanisms, as most resources are only available in English

Digital threats in traditional communities can escalate to physical violence or death, making this a life-or-death issue rather than just an online concern

There is a significant knowledge gap regarding basic digital security practices like two-factor authentication, strong passwords, and safe link verification among women in the Global South

Current support systems are fragmented and inadequate, with no clear channels for women to seek help when facing digital threats

Cross-border collaboration between governments, tech companies, and NGOs is essential but currently lacking in addressing these challenges systematically

Resolutions and action items

Establish regional hubs that connect governments, tech companies, and NGOs to support women’s digital safety across the Global South

Create digital safety resources and platform guides in local languages to overcome language barriers

Develop suitable local laws in each country to help women understand their rights and access help

Encourage tech companies to provide better support for local languages on their platforms

Increase NGO focus and efforts on digital safety training and awareness programs

Conduct pre-assessments with communities to understand specific risks and create tailored policy frameworks

Unresolved issues

How to establish formal channels between NGOs and governments for policy development

How to overcome tech companies’ commercial priorities that limit their responsiveness to Global South needs

How to address the lack of existing platforms providing digital safety support in local languages

How to create comprehensive legislative frameworks that include internet and social media offenses

How to scale local efforts (like Brazil’s Portuguese-language training) to cover the diverse languages and cultures across the Global South

How to provide adequate support for women displaced by wars and conflicts who face additional vulnerabilities

Suggested compromises

Working with specific groups and communities to create tailored policy frameworks when broader governmental collaboration is not available

Continuing negotiations with tech companies despite limited success, maintaining dialogue even when commercial standards conflict with advocacy goals

Focusing on countries with common languages or traditions as a starting point for regional collaboration rather than attempting to address all Global South countries simultaneously

For example, if someone take my like private photos or videos, maybe something it’s lead to killing this women in the global south, unfortunately. So it’s a life matter. It’s not like, for example, in the other countries.

Speaker

Safaa Sarayrah

Reason

This comment is profoundly insightful because it reframes digital safety from a convenience or privacy issue to a literal life-or-death matter. It highlights how cultural contexts in the Global South can escalate digital violations into physical violence, challenging Western-centric perspectives on online harassment that may view it as less severe.

Impact

This comment established the gravity and urgency of the entire discussion, shifting it from a technical problem to a human rights crisis. It provided the emotional and moral foundation that justified all subsequent calls for action and collaboration.

Most of the resources are in English, or in other language… They do not know how, for example, to report a harassment on the platform. They do not know.

Speaker

Safaa Sarayrah

Reason

This observation is thought-provoking because it exposes a fundamental barrier that is often overlooked in digital safety discussions – linguistic accessibility. It reveals how language barriers create a systemic exclusion that leaves vulnerable populations without basic protective tools.

Impact

This comment introduced a concrete, actionable dimension to the discussion, moving beyond abstract calls for help to specific solutions like multilingual platforms and localized resources. It provided a clear pathway for tech companies and NGOs to make immediate improvements.

I’m Lila from Brazil I’m part of trans feminist network of digital care so we do that kind of trainings and everything but in Portuguese for our country only yeah so it’s a local thing for a huge country but that’s it.

Speaker

Lila (Audience member)

Reason

This brief response is insightful because it perfectly illustrates the fragmentation problem Safaa described. It shows how even well-intentioned efforts remain isolated and limited in scope, unable to address the broader regional challenges.

Impact

Lila’s comment served as a crucial validation and real-world example of Safaa’s thesis. It transformed the discussion from theoretical to practical, demonstrating both that solutions exist and that they are insufficient in scale. This prompted Safaa to elaborate on the need for regional coordination.

I would want to know whether you have done any work that helps to define how policy would look like… have you and your organization thought through the kind of legislative frameworks and policy frameworks you would want to see governments and parliaments pass for the protection of women

Speaker

Catherine Muma (Senator from Kenya)

Reason

This question is particularly thought-provoking because it comes from someone with actual legislative power, shifting the conversation from advocacy to potential implementation. It challenges the NGO perspective by asking for concrete policy solutions rather than just problem identification.

Impact

Senator Muma’s question created a pivotal moment that exposed a critical gap – the lack of formal channels between civil society and government. Safaa’s response revealed that despite extensive grassroots work, there’s insufficient connection to policy-making processes. This highlighted the need for better advocacy strategies and government engagement.

Unfortunately we like do not have like open like a channel between us and the government’s and what we that missed unfortunately

Speaker

Safaa Sarayrah

Reason

This admission is remarkably candid and insightful because it acknowledges a fundamental weakness in the current approach to digital safety advocacy. It reveals how civil society organizations may be working in isolation from the very institutions that could implement systemic change.

Impact

This honest response shifted the discussion toward structural problems in advocacy and governance. It highlighted that technical solutions and training, while important, are insufficient without policy frameworks and government support. This comment underscored the need for more strategic approaches to engaging with power structures.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a standard presentation about digital safety into a nuanced exploration of systemic barriers, cultural contexts, and structural challenges. Safaa’s framing of digital safety as a life-or-death issue established the moral urgency, while her observations about language barriers provided concrete solutions. The audience interventions – particularly from Lila and Senator Muma – served as reality checks that both validated and challenged Safaa’s perspective. Lila’s example demonstrated the limitations of current efforts, while Senator Muma’s policy-focused question exposed the gap between grassroots work and institutional change. Together, these comments created a comprehensive picture of both the problems and potential pathways forward, elevating the discussion from awareness-raising to strategic planning for systemic change.

Is there any platform that is treating digital safety risks in local languages for women in the Global South?

Speaker

Safaa Sarayrah

Explanation

This is crucial because language barriers prevent women from accessing digital safety resources and reporting harassment on platforms, leaving them vulnerable to online violence

Is there any regional hub in the Global South that works on women’s digital safety issues?

Speaker

Safaa Sarayrah

Explanation

Regional coordination is needed to address the fragmented support system where organizations work only within their own countries, leaving gaps in coverage across the Global South

How can policy frameworks be defined to review penal laws to include internet and social media offenses against women?

Speaker

Catherine Muma (Senator from Kenya)

Explanation

There is a need for legislative frameworks that specifically address digital violence against women and children, but current policy development lacks clear direction

What kind of legislative frameworks and policy frameworks should governments and parliaments pass for the protection of women online?

Speaker

Catherine Muma (Senator from Kenya)

Explanation

Specific policy recommendations are needed to guide lawmakers in creating effective legal protections for women facing digital violence

How can channels be opened between governments, tech companies, and NGOs to create systematic support for women in the Global South?

Speaker

Safaa Sarayrah

Explanation

The lack of formal collaboration between these key stakeholders is identified as a major barrier to addressing women’s digital safety comprehensively

How can tech companies be encouraged to provide support in local languages on their platforms?

Speaker

Safaa Sarayrah

Explanation

Most digital safety resources and platform support are only available in English or major languages, creating barriers for women who speak local languages in the Global South

How can regional hubs be created to connect countries with common languages or traditions in the Global South?

Speaker

Safaa Sarayrah

Explanation

Current efforts are fragmented by country, but regional coordination could provide more comprehensive support for women facing similar challenges across borders

Summary

This roundtable discussion focused on surveillance and spyware accountability from Global South perspectives, examining how commercial cyber intrusion capabilities like Pegasus are deployed against civil society actors worldwide. The conversation was moderated by Nighat Dad and featured speakers from Mexico, India, Lebanon, the UK, and Meta, alongside a former UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression.

Speakers highlighted how surveillance in the Global South differs significantly from the Global North context, often occurring within environments characterized by weak legal safeguards, corruption, and authoritarian tendencies. Ana Gaitan from Mexico described how governments exploit security crises to justify surveillance powers, which are then systematically abused to target human rights defenders and journalists investigating military abuses. Apar Gupta from India detailed how Pegasus revelations exposed targeting of reporters, opposition leaders, and even Supreme Court judges, demonstrating threats to democratic institutions built on colonial-era telecommunications laws.

Mohammad Najem from Lebanon explained how the MENA region experienced a dramatic shift after the Arab Spring, with authoritarian regimes implementing extensive surveillance alongside restrictive cybercrime laws. He noted that Gulf countries are not only using surveillance tools but also developing and selling their own spyware as part of geopolitical strategies. The discussion revealed that surveillance has become a thriving business, with over 500 companies selling tools to approximately 65 governments globally.

Elizabeth Davies from the UK presented the Pall Mall Process, a multi-stakeholder initiative launched by the UK and France to address commercial cyber intrusion capabilities through international consensus-building and codes of practice for states. David Kaye emphasized the importance of moving from soft law to concrete implementation, highlighting successful litigation like Meta’s $168 million award against NSO Group. Rima Amin from Meta described the company’s efforts to investigate and disrupt over 20 surveillance-for-hire firms targeting people across 200 countries.

The discussion concluded with calls for enhanced export controls, human rights due diligence, victim notification systems, and meaningful inclusion of Global South voices in international accountability processes.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Global South surveillance patterns and impacts**: Speakers from Mexico, India, and MENA regions described how surveillance technologies like Pegasus are systematically used to target journalists, human rights defenders, and civil society activists, often exploiting security crises to justify expanded surveillance powers while operating with complete impunity and lack of accountability.

– **Business and geopolitical dimensions of spyware**: The discussion revealed how surveillance has become a lucrative business model, with countries like UAE and Gulf states not only using spyware domestically but developing and selling their own surveillance technologies to gain geopolitical influence and generate revenue, including surveillance of allies and friends.

– **Legal and accountability gaps**: Multiple speakers highlighted the failure of domestic legal systems to provide remedies for spyware victims, with court cases stalling, expert committee findings remaining secret, and authorities claiming no documentation exists of surveillance programs, demonstrating systemic obstacles to justice in the Global South.

– **International initiatives and their limitations**: The Pall Mall Process led by UK and France was discussed as a potential solution, but speakers emphasized the need for meaningful Global South inclusion, moving beyond soft law to binding implementation, and ensuring that international standards address the specific contexts of corruption, weak institutions, and authoritarian tendencies in developing countries.

– **Technical capacity building and victim support**: The conversation addressed the urgent need for Global South civil society organizations to build their own technical capacity for investigating spyware, supporting victims, and conducting device forensics, as current expertise and resources are concentrated in Global North organizations.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to center Global South perspectives in international debates about surveillance accountability, examining how spyware technologies manifest differently in developing regions compared to the Global North, and exploring how international initiatives like the Pall Mall Process can be made more inclusive and effective for addressing surveillance abuses in contexts characterized by weak legal safeguards and authoritarian governance.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was serious and urgent throughout, with speakers conveying deep concern about the expanding surveillance threat. While maintaining a professional academic discourse, there was an underlying frustration about the lack of accountability and the concentration of power in surveillance technologies. The tone became slightly more optimistic when discussing potential solutions and international cooperation, but remained soberly realistic about the significant challenges ahead, particularly regarding implementation and the need for sustained commitment to meaningful change.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Nighat Dad** – Runs Digital Rights Foundation, based in Pakistan, working in South Asia on surveillance and digital rights issues (appears to be the moderator)

– **Ana Gaitan** – From R3D Mexico, expert on surveillance and digital rights issues in Latin America

– **Apar Gupta** – From Internet Freedom Foundation India, working on surveillance accountability and digital rights in South Asia

– **Mohamad Najem** – Runs SMEX (organization), based in Lebanon, working on digital rights issues in the MENA region

– **Elizabeth Davies** – Policy lead at Pall Mall Process Policy, UK Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office Cyber Policy Department

– **David Kaye** – Law professor at the University of California, former UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression

– **Rima Amin** – Security policy manager at META, focused on community defense

– **Jennifer Brody** – From Freedom House (asked a question from the audience)

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Surveillance and Spyware Accountability: Global South Perspectives

## Discussion Summary

### Introduction and Context

This roundtable discussion, moderated by Nighat Dad from the Digital Rights Foundation in Pakistan, brought together experts from across the Global South and international stakeholders to examine surveillance and spyware accountability. The conversation featured speakers from Mexico, India, Lebanon, the United Kingdom, and Meta, alongside a former UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression.

The discussion emerged against the backdrop of revelations about widespread spyware abuse, with over 500 companies now selling surveillance tools to approximately 65 governments globally, creating what speakers described as a thriving surveillance business that poses fundamental threats to democratic institutions and human rights.

### Global South Surveillance Patterns and Impacts

#### Latin America: Security Narratives Masking Repression

Ana Gaitan from R3D Mexico revealed how governments exploit security crises to justify expanded surveillance powers while systematically targeting those who challenge state authority. She explained that “these narratives are actually being used to criminalise citizens in contexts usually represented by high rates of impunity, corruption, and collusion with organised crime.”

Gaitan described how surveillance powers in Latin America are abused to target human rights defenders and journalists, particularly in countries with “legacies of past military dictatorships and systemic human rights violations where the rule has been to control, repress, and censor all dissent.” She highlighted Mexico, where military control of surveillance systems enables targeting of human rights defenders investigating army abuses.

The accountability gap in Mexico is particularly striking. Despite clear evidence of Pegasus targeting victims including “undersecretary Encinas” and “Centro Pro,” criminal complaints are systematically obstructed by authorities who claim no documentation exists of surveillance programmes, creating a cycle of impunity.

#### South Asia: Colonial Legacies and Democratic Threats

Apar Gupta from the Internet Freedom Foundation India emphasized that spyware represents “not a hypothetical threat and it is not a threat which is individualised, but is a societal threat to already democratic systems which are under strain and rule of law which exists inconsistently.”

Gupta explained how post-colonial telecommunications laws enable secretive executive surveillance without proper judicial oversight. The Pegasus revelations in India exposed targeting of reporters, opposition leaders, and even Supreme Court judges. Despite a Supreme Court-ordered investigation, the expert committee’s findings remain secret even from petitioners whose devices were examined.

Moderator Nighat Dad provided crucial context about Pakistan’s surveillance infrastructure, revealing that telecommunications providers are required to ensure surveillance capabilities for “at least 2% of their customer base, which is around 4 million people, so 4 million people are under surveillance at any given time in this country.”

#### MENA Region: Post-Arab Spring Surveillance Expansion

Mohamad Najem from SMEX in Lebanon described how the Middle East and North Africa region experienced dramatic transformation following the Arab Spring, with authoritarian regimes implementing extensive surveillance alongside restrictive cybercrime laws. He noted that “this kind of regulation affected a lot the space, and we started seeing a lot of people going to jail for, like, 10 years, 15 years, for things they have said online.”

Najem revealed that Gulf countries are not only using surveillance tools domestically but are also developing and selling their own spyware. He explained that “a lot of these countries are making these softwares to make money,” and noted concerning examples like the UAE providing surveillance software to “RSF Like the rapid support group in Sudan.”

The scope of surveillance extends beyond traditional targets, with Najem noting that “they’re not doing surveillance on their enemies, on activists, but they’re also doing surveillance on other politicians, on their friends, on their cousins.”

### Legal and Accountability Gaps

A consistent theme was the systematic failure of domestic legal systems to provide remedies for spyware victims. Ana Gaitan described how Mexican authorities obstruct criminal complaints by claiming no documentation exists despite clear evidence of abuse. In India, Apar Gupta highlighted how even Supreme Court interventions prove inadequate, with institutional limitations preventing effective parliamentary or judicial remedies.

Mohamad Najem pointed to high-profile cases like the Khashoggi assassination, where despite known spyware use and international attention, “no accountability even for major crimes” has been achieved.

### International Initiatives: The Pall Mall Process

Elizabeth Davies from the UK Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office presented the Pall Mall Process, launched by the UK and France in February 2024, as a multi-stakeholder approach to establish international consensus on surveillance technologies. The process has achieved support from 24 other states for a code of practice.

Davies announced the UK’s Common Good Cyber Fund, developed with Canadian partners, to support civil society actors at high risk of digital transnational repression. However, she emphasized that “implementation is crucial next step,” acknowledging that soft law commitments must translate into concrete action.

David Kaye, former UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, warned that “states are just kind of driving trucks through any small space that they can carve out to do what they wanna do.” He highlighted concerning developments like the European Union’s Media Freedom Act, which “actually carves out a little bit of space for the use of spyware against journalism.”

### Private Sector Role and Litigation

Rima Amin from Meta described the company’s efforts to investigate and disrupt over 20 surveillance-for-hire firms targeting people across 200 countries. The WhatsApp lawsuit against NSO Group resulted in a $168 million award, which David Kaye highlighted as demonstrating that “legal action is possible.”

However, Amin emphasized that “legal recourse must be accessible specifically for those targeted by surveillance technologies,” highlighting the need for more comprehensive victim support systems.

### Capacity Building and Knowledge Transfer

Nighat Dad explained that “transfer of that knowledge is happening at a very slow pace,” forcing Global South organisations to “build our own knowledge and capacity so that we are on ground, can provide the support to the victims and survivors as first responders.” She mentioned that DRF is building an emerging threat lab to provide device forensics capabilities.

Apar Gupta highlighted the need for victims to access device testing methodology, given the high barriers that exist in domestic jurisdictions.

### Key Recommendations and Proposals

Apar Gupta outlined three specific recommendations:

1. A moratorium on commercial spyware

2. Export control alignments between countries

3. Victim notification rights

The discussion revealed tension between restrictive approaches that prioritise preventing abuse and permissive approaches that seek to balance legitimate uses with human rights protections. Kaye advocated for narrowing the scope as much as possible, while Davies promoted a broader multi-stakeholder approach that acknowledges legitimate uses with proper safeguards.

### Conclusion

The discussion revealed surveillance and spyware accountability as a complex challenge requiring coordinated international action while respecting the specific contexts of Global South countries. Speakers demonstrated consensus around the systematic misuse of surveillance technologies against civil society actors and the urgent need for victim support systems and accessible legal remedies.

The conversation highlighted the inadequacy of current responses, particularly in addressing the structural conditions that enable abuse in developing countries, and emphasized the need for enhanced capacity building and genuine partnership between Global North and Global South stakeholders.

Nighat Dad: In 2021, the Pegasus Project, an investigation by Forbidden Stories and Amnesty International shook the world. It revealed how Pegasus, a military-grade spyware developed by the Israeli firm NSO Group, had been used to target at least 189 journalists, 85 human rights defenders, and over 600 politicians and government officials globally, including cabinet ministers and diplomats. This was not just a moment of reckoning. It sparked a global demand for accountability. Since then, we have seen some movements in the U.S. blacklisted NSO Group and other surveillance firms. The U.K. and France launched the PolMol process earlier this year to start conversation around ethical oversight of such technologies. But despite these efforts, surveillance remains a booming, largely unregulated industry. Over 500 companies continue to market and sell these tools to around 65 governments worldwide, many of them in the Global South. While the discourse on ethical oversight and regulation is growing, it remains largely centered in the Global North. What’s missing are the perspectives, experiences, and context from the Global South, where surveillance not only thrives in silence, but often intersects with weak legal safeguards, authoritarian impulses, and shrinking civic spaces. And that’s why we are here. This roundtable is an attempt to bridge that gap to center the Global South voices in global surveillance and accountability debates. We want to ask, what does surveillance look like in regions like Latin America, South Asia, MENA region, and Africa? What forms does it take from sophisticated spyware like Pegasus to more traditional brick and mortar tactics still used by many actors around us? And critically, how do the solutions from the Global North apply or not apply in our context? Over the past five years, the surveillance industry, tech industry, has been a growing industry. It’s a growing industry. It’s a growing industry. It’s a growing industry. has only expanded. Even the most cautious individuals, journalists, human rights defenders, civil society actors, find themselves vulnerable. And it’s no longer just about states surveilling citizens. We are now seeing an ecosystem where private actors, outsourced contractors, and even foreign governments are deploying these tools to watch, track, and silence dissent. So I’ll just stop here with the introduction and just introduce some of our panelists who are here and two panelists who are joining us online. We have Ana Gaten from R3D Mexico. We have Apar Gupta from Internet Freedom Foundation India, Mohammad Najam from SMEX Lebanon, Elizabeth Davis, who is a policy lead at Pall Mall Process Policy, UK Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office Cyber Policy Department, David Kaye, who is a law professor at the University of California and former UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression. And last but not the least, Reema Amin, who is a security policy manager at META, focused on community defense. So I’ll start with my first question to Ana, basically. If you can just tell us a little bit about what are the implications of state-sanctioned cyber intrusion on its citizens in your region, but also in the global south, specifically, in what context in Latin America is differ from the north when it comes to surveillance and spyware technology?

Ana Gaitan: Sure. Thank you, Nighat. In many Latin American countries, governments have taken advantage of security crisis experienced by their societies to make it appear like our only alternative to protect ourselves is to give up our privacy, implying that if we do not, we will only be helping criminals commit more crimes. However, the reality is that these narratives are actually being used to criminalize citizens in contexts usually represented by high rates of impunity, corruption, and collusion with organized crime. Thus, rather to give us more security, surveillance powers in Latin America are abused to target human rights defenders and journalists in legacies of past military dictatorships and systemic human rights violations where the rule has been to control, repress, and censor all dissent. For example, in Mexico, abusive surveillance powers exacerbate in a context where Mexico has led and maintained for more than 15 years a military approach to public security risks, granting powers to the military that are constitutionally prohibited. The army has systematically abused surveillance technologies to interfere with investigations carried out officially and by human rights defenders and journalists related to the army’s human rights abuses, such as extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. Many of the Pegasus infections occur at times when the victims were carrying out work related to human rights violations committed by armed forces or police authorities. In fact, information that has been made public as a result of the hacking carried out by Colectivo Guacamaya confirms that the surveillance and monitoring activities carried out are mainly done against civil organizations, human rights defenders, activists, and journalists where they are classified as pressure groups for their work in defense of human rights. For example, in Mexico, one of the victims, undersecretary Encinas, was in charge of the Truth Commission for the disappearance of 43 students from Ayotzinapa in which army personnel participated. And another victim was Centro Pro, a human rights organization who represented the families of the victims in this case and represents many other victims of human rights violations by the army. In 2017, 2022, and 2023, surveilled victims of the Pegasus infections were identified teams in Mexico, mainly human rights defenders and journalists, filed criminal complaints with the Special Prosecutor’s Office for Crimes Against Freedom of Expression for the crimes of illegal interception of private communications and illegal access to computer systems. However, despite multiple calls by national and international actors regarding the need to carry out a diligent investigation, justice and accountability have been obstructed by the authorities under scrutiny, who consistently claim no database or formal documentation of the records regarding the persons of numbers targeted by Pegasus exist. Furthermore, in a context in which the army does not only control the federal security and intelligence apparatus but now controls ports, airports and roads, as well as operates trains, refineries, airlines, touristic resorts, banks and many other business interests, it is particularly problematic that it deploys surveillance technologies with complete opacity and impunity. And I think that in general terms, this is the context in which Latin American countries usually use and abuse surveillance powers in which they try to stifle dissent and represent censored human rights defenders and journalists without any type of redress or reparation for the victims’ access to justice, non-judicial or non-judicial remedies. So I would end with that.

Nighat Dad: Thank you so much, Ana. I’ll head to Apar Gupta, who is joining us online. And Apar, if you can build on what Ana basically described, what is happening in their region, how do you think surveillance has manifested in your or our part of the world? Are zero-click attacks a significant threat in the region or do other urgent issues take precedence? And what role has the Internet Freedom Foundation played in this regard?

Apar Gupta: Thank you so much, Nighat. Picking up from the remarks which were made by Ana. I think there is continuity as well as similarity in our experience in India. The Pegasus revelations of July 2021 included at least 38 reporters who were prominent in their criticism of the government, opposition leaders and activists, and even included a sitting Supreme Court judge. And this shows and demonstrates that the very functionaries who are vested with both official powers as well as roles and responsibilities in order to keep the state honest, in order to ensure that democracy preserves, are themselves the victims of zero-click attacks. Therefore, it’s not a hypothetical threat and it is not a threat which is individualized, but is a societal threat to already democratic systems which are under strain and rule of law which exists inconsistently in countries in South Asia. And this brings into sharp focus where the underlying foundation of the telecommunication laws in many countries in South Asia comes from a post-colonial legacy in which the state had absolute control over the spectrum and the airwaves, and extension of this has resulted in an opaque secretive system in which there is no requirement of judicial sanction and there is no independent parliamentary oversight in which most of the powers are centralized within the executive branch of the federal government itself. So, it is essentially a secretive procurement and then subsequent deployment of spyware technology which attacks the very roots of a democratic system across South Asia which builds off this colonial legacy. And is it still continuing? Or was it just a one-off instance in 2019 and then in 2021 in India? The notifications by Apple in October 2023 included scores of Indian MPs and reporters of a state-sponsored attack on iPhones, and which had echoes of Pegasus. So this is a problem which is much more wider than one specific company or one specific type of software. And our response to this has been, firstly, increasing the amount of public awareness around this issue, that this is not a conventional issue of surveillance in which information is being gathered in breach of the law. This is something which is a much more deeper harm to a democratic system itself. So IFF launched a campaign around it. There was strategic litigation, which was also conducted in the Supreme Court, which remains pending. And there was a special committee constituted by the Indian Supreme Court, whose findings are not yet public. This also demonstrates the remedial gaps which exist in rule-of-law processes, where institutions may not strongly react to infections by spyware domestically through this court. And subsequently, we have also filed one petition asking for a much more structural reform of India’s surveillance laws. Three short points before I end this intervention. The repeated instances of the use of spyware, the foundational deficiencies in our legal system, as well as institutional frameworks to enforce remedy, calls into sharp focus the need for platforms, as well as multilateral and multi-stakeholders, the organization and processes to do the following. Possibly consider monetarium, non-commercial spyware until its legality, necessity and proportionality principles can be set through multilateral frameworks, export control alignments which also have transparency requirements to which countries, what kinds of technologies are being used. issued, and what are the standards for which such kind of export controls actually apply. And specifically, till that happens, for victim notification and right, which enables the right to remedy, should be maintained by most platforms when they do detect spyware infections. So much.

Nighat Dad: Yeah. Apar, thank you so much for giving us a detailed picture of what is happening in India, but beyond India, in South Asia. And the kind of actions that IFF has taken. I just wanted to ask you, the cases are still pending, or in any of those petitions, have you heard from the courts or any hope around those petitions?

Apar Gupta: So, there was a high amount of hope when the petitions were initially filed, given there was a vast amount of public interest, as well as the reporting activity which was being carried around them. The petitions came to be filed shortly after the revelations were made, sometime in September 2021. And an expert committee was set up, however, its findings were not made public. And the case was then not posted for active hearing, at least for a period of two years, from 2023 to 2025. Earlier in the year, the case did come up for hearing, but then again, it is not a case which is proceeding fairly, with some kind of pace. And the fight right now is to get the determinations by the expert committee as to the examination of the devices made public, or at least even be made available to the very petitioners who have approached the court, whose phones were submitted to the committee. Even they don’t have access to the report. Again, I will re-emphasize, while it is essential for a lot of people in South Asia, not only in India, to engage with their courts, with Parliament, in the public sphere. There are limitations which are there in these institutional processes as to the autonomy and ability to provide remedy to victims.

Nighat Dad: Thank you so much, Apar. I would just say that, especially in South Asia, keeping in mind geopolitics and especially ongoing conflicts going on, I think it’s becoming more and more difficult for civil society to raise issues around spyware, surveillance. It sort of has become a taboo issue over the years, where you, when you mention accountability on spyware technologies, that’s where you also kind of, you are in a situation where you, there are several backlashes coming from different segments of the state and other actors. I’ll come to you, Mohamad Najem. You run this organization, SMACS, in MENA, and I wanted to ask you if you can also elaborate some patterns that you have observed in how spyware is deployed in your region, in MENA, and what SMACS is actually doing to address that challenge.

Mohamad Najem: Thank you, Negat. First I want to start by mentioning the MENA region has some specificity to it, because in 2010, 2011, when we witnessed the Arab Spring, the community and the societies in the region were going in one direction, and gradually we went into totally the opposite direction. So basically, the space, the tech space was really open before like the Arab Spring, or kind of open. When the Arab Spring happened, when we saw the results, all the authoritarian regimes, all the governments, like from the Gulf, Egypt, everybody came together and they started closing the civic space slowly, slowly. And one of the big tactics that they use is, is… surveillance. Of course, not only surveillance, but I’m just going to talk about some of these points. So, basically, they started first, like, there was almost zero regulations when it comes to the cyberspace, to the online space. And suddenly, in 2015, there was dozens of laws around, like, cybercrime laws, around freedom of expression, every, like, all the regulations started, came out, and all these regulations have one goal, to actually limit the speech, limit what people are talking about online. So, this kind of regulation affected a lot the space, and we started seeing a lot of people going to jail for, like, 10 years, 15 years, for things they have said online. So, regulation was really one of the big tools they have used. And then, when we want to talk about surveillance itself, of course, like, the Gulf country, they have a lot of money. We have seen the relationship with Israel was kind of, like, not known. Are they actually enemies, or are they friends? There was no public conversation about it. But then, later on, we discovered that the Gulf has been investing a lot with NSO, Pegasus, and there was a lot of cases about it. I’m sure you all know about it. So, Pegasus have been used heavily, and NSO, and so many other softwares and companies. So, this definitely affected a lot what we’ve seen right now, especially with the case of Jamal Khadjikshi, that everyone saw it happening, and we have seen that there’s actually no accountability. We’re not only talking about spyware accountability, we’re talking about accountability about a crime that happened. It’s really like, of course, spyware has been used. But like it’s much bigger than spyware, and I’m sure David will touch upon this a little bit So more and more of like the self-censorship has started to be created because of this Like there’s no accountability. There’s no transparency So there is really a lot of censorship that self-censorship that started to be created and Also at the same time we’ve seen these governments Because of the relationship with Israel has been publicly Known right now or like let’s say 2015 2017 2016 they also started to develop their own softwares their own local softwares We’ve seen Egypt doing this we’ve seen UAE doing this there’s so many articles on New York Times and so many other places We’ve seen Morocco. We’ve seen Saudi Arabia, so we started seeing these countries basically looking at this from a business perspective And I really think when we think about spyware we really need to look about it from a business perspective for so many authoritarian regimes and what they have been doing for the last five years is Not only producing their local solutions. I mean local solutions local spywares, but they’re also trying to sell it And there are geopolitical wars like we’ve seen We’ve seen for example like UAE are giving their softwares their surveillance to RSF Like the rapid support group in Sudan We have seen it happening in Egypt we have seen it happening in so many other places So it started to be part of the geopolitical game Mostly to gain more power. Sorry I put five minutes, and that was very quickly. So I need to finish quickly. And we also have seen it. Where was I? OK. So basically, UAE were selling it in terms of to empower their geopolitical presence, but to also make money. A lot of these countries are making these softwares to make money. So we need to understand this as advocates of digital rights. It’s a business decision as well for them. And one thing that we don’t talk a lot about in our communities is they’re also doing surveillance on their friends and allies. And this is something really important, because we have discovered in so many cases that all these countries are doing surveillance on each other’s. They’re not doing surveillance on their enemies, on activists, but they’re also doing surveillance on other politicians, on their friends, on their cousins. So they want to catch their secrets. They want to understand what they’re doing. So this is happening. I mean, in terms of SMACs, I know I didn’t answer the question yet, Negat. So briefly, what we’re trying to do, we’re trying to support civil society groups. We’re trying to support LGBT groups. We know there are so many criminalization of LGBT in our region. So these are the most vulnerable groups. So our team is distributed among the Arab-speaking countries. And we’re trying to do some kind of support to mitigate some of these threats. Of course, the threats are much bigger. We need to do more collaboration among civil society groups. And yeah, I’m going to stop here. Sorry, I passed my time.

Nighat Dad: No, thank you so much, Najem. I think that was really important to get a good picture of Gulf countries. I’ll come to you, Elizabeth. We would love for you to speak briefly about how the Paul Moll process can support efforts in the global south. Now you have heard three speakers from different regions. And the one pattern that is emerging is basically inaccountability and nontransparency by the governments. And how do you think that Paul Moll process or mechanisms like this can be meaningfully inclusive of actors outside the Global North?

Elizabeth Davies: Yeah. Thank you very much. Hopefully, everyone can hear me all right. I’m sorry to not be able to join you in person this morning. So, I’ll just do a brief overview on what the Pal-Mell process is at the start to avoid any confusion. So, it was launched in February 2024 by the UK and France as a multi-stakeholder international initiative to address the global threat posed by the rapidly growing market in commercial cyber intrusion capabilities. So, what we call C6 as a shorthand, but including but not limited to commercial spyware like Pegasus has been mentioned this morning. This threat includes a serious harm caused by the irresponsible use of these tools to target human rights defenders, journalists, and others who play a vital role in protecting and promoting fundamental freedom, much of which we only know about thanks to the brave work of many of you here today as we have set out. But we also, as the UK, have concerns because of this rapidly growing market’s impact on the cyber threat that we as states all face by lowering the barrier to entry to advance capabilities to a wider number of states and non-state actors. And that increased the volume, the variety, and severity of threats that we face threatening our officials, our infrastructure, our businesses, and our citizens. And we know that this threat will become increasingly acute into the future as the market expands, diversifies, and specializes. So, while we’re focusing today on commercial spyware in particular, I think it’s important to emphasize that the power map process looks more broadly across the commercial cyber intrusion market, so including elements of the supply chain that sit under these. sophisticated capabilities, like the vulnerability and export marketplace, because we don’t believe any one element can be tackled in isolation. The UK government does believe there are legitimate uses of these tools in defense of cybersecurity operations, for example, for national security and law enforcement. But these should be limited, and they should only be used with appropriate oversight and safeguards in place, and never in ways that threaten human rights or contravene international law and norms. So through building international consensus, the aim of the Pal-Mao process is, broadly, to ensure that access to the most advanced capabilities remains limited and controlled, that international norms and safeguards ensure the responsible development, use, and sale of cyber introduction capabilities around the world, and that better transparency across the market makes it easier for states to enhance national resilience and take proactive action to tackle irresponsible activity. So what we’re trying to do is set the rules of the road for different actors across the market and thinking about shared responsibility towards tackling this threat that impacts all of us. So in terms of action that the Pal-Mao process has done so far, we started with states as the major customers of this industry. As colleagues have set out, this is a business. So we’re talking here about trying to shift market incentives. So we used the findings of a multi-stakeholder consultation last autumn to draft a code of practice for states, which contained a series of detailed recommendations for states as responsible regulators, customers, and users of C6 under the four pillars of the Pal-Mao process, which are accountability, oversight, precision, and transparency. This final product was achieved through an extensive multi-stakeholder negotiation. So we’re hugely grateful for the constructive engagement in the process of this of many of you here today. We secured formal support from 24 other states for the code of practice so far, including Ghana, our first state supporter from the global south. And we hope that this number will continue to rise. But this is only a stepping stone, which I think is the really important thing to mention. we know that the code of practice will only have an impact if we implement the commitments we’ve made and continue to build on that momentum. So the next steps for the power mile process are sort of, we anticipate across three work streams, one of them being focused on implementation of the code of practice for states. So supporting states to put these commitments into practice, whether that’s through existing policy levers or creating new ones, there’s no point in having this if it’s not implemented properly and comprehensively. With industry, we are now turning our expectations to those working in this market themselves. So we have to agree collectively what practices, internal processes, security measures, and other elements should be implemented as standard across the market to help curb irresponsible activity and misuse, and accountability and tracking progress, and developing ways of formally doing this. We know this is needed to bring about this behavior change. Our approach so far has been to try and work to set a standard first because you can’t hold irresponsible actors accountable or shape the market until there is a credible standard to hold them accountable to. Well, that brings me to the huge importance of multi-stakeholder participation in the power mile process. You know, we need help from all of you in shaping the standard of behavior, convincing key players to join it, or at least a critical mass of them, enough to change this market, and then by holding them accountable to it. You know, the hugely valuable work all of you have done so far in highlighting that abuse that we want to continue to support you in doing. But we know that our efforts in this haven’t been inclusive enough so far. You know, the power mile process has always set out to be truly international from the beginning. We stated that it was a global problem that required a global solution. So an initiative that just involves states and other stakeholders from the global north is never going to move that dial. And we know that there is that huge importance in involving civil society stakeholders from the global south. And I’m sorry if some of you feel that that hasn’t been the case so far, and that’s something we would like to change. We know you can bring your significant expertise. to inform the process of developing some kind of code of practice for industry by applying the knowledge that you have of how these products and services have been developed, sold, and used in particular contexts and feeding that into the consultation process that we will be holding on this going forward. And to help determine, like I say, what standards need to be baked in in this industry or can never be included for a product to be responsibly used. And that expertise is important, too, in our work in supporting implementation of the code of practice for states. We want to know where you think that there are global examples of best practice in this space or where things have been tried in particular countries and haven’t worked. And as I said, you’re particularly vital partners when it comes to holding states and companies to account for irresponsible behavior and exposing whether their actions don’t meet their words, whether that is involving those who have signed up to the code of practice yet or not. Because we want to support efforts by states to address this threat in the global South, too. We want more states from the global South participating in these discussions if they are doing so in good faith and hopefully signing up to the code of practice, committing to the actions within it, and crucially, being held accountable to them. Like I say, we were delighted to have Ghana sign up to the code of practice and attend the conference in Paris in April. And we hope that more countries from the global South will follow. We’ve also worked to ensure that the issue is highlighted in the relevant multilateral fora so that the discussions are international. So we’ve consistently raised the issue at the UN’s open-ended working group on ICTs. And we hope that language will be included in this year’s final report. And I should say, last but very, very much not least, the UK wants to make sure that we are supporting those who are already victims of the irresponsible use of these capabilities or are at high risk of becoming so wherever they are in the world. And so that’s why we were pleased to announce alongside our Canadian partners last week the Common Good Cyber Fund, aimed at supporting civil society actors at high risk of digital transnational repression in particular, including in the global South. I’ll stop there because I think I’ve probably already gone over time. But I’m really keen to hear from all of you what more we should be doing, and particularly how we can support your efforts, both from the UK side and the Pal-Malt process.

Nighat Dad: Thank you so much, Elizabeth. I think it’s very useful what process UK and French-led initiative Pal-Malt process is doing and how you are trying to include Global South voices in this process. Professor David, I’ll come to you, and you have been in this space for so long. You are a former rapporteur at UNSR on freedom of expression, and I have seen you very actively engage with the accountability mechanisms around spyware technology in the US and also other processes. And I would like to ask you very candidly how international law, especially during these times, is effective when Global South actors, especially civil society, is trying to hold big actors accountable around spyware technology, and also if you think that Pal-Malt process and other processes like these would be useful for Global South.

David Kaye: Great. Thanks, Negat, for pulling us all together here. I guess the way I would answer the question at the highest level is that international law is only effective when it’s domesticated, when it’s actually applied. So I was very happy to hear from Elizabeth that Pal-Malt process is a stepping stone. How we judge it is by its implementation. And so in thinking about implementation, about the strength or the power, the effectiveness of international law, let me just try to make three points, or divide this into three sections. First, on global export constraint. Clearly. We need clarity and human rights standards to be a part of global export constraint. And that means that any of the constraint that we see that’s applied by governments or by international organizations needs to meet the three-part test of international law, precision, proportionality, legitimacy, and all of that. And those have to be implemented at the domestic level. I think one thing that we have seen in global constraint is that, particularly during the years of the Biden administration, the actual sanctioning of bad actors has an impact, right? So it’s one thing to have high-level soft law, but we really need the actual sanctioning of the bad actors because that has a very strong impact on the ability of those bad actors to continue to operate. And so as we’re thinking about global export control, we need to be thinking about how do we make that part real. The second part that I want to mention is litigation, right? So litigation is also a form of moving from the soft law, from the standards, to actual implementation. So I think we saw in a very constructive way WhatsApp or Meta suing the NSO group, which led just in recent months to an award against the NSO group of $168 million in a U.S. court. Now whether that holds remains to be seen, but that kind of pressure is absolutely essential. Now it’s more difficult to do that kind of litigation against states because of sovereign immunity. There’s variation in different jurisdictions. It’s harder to do in the United States than in the UK, for example. But we continue to see that kind of litigation as a tool to impress upon the global community and particularly on the bad actors, that there are consequences for their actions. The third area that I want to talk about, and I’ll devote sort of the balance of my time to this, is on domestic constraints. Domestic and sometimes supranational constraints that can be imposed on law enforcement and on the intelligence community. So actually, this has been an area where there’s been quite a bit of positive movement in recent years. Just last December, the Venice Commission, of which I’m a member, issued a report on spyware that has very strict rules with respect to law enforcement’s use of spyware tools in domestic settings. I think it’s important to look at that, to look at the European Union and the European Parliament’s PEGA committee process on this, and to ask a couple of questions about these domestic constraints. The first one is, will they be applied? So the Venice Commission really details some very significant rules that should be applied by states. Will they be applied by states? We’ve seen significant use of spyware against human rights defenders, against journalists. Even over the last several weeks, we’ve seen the scandal of the use by the Italian government against journalists. Will these standards actually be applied? That’s really a very open question right now. And then the second question, I think that’s very important is, will these standards be used to apply to global export constraint? Because it’s one thing for European governments. and others to say these are going to be the standards that are going to apply for the use internally, but will those standards actually be used in the consideration of what kind of tools can be exported to countries around the world? At the moment, I don’t know that we actually have an answer to that, but I would urge certainly processes like the Palma process to move quickly from sort of the higher level of soft law to really looking at these standards at the domestic level and say that these are the standards that also must apply to global export control. I’m at five minutes, so I’m going to stop there. I’m sure in the conversation, there’ll be more that we can talk about.

Nighat Dad: Thank you so much, Professor David. I’ll also encourage our audience, if they have questions, please prepare them. I’m not taking them right now. We have one more speaker, but I’ll open the floor after Rima. So Rima, I’ll come to you. You are working at Meta and your role is actually looking into issues like what we are discussing right now. Can you tell us how common is it over years or even recently to track individuals through online platforms? Recently the NSO was ordered to pay damages over $150 million to Meta for hacking WhatsApp in 2019. By the way, if you get that, I think you should proceed that to the civil society in the global south who are working on spyware accountability, but that’s just, I’m joking. So what does this mean for online platforms tackling vulnerability issues against cyber tech companies such as NSO?

Rima Amin: Sure. Thank you so much. And also just to say that is actually our plan if we are awarded those damages to be able to contribute that to organisations who are supporting people targeted by surveillance for hire. In terms of what we’ve seen on Meta’s platforms, we have investigated and disrupted operations from over 20 surveillance for hire firms across targeting people across 200 countries. And I think many of the speakers have pointed out that many of those people are based in the global South. These surveillance for hire firms claim that their technology is being used to target criminals and terrorists, but our investigations have shown over and over again, regular targeting of dissidents, critics of authoritarian regimes, families of opposition and sort of human rights activists. Our teams are very focused on sort of investigating these threats, disrupting them, notifying victims, working also with civil society organizations to find ways to support them. We also, where appropriate, do sort of intelligent sharing because we know that these types of threats cut across sort of different platforms and places. So it’s really important that we’re able to share that intelligence. And then also we release information about these threats through adversarial threat reports. In terms of your question relating to the NSO group, I think in the spirit of, you know, stepping stones as we’re talking about today, I think what that lawsuit really showed was that legal action here is possible. And in terms of having some optimism there, we hope that this will provide a bit of deterrence for, you know, the manner of which some of these surveillance for hire companies are operating. I think Mohammed also spoke about these being sort of businesses. And so, again, We hope that this lawsuit has provided insight for investors who may be thinking about investing in this type of technology as well. So, there’s a couple of things that I think we can be optimistic about. There were also a couple of things that we learned through the lawsuit. Firstly, we learned about NSO’s actual role in the data retrieval and delivery of the technology, which was sort of almost every part of it, so that was an interesting insight. And we also learned that WhatsApp were far from being the only ones targeted by the NSO group, so they spent tens of millions of dollars on malware installation across things like instant messaging, browsers, and sort of operating systems. In terms of sort of what we see as being needed next, of course it’s a really important step that we were able to take with the litigation, but we really need, and I think a lot of speakers here spoke about this, we need legal recourse to be accessible and attainable specifically for those who are targeted by these technologies. Elizabeth spoke very well about some of the controls and guardrails that are really needed for this industry. I think that’s pretty key as well, because we need something for these firms to be sort of accountable towards, and we also need to prevent these technologies from being misused in the first place.

Nighat Dad: Great. Thank you so much, Rima. So I’ll open the floor for questions. If you have questions, can you raise your hand, we’ll take two, three questions from the floor, and then please specify which speaker you want to ask questions to. There was one hand that I saw, yeah. So if you have a question, you have to go to the mic, which is there. We need to put this right here, yeah, okay. Hello, can you hear me? Yes. Yeah, thank you for the excellent panel.

Jennifer Brody: My name’s Jennifer Brody, I’m with Freedom House. I have a question really for the panel, but specifically to David Kaye. You mentioned the importance of export controls. In my work on this topic, what seems to be kind of the next step, lowest hanging fruit, is to help governments create enhanced human rights due diligence guides, essentially. It’s something civil society supports, governments in theory want to get behind, and the quote-unquote good actors in industry are also keen on this work. So curious if, yeah, David, if you have any comments. Also directed at Elizabeth Davies with the UKFCDO. Thank you.

David Kaye: Great, Jen, thanks for that question. It’s a great question. So I agree with that. I mean, I think going towards very specific due diligence approaches can just concretize what we’re talking about, and give a kind of checklist for governments to determine what is and is not legitimate. And also, I think to the extent that that due diligence can be transparent and widely shared, it also enables governments to share that kind of information for civil society, for other stakeholders to engage in that. I think getting to the title of this panel, I think it’s gonna be extremely important for that kind of due diligence to be widely shared outside of. of, you know, the global north. And there are efforts, there’s an African regional spyware initiative right now that can be one kind of vector to getting that kind of information and building that kind of capacity outside of the north, which could be really valuable. But I think due diligence like that is definitely important, particularly given that we’d be talking about fundamental human rights standards that should be applying here.

Elizabeth Davies: Yes. Elizabeth. Sure. Yeah. Just to come in on that as well, I think, yeah, fundamentally we would agree. I think this is, it’s one of the most obvious areas to focus on when it comes to that concrete implementation of the code of practice. So we are planning to sort of set up some particular working groups focused on particular areas of implementation that we think we can work on now over the next years. And one of them will be focused on export controls, because I think even also the sort of flip side of the human rights due diligence is also ensuring, I think, that national export control authorities fully understand what lots of these tools are capable of and therefore that they are asking the right questions when it comes to those human rights due diligence questions as well. It’s a complicated area and the technicalities of it, I think, sometimes are what kind of tie everybody up in knots. So improving that human rights due diligence and also just improving the application and enforcement of export controls across this space is something that we really want to look at quite closely. So yeah, we will be welcoming lots of input into that as to how all of this can be applied.

Nighat Dad: Do we have any other questions from the floor? Maybe any comment, addition, if there is no question, like if you want to add into this debate. If not, I would like to share some findings. So, I run this organization called Digital Rights Foundation, we are based in Pakistan, working in South Asia, now looking at the region, and so we are working on this series of regional scoping studies that will be released in coming months, and this study basically explores what surveillance looks like in South Asia, starting from Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Apar, who is also a speaker, they are also contributing to this study, and our aim is to uncover which cyber intrusion capabilities are available in our context, what risks they pose to privacy and digital rights, and what gaps exist in transparency and accountability. I’ll briefly mention a few findings in our report. In Pakistan, we found that the lawful intercept management system, which we call LIMS, is central to state surveillance. It is managed by a regulator, and funded by telecom providers, and the system facilitates real-time access to messages, call logs, metadata, and even audio-video content. Shockingly, telecom providers are required to insure at least 2% of their customer base, which is around 4 million people, so 4 million people are under surveillance at any given time in this country. I’ll go to Sri Lanka. In our research, some of the findings we are finding is the use of backdoors and unmonitored data transmission in devices provided by companies like Huawei. The Telecommunication Act gives sweeping interception powers to ministers while judicial approval is required. The lack of clear SOPs makes the entire process opaque and vulnerable to abuse. In India, while the landmark Putswami judgment recognized previously as a fundamental right, the passage of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act in 2023 marked a worrying regression. The law fails to meaningfully protect citizens from surveillance and decision-making around In Bangladesh, surveillance involves both traditional forms as physical tailing and white taping as well as more sophisticated and intrusive domains. Some police officers routinely have access to and use surveillance technologies, especially during protests or socially disrupted events to collect real-time information. National Regulatory Commission and National Telecommunication Monitoring Center both have the authority to collect data without incorporation from telecom providers. In one example, authorities deliberately slowed mobile and broadband internet access to force citizens in Dhaka to use traditional network communications, which are easier to trace. So these are some of the examples and findings. And they might not sound more sophisticated because the work in Global South is just starting, although by civil society, although the states and actors who have this capacity to acquire technologies are more advanced, and more advanced not only in using these technologies but have more resources. And I think that is the worrying trend where we are way behind in these conversations around accountability, transparency, and really have no means in terms of holding powerful actors accountable and how to hold them accountable, how we can use these international processes and what these processes mean for us. There are several initiatives that are going on. Civil society is building their own capacity, like SMEX and DRF is actually building this emerging threat lab, building our own capacity to support victims and survivors who, when they find that they are being surveilled or sophisticated spyware is used against them, they are at mercy of no one. And then they come to civil society or helplines or help desks. digital security helpdesk to seek guidance or support. And that’s where our role comes in. But we also need support in terms of building our capacity. So what we are trying to do is bridging this gap between the knowledge among Global North Organizations and Global South Organizations. We have really good advanced knowledge in Global North Organizations who are doing these investigations, but transfer of that knowledge is happening at a very slow pace. So what we are doing is trying to build our own knowledge and capacity so that we are on ground, can provide the support to the victims and survivors as first responders. I would like to mention SPIWARE Accountability Initiative, which is focused on Global South Organizations and Governments in their own context. And it’s a very interesting initiative in a very different industry that they can take in supporting civil society or actors who are trying to hold SPIWARE Governments or SPIWARE tech accountability work possible in their own context. So please, anyone who wants to start.

Ana Gaitan: I can start. It’s not going to be one, but I’m going to try to synthesize it. I agree with what was mentioned about the necessity of having national legal frameworks regarding implementation and not just soft law, because that way it can be legally binding. but also to contextualize it according to the global south and what we were discussing, to actually see what happens in countries of the global south regarding corruption, collusion with organized crime, impunity, and how these obstacles relate sometimes to our lack of access to justice, accountability, and transparency. And I think that’s very important for us to connect, and also what Nigat was mentioning about the fact that it’s not only related to the targeting of human rights defenders and journalists in public interest matters that affect democracies, but also we’re establishing a global trend where massive surveillance is happening everywhere. So for example, in Latin American countries, there’s a lot of now centralized data registries that are being interconnected and that allow for everyone to be massively surveilled. So I think that we have to also establish that it’s not only Pegasus and certain type of spywares, but that there is several surveillance technologies that are being implemented that are going to affect every citizen around the world. So that’s it.

Nighat Dad: Rima, can I continue?

Rima Amin: Sure. I think this is a global threat and cuts across different spaces. And so I think really working to drive initiatives like the Palmao process together, I think is going to be super important in making sure that they expand. I think a couple of key areas is driving to make sure the controls and guardrails are in place, both for the companies and also the customers themselves, make sure that human rights due diligence is there and that transparency is there too. And then the second piece to that is really. ensuring that remediation for targets is possible and the ability to drive accountability and legal action as needed is there too. Because unless you have that second piece, the first piece around guardrails completely falls apart, so yeah.

David Kaye: Sure, so I think there’s maybe two things that we need to be thinking about here. I mean, there’s a million things to be thinking about, but one is whether we’ve left open or are leaving open too many gaps. I mean, we live in an era where states are just kind of driving trucks through any small space that they can carve out to do what they wanna do. And so I’m particularly concerned about discussing the spyware industry and its legitimacy when in fact we’re talking about an industry that is essentially performing governmental functions when they shouldn’t be. And so when we have things like the European Unions Media Freedom Act, which actually carves out a little bit of space for the use of spyware against journalism, that’s a huge problem for us. And that’s a huge problem not only for European journalists, but it’s also a huge problem for the message that it sends to the rest of the world. So if I were sort of looking kind of generically at one thing that we should be focusing on, it’s really narrowing as much as possible any scope for the use of these tools at all, if not banning them, which seems not to be particularly on the table right now, but ensuring that that space is really not available for the use of these tools by states.

Nighat Dad: Najem, you have 20 seconds, and then 20 seconds each to Elizabeth and Opar.

Mohamad Najem: Oh my god, my turn, okay. I mean, briefly, I just want to say that coming to what we’ve seen in the last few years in terms of war in my region, I really think that we really need to think about digital rights everywhere, or like human rights everywhere. I mean, in the opening ceremony today, I’ve seen an interesting case of Ukraine. A gentleman was speaking about how successful it was to regain access to the telecom and how it’s helped them a lot through their communication by using Starlink. It’s interesting, and I really admire this experience, but also from the other angle, Starlink has been not used in Gaza, for example. So we really need to think about how we can think of human rights everywhere and digital rights everywhere, and we really need to think about how we can treat everybody equally to have access to the same telecommunication tools.

Nighat Dad: Thank you. Elizabeth, you, and then Opar, we have only 25 seconds left.

Elizabeth Davies: Okay, I will be very quick. I will say one, I think, as we said with the stepping stone, the actual comprehensive and sort of thorough implementation of code of practice is vital and following through on that. But also, you know, particularly in the spirit of this panel, but I think it’s vital to ensure that we don’t become a Global North initiative that is only talking to companies and countries based in the Global North. You know, otherwise we’re not going to have that global impact that we need.

Nighat Dad: Yeah, Apar, very quickly.

Apar Gupta: I think that notifications is something which needs to be universalised across platforms, especially for people in the Global South. The second thing is the ability for victims to reach out to organisations for having their devices tested and the methodology, given that there are very high barriers where evidence is tested in their domestic jurisdictions. So that capacity and that safety needs to be encouraged beyond the four or five organisations. which do it at least.

Nighat Dad: Thank you so much. Thank you everyone to our speakers. I would like to give a shout out to Jennifer Brody from Freedom House. She has been doing a lot of works. We have so many allies in the audience, our speakers. Thank you so much. And this is just the beginning of this debate. Please keep talking about this issue throughout IGF and beyond. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Surveillance is used to target human rights defenders and journalists rather than legitimate security threats

Speakers

– Ana Gaitan
– Apar Gupta
– Mohamad Najem
– Rima Amin

Arguments

Security narratives used to justify surveillance while actually targeting dissidents in contexts of impunity and corruption

Post-colonial telecommunications laws in South Asia enable secretive executive surveillance without judicial oversight

Arab Spring backlash led to dozens of restrictive cybercrime laws and massive surveillance expansion across MENA region

Meta disrupted over 20 surveillance-for-hire firms targeting people across 200 countries

Summary

All speakers agree that surveillance technologies are systematically misused to target civil society actors, journalists, and human rights defenders under the guise of security, rather than being used for legitimate law enforcement purposes

Topics

Human rights | Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Lack of accountability and transparency mechanisms enables surveillance abuse

Speakers

– Ana Gaitan
– Apar Gupta
– Mohamad Najem
– Nighat Dad

Arguments

Criminal complaints in Mexico obstructed by authorities claiming no documentation of Pegasus targeting exists

Indian Supreme Court expert committee findings on Pegasus remain secret even from petitioners whose devices were examined

No accountability even for major crimes like Khashoggi case despite known spyware use

Surveillance accountability becomes taboo issue in South Asia due to geopolitical tensions and state backlash

Summary

Speakers consistently highlight how authorities obstruct investigations, withhold information, and prevent accountability mechanisms from functioning effectively, creating an environment of impunity for surveillance abuse

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Need for victim notification and support systems

Speakers

– Apar Gupta
– Nighat Dad
– Rima Amin

Arguments

Victim notification by platforms should be universalized, especially for Global South users

Global South organizations building emerging threat labs to support surveillance victims as first responders

Legal recourse must be accessible specifically for those targeted by surveillance technologies

Summary

There is consensus that victims of surveillance need better notification systems, support mechanisms, and accessible legal remedies, with particular emphasis on supporting Global South victims who have fewer resources

Topics

Human rights | Cybersecurity | Development

Implementation and enforcement are more important than soft law standards

Speakers

– Ana Gaitan
– David Kaye
– Elizabeth Davies

Arguments

Security narratives used to justify surveillance while actually targeting dissidents in contexts of impunity and corruption

Sanctioning bad actors has real impact on their ability to operate effectively

Code of practice for states achieved support from 24 countries but implementation is crucial next step

Summary

Speakers agree that while international standards and codes of practice are important, the critical challenge is ensuring proper implementation and enforcement rather than just creating more soft law instruments

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers describe how historical legacies (military dictatorships, colonial laws, authoritarian backlash) create structural conditions that enable surveillance abuse in their respective regions

Speakers

– Ana Gaitan
– Apar Gupta
– Mohamad Najem

Arguments

Military control of surveillance in Mexico targeting human rights defenders investigating army abuses, with complete opacity

Post-colonial telecommunications laws in South Asia enable secretive executive surveillance without judicial oversight

Arab Spring backlash led to dozens of restrictive cybercrime laws and massive surveillance expansion across MENA region

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Both speakers view the WhatsApp/Meta lawsuit against NSO as a significant precedent demonstrating that legal action against surveillance companies can be effective and revealing important information about their operations

Speakers

– David Kaye
– Rima Amin

Arguments

WhatsApp lawsuit against NSO resulted in $168 million award demonstrating legal action is possible

NSO lawsuit revealed company’s extensive role in data retrieval and tens of millions spent on malware

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity | Human rights

Both speakers recognize the critical need to bridge the gap between Global North and Global South in surveillance accountability efforts, emphasizing the importance of inclusive approaches and knowledge sharing

Speakers

– Nighat Dad
– Elizabeth Davies

Arguments

Knowledge transfer from Global North to Global South organizations happening at slow pace

Comprehensive implementation of international standards vital to avoid becoming Global North-only initiative

Topics

Development | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Unexpected consensus

Surveillance as a business model requiring market-based solutions

Speakers

– Mohamad Najem
– Elizabeth Davies
– Rima Amin

Arguments

Gulf countries developing local surveillance software as both business venture and geopolitical tool

Pall Mall process aims to set rules for commercial cyber intrusion market through multi-stakeholder approach

Meta disrupted over 20 surveillance-for-hire firms targeting people across 200 countries

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus that surveillance should be understood and addressed as a commercial market with business incentives, requiring market-based interventions rather than just human rights approaches. This business perspective was shared across civil society, government, and private sector speakers

Topics

Economic | Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Need for technical capacity building in Global South

Speakers

– Apar Gupta
– Nighat Dad
– Rima Amin

Arguments

Need for victims to access device testing methodology given high barriers in domestic jurisdictions

Global South organizations building emerging threat labs to support surveillance victims as first responders

Meta disrupted over 20 surveillance-for-hire firms targeting people across 200 countries

Explanation

Unexpectedly, there was strong consensus across civil society and private sector that technical capacity building for device testing and threat detection in the Global South is a priority, suggesting alignment between advocacy and industry perspectives on practical support needs

Topics

Development | Cybersecurity | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists on surveillance abuse patterns, accountability failures, and the need for victim support, with unexpected alignment on treating surveillance as a business requiring market interventions and technical capacity building priorities

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for coordinated action. The agreement spans civil society, government, and private sector perspectives, suggesting potential for unified approaches to surveillance accountability that combine human rights advocacy with market-based interventions and technical capacity building in the Global South

Different viewpoints

Scope of surveillance regulation – narrow vs. comprehensive approach

Speakers

– David Kaye
– Elizabeth Davies

Arguments

Standards must be narrowed to prevent states from exploiting gaps in regulations

Pall Mall process aims to set rules for commercial cyber intrusion market through multi-stakeholder approach

Summary

David Kaye advocates for narrowing scope as much as possible or banning surveillance tools entirely to prevent state abuse, while Elizabeth Davies promotes a broader multi-stakeholder approach that acknowledges legitimate uses with proper safeguards

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Legitimacy of surveillance tools usage

Speakers

– David Kaye
– Elizabeth Davies

Arguments

Standards must be narrowed to prevent states from exploiting gaps in regulations

The UK government does believe there are legitimate uses of these tools in defense of cybersecurity operations, for example, for national security and law enforcement

Summary

David Kaye is concerned about any carve-outs for legitimate use as they create exploitable gaps, while Elizabeth Davies explicitly acknowledges legitimate uses for national security and law enforcement with proper oversight

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Unexpected differences

Universal application of digital rights across conflicts

Speakers

– Mohamad Najem

Arguments

Digital rights must be considered universally and equally across all regions and conflicts

Explanation

Mohamad Najem’s critique of differential treatment of telecommunications access (Starlink in Ukraine vs. Gaza) was unexpected as it introduced geopolitical considerations that other speakers didn’t address, suggesting disagreement with selective application of digital rights principles

Topics

Human rights | Infrastructure | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus among Global South speakers on surveillance abuse patterns and accountability challenges, with main disagreements occurring between Global North and Global South perspectives on regulatory approaches

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most disagreements were about implementation methods rather than fundamental goals. The strongest disagreement was between David Kaye’s restrictive approach and Elizabeth Davies’ multi-stakeholder approach to surveillance regulation. Global South speakers showed strong alignment on problems but varied approaches to solutions, suggesting the need for diverse, context-specific strategies rather than one-size-fits-all solutions.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers describe how historical legacies (military dictatorships, colonial laws, authoritarian backlash) create structural conditions that enable surveillance abuse in their respective regions

Speakers

– Ana Gaitan
– Apar Gupta
– Mohamad Najem

Arguments

Military control of surveillance in Mexico targeting human rights defenders investigating army abuses, with complete opacity

Post-colonial telecommunications laws in South Asia enable secretive executive surveillance without judicial oversight

Arab Spring backlash led to dozens of restrictive cybercrime laws and massive surveillance expansion across MENA region

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Both speakers view the WhatsApp/Meta lawsuit against NSO as a significant precedent demonstrating that legal action against surveillance companies can be effective and revealing important information about their operations

Speakers

– David Kaye
– Rima Amin

Arguments

WhatsApp lawsuit against NSO resulted in $168 million award demonstrating legal action is possible

NSO lawsuit revealed company’s extensive role in data retrieval and tens of millions spent on malware

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity | Human rights

Both speakers recognize the critical need to bridge the gap between Global North and Global South in surveillance accountability efforts, emphasizing the importance of inclusive approaches and knowledge sharing

Speakers

– Nighat Dad
– Elizabeth Davies

Arguments

Knowledge transfer from Global North to Global South organizations happening at slow pace

Comprehensive implementation of international standards vital to avoid becoming Global North-only initiative

Topics

Development | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Key takeaways

Surveillance in the Global South operates in contexts of weak legal safeguards, corruption, and impunity, with states using security narratives to justify targeting human rights defenders and journalists rather than actual criminals

The surveillance industry has become a profitable business venture for authoritarian regimes, with Gulf countries developing local spyware capabilities for both domestic control and geopolitical influence

International accountability mechanisms face significant limitations in Global South contexts, with court cases stalled, evidence withheld, and institutional remedies proving inadequate

The Pall Mall process represents progress in establishing international standards but requires meaningful Global South participation and concrete implementation rather than just soft law commitments

Legal action against surveillance companies (like Meta’s $168 million award against NSO) demonstrates that accountability is possible and can create deterrent effects

Massive surveillance infrastructure affects entire populations, not just targeted individuals, with systems like Pakistan’s LIMS monitoring 4 million people simultaneously

Knowledge and capacity gaps between Global North and South organizations hinder effective response to surveillance threats, requiring enhanced cooperation and resource sharing

Resolutions and action items

Pall Mall process to establish working groups focused on export control implementation and human rights due diligence guidelines

Development of enhanced human rights due diligence guides for governments as immediate actionable step

UK announcement of Common Good Cyber Fund to support civil society actors at high risk of digital transnational repression

Global South organizations building emerging threat labs and first responder capabilities for surveillance victims

Spyware Accountability Initiative focusing on supporting Global South organizations and governments in their accountability efforts

Continued victim notification by platforms, especially for Global South users, and intelligence sharing across platforms

Implementation of Venice Commission’s strict rules for law enforcement spyware use in domestic and export control contexts

Unresolved issues

How to ensure meaningful Global South participation in international processes like Pall Mall beyond tokenistic inclusion

Whether domestic surveillance standards will actually be applied to global export controls by European and other governments

How to address the fundamental legitimacy question of whether private companies should perform governmental surveillance functions at all

How to overcome institutional limitations in Global South courts and parliaments that prevent effective remedy for surveillance victims

How to accelerate knowledge transfer from Global North to Global South organizations working on surveillance accountability

How to address the business incentives driving the surveillance industry while authoritarian regimes profit from both domestic use and international sales

How to ensure universal application of digital rights principles across different geopolitical contexts and conflicts

Suggested compromises

Treating Pall Mall process and similar initiatives as ‘stepping stones’ rather than final solutions, with emphasis on concrete implementation over high-level commitments

Focusing on ‘lowest hanging fruit’ like human rights due diligence guidelines that have support from civil society, governments, and responsible industry actors

Narrowing the scope for legitimate use of surveillance tools as much as possible, even if complete bans are not politically feasible

Combining multiple approaches including export controls, litigation, domestic constraints, and international standards rather than relying on any single mechanism

Balancing legitimate national security and law enforcement needs with strict oversight, judicial approval, and human rights safeguards

Supporting both international standard-setting processes and local capacity building for Global South organizations simultaneously

However, the reality is that these narratives are actually being used to criminalize citizens in contexts usually represented by high rates of impunity, corruption, and collusion with organized crime. Thus, rather to give us more security, surveillance powers in Latin America are abused to target human rights defenders and journalists in legacies of past military dictatorships and systemic human rights violations where the rule has been to control, repress, and censor all dissent.

Speaker

Ana Gaitan

Reason

This comment reframes the entire surveillance debate by exposing the false security-privacy trade-off narrative used by governments. It reveals how surveillance is weaponized against the very people it claims to protect, particularly in post-authoritarian contexts with weak institutions.

Impact

This established a critical framework that subsequent speakers built upon, shifting the discussion from technical aspects of spyware to the broader political and historical context of surveillance abuse in the Global South.

Therefore, it’s not a hypothetical threat and it is not a threat which is individualized, but is a societal threat to already democratic systems which are under strain and rule of law which exists inconsistently in countries in South Asia.

Speaker

Apar Gupta

Reason

This comment elevates the discussion from individual privacy concerns to systemic democratic threats, emphasizing how spyware attacks the foundational institutions of democracy itself in fragile political systems.

Impact

This broadened the scope of the conversation to include institutional vulnerability and democratic backsliding, influencing later discussions about the need for structural reforms rather than just technical solutions.

So, this kind of regulation affected a lot the space, and we started seeing a lot of people going to jail for, like, 10 years, 15 years, for things they have said online… And one thing that we don’t talk a lot about in our communities is they’re also doing surveillance on their friends and allies… They’re not doing surveillance on their enemies, on activists, but they’re also doing surveillance on other politicians, on their friends, on their cousins.

Speaker

Mohamad Najem

Reason

This reveals the comprehensive nature of authoritarian surveillance that extends beyond traditional targets to include allies and family members, showing how surveillance creates a climate of total mistrust and control.

Impact

This comment introduced a new dimension to the discussion about the psychological and social impacts of surveillance, moving beyond the typical focus on journalists and activists to show how surveillance affects entire social networks.

We need to understand this as advocates of digital rights. It’s a business decision as well for them… A lot of these countries are making these softwares to make money.

Speaker

Mohamad Najem

Reason

This insight reframes surveillance from a purely political tool to a commercial enterprise, revealing how authoritarian regimes are monetizing oppression and creating new revenue streams from surveillance technology.

Impact

This business perspective influenced later speakers to discuss market incentives and economic deterrents, leading to conversations about litigation, sanctions, and financial accountability as tools for change.

Shockingly, telecom providers are required to insure at least 2% of their customer base, which is around 4 million people, so 4 million people are under surveillance at any given time in this country.

Speaker

Nighat Dad

Reason

This specific statistic about Pakistan’s surveillance infrastructure provides concrete evidence of mass surveillance capabilities, moving the discussion from anecdotal cases to systematic, institutionalized surveillance.

Impact

This data point grounded the theoretical discussion in stark reality, prompting other speakers to acknowledge that the threat extends far beyond targeted spyware to encompass mass surveillance systems affecting millions.

I mean, we live in an era where states are just kind of driving trucks through any small space that they can carve out to do what they wanna do… when we have things like the European Unions Media Freedom Act, which actually carves out a little bit of space for the use of spyware against journalism, that’s a huge problem for us.

Speaker

David Kaye

Reason

This comment critically examines how even well-intentioned regulations in the Global North can create dangerous precedents that authoritarian regimes exploit, highlighting the global interconnectedness of policy decisions.

Impact

This shifted the conversation toward examining the unintended consequences of Global North policies and the need for more restrictive rather than permissive approaches to surveillance regulation.

But we also need support in terms of building our capacity… transfer of that knowledge is happening at a very slow pace. So what we are doing is trying to build our own knowledge and capacity so that we are on ground, can provide the support to the victims and survivors as first responders.

Speaker

Nighat Dad

Reason

This highlights a critical gap in the global response to surveillance – the lack of technical capacity and knowledge transfer to Global South organizations who are often the first responders to surveillance victims.

Impact

This comment redirected the discussion toward practical capacity-building needs and the importance of supporting local organizations, influencing speakers to consider more concrete support mechanisms rather than just policy frameworks.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it beyond technical and legal frameworks to examine the deeper political, economic, and social dimensions of surveillance in the Global South. The conversation evolved from describing surveillance problems to analyzing their root causes in weak institutions, authoritarian legacies, and economic incentives. The speakers collectively built a narrative that surveillance is not just a privacy issue but a comprehensive threat to democratic systems, social trust, and human rights. The discussion also highlighted the inadequacy of Global North solutions when applied to Global South contexts, emphasizing the need for locally-informed approaches and genuine capacity building rather than top-down policy prescriptions.

Are the legal cases and petitions regarding Pegasus surveillance still pending in Indian courts, and is there any hope for progress?

Speaker

Nighat Dad

Explanation

This follow-up question seeks clarity on the current status of legal remedies and accountability mechanisms in India’s judicial system regarding spyware abuse.

Will the Venice Commission’s strict rules on spyware use actually be applied by states in practice?

Speaker

David Kaye

Explanation

This questions the gap between establishing international standards and their actual implementation by governments, which is crucial for effectiveness.

Will domestic spyware standards be used to apply global export controls?

Speaker

David Kaye

Explanation

This explores whether internal governance standards will translate into restrictions on exporting surveillance technology to other countries, particularly in the Global South.

How can the Pal-Mal process become more meaningfully inclusive of Global South actors beyond current efforts?

Speaker

Nighat Dad

Explanation

This addresses the need for genuine participation from Global South stakeholders rather than tokenistic inclusion in international governance processes.

How can legal recourse be made accessible and attainable specifically for those targeted by surveillance technologies in the Global South?

Speaker

Rima Amin

Explanation

This highlights the need for practical remedies for surveillance victims who currently have limited access to justice mechanisms.

How can enhanced human rights due diligence guides for export controls be developed and implemented effectively?

Speaker

Jennifer Brody

Explanation

This focuses on creating practical tools that governments can use to assess human rights impacts before approving surveillance technology exports.

How can knowledge transfer between Global North and Global South organizations be accelerated to build local capacity for supporting surveillance victims?

Speaker

Nighat Dad

Explanation

This addresses the capacity gap where Global South organizations need technical expertise to serve as first responders for surveillance victims.

How can victim notification systems be universalized across platforms, especially for people in the Global South?

Speaker

Apar Gupta

Explanation

This seeks to ensure that surveillance victims worldwide receive timely warnings about attacks on their devices and accounts.

How can device testing methodology and capacity be expanded beyond the current few organizations that provide this service?

Speaker

Apar Gupta

Explanation

This addresses the limited availability of technical forensic services for surveillance victims who need evidence of attacks on their devices.

How can digital rights and telecommunications access be ensured equally across conflict zones and different geopolitical contexts?

Speaker

Mohamad Najem

Explanation

This raises questions about equitable access to communication tools and digital rights regardless of political circumstances or geographic location.

Summary

This discussion focused on the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process and the future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), taking place during the 20th IGF in Oslo. The session featured co-facilitators from Kenya and Albania leading the WSIS Plus 20 process, along with the UN Under-Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs, who outlined the review timeline culminating in a high-level UN General Assembly meeting in December.

The co-facilitators reported hearing diverse stakeholder views on grounding the review in original WSIS principles while addressing technological advances like artificial intelligence and digital public infrastructure. A key discussion point emerged around the relationship between WSIS and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), with varying opinions on whether WSIS should remain the overarching framework or whether the processes should run parallel courses. Participants emphasized the need to avoid duplication between these initiatives while ensuring coherence and synergy.

Strong convergence was noted on preserving WSIS’s foundational vision of a people-centered, inclusive, and development-oriented information society. There was widespread agreement on maintaining the multi-stakeholder approach, addressing capacity building needs, and tackling the persistent digital divide. The co-facilitators announced plans for an informal multi-stakeholder sounding board to facilitate ongoing dialogue and committed to holding joint sessions between governments and non-government stakeholders.

A subsequent panel discussion featured government ministers and organization representatives who highlighted WSIS’s achievements over 20 years, including increased internet connectivity from 17% to 67% globally. They identified emerging challenges including AI governance, data protection, online safety for children, and environmental impacts of ICT. Panelists advocated for a permanent IGF mandate, better integration of national and regional IGFs, and strengthened coordination between WSIS, GDC, and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. The discussion concluded with calls for enhanced multi-stakeholder participation at national levels and continued commitment to an open, interoperable internet based on trust and voluntary cooperation.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **WSIS Plus 20 Review Process and Timeline**: The discussion focused extensively on the ongoing World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process, with co-facilitators from Kenya and Albania providing updates on consultations, stakeholder engagement, and the timeline leading to a high-level UN General Assembly meeting in December.

– **Future of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF)**: A central theme was strengthening and potentially making the IGF permanent, with discussions about extending its mandate, improving its structure, ensuring predictable funding, and enhancing its role in global digital governance while maintaining its multi-stakeholder approach.

– **Integration and Coordination Between Digital Governance Processes**: Participants emphasized the need to avoid duplication and achieve coherence between WSIS, the Global Digital Compact (GDC), and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, with proposals for joint implementation roadmaps and better coordination mechanisms.

– **Emerging Technologies and WSIS Action Lines**: The conversation addressed how to incorporate new technologies like artificial intelligence, data governance, and digital public infrastructure within the existing WSIS framework, with many arguing that the current action lines are technology-neutral and flexible enough to accommodate these developments.

– **Multi-stakeholder Engagement and Inclusivity**: Throughout the discussion, there was strong emphasis on maintaining and strengthening multi-stakeholder participation, particularly ensuring meaningful involvement of developing countries, youth, women, small and medium enterprises, and civil society in both global and national-level processes.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion served as a key consultation session during the 20th IGF, allowing co-facilitators of the WSIS Plus 20 review process to gather input from the multi-stakeholder community on how to update and strengthen the WSIS framework for the next decades. The session aimed to capture diverse perspectives on the future of digital governance, the role of IGF, and how various UN digital processes should work together coherently.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, characterized by mutual respect and shared commitment to the multi-stakeholder model. Participants expressed cautious optimism about the WSIS Plus 20 process while acknowledging the challenges ahead. The tone was professional yet passionate, with speakers demonstrating deep engagement with the issues and genuine concern for preserving the inclusive spirit of WSIS while adapting to new realities. There was an underlying sense of urgency about the December deadline, but also confidence in the community’s ability to work together toward positive outcomes.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Jorge Cancio** – Session moderator/co-moderator

– **Karianne Tung** – Minister (Norway), representing Norwegian government

– **Thomas Schneider** – Session moderator/co-moderator, Ambassador (Switzerland)

– **Kurtis Lindqvist** – Representative from ICANN

– **Ekitela Lokaale** – Co-facilitator for WSIS Plus 20 process, Permanent Representative of Kenya to the UN

– **Li Junhua** – Under-Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs, UN

– **Jimson Olufuye** – Principal Consultant at Contemporary Consulting Limited (Nigeria), advocate for private sector view from Africa through Africa ICT Alliance

– **Markus Kummer** – WSIS veteran, former chair of various negotiating groups

– **Suela Janina** – Co-facilitator for WSIS Plus 20 process, Permanent Representative of Albania to the UN

– **Maggie Jones** – Baroness Jones, UK Government representative

– **Fabrizia Benini** – European Commission representative

– **Audience** – Various audience members who asked questions

– **Online moderator** – Eleonora, managing online participation and questions

**Additional speakers:**

– **Jaqueline Pigato** – Data Privacy Brazil, Civil Society

– **Philip Lee** – General Secretary of WACC (World Association for Christian Communication)

– **Nigel Casimir** – Caribbean Telecommunications Union

– **Constantinos Comaitis** – Resident Senior Fellow, Democracy and Tech Initiative at the Atlantic Council

– **Bertrand de La Chapelle** – Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network

– **Ana Neves** – Portugal representative

– **Esther Yarmitsky** – UK Government

– **Christina Alida** – Egyptian Government

– **Rian Duarte** – Brazilian Association of Internet Service Providers

– **William Lee** – Australian Government

– **Silvia Cadena** – Chief Development Officer of the World Wide Web Consortium

– **Kossay Al-Shati** – Kuwait representative

– **Raul Echeverria** – Executive Director of Latin American Internet Association, MAG member

– **Bastiaan Winkel** – Department of Justice, Netherlands

– **Eric** – Speaker who addressed linguistic diversity issues (spoke in Spanish)

– **Musa Maigari** – Nigeria (participated online)

– **Segun Omolosho** – Online participant

– **Mark Carvell** – Formerly of UK government, longtime IGF participant (mentioned in online chat)

# WSIS Plus 20 Review and Internet Governance Forum Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This session at the 20th Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Oslo focused on the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review process and the future of digital governance. The discussion brought together co-facilitators from Kenya and Albania leading the WSIS Plus 20 process, UN officials, government ministers, and representatives from civil society, private sector, and technical communities.

**Note on Source Material**: This summary is based on a transcript with significant quality issues, including garbled and incomplete sections. The analysis focuses on clearly intelligible portions while acknowledging these limitations.

## Key Participants and Context

The session featured:

– Ekitela Lokaale (Kenya) and Suela Janina (Albania) as WSIS Plus 20 co-facilitators

– Li Junhua, UN Under-Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs

– Minister Karianne Tung from Norway

– Maggie Jones representing the UK Government

– Representatives from ICANN, private sector, and civil society organizations

The discussion centered on how the WSIS framework should evolve for future decades while maintaining its foundational principles.

## WSIS Plus 20 Review Process

### Timeline and Consultation Process

Li Junhua outlined the review timeline leading to a high-level UN General Assembly meeting in December. The co-facilitators reported conducting extensive consultations with diverse stakeholders across regions, revealing both areas of agreement and divergence on key issues.

Key upcoming milestones include:

– Written inputs to elements paper due July 15th

– Joint sessions between governments and non-government stakeholders planned for late July

– Second preparatory consultation meeting scheduled for mid-October

### Stakeholder Engagement Mechanisms

The co-facilitators announced the establishment of an informal multi-stakeholder sounding board to facilitate better communication between formal intergovernmental negotiations and the broader multi-stakeholder community.

## Areas of General Agreement

### Multi-stakeholder Approach

Strong support emerged for preserving the multi-stakeholder approach as central to both WSIS and IGF processes. Maggie Jones emphasized that “WSIS, our multi-stakeholder engagement, is very unique in this experience. And I think that’s one of our great strengths.”

Kurtis Lindqvist from ICANN highlighted that “the IGF strength lies in what it enables, the open engagement across stakeholder groups without the pressure to negotiate or formalise the outcomes.”

### Technology-Neutral Framework

Participants generally supported maintaining the technology-neutral nature of existing WSIS action lines. Minister Tung noted that “the action lines are broad, they are tech neutral, I believe that is important, because we don’t know what kind of technology that hits us tomorrow.”

Jimson Olufuye, representing private sector perspectives from Africa, argued that “the 11 WSIS Action Lines covered anything that could come up. We don’t really need any new structural changes.”

## IGF Future and Strengthening

### Permanent Mandate Support

Strong support emerged for providing the IGF with a permanent mandate. Minister Tung stated that “for Norway, it is important that we are able to give IGF a permanent mandate. That is a key priority.”

Kurtis Lindqvist emphasized the IGF’s track record: “IGF has proven successful over 20 years, enabling phenomenal economic growth and connecting over 5 billion people online.”

### Enhanced Outputs and Communication

While supporting the IGF’s non-binding nature, speakers advocated for strengthening its outputs. Maggie Jones suggested that “we can have a strengthened output, we can also potentially use the IGF mandate to report to the General Assembly, but there should be more output coming out of the IGF.”

Minister Tung emphasized better integration with policymaking: “I think it’s important that we are able to communicate better the results and the messages that come out from IGF, so that we can better use it for policymaking.”

## Key Challenges and Debates

### WSIS and Global Digital Compact Relationship

Significant discussion focused on the relationship between WSIS and the Global Digital Compact (GDC). Minister Tung took a clear position: “I believe that the WSIS should be the lead process for digital cooperation where the GDC can be connected more towards and implemented together with the WSIS process.”

However, views varied on whether WSIS should serve as the overarching framework or whether processes should run in parallel to avoid duplication.

### Digital Divides and Inclusion

Despite progress in global connectivity, substantial challenges remain. Maggie Jones reported that internet access has grown from 17% in 2005 to 67% currently, but significant disparities persist between developed and developing countries.

The gender digital divide received particular attention, with Jones noting that “the gender divide remains a huge challenge for us. Globally there were 244 million more men than women using the internet in 2023.”

### Emerging Technology Challenges

Participants discussed how to address artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies within existing frameworks. Minister Tung highlighted concerns about “AI ethics, data governance, and harmful algorithms affecting children and society.”

There was general agreement that the technology-neutral nature of existing action lines provides flexibility to address new challenges without requiring fundamental structural changes.

## Stakeholder Perspectives and Concerns

### Beyond Traditional Communities

An audience member challenged the community to expand beyond traditional boundaries: “How can we preach to those who are already converts? We have to bring them to the table. We have to take all of this out of the IGF to other places.”

### National-Level Implementation

Jimson Olufuye identified challenges in national-level engagement: “The major challenge I see is to get our national government to be involved, to involve all of us, all the stakeholders in the conversation.”

### Protecting Successful Models

Kurtis Lindqvist warned about risks to existing approaches: “We risk losing one of these few global spaces where we can have this meaningful digital cooperation… If we replace this model with something that’s more rigid or politicised, we risk losing one of these few global spaces.”

## Coordination and Implementation

### Avoiding Duplication

A central theme was avoiding duplication while promoting synergies between WSIS, the Global Digital Compact, and the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Participants consistently called for better coordination mechanisms.

Fabrizia Benini from the European Commission proposed joint implementation roadmaps to track progress across multiple commitments and identify areas requiring coordination.

### National and Regional IGFs

The discussion highlighted the crucial role of national and regional IGFs in connecting global and local governance conversations, with 176 such initiatives currently operating worldwide.

## Unresolved Questions

Several fundamental questions remain for the WSIS Plus 20 process:

1. **Institutional Relationships**: The specific relationship between WSIS and the Global Digital Compact requires clarification

2. **IGF Structure**: While there’s support for strengthening the IGF, the specific mechanisms remain to be determined

3. **Funding and Resources**: Sustainable funding mechanisms for ongoing activities need development

4. **Meaningful Inclusion**: Practical mechanisms for ensuring broader participation require further work

## Conclusion

The discussion revealed a community committed to preserving successful multi-stakeholder approaches while adapting to contemporary challenges. Strong consensus exists on fundamental principles, but significant work remains on implementation details and institutional arrangements.

The December timeline for the WSIS Plus 20 review is ambitious, requiring resolution of several complex questions about coordination, resources, and institutional relationships. The constructive tone of discussions suggests good prospects for progress, though the ultimate success will depend on translating broad agreement on principles into specific, actionable frameworks.

The emphasis on expanding engagement beyond traditional communities and addressing persistent digital divides indicates recognition that the legitimacy and effectiveness of digital governance frameworks depend on their broader relevance and inclusivity.

Thomas Schneider: Good morning everyone, can you already hear me? So, we have all survived the first few days of the IGF, so there’s one more to go, so welcome to the last morning of this year’s IGF, of the 20th IGF, and what a surprise, we may talk about WSIS Plus 20. So, let me introduce our distinguished guests. We have Ms. Ekitela Lokaale, one of the two co-facilitators for the WSIS Plus 20 process in New York, permanent representative of Kenya to the UN. We have Ms. Suella Janina, the second co-facilitator of the WSIS Plus 20 process, she’s the permanent representative of Albania to the UN, and then we have Mr. Li Junhua, Under-Secretary General for Economic and Social Affairs. Give them a warm welcome, thank you very much. Music Thank you, it’s really good to see you. That’s it. So yeah. As I said before, we had lots of good and inspiring discussions on the WSIS plus 20 process, given that this is the 20th IGF and a lot has happened in the last 20 years, and there’s lots of ideas around what should be the outcome of the WSIS plus 20 process that is happening in New York. And of course, we are very happy to have the co-facilitators that have a key role in this process with us. And they had to listen to many people or had the chance, the opportunity to listen to many people, and I guess they heard quite a diversity and a range of expectations and views from all of you. And of course, also Under-Secretary General Yun Hwa Lee has had many discussions, has been listening, and the purpose of this session is to hear from them what they heard, how they see things, what are their takeaways, and then of course, how are the next months going to work. So, let me turn to Mr. Li Junhua, Under-Secretary General of Economic and Social Affairs. As the Secretariat of the WSIS plus 20 process, of course, you have a key role for the overall review by the UN General Assembly. Can you give us a brief background and update where we are with the process?

Li Junhua: Well, thank you. Thank you, Tom. Good morning, everyone. First of all, let me express my sincere thanks to the co-facilitators, Ambassadors of Albania and Kenya, for their amplifying leadership for this WSIS plus 20 process. As you said, the WSIS actually started very early, more than two decades. It started from Geneva in 2003 and followed by Tunis in 2005, which actually laid a very solid foundation for WSIS. Namely, first, it’s people-centered. Second, it’s development-driven. Third, it’s an inclusive process. And the WSIS also created a very large number of people. technology, and we need to make sure that we are not neglecting the long-lasting mechanism that is our IGF. So, over the past two decades, we all witnessed the profound changes have taken place, while we made enormous progress, but having said that, we also need to acknowledge persistent digital device, rapid connectivity, and also, about the safety, internet safety and security, make a renewable dialogue, conversation essential for all of us. So, this conversation, to me, to the UNDESA, I guess, to all stakeholders, make this WSIS plus 20 overall review very significant. This process would end up with a high-level meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in December, and, as a secretariat for this process, my department, the UNDESA, is very committed to supporting the whole process guided by the co-facilitators. I just want to highlight a few key mind-storms so far. First, as a first preparatory meeting and stock-taking session was conducted on May 30th at the UN headquarters. Second, a series of stakeholder consultations, including virtual meetings, were held from 9th to 10th of June, and very remarkable and pivotal development took place on 20th of June, with the publication of the WSIS plus 20 elements paper circulated by the co-facilitators. This document actually invites the written inputs from all stakeholders. by the deadline of July 15, so that I understand that the co-facilitators also concluded a very significant consultation during the UNESCO AI and Digital Conference, and then co-facilitators will continue to engage with the multi-stakeholders in coming weeks in Geneva at the Western Forum hosted by the ITU. So to ensure this process, very much genuine multi-stakeholder co-facilitators announced that we are going to launch the informal multi-stakeholder sounding board. For this board, only members from MACS and the leadership panel, those individuals with no affiliation to the government or inter-governmental organizations are eligible, so they would reflect the voices, diverse voices from tech communities, from youth, and from civil societies. So all in all, all those updates, documents, and opportunities, you can check on the website launched by my department recently. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much, and so we see inclusivity something that is taken very seriously in this process, and I also thank you personally for being very committed to this principle. So now turning to our co-facilitators, what are the proposals and reflections that you’ve heard here in this week in Oslo in the many sessions, many discussions, and many bilateral discussions that you’ve had with member states and with other stakeholders? Mr. Ambassador.

Ekitela Lokaale: Thank you, Ambassador. Let me also join Under-Secretary General in and also the questions available for the participants for winning elections. There are several leaders to intervene on this field . We could address them and take a solution , and for the participants of these issues, within the hierarchy from the CFP d . The focus on the IGF for individual and collective U.N. agencies, other stakeholders, civil society, academia, technical community, as well as the private sector. In all those conversations, we have received very, very rich and thoughtful ideas about how we should conduct this process. We have had very, very useful and insightful proposals on the things that we need to take into account. We have been working on a number of issues in the IGF. We have been working on a number of issues in the IGF. We have received very, very useful and insightful interventions on a number of issues by other parts of Brazil. We have received up to attention from partners and countries throughout last several years. We worked very, very closely with the workforce and tap re model And so within that framework, there are n y initiatives in the IGF. But the Championships in the IGF are based on the vision and willingness to make their views known. So in terms of some of the concrete proposals which are coming up, we are hearing from the stakeholders, for example, the need for us to ground the WSIS Plus 20 outcome review in the original WSIS vision, that is the Geneva Declaration Tunis Agenda and commitment. So I think that’s what we are doing in the IGF. So I think that’s what we are doing in the IGF. So I think once the Islam … which has witnessed scientific study, these different types of projects to do. So a broad range of stakeholders agrees upon the vision of a people centered inclusive and development oriented information of course and civic development and the other is that there is a clear recognition that even as we ground the review in the original WSIS vision and the Geneva and Tunis agenda or commitments, we should also reflect some of the technological advancements that have happened over the last two decades. For example, the advancements in the digital economy have happened over the last two decades. For example, the advancements in the area of artificial intelligence, digital public infrastructure, there are advancements but also risks and threats to cyber security and so on. So that’s the second thing that we’re hearing. Then the other big one is the relationship between WSIS and the global digital compact. And on this one, I must say that there have been a diversity of views. What’s clear to a lot of people is that we should not duplicate what is in WSIS with what is in the GDC or even the other related processes. But the views are diverse. On the one hand, for example, there are those who feel that WSIS should remain the overarching framework and that all the other proposals in the GDC be implemented under the WSIS architecture. That’s one. Then there are also those who say, let the two processes don’t duplicate but follow what is in WSIS and let the processes under GDC run their course. So I think for my co-facilitator and I, as we continue engaging, that’s one area on which. augmentation process. And I think to graduated families and they’ll be Epstein and Moneywell and then that’s also because those families in line in collaboration with the foundation writes might also sign another contract or another contract. But they’ll keep dividing up the money, and dividing up the funds, the options, the funds for dissemination. Then we’ll obviously open up this conversation further when there are those who advance this proposal, they are wide enough. They can accommodate, you know, these emerging technologies. So there is no need to touch them. There is a school of thought that says let’s update the WSIS action lines. So by updating of necessity, it means you have to touch them somewhat. Then there are those who say expand the WSIS action lines. And there will be project areas that will be within those actions. And let’s see if there are any policies that will allow for the partnership to continue. So that is pretty much the information I would like to provide. So at this point I would like to say thank you very much. And thank you to Girona and to Alliana for putting together a wonderful panel and also my colleagues. We’ll continue our time today as well. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much.

Suela Janina: Thank you. Thank you, Thomas. Good morning, distinguished participants, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, Ambassador Locale, for capturing almost the discussions that we have heard during this week. But I wanted just to emphasize the importance of our participation here. In fact, while we have organized a roadmap for our process, it has been one of the most important stops and it proves to be very worthy, because during this week we have heard very rich discussions and enlightening also for us. It’s really a learning process for us to understand the spirit of WSIS and IGF that my colleague mentioned, and it has been also an inspirational week for us to keep this spirit alive, but also to try to be forward-looking for the future. Some of the elements that maybe I can add in terms of complementing what my colleague already mentioned, when we speak about the process, is the request that we have heard very openly, that the process is inclusive and is our commitment to have this process, WSIS review, inclusive and forward-looking at the same time. As mentioned by USG, there has been proposals in creating this new form of communications with stakeholder community, which one of we are just practicing, or just it’s in a good way of being created, like the informal multi-stakeholder sounding board. We have had the request for volunteers coming from the MAG and leadership panel, and I will take this opportunity to thank all of them that have been volunteered to be part of the sounding board. Very soon we’ll need to make a selection based also on a big number of requests, but also on some criteria that we would like to see on the sounding board, like the regional geographical presentation, but also gender presentation. So very soon you will learn who will be the ones that will be your voice in in communicating with us. But I just want to make this very clear from the beginning that the sounding board will be a practical way of lasening with us, of communicating with us, but it’s not closing the doors of communication because we’ll be very much committed to hear from every one of you. So please, let’s use these opportunities like a kind of coordination way that in a more practical and efficient way, we can hear each other and we can represent your views in the process that is going to take place during the next weeks and months to come. One other important element that we have noticed and have been repeatedly mentioned to us is the fact of, as we are at the IGF, the future of IGF, what format and what kind of IGF you would like to see for the next 10, 20 years or the more extended future. And here we are really very much appreciating the fact that there are a lot of ideas coming of how IGF and WSIS in general will fit in the global digital governance. And we have heard around the fact of making extensions to the mandate of IGF up to making it permanent. We have also heard views of rebranding the name of IGF. We have also heard views about how to strengthen the IGF in terms of including also new and emerging technologies. So these are very important and very useful ideas. Of course, we’ll be in the position to hear this discussion more in detail during the coming. But we have had a clear opinion where the proposals stand and we’ll be very happy to hear in the future, again for you in more detail or in concrete language, really what kind of IGF and what is the future of IGF that will fit for purpose and for the future of digital society we want. Another additional element that I would like also to emphasize at this point is the fact that we have been also asked to put our attention to capture and to reflect the diverse experiences that are coming from different stakeholders and regions and sectors at the same time. Because this can encompass different elements starting from connectivity, access, capacity building and this is also with particular relevance to include or to make possible that developing countries have a say in this process and this say should be meaningful. Because what we are seeing also with emerging technologies is that we risk to deepen the digital divide that we are seeing nowadays. So more or less at this stage I would like just to have these points also as future way of having some other additional food for thought from your side and from the wider multi-stakeholder inputs like starting it from the governments but also from private sector, technical community, academia, civil society. All valuable inputs that will come will seriously be taken into account and we really are very grateful for this rich and very colorful proposals that we are taking during this week. week. Thank you very much.

Thomas Schneider: So it’s also good to see that both of you have felt this vibrant spirit, this passion, no matter whom you talk to, no matter from what stakeholder, what stakeholder a person is part of or what the region of the world, everybody is really engaged and passionate. And I think it is also something that we realized during the discussions. WSIS is not an institution or is less an institution. There’s no house or organization. It’s more of a mindset of cooperation that has different houses within it, around it. The IGF is one of the parts, together with the WSIS Forum, that we will continue the discussion in one week in Geneva are some of the key platforms for dialogue, for listening to each other, for having engaged debates. And so I think it is beautiful to see how you captured the spirit of this and also how you outlined some of the hot issues that many discussions will need to be taking place in the coming months to hopefully come up with something that actually is acceptable to all and meets all expectations. I’d like to maybe also focus a little bit on what were the elements where you felt clear convergence? What are the areas of convergence? Where do people agree that this should be done and this should be done? This is important or is key. So, what were your takeaways in terms of where does the community agree?

Suela Janina: Thank you. Thank you, Thomas, for this question and also for highlighting a little bit earlier the kind of. kind of alliances that we are in together. And when we started this undertaking, what I was capturing like very inspiring is the fact that the community is strong and I’ve been presented with WSIS community, but I should also put it like, I feel like this is WSIS family. And we’re really very glad to be part of it. And sometimes where you are within family, you try to understand the best part of it, but also to speak very honestly with each other. And sometimes we have filled this kind of burden and responsibility because the process we need to admit is challenging, is not among the most easiest process. Also having in mind that we are also working all together in challenging multilateral environment now. But we have been really very surprised that there are many points on which the community converges. And first of all, when we talk about principle, it is important that everyone is very cautious and awareness is there that we need to preserve the foundation and fundamental vision of WSIS that we just delivered 20 years ago. And what USG mentioned is the vision of a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented information society, while at the same time addressing the new challenging elements of development of this society. So when we talk about this new and emerging technologies, we are listening repeatedly and from everyone that new emerging technologies like AI, data governance, can be fitted within. the WSIS framework, so this is a good start, let’s say, for taking over the next steps and the next discussion. A second point of convergence is the need for capacity building. We are hearing that very often, and this also is linked with what I mentioned before, the fact of digital divide, which we see actually in infrastructure, in skills, in governance, so all these elements need to be very clearly in our focus in order that we commit for concrete actions in order to address the digital divide. And something that I know is very sensible, but I think we need to make a clarification here because during this week we have this sensibility on the multi-stakeholder approach, and I would like to reassure everyone that this is very central in our work, in our discussions. There is no kind of afterthought or beforethought from us as co-facilitators to walk back from the multi-stakeholder approach that has characterized WSIS, not only WSIS as a process, but has given the positive examples to other processes within UN. So multi-stakeholder approach and engagement will be central in the future negotiations that we are taking for the review of the process, and here again another call, let’s be engaged all together to preserve what we have achieved and to be ambitious for the future.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much Suela, where did you feel convergence and agreement this week?

Ekitela Lokaale: In addition to everything that my colleague has said, we see a desire on the part of everyone we spoke to that we should try to achieve coherence. Coherence between, you know, we see coherence with what is in the GDC. We hear over and over people saying, please don’t duplicate. Try to find synergies between the two processes. So that has been a constant message that has come through across the board. The second is, stakeholders are saying, don’t reopen debates that we’ve had from 20 years ago. Don’t go back 10 years ago. The issues which as a stakeholder community, we’ve discussed, we’ve agreed. So don’t reopen those debates. There are those that we’ve discussed, but inconclusively, and have agreed to pack them. So that has come out quite strongly, and we’ve taken that point. The other is, we hear people saying, there are issues on which there are parallel processes happening right now. You know, just to give some examples, the AI, for instance. Enhanced cooperation is the other one. Data governance and cyber security. So we hear those examples where people are saying, there are processes that are underway. So let’s not duplicate that by bringing those again. Okay. Very good point. So, another way ofinterpreting things, how we do this is, we use fake data based report. In fact, that is our one reason why we ask the questions as to have any information can be used, not to instantiate issues. So what does it suggest us to do? Is it still possible that the user can act on public information, or the user can act as an actor?

Thomas Schneider: One of the things I suggest the convergence, which is good, but there is also some work to be done on the issues that will be probably in the centre of the discussions. I’m also keen, and you’ve explained it already on some occasions, but it would be good to hear from you once more. What are the next steps in the WSIS plus 20 process, and how can this multi-stakeholder dialogue most effectively contribute to a strong and inclusive outcome of the WSIS plus 20 process in New York?

Li Junhua: Thank you, Thomas. I want to know what your thoughts are on this end. The conversation we have just now So, we are entering into the second phase of this review. It is the very moment to redefine what will be the WSIS plus 20 and the future IGF. A number of the issues have been flagged out among all the stakeholders from its mandate updating structure or framework, and also coherence, non-duplication among the various processes. So, all in all, I think that in the coming month, definitely, the first thing we need to think about is how we could respond and reply to the elements paper prepared and circulated by the co-facilitators. Why is that so important? Because this element paper would serve as a basis to inform the co-facilitators to draft the zero outcome document, which is the basis for the future negotiation among the member states in Geneva and also in New York in coming October, November, and December. So, that is why, when we have the different perspectives, the different divergent voices from tech communities, from the civil society, from the youth, from the businesses, and also from parliament and judicial system, all those elements, all those perspectives need to be mutually accommodated and reflected in the final product. So, that is why we believe that the second phase would be critically important to lay the foundation for the final outcome. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. So we do have a little bit of time also to hear, to try and be inclusive. There are two microphones in the room. They are lit now. So whoever wants to react is happily invited. If you have final messages or questions, not final, but things that you would like to highlight, please take the mic and introduce yourself. Thank you. Can I go ahead? Go ahead, yes.

Audience: Thank you. Hi, good morning. My name is Jaqueline Pigato. I’m with Data Privacy Brazil, Civil Society. I would like to emphasize that although you assure us the stakeholder approaches in the negotiation process, it is important to maintain and strengthen this mechanism also in the implementation of the WSIS, as in the cooperation processes between international organizations and states. This must involve all stakeholders. There are already multistakeholder agreed guidelines in NetMundial Plus 10 for this purpose, so it is important that they are mentioned in the outcome paper and effectively reflected in the implementation of both WSIS and the GDC. Regardless of the decisions made regarding this integration, I’m certain that at the next IGF we’ll be discussing both processes, what needs to be done, what has worked. So that’s it. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. Any reactions?

Suela Janina: Yes, thank you. It was not very easy to capture everything, but I understood that the idea is on emphasizing the multistakeholder approach. And I mentioned in our opening remarks that this is central. And just let me clarify something. What are the first steps of the process? The first step is to have a discussion regarding the elements paper. For us, elements paper has been a starting point for triggering a discussion and for a call for input, a food for thought. You may call it different names, but it’s important that we started a process on which we have envisaged the main element of the discussion, which is the food for thought. Now, the most important process that we have had is to present all these elements that we are getting from the discussions from here, and we continue the discussion in Geneva a few days after. So everything will be represented in the outcome document. The outcome document will be presented in the mid-August. And, of course, we will have a discussion by the undersecretary-general in the mid-August, we intend to present this first zero draft of the outcome paper, and everything that you are mentioning here will be clearly reflected there as a way of, of course, of compromise, but multistakeholder approach is something that I don’t think we need to put into doubt anymore. So, I think that’s all I have to say. I’m not going to mention all categories of the community that represent the multistakeholder approach. So this has been taken note and will be duly reflected.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. And I think the WSIS plus 20 high-level event and also the AI for Good that are happening jointly in Geneva in one week’s time will be very, very important for the WSIS plus 20 high-level event. And implementing this, you will see lots of stakeholders cooperating. This is the dialogue, where you have a multistakeholder dialogue. see what UNESCO is doing, what ITU is doing, what all the other UN agencies is doing. I’ve been in this for more than 20 years actually, since 2003. The UN agencies and the UN system has opened up, has opened up its arms for cooperation quite significantly over this time and I think, yeah, nobody questions this importance. So the gentleman over there, please, and try to speak clearly to the mic because it’s not that easily hearable. Thank you very much.

Audience: Thank you. Philip Lee, I’m General Secretary of WACC, which is an international NGO that focuses on communication rights. Summit of the Future, Digital Compact, IGF, WSIS. Can we hear a little bit more about how that will all come together in a series of meaningful actions going forward? Because it seems to some of us that there are disparate parts of it, lots of different elements, it’s immensely complicated. But looking ahead, how does that come together? Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you. An easy question.

Ekitela Lokaale: Well, not so easy. I alluded to that in my comments, that indeed there is an appreciation that all these processes are related. The issues, you know, that are addressed in the Pact for the Future, Global Digital Compact, the issues that we’ve been discussing, for example, here all week at the IGF and the WSIS are related issues. What has come out, like I said, is a desire for us to pull all these issues together so that they can be addressed, if not in a single platform, but at least in a way that they speak. countries where the technology works. So, if you look to California, it’s a necessary and desirable part of our humanitarian program. And to change it, the only political party in the world to vote against the transatlantic project, having said yes, disclosures and that work to make sure that all the human gains revolution get made in the world with the support of elections. Any time that administration makes a proposal, we have to make sure that it is implemented in a way that is in line with the principles of the GDC and WSIS. There are proposals which we are beginning to hear. For example, there is a proposal that we have a joint implementation plan for the GDC and WSIS, for example. So, that’s an innovative idea which we are willing to put before stakeholders for the GDC and WSIS, and we are ready to implement it in a way that is in line with the principles of the GDC and WSIS. So, it’s not only about bringing them together, but at least some level of coherence.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. I think it’s a legitimate request in a world that gets more and more complex, with more and more interdependencies to the way in which we are doing things, and I think it’s a good idea to focus on action, not only on what the solution is, but also to focus on action. But also there, I think it’s unavoidable given that digital has an impact on lives that you will have a distributed system with thousands of actors in the end involved in actions on global regional and national levels and you can’t put them all you can’t even put them all in one in one room because there’s so many actors but of course the system is trying to somehow help each other all the elements to understand their space in in the whole system and I think the discussion on a joint implementation plan is definitely something that I think is it’s a very useful one because that could help to somehow help us all to gain some some coherent over oversight view thank you very much. Please.

Audience: Thank you good morning I’m Nigel Casimir from the Caribbean Telecommunications Union and an intergovernmental organization can I get some clarity on the multi-stakeholder sounding board is it something that one has or had to apply to join or is it a like an online space that is being opened for stakeholder comments or whatever I’m not quite clear on how it works or it might be intended to work.Thank you

Thomas Schneider: Thank you Nigel.

Suela Janina: Thank you for the question the sounding board has been a proposal coming from some member states but also from stakeholders so we decided to accept this proposal and to make it known to mug and the leadership panel and we invited for volunteers to come from these two organs in order to fill in the places that we consider should be a contained number like we propose ten members from the sounding board indeed there has been a deadline which has been on Wednesday of this week but still we are flexible, if there is interest. But I need to inform you that the number of volunteers has already surpassed the number of places, so at this point we need to make a selection, and the selection would be made fairly on the basis of representation. We would like also to see different regions represented on the sounding board, and also we would like to see women represented on the sounding board. So I would encourage you, if there is interest, please present your requests, and then very soon we will make it known who will be the members that will be part of the sounding board. But again, I would like to emphasize the fact that by creating the sounding board, there was not closing the door to anyone of you who would like to approach us to make any proposal or contribution. Indeed, also for the Elements paper, there is a deadline of 15th of July to present written inputs, but we are really very flexible. Our aim is to get a broad spectrum of inputs and ideas and comments and advices, so you are very kindly invited to do so in all ways that pertain more practical and more efficient to you.

Li Junhua: Just a supplementary remark to the Ambassador. For this sounding board, it’s a newly launched mechanism. Of course, it should be balanced to provide professional advices to the co-facilitators with a balanced composition, but more importantly, as far as I can see, all the stakeholders, if you have a very specific… proposal, perspectives, even concerns about all the multi-linked sectors, then please come up with your written response to the elements paper. So in that sense, it can be more adequately reflected in the zero draft.

Thomas Schneider: I think it’s important to note that this is just one additional informal channel that has been proposed and requested, and thanks for accepting this. It will not replace any of the other channels. And as the Under-Secretary General has said, of course, written responses help, and yeah, I think it’s just one more way. So please go ahead.

Audience: Hi, good morning. My name is Constantinos Comaitis, and I am a resident senior fellow with the Democracy and Tech Initiative at the Atlantic Council. I would really like to express my and our appreciation to both of you ambassadors for being here and listening in and taking notes. I had the honor of really chairing and moderating the session, and the queues, as you have seen, were quite long. I think the big challenge now is how you take on all these comments and incorporate them into the WSIS process. And I would like really to encourage you, as you mentioned in our session, to hold a joint session between governments and non-government stakeholders so we can exchange the views in a more constructive and direct manner. Thank you so very much for being here.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you, Constantinos.

Ekitela Lokaale: Thank you. I think the suggestion to hold a joint… So, we are looking at the possibility of end of July to be able to organize that. But this will be done in consultation. Of course, we’ll get the advice from the Secretariat. But we are looking at the possibility of end of July to be able to organize that. But this will be done in consultation. Of course, we’ll get the advice from the Secretariat. And it’s good that the Under Secretary General is here on the possibility of hosting that. But we think it’s one of those things that will give true meaning to multi-stakeholder engagement in this process. So, we will try to pursue it and hope that it works. Because it will be a very, very useful step. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much.

Li Junhua: The second preparatory consultation or preparatory meeting is tentatively scheduled in mid-October. So, including multi-stakeholder consultations.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you for this information. So, note this down in your calendars. There’s going to be something in mid-October. Please, Bertrand.

Audience: Good morning. My name is Bertrand de La Chapelle. I’m the Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network. Quickly, I cannot support more what Konstantinos was saying. It is absolutely essential for this process that governments and the other stakeholders have the capacity to be in the same room and hear each other. And if you can make that happen, it will be a real progress. Quickly, this meeting in Norway, and I’ve participated in the IGF basically since the first one in 2006, is clearly highlighting an awareness that is growing on what is being said about the Internet. role of the IGF in the governance process, which is to do the agenda setting and the issue framing. I had the comment yesterday in a session with the leadership panel that in a certain way the IGF is a sandbox process for the multilateral environment. It is a way to alleviate some of the constraints regarding the participation of non-governmental stakeholders, it’s a way to experiment and also to alleviate the constraints for putting something on the agenda. You all know how difficult it is sometimes to put a new topic on the agenda of a multilateral process because you need the agreement of all actors. The IGF is this exploratory space that allows to put agenda items early on and save at least three or four years in addressing them. The second thing is Ambassador Janina was kind enough to list three elements regarding the future of the IGF, the extension of the mandate, the renaming and the strengthening. I would like to suggest that in the strengthening there are two aspects. One is the revision and evolution of the mandate in light of the new topics that have happened and the clarification of the role of the IGF. And the second element is, and I would pick the expression that was used by Maria Fernanda Garza, who was a member of the leadership panel, which is the organizational evolution of the IGF, how to make sure that from the building blocks that we already have we build an institution that is functioning even better than it is functioning today because it has an enormous potential. And the last point is, in order to do so, those two points will not be addressed before December in depth. and there will be no agreement there. I strongly believe that we should take inspiration from the Working Group on Internet Governance procedure that was adopted during the WSIS that led to the creation of the IGF, and that in some shape or form, we would have in 2026, a truly multi-stakeholder group that would address those two issues and make proposals for the next stage of the IGF, a sort of constitutional moment, if you want. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Should we take, we have four people, should we take maybe another intervention and then, yes, please, Markus.

Markus Kummer: I’m Markus Kummer, I’m a WSIS veteran. I chaired various negotiating groups in Geneva in 2003 in the final phase of the summit, and then at the request of member states, I had to send out non-governmental stakeholders from the room. We have come a long way since, and I would like to thank the co-facilitators for their commitment to a multi-stakeholder approach. Thank you. No, hang on, the point I was going to make was, and I had the pleasure of making it when we had a bilateral with the dynamic coalitions and the both co-facilitators, express my hope that zero draft will affect the fact that the IGF is more than just an annual meeting. It’s a process with many intersessional activities and the importance of the NRIs could not be overemphasized. Also, the dynamic coalitions make tangible contributions to the IGF. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you to both of you also for highlighting that it’s not just a one-off event. The policy networks, dynamic coalitions, and so on and so forth, that have been not asked for in a UN resolution, they just have emerged. because people wanted to continue the discussion and they wanted to turn the discussion into action, so people have started to organize themselves. And what Petra said was also very important, so let me give you a quick answer.

Audience: Indeed, these are not points of questions or discussions. These are really points that we need to take note and to reflect because I think in most of them we all agree. So, if I turn to the points that Bernard already mentioned, like the role of IGF, it’s already there. Everyone accepts this, that IGF has proven itself to be a very valuable and institutable instrument on digital governance. When it comes to models you are advising, like the Working Group of Internet will look on this practice. And when it comes to the importance of all these messages you are giving, because this comes from your own practice, and I like this word of IGF, which is veterans. We really need to be based on what we have achieved until now, and the know-how and the experience you have is really very valuable on that. The role of national institutions, that’s all that we are hearing and we are taking note of that, are really invaluable inputs for us. There is no need to discuss, I think, Thomas, on that. We take note and you will see them reflected in the future documents that we are going to produce.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. So, let’s take the final three requests. Anna, please.

Audience: Thank you. I’m Ana Neves from Portugal, and I would like to emphasize four points. My first one is about the national and regional initiatives. They are very important. We have 167, I think, national and regional initiatives, but the governments normally are not part of these national and regional initiatives, and so I really hope that all this process will give more strength and will maybe institutionalize these NRIs. Second, there is a statement, which is the multi-stakeholder São Paulo guidelines. These São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines are very interesting because they propose steps to make the multilateral process more interesting if you use the São Paulo guidelines. So they are steps, they are clearly demonstrating how to make the multilateral process more multi-stakeholder. So I think that to raise the flag about the importance of this document. My number three is about a clear mandate on who is doing what. So nowadays we have in the UN family a lot of duplications, so I hope that from all this exercise that will end in December, we will have a clear picture on who is doing what. And finally, I would like to be very… ambitious and to ask for the future of the IGF to get the relevance and impact of the World Economic Forum, for instance. So this should be, I think, our ambition, and to make a really forum where the heads of state, ministers, and all the other key stakeholders will be engaged. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you. We’ll go immediately to the other side. Thank you.

Audience: Thank you so much, Esther Yarmitsky, UK Government. Thank you so much to the COFAX for being here. We really appreciate your time. We wanted to highlight that the UK Government is actively engaging in lots of regional and national IGFs. For example, our team attended the Africa IGF this year, as well as EuroDIG, which was hosted at the Council of Europe this year, and similarly to what our colleague Anna mentioned, we think that the role that regional and local IGFs play in the system of Internet governance and WSIS needs to really be discussed, because it is really important. There are actually 176 IGFs at the moment. They are national, they are regional, there are youth IGFs, and the value we see in them is that they bring together stakeholders at the national, at the local, at regional levels. This is a platform that is very unique, because it provides the voices to be heard. So we really would like to see stronger links between local and regional IGFs, as well as the annual IGF, where we are today, and we hope that we can use this WSIS Review to really strengthen their role. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much.

Audience: Yes, good morning. My name is Christina Alida. I am with the Egyptian Government. I would like to thank the co-facilitators for being here through the week and listening to the IHF community. I cannot re-emphasize more how it’s important to be sitting in a multi-stakeholder format and listening. I think we’ve come this long way, like Marcus was saying. I’m presuming the sounding board consists of stakeholders that are not government. I think the importance is to have a platform and a way where we’re going to discuss the different versions in a multi-stakeholder format, not only governments alone and the sounding board alone. Having said that, I would appreciate if we can see the consultations that will happen through the coming months take place in days of the week that are not weekends in parts of the world. Those consultations in the past have been on Fridays, Fridays are weekends in the place where I come from, so it would be good to have them at a time where actual stakeholders can participate. Thank you so much for listening.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. Our time is almost up, but of course I want to give you the floor. I think we’ve heard so much, there has been so much talk. What is the key in one sentence or two sentences? What is your key takeaways after also this session, Ekitela?

Ekitela Lokaale: Thank you. Thank you, Thomas. First, let me say how grateful we are to this community here for sharing with us freely your thoughts about how we should conduct the WSIS Plus 20 review. I think it was important that we came here and spent the amount of time that we’ve spent because then it makes the documents that we are going to produce even richer than they are going to be. So, we are grateful for that. Second, is to give you our commitment that we committed to run an open, transparent, inclusive review process. We will endeavor, as we’ve tried to do up to this point, to provide avenues for all of you to, you know, give your inputs into this process. As all of us know, for a complex process of this nature, of course, not everything that we would like to be reflected will be reflected, because there are going to be as many opinions as there are stakeholders, but our job will be to reflect as many of those as possible, those that are shared by stakeholders. Finally, we leave our channels open, you know, we’ve given out our cards, we ran out of them, I think, by day two, but you know how to reach us through the Secretariat, Ambassador Janina and I are available, whenever you have any idea, please let us know, invite us to your platforms, if we’re able to come, we will make a point of coming, if not, we’ll participate remotely, so let’s keep this conversation going. I thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. Suele.

Suela Janina: Thank you, Thomas, and just to join my colleague in expressing the gratitude for the richness and all the elements that you have put forward for our consideration. We are seriously and very much committed to analyze everything and to be very open and transparent in this process. What we’ll take from this week here at the IGF is the commitment to preserve the WSIS spirit and to be ambitious to adapt it to the new digital world. we are living. So my last call would be let’s be actively all engaged, because UISIS belongs to everyone. No one can consider ownership over the process. So by being collectively engaged and in a collegial spirit, we believe that we can conduct successful negotiations and have an outcome process and document that will be fit for the future and the digital world that we would like to together build, not only for this generation, but for the next one as well.

Thomas Schneider: Absolutely. Thank you very much. Undersecretary General, you want to?

Li Junhua: Thank you. Thank you, Thomas. I think we have a very meaningful and rich discussion over the past several days. We actually shared a very common aspirations to have a better delivered versus plus 20 review. So I think the inclusivity actually generated more complementarity through this open and transparent process. So as a secretariat, we are very committed to provide all that we can do to support this process. Thank you.

Thomas Schneider: Thank you very much. So with this, that’s the end of the first half of the session. I’m going to hand over to my co-pilot, Jorge, that you also know. Thank you very much for the attention. Thank you for the interaction. A big thanks to our important guests. And I wish you good luck for the hard but great work that you will be doing in the coming weeks and months. Thank you.

Maggie Jones: Our jobs over the last 20 years and a lot of very practical steps that we’ve taken over that time. So we have the WSIS Action Lines and the WSIS Forum, which has driven progress on sustainable development, the ITU WSIS Stocktake Database, which is very good examples of some of the steps that we have already taken, great WSIS projects. The WSIS process, as has been said, very important as a framework for multi-stakeholder action in a wide range of areas, and particularly the work that we’re doing on connecting the unconnected. Over 17% of people had access to the internet in 2005, and now I’m very pleased to say that that’s 67%. I’m not saying that’s all as a result of WSIS activities, but we’ve certainly played our part in increasing that spread of access. And it’s notable that over the last 20 years, we’ve been able to adapt to new developments because things like the action lines are technology neutral, so it enables us to give a basis for going ahead in the future. So for us, our priorities have been and increasingly are capacity building, cultural diversity, and providing an enduring framework to make sure that we reach out to those who are unable to play their part at the current time. So we need to be flexible to address those new priorities and ensure that WSIS is able to face future challenges, but I would say that we’re in a very good position to do that. The landscape has become increasingly complex, but it’s the very fact that we have a unique, diverse involvement, I think, gives us a huge basis to go forward. Research by the DNS Research Federation in Oxford demonstrated that the impact of the IGF, for example, driving growth on the internet exchange points in Africa, nurturing the next generation of global south leaders and beginning to address online harm. So a huge number of activities. We want to make the case today, and we will be making that case for a more permanent mandate for the IGF. And I hope that we will, in the coming months, be able to win that argument.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Baroness Jones, for highlighting some of the very tangible impact of this forum. Now we go to Kurtis Lindqvist.

Kurtis Lindqvist: Thank you. This week’s conversations, that has been across sessions on resilience, multilingual access, digital fragmentation, and many, many other topics, have really underscored one thing, and that is that the WSIS framework remains foundational to global digital cooperation. And this framework really created a shared vision for how digital governance should evolve through practical stakeholder-driven cooperation. And this vision is also what gave rise to the IGF and reinforced the value of the multistakeholder model, something that we at ICANN have been applying in practice since our formation, which actually predates the IGF. And we also see this vision echoed through the national regional IGFs, something that I think we should mention a bit more often, which continue to connect the global and local governance conversations into each other, and I think that’s an important part as well. And this model has, in the last two decades, provided phenomenal economic growth, value creation, and really stemmed from the permissionless bottom-up innovation the model has enabled, but also stimulated wider discussions inside WSIS and at the IGFs. And as you just heard today, more than five billion people have come online, and most of this since in the last 20 years. And this didn’t happen through the technical coordination, distributed stewardship and global engagement we have seen. And ICANN, we see this result every day. The services that we coordinate and provide… provide must functions for the internet to generate trust and scale. And for us to be able to do our job and for this to work, we need to have exactly what the WSIS stands for. The open dialogue, operational coordination and cooperation and a commitment to a single interoperable internet.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Kurtis, also for recalling that every day as we speak, everybody is probably looking into his emails, WhatsApp or Signal or whatever. It’s the underlying infrastructure that is working and which is based on trust and on voluntary cooperation. Thank you so much. Jimson, the floor is yours.

Jimson Olufuye: Thank you very much, George. My name again is Jimson Olufuye. I have my day job as a Principal Consultant at Contemporary Consulting Limited based in Abuja, Nigeria. And as a volunteer, I have the privilege of advocating the private sector view from Africa through the Africa ICT Alliance, an alliance formed in 2012 with six countries in Africa. And now we’re in 43 countries in Africa pushing the message of ICT connectivity between the digital device. Well, as we all know, WSIS is aimed at achieving a people-centred, inclusive and even a highly productive information society where nobody is left behind. And we saw this and that was why AFICTA was formed. So we can say AFICTA is one of the outcomes of WSIS and its vision is to fulfil the promise of the digital age for everyone in Africa. And so the WSIS has provided a solid foundation for multi-stakeholder engagement. where our own voices could be heard, the private sector, and even from developing countries. We also see that through WSIS, as my colleague mentioned, we have the robust idea of where all of us can, on equal footing, make our views known, and we can have constructive dialogue on moving our society forward, to achieving that information society of our collective expectation. Another outcome, of course, is the WSIS Forum. The WSIS Forum has always provided a solid opportunity for us to review the action lines. The action lines are very, very relevant, even to today, and I see them relevant to tomorrow. And through the action lines, we’re able to have further discussion, even at the African level. We have UNECA leading the charge, but the missing link would be that, maybe we need to discuss this at the national level, just as we have the IGF, okay, being discussed at over 170 countries now, doing the IGF. So we also need a WSIS action line, review that as part of our expectation. Another thing you can see coming out from WSIS is the UNGIS, where you have about 20 United Nations organizations coming together, and exchanging best practices, and review things, and shaping policy with regard to digital technology. And there is something that many people don’t mention, but Ambassador Locale mentioned it briefly, and that is enhanced cooperation. Okay, we see the successful IANA transition. We see that all of us, the global community, we are responsible, even for what President Kurtismentioned. We are all responsible, making sure that our internet is trustworthy, and that is a major outcome of WSIS, really, and for us in developing countries. And last… I was at CSTD, and I was really pleased to see that enhanced cooperation at work, where government do their things, coming up with policy, in the presence of even all of us, the stakeholders, the private sector, the civil society, and we’re given privilege to even raise our voices and have free discussion, and also see that the government could vote based on issues, which is enhanced cooperation, basically. So WSIS has really become that real omnibus foundation for the digital society. Thank you very much.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Jimson, and especially for underscoring how WSIS has brought also this idea of dialogue and togetherness to the national and the regional level. And now to finalize this question, we have Fabrizia Benini.

Fabrizia Benini: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. So the European Commission and its member states is extremely attached to the WSIS process. To do that, and to contribute to the negotiations that will take place, we adopted a common position that was well discussed and endorsed by our Council. And in preparing that, we looked at the contribution of WSIS up to today, the subject of your question, and it is undoubtedly that it has given the possibility to have a conversation, a global conversation amongst everyone about the tenets of the problems, the challenges, and the opportunities of digitization. And it is a conversation in the multi-stakeholder format that involves, as you know, academia, private sector, governments, and the tech community. And because those voices are different, it is a challenging conversation. It is not an easy process, but it is a process that is precious to uphold. and precious to go forward. Now, it can be improved, and we hope it will, especially to make it more inclusive and very engaging to the young people. We own that. To them, because we are discussing what will impact their future. But this conversation has also had results. We’ve seen a contribution, a notable contribution, to reducing the digital divide. Again, it still exists, but connectivity is better, skills are better, people are more empowered. Looking forward, we must make sure that the new technologies, we continue to have the conversation about the potency of the new technologies, the impact it will have, it has already had. I had the privilege of being with the Minister in a panel about the impact on children as regards to the use of social media. All these things merit attention, merit attention and action. And perhaps one important issue is the IGF. We are here today. We have a place. The conversation has got a home. And this home needs to be permanent, it needs to be reinforced, it needs to be efficient, because this conversation needs to continue, having human rights as its centre, having the human as its centre, to see that digitisation benefits us all. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Fabrizia. And this is a perfect segue to the second question, because you are already addressing some of the challenges, and sometimes it’s not an easy conversation, of course. So, the second question is what emerging digital trends present the most pressing opportunities, but also challenges, in updating the WSIS framework for the next decades or decades? And we will start with you, Jones.

Maggie Jones: Thank you. And I think we can all agree that the digital landscape is becoming increasingly complex. And it’s increasingly difficult for public policy makers and other stakeholders to navigate that new world. Which is why I think WSIS is playing, or will play, an increasingly important role in the future. Providing a joined-up framework to allow some of the discussions we’ve already been having to continue in an effective way. I would say that we need to avoid duplication and genuinely ensure that stakeholders from every part of the globe are part of that ongoing discussion in the future. The UK wants to see the WSIS 20 review being future-focused, recognising the future challenges. In connecting the unconnected, we need to use that as an opportunity to bring forward new investment. Which can help some of our developing nations have the full opportunities that many others have. And that means looking at affordability, it means looking at innovative solutions such as community networks, and encouraging digital content in local languages. The gender divide remains a huge challenge for us. Globally there were 244 million more men than women using the internet in 2023. So we would like to see a strengthened role for UN women and for us to work with them to address those issues in the future. We want to see a more formal role for the UN OHCHR in the WSIS process, raising the whole issue of human rights in the information society, which is becoming increasingly prominent. and a greater role for UNESCO’s work protecting journalists and tackling the damaging effects of Internet shutdowns. For example, the UN is proud to have led the Freedom Online Coalition efforts to tackle Internet shutdowns, and I’d like to highlight the FOC’s statement on Internet shutdowns during conflict, which has been launched today. Another issue we need to address is the environmental impact of information and communication technologies and all of the global greenhouse gas emissions that that challenge raises. We need global solutions to address that. So strengthening partnership through WSIS, we believe, will give us an effective platform to tackle those challenges and make sure that everybody benefits. But I think the key message here is we can’t be complacent. We have a lot to be proud of, but also we need to challenge ourselves and look genuinely at the new challenges and how WSIS can really, really step up and play an increasingly leadership role to make sure that everybody shares in the potential that we have for the future.

Jorge Cancio: Hear, hear. Thank you so much for that. And I think you mentioned community networks. It’s important to highlight the important work that was done in this community on that matter in the best practice forum on connectivity. So there’s a lot more to do, but we are eager to hear your views, Minister Tung.

Karianne Tung: Thank you. And thank you, Baroness, for the points that you made out at IGF. The governance of Internet is at its core, but I think we’ve seen during the last couple of days that there has been several different topics regarding Internet and digitalizations from subsea cables until protecting children and so forth. So I think it’s really important that we continue. to have this broad perspective, even though the governance of internet is and should be at this, at the core of the both the visas process, but also the IGF. And I want to point out something about the the action lines as well, because they are broad, they are tech neutral, I believe that is important, because we don’t know what kind of technology that hits us tomorrow. We are now discussing a lot about artificial intelligence, but also quantum, for instance, or other things will come in the future. So I think it’s important that we have the action lined, actually lined out in a way that we are able to take this continuously new discussions on the inside, for one thing, but I think there are some areas that we could implement also in the perspectives of the action line. And number one is already one I mentioned, artificial intelligence, it will impact our societies, very broadly, it is a tool for solving some of the huge societal challenges that we are facing right now. I really believe it is a tool for dividing the digital gap, it is a tool for doing a lot of things. However, it comes with huge ethical aspects as well. And being able to have this international discussion, the discussion about the ethical implication of the technology I believe that is one area that we could look further into when it comes to the action lines as well. Another thing, data governance, because data is feeding the artificial intelligence as well. And it is a fundament for artificial intelligence to be a real tool to use in the years to come. So I think we should have a look at data governance more thoroughly when it comes to open data, personal privacy, data sharing and so forth, because also this is ethical discussion, it affects humans. And last but not least, I also want to raise a personal issue for me, but an issue I know many people, parents, kids, are concerned about, and that is the internet-based platforms. They have many positive effects for connecting people, closing the digital divide, but as we discussed also yesterday, the tech companies or the platform, they are powerful, harmful algorithms. Our kids are screaming for help because they are having trouble with sleep, with health issues, body issues, and so forth, because of these algorithms. So we have to work together, both the governments, the civil society, but also the tech companies, to tackle these challenges that hit our kids. So that is kind of three examples where I could see we could have discussions in the future also for IGF and the business process.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Minister Tung. And as a parent, I completely relate to that. And if we think about it, social media, our algorithms, algorithms are the basis for platforms. Platforms only work with data, and data is only made available through artificial intelligence, and you cannot have that without connectivity. That’s why we discuss all these topics here at the IGF, and why it’s so important to continue this conversation. Jimson.

Jimson Olufuye: Thank you, George. The WSIS action lines, they are really still very, very relevant to address any emerging issues. And for that matter, emerging issues like artificial intelligence, data governance, information integrity. digital public infrastructure, digital public goods, et cetera, et cetera. Even many more will still emerge, but from a very close and constructive examination, the 11 Wishes Action Line covered anything that could come up, at least from my perspective. If you look at data, which is the king right now, which is foundation, data is addressed on the access to information and knowledge, Action Line C2, AI itself, which is an application. To be frank, it’s an application. It’s addressed on the Action Line C7. It’s also addressed on the ethics C8, and it will sustain in terms of local content, diversity, linguistic diversity, and so on and so forth. So basically, we don’t really need to make significant changes at all. We just need to contextualize anything that will come up. Cybersecurity is already there in terms of security and trust, and we also need to deepen the discussion, connecting it to the NRIs, and ensure that we cover the broad Action Line topics, as I mentioned earlier, in those evolving NRIs. In fact, from the information I got, some people are actually talking about even sub-national NRIs, because at the sub-national level, there are issues. So we are encouraging them, okay, discuss all this at a local level, because what we are looking at is a truly information society. So we don’t really need any new structural changes. Let’s sustain what we have. The IGF is brilliant. Let’s bring in the Sao Paulo Multistakeholder Guideline. Let’s do it better, and as such, we can tackle any emerging challenges appropriately. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you, Jimson. And this is a thought that we’ve heard many times over during this week, that WSIS, and especially the action lines, have this technological neutrality. Everybody said they are technologically agnostic, and that means that they are open to many of these new developments. But of course, we need to contextualize them, what a difficult word, to the new realities and to adapt the work we do here, but also the UN agencies do. And this brings me also to a question about the how, the question how the UN agencies and all the stakeholders work together, and the third question, which is what strategic updates must the WSIS Plus 20 review consider within the WSIS architecture, the different component parts of WSIS, including the IGF, of course, to better address these pressing emerging governance challenges. And I will start with you, Kurtis.

Kurtis Lindqvist: Thank you. So WSIS Plus 20 is really a test of whether we still value global coordination over institutional control, and the IGF strength lies in what it enables, the open engagement across stakeholder groups without the pressure to negotiate or formulize the outcomes, as in binding declarations. And that flexibility is really a strength, it’s not a weakness. It’s precisely what makes the IGF an effective incubator for ideas and a catalyst for a lot of the cooperation. It provides a space. a real, physical, protected space for governments, civil society, businesses and the technical community to confront the shared problems without needing to reach a forced consensus, but to engage and share ideas. And there is growing fragmentation and this IGF’s open architecture really remains one of the few global platforms that are capable of holding cooperation together in that dialogue and through that discussion. But providing the space alone isn’t enough. We also, from ICANN, we helped create a paper called The IGF We Want, that outlined some of the steps of what we think a future IGF could look like. And it must be properly resourced, anchored in the business frameworks, and to be strengthened and to continue to play this important role as the neutral collaborative forum and support in this open stakeholder, multi-stakeholder format. And as part of that, we also believe that we should strengthen the output, we heard Minister Tsung say this this morning. We can have a strengthened output, we can also potentially use the IGF mandate to report to the General Assembly, but there should be more output coming out of the IGF. As a summary of all the phenomenal, fantastic work that’s been going on here for 20 years, and all the successes we have achieved over 20 years, and we together with ISOC produced a paper called The Footprints of 20 Years with the IGF, that actually highlights a lot of these successes that has happened, as we heard, the IXPs that have grown phenomenally in Africa and a lot of other work that’s been discussed here at the IGF. And strengthening the output and having the IGFs and the multi-stakeholder model reinforced and properly resourced is really the same model that we have been supporting globally, including our long-standing engagement with the network of the national and regional IGFs that I mentioned before. before, something I again want to reiterate that we shouldn’t forget in this, and this is really the model that the IGF reflects, the stakeholder-led coordination built on trust and practical outcomes. And if we replace this model with something that’s more rigid or politicized, we risk losing one of these few global spaces where we can have this meaningful digital cooperation and it can still happen.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Kurtis, and dialogue is definitely not a bug, but a feature of this space and it should permeate the rest of the WSIS framework, I understand, but let’s go to Fabrizia.

Fabrizia Benini: So when we think about strategic updates, I think we need to think about the changing environment in the last 20 years. What we’ve seen is that the internet and the digital services have permeated just about each and every of our actions. Now there’s not an even use of that throughout the world, but the extent to which digital interactions can touch each most intimate part of our lives makes it absolutely important that we safeguard what we already have. We have a multi-stakeholder model that is difficult, and it is absolutely key not to be complacent, to reinforce it, to revitalize it, to make it really participatory, to shy away very strongly against any temptation of internet shutdowns, any temptation of fragmentation, and to keep the internet really as a global, open space that is accessible to all. Now through the good work of ICANN, we know the architecture is robust, but we must ask ourselves the question, will it be robust? facing, in face, of the new technologies? Will the governance model hold? And this is what we did in Brussels. We held a conference on the governance of Web 4.0, the future, what is not yet here. But what is it that we need to be aware? Keeping our foundation multi-stakeholder model, keeping our governance, but adapting it, protecting it to make sure that it continues to really to serve all.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Fabrizia, for referring to this need to update and to adapt to new challenges like the metaverse, this very important conference you organized a couple of months ago, right? So that is something that definitely has to feed in also at the global level here in the IGF. And we are getting closer to the end of the panel section, but we still have one question, which is our fourth question. What are the concrete ways WSIS and indeed the IGF can better integrate the implementation of the Global Digital Compact, and also align with 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda to achieve the governance coherence, and in the end, not leaving anyone behind and making information society for all. And here we will have all of you again taking the floor, starting with you, Minister Tung.

Karianne Tung: Thank you. I think it is important that we are building on the fundaments from WSIS, because we’ve seen that there has been tendency to do parallel processes, and we should avoid this also because it is an issue of capacity. to be a part of different processes going on at the same time about the same thing. I believe that the WSIS should be the lead process for digital cooperation where the GDC can be connected more towards and implemented together with the WSIS process as well. And that means that the things that we already do, the activities that are already being done, like the IGF, the best practice forums, the dynamic coalition, we can continue to do this but be better implemented so that we don’t have these parallel processes. And at the same time, doing WSIS and IGF, talking about the governance of Internet, we also have been talking about digital cooperation and the agenda on the IGF meetings and WSIS forum. They have always covered different topics within the governance of Internet and digital services, all from infrastructure to applications and so forth. So I think we already here see that there are some overlap between the GDC and WSIS, and it’s necessary that we are better able to coordinate and integrate these processes that are going on. I mentioned earlier also that I think it’s important that we are able to communicate better the results and the messages that come out from IGF, so that we can better use it for policymaking and so forth, but also that we use the IGF meetings, the experts and the expertise, the knowledge and experiences that we got from the IGF common meetings, but also the networks from IGF, so that we can canalize these results, these messages. is better into the UN systems, so that we are actually better coordinated as well. And to do this, I think it’s important that we strengthen the IGF. For Norway, it is important that we are able to give IGF a permanent mandate. That is a key priority, so that it’s more predictable and more complementary on the existing structures that we already have. So permanent mandate is one thing. The other thing, that a permanent or a strengthened mandate also demands more predictable funding, which has been an issue for several years, really. But funding is really important, so that we are able to keep up this good work, these good meetings, these good processes, for the good of the world, for the good of the citizens. That is human-based. That is based on human rights that are open, that are free, that are democratic. So better coordination, strengthened and permanent mandate is my key takeaways.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. And better coordination, integration and communication amongst all the pieces of the WSIS architecture. I take that away from your intervention as well. Now we have Jimson.

Jimson Olufuye: Yeah. Thank you. I actually mentioned earlier that the WSIS is like the parent structure. We must commend the head of states in 2003, 2005 for that agreement, and all the people that worked, because it was really all-encompassing. And talking about the link between WSIS, GDC, and of course IGF and SDG 2030, I want to underscore again that GDC is an offshoot of WSIS, because we had the enhanced cooperation working group. So, thanks to you, for opting us, in the last years, for having made this point by joining the forum and internet platform sharing, we finally are able to make it. We’re still in an environment where we have to go to home and we need to make sure that we have a lot of processes that lead to the summit of the future. So, indeed, it’s woven. By the way, as I mentioned earlier, I see it’s already operational in CSTD, working pretty well. So, the outcome of GDC can easily be intertwined with WSYS because they have the same kind of objective, but it has the realization of the sustainable development goal. How do we implement this? IGF is a beautiful forum, where we can always analyze those themes, the themes from GDC, we can look at it, map it, there’s already some form of mapping, we can still go ahead and map to KPI in terms of what we need to achieve by 2030. So, we already have the platform, we have the structure, IGF, everybody can come in and bring in what they’re doing, but I will emphasise, as I mentioned earlier, we need to encourage countries to deepen this dialogue with their sustainable development goal offices, because we cannot be discussing at the top level and at the grassroots, nothing much is happening. So, we encourage countries to take this dialogue seriously, the WSYS action line discussion, the GDC objectives of 1 to 5, and, of course, the SDG, mapping them as a measuring progress. By so doing, we can really easily see where we are, measure where we are, as we approach the next steps. the year 2030. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Jimson, for reminding us that the GDC is part of the WSIS family and is a good, well-functioning family. We should all communicate with each other. Now, Baroness Jones.

Maggie Jones: Thank you. It’s understandable, I think, that increasing parts of the UN are beginning to address the challenges of digital technology because it’s, as we’ve been discussing, affecting so many parts of our lives now. But whilst it does that, and it’s quite understandable it does, I think we need to make sure that that doesn’t result in fragmentation and duplication, and that’s the real challenge, I think, we are dealing with here. The fact is that WSIS, our multi-stakeholder engagement, is very unique in this experience. And I think that’s one of our great strengths, and we need to make sure that that is the basis on which the work goes forward so that that wonderful partnership that we’ve been developing can endure. And we also think that there’s a role for the UN interagency coordination through the UN Group on the Information Society. Having said that, the Global Digital Compact, agreed last year at the UN, was a great achievement, and it does give us a good basis to go forward with the WSIS review. So we want to now use the review to ensure that the GDEC is perhaps integrated more into the WSIS processes going forward so that we don’t have that duplication that is a concern, and we can promote alignment a lot more easily through the UN system. We were pleased that in April, the UN Commission for Science and Technology development supported this approach, and the Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies can play its part in supporting coordination amongst UN partners, making sure that there is that coherence that we can all identify as necessary. We also think that the review of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda will be a critical milestone in ensuring that the full potential of that information and communication technologies reaches out to all and is part of our sustainable community development. We believe in all of that, the IGF can play an important role, and giving it a permanent mandate, which is one of our themes this morning, I think is absolutely critical for that. And we also see going forward that there is a greater role for national and regional IGFs to play to make sure that we build on the model that we can prove works. So promoting more community voices, making sure that they feed into the ultimate UN processes I think is really important. So those are the sorts of ways that we think we can move forward, but the key message for us is streamline as much as we can, use the model that we have here that we think works, but understand that the UN will want to take big global strategic decisions on these issues.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Baroness Jones. No fragmentation, no duplication, but integration. Kurtis, do you agree?

Kurtis Lindqvist: Yes, absolutely. I think that looking at the GDCs and the SDGs, I think the implementation of this begins really with the infrastructure layer, and the infrastructure begins with the coordination. At ICANN our mission is very technical, but our impact is very foundational. It’s what enables everything else. We manage the unique identifiers that allow the Internet to function as one unified network that enables everything from e-commerce to emergency alerts to digital government services and at scale. At ICANN, we work very much on contributing to Internet resiliency by coordinating these technical identifiers to ensure that we have a globally interoperable Internet. Beyond that, we also work, for example, to the Coalition for Digital Africa, something that we initiated. Through this, we are supporting deployment of additional infrastructure in underserved regions, for example, to the root servers. We work on capacity building efforts on deploying more DNSSEC that will make the Internet more secure and robust. Beyond that, we work a lot on what is called universal acceptance through academia. We are not just advocating for universal acceptance. Universal acceptance is the availability of the Internet in scripts and languages that are non-Latin based, which is a very important part of making the Internet accessible. We are working actively both on technical readiness work but also building local capacity development and global partnerships to further this work. Through the Coalition for Digital Africa, we have worked through the Association of African Universities to develop advanced multilingual access in academia institutions on that continent and help them develop courses and curriculums to further develop this and enhance the awareness and development of universal acceptance initiatives. This is really important, we believe. These are just some examples of what meaningful access looks like, so strengthening the infrastructure, making it available in local languages and scripts. Here, the IGF really has a role to play as the connectivity tissue between these efforts. the Global Development Goals, Practical Implementations – sorry, the Sustainable Development Goals – and Practical Implementation, and also with the Business Action Lines. And this work really supports both the Business Action Lines, the multiple of the SDGs, and they are overlapping. We have the matrix that shows how these tie together. For example, on resilient infrastructure, quality education to multilingual access, reducing inequalities – those are all supported through this work. And WSIS and the IGF can much better work on integrating this, as we just mentioned – I completely agree with this – by surfacing and scaling these efforts and implementation to raise awarenesses. And this really means that we need to elevate the IGF, as I said before. We shouldn’t bypass it, we should invest in it. We should really not try to duplicate or replicate it, as the Baroness just said – I completely agree with that. And really protect this work that’s ongoing, and protecting the single interoperable core from fragmentation, both on a technical level, but also on the institutional level, as you just talked about.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you, Kurtis. And thank you for highlighting all that very practical work on the ground, and relating it to the IGF. And I like that metaphor very much, as a connecting tissue, because that also, I think, is a challenge for us, to imagine the new ways of cooperation and coordination, of collaboration and communication we need, to really make it even more efficient, working more effectively to achieve the goals. Fabrizia, what is your take?

Fabrizia Benini: So like other speakers before me, one of our tenets, in the strong support that we have for the YSYS process, is that we need to avoid duplication, we need to increase synergies that need to be mutually reinforcing. So these are very good words, but how is it that we go about that? Well, our approach is to propose a roadmap system. We’ve seen that work has already been done in the past years to map the SDGs and the YSYS action lines. We’ve seen recently the STD busy on that, incorporating also the GDC commitments. So we think that there is room for the action line facilitators together with the relevant bodies in the UN that can contribute meaningfully to set out actionable roadmaps that will track the implementation and the progress starting from the YSYS action lines, the SDG goals and the GDC commitments. So that we are able to have a clear understanding of where we are, a clear understanding of what needs to be done, and therefore take the action in the appropriate fora to make sure that those gaps are filled. But unless there is clarity as to where we are, we can’t coordinate well. So that would be our proposal.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much for that refreshing intervention, bringing us from principles, which are very important, to very actionable proposals, and a proposal that resonates a lot with what has been discussed this week in the session we had before with the co-facilitator, Ambassador Ekitele from Kenya, already mentioned that this idea of a joint implementation roadmap of roadmaps based on the action lines and integrating the work is something they will definitely consider and put to the discussion of stakeholders and member states. So that’s a really good outcome of this week, for instance, of discussions. But before we congratulate ourselves, I think now it’s the time to enter into interaction with our public and we can change to the next segment of this session and we will have two minutes in addition for that. There are two microphones. Now they are getting highlighted. This is great for somebody so short-sighted like myself. Please get on the row if you have any question, any message you want to share with this panel, with the rest of the audience. Please keep it short and sweet, a maximum of two minutes per intervention and please introduce yourself and from time to time, I don’t know if she might be highlighted as well, our online moderator will look whether we have interventions from the online world. So I’ll start with the left. Please introduce yourself.

Audience: Thank you, I will be speaking in Spanish. These have been very interesting things that have been said. Devices, that would be helpful. I understand Spanish so I don’t have to. I understand Spanish so then you can take this one. And maybe I can help in the translation if somebody doesn’t get it. Ready? So I think we’re going to put that out. How nice to be able to speak in my own language, because we are a linguistic diversity, cultural diversity. And in different countries, we’ve talked about this content and the use of technologies. It’s not the same just legislate on technology as about the construction of the technology. What we’re using is technology, which is produced elsewhere under other rules. In the past 20 years, lots of discussion have been about how do we regulate something that we do not control, because it’s not part of our legislation. Taxes, for example, content control. We’ve tried to focus on that in different ways, controlling content to avoid abuse, trying to connect everyone. Then everyone wants to have the last say in the systems. We see that in our countries as well. Technology, particularly after the pandemic, have become increasingly relevant. How can we preach to those who are already converts? We have to bring them to the table. For years, we’ve said that we’re part of the technological community. But they have general science, to put it that way. We have to take all of this out of the IGF to other places. Don’t we enter into discussions in parliaments on legislation, for example? bullying women, then the focus is completely different than the digital topic is. And it’s very difficult to regulate the platforms. This is a very relevant discussion, and it should be taken to the next level. So the first thing we have to do is to bring to the table the players who are not us, preach to the converts. It’s not relevant. We know this. We can work together. But if we don’t bring the others in, in a level of advocacy in our own countries, we can’t get anywhere. We have to negotiate not among ourselves, but with others, so that we can have a common resource. The international is very important. It’s quite clear. The development of regulations and policies have to be integrated in a mullet that can be used by everyone. But it’s not used by everyone. We know that. And so reality, we have different cultural and political realities. So what we do at the IGF, we can have to avoid the vultures, not only our own voices.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you very much, Eric, for that intervention, a little longer than expected. We’re going to take a few interventions and then we’ll move on to the panel’s reactions. So I’ll switch again to English. Thank you, Eric, for that intervention, which was a bit longer than expected. But we will take some and then hear if the panel has any reactions. I go to my right. Please introduce yourself. And please keep it to two minutes.

Audience: Thank you very much, William Lee, Australian government. Obviously, I want to thank Norway for its excellent hosting of the IGF and this excellent panel. You’ve talked about some really important issues. And these are really tough challenges to solve. So I’m going to go to my left. I’m going to go to my right. I’m going to go to my left. And I think as governments, we’re all scratching around looking for the best way to solve them. And I think WSIS is a critical tool towards achieving global action on many of those difficult problems. I think the value of WSIS Plus 20 will be the opportunity to have an ideas conversation, hearing all voices, including those from least developed countries and small island developing states, and to translate that to global norms in an action-orientated agenda, taking forth what works and seeing new partnerships form to close those digital divides. I know we are starting to see some really positive ideas emerge from Switzerland, from the EU, from ICANN, from ISOC, from Australia and from others. But I wondered if you had any reflections on how we continue to promote a positive ideas conversation and avoid the temptation to simply revert to a conversation over language, which won’t deliver us the actions and outcomes that as a global community we need. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Will, and thank you for highlighting also the Australian non-paper which is worthwhile, has a lot of ideas in it, good basis for contributing to the conversation. We’ll see, do we have anything online? Please, Eleonora.

Online moderator: Yes, we do. Thank you, Jorge. We have a few questions online. I can start with the first. Yes. From Musa Maigari from Nigeria. What strategies can be implemented to enhance the participation of youth and women in the IGF and WSIS processes?

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Eleonora. And I think we can have a first round of reactions to what was said. Anyone from you on the panel? Si, Fabrizia.

Fabrizia Benini: I would like to answer the first, Eric. the first question, because my Executive Vice President, Enne Virkunen, was here at the opening ceremony at the Digital Public Goods, and she did address some of those issues. The Union has just adopted an international strategy for digital, where we set out a vision of enhanced and increased digital partnerships with various countries of the world. We are very aware that it’s not just a question of explaining what we do and saying, oh, would you like to do the same? No, it’s not that at all. We are setting out what we call the EU offer, a set of tools that will allow, through very much the use of open source, those partner countries to take them and adapt them to their own internal uses. This is the case on connectivity, on cyber security, and it will be the case on all the layers of the internet stack, going from identity to decentralised social media. So our objective over the years is to deepen those partnerships and to make sure that we all become, in fact, actors, not only consumers, and that is an action on which the Union is very much focused. And, of course, we are happy to share whatever tangible outcomes we will be able to reach at the next IGF.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Fabrizia. Anyone else in the panel? Please keep it short and sweet.

Maggie Jones: Yes, so I just wanted to pick up the issue about women, and one of the points made was about how the internet increasingly is bullying women, and certainly that’s been our experience as well in the UK. We have taken action with the Online Safety Act in the UK and we’re very proud of that, but it’s only the first step that we’re taking. And one of the issues, the public debate in the UK has very much been, what are our neighbors doing? What are the other countries doing? So it’s a much broader debate than perhaps we might think in the confines here. We genuinely want to reach out to develop new global norms about the standards that we can expect in terms of the technology companies. So it’s a much wider and deeper debate, I think, than we might think. And the other thing is, I think we’re absolutely right that, I think the last point was talking about empowering women, and that is such a huge challenge for us. We’re doing our bit, the UN Women’s Committees are doing their bit. We’ve got a huge, big challenge to really address these issues, particularly in the global south. And so I really do genuinely hope that going forward that will be a key priority for us.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. Jimson, very shortly.

Jimson Olufuye: Yes. Am I audible? Yes. Looking at how to deepen this discussion at the local level, and also engage the youths, there’s a saying that money answers all things. And that is to say, they need support. The IGFSA has been doing a marvelous work, and if you are not yet a member, please don’t be a member. It’s an instrument to support the NII at the local level. We need more support, more input to strengthen the ability to provide some resources to those local activities for capacity building, for the next generation building the next leadership. So please join us so that we can together meet this expectation. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. And we will get back to our audience, the lady in green, please.

Audience: Thank you, Jorge. My name is Silvia Cadena. I’m the Chief Development Officer of the World Wide Web Consortium. We work on accessibility, internationalization, privacy, security, and more recently, sustainability of the web that has allowed so much growth and development over the last decade. We would like to raise your interest and attention to the importance of maintenance of the core infrastructure that allows all of this growth to happen. There is a lot of emphasis on innovation and looking into the future, but a lot of those things don’t happen that easy if we don’t have really good succession planning for all of these technical pioneers that are retiring to play golf and do other things that they like in the connections with the next generation. So if the next generation comes in, it’s important from the technical perspective that they maintain the systems that have allowed all of this growth and they understand what is the innovation that they are bringing in so that they don’t break anything that took so long to reach the scale that we have today. And that’s very important for interoperability. And then Minister Tung mentioned the importance of investment in funding and I think it’s very important to consider also what are the incentives to shape the landscape, not to only be adopters of technology. So what incentives Norwegian companies, for example, can have to participate in the development of global open standards for the web and how that brings also diversity and inclusion into this landscape. And that applies to every country. We have a very small number of organizations participating in these processes. and it’s very important that the engineers around the world do engage. Thank you very much.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you, Silvia. Minister Tung, do you want to react as we refer to Norway?

Karianne Tung: Yes, please. The reason I’m into digitalisation and technology is because I’m into the development of society. I want society to be a place where everyone can succeed, whether you are from the north of Norway, the south of Norway, whether you are rich or poor, whether you are a kid or you are an adult. And I really believe that the technology has to reflect the values that we want to build our society on. So to be able to think about gender equivalence, social rights, whatever, women in tech or so forth, we have to bring these perspectives and these values into the infrastructure, whether we are talking about education as an infrastructure, whether we are talking about the internet as an infrastructure. For me, that is the value that I bring to the table when I want to be the most digitalised country in the world, because I really believe it is about how we develop our society and what kind of fundaments we build this society on. Human rights, openness, transparency, democracy, everything has to be a part of the infrastructure. And the youth has a really important voice in that matter as well, and that’s why I specifically addressed the youth when I opened Day Zero here at this hall on Monday, because we have to involve every perspective in the technology.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Karine. Any other quick reaction? Otherwise, thank you for your patience. The gentleman to my right, please introduce yourself.

Audience: Kossay Al-Shati from Kuwait. First, I want to congratulate… Norway on a successful IGF and for these wonderful, engaging, positive atmosphere days that we spent here, so all the thanks for the Government of Norway for hosting us. We were part of the WSIS and the IGF since its inception more than 20 years ago, and we enjoyed wonderful, successful years that we have achieved a lot, whether on the WSIS Action Lines or on the IGF. And it is normal to see things evolve and to address the future issues and challenges. We saw this reflected in the GDC and we look forward that the WSIS Plus 20 foresee the future for us. Yet I do believe that one of the most successful outcome or the most successful outcome of the WSIS is the IGF. And this non-binding, non-outcome-oriented platform should continue. And while we are voicing the support of its continuation, we still believe that within the WSIS Plus 20 process, it’s still a grey area of this, if the IGF will continue as a platform or not. While we successfully addressed issues like diversity, bridging digital divide, diversity, and the multi-stakeholder processes, and we were successful on that as a culture and as a conduct, whether global, regional and national, yet the IGF, which allows us as stakeholders to speak and talk and engage in policy dialogue in equal footing on all issues, and it serves us well, we believe that it is still a grey area for its continuation or not, and we are concerned if this platform did not continue. Therefore, we want to believe, or we want to have… kind of assurances that such platform will continue or what to do from here till the decision has been taken to support it, thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. And I think many of us agree on those points and there’s opportunity to engage with the co-facilitators with the process. Please do so. The more, the better. I will turn to Eleonora and please speak a bit loudly to the microphone so that everybody can hear you.

Online moderator: Sure, okay, I will try to project. So we have another question from Segun Omolosho. As we approach WSIS plus 20, how can we ensure that multi-stakeholder inputs at IGF and other platforms are effectively integrated into WSIS follow-up mechanisms, especially at the national level?

Jorge Cancio: Yeah, maybe that’s the million dollar question or the billion dollar question, which many of us have been thinking about. But I don’t know if any of you has another very concrete and specific proposal.

Jimson Olufuye: Yes, this is Jimson speaking. Well, that’s a very good question. You know, how do we ensure that multi-stakeholder model is effective at the national level? I think we just to appeal to leadership, basically. Because we need champions. You can imagine the private sector that I led in 2012 to kind of cover the gap in Africa. So we need leadership, regulators, stakeholders to take up the mantle and engage with the South Polo multi-stakeholder guideline, where you can scope and ensure that all relevant stakeholders are brought in. for meaningful participation. This is for our own good. This is to ensure that we arrive at the information society we want, with the prosperity of everybody, so that nobody is left behind. So, I will really make this appeal to all our leadership, government, parliamentarians here, please make a case to ensure that all relevant stakeholders are brought in so that we can have useful dialogue for the benefit of our society.

Jorge Cancio: That’s quite clear. I see also Kurtis and then Baroness Jones.

Kurtis Lindqvist: I think this was a phenomenal question. I think George really summarized this. This is the billion dollar question, right? And I think one thing that worries me is that we talked here about how successful this model has been. And what worries me is that it’s been so successful we started taking it for granted, right? And I think that is the greatest worry. We can’t take this for granted. This is something the multistakeholder model we have to defend and highlight the benefits, the value, the phenomenal inclusivity it brings every single day. And we need to do this on a national level. We all need to engage with governments. I’ve got two on the panel, so you’re engaged. But there’s many other countries, and we need to do this every single day. This engagement needs to go on to show the value we create to this model, because only that way we will protect it. And I think it’s a very, very good question, and I’m very glad it was asked, because I think this is something we can’t afford to start taking the current permissionless, innovationless model of the Internet that has enabled all these other topics we’re discussing here. The Internet’s principles are what enable all these discussions, and sometimes I think we forget that.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you, Kurtis. Baroness?

Maggie Jones: Well, firstly, I’d say that I’m very pleased that so many UK representatives are here, and we’ve played a part in a number of my colleagues have played a part in the panels contributing to the debate. So I think the very fact that we’re here, we’re contributing our views, but also listening, and that’s a two-way process of engagement, and we take that back into our own organisations. So, I think that development and the wisdom that we’ve learnt here will help us develop our own policies in the future. So that’s a very important point for us, that we don’t have a static view, it’s very much one that’s learning as we go along. The second thing is that we have a very successful IGF conference in the UK and I think the more we can do events like that, local and the regional level, will always enhance the debate that we need to have. So, it’s not a perfect system, but we are trying our best to make sure that we don’t just have these debates in isolation, but we take them back to our own organisation.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. Then shall we go to the gentleman, I think it was your turn, or well, let’s go to the right. I think Raul is pointing to the right, so let’s take the gentleman there. Please introduce yourself and keep it to below two minutes.

Audience: Thank you, Jorge. My name is Rian Duarte, I’m from the Brazilian Association of Internet Service Providers. Thank you for the panel for a wonderful discussion. In the last few days, we had many relevant and high-level debates and we have seen global cooperations on this stage and on the other many stages, and we should hear from them as they are usually part of the problems we face, but are not always an active part of the solutions. On the other side, we still see an undersized role for small and medium enterprises and open source solutions. So, on the topic of updating governance, I would like to hear from the panel about how we can strengthen the voice and participation of small and medium enterprises as well as open source solutions in IGF and WSIS, especially from the global south.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. Any immediate reactions? to that, so shall we take another one for starters, Kurtis?

Kurtis Lindqvist: I think it’s a, I want to come back to this, it’s a very very important thing that we just highlighted again, because the current internet and again we just discussed here, every day we have hundreds of thousands if not millions of SMEs who exist fully or partly because of the current internet, the current model that enabled them to create and innovate and become businesses, and you’re absolutely right, we need to make that heard, we need to bring them into these discussions. It is a bit of a pull and push, I mean we need to get them to engage and understand that, I think we come back to this, that we have started taking this for granted and therefore it’s not a threat, it’s not nothing to care about, but they should care about this, you know, it’s their livelihood, their business models depends on the outcomes here and these discussions, and we need to bring that message out, we need to bring them into this discussion, not necessarily physically, but through the local regional IGFs, through the remote online participation today, you know, there’s many ways to engage with these forums and make your voices heard, but you’re absolutely right, we need to bring those those voices in here.

Jorge Cancio: Jimson, you want to intervene?

Jimson Olufuye: Yes, very good question. I run an SME, Contemporary Consulting, and everything is on the internet, we are highly involved in digitalization, cybersecurity, integration, do research, so there is a lot of benefit being involved, and I encourage other SMEs that could be following to be part of the conversation, because there’s a tendency for some to say, okay, oh, Jimson is there, these guys are there, let them be doing it. We need it to be part of us, because the internet is a great resource for productivity, for creating new opportunity, for employment, and bringing in new innovation, and so it is in our interest to support it, and another way is through association. And that’s why we formed the Africa City Alliance, encouraging us as an association across Africa to be part of it, bringing your view, companies bringing your view so that we can collate and present it together. So for example, in Nigeria, talking about startup law, there is a startup law encouraging new businesses. There is even funding for AI project. So all these are true conversation we normally have. So bringing your ideas so that we can enrich the ecosystem, the opportunity is there for us. Thank you so much.

Jorge Cancio: Minister.

Karianne Tung: Thank you. Just a short comment from me, because I think it’s really important that we do have the different stakeholders here while we are debating topics that regards them. It’s crucial for the legitimacy of IGF as well. And I think it’s also a responsibility that I, we have as government to make sure that we are able to include the different stakeholders from our countries to be part of IGF, either physically or digitally. It was from Norway side, it was prioritized to work with our different embassies around the world to be able to mobilize participants from different countries to come to IGF in Norway this year. And especially it was participation from Global South. And I think Global South are highly participating in this year’s IGF, but it could have been better. I think we have to agree on that as well.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Minister Tung. It’s always a challenge to reach those participants, be it civil society, but also business with less resources or technical community, of course, or academia. Let’s turn to the gentleman there.

Audience: Good morning. Thank you very much for the opportunity. My name is Raul Echeverria. I’m the Executive Director of. I’m a member of the IGF, and I’m also a member of the Latin American Internet Association, and also a MAG member this year. I have heard all the comments, and I think that I share almost everything that has been said here, with regard to the role of WSIS and IGF and the implementation of GDC, the need for improvement, the need for renewal of IGF, which improvements. And of course, I think that the importance of the IGF, the implementation of GDC, and the need for more implementation of WSIS, and I think that I share almost everything here, but the perception is that the reality is not so easy, and there will be more complications in the negotiations. So my first question is what are the priorities of the IGF, and what are the priorities of the government? And I think that what the Minister Tung has mentioned right now is that I have the impression that it is just a few governments that are really involved in the discussion, and at least from the capitals. I’m sure that the missions, many missions are involved in the conversations in New York, but most of them are not aware of what is happening and what is the negotiation that is going on. So what do you think? How can we involve other governments in the discussion to have really a decision that reflects the interests of all the world? Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Raul. And while our panel thinks about a possible reply, I would invite you to really take the opportunity to row at the microphones. We still have some time. for interventions, please use it, don’t be shy, you see this is a safe environment, you can intervene, there are answers, it’s very interactive, please do use that opportunity. But now, going back to those questions from Raoul, which are really straightforward, and I see Minister Tung.

Karianne Tung: Thank you, I want to give a short reply on the first question, which was about the biggest challenges, because we sound very agree, but we know the times until December will be challenging, and it demands a lot of work from the co-facilitators, from every stakeholder, to be able that we get over the finish line in a good way, and my hope is that we are able to do so in a way of consensus. But the biggest challenge, or the worst thing that can happen is more fragmentation, in my opinion, and that is what I fear the most. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: That’s really important, Kurtis.

Kurtis Lindqvist: It’s a long way to December, as the Minister just said, a lot of things can happen between now and then. I think there are some very, very careful optimism from these days, I think there is a lot to build on, and that doesn’t mean that there is unanimous consensus, and I think that will be a challenge going forward, to build on what we have, and work through that, and make sure that all the voices are heard, and I think it’s a very promising session this morning with the co-facilitators, they were very open for the dialogue with all the stakeholders and take that input into account. Obviously at the end of the day in December this will be a nation-state negotiation, but I hope that we as technical community and the other multi-stakeholder groups can actually provide input into this and help to form a very constructive consensus before then showcase why that is important. and not just have the necessarily multilateral voices and concerns led, but actually the much wider consents and that will hopefully at the end bring us to what we had just talked here this morning.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Kurtis. I see Jimson.

Jimson Olufuye: The major challenge I see, even though the co-facilitators, they’ve demonstrated their resolve to involve all stakeholders but the real main challenge I see and which I try to battle every time is to get our national government to be involved, to involve all of us, all the stakeholders in the conversation. It is so important that national government bring in all the other stakeholders. What are you thinking about? What is your view as you go forward to negotiate? Because we are not in the room to negotiate. So that is a serious challenge that is really in my heart. Look, even some are not even that responsive in terms of even being involved. So that’s answer the question. The second question is real challenge. How do we get all the government at the national level to be involved with this? So we continue to encourage them. We continue to use this platform to say, okay, let the multistakeholder approach, let it be practicalized at the national level, scope the views of your citizens and let them be part of the delegation. Let them be part of the delegation. You know, in the private sector, we can fund ourselves by and large and I believe others can get their fund. But our voices need to be heard because we are all working together for the progress and prosperity of our nation using the digital technologies. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Jimson. Baroness.

Maggie Jones: I would just say that we’ve spent the last 20 years trying to prove ourselves here and I think, you know, we’ve got to the point where we have done that. I think if we can get to the point where we become permanent part of the UN family, if you like, and we don’t have to keep proving ourselves, then our voices will more broadly be heard. But I do also think that we have a communications challenge, because there’s so much good things going on here, and perhaps we’re not, we all take responsibility for this, not so good at taking it back to our own governments and our own stakeholders and talking up the sorts of activities that happen here. But I think if we can get the permanent status sorted, then we will be a more recognised part of the international framework, and I think that would be really important.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Baroness Jones. I think, if I may abuse my role as moderator, sometimes the biggest challenge is to imagine that a positive outcome, which is more than just a zero-sum game, is possible. And to see what are the needed parts that allow all stakeholders worldwide to agree on such an outcome. And I’m hopeful that the discussions we had here will be a contribution to imagining that possibility. But I wonder whether Eleonora, you have any input from online?

Online moderator: Yes, there is one more question from Musa Maigari from Nigeria. How can the IGF address the challenges posed by artificial intelligence and other disruptive technologies?

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Eleonora. I will do a last call for – please go into the microphone. This is your last opportunity. Later on, we will be shifting the segment, so please think about it. While I see whether our panel has any reaction Well, actually the IGF has been discussing AI at least for eight years. I remember in 2017 IGF in Geneva, which we happened to organize a Swiss government together with the Swiss IGF that it was already very prominent and also the effects of the algorithmic systems to the public sphere and to the democratic system, but The word is yours Kurtis, you wanted to..

Kurtis Lindqvist: Thank you, I Think that you know the IGF doesn’t As you just pointed out. I mean AI has been allowed to come into the IGF agenda And I think you know large emerging challenges has been picked up in the past by the IGF So I think we already have the forum for this as part of the mag and they do the work or the scheduling and the working working groups The open forums. I think that’s part of the agenda that’s being set already I think we do pick up a lot of emerging technologies and I think one thing we don’t talk So I mean this had all the open and structured scheduling But it’s all this hallway discussions this phenomenal discussion of ecosystem that goes on around the formal schedule but also allows for a dialogue around some of these age these discussions and topics and Really the incubator of ideas and I think the IGF has been very successful at that over the years

Jorge Cancio: Thank You Kurtis, any other reaction on this question I see Jimson

Jimson Olufuye: Okay All right. Thank you As a matter of fact the topic of artificial intelligence has been on for quite a long time It was one of my courses in the 80s in the university So what the ramification of it now is very serious an idea is a beautiful platform When we have all these two good as we can also examine the ramifications of artificial intelligence. So one thing that we are taking away here is that a lot of best practices approaches that governments are taking to tackle the negative part, the abuse part, and the positive part, encourage it. We get it here and go back to our national and encourage maybe the enactment of a law to ensure that the AI is used for good, is used for the benefits of the society. So there has to be some form of regulation and that’s something coming out of this place. AI can serve us well, can help us to realize the sustainable development goal faster, but at the same time, it can be useful. And that is why it has to be properly regulated and there has to be some laws to guide those that are developing the application. So coming from IGF, we get the policy framework, we get to know about best practices, we take it to our countries and localize those discussions. So that’s why the IGF platform remains a credible platform to discuss these issues and other emerging issues that we’ll see.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Jimson. I saw Baroness, then Minister, and Fabrizio, everybody has something to say on this topic.

Maggie Jones: Well, I was just going to say very briefly that I absolutely agree with the potential of AI and we need to harness it as AI for good for all nations. But it is a specific challenge for us in terms of safety and security as well. And so we have a very particular role here in just sharing our expertise and sharing good practice because this is a global challenge for us. But at the end of the day, the approach that was taken, which is that we are tech neutral in a sense, that we address all of the tech challenges, I think is the right one. And it will be addressed, I think, as we go on, increasingly in our forums, just as a matter of course. So I think we’ve got the right structures to do it, but it is a very specific and unique challenge and a concern for us, for all nations.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you. Minister.

Karianne Tung: Thank you. I think it’s important that each and every country has good discussion on how they want to use artificial intelligence as a technology. What are the challenges and what are the possibilities in each and every country, because it may differ. For instance, Norway is an energy nation, so for us to use artificial intelligence in the field of energy is an obvious thing. But together, I think we need to have international guidelines and international discussion about the ethical implication of the technology as well. And the discussion that are going on on artificial intelligence when it comes to best practice and so forth, I think it’s really valuable for every country, whether you want to use it within the health care sector or the energy system or within public administration and so forth.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. Fabrizia.

Fabrizia Benini: I think the added value of the IGF, it’s its components. Who is it made of? What are the voices that you can hear here? And when you have discussions about the artificial intelligence, the technical community will have one take, governments another, the business community another and so forth. And this conversation is extremely useful, but it needs to be passed on to those other institutions, both in the UN family and in national governments that are already working on AI. Because what we want to avoid is duplication, but what we want to increase is a synergetically approach that is mutually reinforcing. So get the voices, get the problems out, have the opportunity to have that discussion with each and every one, but make sure that then it becomes actionable in those fora where work is already taking place.

Jorge Cancio: Absolutely, and that brings us back to this idea of the connecting tissue we need to invent, we need to imagine and then need to implement if we are able to agree on how to do it by December. I see, is there a gentleman taking the last opportunity to take the mic? Please go ahead.

Audience: Yes, please. My name is Bastiaan Winkel and I work for the Department of Justice in the Netherlands. This week we’ve highlighted the advantages of an open and free internet. We’ve underlined that we should stick to the working of the internet based on trust and multi-stakeholderism. Working on law enforcement, I’m also exposed to the dark sides of the internet. Online hate speech flourishing, cease and materials widely available, our youth getting addicted to the mobile phones and to the social media platforms. I’m glad we’re also addressing these issues at the IGF, but what can we do and how can we address these issues to also give our citizens the same protection online as they have in the physical world?

Jorge Cancio: Another very important question. We will take the very last one from Eleonora, from online, and then we will wrap up this part.

Online moderator: Thank you very much, Jorge. I actually just wanted to share a contribution from the online chat and then I’ll move into the question. So you may remember earlier, Sagoon had asked about how do we ensure multi-stakeholder inputs are truly integrated into the work that we do. follow-up, especially at the national level, and we had a nice discussion with Mark Carvell, formerly of the UK government, longtime friend of the IGF, who made the point that the IGF’s more than 176 NRIs are going to be vital for bringing those inputs in. So I just wanted to share that and move on to a final question from our remote hub in Benin. It was asked in French, but I’ll just translate into English. Speaking of technological evolution, some regions in Africa are excluded from both the challenges and the benefits. What measures is the IGF taking to promote full inclusion, particularly of countries in the global south?

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much Eleonora, and let’s do a final round of reactions to these two last questions. Is there anyone from you, Minister?

Karianne Tung: I can start with the first question from the gentleman from the Netherlands, and yesterday I really believe it was a good panel on this stage about protecting children from harmful algorithms, and we also see reports from the Norwegian security police that very young children are being captured by right-wing radicals on the different social media platforms, and then further on to other platforms. So I think we need to do more. We need the government to do more and better regulation, and I really believe that the European Union has done a great deal here when it comes to the Digital Service Act, for instance, which is good. So regulation is one of the answers. We need the tech companies to do more. They are not doing enough, so we need them to do more, and in the end I think we need more international cooperation on these issues, because if we… I really believe in an open and free internet, but to be able to have the open and free internet, we have to have trust. and we have to deal with the challenges that also Internet brings to the floor. So, I believe along these three pillars, government, regulation, international cooperation and that the tech companies have to do more themselves to tackle these challenges. So, I’m happy that you raised that question. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Minister. Baroness.

Maggie Jones: I think we can all identify with the dark side that you talked about and it’s a huge challenge for all of us. We’re all trying in our own way to deal with this. I mentioned earlier that we have our own piece of legislation, the Online Safety Act, which is attempting to set some standards for how children in particular should be protected online. And I have to say that we have got very good dialogue going with the tech companies to ensure that that’s being implemented properly. But for us, we would like to share our experience and also to learn from other nations. So, we do begin to set some sort of global norms about what is acceptable to appear on the Internet so that we don’t necessarily all just do it country by country but form a bit more of an alliance on all of this. So, that is the way that we would like to approach it. But it’s a very good challenge and as has been said, we absolutely need to address it because otherwise we won’t maintain the trust and people won’t feel enabled to use the wonderful technology that we’ve got to its best advantage because they simply won’t trust it. So, it’s a huge and important challenge for us.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much. Any other inputs to these two last questions? Jimson?

Jimson Olufuye: Very quickly, there was a report by UNECA underscoring the need for more investments in Internet penetration and a 10% increase in Internet penetration. will give us about 8.2% increase in GDP per capital. It also showed a 10% increase in cybersecurity maturity which enabled up to a 5.4% increase in GDP per capital. This underscores the fact that our countries need to prioritize infrastructural connectivity access for more prosperity and for more people to be reached down to the underserved areas. And then secondly, it also underscores the fact that there has to be cybersecurity maturity for developing countries. UNECA has come up with a model cybersecurity law that we can adapt even to customize our own local laws. And we had from EU and from UK, the efforts they also made in online safety. So they need to adapt this thing and make a near-perfect law to guide the citizens’ online activities.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Jimson. So I think it’s time now to wrap up this session. We will have a last segment of, let’s say, interim final messages because this is an ongoing conversation about the path forward with WISC-I plus 20, with the IGF and with how we work together. And I would like to start with Fabrizia, if that is OK for you, and then come gently over until Minister Tung to have the last word.

Fabrizia Benini: Thank you. Well, my first last word and thought is to thank the Norwegian government for the organization of the IGF. You had… You had very little time to put it together and the result has been magnificent. The venues are fantastic and really the organization has been… completely faultless, so thank you. On the WISOs process, we’ve already had the opportunity to reiterate our very strong commitment to it, strong commitment to the multi-stakeholder model that needs to be effective, inclusive and actionable. Participation, the IGF itself that needs robust foundations, and a coherence between the different actions that we take in the WISOs with the SDGs that are coming up for review in 2030 and with the GDC. We can work together this path. It might not be completely straightforward sometimes, but that’s the beauty of having different voices, and I think there is a real benefit in world terms for us to engage in this pioneer, continue this pioneer experiment. Thank you.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Fabrizia. Jimson.

Jimson Olufuye: Yeah, I will also say plus one to the expression of appreciation to our host for a very splendid IGF 2025. Thank you very much. Well, the WISOs has come to stay, and we are doing a review, and we’re expecting that the IGF will be renewed or made permanent, and we’re also hoping that all the stakeholder too will perform their own roles and responsibility. But most importantly, with regards to developing countries and underdeveloped countries, we need to also take it more seriously and deepen the conversation within our nationals, even up to sub-national, because there’s a need for us to catch up, to leapfrog, because we’re looking at internet penetration is 39% to 40%, while the world average is about 60%. So there’s a lot to be done. We need to bring in all the stakeholders so that we can fast-track the process of adoption, awareness, and even utilization of these tools. And finally, I want to really thank in advance our countries, because countries have never failed to host IGF. Thanking all the governments that are taking it up. So, and appreciating the leadership role they’re playing in ensuring that IGF is sustained. So, thanking them in advance.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much, Jimson, Kurtis.

Kurtis Lindqvist: I also like to thank the hosts for this successful and fantastic week you allowed us to have here in Norway. And after this week of contributing, listening and engaging here at the IGF, I think one thing is very clear, and that is, we’re not simply talking about the future, we’re actually shaping the foundation of the future. And the Internet’s greatest strength is really its ability to coordinate at this phenomenal global scale without a centralized control. It’s something that’s very rare, it’s essential, and it’s worth protecting. We at ICANN, we’re not regulators, but we’re stewards. We look after the unique identifiers and the technical components that makes the Internet keep working. The practical stakeholder-driven collaboration that we model is how governance must evolve. And the IGF is really where this governance and coordination happens in practice today. And it must remain open and global representative space that we have for this digital governance. We heard some questions and discussions earlier, let’s not underestimate what it takes to make this possible. But we really must give it the support it needs and keep doing what only the IGF can do.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you, Kurtis. Baroness Jones.

Maggie Jones: So I would like to echo all the points that have been made. Thank you so much to our hosts. It’s been a fantastic event, beautifully organized, as we would expect from the Norwegians. And yes, I think it’s been a very, very successful event. And I would just say that it’s really, really important that a very wide group of stakeholders contribute to the WSIS review because we want to demonstrate what we really represent here and it is a very unique group of people, so everybody from governments, businesses, civil societies, technical experts and academics. In order for this to continue to play the important role that it does, I think that everybody, the widest group of people need to participate in the review, so I urge everybody to contribute.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much Baroness. Minister Tung, do you have the final words?

Karianne Tung: Thank you everyone for really kind words about Norway hosting the IGF. I believe it has been a success, but it wouldn’t have been without you, all the participants, all the stakeholders. That is really why this is an amazing event, where we can sit down and talk to each other instead of about each other, and I really appreciate that. I think during the last, or the past 20 years, we have shown that you can trust the IGF and multi-stakeholder model. That’s why it’s important for Norway and it is Norway’s point of view that the IGF should have a strength mandate, that it should be permanent, and that we are able to integrate more the different processes that are going on. So I really look forward to meet you all at the next IGF, and Norway will be happy to share our experience also with hosting the IGF, or whatever countries up next for hosting the IGF. So thank you very much everyone for being here.

Jorge Cancio: Thank you so much Minister Tunge, and it’s really wonderful, and when the expectations are so high, and the expectations were very high for you, for the Norwegians, it’s really wonderful that everything is so perfect. Thank you so much. I don’t have too much to recap. I look forward to the summaries that are being prepared by the IGF Secretariat together with Diplo Foundation. I think that’s also worthwhile looking into the transcript of both this morning’s session, which was very rich and engaging with the co-facilitators and with the Undersecretary General. And of course, all the inputs you gave during this very engaging discussion and the ones we received from the audience, both here and online, I think are worth looking them over, seeing where are more solutions, more common ground fields, what we have to really address, where we have to still really force our imagination to come to good solutions. But with this, I would like to thank our panel, give them a warm round of applause. And also thank our audience. I think with this, this session is adjourned. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder approach must be preserved and strengthened

Speakers

– Suela Janina
– Maggie Jones
– Kurtis Lindqvist
– Thomas Schneider
– Markus Kummer

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder approach and engagement will be central in the future negotiations that we are taking for the review of the process

The fact is that WSIS, our multi-stakeholder engagement, is very unique in this experience. And I think that’s one of our great strengths

The IGF strength lies in what it enables, the open engagement across stakeholder groups without the pressure to negotiate or formulize the outcomes

The UN agencies and the UN system has opened up, has opened up its arms for cooperation quite significantly over this time

We have come a long way since, and I would like to thank the co-facilitators for their commitment to a multi-stakeholder approach

Summary

There is strong consensus that the multi-stakeholder approach is fundamental to WSIS and IGF success and must be maintained and strengthened in future processes

Topics

Human rights principles

Avoid duplication between WSIS, GDC, and other UN processes while promoting synergies

Speakers

– Ekitela Lokaale
– Karianne Tung
– Maggie Jones
– Fabrizia Benini

Arguments

Stakeholders are saying, please don’t duplicate. Try to find synergies between the two processes

We should avoid parallel processes because it is an issue of capacity to be a part of different processes going on at the same time about the same thing

We genuinely want to reach out to develop new global norms about the standards that we can expect in terms of the technology companies

We need to avoid duplication, we need to increase synergies that need to be mutually reinforcing

Summary

All speakers agree on the critical need to avoid duplicating efforts across different UN digital processes while creating meaningful synergies and coordination

Topics

Legal and regulatory

IGF should be strengthened with permanent mandate and better funding

Speakers

– Karianne Tung
– Maggie Jones
– Kurtis Lindqvist

Arguments

For Norway, it is important that we are able to give IGF a permanent mandate. That is a key priority

Giving it a permanent mandate, which is one of our themes this morning, I think is absolutely critical

We really must give it the support it needs and keep doing what only the IGF can do

Summary

There is clear consensus that the IGF needs a permanent mandate and more predictable funding to continue its valuable work effectively

Topics

Legal and regulatory

WSIS action lines remain relevant and technology-neutral for addressing emerging challenges

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Karianne Tung
– Maggie Jones

Arguments

The 11 WSIS Action Lines covered anything that could come up. We don’t really need any new structural changes

The action lines are broad, they are tech neutral, I believe that is important, because we don’t know what kind of technology that hits us tomorrow

The approach that was taken, which is that we are tech neutral in a sense, that we address all of the tech challenges, I think is the right one

Summary

Speakers agree that the existing WSIS action lines are sufficiently broad and technology-neutral to address emerging technologies like AI without requiring structural changes

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for WSIS as the leading framework with structured implementation approaches that integrate GDC commitments through coordinated roadmaps

Speakers

– Karianne Tung
– Fabrizia Benini

Arguments

I believe that the WSIS should be the lead process for digital cooperation where the GDC can be connected more towards and implemented together with the WSIS process

We think that there is room for the action line facilitators together with the relevant bodies in the UN to set out actionable roadmaps that will track the implementation and the progress

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers highlight persistent digital divides as major challenges requiring urgent attention, with specific focus on gender gaps and developing country connectivity

Speakers

– Maggie Jones
– Jimson Olufuye

Arguments

The gender divide remains a huge challenge for us. Globally there were 244 million more men than women using the internet in 2023

With regards to developing countries and underdeveloped countries, we need to take it more seriously because we’re looking at internet penetration is 39% to 40%, while the world average is about 60%

Topics

Development | Digital access | Gender rights online

Both speakers emphasize that the IGF ecosystem extends far beyond the annual meeting, with national/regional IGFs and ongoing activities being crucial components

Speakers

– Kurtis Lindqvist
– Markus Kummer

Arguments

The national regional IGFs continue to connect the global and local governance conversations into each other

The IGF is more than just an annual meeting. It’s a process with many intersessional activities and the importance of the NRIs could not be overemphasized

Topics

Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Technology companies need to do more to address harmful content and algorithms

Speakers

– Karianne Tung
– Maggie Jones
– Audience

Arguments

We need the tech companies to do more. They are not doing enough, so we need them to do more

We have got very good dialogue going with the tech companies to ensure that that’s being implemented properly

We have seen global cooperations on this stage and they are usually part of the problems we face, but are not always an active part of the solutions

Explanation

Unexpected consensus emerged across government representatives and civil society that technology companies bear significant responsibility for addressing online harms and need to be more actively engaged in solutions, moving beyond traditional regulatory approaches

Topics

Cybersecurity | Children rights | Human rights principles

Environmental impact of ICT needs urgent attention

Speakers

– Maggie Jones

Arguments

Another issue we need to address is the environmental impact of information and communication technologies and all of the global greenhouse gas emissions that that challenge raises

Explanation

The explicit mention of environmental concerns related to ICT infrastructure was unexpected in a digital governance discussion, showing growing awareness of sustainability issues in the digital realm

Topics

Development | Sustainable development

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists on preserving multi-stakeholder approaches, avoiding process duplication, strengthening IGF with permanent mandate, and maintaining technology-neutral WSIS action lines. Agreement also emerged on addressing digital divides and the need for better coordination between processes.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with constructive alignment on fundamental principles and practical next steps. The convergence suggests strong foundation for successful WSIS Plus 20 negotiations, though implementation details and resource allocation may require further discussion.

Different viewpoints

Relationship between WSIS and Global Digital Compact

Speakers

– Ekitela Lokaale
– Karianne Tung

Arguments

On one hand, there are those who feel that WSIS should remain the overarching framework and that all the other proposals in the GDC be implemented under the WSIS architecture. Then there are also those who say, let the two processes don’t duplicate but follow what is in WSIS and let the processes under GDC run their course.

I believe that the WSIS should be the lead process for digital cooperation where the GDC can be connected more towards and implemented together with the WSIS process.

Summary

While Ekitela Lokaale presents diverse stakeholder views on whether WSIS should be the overarching framework or run parallel to GDC, Minister Tung takes a clear position that WSIS should be the lead process with GDC integrated within it.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Approach to updating WSIS action lines

Speakers

– Ekitela Lokaale
– Jimson Olufuye

Arguments

There are those who advance this proposal, they are wide enough. They can accommodate these emerging technologies. So there is no need to touch them. There is a school of thought that says let’s update the WSIS action lines. So by updating of necessity, it means you have to touch them somewhat. Then there are those who say expand the WSIS action lines.

We don’t really need any new structural changes. Let’s sustain what we have. The IGF is brilliant. Let’s bring in the Sao Paulo Multistakeholder Guideline. Let’s do it better, and as such, we can tackle any emerging challenges appropriately.

Summary

Ekitela Lokaale presents three different stakeholder approaches to action lines (keep as-is, update, or expand), while Jimson Olufuye firmly advocates for no structural changes and maintaining the current framework.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Unexpected differences

Scope of multi-stakeholder engagement challenges

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Audience

Arguments

The major challenge I see is to get our national government to be involved, to involve all of us, all the stakeholders in the conversation. We are not in the room to negotiate.

How can we preach to those who are already converts? We have to bring them to the table. We have to take all of this out of the IGF to other places.

Explanation

While both identify inclusivity challenges, Jimson focuses on getting existing stakeholders into government processes, while the audience member argues for reaching entirely new audiences outside the current IGF community. This represents a fundamental difference in approach to expanding participation.

Topics

Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on institutional relationships (WSIS-GDC integration), structural changes to action lines, and approaches to strengthening IGF outputs. Most disagreements are about methods rather than fundamental goals.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most speakers share common goals around multi-stakeholder engagement, avoiding duplication, and strengthening digital governance, but differ on implementation approaches. The disagreements are constructive and focused on ‘how’ rather than ‘whether’ to achieve shared objectives. This suggests good potential for finding compromise solutions in the WSIS Plus 20 process.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for WSIS as the leading framework with structured implementation approaches that integrate GDC commitments through coordinated roadmaps

Speakers

– Karianne Tung
– Fabrizia Benini

Arguments

I believe that the WSIS should be the lead process for digital cooperation where the GDC can be connected more towards and implemented together with the WSIS process

We think that there is room for the action line facilitators together with the relevant bodies in the UN to set out actionable roadmaps that will track the implementation and the progress

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers highlight persistent digital divides as major challenges requiring urgent attention, with specific focus on gender gaps and developing country connectivity

Speakers

– Maggie Jones
– Jimson Olufuye

Arguments

The gender divide remains a huge challenge for us. Globally there were 244 million more men than women using the internet in 2023

With regards to developing countries and underdeveloped countries, we need to take it more seriously because we’re looking at internet penetration is 39% to 40%, while the world average is about 60%

Topics

Development | Digital access | Gender rights online

Both speakers emphasize that the IGF ecosystem extends far beyond the annual meeting, with national/regional IGFs and ongoing activities being crucial components

Speakers

– Kurtis Lindqvist
– Markus Kummer

Arguments

The national regional IGFs continue to connect the global and local governance conversations into each other

The IGF is more than just an annual meeting. It’s a process with many intersessional activities and the importance of the NRIs could not be overemphasized

Topics

Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

WSIS Plus 20 review should preserve the foundational vision (people-centered, inclusive, development-oriented) while adapting to new technologies like AI and digital public infrastructure

Strong convergence exists on maintaining multi-stakeholder approach as central to WSIS and IGF processes

IGF has demonstrated success over 20 years, connecting 5+ billion people online and enabling economic growth through its open, non-binding dialogue model

Technology-neutral WSIS action lines can accommodate emerging technologies without requiring structural changes, just contextualization

Digital divide persists with significant gaps between developed and developing countries (39-40% vs 60% average internet penetration)

Integration and coordination between WSIS, Global Digital Compact, and SDGs is essential to avoid duplication while promoting synergies

National and regional IGFs (176 total) play vital connecting role between global and local digital governance

Online safety challenges, especially protecting children from harmful algorithms and content, require coordinated government regulation and tech company responsibility

Resolutions and action items

Co-facilitators to establish informal multi-stakeholder sounding board with members from MAG and leadership panel for enhanced communication

Written inputs to elements paper due July 15th to inform zero draft outcome document for negotiations

Joint session between governments and non-government stakeholders planned for end of July

Second preparatory consultation meeting scheduled for mid-October

Proposal for joint implementation roadmaps tracking progress across WSIS action lines, SDGs, and GDC commitments to be considered

Stakeholders urged to contribute to WSIS Plus 20 review process through multiple channels including written submissions

National governments encouraged to involve all stakeholders in their delegations and decision-making processes

IGF Secretariat and Diplo Foundation to prepare summaries and transcripts of discussions for further reference

Unresolved issues

Relationship between WSIS and Global Digital Compact remains contentious with diverse views on whether WSIS should be overarching framework or processes should run in parallel

Future of IGF mandate (permanent vs. extended) still under negotiation

Funding mechanisms for IGF remain unpredictable and inadequate

How to effectively integrate multi-stakeholder inputs into national-level policy implementation

Specific mechanisms for avoiding duplication while ensuring coordination across multiple UN digital processes

How to meaningfully include developing countries and ensure their voices are heard in global digital governance

Concrete measures to address the gender digital divide (244 million more men than women online)

Balancing open internet principles with need for regulation to address online harms and protect children

How to engage broader stakeholder participation beyond those already committed to digital governance discussions

Suggested compromises

WSIS to serve as lead process for digital cooperation with GDC being implemented within WSIS framework rather than as separate parallel process

Strengthen IGF outputs and reporting mechanisms while maintaining non-binding, dialogue-focused nature

Update and contextualize existing WSIS action lines for new technologies rather than creating entirely new structures

Use technology-neutral approach in action lines to accommodate future emerging technologies

Create joint implementation roadmaps that map WSIS action lines to SDGs and GDC commitments to ensure coherence

Establish better coordination through UN Group on Information Society and Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies

Strengthen national and regional IGFs as connecting tissue between global and local governance while maintaining global IGF as central forum

Combine government regulation, tech company responsibility, and international cooperation to address online safety challenges

The IGF is a sandbox process for the multilateral environment. It is a way to alleviate some of the constraints regarding the participation of non-governmental stakeholders, it’s a way to experiment and also to alleviate the constraints for putting something on the agenda… The IGF is this exploratory space that allows to put agenda items early on and save at least three or four years in addressing them.

Speaker

Bertrand de La Chapelle

Reason

This comment reframes the IGF’s role from just a discussion forum to a strategic governance innovation tool. The ‘sandbox’ metaphor is particularly powerful as it suggests a safe space for experimentation that feeds into formal multilateral processes. The quantification of ‘saving 3-4 years’ adds concrete value to what might otherwise be seen as just talk.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion from operational concerns about the IGF’s future to strategic thinking about its unique value proposition in global governance. It provided intellectual ammunition for those arguing for the IGF’s permanent mandate by articulating a clear functional role that no other institution fills.

We risk losing one of these few global spaces where we can have this meaningful digital cooperation… If we replace this model with something that’s more rigid or politicized, we risk losing one of these few global spaces where we can have this meaningful digital cooperation.

Speaker

Kurtis Lindqvist

Reason

This comment introduces urgency and stakes to the discussion by framing the WSIS+20 review as potentially existential for the current model. It shifts from celebrating achievements to acknowledging vulnerability, suggesting that success shouldn’t be taken for granted.

Impact

This warning about fragility created a more serious tone in the discussion and prompted other speakers to emphasize the need for active defense of the multistakeholder model. It moved the conversation from complacency about past success to strategic thinking about preservation and strengthening.

How can we preach to those who are already converts? We have to bring them to the table… We have to take all of this out of the IGF to other places… if we don’t bring the others in, in a level of advocacy in our own countries, we can’t get anywhere.

Speaker

Eric (from audience)

Reason

This comment challenges the fundamental assumption of the IGF community about its own effectiveness. It suggests that the community may be operating in an echo chamber and needs to engage beyond its traditional boundaries. The religious metaphor of ‘preaching to converts’ is particularly striking.

Impact

This intervention shifted the discussion from internal processes and structures to external engagement and political reality. It prompted several panelists to acknowledge the challenge of bringing non-traditional stakeholders into the conversation and influenced subsequent discussions about national-level engagement.

There is a proposal that we have a joint implementation plan for the GDC and WSIS, for example. So, that’s an innovative idea which we are willing to put before stakeholders.

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale (Co-facilitator)

Reason

This comment introduces a concrete mechanism for addressing the persistent concern about duplication and fragmentation between different UN digital processes. It moves from abstract calls for coordination to a specific institutional innovation.

Impact

This proposal became a focal point for subsequent discussions about coordination and was picked up by multiple speakers as a promising approach. It shifted the conversation from identifying problems to exploring solutions and gave participants something concrete to rally around.

We are hearing from the stakeholders, for example, the need for us to ground the WSIS Plus 20 outcome review in the original WSIS vision… but we should also reflect some of the technological advancements that have happened over the last two decades… there is a clear recognition that even as we ground the review in the original WSIS vision… we should also reflect some of the technological advancements.

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale (Co-facilitator)

Reason

This comment articulates the central tension of the WSIS+20 process: how to maintain foundational principles while adapting to technological change. It demonstrates sophisticated listening to stakeholder input and frames the challenge as both/and rather than either/or.

Impact

This framing helped structure much of the subsequent discussion around the balance between continuity and change. It provided a framework that allowed different stakeholders to see their concerns reflected while acknowledging the need for evolution.

The internet’s greatest strength is really its ability to coordinate at this phenomenal global scale without a centralized control. It’s something that’s very rare, it’s essential, and it’s worth protecting… what worries me is that it’s been so successful we started taking it for granted.

Speaker

Kurtis Lindqvist

Reason

This comment identifies a paradox of success – that the very effectiveness of the current system makes it vulnerable because people stop actively defending it. It connects technical architecture principles to governance philosophy in a compelling way.

Impact

This observation about taking success for granted resonated throughout the discussion and prompted other speakers to emphasize the need for active engagement and advocacy. It added philosophical depth to practical discussions about institutional arrangements.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing strategic frameworks, acknowledging vulnerabilities, and challenging assumptions. Bertrand de La Chapelle’s ‘sandbox’ metaphor provided a new way to understand the IGF’s value, while Kurtis Lindqvist’s warnings about taking success for granted created urgency around preservation efforts. The audience intervention about ‘preaching to converts’ forced uncomfortable but necessary reflection on the community’s insularity. The co-facilitators’ comments about joint implementation plans and balancing continuity with change provided concrete pathways forward. Together, these interventions elevated the discussion from operational details to strategic thinking about governance innovation, institutional vulnerability, and the need for broader political engagement. They created a more nuanced understanding of both the achievements and challenges facing the WSIS framework, ultimately producing a more sophisticated and actionable conversation about the path forward.

How to achieve coherence between WSIS and the Global Digital Compact without duplication

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale and multiple participants

Explanation

There are diverse views on whether WSIS should remain the overarching framework with GDC implemented under it, or whether the two processes should run parallel courses without duplication

Whether to update, expand, or leave unchanged the WSIS action lines

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale

Explanation

Different schools of thought exist on how to address emerging technologies – some say action lines are broad enough, others want updates or expansion

What kind of IGF is needed for the next 10-20 years and beyond

Speaker

Suela Janina

Explanation

Ideas range from extending the mandate to making it permanent, rebranding the name, and strengthening it to include new and emerging technologies

How to develop a joint implementation plan for GDC and WSIS

Speaker

Ekitela Lokaale

Explanation

This was mentioned as an innovative idea being considered to bring coherence between the two processes

How to better integrate multi-stakeholder inputs at IGF into WSIS follow-up mechanisms, especially at national level

Speaker

Segun Omolosho (online participant)

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of ensuring that discussions and outcomes from IGF translate into meaningful action at national levels

What strategies can be implemented to enhance participation of youth and women in IGF and WSIS processes

Speaker

Musa Maigari (online participant)

Explanation

This addresses inclusivity concerns and the need to engage underrepresented groups more effectively

How to strengthen the voice and participation of small and medium enterprises and open source solutions in IGF and WSIS

Speaker

Rian Duarte

Explanation

SMEs and open source solutions are often part of problems but not always active in solutions, especially from the Global South

How to involve more governments in WSIS discussions beyond just a few engaged ones

Speaker

Raul Echeverria

Explanation

Many governments are not aware of ongoing negotiations, and most involvement comes from missions rather than capitals

How IGF can address challenges posed by artificial intelligence and other disruptive technologies

Speaker

Musa Maigari (online participant)

Explanation

While AI has been discussed at IGF for years, the rapid evolution requires ongoing attention to both opportunities and risks

How to provide citizens the same protection online as they have in the physical world

Speaker

Bastiaan Winkel

Explanation

Addresses the dark sides of internet including online hate speech, harmful content, and youth addiction to social media platforms

What measures is IGF taking to promote full inclusion of Global South countries, particularly in Africa

Speaker

Remote hub participant from Benin

Explanation

Some regions are excluded from both challenges and benefits of technological evolution

How to develop actionable roadmaps that track implementation and progress of WSIS action lines, SDG goals, and GDC commitments

Speaker

Fabrizia Benini

Explanation

Need for clear understanding of current status and required actions to avoid duplication and increase coordination

How to ensure succession planning for technical pioneers and maintain core infrastructure

Speaker

Silvia Cadena

Explanation

Important to maintain systems that enabled growth while integrating next generation without breaking existing functionality

How to create incentives for countries to participate in development of global open standards

Speaker

Silvia Cadena

Explanation

Need to move beyond being just adopters of technology to active participants in standard development

Summary

This discussion focused on governance responses and challenges related to the proliferation of sexual deepfakes targeting teenagers across the internet. The panel examined how AI tools designed to create deepfake images have dramatically increased, with nearly 35,000 AI models available for public download on one platform, many specifically marketed for generating non-consensual intimate imagery. The speakers presented case studies from South Korea, where hundreds of secret Telegram chat rooms were discovered sharing deepfake sexual videos of students, affecting over 500 schools and shocking the entire country.

Korean representatives explained that deepfake-related sex crimes increased seven-fold from 156 cases in 2021 to 1,202 cases in 2024, with most perpetrators being teenagers themselves who often view the activity as harmless fun rather than serious criminal behavior. The Korean government responded with educational guidebooks for different age groups and developed technical innovations including a Korean deepfake dataset achieving 96% detection accuracy and specialized tools to identify content involving minors. However, the phenomenon of “platform hopping” emerged as perpetrators shifted from Telegram to other platforms to avoid detection.

Education expert Janice Richardson emphasized the need for cross-platform collaboration and proper teacher training, highlighting successful programs in France, the Netherlands, and Morocco that incorporate digital citizenship education. Brazilian representative Juliana Cunha reported a historic spike in child sexual abuse material reports, with 90% involving Telegram, and stressed that this issue reflects broader systemic gender inequalities requiring cultural prevention measures beyond legal responses. Participants agreed that combating sexual deepfakes requires coordinated multi-stakeholder approaches combining legal frameworks, educational initiatives, technical solutions, and cultural change to protect teenagers globally.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **The Scale and Impact of AI-Generated Sexual Deepfakes Targeting Teens**: The discussion highlighted alarming statistics, particularly from South Korea where over 500 schools were affected by deepfake videos, with cases rising from 156 in 2021 to 1,202 in 2024. The speakers emphasized how easily accessible AI tools have democratized the creation of non-consensual intimate imagery, with many perpetrators being teenagers themselves who often view it as “just for fun.”

– **Legal and Regulatory Challenges Across Jurisdictions**: Panelists discussed the inadequacy of current legal frameworks to address deepfake crimes, noting issues with cross-border enforcement, the difficulty of prosecuting cases involving modified images, and the need for stronger international cooperation. The conversation highlighted how perpetrators can easily bypass restrictions using VPNs and platform-hopping techniques.

– **Educational and Cultural Prevention Strategies**: The discussion emphasized the critical need for comprehensive digital literacy education, starting from early childhood, that goes beyond technical awareness to address underlying cultural issues around gender-based violence and consent. Speakers shared innovative approaches including magician-delivered presentations, peer education programs, and multi-stakeholder curriculum development.

– **Platform Responsibility and Technical Solutions**: The conversation addressed the role of tech companies in both enabling and preventing harm, discussing detection technologies, content moderation challenges on encrypted platforms like Telegram, and the need for proactive measures to identify and remove harmful content before it spreads widely.

– **Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration and Victim Support**: Panelists stressed the importance of coordinated responses involving governments, schools, tech companies, NGOs, and communities, while emphasizing the need for trauma-informed support systems for victims and the importance of listening to young people’s perspectives in developing solutions.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine governance responses and challenges related to AI-generated sexual deepfakes targeting teenagers from multiple stakeholder perspectives. The workshop sought to identify effective legal and educational measures, explore collaboration strategies for incorporating digital literacy into school curricula, and develop proactive policies to prevent harm against teenagers globally.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a serious, urgent, and collaborative tone throughout. Speakers demonstrated deep concern about the rapidly escalating problem while remaining solution-focused and constructive. The tone was professional yet passionate, with participants sharing both alarming statistics and innovative approaches. There was a consistent emphasis on the need for immediate action combined with long-term cultural change, and the conversation remained respectful and inclusive of diverse international perspectives and expertise levels.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Kenneth Leung** – Netmission Board Advisor, Asia Pacific Policy Observatory advisor, workshop moderator from the UK

– **Ji Won Oh** – Netmission Ambassador, holds bachelor’s degree in Latin American Studies and Political Science and Master’s degree in Political Science in International Relations, providing youth perspective

– **Yi Teng Au** – Netmission Ambassador from technical community, majors in Computer Science, Microsoft Certified AI Engineer

– **Janice Richardson** – Educator with 50+ years experience across multiple countries (Australia, Europe, Africa), sits on Safety Advisory Board of META and Snapchat, partner in European Commission and Council of Europe projects focusing on AI impacts on education

– **Juliana Cunha** – From Safer Nets Brazil, holds bachelor’s degree in psychology and master’s degree in culture and society, coordinates National Helpline for Online Safety, NGO perspective

– **Andrew Campling** – Trustee with the Internet Watch Foundation

– **Robbert Hoving** – From Safer Internet Centre in the Netherlands and InHope

– **Maciej Gron** – From Polish Research Institute NASK and hotline dujournet.pl, lawyer

– **Torsten Krause** – Affiliated with Digital Opportunities Foundation based in Germany

– **Yuri Bokovoy** – From Finnish Green Party

– **Participant** – Multiple unidentified participants with various questions and comments

**Additional speakers:**

– **Mariana** – Colombian, works at DataSphere Initiative, leads Youth for a Data Future Project

– **Frances** – Part of Youthdig organization

– **Claire** – Student from Hong Kong

– **Sana** – From NetMission

# Comprehensive Report: Governance Responses to Sexual Deepfakes Targeting Teenagers

## Executive Summary

This international workshop brought together experts, policymakers, educators, and youth representatives to examine the escalating crisis of AI-generated sexual deepfakes targeting teenagers. The discussion centered on alarming data from South Korea, where deepfake-related sex crimes increased seven-fold from 156 cases in 2021 to 1,202 cases in 2024, affecting over 500 schools. Supporting perspectives from Brazil and Europe revealed this as a global phenomenon requiring coordinated responses. The panel emphasized that effective solutions must address both immediate technical and legal challenges while tackling underlying cultural factors, particularly gender-based violence and inequality.

## Global Scale of the Problem

### The Korean Crisis

**Ji Won Oh** and **Yi Teng Au** presented comprehensive data on South Korea’s deepfake crisis, where hundreds of secret Telegram chat rooms shared deepfake sexual videos of students across more than 500 schools nationwide. The seven-fold increase in deepfake-related crimes shocked the country and prompted urgent government action.

Particularly concerning was the attitude of perpetrators, with 54% claiming they created deepfake content “for fun.” **Ji Won Oh** noted that “many students don’t care. Because they think it’s just funny and laugh and share the videos,” highlighting a fundamental disconnect between the severe impact on victims and perpetrators’ casual attitudes.

### International Perspectives

**Juliana Cunha** from Safer Nets Brazil reported a historic spike in child sexual abuse material reports in 2023, with AI-generated content as a key factor. She emphasized that “this problem already affected large schools in Brazil, especially private schools, with several cases being reported by media outlets.” Particularly troubling was the finding that 90% of messaging app reports involved Telegram.

**Janice Richardson** provided European and African context, noting reporting challenges in countries like Morocco and Tunisia due to cultural factors around shame and humiliation. She emphasized that “reporting challenges exist due to humiliation, especially in countries like Morocco and Tunisia.”

## Root Causes and Systemic Challenges

### Cultural and Gender Dimensions

A crucial insight emerged regarding the cultural roots of the problem. **Juliana Cunha** argued that “the misuse of AI to create sexualized images of peers is not a tech issue or a legal gap. It’s a reflection of broader systemic gender inequalities. That’s why prevention must also be cultural.”

This reframed the discussion from viewing deepfakes as merely a technological problem to understanding them as manifestations of deeper cultural attitudes about gender, consent, and power dynamics.

### Technical Accessibility

The discussion revealed concerning ease of access to harmful AI tools. **Yi Teng Au** noted that “accessibility of AI tools like stable diffusion makes content creation too easy despite safeguards.” **Robbert Hoving** highlighted that “search engines easily provide access to deepfake creation apps when searched.”

### Legal Framework Gaps

Multiple speakers identified significant gaps in current legal frameworks. **Yi Teng Au** explained that “laws against deepfakes are unclear because modified images create legal ambiguity about prosecution.” **Kenneth Leung** noted jurisdictional challenges, while **Maciej Gron** highlighted how legal systems struggle with situations involving both child victims and perpetrators.

### Platform Governance Challenges

**Andrew Campling** from the Internet Watch Foundation emphasized that “end-to-end encrypted messaging services present biggest challenge for blocking CSAM sharing.” The phenomenon of “platform hopping,” where perpetrators shift between platforms to avoid detection, further complicates enforcement efforts.

## Current Responses and Solutions

### Educational Innovations

The discussion showcased several innovative educational approaches:

**South Korea**: The Ministry of Education published five guidebooks tailored to different age groups addressing deepfakes.

**Brazil**: **Juliana Cunha** described creating educational resources combining legal guidance with real-life cases and interactive activities, emphasizing practical, relatable content.

**International Models**: **Janice Richardson** shared successful approaches including Morocco’s cascade training model with resource persons in schools, the Netherlands’ six-week transition courses, and Scandinavian countries using magicians to deliver educational content.

### Technical Developments

South Korea has pioneered several technical solutions. **Yi Teng Au** described the creation of a Korean DeepFake dataset that achieved 96% accuracy in detecting altered videos, and Seoul Metropolitan Government’s development of specialized detection tools targeting content involving minors.

### Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives

**Andrew Campling** described the Internet Watch Foundation’s anonymous reporting systems for illegal images including AI-generated content. Various speakers emphasized successful partnerships between government agencies, schools, and civil society organizations.

## Key Debates and Perspectives

### Youth-Centered Approaches

A significant theme was the importance of centering young people’s voices. **Juliana Cunha** emphasized that “our core belief is the best way to protect children is by listening to them. This project challenged the usual top-down approach. Instead of responding with moral panic or punitive measures, we are asking how do teens actually experience this? What do they think would help?”

**Janice Richardson** noted that “young people also turn to me and say, you should be educating the adults about this because very often, it’s them, the ones that are suffering, the ones that are doing this, and the ones that don’t have the opportunity to tackle it.”

### Regulatory Tensions

Disagreement emerged around regulatory strategies. **Frances** from Youthdig advocated for “a real crackdown on these kind of applications,” while others emphasized the complexity of enforcement and need for nuanced approaches.

**Yuri Bokovoy** raised concerns that “regulations protecting children risk misuse by authoritarian governments to silence free speech,” highlighting the delicate balance required in crafting effective legislation.

### Privacy Versus Protection

Tension emerged between privacy rights and child protection, particularly regarding encrypted communications. **Torsten Krause** noted that the European Union has been “discussing compromising privacy to detect CSAM in encrypted environments for three years” without resolution.

### Industry Accountability

**Janice Richardson** challenged technological priorities: “If we’re so clever with technology, why can’t we make something that when once we’ve put an image online, it becomes indelible, it becomes unchangeable. I’d like more efforts from the tech industry.”

## Areas of Consensus and Collaboration Needs

### Multi-Stakeholder Imperative

There was unanimous agreement that addressing sexual deepfakes requires coordinated efforts across sectors. **Juliana Cunha** emphasized that a “coordinated response needed bringing together tech companies, public institutions, society and academia.”

### Collaboration Gaps

**Janice Richardson** identified significant gaps: “cross-platform collaboration lacking with companies needing to share knowledge more effectively” and “industry should partner with education in curriculum development rather than just providing tools.”

### International Action

Multiple speakers called for enhanced international coordination. **Janice Richardson** emphasized that “international action needed with people joining together to pressure search engines and platforms.”

## Future Directions and Recommendations

### Immediate Actions

– Create international coalitions to pressure search engines to remove access to deepfake creation apps

– Develop anonymous reporting mechanisms to address cultural barriers around shame

– Implement cascade training models with resource teachers in schools

### Medium-term Goals

– Develop detection datasets tailored to local needs, following South Korea’s example

– Strengthen industry accountability measures against products designed to violate rights

– Create comprehensive legal frameworks addressing cases with minor victims and perpetrators

### Long-term Cultural Change

Participants emphasized that sustainable solutions require long-term cultural interventions addressing underlying gender inequalities and attitudes about consent and digital behavior.

## Conclusion

The workshop revealed that addressing sexual deepfakes targeting teenagers requires a fundamental shift from reactive to proactive approaches. The crisis reflects broader systemic inequalities that cannot be addressed through technological or legal solutions alone, but require sustained commitment to cultural change and gender equality.

The strong consensus among international stakeholders provides a foundation for developing comprehensive global strategies, while identified disagreements highlight areas requiring further dialogue. The urgency of the situation, combined with the complexity of effective responses, underscores the need for immediate action on multiple fronts while maintaining focus on long-term prevention through education and cultural transformation.

Most importantly, the conversation emphasized that solutions must be youth-centered, culturally sensitive, and implemented through coordinated international collaboration. The participants’ commitment to continued collaboration provides hope for developing more effective responses to this critical challenge facing young people globally.

Kenneth Leung: Good morning, fellow internet governance practitioners and answers. Glad to see you here in the morning, especially this is the first session of the day. We also have people from outside of this room and all around the world joining us online. So across this hour, we are to examine governance responses and challenges from different sectors, as well as stakeholder perspectives towards the germination of sexual defects across the internet. Dramatic rise. This is what an Oxford Internet Institute study called out on the number of AI tools specifically designed to create deepfake images of identifiable people. This very timely study, formally just published this Monday, unveiled there were nearly 35,000 AI models available for public download on one platform service for generative AI, many of which are even marketed or with the intention to generate NCIIs, non-consensual intimate imagery. The Digital Service of Concern has responded to the Oxford study and is taking action in an exposed manner. And some governments are also taking actions. Take where I’m based as an example, the UK’s 2025 Data Use and Access Act has just become effective last Thursday, with the provision criminalizing the creation and requesting the creation of purported intimate images. However, the additional safeguards only applies to adults as such behaviors, as explained by the government, targeting minors have already been covered by the law. But is that enough? Especially safeguards in the age of generative AI for teenagers, the so-called in-between phase from the innocence of childhood to adulthood. This workshop will directly and exactly be focusing on this with three questions. Number one, what legal and educational measures are most effective in addressing the creation and spread of sexual defects among school-going teens? 2. How can different stakeholders collaborate to ensure that school curricula incorporate digital literacy and awareness about the dangers of sexual defects? 3. What proactive policies can countries implement to anticipate technological changes and prevent sexual defects harms against teenagers globally? My name is Kenneth Leung, Netmission Board Advisor. Joining me today on stage, we have from my left, Ms. Oh Ji Won Oh, Netmission Ambassador, bringing in the youth perspective. Mr. Au, Yi Teng, also a Netmission Ambassador from the technical community. Ms. Janice Richardson inside SA offering views from the education field, and Ms. Juliana Cunha from Safer Nets Brazil, giving insights from an NGO standpoint. And we also have you all. After initial remarks by our speakers, we invite you to chime in with either questions, comments, perspectives, or experience on the topic. You will have two minutes to share your thoughts either in front of this mic or online by using the raise hand function. So, if you have more thoughts and resources that you would like to share after this session, we would love to have them, and please share it on this website, csit.tk, which will be closed after one week of this workshop for us to synthesize the discussion right now and on the comments platform to consolidate into a report next month. So, it’s csit.tk. This platform will be up right now, and I will show it up one more time later. So, hold your thought for now in the first 20 minutes, and let’s hear from Ji Won Oh and Yi Teng on youth and technical perspective in combating sexual defects and safeguarding teens globally. Oh Ji Won Oh holds a bachelor’s degree in Latin America. American Studies and Political Science and a Master’s degree in Political Science in International Relations. Yi Teng is a technical person for the workshop. Yi Teng majors in Computer Science and is a Microsoft Certified AI Engineer. Over to you.

Ji Won Oh: Okay. Hello, everyone. Today, I will talk about how defects affect students’ lives and mental health. So, first, let me explain what a defect is. So, defects are highly realistic video, audio, or image. For example, there are places generated using AI. The technologies that create defects include generated adversarial networks and machine learning. So, with defect tools, people can copy someone’s face and voice without permission. In August last year, a big problem was found in Korean schools. Hundreds of secret chat rooms on Telegram were sharing defect sexual videos. These videos used the real face of students and were shared in elementary, high, and middle school students. So, this shocked the whole country. With technology and social media platforms, anyone can now make a watch a sexual video easily. It’s not just others. Many young people are involved. So, in 2021, there were only 156 policy reports about defect news sex crimes in Korea. But in 2024, the number increased to 1,202 cases. That’s about seven times more than just three years. The most serious problem is this. Most of the people who made these defects are teenagers. So, when students hear the news, will they be scared and think that? They should never do it again? Not sure. Many students now use defect tools. These tools are easy to find online. Even young students can make defects. But here’s the problem. Actually, many students don’t care. Because they think it’s just funny and laugh and share the videos. They don’t think about the pain this causes. So we can think many students feel shocked, scared, and frustrated when they see defects. But victims feel anxious and safe. They also suffer from social stigma. Because of fear, students may lose trust in their students. Defects can hurt someone’s reputation and make some feel helpless. There are four main reasons why defect problems are growing on the screen. There are many reasons why sexual defect crimes continue to happen in Korea. Even after the lockdown, it is still unclear whether the new law is strong enough to stop these crimes. Some people say that more action is needed. Especially to make internet companies act faster. Even when videos are illegal, they can spread for a long time if the removal takes too long. And then some experts say that internet services are not enough. Some experts say that internet service providers must be more responsible. They should block, monitor, and prevent defects contents before it spreads. Also, the law should not only punish the people who make defects. It should also punish those who ask others to create them. Because technology changes so fast, we need laws that are clear, strong, and stable even for new types of defect crimes. Second, this issue is not only about sex crimes. It is part of the bigger problem. Many misinformation affect Korean society. For example, fake videos of politicians and celebrities can halt democracy by spreading lies. That’s why we need a unified national response with the government, school, and companies working together. It’s finally one of the most important causes of lack of education. Many young people don’t really understand how serious these crimes are. Some even think it’s funny or harmless. That’s why schools need to teach students what the fakes are, how dangerous they are, and what would happen in some breaks below. Also, people need better digital literacy, the ability to understand what is real or fake online. We must help young people and elders be smarter and more careful online. So what can we do? So where do fakes can happen? Politicians start investigations. They try to find who made me share the video. A school separated victim and offender. They also give counseling and support to the victims. There are some legal protections, but they are not enough right now. We need more stronger laws to punish the fakes crimes in all economies. So we also need to educate students of race awareness. It is important to support the victims and protect their safety. Okay, thank you so much.

Yi Teng Au: Hi, my name is Yiteng. So to put things into context, here are some numbers I want to share. In South Korea, over 500 schools were affected by deepfake videos and photos, many taken secretly at school or from social media like X and Instagram. A December survey of 2,145 middle and high schoolers showed that 54% said offenders just did it for fun. Other reasons included curiosity or thinking that the consequences were minor, highlighting a lack of awareness about the seriousness. In response, The Ministry of Education published five guidebooks this April. They are tailored to different age groups. There’s a cartoony version for elementary students, and separate editions for middle and high schoolers, teachers and caregivers. The guidebooks cover three key situations. What if I’m the victim? What if someone around me is? And what if something I did caused harm? For the technical folks here, I’ll highlight three innovations. First, the Korean DeepFake dataset, released in 2021, contains 2.73 terabytes of photos and videos. It was created to address the lack of Korean representation in existing datasets. With this, Seoul National University students achieve 96% accuracy in detecting altered videos. Economies without such datasets might consider developing one tailored to their local needs. Second, the Seoul Metropolitan Government developed a detection tool, enhanced in May 2025, targeting illicit content involving minors. It identifies items such as schoolbooks, uniforms, and dolls, and even youth slang, flagging underage content even when faces are invisible. It also scans search terms and drafts multilingual reports, depending on the site’s host country. Lastly, I will share about a phenomenon called platform hopping. Many DeepFake crimes in South Korea began on Telegram. But as the company now actively cooperates with South Korean authorities, on a forum, DC Insight, it was noted that perpetrators have shifted to other platforms, making detection harder due to lower data logging. Thank you. Thank you.

Kenneth Leung: Thank you Jiwon and Yitun for sharing the Korean case, but also what is the Korean government after the case happens. And I just want to also plug here the Asia Pacific Policy Observatory that I advise on. As this particular case, was also heavily debated and spotlighted in one of our latest analyses on how the recent advancement of AI capabilities are transforming online safety and security, which includes challenges in the search of AI-generated child sexual abuse material and AI-powered gender-based violence. So I invite you to take a look at when it’s out this week during IGF, and I’ll be sure to send a link up at that commenting platform, CSIT.tk. So, and now we’ll love to hear from Janice for thoughts in education and the private sector’s perspective. Janice Richardson has been an educator for 50-plus years in half a dozen different countries, including Australia, Europe, and Africa. She sits on the Safety Advisory Board of META and Snapchat, and is a partner in the European Commission and Council of Europe projects focusing on the impacts of AI, misinformation, algorithms, etc. on democracy at all levels of education. Janice, please.

Janice Richardson: Thank you. And first of all, thank you very much to all of those people that I reached out to in the UK, Poland, France, the Netherlands, who gave me information about what are the solutions. But let’s begin with what are the challenges. Schools still have a tendency to post the face, the image of their pupils in sports, in all sorts of activities. And this is the first problem. There are so many images out there. Maybe they were consensual in the beginning, but they can very easily be used when creating deep fakes. Secondly, it’s the availability of tools such as Notify, Undress, Dressed. I don’t know. There are so many out there. And I find it absolutely amazing that they can… still exist on the market. Then, of course, we have the enforcement challenges. We’ve done quite a bit of work in Morocco, training the judiciary area so that they really understand how you collect electronic proof, how you use electronic proof. But not all laws are adapted to this type of proof, and therefore we do need some legal amendments in many countries. The media, the way they report these things, we’ve also started training the media to make them understand that being spectacular may be a good way to get a lot of people to come to your website, but it’s certainly not helping the victims, and it’s actually calling for a lot of copycat behaviour. Then I would cite the lack of cross-platform collaboration. I know there are projects such as Lantern where companies, social media in particular, come together to share knowledge, but the problem with this is that it’s across platforms. It happens in many different layers, and until industry joins up, I think it’s going to be very difficult to find a solution. Industry needs to be a partner with education. It shouldn’t just be there supplying tools or pushing their tools, I could say, onto the education sector and then throwing out bits of education to help young people. It should be there when we’re developing curricula, finding ways together that we can use real-life cases, real-life resources, in a way that will be much Thank you very much for joining us for this evening’s discussion on how to be a bit more impactful for learning. There are, of course, many issues when we look at education systems because few teachers have the training that’s necessary to be able to tackle this issue. We have teachers from every one of the 86 regions of Morocco. They have trained in Cascade. Our aim is to have two teachers who fully understand the issue who receive regular updates in every school so that if there are two teachers in every school, two resource persons, there should be a very fast way to escalate the issues. There are lots of very interesting programs out there. I can cite what’s going on in France, for example, where law students at the Sorbonne University have come together and created a poster competition because they feel if they create the framework for a poster competition, providing little snippets of the law so the public becomes more familiar with the law, then everyone can create posters which will be meaningful and informative and reach the young people who are very much concerned by this issue. I really like something that happens in the Netherlands too. They have lots of television programs, debates, but every school there has the freedom to choose the way that they’re going around this issue. But when a young person goes from elementary school to middle school, they go through a six-week course on health, on technology, on all of this. Thank you very much. So we’re going to start with the issues that can really help them tackle these issues, these problems, because you know the big shift when they go from elementary school through to secondary school. We have a very innovative project running in Scandinavia, thanks to the support of Huawei. I train a magician, and I work with the magician to find tricks that are going to reinforce the messages that I will put into a presentation. Then it’s the magician that delivers in one hour sessions in schools, they deliver what I’ve prepared and what helps them tackle very, very interesting projects in a fun way, so that kids are on board, are interested, but they don’t feel threatened in any way. There’s one big problem I’ve noticed in all of the countries that I work in, and it’s reporting. The humiliation if you have to report that an image of you has been shared, especially in countries like Morocco or Tunisia. So we need to take another approach to reporting. We need to educate children from the cradle to understand, one, the importance of human dignity, two, that when something is not going right, there are ways to say it that are not hurtful, that are not telling tales, there are the right ways to do it. I should then mention the helplines. This has been a super initiative across Europe. I actually got figures from the Netherlands, which shows me that in about 6,500 cases over the past year, we could say that about 5% are about AI-generated sexual fake profiles. and the others. I’m going to talk about the nude profiles, but it’s early days. It’s going to get worse. Therapy, support for the victims. These are all extremely important areas. But when I talk to young people, they say, actually, it’s not the nude profiles that are bothersome. If someone puts a bikini, but then a very sexual stance, is it a nude profile? This is where it really raises issues. If there’s a little bit of clothing, then they think they’re out of the category of a sexual fake profile. Young people also turn to me and say, you should be educating the adults about this because very often, it’s them, the ones that are suffering, the ones that are doing this, and the ones that don’t have the opportunity to tackle it. So I’d say that’s a broad sweep of where I think we should go, of the education projects we should set up. But as many of you know, I believe it’s all about digital citizenship. Understanding that you are a citizen, you have an obligation for all of those around you, regardless of what it is. You also have an obligation to share your knowledge, because if we’re here today, we have knowledge about this subject. So we need to share it, so that it really becomes a grassroots movement to educate everyone on how to tackle this plague. Thank you.

Kenneth Leung: Thank you, Janice. It’s indeed a broad sweep of issues that you’ve mentioned, and lots of good solutions. And you also mentioned about cases from Scandinavia, Morocco, the Netherlands, Tunisia. That also means this issue, sexual defects, are really transcending the border, and it’s a global issue. So this is why we are here, and I would like to now turn the floor to Miss Juliana Cunha for a Latin American perspective and some of the work that you do. Juliana Cunha holds a bachelor’s degree in psychology and a master’s degree in culture and society. At Safer Nets Brazil, Juliana coordinates the National Helpline for Online Safety, interacting with and counseling children, teenagers, and adults about sexting, cyberbullying, sexual extortion, and other risks online. In this regard, she also collaborated with media outlets and advertising bodies to create national and international award-winning campaigns. So after Juliana’s presentation and sharing her perspective, I would invite everyone who wants to share to come up to the floor in front of the mic on this side, or for Zoom participants, please do type in your question and we’ll consolidate and address those questions. So the floor is yours. Over to you. Thank you.

Juliana Cunha: Thank you. Good morning. I’d like just to brief introduction about Safer Nets work. Safer Nets is a 20-year-long nonprofit organization dedicated to establish a multi-stakeholder approach to protect human rights in digital environments. We work as a Safer Internet Center, which coordinates actions in three pillars of online safety. The Brazilian National Cyber Chief Line, a hotline to which users can report anonymously crimes against human rights. The National Web-Based Helpline. which offers one-to-one online conversation about different risks and provides support to children, young people, families and educators about online safety. And the third pillar is the country’s awareness and education hub, which is responsible for the educational activities involving workshops with students, educators, families developing materials and carry out campaigns on digital citizenship. About the context, the Brazilian context, in 2023 SaferNet reported a historic spike in reports related to child sexual abuse material online in Brazil. And a key factor was the rising of the use of AI tools such as notifying apps, as mentioned, and bots by young people to generate and share fake notes of classmates. This problem already affected large schools in Brazil, especially private schools, with several cases being reported by media outlets. The new trend challenges us to find an appropriate response, especially due to the fact that victims and perpetrators are minors, and the boundary between sexual experimentation and sexual abuse is becoming a little bit blurred. And this phenomenon, I think, is reshaping the way young people perceive sexuality, relationship and consent. I would like to highlight… increasing in reports in Brazil, especially involving Telegram. As I mentioned before, this is the huge challenge for us in Brazil right now because we have in 2023-24, 90% of the reporters related to messaging apps in Brazil involving Telegram reports. WhatsApp and Signal together account for the remaining 90% during the same period. When you notice, when we notify, the company limits this response for delecting the evidence with little cooperation with law enforcement agencies. It’s worth noting that at least 38 countries have legislation requiring legal, requiring digital platforms like Telegram to report to authorities when they are aware of hosting child sexual abuse material. In the United States, for example, the National Center Missing and Exploited Children, NECMEC, received 20 million industries submitted reports in 2023, none of them from Telegram. Last year, NECMEC saw an increase of 1,325 increasing reports involving generative AI going from 4,700 in 2023 to 6,700 reports in 2024. It’s an increase, a large increase in numbers. This alarming trend is also noted in Brazil. The persistence of systemic risk is inadequate response, moderation of illegal content, and telegrams non-compliance with Brazilian child protection laws led Stefanat to file a formal complaint against the company with the Federal Prosecutor’s Office in October last year. And this is the report based on this complaint. I think it’s interesting to show the proportion of the problem in Brazil. So this is the QR code to access the report. So to deep dive this trend, we run an ongoing project from Safe Online Tax Coalition, which will investigate how teens in Brazil are affected by the use of determinative AI to create and spread deepfake sexual images, also known as deep nudes. We are listening four key groups in these incidents, survivors whose images were manipulated and shared, adolescents who created and shared deep nudes, bystanders who witnessed the situation, and educators and caregivers. We will conduct a one-on-one interview with survivors and perpetrators, co-creation workshops with bystanders, and one session with educators. All activities are trauma-informed, confidential, and led by experienced professionals. Our expected outcomes include qualitative insights into how teens perceive and engage with AI-generated sexual images, practical recommendations to inform child-centered safety policies in Brazil, tangible resources for platforms to improve their trust and safety responses, a national awareness campaign to help teens identify, report, and resist this form of abuse, and a step-by-step methodological manual to replicate this work in other countries and contexts. One of the main challenges we face is going beyond legal and punitive measures. While accountability is essential, this phenomenon is deeply embedded in a culture that reproduces gender-based social norms, as mentioned previously. The misuse of DNA to create sexualized images of peers is not a tech issue or a legal gap. It’s a reflection of a broader systemic gender inequalities. That’s why prevention must also be cultural. We need long-term interventions focused on education, awareness, digital literacy in schools, as Janice mentioned, where social norms are being formed. This project aims not only to expose the harm caused by AI-generated sexual image content, but also to empower teens, educators, and communities for critically-engaged work. Our core belief is the best way to protect children is by listening to them. This project challenged the usual top-down approach. Instead of responding with moral panic or punitive measures, we are asking how do teens actually experience this? What do they think would help? And to conclude my thoughts, to effectively address this issue, we need a coordinated multi-stakeholder approach, response, bringing together tech companies, public institutions and society and academia. We have seen some initial steps. For example, META took action against a company circumventing advertising rules to promote notifying apps in these platforms. This is the first step, but that must be followed by other measures. We need the entire industry across sectors to take stronger action, especially against products that are deliberately designed to violate rights, exploit vulnerabilities and bypass existing safety standards. This requires clear accountability for enablers of harm, stronger safeguards built into platforms by design, and bold child-centered innovation that respects human rights. And just to conclude, I bring an example of education resource. It’s in Brazilian Portuguese, unfortunately, to address the issue of gender online violence co-created with adolescents in Brazil in partnership with UNICEF Brazil. It combines legal guidance… real-life cases and interactive activities is a tool to foster dialogue in classroom and with youth groups. And the type of research helps to equip youth with the tools to understand their rights, recognize harm, and build a culture of respect online. So thank you very much.

Kenneth Leung: Thank you so much, Juliana. And thank you for bringing us the Brazilian case and highlighting how encrypted platforms and services were misused, not only to disseminate CSAM, but also creating a CSAM economy on the platform, which is very worrying. And I also like how Juliana and Janice have been stressing the importance of cross-platform and cross-sectoral collaboration in combating sexual defects. So now I will open up the floor to everyone. And we’d love to hear your statement, your questions, and your comments, both here and online. And you will have two minutes to have your statements. And please state your name and affiliation when you do so, please. Yeah, please head to the mic in front of you. Thank you.

Participant: Okay, I just understood this. Can you hear me? Okay, great. Hello. Great to meet you all. And thank you for the great panel. My name is Mariana. I am Colombian. I work at the DataSphere Initiative. Very happy to hear the Brazilian case. I work and I’m leading one of our big, big projects that’s actually very close to my heart, which is called the Youth for a Data Future Project. We’ve been engaging young people in different parts of the world, pretty much in the conversation around data governance. And right now we’re wrapping up that project. And we’re starting to shape an initiative focused on influencers. So one of my big questions, and I think it’s for all of you actually, is if you’ve touched on this topic, and how have you started thinking about the role that not only influencers themselves, as adults that are influencing the online space, but young people themselves. And in Brazil, there’s a very interesting case around kid fluencers. So four or five-year-olds that are famous because of their parents’ influence, and they’re put online, and they’re sharing content and creating content themselves, or parents creating content with them. So one of my questions is, how do you see this interplay? And what’s the role of the influencer industry in shaping safety online? And have you thought about any kind of actions that could help us build a safer and more inclusive internet? And there, I just close my question. And this is more of an invitation to anybody who’s interested in the topic. I’ll be very excited to talk about this later after the workshop’s over, because I’m very excited about the work that you’re all doing. That’s it. Thank you.

Kenneth Leung: Thank you so much. And I’m seeing there’s a long queue, and we do want to get through every statement. So I would suggest to have maybe three statements or interventions at a time, and then the panel will address it collectively, if that’s all right. But thank you very much for your first question. Thank you.

Participant: Hi, my name is Frances. I’m part of Youthdig. And I just have two questions. The first, I think, Janice, you highlighted this. Why not just have a real crackdown on these kind of applications? Because I think a big reason why young children are using these apps is because it’s just very easy, right? So it’s easy to access them. You just download them. And app stores providing these kind of applications, whether it’s advertised as being notifying or not explicitly, necessarily means that young children think it’s the same as downloading Instagram or Snake Game or things like this. Thank you. So the first thing that you’re sending to young people if it’s allowed on the App Store is that this is appropriate and it’s equivalent to other fun apps, right? So why can’t we just outright ban it? I think this is something that charities in the UK are really trying to push now. And what difficulty do you have with trying to draw the line about what apps you do ban, depending on what kind of tools they allow young people or people in general to have. And then the second thing I just wanted to raise was, I think I very much agree about education and societal and attitudinal change. This is a problem about gender-based violence and it’s just another form of it, right? And I think in young children, we’re talking about deepfakes today, but I also think educating young children, perhaps especially a young woman, that when you share even real content with people who you think are trusted individuals as a young person, which it’s easy to feel this way if you’re having a relationship online or quasi-online, then it’s very important that these young people know that the content that gets shared online is always online. So even when you have WhatsApp as end-to-end encrypted and you can send these one-time images, that they’re never one-time images and this technology is very different to in-person relationships. So I would also say that. Thank you.

Robbert Hoving: Good morning, Robert Hoving from the Safer Internet Centre in the Netherlands of Limits and also of InHope. As Janice already shared our numbers. Thank you very much. I won’t go into my statement. But I was wondering two things. I went just sitting here. I went to Google, I went to Bing and I went to DuckDuckGo. And when you put in best notify apps, you just get them. So that’s how easy it is. A global legislation answer might be difficult. We’ve seen it with Mr. Deepfakes. In the Netherlands, deepfakes are both criminalized and also according to privacy law. But then you can use a VPN and you act like you come from another country. So that’s difficult. But I think you might do something with the search engine. curious about your vision on that. Second part is, as it’s so difficult to have a legal global answer, I do think, but I’m a kind of glass-half-full kind of guy, it is possible to have a more global awareness answer. Very curious how you look at these two questions. Thank you very much.

Kenneth Leung: Thank you very much. Since we have three speakers for intervention ready, I guess that we can address it very succinctly and then move on. But yeah, I would love your responses to those three interventions.

Yi Teng Au: I’ll address the question regarding why can’t we ban apps that create deepfakes and the similar question about such results. So actually, in many countries, the laws against deepfakes is very muddy because it’s a picture that is modified. Although it’s a picture of a face, the body, it’s not. So a lot of the times, it’s very hard to persecute the perpetrators. As well, there’s many societal issues as well. So in South Korea, there was an anecdote from a teacher whereby in Incheon, there was a photo, a sexual deepfake of a photo uploaded to the ex-formerly called Twitter. The perpetrator, she found out, was her student, but she had to find the student herself because the police did nothing. Then there is also many, in short, the law needs to improve to actually be effective in punishing those perpetrators.

Janice Richardson: I’d like to quickly respond to a couple of points. Influences. Kids are actually sick of them. So I think that maybe this is a trend which is not growing, which perhaps will start dwindling out, but once again it’s up to education to show that there are real places and real people who understand their subject and let’s go to those people and not to someone trying to sell me a product education. Secondly, yeah I asked the same question but in fact we come here we talk and then we don’t do anything about it and if people like us came together formed a group, started putting pressure on the search engines to delete access to these type of apps, then I think we may get somewhere. It’s very easy for industry, they have the money, they’re getting our data, they’re seeing where people are going, but why don’t people join together, why don’t people make an international action against this. So that’s my call, let’s keep working on it and yeah, once online, always online, there’s nothing more that we can say except teach our children from age one, two, three. Internet’s great to explore but they have to know that what’s mine is mine and my privacy is the most precious possession I have. About the influencers in Brazil, they play a key

Juliana Cunha: role in the culture especially because we have big influencers right now, we are discussing related to gambling for example and some influencers went to public hearing to explain all the model, the business model related to publicize gaming apps, gambling apps sorry, but of course In SaferNet, we have, on the other hand, an experience involving influencers in campaigns. It’s very interesting because it’s an effective way to communicate with young people. So you have the two sides of the coin, the influencers that gain millions and publicizing, for example, bad products. On the other hand, we have influencers that is a role model for many young people. And I think you have to take advantage of how to avoid this, and regulators have the challenge to regulate influencers in Brazil. But on the other hand, it’s important to involve them. And about the other question, I think, technically, is it possible? But of course, there is challenges, for example, how these companies are bypassing the example of the meta. Even when you ban this kind of advertising, companies try to bypass the rules. So I think the challenge is how to technically implement it and anticipate ways that these players can try to bypass. Of course, the awareness. I really think that if it’s rooted in the culture, it’s really hard. Of course, we can do better in terms of awareness as a global trend. It’s a new trend. Many people in Brazil… don’t aware about it, but I think that the culture plays an important role, so the awareness maybe can address this culture, because in Brazil especially, we have the spike of human violence, so it’s very hard to change this reality.

Kenneth Leung: Right, thank you so much for the responses. I would suggest, because we are sort of closing in for the session, but we still want to get through, so if everyone can have like maybe just one minute for your intervention, and our panelists do a very quick response, that would be gorgeous. So again, please, you have the floor for one minute, thanks.

Maciej Gron: Thank you very much. My name is Maciej Gronia, I’m from the Polish Research Institute NASK and also the hotline dujournet.pl. First of all, I would like to thank you very much for organizing this session, it’s very important. The deepfake phenomena is not something new, but you know, the scale and accessibility is completely new, and it makes a big difference, especially these new apps for addressing people, they are really democratizing this technical science, which was very difficult to make, you know, these things 20 years ago, and even two years ago, or three, now it’s accessible on a phone, so I’m the lawyer, so I can say about our regulation system. Now it’s very difficult, because we have a completely new situation, you know, the adults are… are transformed into adults and there are new situations which are not easy to tackle especially in the formal process in the court so this is the big challenge also the big challenge is that the victim and perpetrator can be the children and for example in our law system there is something like a public pedophile register and it’s not true that the children are not pedophiles so we have to change the law, we are in the process of preparing the new part of the criminal code and change some new regulations Thank you very much

Kenneth Leung: Can we have first this gentleman for one minute?

Andrew Campling: Yes, surely, we’ll be brief Hi, my name is Andrew Campling, I’m a trustee with the Internet Watch Foundation Three very quick points, I put in the chat a link where people can report illegal images including AI generated which you can report anonymously and then they’re added to our block list if they’re deemed to be illegal and that will prevent through many services them being shared further which is at least progress and that includes by the way on the public spaces on Telegram which has recently joined the IWF after its CEO was placed under house arrest in France Question for the panel, I think the biggest issue we have is with end-to-end encrypted messaging services you can technically block, prevent the sharing of CSAM on those services but it needs technical action by the service operators, it doesn’t break encryption but I think that’s where we should focus our attention because we know that that’s where CSAM including deepfake generated images is very widely shared. There’s lots of research that shows that. Thank you.

Kenneth Leung: Thank you so much. I guess we can run through all the questions and then panelists can respond with the final remarks. Please, go ahead.

Torsten Krause: Yeah, hello, my name is Torsten Krause. I’m affiliated with the Digital Opportunities Foundation based in Germany. I would like to touch on two points. It was mentioned that pictures and photos of pupils, members of sports communities and so on, part of the challenge. And I get this point, I understand it, but I’m wondering what will be the solution because I will not imagine an internet and digital environment without photos, experiences of children and young persons online because they also have the right to see their experience reflected in the internet and to find, yeah, a connection to themselves. So what will be the solution on that? Secondly, it’s connected to what Andrew Kempling asked. In the European Union, we are discussing since three years if it should be allowed or if it should be okay to compromise privacy and detect CSAM known and unknown and also grooming in encrypted environments. And I would like to know maybe, especially from the youth ambassadors, what’s your perspective on that? Thanks.

Participant: Sorry. Hi, my name is Claire and I’m a student from Hong Kong. I was wondering, excluding through education and policy and implementation, what are some preventative measures for students in combating deepfakes? Thank you. Hello, I’m Sana and I’m from NetMission. So my question is, given the rapid advancement of AI tool that can generate hyper-realistic images, how can we improve the quality of the images? And how can we improve the quality of the images? And how can we improve the quality of the images? Thank you. What kind of detection system or proactive mechanism are currently being developed, especially when we are talking about the NGOs and also when we are discussing the Koreans rapidly increasing those video viraling and images viraling. So at that point, I just have a question like, should we prioritize to identify and stop the spread of sexual defects targeting minors before they go viral? Thank you.

Yuri Bokovoy: Hi, I’m Yuri Bokovoy from the Finnish Green Party. My first question is specifically to Janice. It’s about how to improve awareness of these issues, especially in education. When the government’s rotary legislators in education departments are, at least in our country, quite often made up of quite conservative voices, which dismiss these issues as harmless. And the second question is more general about, we’ve seen a lot of these regulations that are supposed to protect children be misused by more authoritarian governments to silence free speech and expression elsewhere, most recently today and yesterday in Hungary. What can we do to safeguard against misuse of these regulations that are supposed to protect children?

Kenneth Leung: Thank you so much. And we actually have one last comment on Zoom, I’ll just read it out. So it’s a statement and she wants to chime in on the Korea case and if there’s any innovation measures mentioned in the slide that are truly effective. So I guess in the next 30 seconds, everyone can make their remarks and conclude the session.

Juliana Cunha: Yes, I have no time, but I’d like to thank… Thank you, and I’m happy to talk to everyone when to continue the conversation about the panel. Thank you very much.

Janice Richardson: If we’re so clever with technology, why can’t we make something that when once we’ve put an image online, it becomes indelible, it becomes unchangeable. I’d like more efforts from the tech industry, improving awareness. There’s a great initiative in Latin America where they actually educate the ministers, the ministers of education, so that we get not only a bottom-up from awareness raisers, but a top-down from the people who are meant to be there, who are elected to look after us.

Yi Teng Au: For me, the problem I think I really feel is the accessibility of these tools. For example, you have like, even if we outright have safeguards, for example, check GPT in like, against this sexually explicit content, people who really are into it would find ways to download offline models such as stable division. So the real thing is to how do we educate enough and make the accessibility of creating such content not as accessible.

Ji Won Oh: Okay, in closing, Defects X Crimes, another global problem. Before starting to study internet governance, I doubt that I actually had a big role, but now I’m thinking that everyone has a huge role. At studying public science, I think the political and institutions expect need to be supplemented. But I think that opinions are various, like there are all importance for protect something. And Defects X Crimes may start online, but they destroy real lives. So let’s face the problems together, not just with punishment, but with prevention, awareness, and empathy. Thank you.

Kenneth Leung: Thank you so much. And I guess we will be concluding this session, but we’d love to have more of your thoughts. So, if you can, please comment on this platform And once again, I guess the concluding takeaway is we must act together in order to combat sexual defects and to be good citizens Thank you very much and I hope you enjoy the rest of your day Thank you Thank you very much

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for addressing sexual deepfakes

Speakers

– Juliana Cunha
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Coordinated response needed bringing together tech companies, public institutions, society and academia

Cross-platform collaboration lacking with companies needing to share knowledge more effectively

Industry should partner with education in curriculum development rather than just providing tools

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that effective solutions require coordinated efforts across multiple sectors including technology companies, educational institutions, government agencies, and civil society organizations rather than isolated approaches.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Human rights

The problem is rooted in deeper cultural and social issues beyond technology

Speakers

– Ji Won Oh
– Juliana Cunha
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Many students don’t understand seriousness and think deepfake creation is funny or harmless

Issue reflects broader systemic gender inequalities requiring cultural prevention beyond legal measures

Young people indicate adults need education as they are often the ones suffering and lacking solutions

Summary

All three speakers recognize that sexual deepfakes are not merely a technical problem but reflect deeper cultural attitudes about gender, consent, and digital behavior that require long-term educational and cultural interventions.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Education and awareness are critical components of prevention

Speakers

– Ji Won Oh
– Yi Teng Au
– Juliana Cunha
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Korean Ministry of Education published five guidebooks tailored to different age groups addressing deepfakes

Brazil created educational resources combining legal guidance with real-life cases and interactive activities

Morocco trained teachers in cascade model with two resource persons per school for rapid issue escalation

Netherlands provides six-week courses on health and technology during elementary to middle school transition

Summary

All speakers agree that comprehensive educational approaches tailored to different age groups and contexts are essential for preventing sexual deepfake abuse and building digital literacy.

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Development

Legal frameworks are inadequate and need strengthening

Speakers

– Yi Teng Au
– Kenneth Leung
– Maciej Gron

Arguments

Laws against deepfakes are unclear because modified images create legal ambiguity about prosecution

UK’s 2025 Data Use and Access Act criminalized creation of intimate images but only covers adults

Polish legal system faces challenges with new situations involving child victims and perpetrators

Summary

Multiple speakers highlight that existing legal frameworks are insufficient to address the complexities of deepfake crimes, particularly when involving minors as both victims and perpetrators.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Platform cooperation and technical solutions are insufficient

Speakers

– Yi Teng Au
– Juliana Cunha
– Andrew Campling
– Robbert Hoving

Arguments

Platform hopping phenomenon where perpetrators shift from Telegram to other platforms making detection harder

Telegram accounts for 90% of messaging app reports in Brazil with limited cooperation with law enforcement

End-to-end encrypted messaging services present biggest challenge for blocking CSAM sharing

Search engines easily provide access to deepfake creation apps when searched

Summary

Speakers agree that current platform responses are inadequate, with limited cooperation from some platforms and technical challenges in encrypted environments allowing harmful content to persist and spread.

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers provide complementary data about the scale of the deepfake crisis in Korean schools, emphasizing how widespread the problem has become and the casual attitude of perpetrators.

Speakers

– Ji Won Oh
– Yi Teng Au

Arguments

Korean schools experienced widespread deepfake sexual videos affecting hundreds of schools with secret Telegram chat rooms

Over 500 schools affected by deepfake videos in South Korea, with 54% of offenders claiming they did it ‘for fun’

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers recognize that cultural factors, particularly around gender and shame, create significant barriers to addressing sexual deepfakes and require culturally sensitive approaches.

Speakers

– Juliana Cunha
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Issue reflects broader systemic gender inequalities requiring cultural prevention beyond legal measures

Reporting challenges exist due to humiliation, especially in countries like Morocco and Tunisia

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasize that the easy accessibility of deepfake creation tools is a fundamental problem requiring coordinated pressure on technology companies and platforms.

Speakers

– Yi Teng Au
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Accessibility of AI tools like stable diffusion makes content creation too easy despite safeguards

International action needed with people joining together to pressure search engines and platforms

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Technical innovation can be part of the solution

Speakers

– Yi Teng Au
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Korean DeepFake dataset with 2.73 terabytes achieved 96% accuracy in detecting altered videos

Seoul Metropolitan Government developed detection tool identifying school items, uniforms, and youth slang

Technology should make images indelible and unchangeable once posted online

Explanation

Despite criticism of technology companies, there was unexpected consensus that technical solutions and innovations can be part of addressing the problem, with examples of successful detection systems and calls for better technical safeguards.

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Young people should be central to developing solutions

Speakers

– Juliana Cunha
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Brazil created educational resources combining legal guidance with real-life cases and interactive activities

Young people indicate adults need education as they are often the ones suffering and lacking solutions

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus that young people should not just be protected but should be actively involved in creating solutions, with recognition that they often understand the problems better than adults.

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

Speakers demonstrated strong consensus on the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration, the cultural roots of the problem, the importance of education, inadequacy of current legal frameworks, and insufficient platform cooperation. There was also unexpected agreement on the potential for technical solutions and the importance of youth involvement in developing responses.

Consensus level

High level of consensus across all major aspects of the issue, suggesting a mature understanding of the problem’s complexity and the need for comprehensive, coordinated responses. This strong agreement among diverse stakeholders from different regions and sectors provides a solid foundation for developing effective global strategies to combat sexual deepfakes targeting minors.

Different viewpoints

Approach to banning deepfake creation applications

Speakers

– Frances (Participant)
– Yi Teng Au
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Why not just have a real crackdown on these kind of applications?

Laws against deepfakes are unclear because modified images create legal ambiguity about prosecution

International action needed with people joining together to pressure search engines and platforms

Summary

Frances advocates for outright banning of deepfake apps from app stores, while Yi Teng explains legal complexities make prosecution difficult, and Janice calls for coordinated pressure on platforms rather than just bans

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Privacy versus child protection in encrypted communications

Speakers

– Andrew Campling
– Torsten Krause

Arguments

End-to-end encrypted messaging services present biggest challenge for blocking CSAM sharing

European Union discussing compromising privacy to detect CSAM in encrypted environments for three years

Summary

Andrew emphasizes technical solutions within encrypted systems without breaking encryption, while Torsten raises concerns about the EU’s consideration of compromising privacy for child protection

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Role of online image sharing by schools and institutions

Speakers

– Janice Richardson
– Torsten Krause

Arguments

Schools still have a tendency to post the face, the image of their pupils in sports, in all sorts of activities. And this is the first problem

I would not imagine an internet and digital environment without photos, experiences of children and young persons online because they also have the right to see their experience reflected in the internet

Summary

Janice views school posting of student images as problematic source material for deepfakes, while Torsten argues children have rights to digital representation and asks what the solution would be

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Cybersecurity

Unexpected differences

Effectiveness of influencer involvement in prevention

Speakers

– Mariana (Participant)
– Janice Richardson
– Juliana Cunha

Arguments

What’s the role of the influencer industry in shaping safety online?

Kids are actually sick of them. So I think that maybe this is a trend which is not growing

Influencers play a key role in the culture… we have influencers that is a role model for many young people

Explanation

Unexpected disagreement emerged about influencer effectiveness, with Janice dismissing their relevance while Juliana sees them as important cultural figures, despite both being experienced educators

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Development

Prioritization of technical versus cultural solutions

Speakers

– Yi Teng Au
– Juliana Cunha

Arguments

Accessibility of AI tools like stable diffusion makes content creation too easy despite safeguards

Issue reflects broader systemic gender inequalities requiring cultural prevention beyond legal measures

Explanation

Despite both being young advocates, Yi Teng emphasizes technical accessibility problems while Juliana prioritizes cultural and systemic issues, showing generational perspectives aren’t uniform

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

Main disagreements centered on regulatory approaches (banning vs. education), privacy-security balance, and whether to restrict or protect children’s digital presence

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement level with speakers generally aligned on problem severity but differing on solution priorities and implementation methods. This suggests need for comprehensive approaches that integrate multiple perspectives rather than choosing single solutions.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers provide complementary data about the scale of the deepfake crisis in Korean schools, emphasizing how widespread the problem has become and the casual attitude of perpetrators.

Speakers

– Ji Won Oh
– Yi Teng Au

Arguments

Korean schools experienced widespread deepfake sexual videos affecting hundreds of schools with secret Telegram chat rooms

Over 500 schools affected by deepfake videos in South Korea, with 54% of offenders claiming they did it ‘for fun’

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights | Sociocultural

Both speakers recognize that cultural factors, particularly around gender and shame, create significant barriers to addressing sexual deepfakes and require culturally sensitive approaches.

Speakers

– Juliana Cunha
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Issue reflects broader systemic gender inequalities requiring cultural prevention beyond legal measures

Reporting challenges exist due to humiliation, especially in countries like Morocco and Tunisia

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers emphasize that the easy accessibility of deepfake creation tools is a fundamental problem requiring coordinated pressure on technology companies and platforms.

Speakers

– Yi Teng Au
– Janice Richardson

Arguments

Accessibility of AI tools like stable diffusion makes content creation too easy despite safeguards

International action needed with people joining together to pressure search engines and platforms

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Sexual deepfakes targeting minors is a rapidly growing global crisis, with Korea seeing a seven-fold increase in cases from 2021-2024 and Brazil experiencing historic spikes in AI-generated CSAM reports

The problem is fundamentally rooted in gender-based violence and cultural attitudes, requiring prevention strategies that go beyond legal and technical solutions

Current legal frameworks are inadequate, with laws struggling to address the ambiguity of modified images and the complexity of cases involving both child victims and perpetrators

Platform hopping and encrypted messaging services present major enforcement challenges, with perpetrators easily shifting between platforms to avoid detection

Education and digital literacy programs are essential, but must be implemented systematically with proper teacher training and age-appropriate curricula

Multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments, tech companies, educators, and civil society is critical but currently insufficient

Technical solutions like detection tools and datasets show promise but need broader implementation and local adaptation

Many young perpetrators don’t understand the seriousness of their actions, viewing deepfake creation as harmless fun rather than abuse

Resolutions and action items

Participants encouraged to share additional thoughts and resources on the csit.tk platform for one week post-workshop to synthesize discussion into a report

Call for international coalition to pressure search engines to remove access to deepfake creation apps

Recommendation for countries without detection datasets to develop ones tailored to local needs, following Korea’s example

Proposal for tech industry to develop technology making images indelible and unchangeable once posted online

Suggestion to educate government ministers and education departments from top-down while maintaining grassroots awareness efforts

Need for stronger industry accountability measures against products deliberately designed to violate rights and exploit vulnerabilities

Unresolved issues

How to balance children’s right to have their experiences reflected online with protection from image misuse

Whether to compromise privacy and encryption to detect CSAM in encrypted messaging environments

How to prevent misuse of child protection regulations by authoritarian governments to silence free speech

Effective global coordination mechanisms when legal responses vary significantly between countries

How to address conservative voices in government and education who dismiss these issues as harmless

Practical implementation of detection systems that can stop viral spread before content reaches wide audiences

Role and regulation of influencers, particularly child influencers, in shaping online safety culture

How to improve cross-platform collaboration when companies have competing interests

Suggested compromises

Focus enforcement efforts on end-to-end encrypted messaging services where technical blocking is possible without breaking encryption

Combine legal accountability measures with cultural prevention through long-term educational interventions

Use influencers positively in awareness campaigns while regulating harmful promotional activities

Implement cascade training models with two resource teachers per school for rapid issue escalation

Develop age-appropriate educational approaches that are engaging rather than threatening, such as using magicians for delivery

Create anonymous reporting mechanisms to address cultural barriers around shame and humiliation

Balance technical innovation in detection with privacy protection concerns

Coordinate awareness campaigns globally while allowing for local cultural adaptation

This problem already affected large schools in Brazil, especially private schools, with several cases being reported by media outlets. The new trend challenges us to find an appropriate response, especially due to the fact that victims and perpetrators are minors, and the boundary between sexual experimentation and sexual abuse is becoming a little bit blurred.

Speaker

Juliana Cunha

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it identifies a fundamental challenge in addressing deepfake sexual abuse among minors – the blurring of traditional boundaries between normal adolescent sexual exploration and abuse. It highlights the complexity of creating appropriate responses when both victims and perpetrators are children, challenging conventional approaches to both prevention and punishment.

Impact

This observation shifted the discussion from purely technical and legal solutions toward recognizing the nuanced developmental and psychological aspects of the problem. It helped frame the issue as requiring more sophisticated, age-appropriate responses rather than simply applying adult-focused legal frameworks.

When I talk to young people, they say, actually, it’s not the nude profiles that are bothersome. If someone puts a bikini, but then a very sexual stance, is it a nude profile? This is where it really raises issues. If there’s a little bit of clothing, then they think they’re out of the category of a sexual fake profile.

Speaker

Janice Richardson

Reason

This comment reveals a critical gap between adult perceptions of harm and young people’s actual experiences. It challenges the binary thinking around what constitutes harmful content and exposes how perpetrators might exploit these gray areas. The insight shows how young people’s understanding of the issue differs from adult frameworks.

Impact

This comment prompted deeper consideration of how policies and education programs need to address the spectrum of harmful content, not just obvious cases. It highlighted the need for more nuanced approaches that consider how young people actually perceive and categorize these violations.

Young people also turn to me and say, you should be educating the adults about this because very often, it’s them, the ones that are suffering, the ones that are doing this, and the ones that don’t have the opportunity to tackle it.

Speaker

Janice Richardson

Reason

This comment is particularly thought-provoking because it inverts the typical assumption that children need to be educated by adults. Instead, it reveals that young people see adults as part of the problem and lacking understanding. This challenges the traditional top-down approach to digital safety education.

Impact

This observation led to a fundamental questioning of who should be the target of education efforts and how programs should be designed. It suggested that effective solutions require educating entire communities, not just young people, and that youth voices should be central to developing responses.

The misuse of DNA to create sexualized images of peers is not a tech issue or a legal gap. It’s a reflection of a broader systemic gender inequalities. That’s why prevention must also be cultural.

Speaker

Juliana Cunha

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by identifying the root cause as systemic gender inequality rather than just a technological or legal problem. It’s insightful because it moves beyond symptom-focused solutions to address underlying cultural and social structures that enable this abuse.

Impact

This perspective shifted the conversation toward recognizing that technical and legal solutions alone are insufficient. It emphasized the need for long-term cultural change and gender equality work, influencing how other participants discussed prevention strategies and the importance of addressing social norms.

If we’re so clever with technology, why can’t we make something that when once we’ve put an image online, it becomes indelible, it becomes unchangeable. I’d like more efforts from the tech industry.

Speaker

Janice Richardson

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it challenges the tech industry’s priorities and capabilities. It questions why technological innovation isn’t being directed toward protecting users rather than just creating new features, and suggests a fundamental redesign of how digital content works.

Impact

This comment sparked discussion about the role and responsibility of tech companies, moving beyond just content moderation to considering fundamental changes in how platforms and digital content function. It challenged participants to think about proactive rather than reactive technical solutions.

Our core belief is the best way to protect children is by listening to them. This project challenged the usual top-down approach. Instead of responding with moral panic or punitive measures, we are asking how do teens actually experience this? What do they think would help?

Speaker

Juliana Cunha

Reason

This comment is insightful because it advocates for a fundamentally different methodology in addressing child protection – one that centers children’s voices and experiences rather than adult assumptions. It challenges the typical ‘moral panic’ responses that often characterize discussions about children and technology.

Impact

This perspective influenced the discussion by emphasizing the importance of youth-centered research and policy development. It reinforced the need for evidence-based approaches that actually reflect young people’s experiences rather than adult fears or assumptions about what children need.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by challenging conventional approaches to addressing deepfake sexual abuse. They moved the conversation beyond simple technical and legal solutions toward recognizing the complex cultural, developmental, and systemic factors involved. The most impactful insights came from recognizing that young people’s experiences and perspectives differ significantly from adult assumptions, that the problem is rooted in broader gender inequalities rather than just technology misuse, and that effective solutions require listening to affected youth rather than imposing top-down approaches. These comments collectively shifted the discussion from a problem-focused to a solution-oriented dialogue that emphasized collaboration, cultural change, and youth empowerment as essential components of any effective response.

What is the role of influencers and the influencer industry in shaping online safety, particularly regarding kid influencers and young content creators?

Speaker

Mariana from DataSphere Initiative

Explanation

This addresses a gap in understanding how influential figures in digital spaces can either contribute to or help prevent deepfake abuse, especially given the rise of very young influencers

Why can’t there be a complete crackdown and ban on deepfake creation applications, and what are the technical and legal challenges in drawing the line on what apps to ban?

Speaker

Frances from Youthdig

Explanation

This highlights the need for clearer understanding of regulatory approaches and their feasibility in addressing the root accessibility problem

How can search engines be leveraged to prevent access to deepfake creation tools, given that they easily surface when searched?

Speaker

Robert Hoving from Safer Internet Centre Netherlands

Explanation

This identifies a potential intervention point that hasn’t been fully explored – controlling discoverability rather than just the apps themselves

What are effective global awareness strategies that can transcend legal jurisdictional limitations?

Speaker

Robert Hoving from Safer Internet Centre Netherlands

Explanation

This addresses the challenge that legal solutions may be limited by jurisdiction, but awareness campaigns could have broader reach

How can criminal law systems be adapted to handle cases where both victims and perpetrators are minors, particularly regarding existing frameworks like pedophile registers?

Speaker

Maciej Gronia from Polish Research Institute NASK

Explanation

This highlights a significant gap in legal frameworks that weren’t designed for peer-to-peer abuse among minors

How can CSAM detection and prevention be implemented in end-to-end encrypted messaging services without breaking encryption?

Speaker

Andrew Campling from Internet Watch Foundation

Explanation

This addresses a critical technical challenge in balancing privacy protection with child safety in encrypted communications

What solutions exist for maintaining children’s right to digital representation while protecting them from deepfake abuse?

Speaker

Torsten Krause from Digital Opportunities Foundation

Explanation

This highlights the tension between child protection and children’s rights to participate in digital spaces

What is the youth perspective on compromising privacy to detect CSAM and grooming in encrypted environments?

Speaker

Torsten Krause from Digital Opportunities Foundation

Explanation

This seeks to understand how the primary affected demographic views the privacy vs. safety trade-off

What preventative measures can students themselves take to combat deepfakes, beyond education and policy implementation?

Speaker

Claire, student from Hong Kong

Explanation

This seeks practical, actionable steps that young people can take independently to protect themselves

What detection systems and proactive mechanisms are being developed to identify and stop sexual deepfakes targeting minors before they go viral?

Speaker

Sana from NetMission

Explanation

This addresses the need for technical solutions that can intervene early in the distribution process

How can awareness of deepfake issues be improved in education systems when government and education departments are led by conservative voices who dismiss these issues?

Speaker

Yuri Bokovoy from Finnish Green Party

Explanation

This highlights political and institutional barriers to implementing educational solutions

How can regulations protecting children from deepfakes be designed to prevent misuse by authoritarian governments to silence free speech?

Speaker

Yuri Bokovoy from Finnish Green Party

Explanation

This addresses the critical balance between child protection and preserving democratic freedoms

Are the innovation measures mentioned in the Korean case study truly effective in practice?

Speaker

Zoom participant (unnamed)

Explanation

This seeks evaluation of real-world effectiveness of implemented technical solutions

Why can’t technology be developed to make images indelible and unchangeable once posted online?

Speaker

Janice Richardson

Explanation

This suggests a technical research direction that could prevent manipulation of images at the source

Summary

This panel discussion explored the evolving landscape of multi-stakeholder governance in the digital age, featuring representatives from various Dynamic Coalitions within the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The session focused on making internet governance more inclusive and accessible, particularly for marginalized communities including persons with disabilities, children, and youth. Dr. Muhammad Shabbir from the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability emphasized that approximately 15% of the world’s population—equivalent to the population of India or China—consists of persons with disabilities who are not meaningfully benefiting from current digital governance systems. He argued for their meaningful inclusion in decision-making processes rather than tokenistic representation.

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta highlighted the economic implications of digital exclusion, noting that 2.7 billion people remain unconnected to the internet, potentially limiting global GDP growth. He criticized the current multi-stakeholder governance model as being reactive rather than proactive. Representatives from UNESCO’s Dynamic Coalition on Internet Universality Indicators discussed their framework based on human rights, openness, accessibility, and multi-stakeholder governance principles. The Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values, presented by Olivier Crepin-Leblond, outlined fundamental internet principles including global accessibility, interoperability, and decentralized control, while noting that many of these values are being eroded.

Avri Doria from the Schools of Internet Governance coalition described their work in developing curriculum, providing practical training, and theorizing multi-stakeholder models. The discussion also covered emerging areas like interplanetary internet governance and children’s rights in digital environments. Participants debated whether Dynamic Coalitions should seek formal representation on the IGF’s Multistakeholder Advisory Group (MAG) or maintain their current bottom-up, independent approach. The consensus emerged that Dynamic Coalitions serve as crucial testing grounds for innovative governance approaches and should focus on creating substantive impact through collaborative work rather than seeking formal institutional power.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Inclusive Multi-Stakeholder Governance**: The need to ensure meaningful participation of marginalized communities, including persons with disabilities (representing 15-16% of global population), youth, and other underrepresented groups in internet governance decision-making processes, moving beyond tokenism to genuine inclusion.

– **Dynamic Coalitions’ Role and Impact**: Discussion of how Dynamic Coalitions function as bottom-up, flexible organizations that work intersessionally on specific internet governance issues, with emphasis on their independence, openness, and ability to produce substantive research and policy recommendations.

– **Bridging the Digital Divide and Access Issues**: Concerns about 2.7 billion people still lacking internet connectivity and the economic implications, with calls for multi-stakeholder governance to prioritize access over emerging technologies like AI, and recognition that lack of internet access itself constitutes a form of disability.

– **Power Dynamics in Internet Governance**: Recognition that real power in internet governance lies with big tech companies rather than in IGF discussions, leading to debates about how to make multi-stakeholder processes more influential and whether Dynamic Coalitions need greater representation in governance structures like the MAG (Multistakeholder Advisory Group).

– **Evolution of Governance Models**: Exploration of how multi-stakeholder models can be improved to be more global, equal, and effective, including discussions of age categorization for youth participation, the application of governance principles to emerging areas like interplanetary networks, and the need for governance structures to adapt to technological changes.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how multi-stakeholder governance in internet governance can evolve to be more inclusive and effective, particularly focusing on the role of Dynamic Coalitions in representing diverse communities and producing meaningful policy outcomes. The panel sought to address gaps in current governance models and propose ways to ensure all stakeholders have genuine voice and influence in shaping internet governance.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with participants showing mutual respect and building on each other’s contributions. While there were acknowledgments of serious challenges (power imbalances, exclusion of marginalized groups, slow progress on connectivity), the tone remained optimistic and solution-oriented. Participants demonstrated pride in the work of Dynamic Coalitions while also being realistic about limitations and the need for improvement. The atmosphere was professional yet passionate, with speakers clearly committed to their causes while remaining open to cooperation and learning from other coalitions.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Judith Hellerstein** – Panel moderator/chair, co-coordinator of Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability

– **Dr. Muhammad Shabbir** – Co-coordinator of Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability

– **Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta** – Representative of Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values (referred to as “Vajendra” in transcript)

– **Tatevik Grigoryan** – UNESCO representative, Dynamic Coalition on Internet Universality Indicators

– **Olivier Crepin-Leblond** – Representative of Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values

– **Avri Doria** – Coordinator of Dynamic Coalition on Schools and Internet Governance

– **Roberto Gaetano** – Representative of Dynamic Coalition on Interplanetary Networks

– **Wout de Natris** – Representative of Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety

– **Jutta** – Co-chair of Dynamic Coalition Coordinating Group, representative of Dynamic Coalition on Children’s Rights and the Digital Environment

– **Marcus** – Co-facilitator of Dynamic Coalition Coordinating Group

– **Lubos Kuklis** – Online moderator/technical support

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

**Additional speakers:**

– **Kjetil Kjernsmo** – Unaffiliated individual, audience member

– **Henry Wang** – Singapore Internet Governance Forum (SGIGF), co-founder of Lingo.ai

– **Vasiliy Zudin** – Center for Global IT Cooperation, Russian NGO representative

# Multi-Stakeholder Governance in the Digital Age: Dynamic Coalitions and Inclusive Internet Governance

## Executive Summary

This panel discussion explored multi-stakeholder governance through the lens of Dynamic Coalitions within the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) ecosystem. Moderated by Judith Hellerstein, co-coordinator of the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability, the session brought together representatives from six Dynamic Coalitions: Accessibility and Disability, Core Internet Values, Interplanetary Networks, Internet Standards Security and Safety, Schools and Internet Governance, and Children’s Rights and the Digital Environment.

The discussion focused on making internet governance more inclusive and accessible, particularly for marginalized communities including persons with disabilities, children, and youth. Participants examined both achievements and limitations of current multi-stakeholder governance models while highlighting the role of Dynamic Coalitions as experimental spaces for developing innovative governance approaches.

## What Are Dynamic Coalitions?

Dynamic Coalitions are bottom-up, open groups within the IGF that work on specific internet governance issues. As Judith Hellerstein explained in her opening, they emerged from WSIS 2020 outcomes and operate as flexible, inclusive spaces where anyone can participate by subscribing to mailing lists or applying for membership. Information about joining is available at the IGF booth in the village.

## Key Coalition Perspectives

### Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir emphasized that approximately 15-16% of the world’s population—equivalent to the entire population of India or China—consists of persons with disabilities who are not meaningfully benefiting from current digital governance systems. He argued against tokenistic representation, stating: “The system might be functioning for some, but there is a very huge number of population… who are not benefiting or meaningfully benefiting from the processes or the systems that our so-called perfect technologists, policy makers have evolved.”

Dr. Shabbir emphasized that Dynamic Coalitions function as facilitators rather than top-down directors, providing guidance and resources while maintaining their bottom-up character. He noted that while formal power structures may not voluntarily redistribute power equally, Dynamic Coalitions retain “the power of the people which cannot be taken away from us.”

### Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values

Olivier Crepin-Leblond outlined fundamental internet principles including global accessibility, interoperability, decentralized control, end-to-end connectivity, and robustness. He noted that many of these core values are being eroded and require active protection as the foundation for other internet governance work.

The coalition emphasizes openness, requiring no subscription or approval process and welcoming new members. Olivier committed to working one-on-one with other Dynamic Coalitions to identify partnerships and defend their work through core internet values.

### Dynamic Coalition on Interplanetary Networks

Roberto Gaetano introduced the emerging area of interplanetary internet governance, explaining that interplanetary communication requires different protocols due to delays and moving nodes in space. He referenced the São Paulo Declaration of NetMundial Plus 10 and emphasized the need to develop multi-stakeholder governance models for interplanetary internet before it becomes shaped only by telecom operators and space agencies.

Gaetano stressed that multi-stakeholder models must be truly global and equal, with stakeholder groups participating on equal footing, warning against the monopolization of voices within stakeholder groups.

### Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety

Wout de Natris highlighted a concerning gap between available security standards and their implementation, noting that many companies fail to deploy internet security standards that have existed for 20 years. He advocated for governments and companies to procure ICT that is secure by design.

De Natris argued that Dynamic Coalitions should advocate for representation on the MAG (Multistakeholder Advisory Group) to better integrate their work into IGF processes, noting that while coalitions have improved visibility through clustering approaches over the past 2-3 years, they need greater influence to move from being “an appendix on the side.”

### Dynamic Coalition on Schools and Internet Governance

Avri Doria described comprehensive work in developing curriculum, providing practical training, and theorizing multi-stakeholder models. She emphasized that many people lack practice in multi-stakeholder participation and need safe spaces to develop these skills. The coalition provides coursework, practica for participation skills, and theory development, with students entering industry and institutions to create change “one classroom at a time.”

Doria strongly advocated for maintaining independence from MAG and UN strictures to preserve flexibility and grassroots engagement.

### Dynamic Coalition on Children’s Rights and the Digital Environment

Jutta highlighted that one-third of internet users worldwide are under 18 and deserve meaningful voice in internet governance. She noted that digital environments have opened new opportunities for children and youth to participate directly without adult accompaniment, fundamentally changing traditional participation models.

Markus, co-facilitator of the Dynamic Coalition Coordinating Group, advocated for fresh perspectives on age categorization, suggesting that children under 12, teenagers aged 13-18, and various adult categories have fundamentally different needs and capabilities.

## The Digital Divide Challenge

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta provided economic analysis of digital exclusion, noting that one-third of people globally—approximately 2.7 billion individuals—remain unconnected to the internet. He criticized current governance approaches as “reactive, not proactive,” arguing that at the current pace of progress, “it’ll take more than a decade for us to connect the people.”

Dr. Gupta challenged current priority-setting in internet governance, arguing that artificial intelligence is being prioritized over basic internet access. He suggested that “the issue is not with multi-stakeholder governance. The issue is governance of multi-stakeholder governance,” indicating that meta-governance structures need reform.

## Power Dynamics and Fundamental Challenges

The discussion took a critical turn when audience member Kjetil Kjernsmo directly challenged the panel’s premise, stating: “The power of internet governance is not in this room. It is chiefly with big tech… Shouldn’t we be moving towards polycentrism rather than multi-stakeholderism?”

This intervention forced participants to confront where actual power lies in internet governance and whether current approaches are adequate. The question of formal representation versus independence remained a key tension throughout the discussion.

## Additional Perspectives

Henry Wang contributed thoughts about decentralized protocols and infrastructure for the future, while Vasiliy Zudin extended an invitation for collaboration with Russian NGO’s Global Digital Forum, demonstrating the international scope of Dynamic Coalition work.

## UNESCO’s Internet Universality Indicators

Tatevik Grigoryan from UNESCO presented their Dynamic Coalition on Internet Universality Indicators, though audio issues made much of her contribution unclear. She emphasized that multi-stakeholder participation represents UNESCO’s official position, endorsed by 194 member states.

## Practical Outcomes

The discussion generated several concrete commitments:

– Dynamic Coalitions coordination group will work on making coalition membership and participation pathways more visible and accessible

– The Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values will work with other coalitions to identify partnerships

– Coalitions will continue their clustering approach while considering advocacy for MAG representation

– The Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety will continue advocating for secure-by-design ICT procurement

– All coalitions committed to focusing on substantive work and measurable impact

## Conclusion

This discussion demonstrated the maturity of thinking within the Dynamic Coalitions community about multi-stakeholder governance challenges. While participants acknowledged significant limitations in current approaches—including power imbalances and slow progress on connectivity—they maintained focus on collaborative work and bottom-up innovation.

The conversation revealed Dynamic Coalitions as crucial experimental spaces within the IGF ecosystem, providing flexibility for innovation that more formal structures might not accommodate. The ongoing tension between seeking formal influence and maintaining independence reflects broader challenges in internet governance about balancing effectiveness with authenticity.

The session reinforced that multi-stakeholder governance remains a work in progress, requiring continuous adaptation to address emerging challenges while maintaining core principles of inclusivity, openness, and collaborative problem-solving.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much for coming to our panel. I know we’re competing with so many other ones, but it’s great to see a lot of people here. This panel will focus on exploring the evolving landscapes of multi-stakeholder governance in the digital age, with a focus on the outcomes of the WSIS 2020, and ensuring that all communities, including marginalized communities, persons with disabilities, and young adults and children are active participants in shaping the future of the IGF. So there are several different dynamic coalitions here, and we also have a booth in the main area where you can pick up information about the booth and about all of our RDCs that are there. Right here we have the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability, which focuses on the future of multi-stakeholder governance and making sure that it’s inclusive, not only in principle but in practice. We also have the Dynamic Coalition on Core Internet Values, as well as the Dynamic Coalition on Intergenerational Planets, the Dynamic Coalition on Security and Stability, the Dynamic Coalition on Schools and Internet Governance, as well as the Dynamic Coalition on Digital Coalition on the Rights of Children. So we have all these coalitions here and we’re going to start first with the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability. And this is Dr. Mohammad Shabir. He along with myself are the co-coordinators of our Dynamic Coalition. So let me bring it over to Dr. Shabir.

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir: Thank you very much, Judith. Thank you for giving the opportunity. And my colleagues for being at this table to discuss the future of multi-stakeholder governance. From the perspective of Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability, I would have a couple of points to make in the initial intervention. And then we can follow those points in the interactive discussion. The first thing is that there are a number of instruments at the high level, as well as regional and national level, that talk about inclusivity, accessibility, and rights of persons with disabilities in the digital spaces. These range from at the top of all these instruments sits the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which most of the governments by now have not just signed, but ratified. Then we have WSIS 20 plus, which is being reviewed this year. That could be that also talks about inclusivity. We have the Global Digital Compact, where inclusivity for persons with disabilities is also referred. And then we have digital. inclusion strategy by the UN Secretary General where inclusivity is talked about. While this year is very important, as we all know, we’ll be not only deciding the future of internet governance, but we will also be deciding that how the future of multi-stakeholder governance should be shaping up. So inclusion of persons with disabilities in the decision-making, as we discussed in the session on Beyond Tokenism, the inclusion of persons with disabilities in internet governance. This was one of the sessions where we talked about different ways and strategies that can be implemented in the way of involving persons with disabilities in further sessions. We, as Dynamic Coalitions, we also organized three key sessions in different clusters. I won’t go into the details, but yesterday in Hall 5, we discussed about capacities and how principle-based models can be made inclusive. And it ensured that persons with disabilities are included in the decision-making of the future. The question here arises, why do we include persons with disabilities, whereas we have so many people who could be deciding the future of digital governance, and they have been deciding it arguably, and it has been functioning. As a coordinator of the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability, I would say it might be functioning. The system might be functioning for some, but there is a very huge number. of population, well, that WHO would state that it is about 15 or 16 percent of the world population, which, considering the total world population levels at 8 or 9 billion, would be equal to the total population of the country, which is India or China. So a huge number of population is there who are not benefiting or meaningfully benefiting from the processes or the systems that our so-called perfect technologists, policy makers have evolved. Therefore, well, when Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability comes on the stage and says that if you have not been able to evolve the perfect systems, perhaps this was because you had not the right people at the decision-making tables when you were making the decisions about the future of the Internet. So it’s high time that while we evolve the future systems now, we include persons with disabilities into those decision-making. So I stop here, and we can discuss this further. Judith, over to you. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much for this. I’m going to next turn to my candidate on my left, Vajendra, with the D.C. economy.

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Thank you, Judith. And this is a very important topic from the governance standpoint. You know that the global economy is digital, but still one-third of the people are still not connected to the Internet, which brings me to the very important point that the world GDP was $110 trillion last year. It could be $150 trillion. Just think how much difference it will make to the economy, which brings a big question to the multi-stakeholder governance model we have. The empty seat here is symbolic, there are gaps and these gaps are that our multi-stakeholder governance model is reactive, not proactive. And still knowing well that people are not connected, we have not been able to. Every year we come and see that the 2.7 billion people not connected become 2.6 billion. At this pace, it’ll take more than a decade for us to connect the people. I think when we as the IGF put the tagline of internet we want, we also want everyone to be connected to internet. I think there should be a study that think tanks should do, is the internet usage per capita and the GDP per capita. I would think that would be a good correlation. And we have to somehow look at not the multi-stakeholder governance per se, but the governance of multi-stakeholder governance. How do we govern it? What kind of issues we prioritize? I think overly we are prioritizing AI over access of internet and not having internet itself is a disability, I would say. So I think the multi-stakeholder governance models need to reset a button to look at various dimensions and KPIs of what the governance should look like, what we should deliver before the end of the decade when the SDGs come to an end by 2030. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Dr. Vajendra, for this. As the time is very moving quickly, we’re going to move to my right and we’re going to hear from Tatjafik Grigoryan from UNESCO.

Tatevik Grigoryan: Thanks very much. I’m here from UNESCO, I represent the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Universality Indicators. As we talk about multi-stakeholderism, these indicators are rooted in multi-stakeholder approach. These are basically indicators… So, I would like to start with the M, multi-stakeholder governance, which is one of the key pillars of this indicators, and also one of the key indicators that help countries assess their Internet performance against the pillars of human rights, openness and accessibility, and multi-stakeholder governance, and cross-cutting issues such as gender equality, safety and accessibility, and also the importance of the digital environment, and I would like to start with the M, which is also very much in line with the work that the Dynamic Coalition does. For us, multi-stakeholder participation and engagement and governance of the digital environment is not just the principle, but also, at UNESCO, it is at the heart of our actions to our activities. So now, I would like to introduce Nicolas Sperb, from Solidarity Engineering Facebook, and they are contributors to the co-leadership of Solidarity Engineering Facebook, and Nicolas is the expert in multi-stakeholder confidence and trust, and he is also the co-leader of Solidarity Engineering Facebook. So, Nicolas, what are your thoughts on the outcomes of the assessments, and also the recommendations that we put forward to support the countries, improve their digital environment, and then we encourage this maintenance of the multi-stakeholder advisory board, also, in carrying forward and implementing this policy recommendations. So, the main thing is that we encourage the multistakeholder dialogue, and we encourage it in principle, but we also facilitate this in action, and bring, convene this multi-stakeholder dialogue in this scope, and ensure that everyone, every stakeholder, is involved. And I think it’s very important that we have a multi-stakeholder engagement and that the multistakeholder group has a say around the table on these matters. This is just one example of, as we speak, within this scope of dynamic coalitions of our work where we promote and foster multistakeholder engagement to the Internet Governance, but it is very much rooted in all of our activities. Thank you very much, Judith.

Judith Hellerstein: I think we have a lot of questions and answers later, but I want to make sure we have enough time for the panellists to make their quick statements.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: So I’ll next go to Olivier Crepin-Lamban for the D.C. on Core Internet Values. Olivier Crepin-Lamban speaking, and I’m here to speak to you about the Core Internet Values and the work of the Dynamic Coalition. So the Core Internet Values is a global medium, open to all, regardless of geography or nationality. It’s interoperable because it’s a network of networks. It doesn’t rely on a single application. It relies on open protocols, like TCPIP, like BGP. It’s free, open to all, and it’s a global medium, open to all, regardless of geography or nationality. It’s interoperable because it’s a network of networks. It’s open to all, regardless of geography or nationality. It’s free, open to all, and it’s a global medium, open to all, regardless of geography or nationality. It’s free of any centralised control, except for the needed co-ordination for the domain name system, the addressing, if you want, of the Internet and the IP addresses. It’s end-to-end, so the traffic goes from one end of the network to the other end of the network unhindered. It’s free, open to all, and it’s a global medium, open to all, regardless of geography or nationality. it’s robust and it’s reliable. But of course, that was a while ago when the Internet was created. A number of these values are being eroded, things are changing on the Internet, and so we’re tracking the change that we’re seeing happening on the Internet. Earlier this week, on Wednesday, we had a workshop that also looked at artificial intelligence, AI, and tried to see if we could apply core Internet values and derive from that some AI values. Very interesting discussion, it was very well attended, but one thing that did come out of the discussion was that the dynamic coalitions around this table, and in fact the ones that were in the other workshops, are all working sometimes on specific points that go on top of the core Internet values. You’ve got the Internet as the base, and other work grafts on the top of that. And so one of the things that my colleagues are not aware of now, one of the action items, is that we will be working with all of the different dynamic coalitions, one-on-one, and offering a partnership to try and see what core Internet values relate to their work, and how we can help defend their work through the core Internet values. I hope it’s a bit helpful, but I’ll be happy to answer questions later. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Olivier, and thanks for sticking to your time. Time is always not our friend here. Next I will go to Avri Doria, who’s going to speak for the Schools of Internet Governance.

Avri Doria: Thank you. Thank you, Judith, and thank you for chairing this session. My name is Avri Doria, and I coordinate the Dynamic Coalition on Schools and Internet Governance. We do a couple things. First of all, there are many schools that have sprung up around the world over, I guess, the last decade. Each one of them is a bottom-up affair. So what the Dynamic Coalition tries to do at the very top level is sort of offer material. offer ways to look at things, we have developed a curriculum in the past that currently needs to be updated with all the new things that he’s been talking about. We’re currently working on a document, for example, on how to sustain a school and it’s once you found one and you get some money and you have all the enthusiasm of having created one comes year three and year four and how do you keep the thing running. So we’re doing that, it’s a very interesting exercise because that’s done differently in different places in the world, depends on how you’ve got. So that’s one of the things that the Dynamic Coalition does. The schools themselves basically do several things. One, they do coursework and they look at the various topics, you know, whether it’s AI, whether it’s how IP works, whether it’s what the political dimensions of schools are, etc. So that’s one of the aspects of schools. The other aspects of schools that we help work on is what we call practica and we have practicums where you look around the multi-stakeholder world and you find there are some of us that are constantly talking, constantly participating. The, what do we call the, but anyhow, the regular victims or the regular, but most people sit there quietly and it comes from, at least it seems to come from, they never had a place to practice. They never had a place to sort of figure out how to behave, how to interject themselves. To some of us it comes natural, to many it doesn’t. So a lot of these practica are there. The third thing that we focus on is actually what one could call it the theory of multi-stakeholderism or the theory of multi-stakeholder models. A couple years ago, and it may even be true for many now, people thought there was one. multi-stakeholder model, it was the IGF model, or maybe there was one multi-stakeholder model and it was the ICANN model, or maybe there was one, and then basically so we started looking at how you come down to the next level of what does it involve to have a multi-stakeholder model? Are there levels of maturity in a multi-stakeholder model? How do you progress in developing a multi-stakeholder model? So that in a very quick, hand-wavy manner is sort of what the schools on internet governance are about, and always happy to talk about it infinitely.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Avri, and thanks for sticking to your time. Next we’ll go to Roberto Gaetano, he’s with the DC of Interplanetary Networks, and this is they are doing internet in the space. Thank you.

Roberto Gaetano: Thank you, Judith. Yes, the DC on Interplanetary Networks, as the name suggests, is dealing with communication, interplanetary communication. Why is this different from the regular internet on earth? That is because for the distances in space that create delays in the communication and also the fact that we have widely moving nodes that can create interruptions in the communication. So basically, long story short, we have to use a different protocol that is delay and fault tolerance. So there will be some differences versus the… the regular internet. Another question is now that the way that interplanetary communication develops with the launch of space missions, for instance, with the possibility of communication to outer space and so on. Basically, what we have right now is a situation in which telecommunication operators are organization and organizations that are involved with launch of space vessels, NASA, for instance, just to name one. Those are the ones who are currently shaping up this scenario. So the problem is having also learned the lesson from the regular internet, where we had a bit in a hurry and under pressure had to develop a governance model in order to ensure that all interested stakeholders have a place in the table and can discuss how to govern the internet. In the same way, we believe that we need to develop and deploy an interplanetary internet governance model. And for instance, in these days, we are discussing and we are thinking of using, and that gives me the possibility. to advertise this booklet, which is the translation in several languages of the São Paulo Declaration of NetMundial Plus 10. We are going to be using this to develop with the community a governance model that is really multi-stakeholder, that will ensure that also stakeholders that are not completely aware of the development of the interplanetary networks, like for instance civil society or users that will be impacted, can get into the process early so that their interests and needs are represented. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Roberto. The last panelist we have here is Wout Denatris, and he is – no, you’re not on it, okay. So then we’ll go to our panelists of the DC Child Online Protection.

Jutta: Thank you, Judith, for giving me the floor, although I was not supposed to be a panelist, but I had prepared to give some input to this session, so we’re welcome. When it comes to multi-stakeholder collaboration, of course from the Dynamic Coalition on Children’s Rights and the Digital Environment, I need to refer to young people, and I really appreciate that we had many people around here at the IGF, many young people. We have the Dynamic Team Coalition that was engaged in our work, and we also have the Dynamic Coalition on – the Youth Coalition, let me say it in that way. I take the opportunity to refer to the General Comment No. 25 on children’s rights and the digital environment, because it And it has a whole chapter on the respect for the views of the child. And let me just quote, we did a child participation worldwide in preparation of the general command number 25. And there, the over 700 children in various languages reported that the digital environment afforded them crucial opportunities for their voices to be heard in matters that affect them. And I do think that we cannot deny with one third of all internet users worldwide are under the age of 18, though it means that they are a child in the sense of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, that we have not only give them a voice, but hear their voices and respect their views in regard of internet governance. Thank you. Thanks.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. And Jutta is also along with Marcus, the co-chairs of the Dynamic Coalition Coordinating Group of all different 30 GCs. So now we’ll move to the next step. Well, okay, Brat wants to… In the end, he decided he wanted to speak. Great.

Wout de Natris: Is it on? Yes. My apologies. I was not aware that I was on the list because I had not submitted myself, but I can, of course, speak a little bit. My name is Wouter Natris and I represent the Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards, Security and Safety here at the IGF. And we just produced our report on post-quantum cryptography this morning, and it landed really successfully well, I think, with some of the people in the room. So that’s good to notice. Jutta, let me reflect on the future of multistakeholderism that we’re discussing and what we’ve been doing as Dynamic Coalitions as a group in the past. maybe three years by now, but certainly two and a half, is to try to organize ourselves and get ourselves better known so that people in the IGF environment understand better what we as Dynamic Coalitions are doing. And I think that from the way the people within the community look at us at this moment is different than it was three years ago, because I ran into people even on the Mac who were not even aware that Dynamic Coalitions existed, or let alone what they did. And I think that has changed. The fact that we are now reported on, for example, by the Diplo Foundation, that was not happening two years ago last year, is progress. And we have one and a half year probably before the next IGF, and how will Dynamic Coalitions present themselves in November or December 2026, when there is a new IGF anywhere in the world? We don’t know yet. I think that that is where we can make the next step, and we have time to make the next step. So what I’m advocating is that what we’ve managed to do with the DC clustering, it also brings together overarching themes. We notice that we start working on this, sort of working on the same topic from a different angle, and that allows us to make better messages, and perhaps common messages, like what you invited us to do, and thank you for that, Olivier. But also, I think that we need to have a bigger voice in the future, and what I would suggest that we try to advocate is that we have a spot in the MAG to make sure that the integration of our work becomes better known within the process, so that the clustering we have now become part of the themes. And that is something that has nothing to do with the workshop program, but it has something to do with getting the messages across of our work that we do during the whole year across in a far better and integrated way. That is something that we can discuss and organize and see if the other dynamic coalitions agree on. But it’s something that I would advocate to have a voice in the MAG so that we are at the same level and not that we’re always somewhere as an appendix on the side. And I think that would make multi-stakeholder and inter-governance far better, stronger and more influential in the future. So let me stop there and thank you for the opportunity, Jutta.

Judith Hellerstein: Thank you so much, Wout. And I’ll go over to Markus for a comment.

Marcus: Yes, thank you, Judith. You called me co-chair with Jutta of the Coordination Group. Actually we call ourselves co-facilitators, sounds less important than co-chairs. I had and very much support Wout’s comments. We really have come a long way and I think by clustering and having also the main session, we have a bigger impact. Now, whether or not a seat on the MAG will make that much difference, I’m not necessarily convinced, but we have a MAG liaison and we need to use this better, but let’s park that discussion. We can have it among ourselves. I was just going to make a minor point listening to Jutta and she pointed out that legally speaking somebody under 18 is a child, which obviously doesn’t make much sense. And I make myself here the spokesman of the Teens Dynamic Coalition who actually put forward a quite thoughtful paper saying we need to look at the ages in a different way. The UN category is youth is 18 to 35 and to be frank, a 35-year-old is a very mature youth. And it doesn’t make much sense, but we cannot change something. something that’s enshrined in a General Assembly resolution, but we can apply it maybe with more flexibility. And the Dynamic Teen Coalition, they suggest you have below 12, these are children. They fall in the category where we have to look after them. Whereas from 13 to 18, they are teenagers. Well, to 19, they are teenagers, but in most countries, when you’re 18, you’re adult. So you have different rights and responsibilities. And then they also go on, say, you know, they are young adults, young professionals, they’re people mid-career, and they are the oldies who maybe can take on a different role as mentoring. And I actually like this idea of looking at the age categories with a fresh eye. But we will not be able to change General Assembly resolutions, but I think the teens have made themselves heard, and Amrit was in various session, and he has my admiration. At his age, I would not have been able to argue so effectively and coherently. So these are my quick comments on this matter, but Jutta may have more comments because she’s a professional dealing with children and children’s rights. Thank you for listening.

Jutta: Yes, thank you, Markus. I just wanted to get into that because isn’t it also due to the opportunities that the digital environment opens up for children that they are now in this position? Because otherwise, like those teens that are under the age of 18, they could only have come to the internet accompanied by adults like we had in several years earlier on in the internet governance community. But now, with all these digital opportunities, they can take part via Zoom, for example. They can raise their voice. They can make them heard themselves. So kind of, you know, the internet. World Wide Web came up in 1989. That was the same year that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child came up. So we have kind of parallel developments, and I’m pretty sure they are interrelated with each other. The digital technologies have opened up for children’s evolving capacities, evolving in a certainly changed way than it was beforehand.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Jutta. And this will also go out to our next segment, which is some policy questions.

Avri Doria: Can I ask a question? If I can, I’d like to just add one thought to that. One, this is one reason why the DCs, when they started out, sort of declared a degree of independence from the MAG and the UN and its strictures, so that we wouldn’t necessarily be as bound by all the UN edicts, such as we could decide what we wanted in terms of how we were doing things and what. And two, as a street kid at 16, if anybody had told me I was a child, there would have been a battle.

Judith Hellerstein: It’s possible, but it’s only words. Yeah, no, this also leads us directly into our policy question of what policies are important in the process of enabling multi-stakeholder practices. Jutta touched on the idea of the digital ideas that we can now get the youth to engage themselves and they don’t have to come with an adult or other stuff. The teen coalition calls on the calls in the early morning and the early evening, and so they’re very active. But Vajendra, I know you wanted to make a comment on.

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Yeah, I just wanted to add to what Marcus said, that as what I have experienced. over the decades at the DCs, I mean, this is the best model for looking at the multi-stakeholder governance. I think as Avri said, independent, flexible. I have not come across any time when anyone made a suggestion, it was thwarted or debated. Anything good, immediately accepted and acted upon. So I would actually congratulate those who facilitate the dynamic coalitions within the IGF and the Secretariat for keeping that spirit alive of change and hope along with continuity. Thank you. Yeah.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. Yeah. So who wants to, Avri, do you want to talk about that question of policies

Avri Doria: that are important in the process of enabling multi-stakeholder? Certainly. I’m always willing to talk about just about any topic, but the policy certainly within the dynamic coalitions, it’s very important that we be open and accept the whole notion that bottom up these things are dealt. Thank you for being here, Marcus. Bottom up. Bottom up. Thank you very much for reminding me where I was. But basically, that that becomes a very important part because as I was saying before, when the dynamic coalitions get constrained into a certain rules, a certain box, a certain structure is when we find that we can’t be all that dynamic. You know, having the basic rules that we have, that we have to be open, that we have to have a mailing list, that we have to be coalitions, which means we have to have people from the many stakeholder groups is a very basic set of requirements. But beyond that, as multi-stakeholder models develop, as we get beyond thinking of there being a single model, a single way to do things. It really is in the dynamic coalitions that you sort of have the crucible where you can try things, you can fail, you can come, you can succeed and such that becomes more and more a problem as things start to have the blessing of the top-down. Part of the problem with the IGF is its top-down nature. Dynamic coalitions are the one place where we get to experiment with sort of the other half of what it means to be multi-stakeholder, bottom-up multi-stakeholder models. Thanks.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. Any other coalitions want to mention something? Otherwise, we’ll go to the next question. Okay, so the next question is, how can multi-stakeholder models be further developed to make them more inclusive and accessible? And I’ll point the mic here to Dr. Shabir to talk about that.

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir: Thank you very much for that. And I’ve been listening to my fellow D.C. representatives talk about different aspects and I’ve been thinking that how best we can evolve this multi-stakeholder model that we have going up and running. And I reflected upon the suggestion that came out from Vout and then the discussion by every on the having a voice or space on the MAG by the D.C.s. And I would, for one, from the perspective of D.C.A.D., whereas I would want the multi-stakeholder model as it exists today to evolve that to include the voice of persons with disabilities on the MAG. Why so? Because this is the largest minority. that is just being made into a checkbox under the diversity umbrella. It should not be that. On the other hand, as the coordinator of Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability and one of the oldest dynamic coalitions in existence, I would argue for the argument that Avery has put forward. And that is we must guard the system that we have here within the dynamic coalitions. And that is bottom-up multi-stakeholder. We, as the coordinators of the dynamic coalitions, we are not the chairs who would give directions from the top to be implemented. We facilitate the work of the coalitions as Marcus very rightly said, that we are, Marcus and Yuta, are preferred to be recognized as facilitators of the work. Because our job is not to give directions. Our job is to give guidance, to provide resources, and to facilitate the work that community wants from us. And in that, I just was thinking that whether teens, I hear Amrit, and I am really impressed by his prowess and his argumentation at this age. But when I think of the other side of the teens with disabilities, those who do not have the right opportunities, then I need to consider that that multi-stakeholder model, so-called, needs to evolve. And it needs to be multi-stakeholder in true sense, and not just be some checkboxes here and there. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Dr. Shabir. I’ll go to Roberto Gaetano as he has some input.

Roberto Gaetano: Yes, Roberto Gaetano, DC Interplanetary. I have two comments on this. The first is once the former CEO of ICANN said a multi-stakeholder model has to be global and equal. And I think that this is very, very important. We cannot just have a vague representation of the stakeholders, but the model has to be global in the sense that those stakeholders have to represent different geopolitical situations. And equal, the stakeholder groups have to participate on equal footing. I think that this is something that is very important. It’s actually the band that has played in Music Night takes the name GEMS, which is exactly the acronym for Global Equal Multi-Stakeholder. So I think that we have to, one thing that we have to do is to make sure that whenever we speak about the multi-stakeholder model, we are very attentive on the fact that it is global and equal. There’s one other point that came, by the way, also in one of the sessions that I have attended. Within a stakeholder group, we have to make sure that that there’s not a subgroup that monopolizes the discussion, that monopolizes the presence. For instance, one of the most various, more diverse stakeholder group is probably civil society. But civil society comes in different shapes, in different forms. There are different types of stakeholder that belong to the bigger group of civil society. And we have to make sure that also, within the stakeholder group, the different types of stakeholder are represented. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Roberto. We have two more quick comments. One from Roberto, and I’m going to keep it short, because we want to make sure we have time for questions from the audience. And then, Wow. Thank you. I have a question, not question, actually a reflection back on the governance and the role of DCs, what we do.

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta: So it should not be just the noise that some makes, and I’m not castigating or putting some people in the corner, but actually on the impact we create. I mean, if you look at the world’s work on standards, if you look at our friends’ work on the core internet values and others, these are substantive original works in contribution to the knowledge of domain of internet. I think that should be the primary focus. I’m not very, I would say, in favor of seats or titles. I’m in favor of original substantive works that adds to the knowledge for this domain of internet that creates an impact on ground. So I think we’ll have to look at today as 20 years of IGF, what it does. is our stated position as DCs on the issue of environment, because everything we do today in the digital economy has a carbon footprint. And we know global warming and what it’s doing to us. Second, what’s happening on the job side? Like as digital economy, we created project Creators. How do you use technology for jobs? Every time you open the news, you see that 30 million jobs will be lost today, what I read in the morning. So it’s scary at times. And I think this will boomerang into a huge mental health issue for the world. So we’ll have to look at DCs. And how are we addressing these issues to create an impact? A seat on the mag or not will not make much of a difference. But what we make as a difference to the digital economy is going to be measured in terms of what we have added to the domain. I think this is where it matters for us to be impactful. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. Wout?

Wout de Natris: Yes, thank you, Judith. Whether we have a seat on the mag or not is not the real topic, I think. I think that what we’ve shown in the past two years is that we’ve learned from each other what we’re doing. That is one. That we’ll probably be able to integrate more because of the clusters and that way become more impactful. When I think of the IGF, just going back to 2009 when I visited my first IGF, I went to as many sessions as I could. And I was so impressed with the brilliant people giving brilliant solutions to topics. But some of them still have not been solved. So we’re 16 years down the line and still sometimes discussing the same sort of things. Maybe we call it AI now. But if you look one step up, it’s the same issue. In other words, we have the people to make a difference. Except somehow the integration of that message is not coming across in the places where it needs to land. And I think that that is the challenge of whether we get a five-year or a 10-year or an eternal mandate for the IGF. It is about. bringing people to the table that decide, I think I have to make a difference. And that will be the main challenge that the IGF faces, where it has to move from a talk shop to an influencing position. And if we can manage to do that, then we’ll change the world. And that’s why I advocate that our outcomes as dynamic coalitions should be heard better. And that starts with having more influence on the organization of the IGF, because that’s where we bring our message across. And Avri, just to come back to one of your comments, I think yesterday, I was not really aware what you guys were doing, but you make actual difference how you coordinate on topics and that sort of thing. So that should be heard. That’s not that someone comes to tell you, I want you to do this now, but that you send your message, we’re making a difference in the internet governance world. And I think that that is a sort of message that we need to start to share actively. And we have made that start and whatever, however, we continue. But it’s something we need to discuss in our group, like Marco said, internally, and then set the steps we need to take. So that’s how I want to advocate the IGF, the dynamic coalitions, and then I’ll shut up because I said what I wanted to say.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Wout. We want to go for a Q&A. And so there’s a mic set up over there if in person want to stand up for that. I’m just going to check of my colleague, because we might have some interventions online, so. Thanks, Judith.

Lubos Kuklis: Currently, we have 23 people taking part online and following us from everywhere around the globe. And there was a discussion going on, it was raised the attention by Carlos Alfonso on an development on the multi-stakeholder structure of the internet governance in Brazil. There’s a lively discussion going on, links and further information are provided. And there was a question raised by Emmanuel Orok from Uganda, who’d like to know more about the concept of a dynamic coalition. We are talking about what dynamic coalitions are doing and what they’re delivering and output and so on. But he wants to learn more about the concept and how to engage as an individual in a dynamic coalition.

Judith Hellerstein: Olivier? Yeah. And then Yuta. Yeah. Thank you, Judith. It’s Olivier speaking.

Olivier Crepin-Leblond: I’d be happy to answer that, because just a couple of days ago, I was asked a similar question. And the question I was asked is, what is a dynamic coalition? Why is it dynamic? Does it have a start, a beginning, an end? What do you people work on? Are these projects? Are these ongoing things? And the answer that I provided was potentially maybe one of many different answers, because we are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. We are so busy. And the answer that I provided was potentially maybe one of many different answers, because we are so many different coalitions, and so we deal with so many different topics. But the dynamism of a dynamic coalition is one that actually advances with times. It deals with issues that are related to the internet that is changing. And so the issues that we might have been working on or that we were focusing on a few years ago might be a bit, they might have evolved since. And in fact, for some, thanks to the work of that coalition, the issues have advanced. It’s dynamic because it’s moving, but it’s also open. And I think maybe that’s one of the things we’ve not actually emphasized enough. They are all open. You don’t need to pay a subscription or to queue up or to be co-opted into it by some panel that will check whether you’re worthy of being in that coalition or not. It’s actually open to everyone, and all of them are open. They’re all very friendly. They are run by people who have years of experience in trying to get more people involved. And this is one of the big difficulties we’ve had. I’ll be very frank, is actually attracting more people to go and join because, yeah, there is intersessional work going on. There’s a lot of work needed. We’re not dealing with simple issues that can be fixed in a matter of seconds. But it’s also exciting because it kind of puts this bridge between the different IGFs. It’s not just something that happens once a year. It’s something that happens all the time and that continues to grow. So that’s what I wanted to say about it.

Judith Hellerstein: We have a quick one from Utah and then we have Shabira and you.

Jutta: Yes, because we all have been approached over the last four days by people who wanted to join a dynamic collision. It’s really useful to have this booth in the IGF village where everybody can meet us. But still, when it comes to how do I get to become a member of a dynamic collision, it’s a bit tricky. You go to the website, you need to have a look on the intersessional part, even understanding that it’s intersessional work the dynamic collisions are doing is a bit difficult. But to make it short, everybody can subscribe to the mailing list of the dynamic collisions to get informed about the work the dynamic collision, the respective dynamic collision is doing. Secondly, you can apply to become a member. It’s just saying my organization or me as an individual, I want to be a member of this dynamic collision. Then you will be listed in the list of stakeholders within that dynamic collision. And these are the first two steps, and then it’s up to each of the individual dynamic collisions to set up how they work together. Some meet on a regular basis, other meet only occasionally. Some produce a joint report, some gather information of what their members have been doing in regard of the objectives of the dynamic collision. So that is different across the dynamic collisions. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. And Dr. Shpil, I know you wanted to make a comment as well.

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir: I think Yuta and Olivia have best described, so I’ll go.

Judith Hellerstein: Thank, and Al-Avri.

Avri Doria: Yeah, quick thing, I’m really glad you put it. And just to sort of marry it to something that Waud has been saying, perhaps we’ve also can take on an action for the coordination group that says, we have to make that more visible. We have to make that something easier for people to find and put it out. So perhaps we should give ourselves sort of, after this is all over and we’ve rested, indeed make ourselves more visible by making that easier for people to find and do it.

Jutta: We had a meeting with the MEC chair yesterday, the day before yesterday, agreeing exactly on that approach.

Judith Hellerstein: Yes, okay, so now I know our colleague over there has been waiting patiently by the mic. So I will go to him. Please tell us your name and your organization.

Audience: Thank you, so my name is Kjetil Kjernsmo. I’m kind of unaffiliated, I represent only myself. I have three assumptions or perhaps even observations. And one of them is that the power of internet governance is not in this room. It is chiefly with big tech. The second thing is that I was sort of a part of the global digital compact process. And I noticed there were no challenges to multi-stakeholderism in there. Whereas digital commons were completely removed, even though there were many excellent contributions in a dedicated deep dive. And the third thing is that polycentrism, which is part of the digital commons narrative, has been used by humanity for thousands of years. and there is a rich theory and a rich practice. So aren’t we trying to reinvent the wheel here? Shouldn’t we be moving towards polycentrism rather than multi-stakeholderism? Thank you.

Dr. Rajendra Pratap Gupta: Yeah, so very right intervention. And I think if you heard my statement, the issue is not with multi-stakeholder governance. The issue is governance of multi-stakeholder governance. I think as we see the world today, it is small number of large companies that drive the internet rather than large number of small companies. And that’s the difference we have to make. And I think it’s not reinventing the wheel. We should first break the wheel and create something different. And that is what the flexibility we all have in this room to speak our mind and to work towards it. And luckily no one stops us. I mean, our reports have always come out based on inputs given by people from 60, 70 countries, and we have released them here at IGF stating that this is the way to go. What Vau told us, we should not start appreciating a problem over time. We should try to solve it. And I think that collectively we have to start. Question is when? The time is now. We are already late.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. And Avri?

Avri Doria: Yeah, just one quick thing. I don’t think anybody is ignoring any of the historical. I think there’s a lot of admission that multi-stakeholder models have evolved from previous models, that there have been models throughout history that have given us the ideas that we’re building on. So it’s really not an ignoring history. It’s sort of, there’s a lot of parts of history that sort of had their moment and then got forgotten. And how do we take what was really valuable in those and sort of incorporate it in sort of the things that are being done now? And totally agree with you. We have to use what we’ve got here to indeed make more of an impression. on those that do hold the power at the moment. So really don’t disagree with anything except that we should use old words instead of new words.

Judith Hellerstein: Wow, make it quick.

Wout de Natris: I will. In internet security that I reported I’ve written about five years ago now, we identified that it’s about the tragic of the commons. The internet is sort of from everybody despite those five, six, seven or eight major companies, but it’s everybody’s. So when it’s everybody’s, nobody cares at some point whether it’s secure or not because somebody else will do it for me. And I think that that is not reinventing the wheel, it’s going back to the very fundamentals of how things once started thousands of years ago. And we’ve sort of forgot that lesson.

Judith Hellerstein: Thank you so much. Dr. Shabir, real quick, I wanna get you.

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir: Yes, thank you very much, Judith. And since I have the notice from the moderator, so I’ll be quick without. Power politics is my subject as a student of international relations and we all know it is not equally distributed. And through the centuries it has not been and it would never be. Power that be would not voluntarily give the equal distribution of it to anyone. So while we may not have the power to change things at our will in this room, we do have the power in this room to influence things. And that’s what we are doing. Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability is trying to make the internet and internet governance spaces equal for people with disabilities. And that’s where the power of our dynamic coalitions, all our dynamic coalitions comes. We have the power of the people which cannot be taken away from us. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. Let me check with our online. Do you have any questions online? Okay, so we can go to the gentleman over there.

Audience: Okay, thanks, thanks. Give me the floor. I’m Henry Wang from Singapore Internet Governance Forum, so S-G-I-G-F, and also I’m the co-founder for Lingo.ai. So yes, for the last 20 years, the power is not in the room. It’s controlled, dominated by the large companies, definitely, but for the next 20 years, the power will be in this room. Okay, it’s not because we are discussing, we’re talking about that. It’s because of the dynamic of the internet. The protocols are evolving, so the protocols for the people are coming, and not only coming, it’s already invented, and it’s ready to be deployed for the power of people. So why the large company dominate for the last 20 years, even after IGF was established? Because the protocols lead to the centralization of our data, and also lead to the centralization of our infrastructure, but now it’s different. So for the next 20 years, the infrastructure will be decentralized by the D-PIN network. It can be built by the community with space ground integration network, with mesh network to be built by people, not necessarily by centralized carriers. That’s on the infrastructure level. On the application level. The data currently centralized in large companies will be decentralized and by protocols like solid, like MetaLife. It will be controlled by every users. So yeah, so the day is coming. So a dynamic, I mean, coalition will play an important role together with NRIS.

Judith Hellerstein: Thank you so much, Henry. We have to have one more quick question and then we’ll go to the panelists. It’s maybe like in my comments. Could you introduce yourself, please? You just need not to, it’s on.

Audience: It’s okay. Yep. Thank you very much for all panelists. My name is Vasiliy Zudin. I represent the Center for Global IT Cooperation, Russian NGO, which actively works within ITU and IJF formats. And I would like to say many thanks for this really interesting panels and the main idea that dynamic coalition is very important and appreciated in the world. In Russia, we have IJF forum, youth forum, and this June, they hosted the first global digital forum, which bringing together representatives from technical communities, experts, society, and government from more than 100 countries, including high level of UN and ITU representatives. In this case, we invite the dynamic coalition to collaborate with us. And so the main thought and the main idea, let’s work together. Thank you very much for your dialogue. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thank you so much. We have, if you can make your answers short, because I want to go to the wrap to give you a time or maybe best try to answer the question along with your 30 seconds of wrap up.

Jutta: And so I will go to Utah for. society organization we are improving on not only making the children’s rights heard but and their voices heard but also their rights to not only making the children’s rights heard but and their voices heard but also their rights to be respected. Thank you. Thank you. Dr. Shabir, 30 seconds. Yes, thank you. Very

Dr. Muhammad Shabbir: difficult so I would just go directly to the concluding statement that I have. So Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability is stands ready to work with our fellow dynamic coalitions and there are number of subjects that one can one can work with. If we want the people to use the internet meaningfully we need to not just think only about those 2.7 billion who are not connected but 1.5 billion people who may be connected maybe in a well-developed country may have state-of-the-art devices with the high-speed internet but still be unable to use the internet and I invite you to think about that situation and put yourselves in that what would you do if you were in that situation. I rest my

Judith Hellerstein: case. Thank you. Dr. Vick. Thanks very much. I just wanted to reiterate that for the UNESCO Internet Universality concept that is grounded in Rome principles A being accessibility and M being multi-stakeholder participation and governance is UNESCO’s official position endorsed by 194 member states which we do advocate for and we do reinforce on the ground too and it is very much grounded in other processes and activities that UNESCO carries on and this is this has been our position and we continue working so engaged the diverse stakeholders on the ground and yes for us this is the reality, this is the present and we will continue.

Avri Doria: Thank you so much within the dynamic coalition on schools and in terms of making a difference from the full schools and in terms of making a difference from the full schools perspective we have seen our students from the various schools going into industry, going into all the institutions and the association and there really is a concept of making the change, making the difference one classroom at a time, one student at a time. I meet them all the time and they are pushing the values we try to

Judith Hellerstein: convince them of. Thanks so much Avri Roberto. Yes first of all what is the

Roberto Gaetano: value for for us as dynamic coalition on interplanetary network to work with the other dynamic coalitions is that in order to to build our model of governance, we can use the experience of all the other groups, and that is very good. On the other hand, what we can bring to the dynamic coalitions is to add another dimension, that means the ability of further developing the governance model to apply that to situations that are not part of the ordinary Internet.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much.

Wout de Natris: Yes, thank you. On behalf of the Dynamic Coalition Internet Standards, Security and Safety, I would say that it’s a disgrace that many companies have still not deployed Internet standards that are sometimes there for 20 years that would secure us immediately. So every government and big company around the world has to start procuring their ICT secure by design, because that’s an economic incentive that won’t be ignored. On Dynamic Coalitions, let’s rock the world in 2026 and make sure that we’re better heard. So thank you for this session, because we really said what needed to be said.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much for everyone for coming to this session, and please come to our booth, and that’s where you could learn more about us. So again, thanks for coming. Thank you. Thank you.