Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion launched a research project funded by the Internet Society Foundation and executed by the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech, focusing on the governance of digital identifiers and online identity systems. Upasana Hembram from the Internet Society Foundation explained that digital interactions are fundamentally built on trust and identity authentication, which profoundly influence how transparent, secure, and trustworthy the Internet can be. The research examines how private organizations and government agencies interact in the global governance landscape to deploy online identity systems, particularly studying three specific identifier systems: WebPKI, Legal Entity Identifiers (LEI), and Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI).

Dr. Milton Mueller outlined how digital identifiers require systems of trust and authority, with cyberspace changing traditional authority relationships in new ways. He discussed RPKI as a method for authenticating routing announcements and IP address block ownership, noting government involvement such as the U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s consideration of requiring RPKI implementation. The WebPKI system was highlighted through the European Commission’s EIDAS initiative, which created tension with existing browser-based trust hierarchies controlled by companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft.

Vagisha Srivastava presented research on Legal Entity Identifiers, which uniquely emerged from a top-down approach by the Financial Stability Board and G20 following the 2008 financial crisis. LEIs address transparency and verification needs for financial entities in cross-border transactions, though the system faces challenges with certificate lapses due to insufficient user incentives for renewal. Benjamin Akinmoyeje provided perspective from Africa, discussing the continent’s rapid digital identity initiatives including World Bank projects and African Union digital transformation strategies, while highlighting concerns about interoperability across different national systems. The research aims to enhance understanding of how different policy decisions within various jurisdictions impact the global Internet governance landscape.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Launch of Digital Identity Research Project**: Introduction of a new research initiative funded by the Internet Society Foundation and executed by the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech to study governing online identities and digital identifier systems

– **Three Core Identity Systems Under Study**: Examination of RPKI (Resource Public Key Infrastructure) for routing security, WebPKI for web authentication including EU’s EIDAS controversy with browser manufacturers, and LEI (Legal Entity Identifiers) for financial entity verification

– **Government vs. Technical Community Authority**: Analysis of how state authority intersects with Internet community self-governance, including examples like the FCC’s consideration of RPKI requirements and the European Commission’s clash with existing browser-based trust hierarchies

– **Legal Entity Identifiers (LEI) Challenges**: Discussion of the top-down creation of LEI by financial regulators post-2008 crisis, its mandatory use for cross-border transactions, and the problem of certificate lapses due to lack of user incentives for renewal

– **Global South Perspective on Digital Identity**: Presentation of Africa’s digital identity landscape, including massive inclusion efforts (500+ million people lacking verifiable identity), various continental initiatives, and concerns about interoperability across different national systems

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion serves as a launch event for a comprehensive research project examining how digital identity systems are governed globally. The goal is to understand the complex interplay between technical communities, government agencies, and private actors in managing online identity verification systems, with implications for Internet governance, trust, security, and global digital inclusion.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintains an academic and informative tone throughout, characterized by scholarly presentation of research objectives and technical concepts. The tone is collaborative and forward-looking, with speakers building upon each other’s presentations to create a comprehensive overview of the research scope. There’s an underlying sense of urgency about the importance of understanding these “background” systems that are fundamental to digital trust, though the presentation remains measured and analytical rather than alarmist.

Speakers

– **Dr. Milton Mueller**: Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech (project executor/researcher)

– **Upasana Hembram**: Internet Society Foundation (foundation representative)

– **Dr. Karim Farhat**: Part of the research project, based in the United States, working on legal entity identifiers

– **Vagisha Srivastava**: PhD student at Georgia Tech, handling research on legal entity identifiers (LEIs)

– **Benjamin Akinmoyeje**: Involved in ICANN from Africa perspective, working with digital identifier policy, based in Nigeria

– **Michael Palage**: (mentioned in speakers list but role/expertise not clearly specified in transcript)

Additional speakers:

– **Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer**: (mentioned multiple times but role/expertise not specified in the provided transcript portion)

# Summary: Launch of Digital Identity Governance Research Project

## Introduction and Project Overview

This discussion marked the formal launch of a research initiative examining the governance of digital identifiers and online identity systems. The project is funded by the Internet Society Foundation and executed by the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech, bringing together researchers from multiple continents to address digital identity governance.

Upasana Hembram from the Internet Society Foundation opened the discussion by establishing that digital interactions are built upon trust and identity authentication. She emphasized that digital identity systems, despite their crucial role in today’s digital economy, remain an understudied area of Internet governance with profound implications for privacy, security, and trust. Hembram argued that these systems should be viewed as instruments of public trust rather than mere background technologies.

## Theoretical Framework

Dr. Milton Mueller provided the theoretical foundation by addressing fundamental questions about authority and trust in cyberspace. He explained that objects in cyberspace cannot be identified without proper identification and authentication systems, making digital identity systems essential infrastructure.

Mueller highlighted how cyberspace is changing authority relationships and posed critical questions about where authority resides in digital identity systems and who can be trusted when authenticating online identity. The research framework focuses on three specific identifier systems: Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), Web Public Key Infrastructure (WebPKI), and Legal Entity Identifiers (LEI).

## Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)

Mueller presented RPKI as a method for authenticating routing announcements and verifying ownership of IP address blocks. He noted that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission initially considered requiring RPKI implementation among Internet service providers but ultimately backed away from this requirement due to questions about their authority in this domain.

The research team identified RPKI implementation speed and effectiveness as key areas of investigation, particularly regarding the degree to which governments become involved in either requiring or using RPKI.

## Web Public Key Infrastructure and eIDAS

The WebPKI system was discussed through the European Commission’s Electronic Identification, Authentication and Trust Services (eIDAS) initiative, which created tension with existing browser-based trust hierarchies. Mueller described this as a political clash between governmental authority and established technical community governance structures, where the European Commission attempted to intervene in web authentication processes controlled by major technology companies including Google, Apple, and Microsoft.

## Legal Entity Identifiers: Regulatory Approach

Vagisha Srivastava presented detailed research on Legal Entity Identifiers, which emerged from regulatory mandates following the 2008 financial crisis. The LEI system was created by the Financial Stability Board and G20 to address transparency and verification problems in cross-border financial transactions.

Srivastava explained the LEI governance structure: the Financial Stability Board established the Regulatory Oversight Committee (ROC), which oversees the Global Legal Entity Identifier Foundation (GLEIF), which in turn manages local operating units that issue LEI codes to legal entities.

Her research revealed critical challenges with certificate lapses due to insufficient user incentives for renewal. Financial organizations often fail to maintain current LEI certificates, undermining the system’s verification purposes. This led to the insight that regulatory mandates alone are insufficient – effective systems require user incentives and infrastructural integration for ongoing effectiveness.

## African Perspectives

Benjamin Akinmoyeje began presenting on Africa’s digital identity landscape, noting that over 500 million people in Africa lack verifiable legal identities, creating barriers to accessing essential services. He mentioned multiple initiatives developing across the continent, including the World Bank’s ID for Development project and the African Union’s digital transformation strategy.

*Note: The transcript appears to become incomplete during Benjamin’s presentation and becomes unclear toward the end, limiting the available information about his full contribution to the discussion.*

## Project Significance

The discussion positioned digital identity governance as a critical but understudied component of Internet governance. The research project aims to examine how private organizations and government agencies interact within the global governance landscape to deploy online identity systems, addressing the complex reality where traditional boundaries between public and private authority are increasingly blurred.

The project’s multi-stakeholder approach and focus on three distinct identifier systems provides concrete case studies for examining broader questions about authority, trust, and governance in digital environments. The inclusion of Global South perspectives ensures the research addresses questions of inclusion and digital equity alongside technical governance challenges.

## Conclusion

This launch discussion established the scope and methodology of a research project examining digital identity governance through three specific case studies. The conversation highlighted the complexity of digital identity systems and demonstrated the need for understanding how different governance approaches operate across various contexts and jurisdictions. The research represents an effort to fill a significant gap in understanding how these fundamental systems are governed and their implications for the broader Internet ecosystem.

Dr. Milton Mueller: This is a session on digital identifiers, and it represents a launch of a research project that is being funded by the Internet Society Foundation and executed by the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech. And I want to begin by introducing Upasana, who is with the Internet Society Foundation, and she will introduce you to the foundation and the way they are supporting research.

Upasana Hembram: Hello, everyone. Good morning to everyone present in Oslo. Good afternoon. Good evening to all those joining virtually. Thank you all for gathering here to attend this session about launching this study on governing online identities. As you all know, the fundamental of our digital interaction these days is essentially built on trust, and a lot of it is dependent on authenticating identity, and this involves several complex technical systems and governance arrangements that are constantly developed in order to assign proof and verify identity. And since these identity systems profoundly influence how transparent, secure, and trustworthy the Internet can be, I don’t think they should be viewed as merely technologies that run in the background, but as a fundamental instrument of public trust. At Internet Society and the Internet Society Foundation, our vision is an Internet for everyone, and we strongly believe that the Internet should be open, secure, safe, trustworthy, and community-centered. Through our various grant programs at the Internet Society Foundation, we have been championing organizations and changemakers who have been working towards this mission, and specifically through our research grant program, we encourage experimentation, innovation, and explorations that can help us deepen our understanding of the critical functions that keep the Internet running, and also help ideate various solutions that can strengthen and safeguard the core principles of an open and trustworthy Internet. So we’ve partnered with the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech to do exactly that. The digital identity system, despite the emerging lack of trust in today’s digital world, happens to be an understudied area of Internet governance, but it has deep implications for privacy, security, and trust in today’s Internet economy. And amidst this evolving geopolitical landscape, this study, which has been supported by the Internet Society Foundation’s research grant, will examine how private actor-led organizations and government agencies interact in the global governance landscape to deploy online identity. And our hope with this study is that it can enhance our understanding of the dynamics that are involved, and what that means for the broader Internet ecosystem. This study particularly looks at WebPKI, LEI, and RPKIs, which will be discussed in greater detail by the presenters today. And while these don’t make newsflash, like eyeball-grabbing headlines, they are very critical in shaping some of the most foundational aspects of digital interactions today via trust and safety. Now, why should somebody care about this study, and how does it relate to Internet governance? This study takes a closer look at identity regimes across different jurisdictional contexts, and it sheds light on how the effects of these different policy options within these jurisdictions have implications on the global Internet governance landscape. The insights from these different case studies can help us understand why some decisions were made, how they were made, how they were implemented, and perhaps what are some of the outcomes that they produce, which will eventually help us, especially key decision makers in government and policy, public policy, make decisions on how to allocate resources around investment decisions, et cetera. Lastly, I would like to close off by saying that the future of Internet governance does not mean to be built solely on laws and regulations. It should be through open, multi-stakeholder models that truly reflect the public interest, and this study tries to go deep into the governance of online identity and does exactly that.

Dr. Milton Mueller: Thank you. Let’s go back now to, by the way, that’s Karim Farhat up there. He’s in the United States, and he’s part of the project. So let me just begin by introducing the basic topic. You see these blobs on the left, and that kind of represents objects in cyberspace, which could be any number of things. It could be servers, it could be machines, it could be devices, it could be people. And in cyberspace, you simply do not know what these things are without some kind of a identification and authentication system. So we’re studying that process, and we’re looking at it, how do I change the slides? Like that? Next slide. Okay. So one of the important things about digital identifiers, and they could be, again, for anything, is that they require some kind of system of trust and authority. And the interesting thing about cyberspace is that it is changing the authority relationships in new ways. So where does the authority reside? Who can you trust when you’re authenticating online identity? And so that is three different identifier systems that we have chosen to study. One of them is the RPKI, which is about trusting routing announcements. Another is about the WebPKI. And another is about legal entity identifiers, which is a new system of identifiers being developed by a new international organization. Now, I’m going to talk a little bit about RPKI. We don’t have a lot of time. Obviously, this is a very complex topic. But RPKI is a way of authenticating routing announcements, or actually authenticating who actually is the legitimate holder of an IP address block. The Regional Internet Registry has issued certificates, digital certificates, that allow you to authenticate this. And there’s been some controversy about how quickly this is being implemented and how effective it is as a method of ensuring routing security. And so one of the things that interests us is the degree to which governments get involved in either requiring or using RPKI. And so one of the things we’ll be looking at is a recent U.S. Federal Communications Commission proceeding in which the FCC, for a while, thought it was going to intervene and start requiring RPKI among Internet service providers in the United States, and ultimately backed off and decided it didn’t have the authority to do that. But that’s one of these ways in which state authority is mixing with the The EIDAS is another area in which we will be looking closely at an intersection of government power and Internet community self-governance. This is the web authentication process and recently the European Commission tries to intervene in this by saying we’re going to create a European system of digital certificates and we will decide who you can trust and they clashed with the existing platform-based trust hierarchy primarily centered in the browser manufacturers, that is to say Google, Apple, Microsoft and so on and there was a big political clash over that and so we’re going to be looking at that controversy in detail. And now I’m going to turn it over to, we don’t have time to go into all this, organizational identity. I’ll turn it over to Vagisha Srivastava who is a PhD student at Georgia Tech and she’s handling part of the research on legal identity identifiers.

Vagisha Srivastava: I and Karim, my colleague, who’s online, we are looking at the legal entity identifiers which is kind of a unique choice in our study because this is one of those organizational entity that was not created by the technical community, bottoms up, but it was a top-down approach created by the FSB, the financial standards board in the G20. So one of the problems that led to the creation of this was identified post-financial crisis where a lack of transparency and verification needed for, you know, financial entities was missing. So there was an asymmetric information problem that led to a market failure where especially for cross-border transactions, verification and authentication was very, very difficult. So between 2008 and 2012, G20 convened and they decided that we need an entity identifier norm and regulation which led to the creation of GLEIF, we can go to the next slide. And LEIs basically fill that gap. They provide a standardization requirement for financial entities so that they can be verified which go through a list of procedures and check and then they can participate in local transactions and also cross-border transactions. It’s mandatory for cross-border transactions but not so much for if you want to make domestic transactions. So they did improve transparency and risk mechanisms. So you can see the FSB led to RAC which led to the creation of GLEIF which is like a non-profit entity that then leads to the creation of local operating units that issue LEIs in domestic markets. You can go to the next slide. The current status remains that the uptake is huge, one because it’s compulsory for any entity that wants to participate in cross-border transactions. But one of the problems that we observed was that there’s a lot of lapse certificate which basically means that these financial organizations don’t have the incentive to keep on renewing which means that the information that is associated with these identities gets lapsed and therefore it’s not current which then leads to a problem which we began with that you cannot verify or authenticate these entities with credible information. So LEIs in our cases, and I’ll stop just here, which is LEIs in our case reveal something very important which is global standards need not just regulatory pressure but user incentives and infrastructural integration for them to keep on going and that’s what we are focusing on within this study.

Benjamin Akinmoyeje: Okay. So next we want to bring up Benjamin Akinmoyeje Akinmoye from Nigeria. Benjamin Akinmoyeje is not a researcher for us but he is somebody involved in ICANN from the standpoint of Africa and so he’s been working with digital identifier policy. Benjamin Akinmoyeje, can you talk about your perspective on this for about five minutes? Yes. Thank you very much. Can you hear me? We can hear you. Can you bring his picture up on the screen or is he not showing video? Oh. There we go. Okay. We got you. Yes. Is it possible for me to share my slide? I have a more detailed slide if you don’t mind. I don’t know whether the, yes, you can share your slides. Okay. Thank you. Do you see my screen?

Dr. Milton Mueller: No, we just see you which is perfectly fine. You look great. So.

Benjamin Akinmoyeje: Thank you. Good morning, everybody, and thank you for the opportunity to have me here. So I’m going to be talking about the relevance of digital identifier and the governance around it from the perspective of Global South and from someone living in Africa. So this space is really dynamic because of the enormous innovation going on for primarily for inclusion, access to services, and all of that. And in order to understand what is happening, at least I know that on the continent, statistics show that over 500 million people are yet to have some form of verifiable identity, legal IDs that they can build access to. So from that perspective, and then there’s this huge push for everybody to go online and there’s so much technology optimizing, you know. So there has been interesting projects on the continent. So when you look out some form of research around this, you’re going to find that World Bank has a big project going on, ID for Identification for Development, and it has like 49 countries already on board, and Rwanda and Nigeria are participants of this. And they are really going hard at this and getting more individuals registered, providing the guidelines so that we can have credible identifications that can work online as well. Then there’s this project, ID for Africa. This really goes across the continent, getting different national organizations responsible for either national identifiers like identification schemes to be on board. And then also African Union has their digital transformation strategy. And fundamental, foundational to this is the identifications, legal identification across different countries. So they give like a roadmap. Also regionally, like ECOWAS, you’ll find something like national biometric ID cards. So all of this, I’m just trying to show you how very rapidly moving these things are. Then on top of this, and you can see the motivation for this, because AFICTA, which is Africa Free Trade Agreement, is hoping to build essentially on digital innovations and how can we do trade across the continent. But the major concern is interoperability of this framework, because different countries talking to different vendors, different to get the ID. Benjamin Akinmoyejejamin Akinmoyeje, Dr. Karim Farhat, Vagisha Srivastava, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Karim Farhat, Vagisha Srivastava, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Karim Farhat, Vagisha Srivastava, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Karim Farhat, Vagisha Srivastava, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Karim Farhat, Vagisha Srivastava, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Karim Farhat, Vagisha Srivastava, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Karim Farhat, Vagisha Srivastava, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer,

Dr. Karim Farhat: Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Karim Farhat, Vagisha Srivastava, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer,

Michael Palage: Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Karim Farhat, Vagisha Srivastava, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Karim Farhat, Vagisha Srivastava, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Karim Farhat, Vagisha Srivastava, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Johannes Sedlmeyer, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat,

Dr. Milton Mueller: Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat, Dr. Karim Farhat,

Agreement points

Digital identity systems require complex governance structures involving multiple stakeholders

Speakers

– Upasana Hembram
– Dr. Milton Mueller
– Vagisha Srivastava

Arguments

Future Internet governance should be built through open, multi-stakeholder models that reflect public interest rather than solely on laws and regulations

The study examines how private actor-led organizations and government agencies interact in global governance to deploy online identity

LEIs represent a unique top-down approach created by the FSB and G20, unlike technical community bottom-up systems

Summary

All speakers acknowledge that digital identity governance involves complex interactions between various stakeholders including governments, private organizations, and technical communities, requiring multi-stakeholder approaches rather than single-authority solutions

Topics

Digital identities | Legal and regulatory

Digital identity systems are fundamental infrastructure for trust and security online

Speakers

– Upasana Hembram
– Dr. Milton Mueller

Arguments

Objects in cyberspace cannot be identified without proper identification and authentication systems

Digital identity systems profoundly influence how transparent, secure, and trustworthy the Internet can be and should not be viewed as merely background technologies

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that digital identity systems are not just technical tools but fundamental infrastructure that determines the trustworthiness and security of the entire Internet ecosystem

Topics

Digital identities | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize the tension between top-down governmental/regulatory approaches and bottom-up technical community governance in digital identity systems, highlighting different models of authority and control

Speakers

– Dr. Milton Mueller
– Vagisha Srivastava

Arguments

There are clashes between government power and Internet community self-governance, as seen in the European Commission’s intervention in web authentication

LEIs represent a unique top-down approach created by the FSB and G20, unlike technical community bottom-up systems

Topics

Digital identities | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers identify implementation challenges in digital identity systems, emphasizing that successful deployment requires more than just regulatory mandates and must address practical issues like user incentives and system compatibility

Speakers

– Vagisha Srivastava
– Benjamin Akinmoyeje

Arguments

Global standards need regulatory pressure, user incentives, and infrastructural integration to remain effective

Interoperability remains a major concern as different countries work with different vendors for ID systems

Topics

Digital identities | Development

Unexpected consensus

Limitations of purely regulatory approaches to digital identity governance

Speakers

– Upasana Hembram
– Vagisha Srivastava
– Dr. Milton Mueller

Arguments

Future Internet governance should be built through open, multi-stakeholder models that reflect public interest rather than solely on laws and regulations

Global standards need regulatory pressure, user incentives, and infrastructural integration to remain effective

The FCC initially considered requiring RPKI among Internet service providers but ultimately backed off due to lack of authority

Explanation

Despite representing different perspectives (foundation, academic research, and policy analysis), all speakers converge on the view that regulatory approaches alone are insufficient for effective digital identity governance, requiring broader stakeholder engagement and practical implementation considerations

Topics

Digital identities | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on the fundamental importance of digital identity systems as critical infrastructure, the need for multi-stakeholder governance approaches, and the limitations of purely regulatory solutions. They agree on the complexity of governance challenges and the need for balanced approaches between different authority models.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on core principles and challenges, with complementary rather than conflicting perspectives. This suggests a mature understanding of digital identity governance issues across different stakeholder communities, which could facilitate collaborative approaches to addressing the identified challenges in policy development and implementation.

Different viewpoints

Top-down vs. Bottom-up Governance Approaches

Speakers

– Upasana Hembram
– Vagisha Srivastava

Arguments

Future Internet governance should be built through open, multi-stakeholder models that reflect public interest rather than solely on laws and regulations

LEIs represent a unique top-down approach created by the FSB and G20, unlike technical community bottom-up systems

Summary

Hembram advocates for multi-stakeholder, bottom-up governance models, while Srivastava presents LEIs as an example of successful top-down regulatory approach, though she notes challenges with this model

Topics

Digital identities | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Effectiveness of Regulatory Mandates

Speakers

– Vagisha Srivastava
– Benjamin Akinmoyeje

Arguments

Global standards need regulatory pressure, user incentives, and infrastructural integration to remain effective

Multiple initiatives are rapidly developing across Africa including World Bank’s ID for Development project and African Union’s digital transformation strategy

Explanation

Srivastava’s research shows that regulatory mandates alone are insufficient (citing LEI certificate lapses), while Akinmoyeje presents multiple regulatory initiatives as positive developments, creating an implicit tension about the effectiveness of regulatory approaches

Topics

Digital identities | Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion reveals subtle tensions between different governance philosophies – top-down regulatory approaches versus bottom-up technical community governance, and questions about the effectiveness of mandatory systems versus incentive-based approaches

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. This was primarily a research presentation rather than a debate, so disagreements are more implicit and philosophical rather than direct confrontations. The implications suggest ongoing challenges in finding the right balance between regulatory oversight and technical community self-governance in digital identity systems

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize the tension between top-down governmental/regulatory approaches and bottom-up technical community governance in digital identity systems, highlighting different models of authority and control

Speakers

– Dr. Milton Mueller
– Vagisha Srivastava

Arguments

There are clashes between government power and Internet community self-governance, as seen in the European Commission’s intervention in web authentication

LEIs represent a unique top-down approach created by the FSB and G20, unlike technical community bottom-up systems

Topics

Digital identities | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers identify implementation challenges in digital identity systems, emphasizing that successful deployment requires more than just regulatory mandates and must address practical issues like user incentives and system compatibility

Speakers

– Vagisha Srivastava
– Benjamin Akinmoyeje

Arguments

Global standards need regulatory pressure, user incentives, and infrastructural integration to remain effective

Interoperability remains a major concern as different countries work with different vendors for ID systems

Topics

Digital identities | Development

Key takeaways

Digital identity systems are fundamental infrastructure that should be viewed as instruments of public trust rather than mere background technologies

Cyberspace is fundamentally changing authority relationships, creating new questions about trust and governance between government power and Internet community self-governance

The research project will examine three specific identifier systems (WebPKI, LEI, and RPKI) to understand how private organizations and government agencies interact in global digital identity governance

Legal Entity Identifiers (LEIs) demonstrate that global standards require not just regulatory pressure but also user incentives and infrastructural integration to remain effective

Africa faces significant digital identity challenges with over 500 million people lacking verifiable legal IDs, while multiple rapid development initiatives are creating interoperability concerns

Future Internet governance should be built through open, multi-stakeholder models that reflect public interest rather than relying solely on laws and regulations

Resolutions and action items

The Internet Society Foundation has funded the Internet Governance Project at Georgia Tech to conduct research on digital identity governance

The research team will examine specific case studies including the FCC’s RPKI proceeding and the European Commission’s intervention in web authentication

Vagisha Srivastava and Karim Farhat will focus on researching Legal Entity Identifiers (LEI) systems

Benjamin Akinmoyeje will provide perspective on digital identifier policy from the African/Global South context

Unresolved issues

The fundamental question of where authority should reside in digital identity systems remains unresolved

Interoperability challenges across different national digital identity systems, particularly in Africa where different countries work with different vendors

The problem of lapsed LEI certificates where financial organizations lack incentives to renew, leading to outdated verification information

How to balance government regulatory authority with Internet community self-governance in digital identity systems

The effectiveness and implementation speed of RPKI as a method for ensuring routing security

Suggested compromises

N

o

n

e

i

d

e

n

t

i

f

i

e

d

In cyberspace, you simply do not know what these things are without some kind of a identification and authentication system… the interesting thing about cyberspace is that it is changing the authority relationships in new ways. So where does the authority reside? Who can you trust when you’re authenticating online identity?

Speaker

Dr. Milton Mueller

Reason

This comment reframes digital identity from a technical problem to a fundamental question of power and authority. It highlights that digital identity systems aren’t just about verification but about who gets to decide what constitutes legitimate identity – a deeply political question that challenges traditional notions of sovereignty and control.

Impact

This framing established the conceptual foundation for the entire discussion, shifting it from technical implementation details to governance implications. It set up the tension between traditional authority structures and new digital power dynamics that would be explored through each case study.

LEIs in our case reveal something very important which is global standards need not just regulatory pressure but user incentives and infrastructural integration for them to keep on going

Speaker

Vagisha Srivastava

Reason

This insight challenges the assumption that top-down regulatory mandates are sufficient for successful digital identity systems. It reveals a critical gap between policy intention and practical implementation, highlighting that compliance alone doesn’t ensure system sustainability or effectiveness.

Impact

This observation introduced a crucial dimension to the discussion – the difference between mandated adoption and meaningful, sustained use. It shifted the conversation from focusing solely on governance structures to considering the practical incentives and infrastructure needed for digital identity systems to actually work in practice.

The digital identity system, despite the emerging lack of trust in today’s digital world, happens to be an understudied area of Internet governance, but it has deep implications for privacy, security, and trust in today’s Internet economy

Speaker

Upasana Hembram

Reason

This comment identifies a significant research gap while simultaneously highlighting the paradox that as trust becomes more critical online, the systems that enable that trust remain poorly understood from a governance perspective. It positions digital identity as foundational infrastructure rather than background technology.

Impact

This framing justified the research project’s importance and established digital identity systems as deserving serious academic and policy attention. It elevated the discussion from technical implementation to strategic Internet governance, setting the stage for examining how these systems shape broader digital interactions.

Statistics show that over 500 million people are yet to have some form of verifiable identity, legal IDs that they can build access to… but the major concern is interoperability of this framework, because different countries talking to different vendors

Speaker

Benjamin Akinmoyeje

Reason

This comment brings a crucial Global South perspective that highlights how digital identity governance isn’t just about managing existing systems but about inclusion and access. It reveals how fragmented approaches to digital identity can perpetuate rather than solve exclusion problems.

Impact

This intervention broadened the discussion beyond the technical governance of established systems to include questions of digital inclusion and the risks of creating incompatible identity silos. It added urgency to the governance questions by showing real-world consequences of poor coordination in digital identity systems.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a narrow technical discussion into a comprehensive examination of power, authority, and inclusion in digital identity governance. Mueller’s framing of authority relationships established the theoretical foundation, while Srivastava’s insight about the gap between regulation and implementation added practical nuance. Hembram’s identification of the research gap legitimized the inquiry’s importance, and Akinmoyeje’s Global South perspective ensured the discussion remained grounded in real-world implications for digital inclusion. Together, these comments shaped a discussion that moved fluidly between theoretical governance questions and practical implementation challenges, demonstrating how digital identity systems sit at the intersection of technology, policy, and social equity.

How quickly is RPKI being implemented and how effective is it as a method of ensuring routing security?

Speaker

Dr. Milton Mueller

Explanation

This was identified as a controversial topic that interests the research team, particularly regarding the speed of implementation and effectiveness of RPKI for routing security

What is the degree to which governments get involved in either requiring or using RPKI?

Speaker

Dr. Milton Mueller

Explanation

This represents a key research focus on the intersection of government authority and technical infrastructure governance

Why don’t financial organizations have incentives to keep renewing their LEI certificates, leading to lapsed information?

Speaker

Vagisha Srivastava

Explanation

This addresses a critical problem where the lack of renewal incentives undermines the verification and authentication purpose of LEIs

How can global standards achieve not just regulatory pressure but also user incentives and infrastructural integration for sustainability?

Speaker

Vagisha Srivastava

Explanation

This emerged as a key finding from the LEI case study about what’s needed for global digital identity standards to be successful long-term

How can interoperability be achieved across different African countries’ digital identity frameworks when they’re working with different vendors?

Speaker

Benjamin Akinmoyeje

Explanation

This represents a major concern for digital identity implementation across Africa, where different countries are adopting different technical solutions that may not work together

What are the detailed outcomes and implications of the political clash between the European Commission’s eIDAS system and existing browser-based trust hierarchies?

Speaker

Dr. Milton Mueller

Explanation

This was mentioned as an area the research will examine in detail, representing a significant conflict between government power and Internet community self-governance

Summary

This discussion focused on AI regulation from a parliamentary perspective, featuring representatives from the European Union, Egypt, and Uruguay discussing their respective approaches to governing artificial intelligence. The panel was moderated by Arda Gerkens and organized by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which has been actively tracking AI policy developments across 37 parliaments and recently adopted a resolution on AI’s impact on democracy and human rights.

Axel Voss from the European Parliament explained that the EU AI Act, completed in 2024, primarily focuses on high-risk AI systems including biometric identification, critical infrastructure, education, employment, law enforcement, and democratic processes. He emphasized the need for unified interpretation across EU member states and warned that democratic legislators are often too slow to keep pace with technological developments. Amira Saber from Egypt’s Parliament described introducing the first AI governance bill in her country, emphasizing the importance of data classification, ethical considerations, and balancing innovation with regulation. She highlighted the weaponization of AI in regional conflicts and stressed the need for extensive capacity building among parliamentarians.

Rodrigo Goni Romero from Uruguay outlined his country’s cautious approach, preferring to establish a general legal framework while observing developments in larger jurisdictions before implementing detailed regulations. Multiple participants emphasized the challenge of balancing innovation incentives with necessary protections, particularly regarding deepfakes, misinformation, and the exploitation of vulnerable populations. The discussion revealed common themes across different regions: the need for parliamentary capacity building, multi-stakeholder approaches, youth engagement, and flexible regulatory frameworks that can adapt to rapidly evolving technology while maintaining strong ethical foundations and human rights protections.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Current State of AI Regulation Across Different Regions**: The panel discussed varying approaches to AI regulation, with the EU having completed the AI Act focusing on high-risk systems, Egypt developing national AI strategy and draft legislation with emphasis on data classification and ethical considerations, and Uruguay taking a slower, consensus-based approach with general legal frameworks to avoid deterring investment.

– **Balancing Innovation with Regulation**: A central theme throughout the discussion was the challenge of creating regulatory frameworks that protect citizens from AI risks while still encouraging private sector investment and technological advancement. Panelists emphasized the need to incentivize AI development in crucial sectors like healthcare, education, and agriculture.

– **Implementation Challenges and Regulatory Bodies**: Participants raised critical questions about which entities should enforce AI regulations, noting that traditional telecommunications regulatory bodies are insufficient. The discussion highlighted the need for specialized AI governance bodies with proper authority and the challenge of creating enforceable regulations that hold up in courts.

– **Global Coordination vs. Local Adaptation**: The conversation addressed the tension between AI being a global technology requiring international coordination and the need for country-specific regulations that reflect local contexts, cultural norms, and institutional capabilities. Participants noted the lack of international AI law similar to cybersecurity frameworks.

– **Capacity Building and Education**: All panelists emphasized the critical importance of educating parliamentarians, policymakers, and citizens about AI technologies. They stressed that effective regulation requires deep understanding of the technology being regulated, and highlighted the need for continuous learning as AI rapidly evolves.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine the role of parliaments in AI regulation and governance, sharing experiences and best practices across different countries and regions. The forum sought to address practical challenges parliamentarians face when developing AI legislation and to explore how democratic institutions can effectively govern rapidly evolving AI technologies while protecting human rights and promoting innovation.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, with participants openly sharing challenges and learning from each other’s experiences. The tone was serious and urgent, reflecting the gravity of AI’s impact on society, but remained optimistic about finding solutions through international cooperation and knowledge sharing. There was a notable shift toward more technical and practical concerns as the discussion progressed, with audience questions bringing focus to specific implementation challenges, enforcement mechanisms, and real-world harms that need immediate attention.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Arda Gerkens**: Moderator of the open forum on AI regulation and parliaments

– **Axel Voss**: German lawyer and politician from the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU), Member of the European Parliament since 2009, Coordinator of the People’s Party Group in the Committee of Legal Affairs (2017), Shadow rapporteur on the AI Act, focuses on digital and legal topics

– **Amira Saber**: Egyptian Member of Parliament, Secretary General of the Foreign Relations Committee, National winner of the 2025 Study UK Alumni Awards (social action category), Alumni of the University of Sussex, Policy leader advocating for climate action, AI governance and youth empowerment, Part of ABNIC (African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance)

– **Rodrigo Goni Romero**: Politician from Uruguay, Member of Partido Nacional, Represents the department of Salto, President of the Committee of the Future of the Parliament, Engaged with AI and democracy

– **Sarah Lister**: Co-director of governance, peace building and rule of law hub at UNDP, Provided closing remarks

– **Hossam Elgamal**: Private sector representative from Africa, MAG (Multistakeholder Advisory Group) member for four years

– **Yasmin Al Douri**: Co-founder and consultant at the Responsible Technology Hub (first European-led, youth-led non-profit focusing on bringing youth voice to responsible technology policy)

– **Meredith Veit**: Public work and human rights researcher with the Business and Human Rights Resource Center

– **Mounir Sorour**: From Bahrain

**Additional speakers:**

– **Participant** (Ali from Bahrain Shura Council): Mentioned that Bahrain drafted and approved the first AI regulatory law

– **Participant** (unnamed): Made comments about simplifying AI laws and keeping frameworks flexible

– **Participant** (unnamed): Discussed exploitation of children through internet and AI, published article on Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies about recruitment of children in extremism through AI and gaming

– **Andy Richardson**: IPU staff member mentioned as contact for AI tracking activities (referenced but did not speak)

# Parliamentary Perspectives on AI Regulation: A Comprehensive Discussion Summary

## Introduction and Context

This discussion, moderated by Arda Gerkens, was held as part of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) and brought together parliamentarians and stakeholders from across the globe to examine the critical role of parliaments in artificial intelligence regulation and governance. The forum was organised by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), which has been actively developing AI governance initiatives including an October 2024 resolution on AI’s impact on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law.

The IPU announced several concrete initiatives during the discussion: a monthly tracker starting February 2025 covering AI policy developments across 37 parliaments, and an upcoming November 28-30 event organised with Malaysia’s Parliament, UNDP, and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The discussion featured representatives from the European Union, Egypt, Uruguay, and Bahrain, alongside civil society organisations, private sector representatives, and youth advocates, creating a multi-stakeholder dialogue on AI governance challenges.

## Current State of AI Regulation Across Different Regions

### European Union Approach

Axel Voss, representing the European Parliament as a CDU member and shadow rapporteur on the AI Act, provided insights into the EU’s comprehensive approach to AI regulation. The EU AI Act was completed “at the end of last Monday, so in 2024,” representing one of the world’s most ambitious attempts at regulating artificial intelligence through a risk-based approach.

The Act focuses on high-risk AI systems including biometric identification, critical infrastructure, education and vocational training, employment, essential private and public services, law enforcement, migration and border control management, and administration of justice and democratic processes. Voss emphasised concerns about implementation challenges, particularly the need for unified interpretation across EU member states to avoid the confusion experienced with GDPR.

Voss noted ongoing discussions about potentially postponing certain requirements, indicating implementation challenges even for completed legislation. He argued that “the democratic legislator is too slow for the technology developments” and advocated for framework-based approaches rather than detailed technical regulations, calling for legislators to “reduce our normal behaviour” and provide solutions within three months.

### Egyptian National Strategy

Amira Saber, representing Egypt’s Parliament as Secretary General of the Foreign Relations Committee, described her country’s efforts in developing AI governance frameworks. Egypt has developed a national AI strategy, and Saber introduced the first parliamentary draft bill on AI governance in the country, emphasising data classification and ethical considerations as foundational elements.

Saber highlighted the weaponisation of AI in regional conflicts, particularly referencing increased civilian casualties in Gaza due to AI-enhanced military systems. She stressed that “there is no one safe until everyone is safe,” connecting AI governance to broader questions of global security and collective responsibility, drawing parallels to lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Her approach emphasises data classification as a prerequisite for effective AI regulation, treating national data as a valuable asset requiring protection and accountability measures. She described Egypt’s establishment of a Supreme Council on Artificial Intelligence and emphasised the need for these bodies to have authority to hold governmental entities accountable.

### Uruguay’s Cautious Consensus Approach

Rodrigo Goni Romero, representing Uruguay’s Parliament as President of the Committee of the Future, outlined his country’s deliberately cautious approach to AI regulation. Uruguay has chosen to establish general legal frameworks whilst observing developments in larger jurisdictions, with Goni Romero explicitly stating that Uruguay prefers to “go slow” and learn from others’ experiences.

This approach prioritises consensus-building and stakeholder engagement over rapid regulatory development, reflecting practical considerations about limited regulatory resources and the need to avoid deterring investment whilst ensuring appropriate oversight. Uruguay also emphasises preparation for AI’s impact on employment through capacity building and training programmes.

### Bahrain’s Regulatory Innovation

A participant from Bahrain’s Shura Council noted that Bahrain has drafted and approved what they described as “the first AI regulator law,” using the EU Act as a benchmark but making it simpler and more streamlined. This contribution highlighted how smaller nations can sometimes move more quickly than larger jurisdictions in developing AI governance frameworks.

## Key Challenges and Debates

### Balancing Innovation with Regulation

Throughout the discussion, the tension between promoting innovation and ensuring adequate protection emerged as a critical challenge. Amira Saber articulated this clearly, emphasising the need to avoid hindering investment whilst ensuring ethical AI use, particularly in sectors such as healthcare, education, and agriculture.

The challenge is particularly acute for developing countries that depend on foreign investment and technology transfer for AI development. Different speakers proposed various approaches to achieving this balance, from Egypt’s emphasis on clear ethical guidelines and data classification to Uruguay’s consensus-based approach and the EU’s comprehensive risk-based framework.

### Implementation and Institutional Capacity

Hossam Elgamal, representing the private sector perspective from Africa, raised critical questions about which entities should enforce AI regulations, noting that traditional telecommunications regulatory bodies are insufficient for comprehensive digital society regulation. He observed that “AI is global, it is not local,” highlighting the mismatch between global technology and national regulatory frameworks.

This institutional gap represents a fundamental challenge, as many countries lack the specialised regulatory bodies needed for effective AI oversight. The discussion revealed that creating effective regulation requires not only appropriate laws but also the institutional capacity to implement and enforce them.

### Democratic Processes and Technological Speed

A significant tension emerged between Axel Voss’s advocacy for faster legislative processes and Rodrigo Goni Romero’s preference for slower, consensus-based approaches. Voss argued that democratic legislators must accelerate their processes to keep pace with technology, whilst Goni Romero defended deliberative approaches that build stakeholder consensus.

This disagreement reflects fundamental differences in regulatory philosophy and the particular challenges faced by different types of countries in the global AI governance landscape.

## Human Rights and Social Impact

### Immediate Harms and Vulnerable Populations

Amira Saber provided vivid examples of AI’s immediate harms, particularly describing deepfake threats to women in conservative communities where AI-generated pornographic content could result in death threats. This powerful illustration demonstrated how AI risks intersect with existing social inequalities and cultural contexts in potentially fatal ways.

The discussion also addressed child exploitation through AI-powered platforms, with one participant describing how gaming platforms are being used for recruitment into extremism and radicalisation. These examples highlighted the urgent need for AI governance frameworks that address current harms rather than focusing solely on potential future benefits.

Meredith Veit, representing the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, emphasised the importance of addressing actual harms happening now rather than being distracted by industry narratives about potential benefits, highlighting the need to maintain focus on protecting vulnerable populations.

### Generational Perspectives and Assumptions

One of the most significant moments occurred when Yasmin Al Douri, representing youth perspectives through the Responsible Technology Hub, directly challenged assumptions about young people’s digital literacy. When Axel Voss expressed “sorrow” that youth grow up in a world where they cannot rely on what they hear or read, Al Douri responded that “young people are way better at actually seeing what is deepfake and what is not.”

This exchange highlighted broader issues about generational assumptions in policymaking and the importance of including youth voices in AI governance discussions. Al Douri observed that young people are “always deemed as not knowing specific things when we’re actually really good at specific things,” revealing how generational biases can influence policy development.

## Data Governance and Accountability

### Data Classification as Foundation

Amira Saber consistently emphasised data classification as crucial for effective AI regulation, arguing that countries must establish clear frameworks for categorising data according to sensitivity levels before implementing comprehensive AI governance systems. This approach recognises that AI systems are fundamentally dependent on data and that effective AI governance requires robust data governance frameworks.

Hossam Elgamal reinforced this perspective by noting that many countries lack proper data exchange policies needed before implementing AI regulation, highlighting how AI governance builds upon existing digital governance frameworks.

### Accountability Frameworks

The discussion revealed significant challenges in establishing clear accountability frameworks for AI systems. Saber’s question about who should be held accountable when sensitive hospital data is leaked in AI systems illustrates the complexity of assigning responsibility in AI-enabled systems involving multiple actors across development and deployment phases.

## Capacity Building and Education

### Parliamentary Education Needs

All speakers emphasised the critical importance of educating parliamentarians about AI technologies. Amira Saber noted that effective regulation requires deep understanding of the technology being regulated, describing taking courses herself to better understand AI systems.

Axel Voss acknowledged the knowledge gap among current regulators, noting that many lack sufficient technical knowledge to effectively govern AI systems. This educational challenge is compounded by the rapid pace of AI development, requiring continuous learning rather than one-time training programmes.

### Broader Stakeholder Education

The discussion highlighted the need for broader public education about AI systems and their implications. This extends to civil society organisations, private sector actors, and other stakeholders who play important roles in AI governance ecosystems, as the multi-stakeholder nature of AI governance requires that all participants have sufficient understanding to contribute meaningfully.

## International Coordination and Future Directions

### Global Cooperation Challenges

Hossam Elgamal’s observation that “AI is global, it is not local” highlighted the fundamental challenge of governing global technology through national regulatory frameworks. His comparison with cybersecurity, where international law remains underdeveloped despite decades of effort, suggests that AI governance faces similar structural challenges.

Amira Saber proposed creating an “AI policy radar” similar to climate policy tracking systems to help parliamentarians understand global regulatory developments and learn from international experiences. This represents a practical approach to enhancing international coordination without requiring formal treaty arrangements.

### IPU’s Ongoing Role

Sarah Lister, UNDP co-director, emphasised in her closing remarks that AI governance is fundamentally a governance issue, not just a technological one. The IPU’s commitment to tracking parliamentary AI activities across 37 countries provides a foundation for continued knowledge sharing, with Andy Richardson identified as the contact for parliaments wanting to be added to the tracking list.

## Conclusions

The discussion revealed both the complexity of AI governance challenges and the potential for constructive international cooperation. While significant disagreements remain about regulatory timing and approaches, there was broad recognition of the need for capacity building, multi-stakeholder engagement, and frameworks that balance innovation with protection.

Key unresolved challenges include creating appropriate institutional capacity for AI governance, developing effective international coordination mechanisms, and ensuring that regulatory frameworks can address immediate harms while promoting beneficial AI development. The emphasis on youth engagement and multi-stakeholder approaches suggests that effective AI governance will require inclusive processes that incorporate diverse perspectives and expertise.

The IPU’s ongoing initiatives, including the monthly parliamentary tracker and upcoming collaborative events, provide concrete mechanisms for continued cooperation and knowledge sharing as countries navigate these complex governance challenges.

Arda Gerkens: here at the open forum where we will speak about the AI regulation and get some insight from parliaments. You’re not hearing me? Closer. Of course, you have to put your headsets on. This is what the workshop is about, yeah. I’ll give you some seconds to do so. And it’s non-translation, so it’s all English, channel one. Okay, thank you so much. I’m very happy to say that we have a beautiful panel today. Mr. Axel Voss, who is a member of the European Parliament, Miss Amira Saber, who is a member of the House of Representatives of Egypt, and Mr. Gonyi from Uruguay. Before we start, I would like to point out to some of the inter-parliamentarian union activities that have already been done on AI, but also will be happening in future. First of all, in October 2024, the IPU adopted a resolution on the impact of AI on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. So any parliamentarians in here, or people who are working for any parliament, it’s a very interesting document to look at the resolution that has been adopted in October 2024 on the impact of AI on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. And since 2025, the beginning of 2025, February, IPU began to publish a monthly tracker that monitors which parliaments are taking action on AI policy. So that’s legislation, committee inquiries… all that tracking is done by the IPU and it currently already covers 37 parliaments. So we we want to know if any parliaments here are missing from that list. If you have activities on AI, you want to be on the tracking list, you can reach out to Mr. Andy Richardson who is sitting here at the corner in front of me and he will add you to that list. And in this year, in November 28 to 20, the 30th of November, there will be a core organized event with the Parliament of Malaysia, UNDP and the Commonwealth Parliamentarian Association and that event is the role of Parliament in shaping the future of responsible AI. This will be published so you can see more about this activity and of course we hope that many parliamentarians will attend. And today from the UNDP is also here Ms. Sarah Lister. She is a co-director of governance, peace building and rule of law hub UNDP and she will make the closing remarks for today. So she won’t be speaking until the end, it’s not because I don’t want her to speak, it’s just because she’s going to listen and then conclude at the end. Okay, that’s for the normal remarks in the beginning. I would like to ask Mr. Axel Vos who is a German lawyer and he’s also a politician from the CDU, the Christian Democratic Union of Germany. He’s actually been serving as a member of the European Parliament since 2009 and you have been a coordinator of the People’s Party Group in the Committee of Legal Affairs in 2017 and you have been focusing your work on digital and legal topics, one of them being the shadow rapporteur on the AI Act. What is the current state of play with regard to AI regulation in Germany? the European Union.

Axel Voss: So, thanks a lot, and also thanks for the invitation and having me here. The situation is as follows. We’ve finished the whole AI Act, yeah, let’s say at the end of last Monday, so in 2024, and now the transition time will pass, so we have an additional part in force at the beginning of August. There’s a kind of discussion going on that this should be postponed and so on. There’s a request also from the American or US side, and so this is one thing, but the other thing is also that our companies need probably more time in adapting these, and so there’s a discussion going on just of focusing on the high-risk AI systems, so that might be postponed. It’s not decided yet, but the discussion is there, and the situation is, of course, we are concentrating in the AI Act, especially on the high-risk systems. This is not forbidden. This is allowed, but we are asking for more requirements for the deployer and also for the system itself, and of course, then it’s quite interesting to see or to notice what is an AI high-risk system, and here we have different options in place, so at first biometrical identification, we consider this as a kind of an AI high-risk system, critical infrastructure, also education and vocational training, so also the question of employment of workers, many and also self-employment, the access and enjoyment of essential private services and benefits, law enforcement also is some of these elements, migration, asylum and border control management is considered in a majority in our house for an AI high-risk system and also administration of justice and democratic processes, also this one is considered as an AI high-risk system and this is also something the whole AI Act is delivering some general additional remarks on AI but focusing more than less on AI high-risk systems and therefore then we are trying also to install or to simplify the lives of our businesses in installing so-called sandboxes. I have still the feeling if I may add this what we shouldn’t do and this is not 100% to my satisfaction that we should have only one interpretation of these provisions of the AI Act. We haven’t done this in the data protection regulation but here in the AI Act it’s extremely important that we have in the European single market only one interpretation of everything and otherwise we will be confused and the companies will be confused and this is quite important. Well I could agree with you more and

Arda Gerkens: also handling the GDPR at sometimes it’s it’s you need to interpret it so it’s very very It’s important that we have clear definitions. I’m looking forward to your work on that. Ms. Amita Saber, you are an Egyptian member of the Parliament and you are serving as the Secretary General of the Foreign Relations Committee. Quite impressive. And you are also a national winner of the 2025 Study UK Alumni Awards, the social action category alumni of the University of Sussex. So it’s quite impressive, right? You are a policy leader, you advocate for climate action, also a very important topic, AI governments and youth empowerment while you’re leading on foreign relations and social development. We’ve just heard from Mr. Axel Vos what’s happening in the European Union, but Europe and somewhere, and maybe you can elaborate a little bit more at what’s happening in your country on AI and regulation.

Amira Saber: Yeah, thank you so much. And it’s a pleasure to be talking on this panel amid esteemed colleagues. Actually in Egypt, we already have a strategy for AI which we have relaunched this year. So there is the boundaries of the national strategy. And I introduced to the Parliament the first draft bill on AI governance, which was very luckily endorsed by 60 other Egyptian MPs. The question of to regulate or not to regulate is a very big debate all across the world. And coming to my background on social democracy, I wanted to tackle the ethical part of which. How we can guarantee that the data is well classified accordingly, how to hold the provider, the entity, the government, everyone accountable according to the sensitivity of the data. Because if it comes to AI, which is basically functioning on the data and the data providers, the national data becomes a huge asset by itself. So if, for example, the data of a hospital in a far place in Egypt is leaked. Who should I hold accountable based on this? So what I tried to do based on the EU Act, by the way, because I introduced this bill like now and a year and a quarter ago, it was March 2024. And what was there in the space back then was the EU Act as the main regulatory bill, which is in the space. And we can like frame on and discuss especially that there was a huge debate between the two big schools of the US and the EU on the regulation. Because when you regulate, there is a constraint somehow on technologies advancement on investing in like crazy innovative ideas, because this might hold you accountable. And accordingly, you may pay fines, this will be a financial burden. So how to balance the innovation and incentivize the private sector to invest? Because we need the AI investments in healthcare in my country to a big deal. We need it in education, we need it in agriculture. And since our esteemed attendees today, many of which are parliamentarians, I’m not just talking about the legislative part of which I’m talking about the scrutinizing part as well. Because here comes the importance of capacitating parliamentarians. If you capacitate and educate parliamentarians on how they can use their tools to ask the different ministries, how they use the AI technologies in the different sectors to advance the work, to benefit as much as we can, the people in their country, this matters a lot. So the basic thing, which I am concerned with also is raising the awareness of the parliamentarians in my country and across the region. Actually, I’m also part of ABNIC, it’s the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance, an excellent African network which tries to raise the all the time, the knowledge and the exchange of experiences when it comes to data governance. So again, educate and capacitate, this is crucial. And then we discuss how it worked, because what works for Egypt definitely couldn’t work for other countries and vice versa, but there are experiences which we could always learn from and develop. So actually right away as well, there is another bill which is under progress. It could be governmental, because in Egypt we have the bills either introduced from the parliamentarians or from the government. So actually to my knowledge, there is a very big coordination, a very fruitful one between the Ministry of ICT and the Ministry of Judiciary, the Ministry which is actually concerned with judiciary, to coordinate between each other, how can they release a draft bill or how can they introduce a bill on AI governance. So the question of regulation for me, my priorities of which is how we can make it ethical, how we can focus on the sectors that matters, must and top, and how can we also incentivize the private sector, because my bill has certain incentives to get the private sector interest to invest in certain sectors actually on top of which are the ones which I prioritized during my talk now. So it’s a continuous learning process, but very honestly, after we have seen in the Middle East recently and the political consequences of the usage of AI when it is weaponized, because it has been weaponized recently in the war on Gaza, it has weaponized recently in the different wars in the region, this brings attention much more to how important the regulators, the policy makers, everyone who is a decision maker should be very much aware and capacitated on how. this develops touching the lives of thousands of people. There have been lots of reports circulating that when the IDF uses AI on the war in Gaza, this actually has raised the casualties of civilians being dead. So again, the question is political, the question is social, the question is on every aspect of how AI governance today is one of the most things which affects every aspect of our lives, no matter where we are.

Arda Gerkens: Well, this is a very warm way of saying that, the fact that AI has on our lives and especially in your region. And it’s very good to hear that you’re also there giving advice to other countries in your region and region. So maybe if there’s any parliamentarian here who would like to speak to Amira afterwards and get some advice, please make use of her. And in the meanwhile, I would like to, I hope you can hear me well, because my, okay, and it’s my headphones that not working well. Mr. Rodrigo Coño Romero, you are a politician from Uruguay. From Uruguay. And you belong to the Partido Nacional and you represent the department of Salto, right? Yes. Yes, and you have been engaged with AI and democracy. And also you have highlighted the importance of getting the parliaments in the debate on AI. You think that’s very important. Can you tell me what’s happening with the regulation on AI in your country?

Rodrigo Goni Romero: Yes. As Uruguay is a very small country in South America between biggest, big country, Argentina and Brazil, we are prioritized to be open to investment and focusing promoting, investing in AI. So in Uruguay and in neither country in Latin America have approved a law, an AI law as European Act, but in many countries there are many hundreds and hundreds of drafts. In Uruguay no, in Uruguay we prefer have passed a legal framework approved by all parties which self mandate us to develop regulation with the participation of all sectors and basis of consensus. Like I try to avoid to to do a bad signal for the investment so just approve a very very general legal framework that well we we started running to all stakeholders, academia, companies, technological companies and to develop the process very slow. I prefer go slow. I prefer observe that that they happen in Europe and US and maybe a bigger country like Brazil for

Arda Gerkens: example. Thank you very much. It’s interesting to hear that both of you also highlight the importance of having investment on AI and the dangers that you have. infringing on that investment when you have regulation maybe Axel you can tell a little bit about what progress has been achieved and do you see as apart from this challenges and risks with the AI regulation so we have to be aware

Axel Voss: that the digital future means that everything is more transparent is circular and also digital and this brings us all as a legislator under extreme pressure because it’s a challenge now to adapt the online world to the offline world somehow or vice versa and this of course what we are connecting with AI this is the fundament probably of everything else what is coming next so that’s why it is important to have kind of a frame how far you can go and what might not be part of AI systems so what is forbidden what is high risk and what is low risk and so on and so also there is a kind of a fear for shifting power from humans to machines so that’s why also we need to face these and there’s a thin line only between good purposes and bad purposes so that’s why we have the abilities with AI in widening our human abilities on the one hand side and organizational of societal possibilities the meaning of AI for health and climate change energy traffic administration security education future orientated research this is all what we have in mind that what we should go for And that’s why I would say there are a lot of challenges of having advantages also in using AI. On the other hand, of course, we are facing also a lot of risks because of this thin line. There is a risk for democracies, once again, this fear of loss of control. Then we are facing these arguments of surveillance machines, conspiracies, theories. There might be not an exchange of views and arguments any longer. What is then anti-democratic? The manipulation of the public opinions. This is also something fake news, disinformation for destabilizing countries. So, hurdles of attacking free and democracies and freedom is lower. So, even especially for the young people or youth generation, I would say it’s hard to differentiate what is real and what is not real. So, they can’t trust any longer what they are reading, seeing or hearing. So, that’s why this is a kind of a risk situation. You need to bring this somehow in a balancing situation that you are focusing on these advantages, what you can gain out of it and trying to reduce risks also. And this is what we are trying to do. Thank you, Axel.

Arda Gerkens: You just mentioned that for youth it’s hard to know what’s real, but maybe I’m not youth anymore. Sometimes I also feel it’s hard to know what’s real and what’s not. Amira, can you tell, do you also recognize that? What risks and challenges do you see?

Amira Saber: Absolutely. Actually, one of the biggest challenges is deepfake. Because deepfake is not just about how it affects the political space when it comes to elections and electoral campaigns and the manipulation of some political systems. It comes to everyone’s life, especially in some closed communities or communities which are still having their own strict cultural frameworks. Imagine a girl who is living in a village with certain cultural norms and she has leaked photographs of her on pornography. This might threaten her life directly. She could be killed. And actually there are incidents in many countries of girls and women who have suffered or actually have risked their lives to deepfake. So this is affecting everyone’s life. You can ruin someone, you can ruin his life, his career, her life, her career, based on deepfake images, deepfake videos. And now, even during the war, the war in Iran, which is just a few days ago, we were doomed. Everyone was doomed with a massive amount of media, videos, photos, news, with a very fine line on how to verify this is true or not. So in today’s world, what we thought that it would more of empower us towards knowledge and towards edging this knowledge is actually questioning the amount of feeds which we have. Is it true or not? And this again brings a big, important question of how do we verify? And this also applies to education. How do a professor verifies that a certain research is AI generated or it’s done by the personal work of the student? So what is happening now is that I see also developments. on many levels when it comes to the models verification and when it comes to the content verification, is it AI generated or not? And this is why I say all the time, educate, educate, educate, capacitate, capacitate, capacitate. For politicians, for policymakers, and for the people, for everyone. Because it’s a multi-stakeholder thing. Because it’s a multi-stakeholder thing with all the parties involved in the development on this process. Everyone’s life is touched and is altered. And you can’t keep just away from it. However, whatever trials you are exerting in that track, you can’t. It’s embedded in your life. And the good thing now is that the ethical questions are being graced on every international table. I usually hear about different strategies that are now trying to regulate and to have a bold framing, which consequently have some legal responsibilities. If you are dealing with a classified data or you’re dealing with data that is of high risk, this should have immediately a kind of legal liability. Otherwise, it’s a case because it’s already a case which we really need to, it’s a case which is touching everyone’s life, which we really need to regulate. In my country and in my region, the beautiful thing is that there are thousands, I can say millions of young people who are very enthusiastic to get to learn all about AI. I myself, before developing the draftable, I went through different courses, crash ones. I had interviews, definitely because you can’t regulate something which you don’t know. Really good. At least. Take an example of what she did. Very good. You should have a deep dive. Actually, now I can’t pass a day without using at least three apps of AI, at least in my daily work. And it helps a lot. This is the beautiful face of it. But every coin has another side. And this other side, which we as regulators and decision makers should look at thoroughly. We should maximize the benefits of this technology, and we should also look at the risks. And in countries like mine and other countries, in even a position which is having stressful economic situations, the question of AI is the question of electricity, is the question of infrastructure, is a question of capacity building. So the divide is there. I don’t usually like to speak this language, but there is a divide which we all should cross, because this motto, if anyone remembers which of the SDGs, leaving no one behind, we just, you know, we just didn’t remember well as humans the lesson of COVID, when we stated that there is no one safe until everyone is safe. We just forgot about that. This applies to everything else. It applies to AI. There is no one safe until everyone is safe, and we have a responsibility to make it a safe space as possible, because definitely it’s going to be manipulated all the time for different purposes, for different reasons, politically and otherwise. But the real responsibility here is how to make it safe as much as possible. And the good news also is that countries in my region, like Saudi Arabia or UAE or Qatar, they are having a huge potential, like in my country, of young people who are eager to learn, who are eager to get even ahead of the curve of too many competitive setups and environments, which is really appreciated. And I always say that the private sector and the UN agencies have a huge duty to capacitate as much as possible and to get investors to highlight these important tracks, which touches everyone’s life.

Arda Gerkens: Well, thank you very much. I see there’s a question. If you hold on one second, sir, because I would like to pose a question to Mr. Rodrigo and then afterwards I will give the floor to you. So, please go ahead. I was talking about the progress and the challenges and the risks.

Rodrigo Goni Romero: Yes, we are focusing on developing a national strategy of AI to try to involve all the society in the risk, in the challenge, and very focused on capacity. I am the president of the Committee of the Future of the Parliament and I try to awareness to the people the risk of the future of the job. So, we put focus in prepare, capacity. I have to recognize in many perspectives that artificial intelligence have many risks to the job, many changes. So, we have to prepare. There is no magic way to face this risk. Just capacity, capacity, capacity. But many people don’t know about the risk. So, I think it’s our duty of the Parliament to awareness, to ask to prepare and to facilitate the program. Not just to the children, not just to the school, also to the worker. So, we are focusing this.

Arda Gerkens: Very good, thank you very much. The floor, please could you state your name and then your question.

Hossam Elgamal: Yes, my name is Hossam El Gamal. I’m private sector from Africa and I’m a MAG member. I have been MAG member for four years. Well, coming back, AI has been swiftly coming, and in fact it increased a lot the digital gap. We are facing power gap, we are facing computational power gap, and ability to buy the processors to do AI. We are facing data access gap. And finally we are facing scientist capability within the AI that would then build capacity for others as well. Many countries are working on building capacity, which is good, putting some strategy is good. But let me just ask a few questions for you to think about and answer. One thing is, what is the regulatory body that will implement? We don’t in all countries till now, all what we have is telecommunication regulatory body, which is no longer capable of handling digital society regulation. And going to AI and putting regulation for AI, who is going to implement the regulation? So we need along with building AI regulation to start thinking about the regulator and how we are going to do it. So to incentivize people to work in AI, but at the same time to put limitation to misuse of AI. Now second thing is, AI is global, it is not local, and same as cyber security. Till now we are facing huge challenge in having international law of cyber security. And will be the same for AI, each country will try to start having its own regulation. But how we are going to implement it globally? Because generally data that will be used, whether fake or right. will be a global one. So again, international regulation, how is it going to handle this? And finally, a lot of countries in the South especially, in addition of lacking the power, they did not implement yet data exchange policy. So we need first to pass this point in order to be able to go to the next one. Thank you very much.

Arda Gerkens: Thank you very much. We will take one more question please, yes.

Participant: Thank you so much. My name is Ali from Bahrain Shura Council and I believe that Bahrain have drafted the first and got approved the first AI regulator, sorry, law for regulating the use of AI. We managed to do a framework that it combined a balance, which is that was the challenge between investors, getting investors and believe pushing the innovation and how to regulate the bad side of the use of the AI. But my question, I see in the neighbor’s country like Dubai and Saudi Arabia, like Dubai maybe they have a ministry of AI there currently. I think they are implementing also putting a member, an AI member in the parliament, but I don’t see them that they are regulating the AI. Are we doing a step forward, are we doing it ahead or is it we have to slow down on regulating the thing? That’s the question. Thank you.

Arda Gerkens: And the last question and then we’ll answer them all together because they are very much alike.

Yasmin Al Douri: I’ll keep it short. Good afternoon. My name is Yasmin Aldouri. I’m a co-founder and consultant at the Responsible Technology Hub. We’re actually the first European-led, youth-led non-profit that focuses on bringing the youth voice to responsible technology in the area of policy as well. my question is focused actually on Mr. Axel Voss. So your municipality is actually my hometown, so I’m really happy to see you, but also I had to think a little bit when you said that young people do not really understand or cannot really distinguish between news that might be disinformation or misinformation or can’t distinguish between deepfakes and I would definitely disagree specifically on my work with young people. I would even state that young people are way better at actually seeing what is deepfake and what is not and this shows a little bit the issue that we’re generally facing as a young generation. We are always deemed as not knowing specific things when we’re actually really good at specific things. So my question to you specifically for Europe is how can we bring the reality of youth to parliamentarians and how can we make sure that the regulation we’re actually doing today is future-proof for generations that are coming? Thank you.

Arda Gerkens: Well very good questions all of them. I actually would like to give Amira first the floor on you know the the question of what regulatory body who is capable of enough of implementing this and also because you’re from the region for some very good points made by behind and it and also it’s it’s a global problem right so how do we make sure that legislation in one country has the same effect in the other and maybe we don’t want to have the same effect so how do you go about with this as a as a parliamentarian? First when it comes to

Amira Saber: the very important question from Mr. Hossam that was a challenge for me but in Egypt actually have recently a body which is the Supreme Council on Artificial Intelligence. By law they didn’t have the authority to actually may I say hold the governmental entities accountable this is what I tried to do in my draft bill to to give them the authority to hold every ministry accountable. And in Egypt, it’s very much intermingled because now, as I said, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of ICT, they are collaborating together towards another draft bill. And actually when it comes to every other ministry, was it education, health, whatever, they have also a mandate on advancing their services with AI technologies. So who could be the body? It should be a body which is actually just, you know, having the framework, the strategy, and it should be regulating it amongst all the other players, which in my case, I see in Egypt, the Supreme Council on Artificial Intelligence is a good entity to do that. So it depends a lot on the context, it depends a lot on the institutions and on the stage and the development of these institutions according to each and every country. But in that case, that’s how I see it in Egypt. For the comment and the question of Honorable Ali, first, congratulations. It’s so good music to my ear to hear that another Arab country has walked miles in that way and road because it’s, I see, a matter of sovereignty. It’s, I see, a matter which is touching everyone’s life. So any parliamentarian trial in that track is something which I very much appreciate. And for this, allow me, Arda, to just intensify a recommendation, which I said yesterday at one of the panels that we need to have in the space a kind of a policy radar for AI. That would be extremely knowledgeable for anyone who is accessing that on the level of policymaking to know what is happening in every region, what is happening in every country, and what do they have in place and what do they have in progress. So if we have such kind of radar, there is a climate policy radar. I wish there would be an AI policy radar. Any of the entities could sponsor that and it would be of great benefit for parliamentarians and decision makers so that I know and everyone knows what is happening in other countries. So, should we slow down or this is the question to regulate or not, but let’s at least classify the data. This is what I am very much concerned with because what is not classified couldn’t be easily regulated. So we have like broader things to think about when it comes to classification and to have a legal liability based on which and the other thing is not to slow down at all when it comes to incentivizing the ministries and asking them and doing this chronitizing job of making every ministry up to using AI for the good of the people in their mandate. So it’s like depending on the context, but again, at least the data classification is one crucial thing.

Arda Gerkens: You make a very good point on the data classification and I think that also answers the question. I think it is indeed worrying that there’s a lot of legislation still needed on this data exchange and that’s something that needs to be worked upon simultaneously. I would like to ask Mr. Axel Fos the question, the excellent question, how do we make the reality of youth in the legislation? So how do we connect it? And maybe you can take another question as well because there’s been some online questions, remote questions asked. Can AI help in mitigating the social impact of child abuse and gender related inequalities? It’s kind of a heavy question, but I thought as you are very much into the AIX, maybe you can stipulate something on it. So thank you.

Axel Voss: If I may start with my friend from the Rhineland, I do not, ah, over there. So what I mentioned shouldn’t be a kind of an insult. It was more, I feel sorrow that you are growing up in a world where you are not, can’t rely on something, what is saying or what you’re hearing or what you’re reading. So this is, so I grew up in a different century. So that’s why I would say it was more easy for me to find trust in. some of these elements. But the question of course is the now active regulators probably do not have the knowledge in a way in really understanding what’s going on. And probably sometimes I have the feeling the politicians might be a bigger problem than the technology because we are hindering sometimes some elements and especially if you’re dealing with digital laws then all of a sudden you have a totally different context instead of online laws. So that’s why it’s difficult. I hope that every parliament has someone dealing with these who is understanding a bit more than the average politician. Also if we are coming to this point and saying oh yes digital is very important and we need to develop something then probably nobody knows what to do. So that’s why we need to come forward with it and also to the others. The problem is so I speak for the European Union the democratic legislator is too slow for the technology developments. And so we are always behind. That’s why I’m I would, we can face this problem a bit more if we are saying we need to reduce the normal behavior of a democratic legislator. So meaning there should be a kind of a solution in place after three months. And otherwise we are losing track of this problem and if we are once ready with a law then it might be a kind of a different problem already occurring. So, we need to be faster and we need probably not to be detailed all the time. It’s more a kind of a frame what we should have with ethical aspects or a kind of value-orientated frame and then you might have the time, as everyone knows, if I’m in the frame, everything is okay. If I’m outside the frame, you will face trouble. So this might be a kind of a better way forward. So I’m asking sometimes myself, shouldn’t we instead of focusing on all these risks and avoiding these, shouldn’t we just ask ourselves what we are expecting from AI? This is a more positive approach probably in saying what we are expecting and we do not want to see other things. So that’s why it might help in a kind of a better way. So data exchange policy, what was mentioned, or the second question? Can it help in mitigating the social impact of gender-related abuse and gender-related inequalities? Yes. I would say it can, but of course you need to have a kind of a plan in mind how to do this. I would say it’s not coming as a kind of a stereotype behavior, so no, you have to concentrate on it and also it can help everyone in mitigating these problems, I would say. But of course you need to be very careful in what are the conditions at the end in formulating these.

Arda Gerkens: So, yeah, basically it’s what I hear you say, that as a parliament you should avoid being too detailed. Yes. But make sure that you have a framework here. Also a philosopher comes to mind, Mr. Wittgenstein, who once said, if you don’t know what you’re talking about, you shouldn’t speak on it. I hear both of you say, maybe as a politician, parliamentarian, this time you should put a little extra effort in understanding AI, because it’s so important. Do you think that the parliaments now, it’s a question also from remotes, that they are kind of shaping their own AI policies, or are they just looking at what somebody else is proposing? You already said that you took the AI Act as an example. I depended on too many sources, of which, because it was in the space then as a legislation, I definitely had a deep dive on what the EU Act had. And how about you, Axel, the European Union, they started fresh, or did they look at other examples? No. There are not many examples in there. You were the first. Yeah. They were the first, yeah, but you’re the first. I followed them. You followed them. OK, so. I went to one. Right.

Axel Voss: It’s very detailed, because we are sometimes too complicated and too bureaucratic orientated, but in general, yes, it’s. So for the people who are not hearing this, Bahrain just stated that they have used, they benchmarked their law against the one of the European Commission, and they made it much more simpler. I think that’s what they tried. As a framework. Right. OK. The problem for kind of a rule of law system is at the end, and this was also mentioned with the first question, how to implement and how to enforce all these. Also, yes, the capacity might not be there. So what we are trying now to do is to build up a so-called AI office and also give guidelines and what the provisions should mean and how we might come forward. But at the end, also, you need someone in controlling. and are enforcing all these, and here we are coming to a problem, you need to have something what is also valid in front of a court. So if this is not possible, then it might be very tricky.

Arda Gerkens: You wanted to add something, Ms. Habe?

Amira Saber: Yes. One of the main tools which parliamentarians use is actually the assessment of the legislative impact. It’s still missing to a great extent to assist the legislative impact of the AI bills which are already released. So we are also challenged by the impact of these legislations. So for example, in the EU Act, can I say full mouth 100% that this didn’t affect the amount of private sector investments in the fields of high tech and AI development and that these companies went to the US, for example? It’s not accessible yet. You know, these kind of big questions, it takes time to assess. That’s why the question of regulation when it comes to AI is very challenging. You need to put the regulation now, and you need also to assess the impact, and you need to all the time amend and edit and amend and edit according to the advancement of the technologies and according to what is in place. That’s why I all the time probe the framework and the legal interventions which are regulating the basic thing, which are more towards the data classification, the rights, the ethics, the broader ones. Because when you dive deeply in the details, you get completely doomed. And this is not what the regulator should do.

Arda Gerkens: I see a lot of people nodding in what you’re saying about adding the legislation all the time. So there’s a question from the floor. And if there’s another question, you have to be at the microphone. But first from the lady. Yeah.

Meredith Veit: Hi, thank you. My name is Meredith. I’m the public work and human rights researcher with the Business and Human Rights Resource Center. And it’s really great that we’re having this panel now about AI regulation and the program. Thank you. of it and better understanding what are the impacts because there are governments even here who are touting some very problematic narratives about the dangers of clipping the wings of the potential and everything that AI can do for the benefits of society while ignoring the mountains of evidence that we have about the actual harms that are taking place now that need to be mitigated and dealt with now and justice that needs to happen now so my question from your seats and your positionality is what is needed and what hope do you have in terms of pushing back against this wave and these very problematic narratives as I mentioned in order to hold the line and keep pushing forward on all of the momentum that had been building about AI regulation for quite some time and even keeping the EU AI Act strong and making sure that the AI office is strong in its enforcement and having a really well-tuned regulatory approach that can help continue to set more standards moving

Arda Gerkens: forward thank you so much thank you and another question from behind your

Participant: honorable yeah hi actually it’s not a question just a comment on amending the law I believe the more that what we can do is to simplify the law and just to keep it to another body that they are more of more flexible because changing anything in the law it’s gonna take a long time which we cannot cope as with the developing the fast developing of the AI so this is the only thing come

Arda Gerkens: that’s a very good advice just keep the framework in the law and make sure that you have lower regulation to be able to be flexible I’m gonna take the last question here yes please

Participant: thank you for giving me the floor I’m very happy that I could have touched you especially on this topic exploitation of children through the internet and through artificial intelligence. I have just published a new article on Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies about this issue, how young people and children are recruited in extremism and radicalization and terrorism through artificial intelligence. And it was surprising, because I started to study and research about this topic, that they are recruiting children through the games, through the gamings. They recruit children through electronic games on the internet. It is available. So I concluded this study with some recommendations. One of the recommendations, look after your children. Don’t leave them alone with the screens. Don’t do it. They isolate them firstly, then they start to promote their own ideas and radicalization approaches. Then we find some young people doing horrible things. So one of the recommendations is awareness is very important. And the legislation, of course. Thank you. Bye bye.

Arda Gerkens: Thank you very much. And this is really the last question I’m going to take. I’m going to ask you very brief answers, because Sarah will then wrap up.

Mounir Sorour: I’m Mounir Sourour from Bahrain, I would like to thank you and thank all of you. Making regulation is very easy, but at the same time difficult, especially in AI. Because AI, we are working on open space. And every time we do something, I mean, because we are moving and we’re expanding. As Ms. Iman said, we are every time just asking, adapting to ourselves. Can we just say yes to something to be like a main framework? And we are looking for balancing, we don’t look now to make a regulation, we can’t fix a regulation, especially with AI. Can we, I mean, according to the experience of Egyptian, can we just mention what the main framework at least to minimize the risk of the AI?

Arda Gerkens: Thanks. Thank you. A very short answer from Amira first. You’re good? Axel, maybe you want to comment?

Axel Voss: Yes. So thanks for the recommendations. It’s good to hear. To Meredith, yes, so keeping the AI act strong. This is what we are trying to do, but we are in a kind of a trap. We are seeing AI and AI systems and generative AI is creating a lot of wealth. And so we are lagging behind everywhere except two big regions. And this is why we need to support these. But on the other hand, also trying to keep very strong limits and framework.

Arda Gerkens: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you all. I would like to give the floor to Miss Sarah Lister, who will give us her closing remarks.

Sarah Lister: Thank you very much. And as we conclude this open forum on AI regulation, I’d like to start by thanking, first of all, all the panelists, the participants, the moderator in person and online for all your insights and the questions and the commitment to inclusive rights-based governance of artificial intelligence. As a personal reflection, I am delighted that there is such a well-attended session focusing on the role of parliaments. In my experience, too often in digitalization discussions, national governance authorities and processes have been forgotten and have been brought too late to the processes. So, today’s discussion has highlighted the practical role of parliaments in ensuring that AI systems are aligned with human rights and normative principles and to ensure that no one is left behind, as the colleague from Egypt said. We have heard that parliaments are on the front lines of some of the most pressing policy issues of our time. How to protect citizens and all people while enabling innovation? And that has been a core theme that has run through our discussion this afternoon. It was raised by the colleague from Egypt and from Uruguay and from the floor. And then how do we ensure oversight in a rapidly evolving technological landscape? What type of regulatory entities do you need? How do you create governance frameworks that are grounded in human rights? And we have heard that to ensure the benefits of AI reach everyone, we must invest in the development, governance and support of responsible and ethical AI, as well as in countries’ capacities to build safe, secure and trustworthy AI systems. Parliaments are key in governing the use of global technologies and ensuring that these truly serve their public’s interests and support the achievements of the SDGs. We have heard that no single actor can shape the governance of AI alone. Effective regulation demands a multi-stakeholder approach, bringing together parliaments, executive branches, civil society, private sector and technical communities. And Uruguay talked about the consensus-based approach that takes place there. We heard from the floor and then in response about the importance of bringing youth voices to the discussions and have asked the question, how can we effectively ensure that multi-stakeholder, including young people’s, approach to this issue? The report of the Secretary General’s High-Level Advisory Body on AI and the Global Digital Compact that was signed on the margins of the General Assembly last year notes that AI governance requires addressing existing gaps in representation, coordination and implementation. Parliaments are key actors in ensuring that. At UNDP, we see AI not only as a technological issue, but as a governance one. We support countries with our partners in navigating both the governance of digitalization and digitalization for governance. And we support countries to develop their potential to transform their public services, build a more open and inclusive public sphere and enhance democratic processes and institutions. We co-host with IPU, an expert group on parliaments and digital policy to try to bring together some of these elements that people have asked for in terms of sharing experiences. And other international organizations join that expert group to help ensure that we pull together. I see that my time has passed, so I would just say once again, thank you very much for being a part of this timely and important conversation. A special thanks to the Inter-Parliamentary Union for their partnership in making this event possible and to the IGF for hosting us. Thank you very much.

Agreement points

Capacity building and education are essential for all stakeholders

Speakers

– Axel Voss
– Amira Saber
– Rodrigo Goni Romero
– Arda Gerkens

Arguments

Need for better understanding among regulators who may not have sufficient technical knowledge

Continuous learning and capacity building essential for politicians, policymakers, and citizens

Parliamentarians need education on AI to effectively scrutinize government AI use across sectors

Continuous learning and capacity building essential for politicians, policymakers, and citizens

Parliamentarians should invest extra effort in understanding AI due to its critical importance

Summary

All speakers emphasized that understanding AI technology is crucial for effective governance, with particular emphasis on educating parliamentarians, policymakers, and citizens to make informed decisions about AI regulation and oversight.

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Need for flexible regulatory frameworks rather than detailed fixed laws

Speakers

– Axel Voss
– Amira Saber
– Participant
– Mounir Sorour

Arguments

Democratic legislators are too slow for technology developments, need faster, framework-based approach rather than detailed laws

Legislative impact assessment of AI bills still missing in many jurisdictions

Importance of having flexible lower-level regulations rather than frequently amending laws

AI regulation should focus on flexible frameworks rather than fixed regulations due to the open and expanding nature of AI

Summary

There is strong consensus that AI regulation should focus on creating flexible frameworks and principles rather than detailed, rigid laws that cannot adapt to rapidly evolving technology.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Balancing innovation incentives with regulatory protection

Speakers

– Axel Voss
– Amira Saber
– Rodrigo Goni Romero
– Participant

Arguments

Regulation should focus on positive expectations from AI rather than just avoiding risks

Need to avoid hindering investment while ensuring ethical AI use, especially in healthcare, education, and agriculture

Small countries like Uruguay prioritize being open to investment while developing regulation through stakeholder consensus

Bahrain has drafted and approved first AI regulatory law balancing innovation and regulation

Summary

All speakers agreed on the critical need to balance regulatory protection with maintaining incentives for innovation and investment, particularly for smaller countries and developing economies.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Data classification and governance as fundamental to AI regulation

Speakers

– Amira Saber
– Hossam Elgamal

Arguments

Data classification crucial as foundation for effective AI regulation

National data becomes valuable asset requiring protection and accountability measures

Need for legal liability based on data sensitivity classification

Many countries lack proper data exchange policies needed before implementing AI regulation

Summary

Both speakers emphasized that proper data classification and governance frameworks are prerequisites for effective AI regulation, with clear accountability measures based on data sensitivity levels.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Data governance | Privacy and data protection

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers from developing countries emphasized the importance of learning from other jurisdictions while adapting solutions to their specific national contexts, favoring consensus-based approaches over rigid regulatory frameworks.

Speakers

– Amira Saber
– Rodrigo Goni Romero

Arguments

Importance of sharing experiences between countries while recognizing different contexts

Uruguay prefers slow, consensus-based approach with general legal framework rather than detailed regulation

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers highlighted the serious threats posed by AI-generated fake content, though Voss focused on democratic implications while Saber emphasized personal safety risks, particularly for women.

Speakers

– Axel Voss
– Amira Saber

Arguments

Difficulty distinguishing real from fake content affects democratic processes and public trust

Deepfakes pose serious threats to individuals’ lives and careers, especially affecting women in conservative communities

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Gender rights online

Both emphasized the active oversight role of parliaments beyond just creating laws, including monitoring how AI is used by government entities and protecting vulnerable populations from AI-enabled threats.

Speakers

– Amira Saber
– Participant

Arguments

Parliaments should focus on scrutinizing ministerial AI use rather than just legislation

Children vulnerable to recruitment through AI-powered gaming platforms for extremism and radicalization

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity | Children rights

Unexpected consensus

Youth capabilities in identifying AI-generated content

Speakers

– Axel Voss
– Yasmin Al Douri
– Arda Gerkens

Arguments

Difficulty distinguishing real from fake content affects democratic processes and public trust

Young people are often better at identifying deepfakes and misinformation than assumed

AI makes it difficult for people of all ages to distinguish between real and fake content

Explanation

While there was initial disagreement about youth capabilities, the discussion revealed an unexpected consensus that the challenge of distinguishing real from fake content affects all age groups, not just young people, suggesting a more nuanced understanding of digital literacy across generations.

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Youth Engagement and Future-Proofing

Need for international coordination despite national sovereignty concerns

Speakers

– Hossam Elgamal
– Amira Saber
– Sarah Lister

Arguments

AI regulation needs international coordination as AI systems operate globally

Need for AI policy radar similar to climate policy radar to track global regulatory developments

Multi-stakeholder approach essential involving parliaments, civil society, private sector, and technical communities

Explanation

Despite speakers representing different national interests and regulatory approaches, there was unexpected consensus on the need for global coordination and information sharing, recognizing that AI governance transcends national boundaries.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Global Coordination and International Cooperation

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated remarkable consensus on key foundational issues: the critical importance of capacity building and education for all stakeholders, the need for flexible regulatory frameworks rather than rigid detailed laws, the necessity of balancing innovation with protection, and the fundamental role of data governance. There was also strong agreement on the multi-stakeholder nature of AI governance and the need for international coordination.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles with constructive disagreement on implementation details. This suggests a mature understanding of AI governance challenges and creates a strong foundation for collaborative policy development. The consensus spans across different regions (Europe, Middle East, Latin America) and different types of stakeholders (parliamentarians, civil society, private sector), indicating broad-based agreement on core AI governance principles that could facilitate international cooperation and knowledge sharing.

Different viewpoints

Young people’s ability to distinguish real from fake content

Speakers

– Axel Voss
– Yasmin Al Douri

Arguments

Difficulty distinguishing real from fake content affects democratic processes and public trust

Young people are often better at identifying deepfakes and misinformation than assumed

Summary

Axel Voss argued that young people find it hard to differentiate what is real and fake, creating democratic risks. Yasmin Al Douri directly disagreed, stating that young people are actually better at identifying deepfakes and misinformation than assumed, and that this represents a broader issue of underestimating youth capabilities.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Speed and approach to AI regulation

Speakers

– Axel Voss
– Rodrigo Goni Romero

Arguments

Democratic legislators are too slow for technology developments, need faster, framework-based approach rather than detailed laws

Uruguay prefers slow, consensus-based approach with general legal framework rather than detailed regulation

Summary

Axel Voss advocated for faster legislative processes (three months) to keep up with technology, while Rodrigo explicitly stated Uruguay prefers to ‘go slow’ and observe what happens in larger jurisdictions before acting.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Detailed vs. framework-based regulation

Speakers

– Axel Voss
– Amira Saber

Arguments

Democratic legislators are too slow for technology developments, need faster, framework-based approach rather than detailed laws

Legislative impact assessment of AI bills still missing in many jurisdictions

Summary

While both agree on avoiding overly detailed regulation, Axel Voss focuses on speed and framework approaches, while Amira Saber emphasizes the need for impact assessment and the challenge of constantly amending detailed regulations as technology evolves.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Generational assumptions about digital literacy

Speakers

– Axel Voss
– Yasmin Al Douri

Arguments

Difficulty distinguishing real from fake content affects democratic processes and public trust

Young people are often better at identifying deepfakes and misinformation than assumed

Explanation

This disagreement was unexpected because it revealed a fundamental disconnect between policymaker assumptions and youth advocate perspectives. Yasmin Al Douri’s direct challenge to Axel Voss’s statement highlighted how generational assumptions can influence policy-making, which is particularly significant given that AI regulation will primarily affect younger generations.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Regulatory timing philosophy

Speakers

– Axel Voss
– Rodrigo Goni Romero

Arguments

Democratic legislators are too slow for technology developments, need faster, framework-based approach rather than detailed laws

Uruguay prefers slow, consensus-based approach with general legal framework rather than detailed regulation

Explanation

This disagreement was unexpected because both speakers represent democratic systems but had completely opposite philosophies about regulatory timing. Axel Voss argued for urgency due to technological pace, while Rodrigo advocated for deliberate slowness to observe and learn from others, revealing how country size and position can fundamentally shape regulatory philosophy.

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement centered on regulatory approach and timing, youth capabilities in digital environments, and the balance between innovation and regulation. While speakers generally agreed on fundamental goals like protecting citizens while enabling innovation, they differed significantly on methods and assumptions.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications. The disagreements reveal fundamental differences in regulatory philosophy, generational assumptions, and approaches to balancing innovation with protection. These differences could lead to fragmented global AI governance approaches, with some jurisdictions moving quickly with framework-based regulation while others take slower, consensus-based approaches. The generational disconnect highlighted by the youth advocate suggests that current AI regulation may not adequately reflect the realities and capabilities of those most affected by these technologies.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers from developing countries emphasized the importance of learning from other jurisdictions while adapting solutions to their specific national contexts, favoring consensus-based approaches over rigid regulatory frameworks.

Speakers

– Amira Saber
– Rodrigo Goni Romero

Arguments

Importance of sharing experiences between countries while recognizing different contexts

Uruguay prefers slow, consensus-based approach with general legal framework rather than detailed regulation

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers highlighted the serious threats posed by AI-generated fake content, though Voss focused on democratic implications while Saber emphasized personal safety risks, particularly for women.

Speakers

– Axel Voss
– Amira Saber

Arguments

Difficulty distinguishing real from fake content affects democratic processes and public trust

Deepfakes pose serious threats to individuals’ lives and careers, especially affecting women in conservative communities

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Gender rights online

Both emphasized the active oversight role of parliaments beyond just creating laws, including monitoring how AI is used by government entities and protecting vulnerable populations from AI-enabled threats.

Speakers

– Amira Saber
– Participant

Arguments

Parliaments should focus on scrutinizing ministerial AI use rather than just legislation

Children vulnerable to recruitment through AI-powered gaming platforms for extremism and radicalization

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity | Children rights

Key takeaways

AI regulation requires balancing innovation incentives with risk mitigation, particularly for investment-dependent developing countries

Data classification and governance frameworks must be established before detailed AI regulation can be effective

Parliamentarians need extensive capacity building and technical education to effectively regulate and oversee AI implementation

Democratic legislative processes are too slow for rapidly evolving AI technology, requiring framework-based rather than detailed regulatory approaches

Multi-stakeholder approaches involving parliaments, civil society, private sector, and technical communities are essential for effective AI governance

International coordination is crucial since AI operates globally, but regulatory approaches must be adapted to local contexts

Youth voices and technical expertise should be better integrated into parliamentary AI policy-making processes

Immediate harms from AI (deepfakes, weaponization, misinformation) require urgent attention alongside long-term governance frameworks

Resolutions and action items

IPU to continue monthly tracking of parliamentary AI activities across 37 parliaments and expand coverage

Parliamentarians encouraged to contact Andy Richardson to be added to IPU’s AI policy tracking list

Upcoming IPU event scheduled for November 28-30 with Parliament of Malaysia, UNDP, and Commonwealth Parliamentary Association on responsible AI

Recommendation to create an AI policy radar system similar to climate policy radar to track global regulatory developments

Need to establish appropriate regulatory bodies with authority to hold governmental entities accountable for AI use

Focus on developing flexible lower-level regulations rather than frequently amending primary legislation

Unresolved issues

Which specific regulatory bodies should implement AI regulation in countries lacking adequate digital governance authorities

How to achieve effective international coordination of AI regulation while respecting national sovereignty and different development contexts

Whether the EU AI Act’s detailed approach will negatively impact private sector investment and innovation

How to effectively measure and assess the legislative impact of AI regulations on innovation and investment

Timing and implementation details for potentially postponing high-risk AI system requirements in the EU

How to bridge the digital divide in computational power, data access, and scientific capability between developed and developing countries

Specific mechanisms for ensuring youth voices are meaningfully integrated into parliamentary AI policy processes

Suggested compromises

Adopt general legal frameworks with broad ethical principles rather than detailed technical regulations to maintain flexibility

Focus regulation on data classification and high-risk AI applications while allowing innovation in lower-risk areas

Implement consensus-based, multi-stakeholder approaches that involve all sectors in developing AI governance

Prioritize capacity building and education for parliamentarians while developing regulatory frameworks simultaneously

Create regulatory sandboxes to allow business experimentation within controlled environments

Establish framework laws with delegated authority to specialized bodies for detailed implementation rules

Balance immediate harm mitigation with long-term innovation goals through risk-based regulatory approaches

However, whatever trials you are exerting in that track, you can’t. It’s embedded in your life. And the good thing now is that the ethical questions are being graced on every international table… There is no one safe until everyone is safe, and we have a responsibility to make it a safe space as possible, because definitely it’s going to be manipulated all the time for different purposes, for different reasons, politically and otherwise.

Speaker

Amira Saber

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it reframes AI regulation from a technical/legal issue to a fundamental human security issue. By invoking the COVID-19 lesson of ‘no one safe until everyone is safe,’ she connects AI governance to global solidarity and collective responsibility, moving beyond national regulatory approaches.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion from technical regulatory details to philosophical and ethical foundations. It influenced subsequent speakers to consider the global interconnectedness of AI risks and led to questions about international coordination and the need for unified approaches across borders.

The democratic legislator is too slow for the technology developments. And so we are always behind… we need to reduce the normal behavior of a democratic legislator. So meaning there should be a kind of a solution in place after three months… It’s more a kind of a frame what we should have with ethical aspects or a kind of value-orientated frame.

Speaker

Axel Voss

Reason

This is a provocative challenge to traditional democratic processes, suggesting that democracy itself may be structurally inadequate for governing rapidly evolving technologies. It raises fundamental questions about the tension between democratic deliberation and technological urgency.

Impact

This comment sparked a crucial debate about regulatory approaches throughout the remainder of the discussion. Multiple participants referenced the framework vs. detailed regulation approach, and it led to practical suggestions about keeping laws simple while delegating flexibility to regulatory bodies.

Imagine a girl who is living in a village with certain cultural norms and she has leaked photographs of her on pornography. This might threaten her life directly. She could be killed. And actually there are incidents in many countries of girls and women who have suffered or actually have risked their lives to deepfake.

Speaker

Amira Saber

Reason

This comment is powerfully insightful because it grounds abstract AI risks in concrete, life-threatening realities, particularly for vulnerable populations. It demonstrates how AI harms intersect with existing social inequalities and cultural contexts in ways that can be fatal.

Impact

This visceral example shifted the discussion from theoretical policy considerations to urgent human rights concerns. It influenced later questions about child protection and gender-based violence, and reinforced the need for immediate regulatory action rather than prolonged deliberation.

I would even state that young people are way better at actually seeing what is deepfake and what is not and this shows a little bit the issue that we’re generally facing as a young generation. We are always deemed as not knowing specific things when we’re actually really good at specific things… how can we bring the reality of youth to parliamentarians and how can we make sure that the regulation we’re actually doing today is future-proof for generations that are coming?

Speaker

Yasmin Al Douri

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it directly challenges assumptions made by senior policymakers and flips the narrative about generational digital literacy. It highlights a critical gap in policymaking where those most affected by regulations have the least voice in creating them.

Impact

This intervention created a notable shift in tone, forcing Axel Voss to clarify his earlier statement and acknowledge the problem of excluding youth voices. It introduced the crucial question of intergenerational equity in AI governance and influenced the moderator to emphasize the importance of including youth perspectives.

AI is global, it is not local, and same as cyber security. Till now we are facing huge challenge in having international law of cyber security. And will be the same for AI, each country will try to start having its own regulation. But how we are going to implement it globally?

Speaker

Hossam Elgamal

Reason

This comment is insightful because it identifies a fundamental structural problem: the mismatch between global technology and national regulatory frameworks. It draws a parallel with cybersecurity to show this is a recurring challenge in digital governance.

Impact

This question exposed a critical weakness in the current regulatory approach and led to discussions about the need for international coordination. It influenced Amira Saber’s response about creating an ‘AI policy radar’ and highlighted the limitations of purely national approaches to AI governance.

What is the regulatory body that will implement? We don’t in all countries till now, all what we have is telecommunication regulatory body, which is no longer capable of handling digital society regulation. And going to AI and putting regulation for AI, who is going to implement the regulation?

Speaker

Hossam Elgamal

Reason

This comment cuts to the heart of implementation challenges, pointing out that existing regulatory infrastructure is inadequate for AI governance. It highlights the gap between creating laws and having the institutional capacity to enforce them.

Impact

This practical concern grounded the discussion in implementation realities and led to concrete discussions about creating new regulatory bodies, such as Amira Saber’s mention of Egypt’s Supreme Council on Artificial Intelligence and Axel Voss’s reference to the EU’s AI office.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing critical tensions and complexities that moved the conversation beyond surface-level policy discussions. Amira Saber’s comments consistently elevated the discourse to address human rights, global solidarity, and life-threatening consequences, while Axel Voss’s observation about democratic processes being too slow created a central tension that influenced much of the subsequent debate. The youth representative’s challenge to generational assumptions and the practical questions about implementation and global coordination forced participants to confront the limitations of current approaches. Together, these interventions transformed what could have been a technical policy discussion into a nuanced exploration of democracy, human rights, global governance, and intergenerational equity in the age of AI. The comments created a cascading effect where each insight built upon others, ultimately revealing AI regulation as a complex challenge requiring fundamental rethinking of governance structures, democratic processes, and international cooperation.

How can we have only one interpretation of AI Act provisions across the European single market to avoid confusion for companies?

Speaker

Axel Voss

Explanation

This is crucial for business clarity and consistent implementation across EU member states, unlike the varied interpretations seen with GDPR

Who should be held accountable when sensitive data (like hospital data) is leaked in AI systems?

Speaker

Amira Saber

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental question of liability and responsibility in AI data breaches, especially for sensitive national data

How can we balance AI innovation incentives with regulatory constraints to avoid discouraging private sector investment?

Speaker

Amira Saber

Explanation

This is essential for countries needing AI investments in healthcare, education, and agriculture while maintaining ethical standards

What regulatory body will implement AI regulations, given that current telecommunication regulatory bodies are inadequate for digital society regulation?

Speaker

Hossam Elgamal

Explanation

This addresses the institutional gap in AI governance and the need for appropriate regulatory infrastructure

How can international AI regulation be implemented globally when AI is inherently global but countries are developing separate national regulations?

Speaker

Hossam Elgamal

Explanation

This highlights the challenge of coordinating AI governance across borders, similar to ongoing challenges with international cybersecurity law

Should countries slow down AI regulation or move forward, especially when neighboring countries have different approaches?

Speaker

Ali from Bahrain Shura Council

Explanation

This addresses the strategic timing of AI regulation and whether early adoption provides advantages or disadvantages

How can we bring the reality of youth perspectives to parliamentarians and ensure AI regulation is future-proof for coming generations?

Speaker

Yasmin Al Douri

Explanation

This challenges assumptions about youth capabilities and emphasizes the need for intergenerational input in AI policymaking

Can AI help in mitigating the social impact of child abuse and gender-related inequalities?

Speaker

Remote participant

Explanation

This explores the potential positive applications of AI in addressing serious social issues

How can we assess the legislative impact of AI bills, particularly whether EU AI Act affected private sector investments?

Speaker

Amira Saber

Explanation

This addresses the need for evidence-based policy evaluation to understand the real-world effects of AI regulation

What is needed to push back against problematic narratives that ignore current AI harms while focusing only on potential benefits?

Speaker

Meredith Veit

Explanation

This addresses the need to balance AI regulation discussions with acknowledgment of existing harms requiring immediate attention

What should be the main framework to minimize AI risks while maintaining flexibility for rapid technological changes?

Speaker

Mounir Sourour

Explanation

This seeks practical guidance on creating adaptable regulatory frameworks that can evolve with technology

How can we create an AI policy radar similar to the climate policy radar to track global AI policy developments?

Speaker

Amira Saber

Explanation

This would provide parliamentarians and policymakers with comprehensive knowledge of AI policy developments worldwide

How can we verify AI-generated content and distinguish between real and fake information, including deepfakes?

Speaker

Amira Saber

Explanation

This addresses the critical challenge of content verification in an era where AI can create convincing fake content

How can democratic legislators become faster in responding to technology developments instead of always being behind?

Speaker

Axel Voss

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental challenge of democratic processes being too slow for rapid technological advancement

Summary

This workshop discussion focused on innovative regulatory policy and business strategies for achieving equitable digital inclusion, particularly in developing countries and Africa. The session was organized under South Africa’s G20 presidency, building on previous work by Brazil that developed the concept of “meaningful connectivity” beyond basic internet access. The panelists identified that the primary barriers to digital inclusion are demand-side constraints rather than supply-side infrastructure issues, with device affordability being the biggest obstacle to internet access, followed by digital literacy and skills gaps.

The discussion revealed that despite high mobile broadband coverage in many African countries (above 95% in some cases), actual connectivity rates remain below 20%, indicating that coverage alone does not solve the digital divide. Panelists emphasized that 90% of unconnected people live in areas with existing coverage but face other barriers to access. The conversation highlighted how digital technologies amplify existing inequalities, creating multiple tiers of connectivity from the unconnected to those with minimal access to those who can meaningfully participate in the digital economy.

Solutions discussed included reducing regulatory barriers for small operators and community networks, implementing wholesale access regulation to lower backhaul costs, developing innovative device financing schemes, and creating comprehensive digital skills training programs. The panelists stressed the importance of intermediaries like libraries and post offices in supporting digital inclusion, and the need for diverse, locally-relevant solutions rather than one-size-fits-all approaches. The discussion concluded with calls for a fundamental shift from treating people as consumers in a market-driven system to recognizing digital access as a public good and citizen right, requiring cross-sectoral collaboration and whole-of-society approaches to address the underlying structural inequalities that perpetuate digital exclusion.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **The Digital Divide is More Complex Than Just Connectivity**: The discussion reveals that 90% of unconnected people actually live in areas with mobile broadband coverage, indicating the problem isn’t infrastructure but rather affordability, digital skills, and meaningful usage barriers.

– **Device Affordability as the Primary Barrier**: Research shows that for the poorest 20% in sub-Saharan Africa, an entry-level internet-enabled device costs 99% of average monthly income, making device cost the biggest obstacle to internet access rather than data costs.

– **Need for Diverse Ecosystem Solutions Beyond Traditional Operators**: The conversation emphasizes moving from a “few big stones” approach (large mobile operators) to enabling smaller, community-based networks, social enterprises, and alternative business models that can serve “uneconomic” areas.

– **Regulatory and Policy Failures in Addressing Demand-Side Constraints**: Discussion of how current regulatory frameworks focus too heavily on supply-side solutions while neglecting demand-side interventions, wholesale access regulation, and the need for treating digital resources as public goods.

– **Systemic Inequalities Amplified by Digital Technologies**: The panel addresses how digital technologies layer over existing structural inequalities (education, income, gender, rural/urban divides) and amplify rather than reduce these disparities, requiring holistic cross-sectoral approaches.

## Overall Purpose:

This workshop aimed to examine innovative regulatory policies and business strategies for achieving equitable digital inclusion, building on G20 work under South Africa’s presidency. The goal was to shift the global conversation from purely connectivity-focused solutions to addressing the complex demand-side barriers that prevent meaningful internet usage, even where coverage exists.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and solution-oriented tone throughout, with experts building on each other’s insights rather than debating. The tone was analytical and evidence-based, with participants sharing research findings and practical examples. There was an underlying sense of urgency about addressing digital inequalities, particularly given lessons from the pandemic, but the conversation remained constructive and forward-looking, emphasizing the need for systemic change and innovative approaches to digital inclusion.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Alison Gillwald** – Workshop moderator, works with Research ICT Africa as knowledge partner to the South African government for the G20, focusing on digital inequality and equitable digital inclusion

– **Carlos Rey-Moreno** – From the Association for Progressive Communication (APC), works on digital inequality, connectivity, inclusion, and community networks, with focus on social enterprises

– **Claire Sibthorpe** – Works with GSMA, specifically in mobile for development and inclusive development, focusing on mobile internet connectivity and digital inclusion

– **Steve Song** – From the Internet Society (previously worked with Mozilla), expert in telecommunications, internet infrastructure, and connectivity solutions

– **Dr Gillian Marcelle** – Independent consultant, extensive experience working across Africa in mobile telephony, policy and regulatory initiatives for universal access, advising operators and regulators

– **Sophie Maddens** – Works with the ITU (International Telecommunication Union), involved with the World Development Telecommunications Conference, focuses on regulatory issues and digital inclusion

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members who asked questions and participated in the discussion

**Additional speakers:**

– **Leandro Navarro** – From eReuse initiative and APC, works on device reuse and refurbishment for digital inclusion

– **Kevin Hernandez** – Works at the Universal Postal Union (UN organization for postal sector), focuses on connecting intermediaries for digital inclusion

– **Peter** – Online moderator/facilitator managing remote participants and questions

– **Leslie** – Technical support person managing online connections

– **Ramune** – Online participant who commented about libraries as intermediaries (mentioned indirectly through Peter)

# Workshop Report: Innovative Regulatory Policy and Business Strategies for Equitable Digital Inclusion

## Executive Summary

This workshop, conducted under South Africa’s G20 presidency, brought together leading experts to examine innovative approaches to achieving equitable digital inclusion. The discussion revealed a fundamental shift in understanding the digital divide, moving beyond traditional infrastructure-focused solutions to address complex demand-side barriers that prevent meaningful internet usage even where coverage exists.

The panel identified that whilst mobile broadband coverage reaches above 95% in many African countries, actual connectivity rates remain below 20%, indicating that most unconnected people live in areas with existing coverage but face other barriers to access. This finding challenges conventional approaches and highlights the need for comprehensive solutions addressing device affordability, digital literacy, and systemic inequalities.

## Key Participants

**Alison Gillwald** from Research ICT Africa moderated the session, bringing experience as knowledge partner to the South African government for G20 initiatives. **Sophie Maddens** from the International Telecommunication Union provided regulatory perspectives, whilst **Claire Sibthorpe** from GSMA offered mobile industry insights. **Steve Song** from the Internet Society contributed telecommunications infrastructure expertise, **Dr. Gillian Marcelle** brought independent consulting experience, and **Carlos Rey-Moreno** from the Association for Progressive Communication represented civil society perspectives on community networks.

Additional contributions came from **Leandro Navarro** on device reuse initiatives, **Kevin Hernandez** from the Universal Postal Union on intermediary organisations, and audience members who enriched the discussion.

## Redefining Digital Exclusion

### Beyond Basic Connectivity

**Sophie Maddens** highlighted that 2.6 billion people remain unconnected to the internet, with persistent divides across rural/urban, income, gender, and age demographics. However, **Alison Gillwald** argued that when meaningful connectivity standards are applied—requiring quality, availability, affordability, devices, skills, and security—the number of truly digitally excluded people approaches 4-4.5 billion.

Gillwald explained that meaningful connectivity, building on previous G20 work, requires that people have safe, enriching, and productive online experiences at affordable costs, not merely minimal broadband connections. Under South Africa’s G20 presidency, this framework has been extended to include digital financial transactions, security awareness, data protection, government services access, and digital identity.

### The Plateau Effect

**Steve Song** identified a critical challenge: internet access growth is plateauing as the telecommunications industry has “connected the easy parts,” leaving billions requiring fundamentally different approaches. **Claire Sibthorpe** reinforced this analysis, noting that 90% of unconnected people live in areas with mobile broadband coverage but face other barriers to usage.

## Primary Barriers to Digital Inclusion

### Device Affordability as the Dominant Constraint

The panel reached strong consensus that device affordability represents the primary barrier to internet access. **Claire Sibthorpe** presented evidence that for the poorest 20% in sub-Saharan Africa, an entry-level internet-enabled device costs 99% of average monthly income, making device acquisition practically impossible for the most vulnerable populations.

**Alison Gillwald** expanded on this challenge, explaining that even when people acquire devices, they often can only use them for basic functions rather than for business or productive purposes due to both affordability constraints and digital literacy gaps.

### Education and Digital Literacy

**Sibthorpe** identified digital literacy as the second major barrier, closely linked to device affordability in creating compound barriers to access. **Gillwald** provided crucial context by explaining that the main determinants of internet access correlate with education level, which in turn correlates with income and employment opportunities.

This reveals the systemic nature of digital exclusion, where existing inequalities in education and economic opportunity directly translate into digital disadvantage. **Sibthorpe** emphasised that digital skills training must be tailored to mobile devices since those are what people actually use.

### Regulatory and Market Structure Challenges

**Steve Song** argued that current regulatory frameworks focus too heavily on competition policy without adequately addressing inclusion strategies. **Alison Gillwald** provided specific evidence of regulatory failures, noting that market reviews and dominance assessments have barely been conducted on the African continent, missing opportunities for wholesale access regulation that could significantly reduce costs.

The discussion revealed significant regulatory barriers that prevent smaller operators and community networks from entering markets. **Carlos Rey-Moreno** highlighted the vast differences in regulatory requirements across countries, with many African countries imposing high transaction costs that effectively exclude community-based solutions.

## Alternative Models and Solutions

### Community Networks and Social Enterprises

**Carlos Rey-Moreno** presented community networks and social enterprises as crucial alternatives to traditional operator models. These organisations are driven by socially motivated intentions rather than purely commercial objectives, enabling them to serve populations that are economically unviable for traditional operators.

Rey-Moreno emphasised the difference between “transactional” and “transformational” services, arguing that social enterprises provide transformational connectivity that creates local value and addresses community-specific needs through circular economies that maintain money locally.

### Ecosystem Diversity

**Steve Song** introduced a compelling ecological metaphor, arguing that telecommunications ecosystems need diversity like healthy forests, with protection for small operators and encouragement of different business models. This diversity is essential because large mobile network operators, whilst successful in their market segments, cannot economically serve all populations and areas.

### Capacity Building and Local Ownership

**Steve Song** argued for building capacity for communities to create, understand, and control their own network infrastructure, referencing Richard Feynman’s principle that “what I cannot create, I cannot understand.” He warned of the risk that without local ownership, communities become further entrenched as consumers rather than empowered as citizens.

### Intermediary Organisations

**Kevin Hernandez** highlighted the critical role of intermediary organisations such as libraries, post offices, and community centres in supporting digital inclusion. He described UPU initiatives to connect every post office to the internet and leverage postal networks for digital inclusion, demonstrating systematic approaches to supporting intermediary organisations.

## Current Implementation Efforts

Several panellists described ongoing initiatives demonstrating practical progress:

**Sophie Maddens** reported that the ITU has launched the first course in Africa for technical promoters at the community level, focusing on capacity building for local network development.

**Claire Sibthorpe** described GSMA’s mobile internet skills training toolkit, which has trained 75 million people across 40 countries, demonstrating the potential for scaling digital literacy interventions.

**Leandro Navarro** introduced device refurbishment and circular economy approaches as potential solutions to device affordability challenges, connecting unused devices with people who need them.

## Fundamental Tensions and Disagreements

### Systemic vs. Technical Solutions

A fundamental disagreement emerged between **Dr. Gillian Marcelle’s** call for addressing the “extractive economic system” as the root cause of digital exclusion and other speakers’ focus on technical, regulatory, and capacity-building solutions within existing frameworks. Marcelle argued that the shift toward deregulation 25 years ago fundamentally changed how telecommunications policy treats people—as consumers in a market rather than citizens with communication rights.

### Measurement Challenges

The disagreement between traditional metrics citing 2.6 billion unconnected people versus meaningful connectivity definitions suggesting 4-4.5 billion people lack adequate digital inclusion highlights fundamental measurement challenges that could undermine policy coordination and resource allocation.

## Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration

**Claire Sibthorpe** emphasised that addressing digital inclusion requires multi-stakeholder collaboration across sectors, as no single entity can solve these challenges alone. **Sophie Maddens** reinforced this perspective, advocating for cross-sectoral collaboration and whole-of-society approaches that integrate digital inclusion with broader development objectives.

The panel grappled with defining appropriate government roles in digital inclusion whilst supporting community-based solutions, acknowledging the tension between state responsibility and community empowerment.

## Unresolved Challenges

Several critical challenges remain unresolved:

– **Scaling Community Solutions**: Moving from small pilot projects to systematic interventions that can address digital inclusion at population level

– **Regulatory Implementation**: Reducing high regulatory transaction costs whilst maintaining quality and security standards

– **Financing Innovation**: Developing financing models specifically designed for smaller operators and social enterprises

– **Wholesale Access Regulation**: Implementing market reviews and wholesale access regulation to reduce dominance and increase competition

## Conclusion

This workshop revealed the complexity and urgency of achieving equitable digital inclusion. **Alison Gillwald’s** closing observation highlighted that “we are not going to be any better off than we were, where the last pandemic put the majority of Africans at risk who were unable to digitally substitute both for the health risk and of course the economic risks associated with lockdowns,” underscoring the life-and-death consequences of digital exclusion.

The discussion demonstrated strong consensus on the inadequacy of current approaches whilst revealing significant disagreements about solutions. The shift from viewing digital exclusion as primarily an infrastructure problem to recognising it as a complex challenge involving device affordability, digital literacy, regulatory barriers, and systemic inequalities represents a fundamental reframing of the issue.

The panel’s emphasis on ecosystem diversity, community ownership, and transformational rather than merely transactional approaches to connectivity suggests that achieving equitable digital inclusion will require innovative policies, financing mechanisms, and collaborative approaches that go well beyond traditional telecommunications sector interventions.

Most significantly, the discussion highlighted the tension between treating people as consumers in a market-driven system versus recognising them as citizens with rights to communication and digital participation. Resolving this tension may be crucial for developing sustainable, equitable approaches to digital inclusion that can address the needs of billions who currently lack meaningful connectivity.

Alison Gillwald: Thank you very much. This is the workshop on Innovative Regulatory Policy Business Strategies to Digital Inclusion, workshop 484. Sorry, we’re just doing a sound test before we start. Want to talk? Hello, hello. Hi. Hello. More, more, more, more, more. Okay.

Carlos Rey-Moreno: Hello. My name is Carlos. I’m very happy to be in Oslo. Okay. Cool.

Claire Sibthorpe: Hi, my name is Claire.

Alison Gillwald: Okay. Good. Right. Good morning, everyone. For those of you who’ve just joined us and are planning to be part of this roundtable discussion, which it is meant to be, please feel free to come up and join the roundtable so that we can involve you in the discussion. If others of you are here for other reasons, of course, please carry on, but for those of you who’d like to come up here and join us, please do. Right. Okay. Well, we’ll start this session, and perhaps just a little bit by way of background is that this session really and I’m going to be talking about the work that’s been done in the context of the G20 under the South Africa’s presidency, which has one of the core pillars, which is being focused on the Digital Economy Working Group, is on equitable digital inclusion. And this very much builds on the previous G20 work done under Brazil, which looked at extending conceptions and measuring meaningful connectivity as developed by the Broadband Commission and the Digital Cooperation Roadmap work that was done, which was looking at issues very much of affordability in addition to universal access at a period of time. And then, of course, the meaningful connectivity as developed by the ITU and CETIC for the Brazilian G20 presidency was very much looking at what you required besides a sort of minimal broadband connection. And so the concept of meaningful connectivity included for, in the Brazilian case, issues of quality, issues of affordability, and then also some acknowledgement from the really extraordinary demand side work that CETIC does across Latin America, but particularly in Brazil, some of the issues of the kind of digital skills, the basic skills that you would need in order to be able to meaningfully access the Internet. So under the South African G20 presidency, the concept of meaningful connectivity has been extended to include some of those out-of-scope factors that the meaningful connectivity work done under the Brazilian presidency was looking at. And those really included what people did online, which are very extensively covered in the African After Access Surveys done by Research ICT Africa. and who is a knowledge partner to the South African government for the G20 and is working with the ITU on extending this conception under the presidency. So there we’re looking at some of the Brazil out of scope issues which include limitations on people’s ability to transact financially. So issues around… Are you able to hear? Are you able to hear? Okay. Issues around being able to, for example, digital inclusion, to transact digitally online, able to be aware of some of the security threats that might exist online, able to effectively protect your data, those kinds of things. So we look at a lot more things than just the connectivity issues, whether you’re able to access government services, whether you have digital ID. It’s a very extensive beyond connectivity survey, although it fulfills all the requirements of the ITU international standards standardization. So the important part of this complementary aspect to that was saying, despite the evidence that we’ve had of these primary demand side constraints, which are attached to affordability, but are not limited only to affordability issues, especially when you’re talking about digital inclusion, not simply connectivity. So the results of the data, both in Brazil and in Southeast Asia, where it’s been done with partners at Learn Asia and across Africa, shows that the main barrier to accessing the internet is the cost of the device. Okay, so that’s within a whole regulatory business model, that cost of that device, as it currently is, and currently regulated, etc., is unaffordable to the majority of Africans. And in fact, little chance of it being affordable under existing conditions. for a lot of the population. The barriers then for data, which are often made as barriers to access, but the barriers to use are then the price of data. But the main barrier is the price of the device. And there are many things one could do to reduce that device, but the question is whether it could be enough to be affordable. But more importantly, what we see is that when even people when people are online or have access to a device, they are unable to use that device very meaningfully. So for example, in our micro enterprise surveys, we see that although a number of people in the South African case, for example, not all across Africa, actually have a smart device, they’re only able to use it for or they only use it for WhatsApp, they’re unable to use this whole array of small business apps that now exist, for example. And so I think the important part of this is that the because these surveys are nationally representative, and we can model them, we can see that the main drivers of internet access and use, the main determinant of whether you’re going to have access and how you’re going to be able to use it, the intensity of use, the scope of use correlates with education. So your level of education, which correlates with income, of course, employment and income, will determine whether you have access to the internet, and the degree to which you’re able to use it meaningfully, or effectively, or optimally. And certainly, whether you can use it for not just transacting that, but for purposes of production or well being of your home, etc. So the main issue that’s been presented with the ongoing work by multilateral organisations within the Broadband Commission and across the UN, is that there is still a focus in addressing the digital divide on issues of connectivity. Current projects is very, very large, multi million euro projects underway that are trying to establish what existing investment is needed to ensure that the last 8% of the population, only 8% of the population aren’t under current mobile broadband coverage. And so the challenge for us is that we’ve got least developed countries throughout Africa, Rwanda, Uganda, Mozambique with above 95% coverage, some of them 99% coverage, and yet they have less than 20% connectivity. So the challenges for many countries is not a supply side challenge, and I am talking just about digital inclusion, so basic level. Of course those economies need to be able to develop 4G and 5G, all sorts of other business things, but in terms of addressing the inclusion problem, some of our challenges have been that we continue to look at costing 4G, 5G infrastructure that’s needed to get universal coverage at a global level, when in fact we could be getting reasonably meaningful connectivity, even at 3G, but arguably 4G, and we have that across many countries, but people are unable, nevertheless, despite having coverage, to use the internet. They either cannot afford it, or they do not have the educational skills to use it meaningfully, and even very often you’re beyond quite basically. So what we are trying with this initiative under the G20, South Africa’s G20 presidency, is to say let’s respond to this now quite large-scale global south evidence that the primary constraints on internet access are demand-side constraints, and start shifting the discussion on the digital divide from a purely connectivity discussion with possibly a little bit of digital skills, digital literacy. That is not going to be sufficient to systemically move countries towards digital equality. So shifting this discussion purely from a connectivity debate to a non-connectivity debate. to actually saying, how do we firstly identify digital inequality, how do we measure it, and what are the policy responses that we need to redress it? And I think this is the sort of fundamental digital equality paradox, this wicked policy problem that we’ve been facing, that the Global Digital Compact tries to address, that multiple rounds of the G20 under India, Brazil, and South Africa’s developing country economies are trying to address, is that actually as we layer these new technologies over existing structural and other inequalities, we are actually amplifying those inequalities. And unlike the old voice and text kind of environment, where one knew that one was doing that between the connected and the unconnected, it’s not only between the connected and unconnected, of course it’s there, but it’s also between those who are barely connected, who are on tiny bits of data, really not meaningfully connected, and those who are able to transact effectively and participate in the economy, seeing as this is a digital economy working group focus, and then of course those who are able to produce using these technologies. So with that longer than intended introduction, let me turn to our panellists here, and of course our wonderful panellists online, which I shall hopefully, are still online, and should have introduced much earlier on, but in the room here we have Carlos Rey Moreno, who is from the APC, from the Association for Progressive Communication, but worked along intersections with various other NPOs over many years in the area of digital inequality and connectivity and inclusion and community networks specifically, but he’s going to talk about new developments around social enterprises today. And then we also have Clare Sipthorpe, who is with the GSMA, and particularly the mobile for development, inclusive development component of that, is going to speak to us about GSMA’s long-standing work in this area and then we’ve got online Steve Song I’m now from the Internet Society I think many of you might have know Steve very well from Mozilla and various other things before and then we also have Dr Gillian Marcelle Marcelle who is joining us I think from from Germany today but usually not and not there who’s a independent consultant but I think many of us will will be known to many of us as working extensively across Africa especially in the very exciting early days of mobile mobile telephony actually initially and then it’s all happened so fast and then of course very much involved with the policy and regulatory initiatives towards getting universal access both at the in within multilateral organizations but also technically advising operators and regulators across the continent so a very exciting team which is finally we’ve joined by Sophie Maddens who works with the ITU and has been very involved with the World Development Telecommunications Conference which you could also update us on who’ve also been preoccupied with the kind of extensive demands on regulators and you know the extended mandates that they’re facing with these rapidly diversifying technologies and the demands that are arising from those so I think we are just going to start off with Sophie telling us a little bit about what the ITU is doing in this area I think she has also been tracking what we’ve been doing within the G20 with the ITU

Sophie Maddens: Thank you, Alison, and good morning everybody, good morning, good afternoon, wherever you are in the world. Alison, if you permit, I’m going to build on your introductory statements, because really you set the scene in a perfect manner, because we all see how digital has and continues to impact all sector and aspects of our lives. So think of e-health, e-agriculture, e-education and e-government services, innovation opportunities for value creation and the skills needed for adoption and the infrastructure for access, because it’s really about access adoption and value creation. That’s what the digital transformation is all about. But we still have 2.6 billion people not connected to the internet. So there is and must be a sense of urgency with all these people still unconnected. And that really is the core of our work, really that sense of urgency to connect the unconnected, but also to make sure that everybody has a meaningful experience through the connectivity. Our concern is as well that the digital divide still persists in many areas, rural areas, urban areas, across income, across gender, across age groups, and there are deep new divides that have emerged for vulnerable groups. So really addressing that demand side is key, because the challenge, it’s not just one of infrastructure development. And of course, as ITU, we work on infrastructure development, but expanding that connectivity is not enough because having access or being online are not sufficient to benefit fully from the connectivity. And today we see deep divides. So we see the risk of creating a multi-speed digital world, as you yourself mentioned, Allison. And so the fear is that a privileged few, those equipped with infrastructure, with skills, with the resources, with the expensive devices, that they are the ones that drive and benefit from AI innovation, while marginalized or vulnerable communities and groups are left behind. And so that’s why that universal and meaningful connectivity, it’s important to consider and address that. And how do we define it? It’s enabling everyone to enjoy a safe, enriching and productive online experience at an affordable cost. It does not mean everybody must be connected all the time, but it describes a situation, as you said, Allison, where anyone can access the internet, but optimally, affordably, whenever and wherever they need. And that also must be an objective of digital policy. So as you said, UMC is built on six interdependent dimensions, quality of the connection, availability for use, affordability of devices, skills and security. And each of these dimensions contribute to that meaningful digital experience and strength, and one cannot compensate for weakness in the other. So UMC has and must continue to be a vital policy objective. And let me highlight one issue here. Data is key to the success of this policy objective, because you cannot fix what you do not know. Achieving UMC also requires a holistic strategy. So we think of infrastructure development, but also policy frameworks, education initiatives, and of course, the multi-stakeholder engagement. And let’s go even further to ensure that no one is left behind, which brings me to digital inclusion, which is that holistic, intersectional approach. are all working together to build a digitally inclusive world for all, regardless of age, gender, ability or geographic location. And that’s why we at ITU are keen to share best practices, foster regional and global collaboration, so that together we can build those inclusive societies, economies and environments. And we provide assistance to our membership to formulate, implement and promote ICT policies and strategies for digital inclusion. And we also work to empower diverse groups, including youth, women and girls, particularly in rural, remote, underserved and unserved areas and communities, but also including older persons like myself, persons with disabilities and persons with specific needs, and of course indigenous people and communities. That to reduce the digital divide and enable everyone to actively participate in the digital world. I’ll leave it at that for now and come back with more thoughts.

Alison Gillwald: Thank you very much for that, Sophie. And we’ll move on to Steve Song to talk about it, just reminding us that in this round we just want to identify what exactly the problem is, your take on what those problems are, and then we’ll move to solutions in the next round. And then also just to, again, invite the audience who want to participate on the roundtable and post questions or just listen closer by, please do feel free to come up and join the conversation. Steve, over to you.

Steve Song: Thanks, Alison. I think we exist at a particularly critical point at the moment in that with two conflicting trends. One is that the growth of access is plateauing, right? And that is… you know, the reason for that is that we’ve connected the parts that are easy and, you know, affordable to connect and that the people can, you know, there’s a business model to sustain connectivity there. The remaining 2.9 billion are going to require a different approach. At the same time, you know, as you mentioned, Alison, you know, telecommunications and the internet is a force multiplier. It’s an amplifier. And so those 2.9 billion people who are unconnected are falling further behind all the time as those with access actually, you know, profit from the benefits of access. So having a strategy now that focuses on the inclusion of everyone is absolutely critical. And I think this points to regulatory issues where we’ve been focused on, you know, promoting competition. Well, that’s still extremely important, but we need to now go beyond competition and have strategies for inclusion. And the existing models, which have been extraordinarily successful to date, especially mobile networks and their growth, you know, remain a tremendously important mechanism for providing affordable access. But there’s limits to how far they can go and what they can do and whether their business models are viable in the most challenging parts of the world. And the way I like to describe this is, you know, if you think of connectivity as a jar you’re trying to fill, you know, in every country there are typically, you know, two or three or four mobile network operators and they’re like stones you’re trying to fit into that jar. And you can fit, you know, three or maybe four stones in that jar and the jar looks full. But, in fact, if you fill that jar with water, still more than 50% of it remains empty. And what is needed now is regulation that actually accommodates those smaller operators, those differently shaped operators, whether they are municipalities or cooperatives or non-profits or national research and education networks that can fill in those shapes in different ways. Another way of explaining this is to say, you know, you think of it like forest management, you know, monocultures have historically been extraordinarily unsuccessful, very vulnerable and not the way to create a healthy ecosystem. In a healthy ecosystem, we want to protect small plants and new growth to create diversity in the ecosystem. And we need to do the same thing with telecommunications and the internet. We need to protect small operators and encourage their growth so that they create different business models, they challenge affordability paradigms and they go where large operators don’t necessarily want to go. I’ll stop there. Thank you.

Alison Gillwald: Thank you so much for that, Steve. I’ve been biting my tongue trying to, since Sophie spoke, to just urge you to look at the paper where we do, applying the universal meaningful connectivity conception, not even our own more extended equitable digital inclusion conception, point out that that 2.6 unconnected in terms of basic connectivity as previously described, in terms of the application of meaningful connectivity, which the G20 under Brazil very courageously looked at Brazil and their universal access figure previously, their internet penetration figures previously above 80%. when they applied the Meaningful Connectivity formula went right down to 20%. So, using again the same extrapolation, yes, 2.6 people unconnected and, as Sophie points out, such bad data that those could be out by, you know, several hundred thousand, possibly millions. But that’s another part of that we are also trying to promote. But that the figure more like the people who are really not digitally included, substantively digitally included, is much closer to 4, you know, 4 billion or 4.5 billion in terms of that definition that we’ve used before and that we are now using in the South African G20 process. So, it’s getting those unconnected but also those not meaningfully connected online. So, Claire, perhaps if you’d come in there because Steve has mentioned some of the limitations, but despite the success of the mobile operators, especially on the African continent, there are some limitations now in reaching those so-called uneconomic areas or subscribers.

Claire Sibthorpe: Yeah, thanks so much, Alison. And I’m going to talk about, you know, obviously from the mobile perspective because that’s, you know, mobile is the primary way most people and often only way most people access the internet. And I think, you know, we also do these country national representative surveys like Research ICT Africa and find exactly the same things as you’re finding. And if we look at the problem, so if in terms of mobile internet, if 57% of the world is now connected to mobile internet, of the unconnected, if you break it down, there’s only 4% who don’t live in areas without coverage, mobile broadband coverage. So, the majority of those, so 39%, which is 90% of the unconnected, live in areas where there’s covered, but they can’t use it. So, if 90% of the people who are not connected, it’s not a coverage issue. It’s the fact that they have other face, other barriers to using it. And the people who are unconnected, and I think we’ve mentioned, it’s been mentioned already, it’s predominantly people in rural areas, people lowering… lower education, lower income, women, people, persons with disabilities. So we, for example, just published our latest mobile gender gap report, which shows that women in low and middle income countries are 14% less likely than men to use the internet. And in fact, that gender gap has stalled. So we’re not seeing, you know, a great deal of progress in that regard. But in our surveys, we look at, you know, why, why are they, why are people not using the internet or not getting online? And then once they’re online, why are they only using it in these very limited ways, as you said? And, you know, our research has similar findings to you. So the biggest barrier to getting online is the affordability of a device. And you mentioned it, you know, also about how it’s, it’s challenging. And I think if you, you know, I was, I’m always struck by the number from Africa, if you, you know, in our analysis, we looked at if you are in the poorest 20% of people living in Africa, in sub-Saharan Africa, you’re, it’s costing 99% of your average monthly income to buy an entry level internet enabled device. So these are, this is a very significant problem that, you know, needs a lot of thought in terms of how to address it. It’s not an easy solution. The other top, there’s two top barriers to getting online is the affordability of device. And the second is literacy and digital skills. And then once people go online, we ask people, what’s stopping you from using it more? Why is it this sort of limited? And in our research, it’s showing again, safety and security concerns become a big issue, affordability, but more of data at this point also emerges. So, you know, we have to, we have to look at the barriers around affordability, skills, relevance of, you know, relevant content and services, safety and security issues. If we’re really going to move the needle and we’re really going to get people online, not just online, but using it to help meet their life, life needs. And it’s sort of, it’s that usage gap. It’s that, that really is where we need to be focusing our efforts to, to really move the needle. And, and like you, it’s, you know, segments like women who are are you know lower income lower education are disproportionately affecting but we’ve also done you know some analysis that looked at if you held um you know the same women and men of the same income education levels you know there would still be for example a gender gap because things like social norms and and these other factors also play so if you’re wanting to you have to consider you know these structural inequalities as well as social norms and some of these these big barriers um and they need um they need we need to think beyond coverage and we need to think you know and we need to think beyond you know a certain single stakeholder as you know and you know how we can address these these barriers as as has been said repeatedly in this panel you know now it’s only exacerbating inequalities and it’s absolutely critical that we we move this needle.

Alison Gillwald: Thank you so much and um as before we carry on I’m just going to ask the audience um particularly to um sort of prime themselves we’ve been talking about and we’ll continue to talk about a lot of um access solutions regulatory strategies to reduce prices issues of affordability but I think you know a lot of this demand side evidence is demonstrating that we can no longer solve this problem with uh siloed sort of sectoral solutions there’s you know we can we can remove taxes from mobile phones we can do a number of things but actually we really need transversal digital policies that will focus on our education challenges these fundamental challenges that we are facing um human development challenges and that you know the um gender questions as have been historically posed which homogenize you know women um really aren’t helping us with policy interventions that really need to be focused at you know women at the intersection of those multiple other inequalities so if you look overall at issues of um sort of rural deficits in terms of access to the internet and you compare it with gender rural is worse off now obviously there’s also a lot of women concentrated in those rural areas But in fact, if you look at some of our data, it’s an issue of the poor and it’s also issues of kind of location and those kinds of things. So if they were actually, you know, they’re poor men who are worse off than urban poor women just because of their proximity. So we really need sort of far more nuanced interventions, but we also need interventions that are way beyond certainly the telecommunication sector, communication sector, the historical sectors that look at this problem. If we can go to Carlos, Carlos, some of the problem setting has been stated, so please do just add to that. But if you’d also just move to what you see as some of the possible solutions that we could deal here on the access side, and then we’re hoping for some really innovative responses on some of the non-access ways in which we can address this problem as well.

Carlos Rey-Moreno: Thank you so much, Alison, and I want to go back to one of the points that you mentioned in the introduction around costing, how much money is needed to close the digital divide from an infrastructure point of view. And I believe there are way too many conversations about costing, how much does it cost to close the digital divide, and I believe we are going to hear a new figure at some point this year, and not that much about how that investment could be used differently, how to enable other models. Also coming from the G20 in Brazil, the Digital Investment Infrastructure Initiative from the ITU and several second-tier development banks stated that stakeholders should think beyond typical for-profit models to cover 70% of the remaining access gaps. So addressing the same actors, considering the same ways of building infrastructure is leading to some part of this inequality that we see, due to the return on investment that they are seeking, due to other practices. as we’ve heard. But it is surprising to also see that the Global Digital Compact is referring to investing in local networks to close the digital divide, right? Because why it happens that some of these local networks are socially driven models that go way beyond the transactional way that we’ve understood the internet so far. Enterprises are transacting for a price, a service that is internet connectivity, period, right? There are these other models based on socially driven intentions, I would say, or bottom lines, social bottom lines or environmental bottom lines, social enterprises that go beyond those transactional models, sorry, those transactional services. They provide social inclusion services, they provide transformational services that at the end of the day create a circular economy, maintain the money locally to develop other small enterprises that develop the local skills required not only to run that particular local network but to run other businesses in the community that contribute to creating culturally relevant content and services using sensor networks, for instance, and that contribute quite significantly to local innovation. We were talking about innovation before. The amount of innovation that can come from the communities and from the rural areas is astonishing, addressing their own community needs and their own problems. Yet education systems are more proposing that those rural people go and contribute to the economies as we see them in urban areas and not to the problems that they are facing locally. So thinking through how that supply and demand meet with this type of interventions that stimulate circular economies locally, I think it’s also a way of thinking about the equitable digital inclusion. that you alluded to also. Thank you.

Alison Gillwald: Thank you so much. We’ll come back to that. Before we go into speaking a little further on some of the solutions, are there any questions from the room as we also try and gather some questions online? I know we’ve got a number of people online. Are there any questions or comments from the room at this point? Okay, Leslie, what do we have online? If we can turn to Peter for that, but also to hear from Dr Gillian Marcelle as well. Yep, yep. Okay, so while we gather some of those online questions, we are also going to ask Dr Gillian Marcelle to come in. Dr Gillian Marcelle, if you could also add to your extensive experience on what some of the problems are, but also move on to what you see as some of the solutions, which I know you’ve put a lot of thought into. Certainly, and thank you so much, Alison, for the invitation to join this panel with so many pioneers.

Dr Gillian Marcelle: Actually, I want to go in a different direction, if I may, because I think it’s important to actually put a theoretical framing on this question of how do we actually achieve equitable digital inclusion, because all of those premises and all of those words actually matter. And in listening to my colleagues, and I was listening very carefully, what I didn’t hear come up is the root causes that lead to exclusion and that lead to inequity. And the root causes, in my view, are the fact that we have an extractive economic system. on which we are then trying to layer demand and supply side solutions. So, to my mind, equitable digital inclusion will be achieved when laws, regulation, policy, ecosystem strengthening, entrepreneurship, finance and investment take place. But if they do within the status quo, then nothing will change. And we will still have what we’ve called the unconnected last mile problems. And we will still be talking about the things that we’ve been talking about for 25 years. And my own work in this area has been, as Alison mentioned, from the policy and regulatory lens, but I was also deeply involved in financing, and not financing at a small scale, but financing from the pioneers of the African telecoms revolution. And I will say that there was innovation at a narrative level in that time, which is now nearly 25 years ago, because when we were making models to look at whether or not investing in Nigeria was a good thing for MTN to do, there was no data. And so when I hear my colleagues talk about the fact that you can’t get reliable information about the cost of a handset, or what you would price data at, that leaves out a fundamental issue, which is risk. We want to encourage the private sector to take risks and to benefit from a return. And so whatever we do from the policy and regulatory domain should not exclude or leave out the fact that some private sector solutions and providers will succeed and others will fail. And there should not be an attempt to stop that from happening under the presumption that that is the way to connect the unconnected. One final point. If a mobile handset like the one I have here is an asset for production and for well-being, there are in existence alternative collateral models for financing things that people need. And so in looking at the things that we need to be doing, not only from a policy and regulatory side in the telecoms or in the tech sector, we also need to be looking at what are the enabling conditions that would allow for a variety of solutions that tackle all of the very good things that I’ve heard from my colleagues, but do not assume that the direction of change is going to be coming from policy and regulatory only. Because that then leaves out a very important engine of change which has been shown to work and I’ll leave it there for now and say a little bit more about what I think needs to be done so that we don’t end up with a digital society that is anywhere like the United States where you’ve had Silicon Valley and Silicon Valley values and norms produce a digital society that is about as toxic as we could possibly imagine. I’ll leave it there for now.

Alison Gillwald: Thank you so much for that Dr Gillian Marcelle. I’m hoping that we’ll get some responses to that. I did want to draw your attention those of you who had a chance to look at the issues paper to indicate that this is not only a policy and regulatory alternatives. We’re looking at alternative business strategies, we’re looking at cooperatives, social enterprises which we’ll come back to. I think we are though looking at some of the public interest policy and regulatory failures that we’ve seen and I think we are looking at new shifts that are acknowledging that despite the enabling conditions that have been created for the extraordinary investments that we’ve seen by mobile networks on the African continent but also now of course fiber networks across the continent. The creation of these conditions prioritized the supply side valuation of resources and really neglected the demand side valuation of resources that would recognize these critical resources as digital public goods and increasingly global digital public goods that require demand side interventions if they are to serve as critical inputs in the economy and to be universally accessible as we require digital public goods to be and so one of the mechanisms that we think is a real travesty in the long theoretical and economic regulatory competition levers that they’re meant to be is you know the market reviews that have barely been conducted on the African continent and the demonstrate the need to assess dominance in markets and effectively remedy that and I think many you know there’s an extraordinary evidence of the impacts of wholesale access regulation in opening up markets that has been got to the point where it’s meant to be implemented and would have changed the environment very very differently to what it is now and through the ethos of creating the certainty for investors and getting the certainty for investors I would argue Dr Gillian Marcelle there’s been you know an open conversation to that they that commercial supply-side assessment spectrum with anything you know that that’s gone without creating the public value the commons aspects of this that would have allowed greater inclusion and I know Steve your work has also focused on this and now not only kind of wholesale you know leased facilities and those kinds of things but of course very importantly with mobile operators in many parts of the continent actually being the dominant operators no longer the old fixed networks your access to API’s that would have just changed this environment entirely and I just wondered if you want to pick up on that.

Steve Song: Yeah I think a wholesale access is increasingly a massive barrier to the development of affordable access typically in many countries it it costs more to transit inside the country via fiber than it does to connect internationally. And there has to be mechanisms for bringing down the cost of backhaul, which is increasingly the highest burden of cost, especially for small operators in terms of operating costs. Things like structural separation, breaking out the backbone from the incumbents and setting it up as a separate company is a great step forward. But I think there are even better things to do. One of my favourite examples is Corus in New Zealand, who is formerly part of the incumbent and was separated out into a backbone network across New Zealand and who have implemented effectively flat pricing across the country. So anywhere you can connect to a Corus network, you can peer at the same price as if you are in the capital city or very close to it. And that’s a huge issue. We see national research and education networks like Tenet, Sanren in South Africa implementing the same thing so that universities connect to their national backbone network at the same price, no matter where they are, whether they’re rural or urban. If you were to implement those strategies across, say, state-owned backbones, you would unlock competition. You would incentivise small operators to deliver services in rural areas where they simply can’t at the moment because of the cost of backhaul.

Alison Gillwald: Thanks very much for that, Steve. Claire, I was wondering if you wanted to come in on the mobile and the regulatory and possibly what alternatives GSMA is looking at addressing these so-called uneconomic areas. If you do have non-technical or sectoral strategies, if you’re actually supporting educational other initiatives, please I highlight those as well.

Claire Sibthorpe: Yeah, as I said in in sort of the opening comment, I think that the biggest issue in terms of connectivity is, is, you know, not the coverage. I mean, obviously, coverage is important, but it’s not only a coverage issue. And on the coverage point, I think, you know, where those areas where it’s not economical for operators to cover, you know, looking at in how they can be covered. And the different models is really important. But I do think that we need to also really look at these, you know, coverages, the data shows coverage is not going to get people connected and using the internet coverage alone. Obviously, coverage is an important prerequisite, but alone, it’s not as I said, 90% of the people are who are not using it are covered. So what we do need to do is address things like affordability of devices. And I think there’s a range of strategies that can be done there. You know, taxation is a big issue, reducing taxation, looking at innovative device financing schemes, looking at subsidy schemes, because, you know, the cost of these devices is not on its own going to get down to the level that the people who are not connected can can afford. So we need to think about that. But literacy and digital skills are also critical. And again, I think that requires, you know, multi stakeholder multi agency intervention. So we need to be building in digital skills, you know, in with across education and training programs of the government across, you know, and, and, you know, and ensuring that those things that those initiative help highlight, you know, how the internet is relevant for different segments. I think a lot of the time we see in our research, people say this is not for me, because they see role in, you know, maybe in the marketing or awareness campaigns role. I mean, urban men and not not necessarily reflecting themselves and their life needs, but also ensuring that those training campaigns build in elements around how to keep yourself safe and secure online and address all those those issues. And I think in terms of the mobile operators, I think first of all I think it can’t be done by one stakeholder, but mobile operators are doing this, so they’re doing a range of device financing, looking at data that they get from their networks as alternative credit scorings to provide device financing, providing a lot of digital skills training. We have, GSME has created a mobile internet skills training toolkit which is a free open source creative commons training content that can be used to provide people the basic skills to get on to use the internet and use it safely. It’s now been used across 40 countries, been trained, I think 75 million people now at least have been trained, so I think we’re trying, because I think we found a lot of the digital skills campaigns are also focused on laptops and tablets, but those are not the devices people are using their hands, and so they weren’t able to translate that training into ways that they could use in their lives, so we’ve tried to address that, some of that gap, but I think it requires interventions by quite a range of people, and I think we need to be focusing on these sort of, as you say, the demand side barriers, and we need to be thinking across stakeholder groups as to how we do that to make sure that we’re really able for people to get online and get online safely and meet and use the internet to meet their life needs.

Alison Gillwald: So thanks very much Claire. Carlos, could you talk to us a little bit about, we’ve spoken about some of the sort of failures, regulatory failures and those sorts of things, but and in regard to some of the more kind of systemic issues around, you know, that would change things at scale around getting greater competition and through wholesale access and driving down prices, but they’ve also been, I mean when Steve was speaking in the beginning about a few big stones or just like, you know, lots of stones, I think as Steve’s often said, you know, let a thousand flowers bloom kind of models, the ability of niche innovations community services, now social enterprises services to break into the system as you know had relatively high regulatory transaction costs and you know what do you see as the key levers there if one accepts that these are actually the way that one can you know address some of the systemic challenges that we’re facing.

Carlos Rey-Moreno: Thank you, thank you so much Alison. Well I think one of it or the most important one is recognition. Recognition and a deep insight into the value of a diverse diversified ecosystem of actors. We see that still there are you know like this mindset of only traditional large operators countrywide operators can solve certain problems and again those are doing great but only contributing or providing services from that transactional perspective that I was alluding to and not entering in the transformational aspect that the internet could bring into this into this aspect. So that would be the one recognition that other actors are needed and that other actors are contributing because when those actors are provided with an enabling regulatory environment well here in Europe for instance where there is a vast array of small operators providing fiber optics wireless you name it even private mobile network mobile networks in certain areas you just need to declare your activity your provision of telecommunication services. In the Philippines you need a congressional franchise the Congress needs to allow you to deploy infrastructure so reducing the regulatory barriers of what do you need to actually start some sort of a business practice whether social or not certainly is gonna allow to for those smallest stones that Steve was alluding to to actually grow and thrill right. I think also touching a bit on what Dr Gillian Marcelle was saying about that we need to establish innovative financing and investment models that allow this small and localised operators to thrill. I have the feeling that in the financial sector, a lot of the interest has been on supporting the interest of capital and not supporting the interest of people. I think 20 years after Wysys, we need to start recognising the financial models to think through or to understand how we can support smaller operators, smaller ticket sizes, understanding what are the needs of those smaller actors, which of course are critical and there are starting to be some very interesting models around this. And lastly, capacity building. We are super proud to have launched last week the first course with the ITU in Africa for technical promoters at the community level after five editions in Latin America. And I think once you have that regulatory frame, once you have the recognition, once you have the regulatory framework, once you have the innovative financing and investment models in place, if enough skills and enough awareness is around for people to take benefit and advantage of this financing and these regulatory interventions, we see this thrilling. In Kenya, there are 20 community networks already and more will come. In Colombia, there are across the same number. In Brazil, there has been a magnificent collaboration with the regulator. There are more than 50, right? So when those things start to appear, more of those diversified actors and local innovation is going to take place to create those other impacts that I was alluding to in relation to circular economies, local innovation and culturally relevant content and services.

Alison Gillwald: Carlos, I suppose some of the scepticism is kind of scaling us. You know, that yes, great to see that capacity building, but how many people have been trained? How many people can be trained? So, you know, what kind of more systematic… opportunities there are. But I think some of the kind of collective response. So if one, you know, enables all of these smaller providers, if one enables different kinds of capacity building, if one gets curriculum, actually, you know, it’s probably more entrenched in curriculums and stuff. Collectively, we could we could see some outcomes. But I think one of the main challenges, one of the things has been around like demand stimulation, that actually for the people now who are not online, big challenges around awareness of the Internet. These are obviously least educated people. And of course, very little local language content for people. So there seems to be a particular role for these social enterprise organizations, community organizations that have are able to also produce content that could stimulate the Internet take up.

Carlos Rey-Moreno: So someone that was said at a session yesterday was in relation to to fair trade. Right. Was in relation to creating the same environment as has been created for social and solidarity economy in other sectors, agriculture, retail, you name it, to to to really reach the scale that there would be enough products and trainings and whatnot. As you were saying, whole of government approach. If this was a course that every pivot in every country would teach how someone could start a small business in that area around telecommunications as they do with agriculture or with retail or with car mechanics or whatever. Certainly you can you can start creating this type of a scale that you were that you were referring to. And the same with with mechanisms, with financing mechanisms. We were talking this morning at a discussion with someone that in Kenya, you need at least 20 percent of interest to pay in 20 percent of interest rates to get a loan for for for for a small operator, because there is not that understanding. There is not that awareness in the financial sector locally that these small operators can actually do any of this. right so that type of financial sector deepening that type of engaging with local financial institutions so they can make available products that are accessible for small operators and small social enterprises in the country would be very much necessary I think for for that side of scale going again to the thousand flowers blooming that Steve was talking about but we need to look at it ecosystemically if it’s three or four philanthropic organizations giving grants here and we’re not going to tackle any problem whatsoever.

Alison Gillwald: And of course you say a whole of government but, I think some of the problems have been is there’s been a lot of investment focus in government and across government but actually what we need is a whole of society kind of approach that hopefully government will play a more active role in creating that public value kind of environment that we want for this I’m hoping we can go on to some questions before we go back to Dr Gillian Marcelle actually Dr Gillian Marcelle’s got her hand up so let’s take Dr Gillian Marcelle’s question Dr Gillian Marcelle’s response while we look Leslie I’m hoping that you can see Peter or can Peter hear me directly okay so if we can just line up some questions Peter and then we’ve got a question fortunately at our very small round table please do come and join us Dr Gillian Marcelle do you want to go ahead and then we’ll take one from the floor and then we’ll go online

Dr Gillian Marcelle: certainly what I wanted to come back to is the issue of dominance and your point about that the and I am assuming that you’re talking about regulatory agencies in developing countries have not taken the opportunity to look at dominance and industry concentration and so on in the tech sector and of course we know exactly why that is the case because so much of what happens and what called the digital space, gets its way of being from what is happening in the United States. And 25 years ago, a decision was made that deregulation and not even applying, Alison, this will be in your wheelhouse, not even applying broadcast regulations to all of these platform companies. So that the zeitgeist saw regulation and public interest, the notion that tech should serve the public interest, shifted. And it shifted 25 years ago. And so we must acknowledge that. Because the reason that we are struggling with Connectivity Plus and so on is because people are being treated like consumers in a neoliberal framing rather than citizens who have the right to communication and the rights to access. 25 years ago, we would be having a different conversation. 25 years ago, we also had pushed the multilateral organizations into recognizing the concepts that you are speaking about, you know, the global commons, telecoms and so on as global public goods. And we need to get back to that. Because if we don’t, and recognize just how far that shift has happened, unlike when Nelson Mandela was saying in 1996, that there are more fixed lines in all of Manhattan, than they are in all of sub-Saharan Africa. Now, what we can say is there are people in the Bronx in New York who cannot get access to internet. So it is the underlying economic system, not even finance. The economic system says you treat people like consumers in a market for profit maximization and then you layer everything on top of that. So that’s what I wanted to come back to because all of the things that we are talking about, market concentration, regulatory capture, the limits of regulatory power, the sort of the meekness of those interventions also come from that shaping of the frame. And there are things that we can do. We should not accept that it’s a foregone conclusion but we must also see from where this has originated as well.

Alison Gillwald: Thank you so much Dr Gillian Marcelle and we have a question from our roundtable. If you’d introduce yourself and then we’ll see somebody standing up there as well. Please if you want to join us, do. Please go ahead.

Audience: Hi, can you hear me? Yes, so I’m Leandro Navarro. I’m coming from an initiative called eReuse and also from APC and I wanted to highlight, because it’s being discussed, when it comes to talking about inclusion, it makes sense to count in let’s say millions or billions, not unconnected, but when it comes to meaningful connectivity probably you don’t find it on the amount of packets, IP packets that you get, but on what you do. What you do, the labels, the value and so forth. But also as it was commented, I mean I haven’t seen anyone connected directly to the internet if they connect to a device. And so, typically, we’ve been looking in community networks or in network infrastructure to the last mile. But I think it’s important to look at the last meter, because the last meter is when the action happens, when the meaningful part occurs. So imagine that we are talking about water. It’s very important to have water. But it depends if I have a glass or if I have a toilet or if I have a swimming pool. It’s completely different. And that is the meaning there. I’m swimming. I’m doing exercise or I’m eating because I have a pot and I’m cooking my food. So you cannot see it on the network layer. So I think it’s important to look at the last meter. And in the last meter, well, there are devices. It’s not the same. I mean, we have been doing projects in which we go to schools in Uganda and we replace mobile phones by laptops because mobile phone is not useful for learning. But a laptop can be. So it makes a big difference. So once we go beyond the challenge of bringing the Internet there, then the next thing is which device is there. And, you know, it’s interesting to see that there are unconnected people, but also there are unused devices. And then regarding affordability, there is this interesting opportunity that there are devices which are no longer used by one owner, but still they have a lot of years of life span. And then, I mean, refurbish them, refurbish them and collecting them and giving them to people that need a device that shouldn’t be the last model in the market can also help. Connecting the unconnected by supplying them unused devices and helping the environment. So, I mean, there are a lot of potential in the last meter and also in creating affordable devices which do not need to be manufactured again. So, well, I think it’s, yeah, it’s been discussed. I think the user device makes a lot of sense, a lot of meaning to the user. Of course, the user has to know what to do with it, but the device is not the same glass than some input.

Alison Gillwald: Thank you so much for that input. I think the importance of connectivity and the device, these are absolutely necessary conditions. So nobody’s saying that these access issues aren’t absolutely critical. I think the device refurbishment is a nice example. I think we have it in the issues paper, but I think it could be. Brazil, for example, has really very interesting examples of recycling within their circular economy policy and practice that are kind of scalable. Because I think in many of our environments, they’ve been little small project here for retraining people or something like that. So kind of getting those, you know, there’s innovation out of constraint that Africa is famous for. Models more effectively working to get the kind of systemic and scaling. I am hoping that the questions, some questions that we got lined up from the thing in here are also going to deal with some of the non-access issues. But please go ahead anyway.

Audience: Hi, so my name is Kevin Hernandez and I work at the Universal Postal Union, which is the UN organization that deals with the postal sector. And my question is specifically about the non-access issues. So I think, and I want to thank all of you for all the solutions that you put forward on this panel. They’ve all been very interesting. And specifically, I want to thank, I don’t know your name, but the person who mentioned something about community-based organizations. Because I think they also play a very critical role in the last mile, not just in connecting people, but also dealing with the immediate risks of digital exclusion. And what do I mean by that? I mean, in the case when someone is not connected and all the services in their country are digitalized and you can no longer access things in person, where do people usually turn to? They usually turn to a library. and they turned to a post office that might be offering the government services and digital financial services or they might turn to an NGO or they might turn into some other community based organization. But I don’t really hear many solutions that are put forward that kind of focus on connecting these intermediaries because these intermediaries play a big role in ensuring that the immediate effects of exclusion are not are not felt today. So we’re not going to we’re not going to connect all the unconnected anytime soon. There are billions of them. So what do we do now to ensure that these kind of intermediaries are not left in a place where they’re left to fend for themselves without any support? We need to also support these intermediaries. And how do we do that? And also, I just want to flag that I work for the UPU and I work for a project that aims to connect every post office to the Internet and leverage them for digital inclusion. So anybody who would like to learn more, you can come and find me. I have some concept notes about our project. Thank you.

Alison Gillwald: Thank you so much for that very useful input. And to say that, of course, a lot of the work that has been done by APC in this area and Mozilla with Steve. But anyway, I think just to emphasize that if the importance of intermediaries hasn’t been highlighted enough, it absolutely should be. And I think when we were talking about some of the high transaction costs for community services and those kinds of things is precisely to enable that kind of intermediary intervention. I think another interesting policy aspect to that, though, the challenge has been not to allow the state to abdicate its responsibilities to, you know, we’ll just let those communities sort out this little kind of minimalist network there or something, but to actively support them as part of programs. And it’s a state’s responsibility to do that and or to ensure that the licensed operator or whatever actually does serve those communities. So I think it’s an important policy debate. And I’m still hoping for some grand strategy. that’s going to solve the underlying human development challenge, so let’s go online and see what we have there. Peter can you hear me? I keep looking at Leslie thinking that he’s got the connection to you, but can you hear me?

Audience: Thank you, yes I can. There was a useful comment from Ramune about another form of intermediary. I quote, local libraries when equipped with sufficient connectivity and computers for public use contribute effectively to digital inclusion of communities they serve. Besides physical access tackling, also digital literacy, online safety and privacy issues, as well as walking people of all ages to digital learning opportunities. So putting that as a question, would you and the panel agree with that, and are there any other of those forms of intermediary like the post office that we just heard about?

Alison Gillwald: Great, so we’ve actually got a minute for each of the panellists, so I’m going to let them respond to each other, which I think some have already done, and then also just to take that last question if you’d like to. Steve, would you like to go ahead?

Steve Song: Thanks Alison. I think there’s a thread here that strikes me as very important. That relates to intermediaries such as post offices and libraries, but also to community networks, and that is the fact that we focus a lot on the capacity building of the consumer, right, to be able to use the network, but we don’t talk as much about the ability to build the network and capacity building to build and own networks. I came across a lovely quote from Richard Feynman, one of the great physicists of the 20th century. He said, what I cannot create, I cannot understand, and I think this is true of the internet, and it gives me pause when I think about solutions like Starlink, which are… The very remarkableness is kind of also their flaw in the sense that when you connect a Starlink dish you just turn it on and it connects to the internet and that’s it. Which is remarkable, but it also means that you don’t know what an IP address is, you don’t know what an autonomous system number is, you don’t know how to build the network and it is a loss of agency and control as a result. So I think that national research and education networks that are building their own fiber backbones, the same potential exists for post offices and libraries not to just receive connectivity but to be involved in the solution, in the provision of connectivity and I think there’s a huge risk when organizations are not involved, when citizens are not involved in that, you get situations such as we see now with AFRINIC, the agency responsible for assigning IP addresses across African countries, is in crisis because in order to participate in AFRINIC you need to be an internet service provider, you need to have an autonomous system number, you need to be an agent of building networks and if we don’t actually focus and invest in that ability to invest, then we’re further becoming, as Julian says, consumers rather than

Alison Gillwald: citizens in this process. Thanks Steve. Carlos, one minute please. No, less than that.

Carlos Rey-Moreno: Well, we live in a diverse world with diverse societies and in many ways the internet has been homogenized in the way that it’s been provided and I think at the center of this solution for equitable digital inclusion we need to embrace the diversity of solutions because Again, as Leandra was saying, like many people will use the internet differently, and talking to what Steve was saying in relation to autonomy, we need to enable the capacity of diverse ways of engaging, building, using, etc. And neither from the investors, nor from the regulators or the ministries, that ecosystem is there to enable and support that diversity, right? The risk is there, people are willing to take the risk, people are willing to do these interventions, but they don’t have an enabling ecosystem.

Alison Gillwald: Thanks very much. Sophie, please, you’ve got like 25 seconds.

Sophie Maddens: All right. Carlos, you gave me a perfect segue, because I’ve heard, I think all of us agree, we need a different mindset, right? So we need a different mindset to close the gap, that difficult gap. But that different mindset needs a different set of tools, skills and processes. So I think it’s not just about policy and regulation, but really that approach and experimenting, right? We need the variety of solutions and being bold enough to be able to experiment. You think of the regulatory sandboxes. So I think agility is key, boldness is key, having the necessary regulatory skills is key. And I think I’ve also heard that cross-sectoral collaboration, right? We need to think, if you think of digital financial inclusion, that’s automatically the working between the sectors. I think all of that is key.

Alison Gillwald: Thank you so much, Sophie, because that was quite a nice summing up for us that we’re not going to have time to do of highlighting some of those issues. We’ve got offline. Claire, if you want to just give us a 10 second response, please do.

Sophie Maddens: Sure. I mean, I guess I think what we’re all alluding to is there’s no one sort of silver bullet, that everything we do needs to be grounded in the realities of the people we’re trying to connect and connect in a meaningful way. And so I think we need and I think also what is critical is not only understanding people’s needs and barriers, but also taking a kind of holistic approach. It’s not about just giving coverage or giving devices. we need to think about skills, relevant content, that ecosystem that Carlos was talking about, enabling that kind of, you know, so we need to be thinking holistically about the barriers and it needs to be grounded in really the needs and barriers of the different communities and it is different, people communities are different and their needs and barriers are different and and thinking about that in that way.

Alison Gillwald: Okay, I think we don’t have a chance, Dr Gillian Marcelle, unless you have a off, we’re off time, but if you want to have a five second, 10 second response, please go ahead. I think you should trust your own instincts,

Dr Gillian Marcelle: Alison, because I think you know exactly how we should re-centre sustainable development into this agenda for what is being called digital inclusion. So thanks again for your leadership.

Alison Gillwald: Well, thank you so much for joining us, Dr Gillian Marcelle, and for all the pioneering work over so many years. My only thing, again, I can’t help myself, yes, Steve, Starlink does come down and you just switch on the internet, but it also doesn’t come free, even though a lot of the discourse is that this is this incredible free service that’s going to provide all, solve all our universality problems. And the other thing I just want to leave us with, with lots of these really important access solutions, but that are not, you know, that are kind of community or collective access solutions, is that should we face another pandemic, which we inevitably will, but if we should face it this month, this year, we are not going to be any better off than we were, where the last pandemic put the majority of Africans at risk who were unable to digitally substitute both for the health risk and of course the economic risks associated with lockdowns. They could not get to community centres, they could not get to libraries and they could not get to schools and they saw the greatest negative outcomes, death, from being unable to mitigate that risk. digitally. So onwards and forwards with these solutions and I’m still looking forward for some of those non-access solutions that we can take forward into the final G20 equitable digital inclusion responding to evidence of demand side constraints. Thank you so much. Thanks to our fabulous panellists and to the audience. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Coverage is not the primary barrier to digital inclusion

Speakers

– Alison Gillwald
– Claire Sibthorpe
– Steve Song

Arguments

Many African countries have 95-99% coverage but less than 20% connectivity, indicating supply-side solutions aren’t addressing the core problem

90% of unconnected people live in areas with mobile broadband coverage but face other barriers to usage

Growth of internet access is plateauing as we’ve connected the easy parts, leaving 2.9 billion requiring different approaches

Summary

All speakers agree that infrastructure coverage exists in most areas but people cannot access or meaningfully use internet services due to other barriers, indicating that supply-side solutions alone are insufficient

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Device affordability is a major barrier to digital inclusion

Speakers

– Alison Gillwald
– Claire Sibthorpe

Arguments

The main barrier to accessing the internet is the cost of the device

The biggest barrier to internet access is the cost of devices, not data prices

For the poorest 20% in sub-Saharan Africa, an entry-level internet device costs 99% of average monthly income

Summary

Both speakers identify device costs as the primary financial barrier preventing people from getting online, with specific evidence showing devices are unaffordable for the poorest populations

Topics

Development | Economic

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for digital inclusion

Speakers

– Sophie Maddens
– Claire Sibthorpe
– Carlos Rey-Moreno

Arguments

Cross-sectoral collaboration is essential, such as between telecommunications and financial sectors for digital financial inclusion

Addressing digital inclusion requires multi-stakeholder collaboration across sectors, not single-stakeholder solutions

Recognition of diverse actors beyond traditional large operators is needed, along with reduced regulatory barriers for small operators

Summary

All three speakers emphasize that digital inclusion cannot be solved by any single stakeholder or sector, requiring coordinated approaches across multiple actors and sectors

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Digital skills and education are critical barriers beyond connectivity

Speakers

– Sophie Maddens
– Claire Sibthorpe
– Alison Gillwald

Arguments

Universal meaningful connectivity requires quality, availability, affordability, devices, skills and security – not just minimal broadband connection

Literacy and digital skills are the second biggest barrier to getting online after device affordability

Main determinants of internet access and meaningful use correlate with education level, which correlates with income and employment

Summary

Speakers agree that having access to technology is insufficient without the skills and education needed to use it meaningfully, with education being a fundamental determinant of digital inclusion

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Need for ecosystem diversity and alternative models

Speakers

– Steve Song
– Carlos Rey-Moreno

Arguments

Telecommunications ecosystems need diversity like healthy forests – protecting small operators and encouraging different business models

Social enterprises and community networks provide transformational services beyond transactional connectivity, creating circular economies and local innovation

Recognition of diverse actors beyond traditional large operators is needed, along with reduced regulatory barriers for small operators

Summary

Both speakers advocate for diverse telecommunications ecosystems that include small operators, community networks, and alternative business models rather than relying solely on large traditional operators

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers critique regulatory failures and the shift away from public interest regulation, arguing that current approaches prioritize commercial interests over citizen rights and public value

Speakers

– Alison Gillwald
– Dr Gillian Marcelle

Arguments

Market reviews and dominance assessments have barely been conducted on the African continent, missing opportunities for wholesale access regulation

The shift toward deregulation 25 years ago treated people as consumers rather than citizens with communication rights

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Both emphasize the importance of local agency, control, and capacity building that empowers communities to create and manage their own solutions rather than being passive consumers

Speakers

– Steve Song
– Carlos Rey-Moreno

Arguments

Capacity building should include not just using networks but building and owning them to maintain agency and control

Educational systems should focus on local innovation and community problem-solving rather than just preparing rural people for urban economies

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both advocate for flexible, experimental approaches that can be tailored to specific community needs rather than applying universal solutions

Speakers

– Sophie Maddens
– Claire Sibthorpe

Arguments

Regulatory sandboxes and experimentation are needed along with agility and boldness in trying different approaches

Solutions need to be grounded in the realities and specific needs of different communities rather than one-size-fits-all approaches

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected consensus

Limitations of current successful mobile network models

Speakers

– Steve Song
– Claire Sibthorpe
– Alison Gillwald

Arguments

Current regulatory focus on competition needs to expand to include strategies for inclusion

90% of unconnected people live in areas with mobile broadband coverage but face other barriers to usage

Many African countries have 95-99% coverage but less than 20% connectivity, indicating supply-side solutions aren’t addressing the core problem

Explanation

Despite mobile networks being extraordinarily successful in expanding coverage across Africa, all speakers acknowledge their limitations in reaching universal inclusion, which is unexpected given the typical celebration of mobile success stories

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Need for systemic rather than sectoral solutions

Speakers

– Dr Gillian Marcelle
– Alison Gillwald
– Carlos Rey-Moreno

Arguments

The underlying extractive economic system needs to be addressed rather than just layering demand and supply solutions on the status quo

Main determinants of internet access and meaningful use correlate with education level, which correlates with income and employment

Social enterprises and community networks provide transformational services beyond transactional connectivity, creating circular economies and local innovation

Explanation

There is unexpected consensus that digital inclusion requires addressing fundamental economic and social structures rather than just technological or sectoral interventions, suggesting a more radical approach than typically discussed in telecommunications policy

Topics

Economic | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists on core challenges (coverage vs. meaningful access, device affordability, need for skills) and the inadequacy of current approaches. Speakers agree on the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration, ecosystem diversity, and moving beyond traditional telecommunications solutions.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for policy direction. The agreement suggests a paradigm shift is needed from supply-side infrastructure focus to demand-side, holistic approaches that address education, affordability, and systemic inequalities. This consensus among diverse stakeholders (ITU, GSMA, civil society, academia) indicates potential for coordinated policy action, though implementation challenges remain significant given the systemic nature of required changes.

Different viewpoints

Primary focus for addressing digital inclusion – infrastructure vs systemic economic change

Speakers

– Dr Gillian Marcelle
– Sophie Maddens
– Claire Sibthorpe
– Steve Song

Arguments

The underlying extractive economic system needs to be addressed rather than just layering demand and supply solutions on the status quo

Universal meaningful connectivity requires quality, availability, affordability, devices, skills, and security – not just minimal broadband connection

90% of unconnected people live in areas with mobile broadband coverage but face other barriers to usage

Growth of internet access is plateauing as we’ve connected the easy parts, leaving 2.9 billion requiring different approaches

Summary

Dr Marcelle argues for fundamental economic system change as the root solution, while other speakers focus on technical, regulatory, and capacity-building approaches within existing frameworks

Topics

Economic | Development | Legal and regulatory

Role of private sector and market mechanisms in digital inclusion

Speakers

– Dr Gillian Marcelle
– Carlos Rey-Moreno

Arguments

Risk-taking and innovation should be encouraged in the private sector while ensuring variety of solutions for inclusion

Alternative financing models are needed that support smaller operators and social enterprises rather than just capital interests

Summary

Dr Marcelle supports private sector risk-taking and natural market processes including failures, while Rey-Moreno criticizes financial sector focus on capital interests over people’s interests

Topics

Economic | Development

Scale and measurement of digital exclusion

Speakers

– Sophie Maddens
– Alison Gillwald

Arguments

2.6 billion people remain unconnected to the internet, with deep divides persisting across rural/urban, income, gender, and age groups

The real number of people not digitally included is closer to 4-4.5 billion when using meaningful connectivity definitions

Summary

Significant disagreement on the actual scale of digital exclusion, with Gillwald arguing the problem is much larger when meaningful connectivity standards are applied

Topics

Development | Human rights

Unexpected differences

Historical framing and root cause analysis

Speakers

– Dr Gillian Marcelle
– Other panelists

Arguments

The shift toward deregulation 25 years ago treated people as consumers rather than citizens with communication rights

Various technical and policy solutions focused on current barriers

Explanation

Dr Marcelle’s historical analysis of deregulation 25 years ago as the root cause was unexpected given other speakers’ focus on current technical and policy solutions. This fundamental disagreement about whether to address historical policy shifts or current barriers represents a deeper philosophical divide about reform vs revolution approaches

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Data reliability and measurement challenges

Speakers

– Sophie Maddens
– Alison Gillwald

Arguments

2.6 billion people remain unconnected to the internet, with deep divides persisting across rural/urban, income, gender, and age groups

The real number of people not digitally included is closer to 4-4.5 billion when using meaningful connectivity definitions

Explanation

The significant disagreement on basic statistics about digital exclusion was unexpected among experts working on the same issues. This suggests fundamental measurement and definitional challenges that could undermine policy coordination

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed moderate to significant disagreements on fundamental approaches (systemic change vs technical solutions), measurement of the problem scale, and the role of market mechanisms, while showing convergence on the need for diverse solutions and multi-stakeholder approaches

Disagreement level

The disagreements are substantial enough to potentially impact policy coordination and resource allocation, particularly the 2.6 billion vs 4-4.5 billion measurement gap and the fundamental divide between reform-oriented technical solutions versus systemic economic transformation approaches. However, the shared recognition of demand-side barriers and need for innovation provides common ground for collaborative action.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers critique regulatory failures and the shift away from public interest regulation, arguing that current approaches prioritize commercial interests over citizen rights and public value

Speakers

– Alison Gillwald
– Dr Gillian Marcelle

Arguments

Market reviews and dominance assessments have barely been conducted on the African continent, missing opportunities for wholesale access regulation

The shift toward deregulation 25 years ago treated people as consumers rather than citizens with communication rights

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Both emphasize the importance of local agency, control, and capacity building that empowers communities to create and manage their own solutions rather than being passive consumers

Speakers

– Steve Song
– Carlos Rey-Moreno

Arguments

Capacity building should include not just using networks but building and owning them to maintain agency and control

Educational systems should focus on local innovation and community problem-solving rather than just preparing rural people for urban economies

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both advocate for flexible, experimental approaches that can be tailored to specific community needs rather than applying universal solutions

Speakers

– Sophie Maddens
– Claire Sibthorpe

Arguments

Regulatory sandboxes and experimentation are needed along with agility and boldness in trying different approaches

Solutions need to be grounded in the realities and specific needs of different communities rather than one-size-fits-all approaches

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Key takeaways

The digital divide is primarily a demand-side problem rather than a supply-side connectivity issue, with 90% of unconnected people living in areas with mobile broadband coverage but facing other barriers

Device affordability is the biggest barrier to internet access, with entry-level devices costing 99% of monthly income for the poorest 20% in sub-Saharan Africa

Meaningful connectivity requires six interdependent dimensions: quality, availability, affordability, devices, skills, and security – not just basic connection

When meaningful connectivity standards are applied, the number of truly digitally excluded people is closer to 4-4.5 billion rather than the commonly cited 2.6 billion

Education level is the main determinant of internet access and meaningful use, correlating with income and employment opportunities

A diverse telecommunications ecosystem is needed, similar to forest management, with small operators, cooperatives, and social enterprises filling gaps that large operators cannot address economically

Current regulatory frameworks focus too heavily on competition and need to expand to include specific strategies for digital inclusion

The shift toward treating people as consumers rather than citizens with communication rights has contributed to current exclusion patterns

Multi-stakeholder, cross-sectoral collaboration is essential, as no single entity can solve digital inclusion challenges alone

Resolutions and action items

ITU launched the first course in Africa for technical promoters at the community level for capacity building

GSMA created a mobile internet skills training toolkit (Creative Commons) that has trained 75 million people across 40 countries

Universal Postal Union is implementing a project to connect every post office to the Internet and leverage them for digital inclusion

Continued work under South Africa’s G20 presidency to extend meaningful connectivity concepts to include equitable digital inclusion measures

Development of innovative financing models specifically designed for smaller operators and social enterprises rather than traditional capital-focused approaches

Unresolved issues

How to achieve systematic scaling of community networks and social enterprises beyond small pilot projects

Lack of reliable data for measuring digital inclusion progress and device affordability across different regions

High regulatory transaction costs that prevent smaller operators and community services from entering markets

Wholesale access regulation implementation failures across African continent, missing opportunities to reduce backhaul costs

How to address the fundamental ‘extractive economic system’ that underlies digital inequality without just layering solutions on existing structures

Ensuring state responsibility for universal access while supporting community-based solutions without allowing government abdication of duties

Preparing for future pandemic scenarios where collective access solutions (libraries, community centers) may be inaccessible

Suggested compromises

Balancing private sector risk-taking and profit incentives with public interest requirements for digital inclusion

Combining large operator efficiency with small operator innovation through regulatory frameworks that accommodate both

Integrating device refurbishment and circular economy approaches with new device manufacturing to address affordability

Using intermediaries like libraries and post offices to bridge immediate digital exclusion while working toward long-term connectivity solutions

Implementing regulatory sandboxes that allow experimentation with new models while maintaining necessary oversight

Developing whole-of-society approaches that include but don’t rely solely on government intervention

The main barrier to accessing the internet is the cost of the device… But more importantly, what we see is that when even people when people are online or have access to a device, they are unable to use that device very meaningfully.

Speaker

Alison Gillwald

Reason

This comment fundamentally reframes the digital divide discussion by distinguishing between basic connectivity and meaningful use. It challenges the prevailing focus on infrastructure by highlighting that even those with access often cannot use devices effectively due to educational constraints.

Impact

This set the foundational framework for the entire discussion, shifting focus from supply-side (infrastructure) to demand-side constraints. It established the conceptual foundation that other panelists built upon throughout the session.

If you think of connectivity as a jar you’re trying to fill… in every country there are typically two or three or four mobile network operators and they’re like stones you’re trying to fit into that jar… But, in fact, if you fill that jar with water, still more than 50% of it remains empty.

Speaker

Steve Song

Reason

This metaphor brilliantly illustrates why traditional approaches to connectivity are insufficient. It demonstrates how dominant operators, while successful, cannot address the full scope of connectivity needs, making a compelling case for ecosystem diversity.

Impact

This metaphor became a recurring theme, with other speakers referencing the need for diverse solutions and smaller operators. It shifted the conversation toward regulatory frameworks that could accommodate different types of service providers.

I want to go in a different direction… because I think it’s important to actually put a theoretical framing on this question… what I didn’t hear come up is the root causes that lead to exclusion and that lead to inequity. And the root causes, in my view, are the fact that we have an extractive economic system.

Speaker

Dr Gillian Marcelle

Reason

This comment introduced a critical systems-level analysis that challenged the panel to think beyond technical and policy solutions to examine underlying economic structures. It brought historical context and questioned whether incremental solutions could address fundamental inequities.

Impact

This intervention elevated the discussion from tactical solutions to strategic systemic analysis. It prompted other speakers to acknowledge broader structural issues and influenced the conversation toward considering alternative economic models and the need for transformational rather than just transactional approaches.

There are these other models based on socially driven intentions… social enterprises that go beyond those transactional models… They provide social inclusion services, they provide transformational services that at the end of the day create a circular economy, maintain the money locally.

Speaker

Carlos Rey-Moreno

Reason

This comment introduced the crucial distinction between transactional and transformational approaches to connectivity, highlighting how community-based models can address multiple development challenges simultaneously rather than just providing internet access.

Impact

This shifted the discussion toward holistic, community-centered solutions and influenced subsequent conversations about capacity building, local innovation, and the need for regulatory frameworks that support diverse business models.

What I cannot create, I cannot understand… there’s a huge risk when organizations are not involved, when citizens are not involved in that, you get situations… we’re further becoming consumers rather than citizens in this process.

Speaker

Steve Song

Reason

This philosophical insight, referencing Richard Feynman, highlighted the importance of agency and ownership in digital inclusion. It challenged the passive consumer model and emphasized the need for communities to be involved in building, not just receiving, connectivity solutions.

Impact

This comment deepened the discussion about empowerment and self-determination, influencing the conversation toward capacity building for network creation and the importance of technical literacy beyond just usage skills.

We are not going to be any better off than we were, where the last pandemic put the majority of Africans at risk who were unable to digitally substitute both for the health risk and of course the economic risks associated with lockdowns.

Speaker

Alison Gillwald

Reason

This closing comment provided urgent real-world context that demonstrated the life-and-death consequences of digital exclusion. It moved the discussion from abstract policy considerations to concrete human impact, emphasizing the urgency of meaningful connectivity solutions.

Impact

This served as a powerful conclusion that reinforced the entire discussion’s importance and urgency, connecting all the theoretical and policy discussions back to immediate human needs and survival.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by progressively deepening and broadening the analysis of digital inclusion challenges. The conversation evolved from identifying problems (device affordability, meaningful use barriers) to proposing systemic solutions (diverse operator ecosystems, community networks) to examining root causes (extractive economic systems) and ultimately connecting back to urgent human needs (pandemic preparedness). The most impactful comments challenged conventional thinking – moving from infrastructure-focused to demand-side approaches, from consumer to citizen models, and from transactional to transformational frameworks. This created a rich, multi-layered discussion that addressed technical, economic, social, and political dimensions of digital equity, with each major intervention building upon previous insights to create a comprehensive analysis of both problems and potential solutions.

How can we systematically scale community networks and social enterprises beyond small pilot projects to achieve meaningful impact?

Speaker

Alison Gillwald

Explanation

There is skepticism about scaling community-based solutions from small training programs to systematic interventions that can address digital inclusion at a population level.

What innovative financing models can support small and localized operators with smaller ticket sizes?

Speaker

Carlos Rey-Moreno

Explanation

Current financial sector models focus on supporting capital interests rather than people’s interests, and there’s a need for innovative financing that understands the needs of smaller actors in telecommunications.

How can we create enabling regulatory environments that reduce barriers for small operators while maintaining quality and security standards?

Speaker

Carlos Rey-Moreno

Explanation

Different countries have vastly different regulatory requirements for telecommunications operators, from simple declarations in Europe to congressional franchises in the Philippines, affecting the ability of small operators to enter the market.

What are the most effective wholesale access regulation models that can be implemented to reduce dominance and increase competition?

Speaker

Alison Gillwald and Steve Song

Explanation

Market reviews have barely been conducted on the African continent, and wholesale access regulation could significantly change the competitive environment and reduce costs, especially for backhaul.

How can we better support intermediary organizations like libraries, post offices, and community centers in their role as digital inclusion facilitators?

Speaker

Kevin Hernandez (UPU representative)

Explanation

These intermediaries play a critical role in helping unconnected people access digital services, but there’s insufficient focus on connecting and supporting these organizations.

What capacity building programs are needed to enable communities to not just use but also build and own networks?

Speaker

Steve Song

Explanation

There’s too much focus on training consumers to use networks but not enough on building capacity for communities to create, understand, and control their own network infrastructure.

How can device refurbishment and circular economy models be scaled to address device affordability systematically?

Speaker

Leandro Navarro

Explanation

There are unused devices with years of lifespan remaining that could be refurbished and provided to those who need them, but this needs to move beyond small projects to systematic solutions.

What transversal digital policies are needed that go beyond telecommunications to address fundamental education and human development challenges?

Speaker

Alison Gillwald

Explanation

Siloed sectoral solutions are insufficient; there’s a need for policies that address the intersection of digital inclusion with education, gender equality, rural development, and other structural inequalities.

How can we shift from treating people as consumers in a market to recognizing them as citizens with rights to communication and access?

Speaker

Dr Gillian Marcelle

Explanation

The fundamental economic system treats people as consumers for profit maximization rather than citizens with rights, which affects how digital inclusion policies are framed and implemented.

What alternative business models beyond traditional for-profit approaches can address the remaining 70% of access gaps?

Speaker

Carlos Rey-Moreno

Explanation

The G20 Digital Investment Infrastructure Initiative noted that stakeholders should think beyond typical for-profit models, but there’s insufficient exploration of what these alternative models look like in practice.

Summary

This workshop focused on Internet resilience and securing a stronger supply chain, hosted by the Marconi Society’s Internet Resilience Institute at the Internet Governance Forum. Vint Cerf opened the discussion by emphasizing how society’s increasing dependence on the Internet, particularly with AI applications, makes resilience critical, highlighting the importance of supply chain provenance and the integrity of open source software components. Ram Mohan outlined four key challenges to Internet resilience: increasing system complexity with hidden interdependencies, intensifying regulatory pressures creating friction between technical operators and governments, insufficient funding for preventive measures, and supply chain vulnerabilities in software.

Olaf Kolkman illustrated these vulnerabilities through practical examples, showing how complex systems like food delivery depend on Internet connectivity and how backup systems like diesel generators can fail due to overlooked details like fuel management. Anriette Esterhuysen provided a Global South perspective, describing how Internet resilience creates a two-tier system where wealthy individuals and institutions can invest in backup solutions while ordinary users must manage disruptions themselves with multiple SIM cards and batteries. The panel discussed ongoing mapping efforts led by Fiona Alexander to trace Internet packet paths and identify all actors and dependencies in the supply chain ecosystem.

John Crain from ICANN explained how the domain name system has evolved from 13 root servers to 2,000 locations globally through strategic investment in resilience infrastructure. Manal Ismail emphasized the vital role of governments in promoting resilient networks while embracing multi-stakeholder approaches for effective Internet governance. Mark Nottingham shared real-world experiences from Cloudflare, demonstrating how even well-engineered systems with redundancies can fail catastrophically, requiring continuous improvement and transparency about failures. The discussion concluded with recognition that Internet resilience requires cross-sector collaboration, proactive investment, and systemic thinking rather than reactive problem-solving.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Internet Infrastructure Dependencies and Vulnerabilities**: The discussion emphasized how the internet has become critical infrastructure that society depends on, yet it relies on complex interdependencies (power, water, physical infrastructure) that create single points of failure and cascading risks when disrupted.

– **Supply Chain Security and Provenance**: Speakers highlighted the importance of understanding where internet components come from, particularly open source software libraries, and ensuring their integrity through proper documentation, digital signatures, and tracking of the “bill of materials” used in internet services.

– **Global Inequality in Internet Resilience**: The conversation addressed how internet resilience is unevenly distributed globally, with developed regions having better backup systems and recovery capabilities, while users in the Global South often must create their own workarounds (multiple SIM cards, batteries, etc.) with little communication about outages.

– **Cross-Sector Collaboration Challenges**: Panelists discussed the need for enhanced collaboration between different sectors (internet providers, power companies, governments, etc.) that currently operate in silos, each assuming other critical infrastructure will remain available during their own backup planning.

– **Mapping and Understanding Internet Ecosystem**: The discussion covered ongoing efforts to create comprehensive maps of internet infrastructure dependencies, following the path of IP packets to identify all the actors, institutions, and systems involved in internet connectivity.

## Overall Purpose:

The workshop aimed to raise awareness about internet resilience as a critical global challenge and to foster collaboration across sectors, disciplines, and geographies. The Marconi Society’s Internet Resilience Institute convened experts to discuss current vulnerabilities, develop solutions for supply chain security, and create actionable frameworks for improving internet stability and reliability.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a serious, urgent tone throughout, with speakers emphasizing that internet resilience is not just a technical issue but a societal and economic imperative. The tone was collaborative and solution-oriented, with experts sharing practical experiences and failures alongside theoretical frameworks. While there were moments of levity (jokes about construction noise, coffee needs for early morning participants), the underlying message remained consistently grave about the potential consequences of internet infrastructure failures. The conversation became more concrete and practical as it progressed from theoretical frameworks to real-world examples and mapping exercises.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Moderator (Pablo)** – Supporting the Marconi Society’s Internet Resilience Institute, session moderator

– **Vinton Cerf (Vint)** – Internet pioneer, helping to set the scene for the workshop

– **Ram Mohan** – Digital identity expert, discussing current state of internet resilience

– **Olaf Kolkman** – Internet Society, presenting on system complexity and resilience challenges

– **Anriette Esterhuysen** – Former MAG Chair and APC, discussing Global South perspective on internet resilience

– **Fiona Alexander** – American University, leading internet resiliency mapping exercise and supply chain analysis

– **John Crain** – CTO of ICANN, participating remotely, discussing unique identifiers and DNS resilience

– **Manal Ismail** – From Egypt regulator, former Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN, discussing governmental role in internet resilience

– **Mark Nottingham** – Cloudflare and IETF, sharing real-world experience with internet infrastructure resilience

– **John Janowiak** – President and CEO of the Marconi Society, providing closing remarks

– **Paticipant** – Multiple audience members asking questions (appears to be a generic label for various participants)

**Additional speakers:**

– **Qusayr Shati** – From Kuwait, asking questions about safety and security of internet infrastructure

– **Mallory** – Audience member asking questions about political economy and capitalism’s role in internet resilience

– **Juan** – Audience member asking about economics and revenue flow in internet infrastructure (referenced by Fiona but not explicitly identified in transcript)

# Internet Resilience and Supply Chain Security: Workshop Report

## Executive Summary

The Marconi Society’s Internet Resilience Institute convened a workshop at the Internet Governance Forum focused on internet infrastructure resilience and supply chain security. The session brought together experts from across the internet ecosystem to discuss growing vulnerabilities in our internet-dependent society. Despite construction noise and logistical challenges, the interactive workshop revealed that internet resilience has evolved from a technical concern to a fundamental societal imperative requiring unprecedented collaboration across sectors and geographies.

The discussion was structured in three blocks: foundational presentations on internet dependence and system complexity, perspectives from different stakeholder communities, and audience questions that explored economic sustainability, physical security, and systemic challenges. Key themes included cascading failures from hidden interdependencies, regulatory tensions between technical and governmental approaches, chronic underfunding of preventive measures, and supply chain vulnerabilities.

## Opening Framework: Critical Internet Dependence

Vinton Cerf established the foundational framework by highlighting society’s profound dependence on internet infrastructure. “The implication of dependence is that when it doesn’t work there are all kinds of consequences,” Cerf observed, noting that artificial intelligence applications are further intensifying this dependence.

Cerf introduced “provenance” as a central concern – understanding where internet components originate and ensuring their integrity. He emphasized the importance of documenting supply chains, particularly for open source software libraries, and ensuring their integrity through digital signatures and comprehensive “bill of materials” tracking.

## System Complexity and Hidden Dependencies

Ram Mohan identified four interconnected challenges threatening internet stability: increasing system complexity with hidden interdependencies, regulatory pressures creating friction between technical operators and governments, insufficient funding for preventive measures, and supply chain vulnerabilities.

He highlighted dangerous circular assumptions where power companies assume internet availability for communications while internet providers assume reliable power supplies. “We have a systematic bias towards reactive rather than proactive resilience strategies,” Mohan noted, explaining how organizations struggle to secure investment for prevention while post-incident responses receive adequate funding.

Olaf Kolkman from the Internet Society illustrated these complexities with concrete examples. His most memorable anecdote involved a data center with backup diesel generators tested monthly for two hours, but during an actual emergency lasting longer, “the generators failed after five hours because operators had forgotten to refuel the diesel tanks.” He noted this was a case he knew of, demonstrating how human factors can undermine technical systems.

Kolkman explained how seemingly simple services like food delivery actually depend on complex internet connectivity – requiring not just the delivery app but payment processing, GPS navigation, restaurant systems, and driver communications. He advocated for risk-based thinking that identifies coupled risks and cascade effects.

## Stakeholder Perspectives

### Global South and Equity Concerns

Anriette Esterhuysen brought crucial equity considerations, highlighting how internet resilience creates a two-tier system. In many Global South countries, internet resilience operates “like an act of God” for ordinary users who receive no advance warning, no recovery timelines, and no institutional support during outages.

Users develop their own coping mechanisms – maintaining multiple SIM cards, carrying backup batteries, creating informal information networks. This contrasts with wealthy users who can invest in backup connections and redundant systems. Esterhuysen challenged narrow technical definitions of resilience, arguing that physical transmission infrastructure should be included in resilience planning.

### DNS Infrastructure Lessons

John Crain from ICANN, participating remotely, discussed DNS resilience as a model for critical infrastructure. The DNS root system has evolved from 13 original systems to “roughly 2,000 locations globally” through systematic investment. This demonstrates how proactive resilience planning can scale critical systems while maintaining stability.

Crain emphasized that resilience requires continuous improvement as the internet grows, and that global coordination and policy frameworks are essential for managing critical internet functions.

### Government Role and Regulation

Manal Ismail addressed the complex governmental role in promoting resilience, outlining approaches ranging from awareness-building to mandated requirements. She emphasized that effective government involvement requires understanding both technical realities and policy frameworks needed to support resilience investments.

Multi-stakeholder approaches emerged as essential for balancing competing interests. Government responsibilities extend beyond regulation to promoting investment in redundant networks and developing national digital resilience strategies, coordinated internationally since resilience cannot be achieved within national boundaries alone.

### Industry Implementation Challenges

Mark Nottingham from CloudFlare provided front-line operational perspectives, explaining that the internet is “inherently unreliable” and appears reliable only through multiple layers of abstraction and redundancy. Even well-resourced organizations with extensive engineering expertise face unexpected failures from unanticipated system interactions.

Nottingham described recent CloudFlare incidents, including a “Code Orange” event and another incident “about a week ago,” emphasizing the importance of learning from failures and sharing lessons across the industry. He noted that many resilience problems require industry-wide coordination rather than individual company solutions.

### Infrastructure Mapping Efforts

Fiona Alexander described ongoing efforts to map internet infrastructure dependencies by following IP packet paths through the entire ecosystem. The working group is developing these maps collaboratively, with plans for a first draft and subsequent iterations examining specific sectors like energy infrastructure.

Alexander noted that traditional telecommunications models are inadequate for understanding internet infrastructure, explaining that applying historical telephone accounting rate models to internet infrastructure would “fundamentally break the system.”

## Audience Questions and Broader Challenges

The interactive session included several significant questions that expanded the discussion:

**Business Continuity Strategy**: Nandifa Natsaluba asked online about business continuity strategies, prompting discussion of how organizations prepare for internet disruptions.

**Economic Sustainability**: Juan raised detailed questions about international charging arrangements and revenue flows, arguing that shifts away from traditional telephone models had eliminated crucial revenue flows to developing countries. This generated debate about whether current business models support long-term infrastructure sustainability.

**Physical Security in Conflict**: Qusayr Shati asked about infrastructure safety and security in conflict zones, highlighting how internet infrastructure becomes both target and casualty in warfare.

**Systemic Transformation**: Mallory posed a provocative question about whether meaningful resilience progress requires addressing broader systemic issues like capitalism and global power structures, rather than just technical solutions.

## Key Tensions and Unresolved Issues

The workshop revealed several ongoing tensions:

– **Scope of Resilience**: Disagreement about whether physical transmission infrastructure should be universally considered part of internet resilience

– **Economic Models**: Debate about whether current business models and revenue distribution threaten long-term sustainability

– **Systemic vs. Technical Approaches**: Tension between holistic approaches addressing broader infrastructure issues versus achievable technical solutions

– **Regulatory Timelines**: Friction between government demands for immediate solutions and technical communities’ iterative improvement processes

## Next Steps and Action Items

John Janowiak concluded by outlining concrete next steps:

– The working group will produce a first draft of the internet resilience supply chain map by their November meeting

– Participants were encouraged to download the Internet Resilience Report from the Marconi Society website

– Those interested can join the Internet Resilience Advisory Council to contribute to ongoing mapping efforts

– Future mapping iterations will examine specific sectors, beginning with energy and power infrastructure

## Conclusion

The workshop demonstrated that internet resilience challenges are interconnected and require systematic thinking beyond traditional technical boundaries. While participants agreed on fundamental challenges – complex interdependencies, cascading failures, and the need for cross-sector collaboration – disagreements about scope, approach, and solutions reflect the complexity of achieving resilience in practice.

The session’s interactive nature, despite physical challenges including construction noise, illustrated both the collaborative spirit needed for resilience work and the practical difficulties of coordination. The mapping exercise and ongoing collaboration provide concrete mechanisms for translating insights into actionable improvements, recognizing that internet resilience has become a societal imperative requiring sustained commitment across technical, policy, and social domains.

Moderator: Hello, how are you? It is really an honor to welcome you to the workshop Internet Resilience, Securing a Stronger Supply Chain. Just double check that you are in the right room, and you are very welcome. We are on a tight schedule, so we will need to move quickly, but meaningfully. If you are sitting at the back, please don’t be shy and come closer. This is a roundtable by design, so please don’t spare any seat over there. Come and don’t be shy, just take a seat, you are welcome. The closer that we sit, the more resilient our dialogue becomes, you know. I’m Pablo. I’m supporting the Marconi Society’s Internet Resilience Institute. I’m very happy to be here, and I’ll be your moderator for this session. Let’s dive straight into the substance. I’d like to begin by turning to someone that truly needs no introduction, Vint Cerf. He will help us to set the scene, and Vint, are you there? I am here, yes I am. Fabulous. Can you hear me? Yes. Help us to set the scene, Vint, where the idea of this workshop comes from. What would be your advice in terms of what would be the good outcome for this discussion? Put some stress on us.

Vinton Cerf: So in the short summary is that the… Many of us have been asking ourselves very hard questions about internet and its resilience because we’ve become so dependent upon it and with the arrival of new applications of artificial intelligence that dependence is only going to increase and The implication of dependence is that when it doesn’t work there are all kinds of consequences. No serious serious problems This is true of a lot of infrastructure You don’t think about it until it doesn’t work, like when the power goes out, now what doesn’t work or when the roads are all blocked So I’m sure you can, when your mobile doesn’t work, that’s become a very important infrastructure and when it doesn’t work there are consequences So the internet has become so woven into a significant part of our ecosystem that we are very concerned about its resilience and reliability We talked about that in a number of different contexts and the specific one for this meeting has to do with the supply chain Since the internet is composed of many many pieces, coming from many many different sources, a very significant part of the internet is software After all, it’s the protocols that make all these things work, running on, of course, physical equipment that we also depend upon I’m going to suggest to you that the word provenance will turn out to have a very heightened importance in this conversation Where did things come from? How do we know that they have integrity? Have they been altered sort of in flight? Do we know who is responsible for them? Do we know where to turn when things are not working properly? So if we ask ourselves, can we document the supply chain that leads to a particular product or service? Can we know that it has integrity? And this is particularly applicable to open source libraries, which have become a major component of the development of products and services in the internet space. Open source is wonderful because it’s accessible, but it’s also hazardous because sometimes it’s not well maintained. And so we have to ask questions about the bill of materials used to create a product and the order in which those products have been applied. Do we know whether the software is unaltered? Does it have integrity? Has it been digitally designed? Do I know the party who digitally signed it so that I can trust the integrity of that? And second, security is a huge issue as well, not only in open source software, but in all of the components of the internet. How can we be assured that security has been properly attended to, not only in the fabrication of creation of the software, but also its configuration and installation? So tracking all of that, having the ability to audit where things came from and how they were assembled and who assembled them is a very important aspect of supply chain evaluation. So as you know, I have to go off to another meeting soon, but I hope that you will all take copious notes and that there will be something concrete coming out of the discussion that the rest of us can share. So that would be my little opening homily for you, Pablo.

Moderator: Thank you so much. It’s very strange to hear myself. So I think we have a good scene to work on, and let me introduce more or less how this panel is going to work. So we will have, there are a few lines there, but basically we will have three sections. The first one to talk about the current state of internet resilience, the second one to talk about what we mean by internet resilience supply chain, the interdependencies and the developing solutions, and the third part will be real-time experience and practical examples. Our panelists, it’s a stellar group of people and experts and on the first block we will have Ram, we will have Olaf, and we will have Anriette, Ram from digital identity, Olaf from the Internet Society, Anriette, former MAG Chair and APC. Are you? Fiona, American University, John Crain, he’s joining us remotely, he’s the CTO of ICANN. Manal, I hope you are here, welcome. She is from Egypt, from the regulator, former Chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee of ICANN, and we have Mark from Cloudflare and ITF. So we will be having a conversation and you are welcome to join that conversation and we will get straight into it in terms of the current state of internet resilience. Ram, why don’t you start to talk about what has happened recently in this work?

Ram Mohan: Pablo, thank you so much, and just to frame this issue for us, the internet, as Vint said earlier, the internet is no longer just a convenience, it’s an invisible infrastructure that supports nearly every aspect of our lives, from critical services to daily activities. We know this, But we also perhaps don’t understand fully well just how much our modern world is fundamentally built on Internet connectivity, right? From enabling critical services, healthcare or financial transactions, transportation, energy grids, emergency response, a resilient Internet ensures that these vital services remain operational even in the face of disruptions. The other part of the criticality of what we are looking at is economic stability because businesses of all sizes from global corporations to local shops, they rely on the Internet for every aspect of what they do. We also know in the last decade or a little over the last decade that it’s been significant for social communication and for social connectivity. And for all of us who endured the years of COVID, without the Internet would have been quite a different experience altogether. Certainly the Internet is critical for national security and public safety, but it’s also a key part of trust and confidence. When you don’t have a resilient Internet and you have frequent or prolonged Internet outages that erodes both public and business trust in digital systems. And conversely, a resilient Internet, it fosters confidence, it encourages further digital innovation, investment and adoption, right? And finally, it’s about mitigating disruptions, right? Because resilience is not about preventing outages, which are inevitable, but it’s about the ability to withstand, adapt to and rapidly recover. from them, right? So that means the ability to restore services to route traffic around failures and minimize the impact on users, right? Because without resilience, even minor technical glitches or cyberattacks could have disproportionately severe and long-lasting consequences. So the Marconi Society in November of 2024, it convened a group of 30 or so global experts in Washington, D.C. to review the state of internet resilience. And that group provided a report for 2024, the Internet Resilience Report, and that report

Olaf Kolkman: highlights a critical assessment of the internet’s infrastructure. It identifies key threats, and it also offers recommendations. But here are the pressing challenges in internet resilience. There are really four key challenges. The first is just the increasing system complexity with tangled systems. Modern applications and services rely on a vast web of interdependencies, and inside of those interdependencies are often single points of failure, and they’re hidden within complex supply chains. So for an example is dependency on power, dependency on water, or over-reliance on a few APIs, software APIs. A second part is just intensifying regulatory pressures. The relationship between technical operators and government policymakers is becoming strained. Governments demand accountability and quick responses to incidents given the Internet’s critical role in not only national security but the economy and that clashes often with the technical community’s traditional reactive and problem-solving approach. Try what’s going on, solve it, and if it doesn’t work well, try the next thing. In the meanwhile, you have a government regulator saying, I don’t want you to try the next thing, fix it now, right? So, there’s a growing friction, growing clash that’s happening there. The third part is insufficient funding for preventive measures because if you look at funding for resilience, there’s almost none. What happens is that when incidents occur, when problems happen, those things readily attract funding and they readily attract attention. But the crucial work of prevention, which is about good operational practices, proper training, systematic thinking about infrastructure, those things often lack adequate investment. And resilience is a prevention problem and prevention does not attract money. The last part is the supply chain vulnerabilities in software. The reliance on complex software supply chains, it introduces significant points of fragility and the potential for cascading failures if a single link is compromised. And there are a great number of examples of this happening and that are public. There are a great, much greater number of them. that are happening that are not public. So, if you look at all of this, we are at a point where we have, we’re at a moment where it’s not just a technical challenge. Resilience is an increasingly urgent global and political challenge in front of us, which is why we’re here at the IGF to talk about it, right? And what we need is a fundamental mind shift change. We’ve got to be starting to talk about proactive prevention. We have to really start thinking about how can you enhance collaboration, not inside a sector, but across sectors. An anecdotal and funny story is that when you talk to regulators and they talk about how terrific the resilience plan is for internet service providers, the common thread is that they have great backup plans, but then you start to talk to them about what is the common assumption. The common assumption is power will be available, water will be available, air will be available, right? Now, you go to folks in the power sector and you talk to them about their backup plans and how they have resilience planned. They have very good plans in there, but a common assumption for them is that the internet will be available so that they can communicate, right? So, you have this expectation and an assumption that other parts of critical infrastructure are going to be available, except those parts aren’t actually talking with each other, right? So, we need enhanced collaboration across sectors. And really, the last part is a much deeper understanding of the interdependencies. that really sustain global connectivity. So these things are essential and we’ve got to wake up to these challenges now or we’ll wake up to a world that doesn’t have adequate resilience

Ram Mohan: for a foundational part of not just infrastructure but of life.

Moderator: Ram, thank you. Tangled systems, regulatory friction, the funding gap, software, Achilles heel. What I am thanking you for is that you used enhanced collaboration and not enhanced cooperation because if not we were going to get into a lot of trouble. That’s an inside joke but well Olaf, do you want the clicker for your slides or do you want me to do it?

Olaf Kolkman: There it is. First I want to apologize Martin Borteman who was initially scheduled to moderate the panel but he had to leave because of family emergency and that brings us to the matters of life. What you see here on the picture is a staple food for the global minority, bread. This is something that is delivered to our grocery stores and this is a little bit of a global minority description of the issue but this is being delivered to our shops with our groceries on almost a daily basis and I’m telling this a little bit to make the story of resiliency a little bit more, you know, give it a little bit more life. The way this works is that a grocery store will place an order. that order will go into a logistic system. And if you Google for logistic system software, specifically if you do an image search, you will see enormously complicated architectures with all kinds of building blocks of interconnected systems that go all over the place. But that was the interconnectedness that Ram was talking about. One of those blocks fail and your grocery will not be delivered. And all these type of things depend on the internet connecting, not only in the connecting in your locality, not connecting in your city, not connecting between the warehouse and the grocery store, but also connecting to distance APIs that might be hosted somewhere at the other end of the globe. And everybody in that supply chain is doing their best to maintain uptime. Seriously doing their best to maintain uptime. But once systems get more complex, they become more fragile. A webpage nowadays will do about 100, 200 queries before the page is actually visible, going to all kinds of different locations. And these websites are hosted probably in data centers. These data centers rely on electricity. And of course, the internet providers and the data center maintainers are doing their best, next slide, to maintain their power situation. This, my friends, is a Cummings DFLE 1500 kilowatt diesel generator. I got this picture from a secondhand diesel generator site. This model is available for $139,000. And this is the type of thing that sits in a data center. It slurps about 392 liters of diesel per hour to generate 1500 kilowatts of power. That is one truckload, a 30 ton diesel truckload of diesel every three days. If your internet goes down or if power goes down in a data center, it takes three days before these babies are out. Now, of course, these things are tested all over the place. I actually have a story, or I’m telling a story, but I have a sub-story. I know of a case where the diesel was tested every month for two hours. They turned it on, made sure everything was working. And after five, six years, they really had an emergency. They turned the thing on, it worked for five hours, and it was out of diesel. They forgot to refuel the tanks. You laugh about this, but this is important, because this is the type of thing that can go wrong if you don’t think through your system. And if you think about resiliency, I think that that is the main question that we have to ask ourselves in these approaches is, next slide, what can possibly go wrong and what can possibly be broken? And that informs your risk-based approach. That also informs what can I do when things go wrong. Do I have to have a satellite phone so that I can communicate to somebody, to my diesel provider, for instance, so that I can get diesel? Because if the logistic system sits down at the same time… There’s no way I can refuel my generators to keep up time and things will really break down. So these are the things that we need to think about when we think about resiliency. What can possibly go wrong? What can possibly be broken? And take risk-based approaches on the evaluation and understand, for instance, what are risks that might be coupled to each other? What if an anchor goes over the seabed and breaks both the electricity cable as well as the fiber cable? Coupled risks. And with that, I hope I set the stage for the continued discussion.

Moderator: Olaf, thank you very much. Indeed, we’re thinking about you, Martin, if you’re following us. And Martin said to Olaf, could you moderate? And then they agreed that I would moderate, because if not, we would have missed this wonderful presentation that you just did. I think it was awesome. Anriette, I would like if you could thread this into the IGF. Why we’re discussing this in the IGF?

Anriette Esterhuysen: These mics have to be switched on. Thanks, Mark. Because the IGF, I think, is the place where we connect people, the people at the other end of the breakages, to the processes that involve both technical coordination, policy and development, as well as other areas of policy coordination and development, as well as practice, as well as innovation. So, I think this is the place where we try and talk about, how does all of this make a difference or not make a difference in people’s lives? So, you also asked me to say, you know, what is my take coming, you know, from the Global South on internet resilience? And I think I’m from South Africa, so I live in a big city, but it happens to be a big city that has electricity outages, if not every day, you know, every few days. And I live in a region where there’s been drought recently, so all the countries along the Zambezi River, Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, had power outages as a result of drought because they rely on hydro, and if the dam levels are too low, you just don’t have electricity. So I think for many people, internet resilience is something that other people have. And what you have is this divide where you have financial institutions, for example, will make sure that they have backup. Upper middle class people would have moved to solar by now, so when it comes to dealing with these disruptions, which are often not easy to control, there’s a vast difference in how people are able to respond to that. And then when you look at industry and businesses, obviously the larger the company, the better it’s going to be to be able to address disruptions. You have sectors, you have data centres, which communicate very effectively with their clients. The clients would probably get advance warning, or they would be rerouting, and they would manage. But data centres serve a kind of a small sector of the economy, relatively, or they work with the financial institutions. So the banks might carry on working, but if you rely on a mobile network that needs to use a tower that relies on electricity, and the towers just go down. So even though theoretically the bank services are still up, you’re not as an end user able to access it, because your mobile operator, firstly you’re a pay-as-you-go customer, remember that. which means you get no communications from your service provider that there are disruptions. So, it’s like there’s a two-tier system of how, I think as Ram said, what really matters is how do you respond? How do you do recovery? And I think what you have in many countries in the global South is a two-tier system. Some people who just deal with internet resilience, it’s like an act of God. Sometimes you have, sometimes you don’t. And then there are sectors of the economy and society who are empowered enough to invest in routing around it. And I think that’s what’s so frightening in many ways. I think that, I mean you’ve all talked about how the technical community does the routing around the disruptions. I think what happens in many developing countries is that the end user is expected to do the routing. They have to have two SIM cards, three or four SIM cards because there’s different affordability and different coverage in different parts of the country, for example. They have to have backups. They always have to have batteries. And with the undersea cable disruptions that have hit much of Africa, well, much of the world, you know, in the last year, you have no idea. There’s no communication. There’s no information. Unless you’re actually an internet service provider that belongs to an internet service providers association or a pairing point, they’re very good at communicating. But if you’re any other business, never mind an end user, you will not know what the current status is of undersea cable breakages and repair. You basically just have to wait and see and hope for the best. So I think just my last input here, I think, I mean, Ram talked about enhanced collaboration. I mean, I’m very happy saying enhanced. cooperation, by the way, I think enhanced communication. I think we need to at the moment there’s the security sector, the companies that provide the security and the backup are very good at communicating with one another, in fact, and I think there’s a lot of cross-industry, cross-discipline collaboration, but there’s no communication with end users or with, you know, the rest of the world who still, as Ram said, is so dependent and takes for granted that this is going to be available, and I think the result is exactly as Ram said, it breaks trust and I think it disrupts innovation and it just, it disincentivises people from beginning to embed the internet in daily life and daily services on a more routine basis.

Moderator: Thank you, Anriette. We’re just on time, we’re going well, we’re doing well. We have participation online, Nandifa Natsaluba, what a great topic on resilience, do we have a business continuity strategy for unplanned disruption leading to a total global unavailability of the internet? They are very switched on, I would like to know where are you from, but welcome to this panel. I see as well some empty seats, so I welcome people to join us, don’t be shy if you would like to participate at a later time when we open for questions. Let’s go into the second block about the supply chain, the interdependencies and developing solutions, and for that I would like to ask Fiona if you could help us with some mapping and the work that you are doing in terms of identifying the gaps and the policy concerns.

Fiona Alexander: Hi to everyone and thanks Pablo, you’re doing a great job stepping in to moderate, and thanks for the invitation to participate and speak and to John and Aisha and others at Marconi Society for this really interesting project. So Ram talked about the session that we had in Washington last year now. I don’t know, time all flies for me. But from that we’ve been having a couple of different conversations and we have a working group that’s specifically trying to put together an internet resiliency mapping exercise and actually putting together a map of what that supply chain looks like. And the goal of our, I think there might be a slide somewhere, but the goal of our group is to produce a map that identifies the actors, institutions, and dependencies across the internet ecosystem infrastructure supply chain. And as Anriette’s story really highlights, that’s not just what we normally think of. It’s not just traditional telecom, providers, ISPs, DNS players. What we’re hoping to do with this exercise is demonstrate clearly that our internet ecosystem infrastructure supply chain includes everybody. And we’re hoping to do that with this map. Again, our default is to kind of only focus on the people that we think of and some of the people that are here. But we’re really hoping to help go through this exercise and confirm that it’s much broader than that. So not all actors or institutions fully appreciate their role and corresponding responsibilities. Not all these different silos are in a routine habit of talking to each other, back to enhanced communication or whatever, enhanced see where we’re going with this cycle. So I think we’re hoping to do that as well. So what our working group is doing is that we’re trying to do all of this online as well through Google Docs. That will be an interesting test of our ability to work together. But the group’s going to develop a map that follows the path of an IP packet and that a routine internet user action initiates. So I think we’ll figure out what couple of examples might make sense so that this is an accessible tool for everybody and anyone regardless of their technical skill sets. I should also offer the observation that I’m the least technical person in the working group, which is great for me. I get to rely on all these great engineering minds that are part of the group. But we’re going to follow the packet, the route that a packet takes at a 30,000-foot level. And we’re going to try to identify what infrastructure layers the packet hits as it goes from you typing something to getting to its destination and to delivering. what you’ve asked it to do and so I know obviously we’ll probably talk about power and water which I think we all kind of Know and I think was highlighted with the most recent sort of broad-based internet outages We saw in Europe and Spain most recently But we want to see what other parts of and what other sectors of the world that we’re hitting with all of that We did talk about and we have discussed that we want to find a way to acknowledge. There are some cross-cutting issues That we’re not going to address so that we kind of scope this Carefully and don’t try to take on everything at once So we’re not going to try to take on sort of a policy and regulatory landscape at the outset And sort of acknowledge that at the first instance if this works for us, which I’m optimistic that it will We’re hoping to have a first draft of the map for the Marconi Society meeting That’s happening in November And if we think this is useful and we think we’re providing a value-add to the community for doing this and we like the map But by we I mean all of us collectively we like it Then I could envision next iterations of the map that then dig into each bucket Maybe there’s a resiliency map just for energy and one just for power But I think at the outset we’re just trying to get everyone together and get all these smart engineering minds together to figure out Where does a packet go and what might need to work and what happens when those things don’t work? So that’s what our group is doing and I look forward to talking about it more and others that want to be involved in answering Any other questions? But again, I thought it was a really interesting exercise and one worth spending some time on So I’m really happy to be a part of the exercise

Moderator: Thank You Fiona those were a lot of words per second and it’s Always I Will be like you when I grow up and we’ll have that speed of thought Translated into language, that’s amazing. I’m not sure if you have John Crain John is at a very odd hour. So I’m sure he will be much slower than you at this time John is online if you can I am put him on He’s going to talk about I guess one part of that map, which is the unique identifiers. Good morning, John Have you had coffee?

John Crain: Good morning, can you hear me?

Moderator: We cannot hear you, try again. Okay, I am unmuted.

John Crain: Can you hear me when you put your headphone on? Yes, we can hear you. Yes, good. Where are your headphones? So, good afternoon everybody. It’s early morning here in Southern California. So, indeed, I work for an organization called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Many of you may have heard of us, often just referred to as ICANN by its acronym, and as tech folks we love our acronyms. So, resilience is interesting, even if you look at the identifier systems and the role of ICANN. ICANN has existed for approximately 25 years, a little bit longer, and our bylaws talk a lot about security and stability. Those are the other two sides, in my mind, of resilience, you know, with resilience being the ability to bounce back once one of those two things don’t happen. Now, identifiers is not just the domain name system, right? So, most people think ICANN, they think DNS, but ICANN is also responsible for the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, and they register literally thousands of different types of identifiers that are used on the Internet. And for the Internet to work, and for that packet that Fiona was talking about, to get from one place to another, all of those need to have certain attributes. Often that is a uniqueness to the identifier, or it is some other special relevance to the protocols and how all the protocols work. Now the interesting thing is of course that may not be obvious, most end users, the people who use the internet, are blissfully unaware of how the internet works and most of these things. So while we talk about resilience of the network or the internet, it’s important to remember that the users aren’t aware of a lot of what is happening and also that it’s not a internet. You know you’ll often hear people tell you that the internet is actually a network of networks. So that means that even in the identifier space there are many many people that have a role to play. It’s not just ICANN. ICANN’s role is really about administering the top registration databases, the initial information of many of those identifiers. Now if we look at the DNS, the domain name system, and you look at the history and you go back to the early days of ICANN or pre-ICANN, that was a system and you know the root of the DNS is a very critical system for the internet to work. It’s where the domain names start, where the resolution from that web browser to getting you somewhere starts. Back in the late 90s and you know into the early 2000s, you were talking about 13 systems around the globe. Now what the industry was able to do was to notice that that was an issue. We said to ourselves this is an issue that could affect the resiliency and the stability of the ecosystem. New ways of doing routing were developed, something called Anycast, and now you have 2,000 roughly locations around the globe where this infrastructure is. So you can build resilience, but it actually takes you thinking about it, and it takes time. And it takes, what Ram talked about, it takes investment in resilience. You know, building something like this out is not something you just do overnight. Now, ICANN is also interesting because, you know, very early on we realised that this is a global asset or a global ecosystem, and it required global policymaking. So when it comes down to the domain name system, any of you who are familiar with ICANN know that there is actually a global, what we call, multi-stakeholder system for the governance and the policy setting around that. So, you know, in some ways, you know, and I’ve been with ICANN for quite a few years, in some ways we spent a lot of effort and time over the years to develop ways that we can include the user and the ISP and the governments and everybody else in the discussions. But we also worked on the technical side with our technical partners like the IETF, the route server operators and many others to increase resilience. But you don’t just increase resilience and stop. The internet is a growing thing. You have to keep looking at how you’re going to continue to increase and keep that resilience. And you have to be aware of all the things that you rely on for that resilience. And that’s why the Marconi Society’s work is really interesting to me personally. I do sit and think about what if we have a major power outage, what if we have a major code flaw, you know, how will that affect the identifier systems and further how will that affect the internet. So it’s really good that our friends at Marconi and, you know, I thank them for inviting me to take part in this, are looking at the broader scope of what does it take to provide resilient communication, because remember the internet is a communication device, across the globe. So identifiers are a big part of that and it’s what makes myself in my role as the CTO at ICANN lose sleep at night, sitting thinking about how we keep this stuff resilient, but it’s more than just what we do, it’s so much broader, you know, power, water, protocols and just think about everything it takes to not only move a packet like Fiona was saying from one place to another, but actually to do the right thing with that piece of data when it gets to the other end. So I’m looking forward to hearing what the rest speak and I’m going to hang around to answer questions if there are any. Thank you everybody.

Moderator: This is very nice. Thank you John. And this is all about collective risk management in a collaborative way and it’s really good to converge here to discuss these matters. Manal, I’m not sure if you are online, welcome, she’s in Egypt and this is another part of the map, which is the governmental aspect of things and would love if you could talk about the regulatory challenges and the role of governments. Manal? Yes, I am Pablo, can you hear me? Yes. When you put your headset? Okay.

Manal Ismail: I’m ready. Okay, great. Thank you very much, Pablo, and thanks to everyone for the inspiring interventions so far. So, as was already mentioned by everyone, the internet has become more than just a communication tool. It’s part of nation’s critical infrastructure, backbone for digital economies and the fundamental need for society’s development. So, dependency on the internet and its infrastructure is rising exponentially and it’s increasing even more with IoT, AI and other emerging technologies. This growing reliance exposes the need to work on securing the internet against the escalating risks that endanger not only critical services running on the internet, but also the mere functioning of the internet itself. Such risks include unintentional errors like infrastructure failure, power outages, misconfigurations, but also sometimes intentional disruptions such as internet shutdowns, geopolitical tensions resulting in cyber attacks and disruptions caused by wars and weaponization of the internet and the cyberspace. All this, of course, in addition to the very well known natural and climate disasters, as well as crises that may trigger unforeseen traffic spikes like what we have all experienced with the COVID. In this context, the role of governments is both vital and evolving as today’s digital interconnected world poses unprecedented challenges on how nations operate. This role ranges from simple awareness and incentivized encouragement to mandated requirements and enforced regulations. Accordingly, governments, as stewards of national digital infrastructure, should promote conscious investment in resilient networks with built-in redundancy and also benefiting from technology’s diversity, like satellite versus land or undersea cables. Properly secure and redundantly store digital registries, device robust acts, laws, regulations or frameworks that balances national interests with global interoperability. Be aware of and minimize dependencies that were already mentioned. And carefully manage third-party elements in the network, but also encourage keeping local traffic local through IXPs. As we’ve already heard, also cooperation and collaboration with other sectors is extremely important to align efforts towards having a national digital resilience strategy that is constantly being updated. And also not to overlook the human factor, not only in terms of capacity development, but also in terms of changing the culture that Ram already hinted at of taking for granted the Internet’s underlying infrastructure and its ongoing responsiveness. Of course, governments cannot do all this without embracing the expertise and contributions of other stakeholders, depending on the issue and stage we’re at. The Internet is already a global shared resource, and its governance must reflect that reality through what we refer to as multi-stakeholder approaches, where governments, private sector, civil society, technical community, academia, and international organizations all work together in order to reach well-informed, sustainable decisions, devise more effective people-centered regulations, and achieve feasible and realistic solutions that are mindful of the global public interest. On the other hand, stakeholders should also understand and respect government’s concerns in order to be able to reach a constructive way forward. And since processes followed are equally as important as results achieved, in that respect, I would like also to refer to the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines that serve as a valuable reference for strengthening internet governance and digital policy processes. They provide comprehensive and operational framework for establishing, implementing, and assessing inclusive, transparent, and accountable multi-stakeholder processes. In conclusion, it’s important to note that the internet was not developed with security in mind, but now the transition to an increasingly digital society and economy prioritizes internet resilience as a pressing technical and policy challenge that is both national and global in nature. Hence, strengthening internet resilience is the responsibility of everyone, caretakers and beneficiaries, and it should be ongoing and proactive in order for the internet to continue to function as we expect. And I leave it at this and hand it back to you, Pablo. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you, Manal. Wonderful. And it seems that we’re really working on the basis of resiliency in spite of major construction happening at the back. So if you see, Manal, our faces, like a lot is going on in the backdrop of this. I don’t know exactly what. Are they preparing for the music night? I don’t know. OK, that’s that. So imagine a major concert of the Rolling Stones being prepared at the back. And so are the musicians. Let’s be resilient and let’s move on. We are soon to head towards an opening of the conversation. We have Vint stating a provocative question. Then Ram providing some background. Then Olaf providing some what if scenarios. Anriette more on the collaborative and the linkage between the Internet governance arena and the Internet resilience conversation. We have Fiona on the mapping, John on the unique identifiers. We have Manal on a global perspective on government regulatory, but also cooperation, cooperation, cooperation, cooperation. I think that’s what we try to do. Let’s not say how, just cooperation. Let’s get into the real deal with you, Mark. If you could tell us a bit how this works in the real world.

Mark Nottingham: Sure. Hello. I’m going to take my headphones off. So I was asked to talk a little bit about how my company conceptualizes and deals with internet resilience. I work for a company called CloudFlare. And CloudFlare is a company that provides internet infrastructure in a particular way. You know, the internet itself is inherently unreliable. There’s nothing that guarantees that a packet will get to its destination. We build abstractions on top of that so that we can pretend that it is reliable and resilient. We have TCP so that we have connections and we pretend that that is reliable, except sometimes it’s not. Sometimes that abstraction breaks down. And so we do other things. Web browsers will actually retry requests if they fail so that they paper over that unreliability so that the user of the browser has a nice experience. Websites and other services use companies like mine to further provide resilience. So what we are is a global network of servers everywhere providing services to users, whether it’s in the global south, whether it’s in the minority world. They bring content and services closer to the users to improve the resilience and the availability, to improve the security of those services, and also to make them faster, to make them so that they seem like they’re just next door, even though you’re actually talking to someone around the world. And what that does is make the internet more seamless for everyone. That means that resilience is really an existential threat for our business. We have to be available all the time or our customers are very unhappy. And so we use several techniques to make sure that our systems are as available as possible. The core systems, the data plane, are decentralized so that every node, every one of those servers can operate on its own. It doesn’t need connectivity to the rest of our systems. so that if there’s a partial failure somewhere, they can continue serving data. There are some parts of our systems that need to be centralized, and so we use other techniques to make sure that they are fully available. And so usually that’s redundancies and failovers and things like that. So despite all of those efforts, despite all that engineering and hiring some of the best engineers in the world to do this, we still have problems. As has been said a few times, you can never make something perfectly available. We had an incident last year, just as one example. We called Code Orange. It was an alarm bells kind of situation at the company where one of the generators that Olaf was talking about earlier – thank you for that illustration, by the way, Olaf – was used by one of our power suppliers at a key data center, and it failed in a particular way, and then some other systems failed, and that caused a cascade of failures where that data center went offline completely, which shouldn’t happen. Data center operators – we were renting that space from a data center operator – took extraordinary lengths to keep them highly available. So that was one thing that shouldn’t have happened, or a series of events. Because it was that particular data center, those centralized systems that I talked about, the ones that needed to be in one place, also failed. And we had designed them to fail over to another data center when that happened. It turns out that didn’t happen as well as we anticipated. And so it made those control systems unavailable for about a day and a half. Six hours was the length of the real outage there, but it kind of trailed on for about a day and a half where there was partial availability. That’s a horrific situation for a company like ours, and we resolved not to let that happen again. And so we went through this effort to re-engineer our systems, those key systems that were centralized, so that they were more resilient. And that took a couple of months, basically. We had another big incident at the same time that caused some distraction, which I won’t go into. But there were a lot of lessons that we learned from that. Even though we had a lot of very talented eyeballs on these problems, making sure that these systems were redundant, you still have to continuously improve your resiliency and follow the best practices, define what those best practices are, interrogate how you’re using these systems, provision for failure situations, and test the failure. Make sure that you intentionally fail your systems to understand how they behave, and consider what happens when there are these cascading failures. And finally, be transparent about your failures. We are very proud that every time we have one of these incidents, our CEO or our CTO writes a blog entry that explains what happened and why, so that we’re transparent to our customers. We had, indeed, another incident just about a week ago where we did that. But, unfortunately, this is not just an issue that happens within one company. That would be a much simpler problem to deal with. It’s a systemic issue. It’s a whole of Internet issue for resilience. And one example there is around routing security. The routing system is critical to Internet resilience. We need to be able to route packets around the world. And it’s one of those places where everyone has to agree on what the reality of routing is. And so, Cloudflare has spent a tremendous amount of resource. And we’re very committed to RPKI, the routing security issues. We’re collecting routing data about this in our radar platform, which is our kind of Internet observatory for statistics about the Internet that we are able to observe from that worldwide network of servers we have. And that helps us to identify and mitigate these systemic issues. But I think it’s that cooperation that we’ve been talking about across different kinds of businesses and different parts of the ecosystem that’s so key to make sure that, as a whole, we’re able to have those abstractions so that people don’t have to worry about this in most cases.

Moderator: Mark, thank you. We are moving from theory to practice. And I think this is a very good moment to start opening the conversation. I would love to open the floor if you have any questions, and if not, by all means, que gusto, adelante.

Paticipant: If I may, just to tie what Mark was saying to what Ram was saying, basically, the previous failure is always prevented. Gracias, Pablo, and thank you everybody for being here. I just want to ask a question to the panel about a topic that I think the first speaker mentioned about the economics and finance. I’m going to make a brief introduction to put it in context. Before the Internet, you know, the international communication was through the telephone network, and international communication was long-distance telephone calls. And the model, the business model there is that the call, it was originated by the company in one country. It was finalized by some other company, and they shared the revenue of that call. That was a very sound business model in which everybody that cooperated, maybe there was some other intermediary in that call, but everybody got a fair share of the revenue there. By historical reasons that, you know, when Internet first moved out of the continental United States, there was set a rule that those who want to connect have to pay the whole share of the communication. In the last years of the past century, oh my God, it’s passed so many times, this was a big deal. It was called the international Internet communication cost. It was even raised in the ITU, you know, in study group three, the recommendation from those days, the D50 recommendation. And that’s a very big issue, even for some European countries and companies, even for Australia. They were very vocal about that. As the time passed, the companies from these developed countries solved the problem by putting their connection into what is called the core or the backbone in the Internet. And eventually, this communication problem cost has been alleviated in some other places through IXPs and companies like the one that was just put, but alleviated because still the problem is that these revenues are not external to the country. I forgot to say that during the telephone long distance model, those income, especially for developing countries, was the one who financed, that you mentioned, the financing infrastructure development there was billion every year. When the internet came, all those yearly billions that was going from outside to developing countries disappeared. Now that’s not only happening, this uneven distribution of revenue, it’s not only happening through all of the communication infrastructure, also about the information. We see the information, data, even knowledge that is created in many countries, even if it’s flowing two directions, the money is flowing in one direction, and that is no surprise that a few companies, only a few companies has amassed so massive amount of money from resources that comes from everywhere. So my question to the panel is the following. Don’t you think that that uneven flow of revenues could be a cost in the long run of unsustainability of the internet? Thank you.

Moderator: Those were the days, the international charging arrangements for internet services from 1988, and all those debates, it reflects some part of the economics of the infrastructure, and I wonder how… This is linked to internet resilience, so that’s a provocative question for sure. I’m not sure if any of the panellists would like to take it, Fiona, I knew it.

Fiona Alexander: For sure, I’m happy to talk about the telephone accounting rate regime and two decades of arguments that we had, Juan, about accounting rates and how that system and model could not be applicable to the internet, because if you tried to apply the traditional telephone circuit switch model of accounting and revenue to the internet, it would actually require breaking the internet infrastructure that we’re trying to preserve. I would also dispute that all those accounting rate revenue and that passing of money that went to other countries was not always used to build the infrastructure in those countries. So we could talk about that a lot, too, offline. But I will say that in terms of whether or not the sort of IKEA’s debate or the fair share debate, because it’s back again, I can’t believe, is relevant in the context of this, I’m not quite so sure. But I will say that one of the ways of dealing with sort of internet resiliency, and maybe Olaf and others want to talk about the development of IXPs, and Mark wants to talk about peering and other things like that, but the model of traffic exchange in the internet ecosystem is through peering and transit, and that’s the way commercial parties privately resolve these revenue constructs that you’re talking about. There has been a lot of work, I think John Crane talked about the root server instances, and I know there’s been lots and lots of works by ISOC and others to get IXPs deployed, and that has really shifted and changed the traffic patterns. So we no longer see the unequal traffic patterns, the ones we’re talking about from the 1990s, where if you were somewhere in a different part of the world and you wanted something on the internet, it always had to come back to the United States or Western Europe. That’s no longer the case anymore because of all the work people have done on internet resiliency, but in terms of the policy and regulatory stuff, we could talk about this for hours as you know, but maybe the more technical people want to talk about how this relates to the internet resiliency construct. For hours or for decades indeed.

Paticipant: Thank you for a good workshop that we understood a lot about the resilience of the internet infrastructure. My name is Qusayr Shati, I’m from Kuwait and we are located in the Middle East and as you know the circumstances in our region. It’s a question, can we consider the safety and the security of the internet infrastructure part of the resilience or part of the concept of the resilience of the internet itself? When I talk about the safety or the security of the infrastructure, whether it’s a ship anchor that cuts off submarine cable, or whether an area of hostilities where sometimes the communication or the internet infrastructure gets limited into operation or gets halted or gets targeted. So would we consider the safety and the security of the internet infrastructure part of the resilience approach or this is a different angle? It’s just a question to the panellists.

Moderator: Thank you, Anriette. Then Ram.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Qusayr, I have a view on this, it’s not necessarily a broadly accepted view. I was a member of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace and so was Olaf. So we debated this together and I think we spent a long time talking about is it the logical resources or is it actually the physical transmission infrastructure. We decided it has to include the physical transmission infrastructure and I haven’t even touched on that but I think it really, having, and I think there’s a, I actually also want to react a bit. I think that we have. Resilience is treated differently by different parts of the internet. I think the technical community understands resilience and I think has good practices and procedures for ensuring resilience or striving towards greater resilience. I do not necessarily think that telcos have the same approaches to the internet technical community. I do not think that governments have the same approaches. There are also not even common definitions of what is critical internet infrastructure, what is critical information infrastructure. I think we also see the destruction of infrastructure and conflict. We have the case of Gaza where infrastructure has been completely destroyed. In fact, and where Gaza users, even when they had internet, were restricted to 2G. Now, so there’s so many different factors, but I certainly think that the physical transmission infrastructure does have to be considered because without that, and I think as Mark and others have said as well, even electricity, which is an external factor, but it disables both the physical and the logical resources. So I personally do think that physical transmission infrastructure is part of it, but that’s not a universal view. In fact, we asked the ICANN board a few years ago to look at the public resources, physical infrastructure as being part of that. In fact, even to look at the DNS as being a part of the public core, and even that I think we struggle to achieve.

Moderator: We need to hurry because we have still some content to cover. I would let Mallory to have a question, Ram, a quick response, and then John to wrap the conversation if that’s okay. Mallory. Thanks.

Paticipant: And thanks for hosting this conversation. And Ram, I really liked your first slide. I don’t know if you can go back to it, but I don’t know if folks are like me, but when we were having these conversations in the framing of fragmentation, and now it kind of came up here. Oh, I love the bread picture as well. Thank you, Olaf. We obviously see there’s an interconnection between electricity and food systems and shipping lines. And I feel a bit odd when we have those conversations because it’s really clear that we don’t think the internet is maybe more important than eating or drinking water. But we don’t quite make the connection, in my view, that every single one of these vulnerabilities is actually a crisis of capitalism. And we aren’t thinking holistically in terms of the political economy of the internet. And I can say, if we think that we can solve those problems without solving power or without, you obviously have gotten that, right? Like, we can’t solve these problems without solving electricity and power and other things. We can’t solve these problems without thinking about what happens when some states invade others or there are internet shutdowns. You know, we have to think of it holistically. I wonder if we imagine the project we’re trying to take on together to keep the internet resilient is a project that will transform our global capitalist system or is a project that very much depends on some other sector sorting those things out.

Moderator: Thank you, Mallory. Ram?

Ram Mohan: Thank you, Mallory. That’s a great provocative question. I think it will transcend rather than transform. And I don’t want to talk necessarily about, I mean, I think there’s quite a bit to discuss about the system and whether the system itself is primarily at fault. I will point out that in these resilience problems happen in non-capitalist systems as well. So, that’s just one thing. One very brief response to the gentleman from Kuwait who had the question. He had talked about he’s on the at the table there. You’ve spoken about security and safety. I want to say you should be thinking about security and stability, not safety, because safety is often what the user perceives. Stability is something that you can actually affect as a regulator or as a government.

Moderator: Thank you, Ram. I would love for John Janowiak, the President and CEO of the Marconi Society, to help us wrap this up. Sure.

John Janowiak: Thank you, Pablo. And thank you to the panel and all of you for attending today. This is a near and dear subject to the Marconi Society. I was approached not too long ago by Vint to take this on as one of our core issues for the society. And since we did, you know, we’ve just gotten a great amount of support from the industry. And so this is one of the first readouts that we’re providing publicly. So thank you for attending today’s session. You know, raising the awareness of this critical issue that’s, you know, often unappreciated or is the topic of internet resilience. And, you know, it’s going to take all of us to ensure that this matter gets the attention that’s required. So, again, we look forward to having you all involved. The responsibilities are cross sectors, cross geographies, and cross disciplines, as you heard today. One of the things that we were fortunate to do is we were able to bring together some of the top experts in the internet. And I think, like, we have a photo up here of our activity together in Washington, D.C. last November, where we really sat down and looked at, you know, what are some of the critical issues in resiliency of the network, you know, reliability, stability, and resiliency. And the report that we ultimately came up with is right here, this yellow report that’s on the internet, on our website. Please go ahead and download that report and take a look at it. We welcome your organizations to get involved in this. The more people we get involved in looking at these issues and helping solve these issues, the more resilient the Internet will become. So we’re really looking forward to working with all of you on this issue. So on behalf of this group here, which is all, most of the members on the panel here are part of the Internet Resilience Advisory Council, as well as the Marconi Board of Directors, you know, we look forward to working with all of you on making the Internet more reliable, stable, and resilient. So thank you for attending today.

Moderator: Pablo? With that, I wish we have a really good concert and thank you very much for attending the workshop.

Agreement points

Internet has become critical infrastructure requiring proactive resilience planning

Speakers

– Ram Mohan
– Vinton Cerf
– Manal Ismail
– John Crain

Arguments

Internet has become invisible infrastructure supporting all aspects of life, creating critical dependencies

Internet dependence is increasing with AI applications, making resilience critical as consequences of failures become more severe

Government role ranges from awareness and incentives to mandated requirements and enforced regulations

Continuous improvement needed as internet grows, requiring ongoing assessment of dependencies and vulnerabilities

Summary

All speakers agree that the internet has evolved from a convenience to critical infrastructure that supports essential services, requiring systematic and proactive approaches to resilience planning rather than reactive responses.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Complex interdependencies create cascading failure risks

Speakers

– Ram Mohan
– Olaf Kolkman
– Mark Nottingham
– Fiona Alexander

Arguments

Cross-sector assumptions create vulnerabilities where each sector assumes others will remain available

Modern systems become more fragile as they get more complex, with hidden interdependencies and single points of failure

Even with best engineering practices, failures still occur requiring continuous improvement and transparency

Need to map actors, institutions, and dependencies across the entire internet ecosystem infrastructure supply chain

Summary

Speakers consistently identified that increasing system complexity creates hidden interdependencies and single points of failure that can cascade across sectors, requiring comprehensive mapping and understanding of these relationships.

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Cross-sector collaboration is essential for effective resilience

Speakers

– Ram Mohan
– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Manal Ismail
– John Janowiak
– Mark Nottingham

Arguments

Four key challenges: increasing system complexity, regulatory pressures, insufficient funding for prevention, and supply chain vulnerabilities

Need for enhanced communication with end users who currently receive no information about disruptions

Need for multi-stakeholder approaches balancing national interests with global interoperability

Cross-sector, cross-geography, and cross-disciplinary collaboration essential for addressing resilience challenges

Systemic issues require cooperation across different businesses and ecosystem parts, not just individual company solutions

Summary

All speakers emphasized that internet resilience cannot be achieved by any single sector or organization alone, requiring enhanced collaboration and communication across technical, governmental, business, and civil society stakeholders.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development

Physical infrastructure dependencies are critical vulnerabilities

Speakers

– Olaf Kolkman
– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Manal Ismail

Arguments

Physical infrastructure like power and water are critical dependencies often overlooked in resilience planning

Physical transmission infrastructure should be considered part of resilience, including protection from conflicts and accidents

Governments should promote investment in redundant networks, secure digital registries, and national digital resilience strategies

Summary

Speakers agreed that physical infrastructure dependencies like power, water, and transmission infrastructure are often overlooked but represent critical vulnerabilities that must be addressed in resilience planning.

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized how increasing system complexity creates fragility and hidden failure points, with Ram focusing on the broader challenges including regulatory and funding issues, while Olaf provided concrete technical examples of how complexity leads to cascading failures.

Speakers

– Ram Mohan
– Olaf Kolkman

Arguments

Four key challenges: increasing system complexity, regulatory pressures, insufficient funding for prevention, and supply chain vulnerabilities

Modern systems become more fragile as they get more complex, with hidden interdependencies and single points of failure

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Both speakers highlighted inequality in resilience capabilities and the need for inclusive approaches, with Anriette focusing on the Global South perspective and end-user experiences, while Manal emphasized the governmental role in ensuring equitable resilience through multi-stakeholder governance.

Speakers

– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Manal Ismail

Arguments

Two-tier system exists where some have backup solutions while others face internet resilience as “act of God”

Need for multi-stakeholder approaches balancing national interests with global interoperability

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both speakers approached resilience from a technical architecture perspective, with Vint focusing on supply chain integrity and provenance, while Mark explained how multiple layers of abstraction are built to create reliability from inherently unreliable systems.

Speakers

– Vinton Cerf
– Mark Nottingham

Arguments

Provenance and integrity of software components, especially open source libraries, are critical for supply chain security

Internet inherently unreliable, requiring multiple layers of abstractions and redundancy to appear reliable

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Unexpected consensus

Revenue distribution and economic sustainability concerns

Speakers

– Paticipant
– Fiona Alexander

Arguments

Uneven revenue distribution from historical internet development may threaten long-term sustainability

Traditional telephone accounting rate model cannot be applied to internet without breaking infrastructure

Explanation

Despite representing different perspectives on internet economics, both speakers acknowledged the complexity of revenue distribution issues while agreeing that historical telephone models cannot be applied to internet infrastructure. This represents unexpected consensus on the technical limitations of applying legacy economic models to internet governance.

Topics

Economic | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Holistic approach to resilience beyond technical solutions

Speakers

– Paticipant
– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Olaf Kolkman

Arguments

Internet resilience problems interconnected with broader infrastructure vulnerabilities requiring holistic thinking

Two-tier system exists where some have backup solutions while others face internet resilience as “act of God”

Physical infrastructure like power and water are critical dependencies often overlooked in resilience planning

Explanation

Unexpected consensus emerged around the need for holistic thinking that goes beyond technical solutions to address broader systemic issues including economic inequality, infrastructure dependencies, and social factors. This represents a shift from purely technical approaches to more comprehensive socio-technical perspectives.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists on fundamental challenges (complexity, interdependencies, need for collaboration) and the critical nature of internet resilience, with broad agreement on the inadequacy of current approaches and the need for proactive, cross-sector solutions.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on problem identification and general solution directions, with speakers reinforcing each other’s points about system complexity, collaboration needs, and the critical nature of internet infrastructure. The consensus suggests a mature understanding of the challenges and readiness for coordinated action across sectors and stakeholders.

Different viewpoints

Scope of internet resilience – physical vs logical infrastructure

Speakers

– Anriette Esterhuysen
– John Crain

Arguments

Physical transmission infrastructure should be considered part of resilience, including protection from conflicts and accidents

ICANN manages critical identifier systems requiring uniqueness and global coordination for internet functionality

Summary

Anriette argues for including physical transmission infrastructure as part of internet resilience, noting this is not a universally accepted view and referencing struggles to get even DNS recognized as part of the public core. John focuses primarily on logical identifier systems and their management, representing a more traditional technical community view that separates logical from physical infrastructure.

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Economic model sustainability and revenue distribution

Speakers

– Paticipant
– Fiona Alexander

Arguments

Uneven revenue distribution from historical internet development may threaten long-term sustainability

Traditional telephone accounting rate model cannot be applied to internet without breaking infrastructure

Summary

The participant argues that the shift from telephone accounting rates eliminated crucial revenue flows to developing countries and that current uneven distribution threatens sustainability. Fiona strongly disputes this, arguing that the telephone model cannot be applied to internet infrastructure and that modern peering/transit arrangements have addressed historical inequalities.

Topics

Economic | Development | Infrastructure

Root cause analysis – systemic vs technical solutions

Speakers

– Paticipant
– Ram Mohan

Arguments

Internet resilience problems interconnected with broader infrastructure vulnerabilities requiring holistic thinking

Resilience issues transcend economic systems, occurring in various political and economic contexts

Summary

The participant frames resilience problems as fundamentally rooted in capitalist systems requiring transformation of global political economy. Ram argues that resilience problems transcend economic systems and occur across different political contexts, suggesting the focus should be on transcending rather than transforming existing systems.

Topics

Economic | Infrastructure | Development

Unexpected differences

Terminology precision in regulatory contexts

Speakers

– Ram Mohan
– Paticipant

Arguments

Security and stability more relevant concepts than safety for regulators and governments

Internet resilience problems interconnected with broader infrastructure vulnerabilities requiring holistic thinking

Explanation

This disagreement emerged unexpectedly during a question about physical security. Ram made a specific terminological correction distinguishing ‘security and stability’ from ‘safety’ for regulatory purposes, while the questioner was thinking more broadly about physical protection. This reveals different conceptual frameworks – technical precision vs. holistic security thinking.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed relatively low levels of fundamental disagreement, with most conflicts arising around scope, approach, and emphasis rather than core principles. Main disagreements centered on: (1) whether physical infrastructure should be included in internet resilience definitions, (2) economic models and revenue distribution impacts, and (3) whether problems require systemic transformation or technical solutions.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Speakers generally agreed on the importance of internet resilience and need for collaboration, but differed on scope, definitions, and approaches. The disagreements reflect different professional perspectives (technical, policy, academic, regional) rather than fundamental conflicts. This suggests good potential for finding common ground, though definitional and scope issues need resolution for effective collaboration.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized how increasing system complexity creates fragility and hidden failure points, with Ram focusing on the broader challenges including regulatory and funding issues, while Olaf provided concrete technical examples of how complexity leads to cascading failures.

Speakers

– Ram Mohan
– Olaf Kolkman

Arguments

Four key challenges: increasing system complexity, regulatory pressures, insufficient funding for prevention, and supply chain vulnerabilities

Modern systems become more fragile as they get more complex, with hidden interdependencies and single points of failure

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Both speakers highlighted inequality in resilience capabilities and the need for inclusive approaches, with Anriette focusing on the Global South perspective and end-user experiences, while Manal emphasized the governmental role in ensuring equitable resilience through multi-stakeholder governance.

Speakers

– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Manal Ismail

Arguments

Two-tier system exists where some have backup solutions while others face internet resilience as “act of God”

Need for multi-stakeholder approaches balancing national interests with global interoperability

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both speakers approached resilience from a technical architecture perspective, with Vint focusing on supply chain integrity and provenance, while Mark explained how multiple layers of abstraction are built to create reliability from inherently unreliable systems.

Speakers

– Vinton Cerf
– Mark Nottingham

Arguments

Provenance and integrity of software components, especially open source libraries, are critical for supply chain security

Internet inherently unreliable, requiring multiple layers of abstractions and redundancy to appear reliable

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Key takeaways

Internet resilience requires a fundamental mindset shift from reactive problem-solving to proactive prevention and cross-sector collaboration

The internet supply chain involves complex interdependencies extending far beyond traditional telecom providers to include power, water, physical infrastructure, and all sectors of the economy

A two-tier resilience system exists globally where some organizations and regions have backup solutions while others treat internet availability as unpredictable

Prevention-focused resilience measures struggle to attract funding compared to post-incident responses, creating a systematic investment gap

Physical transmission infrastructure must be considered part of internet resilience, including protection from conflicts, accidents, and natural disasters

Multi-stakeholder governance approaches are essential for balancing national interests with global internet interoperability

Continuous improvement and transparency about failures are necessary as internet complexity and dependencies continue to grow

Enhanced communication with end users is critically needed, as most people remain unaware of internet infrastructure vulnerabilities and current disruption status

Resolutions and action items

Marconi Society working group to produce first draft of internet resilience supply chain map by November meeting, following IP packet paths to identify all infrastructure dependencies

Participants encouraged to download and review the Internet Resilience Report from Marconi Society website

Organizations invited to join the Internet Resilience Advisory Council and contribute to ongoing resilience mapping efforts

Working group conducting mapping exercise through collaborative Google Docs to test online cooperation capabilities

Future iterations of resilience maps planned for specific sectors (energy, power) if initial mapping proves successful

Unresolved issues

No common definitions exist for critical internet infrastructure or critical information infrastructure across different sectors

Funding mechanisms for preventive resilience measures remain inadequate and systematically underdeveloped

Communication gaps persist between technical operators, government regulators, and end users during disruptions

Cross-sector coordination challenges where each sector assumes other critical infrastructure will remain available

Debate continues over whether physical transmission infrastructure should be universally considered part of internet resilience

Economic sustainability concerns regarding uneven revenue distribution in global internet infrastructure development

Regulatory friction between government demands for immediate fixes and technical community’s iterative problem-solving approaches

Suggested compromises

Multi-stakeholder approaches that balance national security interests with global internet interoperability requirements

Scoped mapping exercise starting with high-level packet flow analysis before diving into sector-specific details

Enhanced communication strategies that improve information flow to end users without overwhelming them with technical details

Risk-based approaches to resilience planning that prioritize coupled risks and cascading failure scenarios

Collaborative frameworks that respect both government accountability needs and technical community problem-solving methods

The implication of dependence is that when it doesn’t work there are all kinds of consequences… I’m going to suggest to you that the word provenance will turn out to have a very heightened importance in this conversation. Where did things come from? How do we know that they have integrity?

Speaker

Vinton Cerf

Reason

This comment was foundational because it reframed internet resilience from a purely technical issue to one of trust and accountability in supply chains. Cerf’s introduction of ‘provenance’ as a key concept shifted the discussion from reactive problem-solving to proactive verification and documentation of digital supply chains.

Impact

This set the entire tone for the workshop, establishing the framework that subsequent speakers built upon. It moved the conversation beyond traditional infrastructure concerns to encompass software integrity, digital signatures, and supply chain transparency – themes that resonated throughout the entire discussion.

So you have this expectation and an assumption that other parts of critical infrastructure are going to be available, except those parts aren’t actually talking with each other, right? So, you have folks in the power sector… they have very good plans… but a common assumption for them is that the internet will be available so that they can communicate.

Speaker

Ram Mohan

Reason

This observation revealed a critical blind spot in infrastructure planning – the circular dependency problem where each critical infrastructure sector assumes others will remain operational. It highlighted the dangerous illusion of independence in interconnected systems.

Impact

This comment fundamentally shifted the discussion from viewing internet resilience as an isolated technical challenge to understanding it as part of a complex web of interdependent critical infrastructures. It influenced subsequent speakers to consider cross-sector collaboration and helped frame the mapping exercise that Fiona later described.

So even though theoretically the bank services are still up, you’re not as an end user able to access it… it’s like there’s a two-tier system of how… what you have in many countries in the global South is a two-tier system. Some people who just deal with internet resilience, it’s like an act of God. Sometimes you have, sometimes you don’t.

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Reason

This comment was particularly insightful because it exposed the inequality inherent in current resilience approaches. It challenged the assumption that technical solutions alone can address resilience, highlighting how socioeconomic factors create vastly different experiences of internet reliability.

Impact

This intervention brought a crucial equity lens to the discussion, forcing participants to consider that resilience isn’t just about technical redundancy but about who has access to backup systems and information. It influenced the conversation to consider end-user communication and the social dimensions of resilience, moving beyond purely technical solutions.

I know of a case where the diesel was tested every month for two hours… after five, six years, they really had an emergency. They turned the thing on, it worked for five hours, and it was out of diesel. They forgot to refuel the tanks.

Speaker

Olaf Kolkman

Reason

This seemingly simple anecdote was profound because it illustrated how human factors and operational oversights can undermine even well-designed technical systems. It demonstrated that resilience failures often occur not from sophisticated attacks but from mundane operational gaps.

Impact

This story became a touchstone for the discussion, with other speakers referencing similar themes about the importance of operational practices versus technical solutions. It helped ground the abstract concepts in concrete, relatable examples and emphasized the human element in resilience planning.

Don’t you think that that uneven flow of revenues could be a cost in the long run of unsustainability of the internet?

Speaker

Participant (Juan)

Reason

This question was thought-provoking because it connected internet resilience to fundamental economic sustainability questions, challenging participants to consider whether current business models might themselves be a threat to long-term internet stability.

Impact

While this comment didn’t dramatically shift the technical focus of the discussion, it introduced important questions about the economic foundations of internet infrastructure. It prompted responses about peering arrangements and IXPs, and connected resilience to broader questions of global digital equity and sustainable financing models.

I wonder if we imagine the project we’re trying to take on together to keep the internet resilient is a project that will transform our global capitalist system or is a project that very much depends on some other sector sorting those things out.

Speaker

Mallory

Reason

This was perhaps the most provocative comment because it challenged the fundamental assumptions underlying the entire discussion. It questioned whether internet resilience could be achieved within existing political and economic structures, or whether it required more fundamental systemic change.

Impact

This comment forced participants to confront the limits of technical solutions and consider whether their resilience efforts were addressing symptoms rather than root causes. While it came near the end, it reframed the entire discussion by questioning whether incremental improvements could address systemic vulnerabilities rooted in broader political-economic structures.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively transformed what could have been a narrow technical discussion into a rich, multidimensional exploration of internet resilience. Cerf’s opening established the conceptual framework around provenance and supply chain integrity. Ram’s insight about circular infrastructure dependencies shifted the focus to cross-sector collaboration. Anriette’s observations about inequality brought crucial equity considerations into the technical discourse. Olaf’s diesel generator story grounded abstract concepts in human operational realities. The economic sustainability question and Mallory’s systemic critique challenged participants to consider whether their technical solutions were adequate to address the scale of the challenges. Together, these interventions created a discussion that moved fluidly between technical specifics and broader systemic questions, ultimately revealing internet resilience as a complex socio-technical challenge requiring collaboration across sectors, disciplines, and global power structures.

Do we have a business continuity strategy for unplanned disruption leading to a total global unavailability of the internet?

Speaker

Nandifa Natsaluba (online participant)

Explanation

This addresses a critical gap in global internet resilience planning – the need for comprehensive business continuity strategies that can handle complete internet failures, which would have catastrophic economic and social impacts.

How can we document the supply chain that leads to a particular product or service and ensure it has integrity?

Speaker

Vinton Cerf

Explanation

This is fundamental to supply chain security and resilience, particularly for open source libraries and software components that form the backbone of internet infrastructure.

How can we be assured that security has been properly attended to, not only in the fabrication of software, but also its configuration and installation?

Speaker

Vinton Cerf

Explanation

This addresses the need for end-to-end security verification throughout the entire lifecycle of internet infrastructure components.

What are risks that might be coupled to each other, and how do we identify and prepare for them?

Speaker

Olaf Kolkman

Explanation

Understanding cascading failures and interdependent risks is crucial for building truly resilient systems, as single events can trigger multiple simultaneous failures.

How can we enhance communication with end users about internet disruptions and recovery status?

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Explanation

There’s a significant gap in communicating internet resilience status to end users, particularly in developing countries where users are left to manage disruptions without information or support.

How can we develop common definitions of what constitutes critical internet infrastructure across different sectors and stakeholders?

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Explanation

The lack of common definitions hampers coordinated resilience efforts, as different communities (technical, government, telecom) have varying approaches and understanding of what needs protection.

Should physical transmission infrastructure be considered part of internet resilience, and how do we protect it during conflicts?

Speaker

Qusayr Shati and Anriette Esterhuysen

Explanation

This addresses whether internet resilience should include physical infrastructure protection, especially in conflict zones where infrastructure becomes a target or casualty of war.

Could the uneven flow of internet revenues globally cause long-term unsustainability of the internet?

Speaker

Juan (participant)

Explanation

This explores whether economic imbalances in internet infrastructure financing could undermine global internet resilience, particularly affecting developing countries’ ability to maintain and upgrade infrastructure.

How do we solve internet resilience problems without addressing broader systemic issues like power, water, and political conflicts?

Speaker

Mallory (participant)

Explanation

This questions whether internet resilience can be achieved in isolation or requires addressing fundamental infrastructure and political economy issues that affect all critical systems.

How can we develop next iterations of the resilience map that dig into specific sectors like energy and power?

Speaker

Fiona Alexander

Explanation

This suggests expanding the mapping exercise to create sector-specific resilience maps that would provide more detailed analysis of interdependencies within critical infrastructure sectors.

How do we continue to increase and maintain resilience as the internet continues to grow and evolve?

Speaker

John Crain

Explanation

This addresses the ongoing challenge that resilience is not a one-time achievement but requires continuous adaptation and improvement as the internet ecosystem evolves.

Summary

This discussion focused on the upcoming WSIS Plus 20 high-level event and the evolution of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) forum over the past two decades. Gitanjali Sah from ITU opened the session by outlining the WSIS process, which began in 1998 and has grown to involve over 50 UN entities in a multi-stakeholder framework that includes the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The WSIS action lines provide a comprehensive framework where different UN agencies implement specific areas based on their mandates, such as FAO handling e-agriculture and ITU managing ICT infrastructure and cybersecurity.

Ambassador Thomas Schneider from Switzerland emphasized the importance of translating dialogue into concrete decision-making and action, noting that while the WSIS structure has helped achieve many goals, there remains work to bridge the gap between discussion and implementation. South Africa’s representative highlighted their country’s commitment as the incoming chair of the high-level event, citing their active participation in internet governance processes and their focus on issues like AI, digital public infrastructure, and capacity building for small businesses through their G20 presidency.

Multiple UN agencies and stakeholders expressed their continued commitment to the WSIS process. UNDP’s Yu Ping Chan stressed the critical importance of capacity building, which remains the top request from governments they serve globally. UNESCO’s representative emphasized their role in facilitating action lines on access to information, e-learning, cultural diversity, and media ethics. The technical community, represented by ICANN, reaffirmed support for the multi-stakeholder model and urged recognition of the technical community as a distinct stakeholder group.

The discussion revealed broad consensus on the continued relevance of WSIS principles, with participants noting that the framework’s ambitious vision of a people-centered, inclusive information society remains more important than ever in addressing current digital challenges and opportunities.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **WSIS Plus 20 High-Level Event Planning and Logistics**: Extensive discussion of the upcoming World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 high-level event scheduled for July 7-11 in Geneva, including venue details, registration processes, high-level participation (67 ministers confirmed), and the interactive agenda developed through multi-stakeholder consultations.

– **Multi-stakeholder Governance and Implementation Framework**: Emphasis on maintaining the multi-stakeholder DNA of the WSIS process, with various UN agencies, civil society, private sector, and technical community representatives discussing their roles in implementing the WSIS Action Lines and contributing to digital policy development.

– **Bridging Dialogue and Decision-Making**: A recurring theme about the need to translate multi-stakeholder discussions into concrete actions and real-world impact, moving beyond dialogue to actual implementation that affects communities and achieves sustainable development goals.

– **Integration with Global Digital Governance Frameworks**: Discussion of how WSIS connects with other major digital governance initiatives including the Global Digital Compact (GDC), Internet Governance Forum (IGF), AI for Good conference, and various national and regional digital policy frameworks.

– **Capacity Building and Digital Divide**: Focus on addressing digital inequalities through capacity building initiatives, particularly for developing countries, rural communities, and specific sectors like agriculture, with emphasis on meaningful connectivity and inclusive digital transformation.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion served as a briefing and coordination session for stakeholders preparing for the WSIS Plus 20 high-level event. The primary goal was to update participants on event logistics, encourage broad participation, and align various stakeholder perspectives on the evolution and future direction of the WSIS process as it undergoes its 20-year review.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was consistently collaborative, professional, and forward-looking throughout the conversation. Speakers demonstrated mutual respect and appreciation for each other’s contributions to the WSIS process. There was an underlying sense of urgency about making the upcoming high-level event impactful, combined with pride in the achievements of the past 20 years. The discussion maintained an optimistic and constructive atmosphere, with stakeholders expressing commitment to continued cooperation and shared goals for digital inclusion and sustainable development.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Gitanjali Sah** – Session moderator/organizer from ITU, coordinating the WSIS plus 20 high-level event

– **Thomas Schneider** – Ambassador from Switzerland, representing the co-host country of the WSIS plus 20 high-level event

– **Representative of South Africa** – Cynthia, representing South Africa as chair-designate of the upcoming high-level event, with Minister Soli Malatsi as the designated chair

– **Yu Ping Chan** – Representative from UNDP, speaking on behalf of UN organizations co-convening the WSIS Forum

– **Tatevik Grigoryan** – Representative from UNESCO, co-host of the WSIS plus 20 high-level event

– **ICANN representative** – Veni, representing the technical community and ICANN

– **FAO representative** – Dejan, facilitator of WSIS action line on e-agriculture

– **MAG representative** – Bruna, ex-MAG member and co-facilitator of the MAG Working Group on Strategy

– **Anriette Esterhuysen** – Civil society representative from APC (Association for Progressive Communications)

– **WIPO representative** – Richard, representing the World Intellectual Property Organization

– **Inter Parliamentary Union representative** – Andy Richardson, representing parliamentarians in the WSIS process

– **ICC representative** – Meli, representing the International Chamber of Commerce and Business Action to Support the Information Society

**Additional speakers:**

None identified – all speakers mentioned in the transcript were included in the provided speakers names list.

# WSIS Plus 20 High-Level Event: Comprehensive Stakeholder Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This discussion focused on preparations for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 high-level event, scheduled for 7-11 July in Geneva. The session, moderated by Gitanjali Sah from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), brought together representatives from across the multi-stakeholder community to coordinate event preparations and reflect on two decades of WSIS implementation.

The discussion revealed strong consensus on the continued relevance of WSIS principles and the multi-stakeholder approach, while acknowledging significant challenges in translating dialogue into concrete decision-making and measurable outcomes. With 67 ministers and deputies confirmed to attend, the event represents substantial global recognition of WSIS’s importance, though participants identified critical gaps in measurement frameworks and institutional visibility within broader UN processes.

## Background and Context

### WSIS Evolution and Framework

Gitanjali Sah outlined the evolution of the WSIS process, which began with a proposal in 1998 at ITU’s plenipotentiary conference when Tunisia requested the framework. It has grown into a comprehensive multi-stakeholder framework involving over 50 UN entities. The WSIS action lines provide a structured approach where different UN agencies implement specific areas based on their mandates – for example, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) handles e-agriculture while ITU manages ICT infrastructure and cybersecurity.

The framework has maintained its multi-stakeholder approach throughout its 20-year journey, incorporating the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) as an integral component. This architecture has facilitated inclusive dialogue across governments, civil society, private sector, technical community, and academia, though measuring quantitative impact remains challenging due to the absence of indicators and monitoring frameworks.

### High-Level Event Logistics and Participation

The WSIS Plus 20 high-level event has secured participation from 67 ministers and deputies confirmed across all regions. The event will take place at the Palexpo venue, with an interactive agenda developed through extensive multi-stakeholder consultations. Sah noted that one badge will provide access to both the WSIS event and the AI for Good conference taking place simultaneously.

Additional event features include 72 WSIS champions and 18 winners to be awarded, a youth special track, and a youth party planned for Monday at ITU premises. A hackathon on “hack against hunger” will also take place, though speakers noted the lack of incubators to support innovation beyond the event.

The representative of South Africa expressed honor at their country’s role as chair-designate, with Minister Soli Malatsi designated as chair. She emphasized South Africa’s long-standing commitment to the WSIS process since the 2003 Geneva Summit and highlighted their current leadership of the ITU Council Working Group on WSIS and SDGs.

## Key Stakeholder Perspectives

### Co-Host Country Commitment

Ambassador Thomas Schneider from Switzerland emphasized the critical importance of translating dialogue into concrete decision-making and action. He noted that while the WSIS structure has helped achieve many goals over the past two decades, the biggest gap currently facing the community is ensuring that multi-stakeholder dialogue actually translates into results and decision-making processes.

Switzerland’s commitment extends beyond hosting, with Schneider referencing their non-paper with proposals for building on existing WSIS architecture rather than creating entirely new structures.

### UN Agency Coordination and Implementation

The discussion highlighted extensive coordination among UN agencies through the UN Group on Information Society. Yu Ping Chan from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) provided field perspective, noting that capacity building remains the top request from the 170 country offices they serve globally, reflecting the enduring relevance of original WSIS principles.

UNESCO’s representative, Tatevik Grigoryan, emphasized their role in facilitating action lines on access to information, e-learning, cultural diversity, and media ethics. She advocated for principled frameworks rooted in WSIS values of human rights, openness, and accessibility.

The FAO representative, Dejan, provided context for the urgency of digital transformation, noting that 700 million people remain undernourished globally. FAO uses the WSIS process to address agri-food system transformation enabled by technology, highlighting the critical implications of effective digital governance.

### Technical Community and Private Sector Engagement

The ICANN representative reaffirmed strong support for the multi-stakeholder model while urging recognition of the technical community as a distinct stakeholder group. The representative noted that while the IGF was mentioned in the Global Digital Compact as the primary meeting space for Internet policy discussions, the WSIS Forum was omitted from the elements paper for the UN General Assembly review, prompting calls for coordinated stakeholder feedback.

The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), represented by Meli, demonstrated long-standing private sector engagement since WSIS inception. ICC plans to organize specific sessions including a workshop on July 10th (3-3:45 PM) on “Global Adoption, Global Progress, Managing the Challenges of AI Inclusion” and a Knowledge Cafe on July 9th (12-2 PM) on strengthening multistakeholderism.

### Civil Society and Parliamentary Perspectives

Anriette Esterhuysen from the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) provided a civil society perspective, emphasizing that the WSIS Action Line Framework enables collaborative implementation at country level between governments and stakeholders. She characterized WSIS as more powerful than most other tech-related UN frameworks.

The Inter-Parliamentary Union representative, Andy Richardson, brought the perspective of elected representatives who must balance innovation with citizen protection, adding democratic accountability to technical and policy discussions.

## Major Agreements and Consensus Areas

### Multi-Stakeholder Participation as Core Principle

The discussion revealed unanimous agreement that multi-stakeholder participation represents the core DNA of both WSIS and IGF processes. All speakers consistently emphasized that this inclusive approach has been successfully maintained throughout WSIS evolution, enabling collaborative implementation across different stakeholder groups.

### Complementary Nature of WSIS and IGF Platforms

Speakers demonstrated clear agreement that WSIS Forum and IGF serve complementary rather than competing roles in global digital governance. This complementary relationship is being operationalized through two IGF-focused panels planned for 8 July at the high-level event, addressing both mandate renewal and the next 20 years of IGF development.

### Implementation and Capacity Building Priorities

Multiple speakers emphasized that capacity building and practical implementation represent fundamental needs requiring urgent attention. The UNDP representative’s observation that capacity building is the top request from governments globally resonated across different stakeholder groups, with each providing concrete examples of implementation challenges and solutions.

## Challenges and Areas of Concern

### Dialogue to Decision-Making Gap

The most significant challenge identified was the persistent gap between multi-stakeholder dialogue and actual decision-making by governments and institutions. Ambassador Schneider’s articulation of this challenge as the biggest current gap resonated across multiple subsequent interventions.

This challenge manifests in various ways: excellent discussions in forums that struggle to influence actual policy decisions, capacity building needs identified globally but inadequately addressed, and innovative solutions developed through initiatives like hackathons that lack incubation support to reach implementation.

### Measurement and Accountability Frameworks

Sah acknowledged that WSIS action lines lack indicators and monitoring frameworks, representing a fundamental weakness in the 20-year process. This absence of quantitative measurement capabilities means that while qualitative achievements can be celebrated, systematic assessment of progress and impact remains impossible.

### Institutional Recognition and Visibility

The omission of WSIS Forum from the elements paper for the UN General Assembly review highlighted ongoing challenges in ensuring proper recognition of multi-stakeholder processes within formal UN frameworks. This visibility gap could undermine WSIS influence in broader digital governance discussions.

## Future Directions and Action Items

### Immediate Preparations

All stakeholders were encouraged to submit comments and inputs to the UN General Assembly overall review through the online form available until 15 July. The ITU will work with the Office of the Secretary-General’s Envoy on Technology (ODET) on Global Digital Compact implementation roadmap, requiring a thousand-word document on current implementation to be submitted to the Commission on Science and Technology for Development annual session.

South African Minister Soli Malatsi will submit a chair summary of high-level event outcomes to the UN General Assembly review process.

### Long-term Strategic Development

The discussion identified several areas requiring sustained attention beyond the July event. Developing indicators and monitoring frameworks for WSIS action lines emerged as a priority for enabling quantitative measurement of achievements and impact assessment.

Strengthening the dialogue-to-decision-making pipeline requires systematic attention to how multi-stakeholder discussions translate into policy decisions and implementation. Building on existing WSIS architecture rather than creating entirely new structures offers a pragmatic approach to institutional evolution while maintaining proven multi-stakeholder frameworks.

## Conclusion

The discussion revealed a mature multi-stakeholder community with strong consensus on fundamental principles while honestly acknowledging significant implementation challenges. The upcoming WSIS Plus 20 high-level event represents both celebration of achievements and critical opportunity to address persistent gaps in measurement, decision-making translation, and institutional recognition.

The high level of participation confirmed for July, combined with the collaborative spirit demonstrated throughout this preparatory discussion, suggests a strong foundation for meaningful outcomes. However, success will ultimately be measured not by the quality of dialogue in Geneva but by the concrete actions and decisions that follow in countries and communities worldwide.

The WSIS Plus 20 milestone occurs at a crucial moment when digital governance challenges have never been more urgent or complex. The framework’s vision of a people-centered, inclusive information society remains relevant, but achieving this vision requires moving beyond dialogue to systematic implementation and measurable impact that stakeholders consistently identified as the next frontier for multi-stakeholder digital governance.

Gitanjali Sah: Good morning ladies and gentlemen, thank you for joining us today for this special session on the WSIS plus 20 high-level event and the evolution of the WSIS forum over the years. Since we have it’s a 9 a.m meeting, we would really appreciate if you can join us here so that we can be closer to each other. The audience if you would like us to join in the table that would be really nice so we can be closer together. Okay so basically I wanted to divide this into two parts to kind of update you about the WSIS plus 20 high-level event but also to look at the evolution in the context of the WSIS plus 20 review as well. So we have a very quick presentation which I will go through and then we’ll pass on the floor to our speakers who are actually also our stakeholders who contribute very actively to the WSIS forum and the WSIS process. So as all of you are familiar it’s a UN process WSIS. It started in the evolution started in 1998 in ITU’s plenipotentiary conference when Tunisia as a member state requested that there should be a framework like WSIS. We work with more than 50 UN entities currently and of course it’s a multi-stakeholder process. You can see IGF is part of the WSIS process and you can see the spirit here the multi-stakeholder participation and we are very proud that we could maintain that over the years. So the evolution is clear and I’ll leave this presentation for all of you. I’ll go through it very quickly. 1998 it was proposed, 2001 we took it to the UN, 2003 and 5 we had the two events the summits, 2003 came up with the framework of the WSIS action lines, 2005 was the Tunis agreement where IGF was also born. 2015 our mandate was renewed and then it was still 2025 and hence this is such a milestone year for all of us where we are reviewing the mandate. As you all know we are guided by the framework of the WSIS action lines. It’s a beautiful framework where all UN agencies based on their mandates work together. For example, Dejan from FAO implements the action line on e-agriculture with the multi-stakeholder community. ITU has the action line on ICT infrastructure, cyber security and so on so forth. The WSIS implementation wheel, as we call it, the action lines, the forums, stocktaking, stocktaking database is a huge database where all stakeholders have inputted their projects, really the grassroot projects, based on the action lines, the SDGs, and now we also have an alignment with the global digital compact objectives. Like we mentioned, it’s really multi-stakeholderism is in the DNA of the WSIS process and we’re proud that we’ve been able to maintain it. Now our achievements over the 20 years, one challenge that all of us face is that the WSIS action lines don’t have indicators and monitoring frameworks. So we really can’t measure and tell you that quantitatively this is what we’ve achieved in the WSIS action lines. However, if you look at the qualitative achievements, you can look at how a process like WSIS, a framework like WSIS has improved the lives of people all over the world. So WSIS essentially was about technology benefiting the people on the ground. So 5.5 billion people online. Looking at the Giga mapping, we see that 280,000 plus schools are connected with UNESCO. We figured out that 400 plus languages are accessible, and so on and so forth. So the stocktaking database, all of you must have a look at it. And if you’re looking for examples of implementation of WSIS on the ground, you definitely can use those examples in your presentations, in your case studies, and so on and so forth. It’s a very good repository. We also have WSIS photo contest winners every year out there, so you can use those. The United Nations Group on Information Society, all members of the CEB, the Chief Executive Board, are members of this group. We also have observer members, newcomers like Odette, who are very welcome to the United Nations Group on Information Society. It’s UN in action, and we have been working really well to implement the digital aspects of our work together. This is high-level event. As I look around the table, most of you are coming there. So we really look forward to welcoming you there. We’ve had several briefings for all of you. So the way the agenda and the program is built, it’s through an open consultative process. Most of you have been part of it. And the interactive agenda that you see right now is the result and the outcome of what we’ve done together. We had several consultative meetings, we analysed the inputs that we received, and then we put it together on the forum website. So as you’ll see in these graphs, the contributions to the WSIS Forum open consultation process, they are very, very multi-stakeholder. Also, we are very proud to say that some regions who were not that active in the process in the sense of contribution of inputs, for example, Latin America, it’s really increased over the years. So we are really happy that all regions and all stakeholders are benefiting and contributing towards the process. So I’ll skip all of this because the agenda is already online. This one is important. All the action line facilitators have actually got together and there’s a presentation online, you can find it on the WSIS Forum website, highlighted the achievements, challenges and opportunities of the WSIS action lines. It’s a beautiful, it’s really important work that people have done, where they’ve shown you the evolution of the action line, and these are the experts. So I think you should have a look at it, it’ll really help you with the work that you’re doing as well. So our chair designate is the Minister of South Africa, Excellency Soli Malatsi. Cynthia was supposed to be here representing him, but I think she’s on her way. And he will take over from Switzerland, who was the chair last year. The venue is Pal Expo, it’s very similar actually to this venue. It’s a huge space, and it’s very approachable, Geneva is a small place and it’s easy to travel in Geneva. I hope you’ve registered, especially the people who needed visas, because we’re working closely with the Swiss administration, who’s also helping us with the visas. So as you’re aware, the AI for Good conference is also taking place at the same time. So one badge will take you also to the AI for Good conference. Once you have it, you can also access it. Now in terms of high level participation, we are proud to say that we have 67 ministers confirmed right now, 67 ministers and deputies. This means that not only the G77 countries, EU, but all the regions, they really consider this process so important that they would like to be present in Geneva for it. We have more than 40 regulators coming, of course our UN partners that are very important, and 72 WSIS champions and 18 winners who will be awarded during the conference. high-level event. So I won’t go through the program, you all have seen it. We have a high-level one, we have workshops, we have several WSIS plus 20 consultations. These will happen during lunchtime, during the knowledge cafes as well. So please be there because we really want concrete outcomes. We have limited space at Palexpo, so we will have registration forms, do fill them up as soon as they are available online. We have a youth special track that we will be working on, and if you have youth delegations coming with you, and of course we are all young at heart, so we can all join the youth party that we will have at ITU Maubriant premises on Monday. So please join the youth track also on Monday, 7th of July to kind of get an impression of what the young people are expecting out of us. We have exhibition spaces, but since we are non-commercial, they are not very fancy about what people are doing on the ground. I’m going to skip all of this because, well, I do see many high-level track facilitators around, so I wanted to say that the high-level tracks are moderated by the high-level track facilitators, who are selected from, not selected actually, nominated by the different stakeholder types. So we look forward to, Cheryl is one of them, and I see Valeria, Anaret, so many of you around, thank you so much. I spoke about the, so the outcomes of the high-level event, very important this time because they will be fed into the UNGA overall review. So one would be through the chair summary, so the South African minister who’s going to submit the outcome of the high-level event to the UNGA overall review. Second is, of course, the ITU secretary-general’s WSIS plus 20 roadmap and report, which she will be submitting, and I do hope that all of you, while making your submissions to the UNGA overall review, review will consider the importance of WSIS Forum and IGF in terms of being multi-stakeholder you know platforms for deliberations on digital policy. We of course have seen the elements paper which was released and we were quite surprised to note that the WSIS Forum was not noted on it so we will provide our feedback but if all of you could we would like to encourage all of you also to submit your comments and inputs through the online form which is available until 15th of July. So I’ll stop here now because you know it’s quite I’ll make this available for you but just two points my colleagues from New York also wanted me to highlight is that ITU is also working with ODET in the GDC implementation roadmap. We are supposed to provide a thousand word document on how the GDC is being implemented currently so we encourage you to also submit to us these ideas so we could prepare this thousand word document and this will be sent to the CSTD annual session next year. So I’m gonna stop here and hand over the floor actually to Ambassador Schneider who’s the Switzerland is the co-host of the WSIS plus 20 high-level event they were also the co-chair they were also the chairs last year. Ambassador Schneider thank you for the wonderful evening last night over to you.

Thomas Schneider: Yes thank you Gitanjali and good morning everyone I hope you can hear me with your earphones. Yes we are happy and proud to be the co-host of also this year’s WSIS forum we are also very happy to work together with our friends from South Africa who are chairing the event this year. because we think that WSIS is a very important structure. We had almost 22 years ago where we agreed in Geneva on some principles how to turn this world into an inclusive, people-centred and development-oriented or the other way around, information society. Now we would call it digital society. We have agreed on an action plan and then in Tunis we have complemented whatever was not agreed in Geneva. And we do think that, and we have expressed this on many occasions this week, that this structure has helped us a lot to achieve some of the goals that we set, some of the targets that we set. There’s still some work to do in many others. We’ve had new challenges, new technical developments, new opportunities that this system has been able to take on. We are discussing here at the IGF not only about the same things that we were discussing 20 years ago. We are every year adapting our dialogue to the challenges and opportunities of the time. The same goes not just for the IGF here, it also goes for the WSIS. So we think that this architecture is not perfect, but we have tried to be as inclusive as we can, to allow as many voices to be heard as we can. And the IGF as well as the WSIS Forum are two important components that are complementary because they have a slightly different setting. They are complementary in our view and we are very happy that these two exist and think these are very important elements of the dialogue part. Of course, we all know that dialogue is only a necessary but not sufficient step in getting things done and actually making things happen. So I can again refer to among other inputs to the Swiss non-paper that we have circulated where we try to build on the existing architecture, make some concrete proposals that can be discussed that we hope are useful to actually fill the biggest gap that I think we currently have, which is to help make sure that the dialogue that we’re having is actually turning into result in decision-making for us so that the voices of the people are not just heard here or at the WSIS forum, but they actually heard when and taken into account when decisions are made. I think this is something we all need to work on and we are very happy to see that also this year there will be a big WSIS plus 20 and the AI for Good will be a big meeting but with lots of participants, but also a remarkable number of high-level participants so we also hope that this meeting will be used to get this dialogue to the awareness of high-level people from all stakeholders because this is what we I think need to focus on to make sure that these voices that we try to make heard that they are really have an impact in decisions that are taken, be it in intergovernmental institutions, also by private institutions. I think this is the biggest endeavor so we hope that this discussion here is useful to bring us one step closer to this goal. Thank you very much.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you very much, Ambassador Schneider and thanks to Switzerland for their support for making this happen. We’re really looking forward to the high-level events 7th to 11th of July and as we look around the room I just mentioned that we know most of them are going to be there with us so thank you so much. I’ll move on to now the chair-designate, South Africa. Cynthia, the floor is yours.

Representative of South Africa: Thank you, Gitanjali and good morning to everyone. and it’s such an honour to be part of this session and to see many familiar faces that we have, I have actually interacted with and we are really looking forward as South Africa to be the chair of the upcoming high level event in Geneva which will then be chaired by our Honourable Minister Soli Malachi. And for South Africa really, we stand firmly and constantly a champion of the WSIS process since its inception from 2005 to, I mean from 2003 to 2005 and many South African delegation has, have actually actively participated in the 2003 Geneva Summit including the 2005 Tunisia Summit and this is a demonstration of the South African commitment to bridging the digital divide and shaping the future for internet governance. As South Africa, we have also played an important role in advancing the civil society and multi-stakeholder participation both in global internet governance process. Its leadership has been visible in both policy development and of course the norm-setting platform helping to ensure that voices of the global South, particularly African stakeholders, are represented in shaping the digital future. For instance, I would say that from a country point of view, we do have a, we all, we have also chaired, I think, through our clear and data, a multi-advisory group of the United Nation IGF and which is another clear recognition of South Africa’s commitment. to Inclusive Internet Governance. But in addition to that, South Africa, we have also, we have what we call the Internet Governance Forum, which is a multi-stakeholder platform that, which unites government, the civil society, the academia, the private sector, and most importantly, the youth. And we do not end there, South Africa, but we also recently have hosted a national IJF forum under the theme, Reviewing South Africa’s Internet Governance Program, progress in the context of WSIS plus 20. And, you know, for us, this was about highlighting alignment with the Global Digital Policy Framework. And of course, we’ve used the forum to access the diverse voices on what we have achieved, the challenges, and again, what lies ahead of us beyond 2020-25. And again, the other, I would say, a classic example of how we are committed to the WSIS Forum, it’s our role as the chair of cancer working group, ITU Cancer Working Group, WSIS and SDGs. And through that platform, again, as a chair, what we have done working together with the ITU, we’ve issued an ITU’s call for both governments and stakeholders to really share their experiences of how they have implemented the WSIS outcomes for over a period of 20 years, and what are the challenges, and what is it that they are envisioning going forward. So this is one of, what I would say, the highlights of showing, again, how South Africa is really taking this process serious. But we did not only end there, but through our G20 presidency, the country is also prioritizing a number of issues. that are actually key, and they are key not only for South Africa, but they are also the issues that are contained in the Global Digital Compact. Issues such as your AI, it’s one of the South African G20 Presidency focus areas, the issue of the digital public infrastructure, and these are some of the things. And also, in addition to the two issues that I’ve mentioned, there’s also the issue of capacity building for SMMEs. That is another element that the South African government is actually prioritizing through its G20 Presidency. And all of these things that I’ve mentioned, they are quite key in the global discussions, and again, in ensuring that we achieve the 2030 Sustainable Digital SDGs. But again, it is also important to also reflect on these issues as we look beyond 2025. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Cynthia, and we look forward to welcoming South Africa as the chair of the High Level Event. You’re already the chair of the Council Working Group on Business and SDGs. Thank you so much. We have to be mindful of time. There are 23 minutes left. We can see the timer there. I’ll invite all the stakeholders who wanted to also express themselves. I’ll start with our co-organizers. Yu Ping from UNDP. Yuping, the floor is yours.

Yu Ping Chan: Thank you so much, Gitanjali. And just wanted to say on behalf of the other UN organizations to our co-conveners of the WSIS Forum, UNCTAD, UNESCO, and UNDP, together working closely, of course, with ITU, we really look forward to having you as part of the process, as part of the conversation, because we all know this is a particularly important year. I just wanted to put a plus one and a super plus 1,000, actually, on the points that have been raised on this idea of the translation and delivery of conversations into decision-making and then action. For UNDP, with our 170 country offices around the world, our support to over 120 governments in the area of leveraging digital and AI to achieve the SDGs, this is particularly important. It’s about the impact that we make directly to communities and people that we serve around the world that will make the difference in terms of how we translate digital discussions at the global level into real impact on lives. and economies and communities and so that idea that has already been reiterated by Cynthia from South Africa talking about the importance of capacity building is particularly profound. So for instance for UNDP the number one ask from the national governments and communities that we serve is capacity building and that’s really important and that is actually a principle that has existed and endured from the very beginning of WSIS itself. So this is I think a pertinent example of what Ambassador Schneider says that you know the principles that underlying WSIS are even more relevant today than ever before. I also want to say that’s how UNDP characterizes our participation in WSIS around the action line capacity building that we facilitate. So for instance just last week in Rome we launched the AI help for sustainable development with the Italians that was a product of the G7 presidency that is really aiming to strengthen local AI ecosystems in Africa. Just two weeks ago at the Hamburg sustainability conference we worked very closely with our colleagues from the German government the BMZ the GIZ to launch the Hamburg declaration on responsible AI for the SDGs. This is the first ever completely multi-stakeholder document on this important issue and we now have almost 50 signatories from across the entire multi-stakeholder community some of the major names in the area of AI. I will ask my German colleagues to actually put the link to the chat so that perhaps some of the stakeholders here in the IGF community would be also interested in being an endorser of the Hamburg declaration as well. So all of this I think is precisely that connection that we’re talking about. The connection between a multi-stakeholder conversation to decision-making by policymakers and collectively by the entire multi-stakeholder community then translated into real action on the ground for people everywhere that we serve. So I think I just want to reiterate this importance of this continuing connection between New York, Geneva, South Africa, G20, Hamburg and all these other places in which we’re collectively taking action. Thank you so much.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you very much, Yuping Chan. I do not see UNESCO in the room.

Tatevik Grigoryan: Thank you very much. I’ll read it to make it quick. So thank you again. Thank you and colleagues and everyone here present. So over the past two decades, the Internet has undergone a remarkable transformation and the vision laid out in WSIS has materialized in ways both inspiring and complex. And we’ve witnessed how the emerging technologies revolutionized our lives both positively and also posing serious threats such as disinformation, misinformation and other harmful content. And this is why UNESCO has continuously advocated for the use of the recognized and principled frameworks such as ROMEX, many of you know it, rooted in the same foundational values as WSIS, human rights, openness, accessibility and multi-stakeholder participation. ROMEX provides a robust tool to assess and guide the development of inclusive rights-based digital environment. We’re confident that the outcomes of the IGF will serve as a strong foundation for the upcoming WSIS plus 20 high-level event which UNESCO is proud to co-host again alongside ITU and Switzerland, the UNDP and UNCTAD. I would like to extend our heartfelt thanks to all WSIS stakeholders who actively contributed to shaping this year’s IGF program through the open consultation process. I would also like to recognize the continued investment of the members of the UN Group on Information Society, which UNESCO had the honor to chair during the last year. This group constitutes the UN level of fundamental backbone to implementation of the WSIS outcomes, ensuring coordination, partnership and complementarity across agencies and programs. Finally and most importantly I’d like to warmly invite you to participate in the discussions around the WSIS action lines, which UNESCO is the facilitator. The action lines are on access to information, e-learning and science, cultural diversity and multilingualism, media, ethics of information society. These action lines are not just thematic areas, they are pillars of digital society that is inclusive, ethical and sustainable. We really do look forward to your contributions in these discussions and look forward to the outcomes of the forum for a renewed… focused action-oriented WSIS 2.0 or plus, accelerating our collective efforts towards reaching the international agreed development goals. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Tatevik. You know UNESCO is a very close partner of the UN in the WSIS process and at the ITU actually we have expanded WSIS into information and knowledge societies ensuring that all the work of UNESCO is also discussed when we talk about the WSIS process. So it’s not only about provision of ICT infrastructure but also converting it into knowledge. Thank you so much. I’d now like to hand over the floor to Veni, representing the technical community ICANN. He has a conflicting schedule, so Veni, over to you.

ICANN representative: Thank you. And thank you for organising this session and talking about UNESCO and ITU, ICANN is partnering with both organisations. We just signed an MOU with UNESCO and we have long-term relationships with the ITU in a very positive way. Most recently we had briefings for UN diplomats in Geneva and in New York where we had our president and CEO Curtis Lindquist speaking with Doreen Bogdan-Martin in Geneva and we were co-hosted by Cintia by South Africa and Finland in New York. So we are really having a very good cooperation and we use the opportunity here to meet with people from both organisations. We had a meeting with the Assistant Director General yesterday and we are talking about doing more briefings in the WSIS plus 20 process. Also I took a note from your appeal to stakeholders, Gitanjali, to put in the comments to the elements paper to note that the WSIS plus 20, sorry the WSIS The ITU WSIS Forum is not mentioned and this is an omission obviously, I hope it will be corrected in the zero draft. We had a meeting with the co-facilitators yesterday and we want to reiterate that the WSIS Forum, where we will have a delegation headed by the ICANN President and the leadership of the ICANN Board will be participating as well in 10 days in Geneva. We want to convey the same messages everywhere, which is basically the IGF is a great venue. It’s not a coincidence that it was mentioned last year in the Global Digital Compact as the primary meeting space for discussing Internet related policy issues, questions. And that the technical community is a separate stakeholder which also should be recognized and reaffirmed. And also that the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance is the one that actually managed to bring all this economy, accessibility, etc. Things that were made possible because of the Internet. So we are hopeful that the Member States of the United Nations will use this opportunity in the WSIS Plus 20 process to update the WSIS Plus 10 outcome document and to use the good language from the Global Digital Compact. We are very thankful to the ITU for organizing this event. We are partnering with you as you know in the WSIS Forum. I was impressed personally by the numbers that you showed in the presentation about how many high-level officials. And I’m sure, I’m not putting any pressure or stress on South Africa, but I’m sure that the chairmanship will be really a successful one. Because obviously you are chairing the Council Working Group on WSIS and SDGs, but also because South Africa has a long time been showing interest in this. area and is one of the countries that is leading the the whole discussions in a very positive way so thanks again for organizing this and looking forward to the event in 10 days in Geneva.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you very much Veni and you know while discussing with the stalwarts of the WSIS process who actually created it we were asking them that you know what should be the key components going forward and the first thing they said is that this community which is so motivated to make a difference should maintain the ambition like we were very ambitious they said we were very ambitious back then in 1998 and they were because the whole framework of the WSIS action line the concepts in the you know the Geneva Declaration the Tunis agenda they are so relevant even today so we must ensure that we are ambitious we have the momentum of the stakeholder community and that we are making a difference in the right places. Thank you so much. I’ll move on to Dejan who is the facilitator of WSIS action line on e-agriculture. Dejan over to you.

FAO representative: Thank you and good morning to all participants on behalf of food and agriculture organizations the FAO of the UN. So if we look at the reasons why we find WSIS relevant also IGF in a way we still have about 700 million people under nourished so it’s about 1 in 11 even if you look at this room I’m sure everybody will get sense of urgency why we need to do something and and what do we do we we do need to transform agri-food systems and very urgently and one of the key enablers and accelerators is technology and if we look at the key elements that technology offers us for example we know we need connectivity and and here we always discuss meaningful connectivity we also need capacity building but we also need fintech Hey, hi, and there is a long list of opportunities, let’s say technological opportunities we have. And if we pick, for example, just the connectivity side, what we are seeing is that even now, even more than before, rural communities or farmers not connected are completely out of the markets and any possible service we can imagine today. So, when we look holistically into all these elements, we can also see that the digital capabilities, they don’t understand really the opportunities but also challenges. They don’t really understand IGF or WSIS or UNDP or UNESCO or any other players around us. So, what does it take to bring them all together? And we find that WSIS process helped us, I think it’s since 2002 even, to bring this multi-stakeholder forum together for us to discuss and see how to move forward with enabling these elements. We do not see any sort of a top-down or centralized approach working. We very much hope that all the some of the elements that we can hopefully orchestrate together will bring us forward and accelerate solutions needed. So, I’m really grateful for the consultation process. I think we can re-energize WSIS and we are looking forward to be part of this process. So, I thank you.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you very much, Dejan. With FAO, we’ve also been doing innovative things like we did a hackathon on hack against hunger. And such innovative solutions came out from the ground and from young engineers all over the world, young students of policy. It was really an innovation and we should try to do this more often. But from that perspective, we noticed that there is a lack of incubators. So, once this innovation comes out, we really were struggling, Dayan, to kind of give these young people who have developed these applications some sort of guidance. And when we look at the private sector, I see ICC and USCIB, we definitely need your help in that direction as well to incubate these young talents. I’ll now pass on to Bruna. Bruna is the ex-MAG member. Your views, please, Bruna. Over to you.

MAG representative: Thanks Gitanjali, and also sharing the co-facilitation of the MAG Working Group on Strategy with Chris, Amrita and many others on this, so happy to be here representing the group. Just to also be brief and mention that on the 8th of July, the agenda of the High Level Event will have two panels about the IGF, as we do see it as a core part, right, not just of the plus 20 review, but ensuring that the IGF mandate is not just improved, but is kept as something that’s more stable for the near future. So the first session will be hosted by the IGF Secretariat, that’s called Building Digital Governance Together, will focus solely on the Norway outcomes, and the second one will also be, it’s the one that the Working Group Strategy is organizing, and it’s called Celebrating 20 Years of Multi-Stakeholder Engagement with this forum, IGF, and the road ahead. And for this second panel, we really want to have as open as possible discussion on what the next 20 years of the Internet Governance Forum will look like, not just about the mandate renewal, but also making sure it remains a clearinghouse with its efficient early warning systems and so on. And we, the Working Group Strategy also wants to make sure we have some youth voices joining the conversation above all. So everyone is invited to join, please join us there, it’s on the 8th of July, and it starts at 15.15, and really looking forward to having this open discussion as we do want to take it over from the very beginning and the early days of WSIS until what came to be the IGF, and why this is such a relevant space, and why we should keep pushing for multi-stakeholder participation. So I think I’ll stop here for the sake of time. Thanks, Gitanjali.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you so much, Bruna, we look forward to continuing this partnership. Of course, all of this is not possible without the civil society, and yet APC has been such a strong voice of implementing and also bringing the voices of the people from the ground into the process. Over to you.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks very much Gitanjali. I’m speaking as someone from civil society. I really urge civil society to participate in the WSIS Forum. I think we’ve had so far three days of a very impactful IGF and I think the message of the importance of renewing the IGF has, I think, been brought across substantially. But I also want to urge the value of the WSIS Forum. What the WSIS Action Line Framework gives all of us, but also gives civil society, is a framework that enables you to work collaboratively on implementation at country level. Collaborate with governments, collaborate with other stakeholders. It also gives civil society a framework and I think, as Gitanjali and Yuping have said, it’s a very ambitious framework. I think the vision of a people-centered, inclusive information society that’s human rights oriented, it’s ambitious, it’s important and I think it gives us something that, in my view, is more powerful than what most other tech-related UN frameworks gives us. So come to the WSIS Forum. It’s an opportunity you will meet regulators, you’ll meet ministries of communications and you’ll meet people that are actually building infrastructure on the ground, that are developing capacity building programs. So it’s extremely complementary with the IGF where we talk so much and intensively about governance challenges. At the WSIS Forum we talk about policy and governments, but we also talk about implementation in a very concrete way and it’s vital, I think, for civil society to be part of that process as well. Back to you, Gitanjali. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah: Richard from WIPO. WIPO has been a very active participant also in the WSIS process. Richard, over to you.

WIPO respresentative: Thank you very much, Gitanjali, and a very good morning to everyone. Just for a bit of maybe context, just to say that when thinking about intellectual property, of course, the legal framework is is important, but other aspects are equally important that shape that conducive IP system. This includes the infrastructure that helps the innovators and creators more easily protect and manage their IP, and this is about collaboration with academia and industry, this is accessing financing by start-ups and SMEs, and this is of course making sure that everyone everywhere can benefit from the IP system. WIPO serves of course the innovators and creators from across the world in all of these areas, and many, many of our initiatives are contributing to the VCs Action Lines. We’ve submitted of course the VCs, our report for VCs plus 20, and I had three examples I wanted to give you, but because I’m very aware of the ticking clock, I’ll just give you one, but happy to expand on those during the VCs forum. So the one I just wanted to mention is that we’re supporting the ICT applications and IP institutions, so this is about making sure that that infrastructure, that digital infrastructure is available to everyone. So we help national regional IP offices in every corner of the world to enhance the efficiency of their IP registration, and that they can adopt their own digital transformation strategies. This includes among others improving their online services, including search and registry filing systems, and the integration to the regional and international IP systems so that they can more easily exchange data and documents. And since it was launched, already 90 IP institutions from across the world are using one of the modules from our WIPO IP office suite. This is just an example of the many, many things that we are doing that contribute to the VCs Action Lines. Being here in IGF, of course listening to all the many discussions also on AI, let me also mention our WIPO conversation, which is our discussion on the impact of all the frontier technologies on all the IP rights, and we also of course want to bridge the information gap through this forum. Past sessions focused on GNI or data and how those impact intellectual property. So of course we’ll be also speaking about these things further down the road. Seeing that clock, let me say that just as we have done over the past 20 years, WIPO stands ready to support VCs through dialogue as well as through practical outcomes that lead to real world impact. We’ll see you of course in July in Geneva in Palaixco. Like all the past years, we’ll be there contributing to a range of activities together with all our great partners also at this table.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, our neighbour from Geneva. They’re just opposite ITU in Geneva. Thank you. If I could please request the producer, the next session is also ours. So if we could please have five minutes. Oh no, we can’t. Okay. So Andy, I missed out the parliamentarians in the high levels who are going to be there with us. We have several parliamentarians joining us. Andy, if you could please.

Inter Parlamentary Union representative: Thank you. So Andy Richardson from the Inter-Parliamentary Union. And yes, thank you for this opportunity for parliaments to contribute to this plus 20 event, which comes as a great compliment to the strong parliamentary track here at IGF. This week, Ambassador Schneider referred to dialogue and decision making, and I think this is why it’s so important to have parliamentarians at the table in addition to the core functions of adopting legislation, carrying out oversight, allocating budgets. Really what parliaments try to do is to balance a range of interests, both supporting innovation and protecting citizens, protecting rights. And they bring a strong perspective on how the information society affects the people that they represent. So we’re happy to work with you. take part in this high-level dialogue with the Secretaries General of the ITU and the IPU and a number of parliamentarians. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Andy. And we are closing with Meli.

ICC representative: Okay, this is on. So, just to quickly say, as ICC, we have been participating and engaging with the WSIS process since really the get-go. We are still very much engaged into the process and we will make sure to be present in all instances, including the WSIS Plus 20 high-level event coming up very soon. So, I just wanted to quickly flag that we will have a number of sessions that we are organizing. So, there is an ICC basis workshop. This is the Business Action to Support the Information Society that has been the group of our membership involved with the WSIS process. So, it will be on the 10th of July from 3 to 3.45 on Global Adoption, Global Progress, Managing the Challenges of AI Inclusion. Again, pointing to the fact of the importance of the, let’s say, the neutrality of the WSIS Action Lines and how they can really apply in various challenges, including AI. So, we will be talking a little bit about that. And then, of course, we are also organizing jointly with the United States Council of International Business and Knowledge Cafe that is taking place on the 9th of July from 12 to 2 p.m. that will address the imperative of strengthening multistakeholderism. So, really looking forward to seeing you there in person in a few weeks’ time, a few days’ time rather. Thank you.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Many. Thank you to all of you. The next session starts and it’s going to be ours as well. So, stay back. And thank you to the production team for giving us some time. Thank you very much.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder participation is fundamental to WSIS and IGF processes

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah
– Thomas Schneider
– Representative of South Africa
– ICANN representative
– Anriette Esterhuysen
– ICC representative

Arguments

WSIS evolution from 1998 proposal to current plus 20 review milestone with multi-stakeholder participation maintained throughout

WSIS architecture allows inclusive dialogue with many voices heard, though dialogue must translate into actual decision-making and results

South Africa honored to chair event, demonstrating long-standing commitment to WSIS process since 2003 Geneva Summit

Multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance successfully enabled current digital economy and accessibility

Civil society should participate in WSIS Forum as it provides framework for collaborative implementation at country level with governments and stakeholders

ICC has engaged with WSIS since inception and will organize sessions on AI inclusion and strengthening multi-stakeholderism

Summary

All speakers consistently emphasized that multi-stakeholder participation is core to the WSIS DNA and has been successfully maintained throughout its evolution, enabling inclusive dialogue and collaborative implementation across different stakeholder groups.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

WSIS and IGF are complementary platforms that work together effectively

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah
– Thomas Schneider
– ICANN representative
– MAG representative

Arguments

WSIS evolution from 1998 proposal to current plus 20 review milestone with multi-stakeholder participation maintained throughout

WSIS Forum and IGF are complementary platforms with different settings, both important for comprehensive digital governance dialogue

IGF mentioned in Global Digital Compact as primary meeting space for Internet policy discussions, requiring recognition in WSIS Plus 20

Two IGF-focused panels planned for July 8th high-level event to discuss mandate renewal and next 20 years vision

Summary

Speakers agreed that WSIS Forum and IGF serve complementary roles with different settings, both being essential for comprehensive digital governance dialogue and policy discussions.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Implementation and capacity building are critical priorities

Speakers

– Yu Ping Chan
– Representative of South Africa
– FAO representative
– WIPO respresentative

Arguments

UNDP’s top request from governments is capacity building, reflecting enduring WSIS principles with 170 country offices supporting digital transformation

South Africa chairs ITU Council Working Group on WSIS and SDGs, showing commitment through multiple leadership roles

FAO uses WSIS process to address 700 million undernourished people through agri-food system transformation enabled by technology

WIPO supports 90 IP institutions globally with digital infrastructure for IP registration and online services

Summary

Multiple speakers emphasized that capacity building and practical implementation are fundamental needs, with concrete examples of how their organizations are addressing these priorities through the WSIS framework.

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers emphasized the critical need to move beyond dialogue to actual implementation and decision-making, with concrete action and results being essential for meaningful impact.

Speakers

– Thomas Schneider
– Yu Ping Chan
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

WSIS architecture allows inclusive dialogue with many voices heard, though dialogue must translate into actual decision-making and results

UNDP’s top request from governments is capacity building, reflecting enduring WSIS principles with 170 country offices supporting digital transformation

Civil society should participate in WSIS Forum as it provides framework for collaborative implementation at country level with governments and stakeholders

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

These speakers shared pride in the global recognition and success of the WSIS process, highlighting high-level participation and long-term commitment as evidence of its effectiveness.

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah
– Representative of South Africa
– ICANN representative

Arguments

67 ministers and deputies confirmed, demonstrating global recognition of WSIS importance across all regions

South Africa honored to chair event, demonstrating long-standing commitment to WSIS process since 2003 Geneva Summit

Multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance successfully enabled current digital economy and accessibility

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Human rights and ethical frameworks integration

Speakers

– Tatevik Grigoryan
– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Inter Parlamentary Union representative

Arguments

UNESCO advocates for principled frameworks like ROMEX rooted in WSIS values of human rights, openness, and accessibility

Civil society should participate in WSIS Forum as it provides framework for collaborative implementation at country level with governments and stakeholders

Parliamentarians bring perspective on how information society affects constituents and balance innovation with citizen protection

Explanation

Unexpectedly, speakers from different sectors (UN agency, civil society, and parliamentary) all emphasized human rights and ethical considerations as central to digital governance, showing convergence on values-based approaches across institutional boundaries.

Topics

Human rights | Development

Technical and policy integration necessity

Speakers

– ICANN representative
– WIPO respresentative
– FAO representative

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance successfully enabled current digital economy and accessibility

WIPO supports 90 IP institutions globally with digital infrastructure for IP registration and online services

FAO uses WSIS process to address 700 million undernourished people through agri-food system transformation enabled by technology

Explanation

Technical organizations (ICANN, WIPO) and a development-focused agency (FAO) unexpectedly showed strong consensus on the need for integrated approaches that combine technical infrastructure with policy frameworks to address real-world challenges.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus on multi-stakeholder participation as fundamental, the complementary nature of WSIS and IGF platforms, the critical importance of implementation and capacity building, and surprisingly, the integration of human rights and ethical frameworks across different sectors.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for WSIS Plus 20 – the unified support across all stakeholder groups provides a strong foundation for mandate renewal and continued multi-stakeholder governance, while the emphasis on moving from dialogue to implementation suggests a maturation of the process toward more action-oriented outcomes.

Different viewpoints

Dialogue versus implementation gap

Speakers

– Thomas Schneider
– Yu Ping Chan

Arguments

WSIS architecture allows inclusive dialogue with many voices heard, though dialogue must translate into actual decision-making and results

UNDP’s top request from governments is capacity building, reflecting enduring WSIS principles with 170 country offices supporting digital transformation

Summary

Schneider emphasizes the gap between dialogue and decision-making as the biggest challenge, while Yu Ping Chan focuses on the translation from global discussions to direct community impact through capacity building

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Recognition of WSIS Forum in UN processes

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah
– ICANN representative

Arguments

67 ministers and deputies confirmed, demonstrating global recognition of WSIS importance across all regions

IGF mentioned in Global Digital Compact as primary meeting space for Internet policy discussions, requiring recognition in WSIS Plus 20

Explanation

While both speakers advocate for recognition of WSIS processes, there’s an unexpected tension where ICANN representative notes that WSIS Forum was omitted from the elements paper, suggesting institutional recognition challenges despite the high-level participation that Sah emphasizes

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows remarkably high consensus among speakers with minimal direct disagreements. Most differences are complementary rather than conflicting perspectives on implementation approaches and organizational priorities.

Disagreement level

Very low level of disagreement with high collaborative spirit. The main challenge identified is not disagreement between stakeholders but rather the systemic gap between dialogue and implementation, and ensuring proper recognition of multi-stakeholder processes in formal UN frameworks. This suggests strong alignment on goals with need for better coordination on execution methods.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers emphasized the critical need to move beyond dialogue to actual implementation and decision-making, with concrete action and results being essential for meaningful impact.

Speakers

– Thomas Schneider
– Yu Ping Chan
– Anriette Esterhuysen

Arguments

WSIS architecture allows inclusive dialogue with many voices heard, though dialogue must translate into actual decision-making and results

UNDP’s top request from governments is capacity building, reflecting enduring WSIS principles with 170 country offices supporting digital transformation

Civil society should participate in WSIS Forum as it provides framework for collaborative implementation at country level with governments and stakeholders

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

These speakers shared pride in the global recognition and success of the WSIS process, highlighting high-level participation and long-term commitment as evidence of its effectiveness.

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah
– Representative of South Africa
– ICANN representative

Arguments

67 ministers and deputies confirmed, demonstrating global recognition of WSIS importance across all regions

South Africa honored to chair event, demonstrating long-standing commitment to WSIS process since 2003 Geneva Summit

Multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance successfully enabled current digital economy and accessibility

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

WSIS Plus 20 represents a critical milestone year for reviewing and renewing the mandate of the World Summit on the Information Society, with the high-level event scheduled for July 7-11 in Geneva

Multi-stakeholder participation remains the core DNA of the WSIS process, successfully maintained over 20 years with representation from governments, civil society, private sector, technical community, and academia

There is a significant gap between dialogue and decision-making that needs to be addressed – while WSIS and IGF provide excellent platforms for discussion, translating these conversations into actual policy decisions and implementation remains challenging

The WSIS framework has achieved substantial qualitative impact including 5.5 billion people online and 280,000+ schools connected, though quantitative measurement remains difficult due to lack of indicators and monitoring frameworks

Capacity building emerges as the top priority request from governments globally, reflecting the enduring relevance of original WSIS principles

The IGF and WSIS Forum are complementary platforms that should be recognized and strengthened, with IGF already acknowledged in the Global Digital Compact as the primary meeting space for Internet policy discussions

Resolutions and action items

All stakeholders encouraged to submit comments and inputs to the UNGA overall review through the online form available until July 15th

ITU to work with ODET on GDC implementation roadmap, requiring a thousand-word document on current GDC implementation to be submitted to CSTD annual session next year

South African Minister Soli Malatsi to submit chair summary of high-level event outcomes to UNGA overall review

ITU Secretary-General to submit WSIS Plus 20 roadmap and report to the review process

Two IGF-focused panels scheduled for July 8th at the high-level event: one on Norway outcomes and another on the next 20 years of IGF

Stakeholders urged to highlight importance of WSIS Forum and IGF as multi-stakeholder platforms in their submissions to UNGA review

Registration forms for limited space at Palexpo to be completed as soon as available online

Unresolved issues

WSIS Forum was notably absent from the elements paper released for the UNGA review, requiring feedback and advocacy to ensure inclusion

Lack of indicators and monitoring frameworks for WSIS action lines makes quantitative measurement of achievements difficult

The fundamental challenge of translating multi-stakeholder dialogue into actual decision-making by governments and institutions remains unaddressed

Need for more incubators and support systems for young innovators developing digital solutions, particularly in areas like agriculture

How to maintain the ambitious vision and momentum of the WSIS process while adapting to new technological challenges and opportunities

Suggested compromises

Building on existing WSIS architecture rather than creating entirely new structures, as referenced in Switzerland’s non-paper with concrete proposals

Using complementary nature of WSIS Forum and IGF rather than viewing them as competing platforms, recognizing their different but valuable roles

Leveraging the Global Digital Compact language and framework to update and strengthen WSIS Plus 10 outcome document rather than starting from scratch

One challenge that all of us face is that the WSIS action lines don’t have indicators and monitoring frameworks. So we really can’t measure and tell you that quantitatively this is what we’ve achieved in the WSIS action lines.

Speaker

Gitanjali Sah

Reason

This comment highlights a fundamental weakness in the WSIS framework – the inability to quantitatively measure impact after 20 years of implementation. It’s particularly insightful because it acknowledges a critical gap between ambitious goals and accountability mechanisms.

Impact

This observation set a realistic tone for the discussion, moving beyond celebratory rhetoric to acknowledge structural limitations. It influenced subsequent speakers to focus more on concrete implementation challenges and the need for measurable outcomes.

We all know that dialogue is only a necessary but not sufficient step in getting things done and actually making things happen… the biggest gap that I think we currently have, which is to help make sure that the dialogue that we’re having is actually turning into result in decision-making.

Speaker

Thomas Schneider (Ambassador)

Reason

This comment cuts to the heart of a persistent challenge in international governance forums – the translation of discussion into action. It reframes the entire purpose of these gatherings from dialogue-focused to outcome-focused.

Impact

This observation became a recurring theme throughout the session, with multiple subsequent speakers (Yu Ping Chan, Anriette Esterhuysen) explicitly referencing and building upon this dialogue-to-action framework. It shifted the conversation from process celebration to effectiveness critique.

The number one ask from the national governments and communities that we serve is capacity building… this is a pertinent example of what Ambassador Schneider says that the principles underlying WSIS are even more relevant today than ever before.

Speaker

Yu Ping Chan (UNDP)

Reason

This comment provides ground-truth validation from field experience, connecting high-level policy discussions to actual grassroots needs. It bridges the gap between Geneva-based deliberations and real-world implementation challenges.

Impact

This field-based perspective added credibility to the discussion and influenced other speakers to provide more concrete examples of implementation. It reinforced the relevance of WSIS principles while highlighting persistent capacity gaps.

What the WSIS Action Line Framework gives all of us, but also gives civil society, is a framework that enables you to work collaboratively on implementation at country level… it’s a very ambitious framework… more powerful than what most other tech-related UN frameworks gives us.

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen (APC)

Reason

This comment reframes WSIS not just as a dialogue platform but as a practical implementation tool, distinguishing it from other UN frameworks. It provides a civil society perspective on why WSIS remains uniquely valuable for collaborative action.

Impact

This intervention shifted the discussion toward the practical utility of WSIS frameworks for stakeholders, moving beyond institutional perspectives to user experience. It reinforced the multi-stakeholder implementation theme while highlighting WSIS’s distinctive value proposition.

We were quite surprised to note that the WSIS Forum was not noted on [the elements paper] so we will provide our feedback but if all of you could we would like to encourage all of you also to submit your comments and inputs through the online form.

Speaker

Gitanjali Sah

Reason

This comment reveals a significant oversight in UN documentation and transforms the session from informational to mobilizational, calling for collective action to address institutional visibility gaps.

Impact

This observation prompted immediate responses from other stakeholders (notably the ICANN representative) who committed to addressing the omission. It shifted the session from passive information sharing to active advocacy coordination.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it beyond ceremonial celebration of WSIS’s 20-year history toward critical examination of its effectiveness and future relevance. The dialogue-to-action framework introduced by Ambassador Schneider became the organizing principle for subsequent interventions, with speakers consistently addressing how to translate multi-stakeholder discussions into measurable impact. The acknowledgment of measurement gaps and institutional visibility challenges created a more honest, problem-solving oriented conversation. Rather than simply promoting the upcoming high-level event, the session evolved into a strategic planning discussion about strengthening WSIS’s practical utility and ensuring its continued relevance in global digital governance. The comments collectively established a tension between WSIS’s ambitious vision and implementation realities, which energized participants to think more concretely about solutions and collective action.

How to develop indicators and monitoring frameworks for WSIS action lines to enable quantitative measurement of achievements

Speaker

Gitanjali Sah

Explanation

This is a significant gap identified in the WSIS process – the lack of quantitative metrics to measure progress and impact of the action lines over the 20-year period

How to better translate dialogue into decision-making and actual implementation

Speaker

Thomas Schneider

Explanation

Ambassador Schneider identified this as the biggest gap currently – ensuring that voices heard in forums like IGF and WSIS actually influence real decision-making processes

How to develop more incubators for innovative solutions emerging from hackathons and youth initiatives

Speaker

Gitanjali Sah

Explanation

Based on experience with the ‘hack against hunger’ initiative, there’s a need for better support systems to guide young innovators after they develop applications

How to ensure WSIS Forum is properly recognized in UN processes, particularly in the elements paper for UNGA review

Speaker

Gitanjali Sah and ICANN representative

Explanation

Both speakers noted that the WSIS Forum was surprisingly omitted from the elements paper and called for stakeholder feedback to correct this oversight

How to strengthen capacity building mechanisms, particularly for SMMEs (Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises)

Speaker

Representative of South Africa and Yu Ping Chan

Explanation

This was identified as the number one request from national governments and communities, and is a key focus area for South Africa’s G20 presidency

How to better connect rural communities and farmers to markets and services through meaningful connectivity

Speaker

FAO representative (Dejan)

Explanation

With 700 million people still undernourished, there’s urgent need to understand how to leverage technology to transform agri-food systems and connect rural communities

What should the next 20 years of the Internet Governance Forum look like beyond mandate renewal

Speaker

MAG representative (Bruna)

Explanation

This relates to ensuring IGF remains relevant and effective as a clearinghouse with efficient early warning systems for future digital governance challenges

Summary

This workshop at the Internet Governance Forum focused on scaling next-generation digital infrastructure to enable greater data agency and create a fairer data economy. The discussion was organized by Project Liberty Institute and centered around their Fair Data Economy Task Force recommendations, which propose redistributing economic power from centralized platforms to individuals and communities.

The panelists presented concrete examples of alternative digital infrastructures already operating at scale. Sujith Nair from FIDE described the Beckn Protocol, which enables interoperability in India’s digital commerce through an open network serving millions of users, including taxi drivers and small businesses who can retain control over their data and pricing. Wes Biggs explained how the Decentralized Social Networking Protocol (DSNP) creates universal social graphs and identity systems that allow users to port their data between applications without being locked into single platforms.

A key theme emerged around the importance of demonstrating tangible value to users rather than expecting them to understand technical concepts like interoperability or decentralization. The speakers emphasized that successful adoption requires meeting people where they are and building on existing social structures and relationships. Sujith Nair illustrated this with examples from India’s digital infrastructure projects, such as embedding QR codes in textbooks to create educational portals that teachers and students could easily access.

The discussion also addressed governance challenges and the need for inclusive participation in designing these systems. Wendy Seltzer highlighted the importance of participatory design that includes diverse perspectives and lived experiences, not just technical expertise. Jean-Bertrand Azapmo from the African Union emphasized that governments alone cannot build the necessary infrastructure and that multi-stakeholder partnerships with private sector investment are essential, particularly given that many countries spend more on debt payments than they can invest in digital infrastructure.

The conversation concluded with recognition that scaling these alternative infrastructures requires systemic change across four areas: entrepreneurship and new business models, next-generation digital infrastructure, policy innovation, and strategic capital allocation. The panelists agreed that this represents a multi-trillion dollar opportunity that could significantly contribute to sustainable development goals while ensuring digital sovereignty and data agency for individuals and communities worldwide.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Fair Data Economy and Alternative Digital Infrastructure**: The discussion centered on moving away from centralized platform-based models toward decentralized protocols that give users agency over their data. Examples included DSNP (Decentralized Social Networking Protocol), Beckn Protocol, and other alternatives that redistribute value and control from big tech platforms back to individuals and communities.

– **Scaling Technical Solutions Through User-Centric Design**: A key theme was bridging the gap between technical innovation and user adoption. Speakers emphasized the importance of meeting users where they are rather than expecting them to understand complex technical concepts, with Beckn Protocol’s success in India (200+ million transactions) serving as a prime example of making interoperability valuable to everyday users like taxi drivers and small shop owners.

– **Interoperability as a Core Enabler**: The panelists discussed how interoperability between different protocols and platforms is essential for breaking network effects that keep users locked into centralized systems. This includes technical interoperability as well as governance frameworks that enable cooperation between different stakeholders.

– **Multi-Stakeholder Investment and Systemic Change**: The conversation highlighted that scaling alternative digital infrastructure requires coordinated action across four pillars: entrepreneurship and new business models, next-generation technical infrastructure, policy innovation, and strategic capital allocation. Government investment alone is insufficient, requiring private sector and philanthropic participation.

– **Global Perspective on Digital Infrastructure**: Speakers addressed how digital public infrastructure could unlock 3-13% GDP growth for emerging economies, with particular focus on Africa’s digital transformation strategy and the need for inclusive governance that represents diverse global perspectives and technical sophistication levels.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how alternative digital infrastructures and protocols can be scaled to create a “fair data economy” that gives individuals and communities more control over their data and digital lives, moving beyond the current centralized platform model toward more distributed, interoperable systems.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was consistently optimistic and collaborative throughout, with speakers building on each other’s ideas rather than debating. The conversation maintained a forward-looking, solution-oriented approach, combining technical expertise with practical examples of successful implementations. While acknowledging significant challenges in scaling these alternatives, the overall sentiment was one of possibility and momentum, with concrete examples demonstrating that these concepts are already working at scale in various contexts.

Speakers

– **Sarah Leif**: Project Liberty Institute (moderator/host)

– **Paul Fehlinger**: Project Liberty Institute, Fair Data Economy Task Force coordinator (online participant)

– **Sujith Nair**: CEO and co-founder of FIDE, member of Fair Data Economy Task Force

– **Wes Biggs**: Vice President and Chief Architect of DSNP and Frequency

– **Wendy Seltzer**: DSNP advisor, co-chair of DSNP governance working group

– **Jean-Bertrand Azapmo**: Principal advisor to the African Union Commissioner for Economic Development, Trade, Tourism, Industry and Minerals, member of Fair Data Economy Task Force (online participant)

– **Xianhong Hu**: UNESCO representative (online participant)

– **Audience**:

**Additional speakers:**

– **Veronica**: Youth Pirate Party of Sweden representative

# Scaling Next-Generation Digital Infrastructure for a Fair Data Economy: Workshop Report

## Introduction and Context

This workshop at the Internet Governance Forum, organized by the Project Liberty Institute, examined how next-generation digital infrastructure can be scaled to enable greater data agency and create a fairer data economy. The session featured Sarah Leif from Project Liberty Institute as moderator, alongside panelists Paul Fehlinger (Fair Data Economy Task Force coordinator), Sujith Nair (CEO of FIDE), Wes Biggs (Vice President and Chief Architect of DSNP and Frequency), and Wendy Seltzer (DSNP advisor and governance expert). Online participants included Xianhong Hu from UNESCO and Jean-Bertrand Azapmo from the African Union, though technical difficulties prevented Jean-Bertrand from joining until near the end of the session.

Sarah Leif opened by explaining Project Liberty Institute’s “North Star” of giving people “voice, choice and stake in their digital life,” setting the stage for a discussion focused on practical examples of alternative digital infrastructure that preserves user agency while achieving meaningful scale.

## The Case for Digital Infrastructure Transformation

Paul Fehlinger articulated the fundamental problems with current digital economy models, arguing that existing business models and infrastructure create negative externalities affecting market structures, societies, and democracies. He emphasized the need to “rewire the data economy to build a better ecosystem that works for all actors with people having agency over their data.”

The Fair Data Economy Task Force, whose recommendations were published nine months prior to this workshop, proposes a fundamental redistribution of economic power from centralized platforms to individuals and communities. Fehlinger outlined four key areas requiring coordinated action: entrepreneurship and new business models, next-generation digital infrastructure, policy innovation, and strategic capital allocation.

Sarah Leif reinforced this perspective by highlighting how digital infrastructure design fundamentally affects whether economic power becomes concentrated or distributed, and whether innovation is stifled or encouraged.

## Concrete Examples of Alternative Digital Infrastructure

### The Beckn Protocol: Interoperability in Practice

Sujith Nair presented the Beckn Protocol as a compelling example of how alternative digital infrastructure can achieve scale while preserving user agency. The protocol enables interoperability by allowing consumers and providers to transact without being locked into single platforms, giving users control over their data and revenue streams.

The protocol has processed over 200 million transactions across multiple sectors in India, including transportation, retail, and education. Nair provided practical examples of the impact: taxi drivers who can now control their own pricing and data, and small shop owners who can participate in digital commerce without surrendering control to platform intermediaries.

Particularly noteworthy was Nair’s example of embedding QR codes in textbooks to create educational portals. This approach leveraged existing social infrastructure—the widespread availability of textbooks—rather than attempting to replace existing systems. As Nair explained, “We don’t think about society rising up to the level of technology. It’s the other way. We think about taking technology to the level where the society operates.”

### DSNP: Decentralized Social Networking Infrastructure

Wes Biggs outlined how the Decentralized Social Networking Protocol (DSNP) addresses the limitations of centralized social media platforms. DSNP avoids single points of failure and creates consensus mechanisms where no single entity can override the system.

The protocol provides key capabilities including long-lived identity, attestation features, universal social graphs, and social content that can be ported between applications. Biggs emphasized that DSNP maintains the ability for anonymity and pseudonymity online, allowing users to maintain multiple personas across different communication contexts—a crucial feature for protecting user privacy and autonomy.

## User-Centered Design and Adoption

A central theme throughout the discussion was the importance of designing technology around user needs rather than expecting users to adapt to technical complexity. Sujith Nair articulated this principle clearly, noting that users don’t care about technical terms like “interoperability”—they need to see practical value in their daily lives.

This user-centric approach challenges common assumptions in the decentralized technology community about the need for user education on technical principles. Instead, the speakers advocated for hiding technical complexity while preserving user agency and control.

Wes Biggs supported this perspective by emphasizing the need to “create languages where people can express what usefulness means to them and translate that into technical protocol choices.” Sarah Leif acknowledged the ongoing challenge that most users remain on centralized platforms despite available alternatives, indicating that the scalability problem extends beyond technical capabilities to user experience and value proposition design.

## Governance as a Techno-Social Challenge

Wendy Seltzer introduced crucial perspectives on governance, emphasizing that “building sustainable interoperable systems requires aligning incentives across all ecosystem participants, not just technical solutions.” She advocated for participatory design that recognizes expertise in multiple forms, arguing that lived experience is as important as technological or legal expertise in creating equitable systems.

Seltzer framed the challenge as fundamentally “techno-social,” requiring attention to social and economic incentives alongside technical specifications. This perspective challenges traditional hierarchies in technology development and suggests that genuine inclusion of diverse stakeholders is essential for creating equitable systems.

An interesting point emerged around the sequencing of governance and adoption. Sujith Nair advocated for an adoption-first approach, suggesting that demonstrating value to users should precede formal governance structures, which can then be developed to stabilize successful implementations.

## Investment and Economic Models

Paul Fehlinger highlighted the critical importance of capital mobilization, noting that “nothing works without money” and emphasizing the need to mobilize smart capital across private markets with innovative financing mechanisms. He called for creating centers of gravity for impact-focused entrepreneurship that rethinks value distribution and creates new business models.

When Jean-Bertrand Azapmo was able to join the discussion near the end, he provided context from an African perspective, noting that digital public infrastructure can unlock significant economic value. He cited examples like M-Pesa in Kenya to demonstrate how private sector leadership can drive successful digital infrastructure development, particularly important given the resource constraints facing many governments.

## Technical Implementation and Privacy Considerations

The technical discussion revealed key principles for designing scalable alternative digital infrastructure. Both DSNP and Beckn Protocol demonstrate how interoperability can be achieved while preserving user control and data agency, enabling users to port their data and relationships between applications.

A question from Veronica, representing the Youth Pirate Party of Sweden, raised important concerns about preserving anonymity rights in interconnected systems. The challenge of maintaining separate digital personas across different contexts while enabling interoperability represents an ongoing technical and governance consideration that requires careful balance between connectivity and privacy.

## Regional Perspectives and Implementation

Xianhong Hu from UNESCO raised questions about institutional design, asking whether governments should create new institutions for data agency and stewardship or expand existing data protection authorities. This reflects the broader challenge of balancing data protection with harnessing data’s economic potential.

The discussion suggested that government roles should focus on creating enabling environments rather than direct infrastructure provision, though the specific institutional mechanisms for supporting fair data economy development remain an area requiring further exploration.

## Key Insights and Remaining Challenges

The workshop demonstrated both significant progress in developing alternative digital infrastructure and substantial challenges in scaling these solutions. The concrete examples of Beckn Protocol and DSNP show that interoperable, user-controlled digital infrastructure can work at meaningful scale.

Several implementation challenges remain unresolved, including specific mechanisms for bridging existing alternative solutions, strategies for overcoming network effects that keep users on centralized platforms, and detailed approaches for mobilizing private capital at scale.

The speakers agreed on fundamental principles including the need for user agency, the importance of user-centered design, and the necessity of multi-stakeholder collaboration. However, time constraints prevented full exploration of regional variations and detailed discussion of specific implementation strategies.

## Conclusion

This workshop highlighted the potential for alternative digital infrastructure to create more equitable data economies while demonstrating that such systems can achieve meaningful scale. The emphasis on user-centered design, inclusive governance, and sustainable financing models provides a foundation for continued development of fair data economy solutions.

The examples presented show that success requires meeting users where they are rather than expecting them to understand complex protocols, building on existing social structures rather than replacing them, and creating immediate practical value while preserving long-term user agency. The path forward requires continued collaboration across technical, governance, policy, and financing domains, with particular attention to ensuring that solutions serve real user needs rather than abstract technical ideals.

Sarah Leif: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to all onsite and online participants for this workshop where you’ll hear a great set of speakers. We have both online and onsite today. We will dedicate a few minutes at the end for direct exchanges so you can already get ready and prepare your questions and remarks. Digital infrastructure. This is what we’re here to talk about today. Digital infrastructure underpins the economy of today, but also the economy of tomorrow. From broadband network, data centers, cloud services to protocols and standards that ensure interoperability of tech platform services and system. How digital infrastructure is designed affects the degree to which economic power is concentrated or distributed, how innovation is stifled or encouraged and prosperity is available to the many or to a few. The stakes for digital infrastructure have never been higher. Rapid advances in technologies, in particular, generative AI, are not only transforming the nature of work and everyday life, but also it is redefining the meaning of sovereignty on the individual level, but also for communities and countries across the globe. So making data agency is all the more necessary. And at Project Liberty Institute, we are guided by a North Star, giving people a voice, a choice and stake in their digital life. And a technical solution to allow such a scenario need to be built, scaled, but also, most importantly, adopted. So our common grounds between the IGF theme this year is building, building sustainable and responsible innovation, building digital. trust, resilience, and so on. And the good news today is that we have many builders around the table. Builders of alternative digital infrastructures, of protocols, of business models, of governance approaches. And all of what we are doing, and which you’ll hear about today, resonates with what we call the Fair Data Economy, and particularly the Fair Data Economy Recommendations. They were developed last November by Project Liberty Institute and its impressive task force. So I will now hand it over to my colleague Paul Fellinger to kick off the discussion and tell us more about this concept of a fair data economy. And Paul will be online today.

Paul Fehlinger: Hello, greetings to all of you. Good morning. I wish I could be there in person in Norway on this 20th anniversary Internet Governance Forum. So the Fair Data Economy Task Force is really a foundational initiative for Project Liberty Institute. The task force launched its recommendations about nine months ago at the Project Liberty Summit that took then place in Washington DC. And it followed six months of really intense international multi-stakeholder work. And the Fair Data Economy Task Force is composed of 18 distinguished members, spanning all stakeholder groups, international organizations, governments, innovators, entrepreneurs, investors, builders of technical infrastructure, as well as leading academics, and even Darren Acemoglu, who won last year the Nobel Prize in Economics. In total, the task force spanned members from 10 countries all around the world. And as Sarah said in her opening remarks, the current status quo of the digital economy has negative externalities, on-market structures, on the very fabric of societies and, well, our democracies. And to a large extent, this is linked to the business models and the underpinning infrastructure that enables it on the internet. And the current status quo is not really great for entrepreneurs. It is not really great for people and users of technology. And it’s really not great for majority of investors either. So the question is, how could we rewire the data economy? Can we build a better ecosystem that works for all different actors? And how can we build a better data economy where people have agency over their data that is on firm economic grounds that can scale? So to do this, the task was published its blueprint for innovation and growth across four areas, next generation digital infrastructure as a key enabler, business model innovation and entrepreneurship, policy innovation and capital allocation. And we are very pleased that we have in this distinguished panel that you will get to know in just a second, two members of the Fair Data Economy Task Force. We have with us today Jean-Bertrand Azapmo, who’s the principal advisor to the African Union Commissioner for Economic Development, Trade, Tourism, Industry and Minerals. He should be online, but he is not online yet. So we will see if he can join us momentarily. So I would like to start and give the floor to Sujith Nair Nair, who’s the CEO and co-founder of FIDE. And in many ways, FIDE is implementing already in the market at incredible scale in India, what the Fair Data Economy Task Force has been talking about in its recommendations, which is business model innovation really powered by next generation digital infrastructure. So Sujith Nair, I would like to start with you and give you the floor. Can you tell us a bit more about the back end? And how it embodies this approach of a fair data economy and what is the role of the infrastructure protocol backend in enabling a better data economy?

Sujith Nair: Thank you, Paul. So backend essentially, of course, is an open protocol that embodies interoperability fundamentally. This idea of backend protocol was to an attempt to reimagine how in an online economy we move value, how we put people, communities, and businesses at the center of their own sort of economic, social, commercial lives by giving them agency on how they hold and keep data and share data, but more importantly, translate data into value. So backend protocol does fundamentally allow a transaction, exchange of value, how you express, discover, engage, contract, and fulfill an offtake value between any consumer and a provider. As actors, how do you do that? And it’s an imagination that tries to make a departure from this very incumbent thinking of a platform-based movement of value. In fact, what you see with the platforms and marketplaces as we are seeing today, and it’s a rapid sort of evolution in the last two decades, is a way for both consumers and providers to be necessarily on the same platform managed by one platform intermediary and in the pretext of discovering, sharing goods and services or any form of value on that platform, you have this model of both having to be on the same platform, operated as a closed platform and allowing the value to remain on the platform as a capture of value rather than a free flow of value. So from a fair data economic principles, what Becken protocol does is fundamentally unlock that agency for any consumer and provider. It could be a taxi driver. We have about half a million taxi drivers in India, not necessarily on these big ride-hailing platforms, but use Becken to, A, discover rides and service those rides and keep the entire revenue to themselves. There is no big commissions by the intermediate platforms because there’s no such platform using Becken protocol. It’s an open network where everybody brings their end of the node to this and the drivers also get to have the holdership of their own data. Today when the drivers have to move from one platform to the other, they don’t have access agency to keeping their data, be it their ride reputation or ride history and things like that. Becken protocol allows you to port that data to any other platform and continue from the new platform they’ve opted to be part of. So this ability to retain holdership of data, expressing data and services, goods and services, and ability to discover parties who would like to do transactions business with you and therefore amplify your economic value of the work and the services you offer is essentially a way of thinking with Becken protocol. And that’s how we are trying to bring some of this fair data economic principles making into the fundamental architecture of how we think about value exchange happens in an online economy. Paul, back to you.

Paul Fehlinger: We’re still waiting for Jean Bertrand to join it. I hope he doesn’t have major technical problems to connect, but maybe, Sujith Nair, can I ask you the question, sort of, what for you is the main takeaway and message to the entire ecosystem gathered here at the Internet Governance Forum worldwide, the builders, the investors, the entrepreneurs? the consumers, the policy makers that came out of this intense international multi-stakeholder work that we did together in the Fair Data Economy Task Force. Yeah, sure. I think one of the remarkable outcomes of that effort is how we have seen agreement on some universal principles of how we think a fair data economy of the future should operate, the principles of moving agency to the ends, allowing, like I said, peoples and business to be in the center and not the big platforms, and reimagining the possibilities of how we create value. When we take this departure from having these models of lone heroes as big platforms trying to solve problems for the whole of humanity, but this idea that with these principles you can distribute that ability to solve, distribute that agency, and allow everybody to participate in their own way, retaining their agency and autonomy, for me is something fundamental. And it’s heartening to see there are protocols like the DSNP protocol of Project Liberty, Beckham protocol, all of them aligning to those principles and vision and taking that forward. Of course, it also is a wake-up call to see how we need to do a lot more beyond the formulations of the principles that the task force has put together, but to put them into practice and drive. Civil society, market players, policymakers all come and fundamentally think about this as the core central principles of how we think about the evolution of the online economy and make it contextually relevant to the varying needs and cares of different regions. I’m here in Oslo also to have some conversations around the whole coming opportunity and the challenge of energy transition and what does it mean to to make countries in Africa and India and in Europe sort of build reliable, secure agency and energy independence as an individual, as an economy. And these are some of the conversations which also fundamentally need to bring aspects of fair data principles into the conversation for how we think about future of energy. I mean, I’m trying to make an example out of energy, but the idea is that it’s so fundamental that it cuts across multiple sectors, not just commerce, not just some part of digital payments, but more foundational aspects of our society like access to energy. So I think it’s a very pertinent set of principles that we must consider in all walks of life as we become increasingly digitally native in our lives. Yeah. Thank you, Paul. Thank you so much, Sujith Nairh and all of you at the IGF. You can find the recommendations of the Fair Data Economy Task Force on the website ProjectLiberty.io. And Sujith Nairh, you gave the perfect segue. This is about scaling next generation digital infrastructure for data agency, which is the title of our session today. And with this perfect segue, I want to give it back to Sarah on site in Norway to continue the discussion and introduce us to our next speaker. Thank you very much, Paul.

Sarah Leif: So you mentioned actually, Sujith Nairh, and thank you for that, the DSNP. So I’d like to hand it over to Vice President and Chief Architect of DSNP and Frequency, Wes Biggs. We talked about transparency. We talked about redistributing value. We talked about giving people more power over their data. So it seems that data agency is probably the core component and the common ground that we’re talking about today. And it seems also that data agency is a core architecture principle of the decentralized social. networking protocol. So Wes, could I turn to you and to tell the room here in person and online how technically does the DSNP work? How does it embody this principle of data agency for its almost two million users today?

Wes Biggs: Thanks Sarah and great to see everyone here. As you mentioned I’m a technology architect and contributor to DSNP, consensus seeker perhaps with our diverse set of technologists, academics, civil society advisors working on the protocol. It is a protocol stewarded by the Project Liberty Institute under an open governance model that I think you’ll hear more about. And the origin of DSNP is really the realization, and I think this is very much tied to this fair data economy piece, that the web 2.0 model which did great things for people, connect people in new and fundamental ways, but it was mediated always by centralized platforms. And those platforms have been designed and optimized to extract the value of the network effects that are created in these systems by the participants. So from a fundamental point of view, DSNP is about taking the network effects out of the network and sharing that value between all the stakeholders that are participating. And to do that we start at the very low level, at the protocol level, where we want to talk about not applications but how systems can communicate with one another on a fundamental level. And that means data and the operations on that data and how that flows across connected spaces. We start with DSNP by challenging that simple assertion of the centralized system. And I’ll quote from the specification, to ensure decentralization, a DSMP system must avoid having any single point of failure, and must avoid having any single entity that can override its consensus mechanisms. So we talk about a consensus system, which is a technical term that has evolved very rapidly over the past decade or so. You fit blockchains and other systems within that, public permissionless blockchains, for example, and it creates a system where no single business, company, computer is in charge of the way the system operates. Starting with that fundamental principle, we can build things on top of that. We can build affordances for starting with identity, and identity being something that can be long lived for users of social networking services. It can be human friendly, it doesn’t have to be a cryptographic wallet that everyone has to remember their password for. It can be, however, cryptographically strong with these systems in order to provide control and agency over the data that is then attached and accumulated with this identity over time in the public space. One of the core things that comes quickly after identity is this idea of attestation, the idea of having verified attributes that can be part of one’s identity in the social spaces, and that might be professional credentials, that might be simply proof of your own humanness versus an AI or a bot. These things can go into the protocol, and then we move to more abstract ideas that underpin the social fabric that we’ve seen across lots of different applications, but in unconnected ways. We want to create a universal social graph. that can establish connections that are long lived outside the context of one application that can then be ported and used interoperably between many applications that participate using the same protocol. That social graph can be, you know, your friendships, your connections, your followings on social media, and those are all now relationships that can live on outside the life cycle of any particular application that you use to access your social network. And finally, there are affordances around social content, social media, that we’ve seen across all the varying and often quickly evolving areas of social media as well, so this is not fundamentally just about text or video or anything like that, but a protocol for any of those types of communications that we want to connect our social networks with over time. And really, you know, overall this comes back to this economic principle that we are allowing, with this protocol layer, an innovation of economic models for the applications that participate in the social networking sphere, and that can move away then from a focus that drives toward always an ad tech surveillance model, so there’s value exchange for all the participants involved.

Sarah Leif: Thank you very much, Wes. So, with the example of FIDE, with Backend, with DSNP, and all those protocols, and there are many others that are existing, I’m thinking of the AT protocol and others, these examples exist. They’re in practice, and people can use them. So, many alternative governance models, technical innovation, they’re today available for use. However, it seems that most users are still kind of stuck on the platforms of the centralized digital economy. So let me turn over to Wendy. Wendy, as a DSNP advisor and the co-chair and the chair of the DSNP governance working group, you’ve been thinking about these questions of governance a lot for these last years. I have a more governance and technical question at the same time for you, which is how can we bridge all these solutions that are existing somewhere on the ecosystem, but somewhat not scalable enough to gather enough users? What’s missing today for this solution to truly collaborate better to represent this scalable alternative to a centralized digital economy? Is this something that we’re doing wrong or something that we’re still not doing about this?

Wendy Seltzer: Thank you very much, Sarah, and thank you to our hosts and everyone here. I think it’s tempting to answer your question with the universal computer science answer. Take a hard problem, add another layer of abstraction, and you have the answer. So among all of the existing protocols and places where people are today, you could say add another layer above of an interchange layer, add standards for data exchange among them, import and export of data, make regulation to enforce the availability of those. You might get there, and there’s promising work in standards development for interoperability. There’s promising work from regulators thinking about how to make platforms provide for their end-users, for the individuals, the ability to take their own data and have control of where they express it. And there’s work in cooperation frameworks, governance frameworks, to think about what would it take to give people confidence that when they took their data from one platform to another, they would be able to preserve the terms they wanted for that and not just be turning it over to different terms of control by another proprietary system. And yet, I think we need to look at this as a techno-social challenge, that it’s not just a matter of building interoperable tech and the people will come and the solutions will come out of that. It’s also a matter of figuring out how we as society and as builders of ecosystems will align the incentives so that there are stable configurations that preserve interoperability. And one of the values of these multi-stakeholder dialogues is as opportunities to find solutions that serve the needs of the various participants in the ecosystem. It’s not enough for the end-users to be supplicants to businesses saying, please, please give us our data. they should also be able to present themselves as as customers, as collaboratives, as communities on equal footing to say we bring value to the ecosystem by our participation there and we will only bring it on terms where we have the privacy that we expect, the autonomy to enforce terms of our choosing and it it’s easier to say that than to do that it requires organizing it requires cooperation and and you know it’s it’s not as easy for for individuals as simply taking an app that’s offered to them in the App Store and for free advertising supported and saying go ahead but it’s a matter of building toward a more empowering experience long term. So I think in the you know in the work that DSNP is doing in the work that others are doing to help build sort of empowered end-user participation in in governance to find cooperation and collaboration to find cooperation experiences that recognize the value of commercial incentives the value of individual autonomy, the value of non-commercial and social interchange, the value, the interests of government participation, the interests of technical and scientific development. And we can work toward frameworks that have a longer term sustainable interoperable data interchange.

Sarah Leif: So interoperability is also a big part of the response towards scaling those digital infrastructure that we’re talking about, especially because network effects are really strong out there. And they’re probably one of the main reasons why we’re not able today to bring most users into a technical solution that protects better their data, better their privacy, and so on. So Sujith Nairh, to what extent is this component of interoperability particularly important for you to beat the network effect? You’ve been talking about already millions of users on Beckon. How do you work with that kind of component on top of data agency?

Sujith Nair: Yes, and Sarah, if you allow me to sort of use the remarks from Wes to sort of build on as a way to answer your question on interoperability. And I think some very interesting remarks from Wes on the idea of this natural tendency, this urge for us to think about this abstracting and creating protocols and putting this sort of very elaborate formal governance structures around that idea of a tech protocol idea. And it’s one thing, therefore, to sort of bake interoperability as a principle into the technical designs. but to the point that Wes is in, and I fully echo with that. When we started the Beckham Protocol effort as a foundation about five years ago, we had this urge to sort of build this protocol, build a global community around governance of the protocol, and then talk about, and then think about seeing, okay, how do we make this, put this in work, and let people see value? But one of the sort of the early sort of, when I retrospectively think about right now, wise things we could do is to not wait for the governance and the protocol to actually take off. We actually put the idea of interoperability in the hands of people. It’s very remarkable that in the very early years of Beckham, you don’t normally expect taxi drivers to talk about protocols. But when they see that, when I got a call, literally got a call from a few of the taxi drivers in the city of Bangalore from the unions, and saying, we understand the protocol because we live the problem. We live the problem of not having this power of interoperability to amplify agency because we are stuck in these big walled gardens of ride-hailing platforms, and they onboard us as partners, but now they treat us like as if they are a boss and go through what they have to make us go through. I think then they said that for me, the value of Beckham Protocol was to give me that sense of control about where I want to be, how I make myself discoverable as a taxi driver to a rider in the city and offer my own terms of price and be fair in that process, and then let my own ability to serve the customer with the ride be the reason why I get recognized for more rides and build trust as a service provider. And that idea of that value, discovering that value with this principles of interoperability, for me would be the first significant step we should think about. And the interoperability… for me has to be seen as value in the eyes of those beholders, right, whether it’s taxi drivers. Today, we moved on, we kind of expanded that ability to perceive value with this idea from taxi drivers to about 200,000 small mom-and-pop shops in India. It’s operating in 1,000 cities. We have about close to 1 million SKUs available from goods and services available on one big, massive, interoperable open network of commerce in India called ONDC, Open Network for Digital Commerce. I think of it like India’s own commerce, open internet, and not a platform. And every day, we see conversations around how it is unlocking value for people whom it matters. We have a small list of artisans able to ship products to customers thousands of miles away at a very low cost of the things we talk about, customer acquisition, customer transaction servicing, and able to therefore expand their business. And we are able to do that to find a girl child in the remote part of India, find scholarship, just to be taking an exam, online exam, finding scholarship through the same network, discovering financing support, opportunity to find jobs. So, one of the things about interoperability is to think about how we can straddle value in multiple layers and let users see value. Most often, the perception of value comes from the exact service they operate and they get stuck in these apps. But you need to put interoperability as a core value manifestation in the ads. You work from the value backwards to why interoperability is a way to unlock that vis-a-vis the other closed platforms. So, that’s one of the things. And we have realized that by driving adoption. more than formalizing governance. We were able to achieve a lot more articulation for why interoperability is useful. And now, given that we have a fairly reasonable scaled adoption in India, we have done over 200 million transactions on this protocol. We now realize that it can now stabilize, protect those investments that users and the user platforms are making onto this protocol. And to stabilize that and give it a more consistent evolution, we are now formalizing some of the governance structures around it. So adoption preceding governance, value enablement and value articulation and visibility is one of the things we think about how interoperability has to reach the people. Sometimes otherwise we just keep losing this conversation in a more techno and a policy circles, but how does it matter in the hands of people is something that I think is a very important aspect of how we talk about interoperability and demonstrate interoperability.

Sarah Leif: So that’s very interesting because we often hear that in all those technical alternative spaces, especially the decentralized web community, the open source community, often the technical aspiration and assumption are sometimes disaligned with what users are actually expecting. Many people from that community are often expecting also users to have a certain level of technical ability and to understand things that is part of their language only. And so there’s often this obstacle to scalability. So you touched on this and you showed exactly that all of these technical terms are actually translating into usefulness in the daily life. And you could go back on this, but I would like to hear also Wes on this specific part. How do we go beyond those obstacles? of technically assuming people have a certain level or ability to understand technically what is a decentralized social graph, for instance, in the case of DSNP, or what is even interoperability? How do we demonstrate the value to them? I think Becken has done a great job at this. What is the perspective of DSNP on that front?

Wes Biggs: Yeah, it’s a great question. I think Sujith Nairh made that point really articulately, that people are not wowed by these terms. You go out in the street and say, do you want interoperability? Do you want a data agency? That’s not top of mind. Perhaps to me, because I’m a technologist, but not everyone is thinking about the usefulness of the internet in those terms. I think it’s interesting to look at how these alternatives have evolved as well, and in the social media and social networking space, things like the AT Protocol and Blue Sky, the Mastodon and Fediverse community. Many alternative models have been pioneered by essentially marginalized communities that have had strong needs for safe spaces unmediated by centralized controllers. There’s almost a natural suspicion of interoperability in some of these spaces as needing to give something up, because historically, that’s been the case. It’s been a choice between reach and scale of this big room idea of social media on one hand, and then data agency and control and the ability to express oneself authentically on the other. That’s also a very constraining way of thinking about a choice of communication modes. That’s created challenges of interoperability and bridging across both the protocols, but also the content communities, the spheres of content that we think about when we interrogate the internet. we are we’re good at navigating that spectrum as human beings in our real life so we’re used to having spaces of all different sorts of sizes that we can participate in you know from a family space to a classroom to our towns and communities and you know public public speaking and spaces as well so you know I think there’s a real challenge when we think about you know these technical affordances and how how do we take them mainstream and I don’t mean that in simply just creating one big space but how do we create a way to connect this social graph that underpins things like DSMP and and utilize that in a very useful way across the many spheres that I participate in and you participate in so if an empowering protocol can give access to all these levels of control and details and so on you think about this very complicated machine and and how do everyday internet users then operate that machine that’s you don’t want to you want to meet people you know where they are and where their understanding of how they can extract the usefulness from these platforms can be and I think there’s several ways to do that obviously you need that underlying underlying you know kind of protocol and governance layer that’s going to protect that ability but I think strong defaults and nudges at the intersection of the user experience and the protocol are very important there you need to create an environment that kind of naturally fits the way people are used to interacting and communicating and and I think there’s a real opportunity there as we move forward in the agendic AI era to help translate these human needs and the ability for humans to express how they want to participate in these spaces and translate those into the technical choices that are embodied in these protocols so I think it’s about creating languages where where people can express what usefulness means to them and have that you know embodied and expressed as it goes down the stack to the protocol level.

Sarah Leif: I’m very interesting about one thing and I’ll hand it over to Paul after this but I would like to ask the three of you especially if you have different opinion that might be interesting. Do you think in an ideal world that users should know about all this technicalities and about the protocols and know we’re very excited about all these things here because we’re basically internet nerds or is it completely fine if they don’t know anything about it but yet they have the transparency maybe to have a look if they’re interested in it. Is there like a strong vision that you have on the level of technical savviness that your users would need to have to use the protocol?

Sujith Nair: I think if I can speak for everybody here I don’t think there’s a difference in the view but I think I would like to bring certain nuances from my own experience as to how does that translate into a real executable you know action on ground to sort of allay those concerns we have with this old technical aspects, fine aspects of interoperability and putting it to work. I think one of the principles and I speak not just about our efforts with backend protocol which has been a five-year effort as a foundation FIDE we’ve been working on across 15-20 different sectors using the value of interoperable peer-to-peer transaction protocol that backend is but I also speak from the experience that we have garnered over the last 15 years of doing some population scale open interoperable infrastructure designs in a country like India touching a billion people through multiple times five so six different transformation projects we had our friends talking about in the other panel a few minutes ago and I think what one of the principles we have learned from that is very very important is A, interoperability is a very natural tool to solve for complexity at a population scale. You know, how do you distribute that ability to solve and allow people to come up with their own contextually relevant cares and solutions to fulfill that care needs interoperability. But to make that happen, we don’t think about society rising up to the level of technology. It’s the other way. We think about taking technology to the level where the society operates. And I’ll give you a few quick examples of how we have manifested that. You know, during the COVID time, of course, all the public-aided schools did not have digital infrastructure to get students back to schooling, whether it’s from the confines of their home during the pandemic. And it was very natural, like with a typical, you know, Valley startup or a Bangalore tech startup to think of, well, let’s build this cool app and get everybody online and get into these online screens. But one of the ways we thought differently about how technology made society is to ask this question about what is already abundant in the society around which we can think of technology. And it was very obvious for us to know that what is abundant are the textbooks. It’s been there for generations. It’s something that everybody keeps and carries. It’s a key sort of a medium of interaction between the pupil and the teacher. And the pupil and the teacher is the relationship, that societal relationship of trust that comes with pupil and teacher is abundant. So why don’t we use that abundance and think of technology around it? So instead of building this big app, what we have done is to create a very, very simple, interoperable QR code, you know, with a digitally signed QR code and plant it in the textbooks. Think of this as a digital portal from that area of abundance, from that area where the agency is already available for the students and the teachers. And what was remarkable is that, you know, to this portal, of course, we could bring them access to a whole other lot of content and teaching mechanisms and methods and learning, whether it’s from Khan Academy or any other such tools, who it allowed market to also participate on that portal rather than trying to do their creating say siloed platforms. They came to that QR code enabled infrastructure for them to offer more learning content. And just to complete this anecdotal example, what was truly remarkable in that experience is we started seeing the scans not happening during the day, during the schooling hours, but in the nights. And we are seeing those scans in the night because we discovered that for the first time, the teachers who are generally incapacitated and lack motivation to prepare for their classes were actually scanning content themselves to access to new contents, new pedagogy styles from other teachers from the community and actually use that to teach better. And it immediately allowed for it to be a teacher capacity building tool. Same infrastructure, but we could see unforeseen value. And that’s where we thought technology is meeting the society and not the other way. And I can give you many more such examples we have discovered. India could have gone the credit card way for the scale that it is. It could have done another 60 million, this big clunky POS machines as a way to drive electronic payments for safety, security and creating your data exhaust for your own agency. But we did not go for this big clunky machines. We started printing QR codes and said, what is the abundance here? The abundance is everybody’s going to have a mobile phone in India and India has 900 million smartphones. So we said, rather than making this complicated technology go at scale, we make the scale with technology itself work at scale, not scale what works. And we put this QR codes and you put mobile phones in today with UPI, which is the other example of a protocol that we built in India before back in does about 18 billion transactions per month. We did that. We got there in eight years. So this way of thinking about putting technology at the where you can meet the society already is how we should think about technology design in the first place. And we believe in this principle of not scaling what works. like scaling an Uber for the rest of the world to actually think like internet of what works at scale and then manifest value in areas where there is enough societal abundance of trust and relationships and use that to harness technology to unlock more value. So these are some of the things about, like I said, a little nuance and long winding answer, Sarah, but thank you for giving me this opportunity.

Sarah Leif: No worries. I’m also super happy to see that Jean-Bertrand has joined us online and you already start mentioning examples about functioning at scale digital infrastructure that brings value to citizens. So I’ll hand it over to Paul to hand it over to Jean-Bertrand.

Paul Fehlinger: Thank you. And Jean-Bertrand, I’m very happy that you can connect. Can you hear us correctly? We don’t see your video feed yet. If you can unmute and just tell us if you’re. Maybe we give Jean-Bertrand just a few more moments so that he can talk from the perspective of the African Union Commission about this, how to scale next generation digital infrastructure for more data agency. I wanted to, I love the discussion about how to create incentives. Jean-Bertrand, are you there?

Jean-Bertrand Azapmo: Wonderful. I hope my video will also pick up. We can hear you well. We see your virtual background. We don’t see you yet. Okay. Perhaps give me a few more minutes. I may switch the device. Okay. Let me try and fix my video. Yeah. Sorry for that.

Paul Fehlinger: No problem at all. We hope Jean-Bertrand can join us. This is part of the beauty of remote participation. So I was really fascinated listening to the remarks about the incentives. You talked a lot about the user incentives and the design, user-centric design of technology, which I believe is so important. I want to share a bit of this ecosystem, this systemic thinking approach that emerged from the Fair Data Economy Task Force. Because the core question was as well the same that we discuss here of how can we scale this new approach, this next generation approach to a digital economy. And the answer is on firm economic grounds. And for this to work, we need not only product market fit in the design of things, but we need to really think systemic. And the systemic sort of actions reside on four pillars that I mentioned in the beginning. And I just want to dig a bit deeper because I think it’s very important to visualize this almost like a system with small clock wheels that have to be turned almost at the same time. There’s not a re-sequencing of one after the other. All has to happen at the same time for this to work, is what the Fair Data Economy Task Force said. The first thing is on entrepreneurship and new business models. What is right now still missing a bit in the world is centers of gravity for impact-focused entrepreneurship that rethinks the value distribution that gives birth to new, very innovative business models that blend economic growth with data agency. So we really need to think about how to create those new centers of gravity of entrepreneurship to innovate at the business level. the business model level. We talked a lot about next generation digital infrastructure and here again it’s very important to probably, this is what the Fair Data Task Force told us, to think about it like a foundational step. So there are digital ID systems, there are data architecture pieces and very important protocols like DSMP, like Beck and like others to enable the widespread adoption and drive this mainstream impact. And in addition at the same time we also need policy innovation and frameworks because what is needed is the regulatory enabling environment. So what we need is forward-thinking policies that one, safeguard data ownership, that give, defer the right to data agency to users or also businesses, corporate actors, while stimulating innovation and competition to create really a high-performing digital economy that has a sort of leveling the playing field to allow new market entrants with new ideas that really have this product market fit and correspond to this desire of users for better technology with powerful and scalable business models that allow them to really reach mainstream adoption. And the last piece of the puzzle is something that especially at the Internet Governance Forum is not a topic that is talked about a lot, which is a shame because it’s very important, which is strategic capital allocation. Nothing works without money. So we really need to find ways to mobilize smart capital across private markets. There’s also a part of public investment especially on digital infrastructure projects the government has to play a part, but how do we also mobilize private market capital, venture capital and other forms of capital to scale high potential fair data economy ventures and enabling technologies at the infrastructure level. And how do we complement this by more innovative financing mechanisms? So, I really invite all of us to think about it in a systemic way. And with this, I want to see if Jean-Bertrand… Fantastic, we see you. So, without further ado, I want to hand it over to Jean-Bertrand with the question of what are your key takeaways as a member of the Fair Data Economy Task Force from this effort? And what role does digital infrastructure and data agency play on the African continent and for your digital strategy in Africa? Jean-Bertrand, can you hear us?

Jean-Bertrand Azapmo: Hello, yes, I hear you. Yes, I think everything is almost perfect now. Hello, can you hear me?

Paul Fehlinger: Perfectly.

Jean-Bertrand Azapmo: Can you also see me?

Paul Fehlinger: Yes, we can, Jean-Bertrand.

Jean-Bertrand Azapmo: Yes, sincerest apologies. I think I messed up the time zones. You know, I travel from at least to South Africa for this G20 meetings and I completely got lost in the middle of these various time zones. But I really want to thank you, Paul, and thanks to the Project Liberty Institute for organizing this session on such an important topic at the 2025 Internet Governance Forum. It was indeed a privilege to serve as a member of the Fair Data Economy Task Force established and facilitated by the Project Liberty Institute. on Fair Data Economy, alongside, as we all know, 17 other distinguished task force members with great minds, including Professor Teron, who, as most of you know, is one of the 2024 Nobel Economic Prize recipients. And we were given the chance, the unique opportunity, to really reflect on how to create the conditions to unlock the multi-trillion dollar opportunity that the digital landscape represents, actually. And you will agree with me that with the acceleration of AI economy, which basically relies and builds on the same public digital infrastructure, you will agree that it was actually a very forward-looking exercise that was initiated by the Project Liberty Institute back then. So, really, thanks, Paul, and thanks, Bell, you know, all the great mind behind this project. Now, there were some, there are some very important recommendations in the work we did, and most of which actually resonate with the digital transformation strategy for Africa that we are championing at the level of the African Union. And it’s also part, there are some elements of it in the AI for Africa that South Africa is championing as part of its G20 presidency. So, everything is coming together. And the key question, there are some key questions, you know. The first one is the recognition of the gaps that we are still experiencing five years into 2030, which is the target date for the sustainable development goals. There is the recognition of the fact that digital public infrastructure carries an immense potential that could really help unlock some of the economic growth that we need to be able to achieve the SDGs. There are some estimates but let me just give you this one from Harvard University. It says that digital public infrastructure can unlock value equivalent to 3 to 13 percent GDP with an average improvement which means additional 6 percent improvement for emerging economy. Now, just to put it into perspective, Africa needs 7 percent, 7 to 10 percent of economic growth over a period of 30 to 40 years to achieve emerging market status. So, if we were to, you know, implement to invest and be able to reap the benefits of public digital infrastructure, you can see that we will be able to reach those targets in a very short period of time because if you accumulate 13 and 6, you’re basically at 19. If you make an average of it, you’ve got what you need to be able to unlock the immense opportunity that, you know, the digital landscape offers and now the digital economy. Now, the issue is our government cannot do this alone because we are also living in an era where close to 3 billion people or 3.3 billion people to be very specific according to Antart, live in countries that spend more on debt interest payment. So, they therefore do not have the resources to be able to invest in digital public infrastructure. This is the dilemma. We know what digital public infrastructure will help achieve, but the government are constrained. What does that mean? It means a new approach is needed. This is where multi-stakeholderism really holds a great potential. And looking at multi-stakeholderism, it’s not really based on, you know, just some philanthropic. No, it’s based on self-enlightened interest. It is to say the businesses themselves, they stand to benefit from investing in digital public infrastructure, because it will then help unlock all these potential that we are talking about. And the private sector will be the first beneficiary. So we are actually saying in the context of the digital transformation strategy for Africa, in the context of the AI initiative for Africa, let us invest massively in digital public infrastructure because of the immense potential that it holds, but also because it will help create a win-win situation for all the stakeholders. The businesses, they need to continue growing. And the only way to grow is to invest in those places that are lagging behind. So what is the alternative? The alternative is a fragmented world. The New York Times Magazine released an article that clearly shows that AI is creating a two-phase world, the half and the no half. So the question is, do we want to continue entertaining it? I think the platforms like the Internet Governance Forum actually provide an opportunity to reflect on what needs to be done, building on the work that the organizations, institutions like Project Liberty Institute are doing, and say, let’s choose the right answer. Let’s not aim for, you know, a divided world where we have people sitting at the periphery of the system and people, you know, that are moving at a regular pace. The consequence will be continued growing nationalism that we are witnessing because there would be a lot of people that are disenfranchised and this is not happening only in the developing world or in the least the most impoverished countries. No, these gaps are also in some of the developed countries. So there is really a need to focus on delivering a digital public infrastructure that works for everyone, that is sustainable, that is inclusive and that can really help the world move towards achieving the SDG, at least getting closer because, you know, today it’s very clear with 17% of the SDG on target there is very little we can do, but at least if we do the right thing we can close the gap a little bit and then going forward we will be able to do more. So let me stop here for now, Paul, and looking forward to either the next round of interventions or, you know, contributing to other aspects of the discussions. Thank you and sincerest apologies once again for the mess up, yeah.

Paul Fehlinger: Very happy that you could connect, Jean-Bertrand. I hand it over back to Sarah Leif in Norway. Thank you very much, Jean-Bertrand. I

Sarah Leif: think you made it clear that scalability won’t be achieved without substantial investment and I wish we could talk about investment much more and we would need probably another session dedicated only to this, but that’s a substantial and a key component of also the scalability of digital infrastructure. But you also mentioned something that interests me is that it needs to work for After Wendy’s response, I’ll open the floor to everybody in person, and we’ll start with the first question online after Wendy. So, Wendy, over to you.

Wendy Seltzer: Thank you, and I’ll try to keep it short so that we can get to those questions, even though it’s a deep and challenging question, because I think we reach for the essence of participatory design and governance, and to be building with the participation of those who are affected by the systems and ecosystems. And as was referenced earlier, we have people who are at all levels of technological sophistication, all levels of engagement with the technology, those who are designers and builders, those who are users, those who are not yet users because they don’t have access to the technology, and finding ways to include all of those perspectives and give people real options for participation and not just the semblance of inclusion. It’s a real challenge. And so I think, you know, what we can try to do is to work progressively and to ensure that, you know, the structures that we’re constructing are as inclusive as we can make them to represent the experiences of participants from all walks of life. It’s important in participatory design to recognize that expertise can take a variety of forms and that lived experience of a particular background is as important as technological expertise or legal expertise to making an equitable techno-social construction that works for people. But we also recognize we can’t do everything at once. And so building a sense of temporary-ness in the early stages, recognizing that while we can try to do the best we can at inclusive governance, when people come and say they are not yet represented, being open to hearing from them and expanding to be more inclusive is important. I think the… where there are, you know, resource inequities and imbalances. We need to start by being conscious of that and taking extra steps that what we’re designing isn’t just, you know, enshrining an existing balance of power but making space for those who don’t have, you know, the same economic advantage right now. And that’s not just an altruistic perspective. You know, it’s, you know, if we’re really talking about how we grow the data economy, it’s looking to people who will be participants if given opportunities. And, you know, those have to be real opportunities. It’s not just the opportunity to be a consumer, but the opportunity to share ideas, to be entrepreneurs, to be social entrepreneurs, and to participate in governance. So those are some of the principles that I put in place and, you know, we’re working in places like the DSNP governance frameworks to put those into action and I hope we’ll have opportunity to engage more on that in questions and answers.

Sarah Leif: Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you, Wendy, for those final insights. So I’d like to ask Xianhong from UNESCO to ask her question. She is online and then we’ll take your question in person. We’ll take them together and then we’ll ask the panel to respond to it as well as you, Jean-Bertrand, if you’re still with us. So Xianhong, the floor is yours. Thank you, Sarah. And

Xianhong Hu: thank you, Paul. Actually, congratulations for having successfully raised this important aspect on the data economy, which I didn’t see much debates at IDF, because we’re talking about the data governance from more political angles. So that’s really such a value added to the entire IDF. And as you know, we are here working with other governments. So what strikes me is that what do the panelists think that this can imply or the implications for the governments? What should they do? I mean, in face of this, such a multi-trillion dollar data economy for sustainable development prospect, but also facing so many risks and challenges. And what should we do for governments? Because in the past years, in my work, I’ve been promoting maybe a more conservative approach that data protection, protecting rights, privacy, but maybe we didn’t put equal attention on the harnessing the potential of data. But now the data is new opportunities for any country to want to prosper in the digital age. And at the institutional level, I mean, the capacity building, I mean, the new approach, as you just touched upon, what do we should do? Because to my knowledge, we had already having maybe 120 countries who have created their data protection authority. If we want to make sure the government cannot miss this opportunity, can put in place the right framework and regulation or policy strategy to encourage this digital infrastructure development and the economy, can we recommend them to create new institutions for the kind of data agency or data stewardship? Or should we also encourage the existing data authority to expand, enhance their capacity to cope with the challenge of the data economy? That’s my question for you. Also, I appreciate the panelists in terms of geographic diversity. If you can share more about the regional perspective, that would be also useful for me. I imagine that the situation and the challenges in Asia and Africa, Latin America, might be quite different stories. So thank you. I really look forward to learning more from you. Thank you.

Sarah Leif: Thank you, Xianhong. So we have very government-oriented questions for the panel. Could you please introduce yourself and then ask your question? And then the panel can take Xianhong’s question and your questions. Yes, thank you.

Audience: My name is Veronica. I am with the Youth Pirate Party of Sweden. And I have a question that’s not very governmental, more a philosophical question about the future of social networking. I and my party recognize the wills of many people to want to remain anonymous online. And I wonder with the advent of this, for example, DSNP, the future of an interconnected internet where, for example, your workplace may use the same account as your political opinions on a different social network. Is there any plans to go forward to recognize the right for people to want to remain anonymous on this new internet? Thank you.

Sarah Leif: Thank you very much, Veronica. Thank you, Xianhong. So two questions, two very different yet complementary questions, I believe, one technical and one philosophical and one more governmental. To the panel, you can go ahead knowing that you have three minutes left to respond to all of this. Who would like to go first?

Wes Biggs: I’ll go first to address Veronica’s question. And from a DSMP perspective, I think it’s important to maintain that ability to have anonymity or pseudonymity online and not not just in in kind of a social communication space, but in all aspects of how we engage online in in a digital economy as well so I think there are affordances within the DSMP protocol and many others to do that to not be bound to a single identity to be able to have multiple personas across different aspects of what we do and I think it’s also important to distinguish that from say a governmental identity, which I think is appropriate for certain uses, but not necessarily for all the spheres of communication that people want to participate in

Sarah Leif: Maybe Jean-Bertrand for the governmental question if you want to take that one

Jean-Bertrand Azapmo: Can you hear me? Yes Yes Well, thank you so very much for those comments and questions. What is very clear, like I said, is that there is only that much the government can do, but there is what they can do. For instance, what we are doing in Africa, we are laying the foundation, the legal foundation for you know, digital public infrastructure to expand and for the digital economy to thrive. For instance, we had the what is known as the Malabo Convention on data protection, which was there. Of course, it needs to be updated and to take into consideration the evolving environment. We recently, as last year, our heads of state adopted the AFCFDA African Continental Free Trade Area the other elements of what would be considered as a conducive enabling environment. You know, in some instances for digital public infrastructure, you need even physical infrastructure itself. So, the government needs to put in place other legislations, ancillary legislations that are needed. There are also instances where it’s just to guarantee, you know, the investment to provide the necessary guarantees for investment to step in and deploy the resources that are needed. But what is very clear is that whether governments in some places can do it or not, we still see the opportunity for philanthropics, for the private sector to step in. And this is on account of, you know, the huge opportunities that are there and that they stand to harness if they were to invest. Now, if you just take digital public infrastructure as a road, you know, all of us, we use roads every day without Realizing That Someone Builded It, It’s Only When It’s Not There That All Of A Sudden We Realize That Oh It’s Actually Critical. So I Think In Areas In Sectors Like Minerals There Are Examples Of You Know Public Private Partnership To Build Public Infrastructure This Can Be Replicated In The Digital In The Data Economy. We Have Like I Said Private Sector That Have Gone Alone Or Solo To Do It. The M-Pesa Revolution In Kenya For Instance It Was All Private Sector Led.

Sarah Leif: I’m Sorry Jean-Bertrand, I’m Very Sorry We’re Out Of Time. There Was Also A Question Online That We Didn’t Manage To Respond To. So This Just Prove Also All The More How This Conversation Is Important And How It Needs To Include Everybody In The Discussion. So I Wanted To Thank You All So Much Because We Have To Leave The Room For The Next Session Unfortunately. But We Can Definitely Continue This Discussion. As We Mentioned You Can Go On ProjectLiberty.io And You Can Find The Fair Data Economy Recommendation. You Can Also Find Our Recent Digital Infrastructure For Data Agency Report. And Later Today At 2pm For Those In Person We Will Have A Closed Door Session To Continue And Deep Dive On Those Discussions. So If There Is Anybody Interested In Joining Please Come To Us And We Will Make That Happen. And In The Meantime Please Join Me In Thanking This Wonderful Panel Today And Thank You All.

Agreement points

Current digital economy model is fundamentally flawed and needs transformation

Speakers

– Paul Fehlinger
– Sarah Leif
– Sujith Nair

Arguments

Current digital economy has negative externalities on market structures, societies, and democracies due to existing business models and infrastructure

Digital infrastructure design affects whether economic power is concentrated or distributed, and whether innovation is stifled or encouraged

Beckn protocol enables interoperability by allowing consumers and providers to transact without being locked into single platforms, giving users control over their data and revenue

Summary

All speakers agree that the current centralized platform-based digital economy creates harmful concentrations of power and negative impacts on society, requiring a fundamental shift toward more distributed, user-controlled systems.

Topics

Economic | Infrastructure | Sociocultural

User agency and data control are fundamental principles for fair digital economy

Speakers

– Paul Fehlinger
– Sujith Nair
– Wes Biggs
– Wendy Seltzer

Arguments

Need to rewire the data economy to build a better ecosystem that works for all actors with people having agency over their data

Beckn protocol enables interoperability by allowing consumers and providers to transact without being locked into single platforms, giving users control over their data and revenue

DSNP provides affordances for long-lived identity, attestation, universal social graph, and social content that can be ported between applications

Building sustainable interoperable systems requires aligning incentives across all ecosystem participants, not just technical solutions

Summary

There is strong consensus that giving users control over their data and digital identity is essential for creating a fair data economy, with multiple speakers advocating for protocols that enable data portability and user agency.

Topics

Human rights | Infrastructure | Economic

Technology should be designed around user needs rather than technical complexity

Speakers

– Sujith Nair
– Wes Biggs
– Wendy Seltzer

Arguments

Technology should meet society at its level rather than expecting society to rise to technology’s complexity

Users don’t care about technical terms like ‘interoperability’ – they need to see practical value in their daily lives

Need to create languages where people can express what usefulness means to them and translate that into technical protocol choices

Participatory design must include expertise from lived experience alongside technical expertise to create equitable systems

Summary

All speakers emphasize the importance of user-centered design that prioritizes practical value and accessibility over technical sophistication, recognizing that users need to see tangible benefits rather than understand complex protocols.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Infrastructure

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for scaling digital infrastructure

Speakers

– Paul Fehlinger
– Wendy Seltzer
– Jean-Bertrand Azapmo

Arguments

Scaling requires systemic approach across four pillars: entrepreneurship/business models, digital infrastructure, policy innovation, and strategic capital allocation

Building sustainable interoperable systems requires aligning incentives across all ecosystem participants, not just technical solutions

Multi-stakeholderism based on enlightened self-interest can drive investment in digital public infrastructure

Summary

There is consensus that successful scaling of alternative digital infrastructure requires coordinated efforts across multiple stakeholders including government, private sector, and civil society, with aligned incentives rather than relying on any single actor.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for a pragmatic approach where implementation and value demonstration come before formal governance structures, with examples from developing countries showing successful private sector-led initiatives.

Speakers

– Sujith Nair
– Jean-Bertrand Azapmo

Arguments

Adoption should precede formal governance structures – demonstrating value to users first, then stabilizing with governance frameworks

Examples like M-Pesa in Kenya show private sector can lead digital infrastructure development independently

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Development

Both emphasize the importance of preserving user privacy and anonymity rights in interconnected digital systems, allowing people to maintain separate digital personas across different contexts.

Speakers

– Wes Biggs
– Audience

Arguments

Protocols should maintain ability for anonymity and pseudonymity online, allowing multiple personas across different communication spheres

Need to recognize and protect the right for people to remain anonymous online in interconnected internet systems

Topics

Human rights | Privacy and data protection | Digital identities

Both speakers see the private sector as a key driver of digital infrastructure development, with business incentives aligned with social impact through new economic models and value distribution approaches.

Speakers

– Paul Fehlinger
– Jean-Bertrand Azapmo

Arguments

Need centers of gravity for impact-focused entrepreneurship that rethinks value distribution and creates new business models

Private sector stands to benefit from investing in digital public infrastructure due to immense economic opportunities

Topics

Economic | Development | Infrastructure

Unexpected consensus

Governance should follow adoption rather than precede it

Speakers

– Sujith Nair
– Wendy Seltzer

Arguments

Adoption should precede formal governance structures – demonstrating value to users first, then stabilizing with governance frameworks

Participatory design must include expertise from lived experience alongside technical expertise to create equitable systems

Explanation

This represents unexpected consensus between a protocol implementer and a governance expert, both agreeing that formal governance structures should be built after demonstrating practical value to users, rather than the traditional approach of establishing governance frameworks first.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Sociocultural

Technical complexity should be hidden from users while preserving their agency

Speakers

– Sujith Nair
– Wes Biggs
– Sarah Leif

Arguments

Users don’t care about technical terms like ‘interoperability’ – they need to see practical value in their daily lives

Need to create languages where people can express what usefulness means to them and translate that into technical protocol choices

Most users remain stuck on centralized platforms despite available alternative solutions, indicating scalability issues

Explanation

There’s unexpected consensus among technical implementers that users should not need to understand technical concepts to benefit from them, which challenges the common assumption in decentralized technology communities that user education about technical principles is necessary.

Topics

Infrastructure | Sociocultural | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate remarkably high consensus on fundamental principles including the need for user agency, the flaws of current centralized systems, the importance of user-centered design, and the necessity of multi-stakeholder collaboration. There is also strong agreement on practical approaches like demonstrating value before formalizing governance and hiding technical complexity from users.

Consensus level

Very high consensus with no significant disagreements identified. This strong alignment suggests the fair data economy movement has achieved substantial conceptual unity across different stakeholder groups (technical implementers, governance experts, policy makers, and regional representatives). The implications are positive for coordinated action and scaling efforts, as the main challenge appears to be implementation and adoption rather than fundamental disagreements about direction or principles.

Different viewpoints

Sequencing of governance versus adoption in protocol development

Speakers

– Sujith Nair
– Wendy Seltzer

Arguments

Adoption should precede formal governance structures – demonstrating value to users first, then stabilizing with governance frameworks

Building sustainable interoperable systems requires aligning incentives across all ecosystem participants, not just technical solutions

Summary

Sujith Nair advocates for adoption-first approach where governance follows after demonstrating value, while Wendy Seltzer emphasizes the need for governance frameworks and aligned incentives from the beginning to ensure sustainability

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Infrastructure

Unexpected differences

Limited disagreement on fundamental approaches despite different regional contexts

Speakers

– Sujith Nair
– Jean-Bertrand Azapmo
– Wes Biggs

Arguments

Technology should meet society at its level rather than expecting society to rise to technology’s complexity

Digital public infrastructure can unlock value equivalent to 3-13% of GDP, which could help Africa achieve necessary economic growth for emerging market status

DSNP challenges centralized systems by avoiding single points of failure and creating consensus mechanisms where no single entity can override the system

Explanation

Despite representing very different regional contexts (India, Africa, global protocol development), speakers showed remarkable alignment on core principles. The lack of significant disagreement between regional approaches was unexpected given the different economic and infrastructure contexts they represent

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed strong consensus on fundamental principles with only minor disagreements on implementation approaches, particularly around governance timing and stakeholder coordination strategies

Disagreement level

Very low level of disagreement. The speakers demonstrated remarkable alignment on core principles of data agency, interoperability, and the need for systemic change. The few disagreements were primarily about tactical approaches rather than strategic goals. This high level of consensus suggests either a well-aligned community of practice or potentially indicates that more diverse viewpoints were not represented in the discussion. The implications are positive for advancing the fair data economy agenda, as there appears to be strong foundational agreement among key stakeholders, though broader stakeholder engagement may be needed to surface additional perspectives and potential challenges.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for a pragmatic approach where implementation and value demonstration come before formal governance structures, with examples from developing countries showing successful private sector-led initiatives.

Speakers

– Sujith Nair
– Jean-Bertrand Azapmo

Arguments

Adoption should precede formal governance structures – demonstrating value to users first, then stabilizing with governance frameworks

Examples like M-Pesa in Kenya show private sector can lead digital infrastructure development independently

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Development

Both emphasize the importance of preserving user privacy and anonymity rights in interconnected digital systems, allowing people to maintain separate digital personas across different contexts.

Speakers

– Wes Biggs
– Audience

Arguments

Protocols should maintain ability for anonymity and pseudonymity online, allowing multiple personas across different communication spheres

Need to recognize and protect the right for people to remain anonymous online in interconnected internet systems

Topics

Human rights | Privacy and data protection | Digital identities

Both speakers see the private sector as a key driver of digital infrastructure development, with business incentives aligned with social impact through new economic models and value distribution approaches.

Speakers

– Paul Fehlinger
– Jean-Bertrand Azapmo

Arguments

Need centers of gravity for impact-focused entrepreneurship that rethinks value distribution and creates new business models

Private sector stands to benefit from investing in digital public infrastructure due to immense economic opportunities

Topics

Economic | Development | Infrastructure

Key takeaways

The current centralized digital economy creates negative externalities and concentrates power, requiring a shift toward fair data economy principles that give people agency over their data

Technical solutions like Beckn protocol and DSNP demonstrate that interoperable, decentralized alternatives can work at scale – Beckn has processed 200 million transactions in India across multiple sectors

User adoption requires meeting people where they are rather than expecting technical sophistication – technology should adapt to society’s level, not vice versa

Scaling next-generation digital infrastructure requires a systemic approach across four pillars: entrepreneurship/business models, technical infrastructure, policy innovation, and strategic capital allocation

Digital public infrastructure can unlock 3-13% of GDP value, making it crucial for developing economies like Africa to achieve growth targets

Multi-stakeholder collaboration based on enlightened self-interest is essential since governments alone lack resources to invest in digital public infrastructure

Interoperability and data agency must translate into visible daily value for users rather than remaining abstract technical concepts

Participatory governance must include diverse forms of expertise, including lived experience alongside technical knowledge

Resolutions and action items

Continue discussions in a closed-door session at 2pm for interested participants to deep dive on the topics

Refer participants to ProjectLiberty.io for Fair Data Economy Recommendations and Digital Infrastructure for Data Agency Report

Demonstrate adoption before formalizing governance structures – show value to users first, then stabilize with governance frameworks

Create legal foundations and enabling environments for digital public infrastructure development

Develop centers of gravity for impact-focused entrepreneurship that rethinks value distribution

Unresolved issues

How to bridge existing alternative solutions to achieve greater collaboration and scalability beyond individual protocol successes

Whether governments should create new data agency institutions or expand existing data protection authorities to handle data economy opportunities

How to balance data protection with harnessing data’s economic potential across different regional contexts

Specific mechanisms for mobilizing private capital and innovative financing for digital public infrastructure at scale

How to ensure anonymity and pseudonymity rights are preserved in interconnected digital infrastructure systems

Regional differences in challenges and approaches across Asia, Africa, and Latin America were requested but not fully addressed due to time constraints

Suggested compromises

Technology should meet society at its current level rather than expecting users to become technically sophisticated

Balance between providing technical control/agency and creating simple, intuitive user experiences with strong defaults

Combine private sector investment with government enabling frameworks rather than relying solely on either approach

Allow multiple identity personas within protocols to balance connectivity with privacy/anonymity needs

Start with demonstrating practical value to users while building toward more formal governance structures over time

Sometimes otherwise we just keep losing this conversation in a more techno and a policy circles, but how does it matter in the hands of people is something that I think is a very important aspect of how we talk about interoperability and demonstrate interoperability.

Speaker

Sujith Nair

Reason

This comment cuts to the heart of a fundamental disconnect in tech development – the gap between technical capabilities and real-world user value. It challenges the common assumption that technical excellence alone drives adoption and highlights the need for value-first design.

Impact

This shifted the conversation from abstract protocol discussions to concrete user experience considerations. It prompted Sarah to directly address the ‘technical savviness’ question and led to deeper exploration of how to bridge the gap between technical innovation and user adoption.

I think we need to look at this as a techno-social challenge, that it’s not just a matter of building interoperable tech and the people will come and the solutions will come out of that. It’s also a matter of figuring out how we as society and as builders of ecosystems will align the incentives so that there are stable configurations that preserve interoperability.

Speaker

Wendy Seltzer

Reason

This reframes the entire discussion from a purely technical problem to a complex socio-economic challenge. It introduces the critical concept that technology alone cannot solve adoption problems – social and economic incentives must be aligned.