Uncategorized Archives | Page 24 of 117 | Digital Watch Observatory

Session at a glance

Summary

Karen Soacha presented her research on governance in citizen science technology, speaking from her multiple roles as a practitioner at the Institute of Marine Sciences, a team member managing a citizen observatory platform, part of a group conceptualizing pan-European research infrastructure for citizen science, and co-chair of a participatory science network connecting Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Ibero Peninsula. She focused on citizen observatories, which are platforms combining technologies, data, people, and standards that support both data collection and digital community creation in citizen science projects. Soacha emphasized that over 300 such platforms exist in Europe alone, with some like iNaturalist hosting over 253 million data points that support thousands of citizen science projects worldwide.

The core argument centered on the need for transparent governance models in citizen science platforms, as these technologies have significant agency and influence beyond being mere tools. Soacha’s research identified that platforms negotiate their roles in three key areas: ownership, sharing, and accountability of data, and can act as enablers, gatekeepers, or mediators. She presented a framework and set of principles to help platforms reflect on and openly communicate their governance approaches. Using her own MINCA citizen observatory as an example, Soacha described implementing multi-stakeholder governance involving participatory, academic, mobilizing, and facilitated communities, though she acknowledged this approach is extremely challenging in practice.

The presentation highlighted specific governance innovations including consent commons (visual icons to communicate data use terms), data citation guidelines that notify users when their data is used, and treating validated citizen science data as commons rather than individual property. Soacha concluded by calling for platforms to clearly communicate their governance models and for decision makers and funders to demand transparency in platform governance principles.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Governance transparency in citizen science platforms**: The need for citizen science technologies and platforms to openly communicate their governance models, principles, and decision-making processes to users and stakeholders, moving beyond treating these platforms as mere neutral tools.

– **Multi-stakeholder governance challenges**: The practical difficulties of implementing participatory governance models that include diverse communities (participatory, academic, mobilizing, and facilitated communities) and the ongoing struggle to make such complex governance structures functional.

– **Data ownership and commons approach**: The tension between individual data contributors’ rights and treating validated citizen science data as a commons, especially when community knowledge adds value to originally submitted data through validation and identification processes.

– **Platform agency and positionality**: Recognition that citizen science platforms themselves have agency and make decisions about data ownership, sharing, and accountability, rather than being passive infrastructure, and the need to make these roles explicit.

– **Practical implementation of governance principles**: Specific examples of translating governance principles into actionable features like consent commons (simplified terms of use), data citation guidelines, user notifications about data usage, and data sharing agreements.

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion aims to present ongoing research on governance models for citizen science platforms, advocating for greater transparency and participatory approaches in how these platforms operate, manage data, and engage with their diverse user communities.

**Overall Tone:**

The tone is academic yet practical, with the speaker being honest about challenges and limitations. Karen Soacha maintains an earnest, research-focused approach while acknowledging the ambitious and sometimes “polemic” nature of their proposals. The tone remains consistently reflective and self-aware, particularly when discussing the gap between idealistic governance models and practical implementation challenges.

Speakers

– Karen Soacha: Works at the Institute of Marine Sciences; Manager/team member of a citizen observatory (citizen science technology platform); Part of a group of 13 organizations working on conceptualizing pan-European research infrastructure for citizen science; Co-chair of a participatory science network connecting practitioners, researchers, and communities across Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Ibero Peninsula; Originally from Colombia; Researcher and practitioner in governance of citizen science technology

Additional speakers:

No additional speakers were identified in this transcript beyond those listed in the speakers names list.

Full session report

# Comprehensive Summary: Governance in Citizen Science Technology

## Introduction and Speaker Background

Karen Soacha, originally from Colombia, delivered a comprehensive presentation on governance models in citizen science technology platforms. Speaking from her multifaceted role as a manager of a citizen observatory platform, team member of a group conceptualising pan-European research infrastructure for citizen science, and co-chair of a participatory science network connecting practitioners across Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Ibero Peninsula, Soacha brought both theoretical knowledge and practical implementation experience to her discussion of this emerging field. She works at the Institute of Marine Sciences and collaborates with a network of nine cities in Science Plateau.

## The Scale and Significance of Citizen Science Platforms

Soacha began by establishing the substantial scope of citizen science technology platforms, noting that through inventory work conducted by 13 organizations working together during 3 years to think about research infrastructure for citizen science in Europe, they identified more than 300 platforms in Europe alone. These citizen observatories—a term she uses interchangeably with “citizen science platforms”—represent combinations of technologies, data, people, and standards that support both data collection and digital community creation. The scale of their impact is exemplified by platforms like iNaturalist, which hosts over 253 million data points supporting thousands of citizen science projects worldwide. These platforms contribute significantly to environmental, biodiversity, and health research fields, making their governance structures a matter of considerable importance.

## Reframing Platform Agency and Responsibility

A central theme of Soacha’s presentation was the fundamental reconceptualisation of citizen science platforms from passive tools to active agents with their own governance models and principles. She argued that whilst researchers and citizen science projects represent one aspect of the ecosystem, the platforms themselves have evolved into entities that “have agency” and “have principles” and “have governance models.” This perspective challenges the traditional view of technology platforms as neutral infrastructure, instead positioning them as stakeholders with significant influence over how citizen science operates.

Soacha emphasised that these platforms are “mainly negotiating in three areas: ownership, sharing, and accountability.” Within each area, platforms make decisions about “how the data is appropriated, by whom, under which rule, how the data is shared by whom, and under which benefit, and who accounts for the benefit.” This framework provides a systematic approach to understanding platform governance and reveals the complex decision-making processes that occur behind seemingly simple data collection interfaces.

## Platform Roles and Governance Framework

Through her research, Soacha presented a framework for platforms to reflect on their roles in relationships with users and stakeholders. She specifically mentioned that platforms can function as gatekeepers or mediators, with these roles representing different approaches to managing the three key areas of data ownership, sharing, and accountability. The recognition of these varied roles underscores the need for platforms to be explicit about their governance approaches rather than operating under assumptions of neutrality.

## Multi-Stakeholder Governance: Theory and Practice

Soacha presented her own MINCA citizen observatory as a case study in implementing multi-stakeholder governance models. Her approach involves engaging four distinct types of communities: participatory communities (the public generating and validating data), academic communities (researchers for validation and knowledge exchange), mobilising communities (local NGOs for ground engagement), and facilitated communities (governments and other actors necessary for territorial transformation or data access). This comprehensive model aims to ensure that all stakeholders have input into platform governance decisions.

However, Soacha was notably candid about the implementation challenges, acknowledging that “it’s extremely challenging” and “very complicated to see all these actors and trying to do these demands.” She admitted that claiming such a system is fully functional would be “very ambitious” and “not” accurate. This honest assessment highlights the gap between theoretical governance models and practical implementation, suggesting that the field is still in early stages of developing workable multi-stakeholder approaches.

## Data Commons and Individual Rights

One of the most thought-provoking aspects of Soacha’s presentation concerned the treatment of validated citizen science data as commons rather than individual property. She explained this concept through a practical example: when a citizen contributor submits a photograph they cannot identify, and community members with relevant knowledge provide identification, the validated data becomes more than the original contributor’s individual submission. As Soacha put it, “the photo that you didn’t know what it is and has been identified by people with knowledge… now that have added value is by the community and not just only you.”

This approach leads to treating validated data as commons whilst still respecting individual contributor rights through recognition and notification systems. Soacha acknowledged this concept as “polemic” with “many implications” related to digital data ownership and commons theory, indicating ongoing tensions between individual rights and collective benefit in citizen science platforms.

## Practical Governance Innovations

Despite the theoretical challenges, Soacha described several practical innovations her platform has implemented to improve governance transparency and user engagement:

**Consent Commons**: Recognising that users rarely read lengthy terms of use agreements, Soacha’s team developed simplified visual communication (like Creative Commons) to communicate data use terms. As she noted, “Most of us, we know that every time that we go to a new platform and you say, do you accept the terms of use? How many of you are reading the terms of use? We don’t have time.”

**Data Citation Guidelines**: The platform implements systems to notify users when their contributed data is used for research or policy purposes, providing recognition and maintaining connection between contributors and the impact of their participation.

**Data Sharing Agreements**: These agreements explicitly communicate how validated data will be treated as commons whilst respecting individual contributor rights, representing an attempt to balance competing interests transparently.

## Field-Wide Challenges and Key Messages

Soacha positioned her work within broader challenges facing the citizen science community, sharing three main takeaways from her research. She noted that documenting governance models and principles for platforms is “fundamental” but remains in “initial steps” across the field. This represents a significant gap in understanding how different platforms operate and make decisions about data and community management.

Her recommendations focused on two primary areas. First, she called for platforms themselves to communicate their governance models and principles clearly to users and stakeholders, moving beyond assumptions of neutrality to explicit statements of their approaches to ownership, sharing, and accountability. Second, she urged decision makers and funders to require transparency in governance from citizen science platforms, suggesting that external pressure may be necessary to drive greater transparency in platform operations.

## Ongoing Research and Future Directions

Throughout her presentation, Soacha emphasised that research into citizen science platform governance remains in early stages and represents ongoing work. She described many aspects of platform agency and governance models as “not very well known within our citizen science community” and mentioned that their research findings are available as a living document in Zenodo. This positioning suggests significant opportunities for future research and development in understanding how platforms influence citizen science outcomes.

The step-by-step implementation approach Soacha advocated reflects a pragmatic recognition that comprehensive governance transformation is unrealistic, but incremental improvements in transparency and participation remain achievable goals. She acknowledged being “a little bit faster” through certain sections due to time constraints, indicating the depth of work still being explored in this area.

## Conclusion and Implications

Soacha’s presentation represents an important contribution to understanding governance challenges in citizen science technology platforms. By reframing platforms as active agents rather than passive tools, she opens new avenues for research and policy development in this emerging field. Her honest assessment of implementation challenges, combined with practical examples of governance innovations, provides a realistic foundation for future work in what she clearly positions as ongoing research in its initial steps.

The presentation highlights the tension between idealistic multi-stakeholder governance models and practical implementation constraints, whilst demonstrating that meaningful improvements in transparency and user engagement remain possible through incremental approaches. As citizen science platforms continue to grow in scale and influence, Soacha’s call for explicit governance communication and external accountability measures becomes increasingly relevant for ensuring these powerful tools serve their communities effectively and transparently.

Session transcript

Karen Soacha: Hi! Thank you so much for attending this session. So, let’s start. Let’s see if some people are motivated by the topic. I hope so. I hope so. Also, someone is online. And thank you also for joining that. Okay, my talk is going to be about governance in citizen science technology. And as I said, it’s an ongoing journey. It’s part of our research. And also, I am here as a practitioner and as a researcher on the topic. My name is Karen Soacha. I work in the Institute of Marine Sciences. But, I am like holding different t-shirts today and for me it’s important sharing why. My first t-shirt is I work in a citizen observatory. It means in a citizen science technology itself. Part of the team managing and supporting this platform. And I will go later a little bit about what does it mean. I am also part of the group of organization that is right now working on conceptualizing the pan-European research infrastructure for citizen science. We are a group of 13 organizations working together during 3 years to think what could be the research infrastructure for citizen science in Europe. And my last t-shirt, but not least, is I am the co-chair of a participatory science network that is focused on connecting practitioners, researchers, and communities across Latin America, the Caribbean, and the Ibero Peninsula. I am originally from Colombia. Then those are like the 3 t-shirts that I am connecting right now in my talk and from where this research that I am sharing with you today is coming from. So, those are 3 messages that I will try to explain throughout my research. And those are like among the 3 takeaways that I want to share with you today. Is that the governance of citizen technologies, especially participatory platforms as we call, must be transparent. I think that I have been listening to this message since yesterday and today, especially in the plenary talk. Citizen observatories play a critical role in contribution of data, especially in the fields of environmental, biodiversity, health. And that need implies to have governance models that respond to this participatory nature. And third, documenting the governance models and also the principles that those platforms are having are fundamental, but the truth is we are still ongoing. It’s a task still under development and you will see today that we are like an initial steps in that regard within the field. Then first, let’s start with what is a citizen observatory? Is someone familiar with this term here? No? No one? Okay. I will be using during my talk the term citizen observatory or citizen science platform, like in the same way, that’s why I want to clarify at the beginning. When I say citizen science platform, all those technologies, web or mobiles or other kind of technologies including like a do-it-yourself devices that support the collection of data, the creating of community in citizen science. But every time that I talk, familiar with the term citizen science? Okay, one person. But just very quickly, when we talk about citizen science, it’s the active engagement of public in the creation of science that can be from designing research question to publishing the results. All within collecting the data, validating the data. The most common approach that we know in citizen science is people actively contributing with data, but people also can contribute in any point of the research. Then those platforms that we talk here is those supporting this process of citizen science. And there are many kind of platforms out there. Just in Europe, we are working on an inventory and we can identify more than 300 platforms. Out there, supporting citizen science. We are focusing nowadays in one very specific, that is citizen observatories. The term that we are using is because we call citizen observatories in this context the combination of technologies, data, people, standards that support data collection but also very important for us, the creation of the digital community behind that. Those platforms allow engagement in participatory science. And we also within the community try to point out that citizen observatory is the mix of the social and technical component that we cannot talk of this platform as a merely infrastructural software or hardware devices. When we talk about citizen observatory, we talk about this nice combination of the people, the standard, the processes, the knowledge that is exchanged as well as the software, the hardware and all other infrastructure all this makes. So, I will go a little bit faster in this point, but I just want to point out why it’s important and we will consider talking about governance in citizen observatories as important and the role that CEOs is providing to the benefit of society. Citizen observatory right now as facilitators, they support right now billions of data among the world that is open and accessible for using in research and in decision making. This information is allowing us to take better decisions and especially timely because society and especially public have the capacity to collect data in a time that many other actors don’t have. That’s why scientists and especially in this case I’m talking with a teacher also as a researcher, we don’t have, we need to work with the society to have this data at that time. And to respond to challenges that right now is asking for us to be faster. Biodiversity laws, climate change and many others. This is just a very short image, but I think it’s very clear. One of the most well-known citizen observatories across the world, that is a naturalist, I don’t know if anyone here uses it, that nowadays has available more than 253 millions of data. And this is just one of the platforms across the world, maybe most well-known with the most amount of data, but there are many others out there that are benefiting with many data across the world. So with this context that I was just trying to say why it’s important, those platforms, is why are we working on governance and ethics. And here I am trying to talk from two voices. One, talking as a manager or part of the team manager, one of the citizen observatories that is called MINCA, but also as a researcher that tries to contribute to the field that is important to talk about these topics for us. I think that these initial sentences in this context are more than, it’s not necessarily to go deep on that, but what we are trying to make a call right now is, in our field we used to believe that the platforms are a tool still. In citizen science we used to believe that the people doing citizen science, the researchers are the ones having all the agency. But the truth is, one is the people doing the research and the citizen science project, and other things are the platforms out there supporting the data collection. And those platforms themselves nowadays provide open services for hundreds of projects. Just iNaturalist is supporting the collection of data for more than, let me just go back for a moment. Oh, the data is not here. But it’s thousands of projects. Thousands of projects. Thousands of citizen science projects are putting their data there. Then, what we want to call in the community or make a call in the community is, those platforms have agency. Those platforms have principles, those platforms have governance models. And it’s a topic that still is not very well known within our group or within our citizen science community. And our reflection is, should we be open about these governance models and about these principles behind these platforms, that even if they are open and free, are holding the data of many citizen science projects behind. And then is when our research starts. And now I’m going to be a little bit faster in this point. And it’s those platforms’ positionality, and we have been doing research about the positionality of these platforms. And essentially what we identified is, those platforms are mainly negotiating in three areas, that is ownership, sharing, and accountability. And in each of these areas, it means how the data is appropriated, by whom, under which rule, how the data is shared by whom, and under which benefit, and who accounts for the benefit. Each platform can take different roles. Some platforms can act as an enabler, And I will give some examples in our own case, with our own platform, how are we acting in different ways in this. Then we put out there an initial proposal of a framework to invite the citizen science platform to reflect about their roles. What are they doing related to the data that they are managing? Are they acting of a gatekeeper? Are they just keeping the data for certain kind of users, protecting under certain kind of arguments? Or are they opposite? They are acting as a mediator between the users of the data and other stakeholders. There are different roles that we are inviting with this tool to the platforms to openly display these roles. As well as we are proposing the framework, we are working in a set of principles that as a platform we are also reflecting and trying to share with other platforms. I will not go deep on this, but I will share with you some examples of how we are transforming these principles in actions within our platform. This is an open document and living document that is already available in Zenodo and that we are taking in different spaces for feedback and working with other users, managers, stakeholders. So related to these principles, what we are trying to share also is what is the background of these principles. Those are coming from different initiatives, some of them in Colombia, some of them here in Europe, like our network of nine cities in Science Plateau that we were testing and we were working then to understand the governance dynamics that they have and how they have been building this model of governance and how they have been building this in certain way these principles. But what I want to go deeper here and let a little bit of time for the Q&A session is essentially our contribution right now is the framework as a tool for reflecting by the platform which role, the principles that I already shared with you, and how are we putting this in practice is with the MINCA governance models, the MINCA citizen observatory and through standards, protocols and data sharing agreement that we are implementing within the platform. The first is the MINCA governance models, that is, I will share with you, is one of the most challenging, I have heard during these two days the multi-stakeholder model for governance is the most important one, but in fact implementing this even in a citizen science platform has been extremely challenging for us, I will share that with you. The consent commons, the data citation and the data sharing agreements. So related to our governance model, we are a group of 15 people managing this citizen science technology that in practical terms is a web and an app and all these people behind working on principles, curation of data, ethics, communication, policy, but this is just a small group putting in practice something bigger, that is the communities that are really important for us. We call this like a four type of community. We call it participatory community, that is essentially the public and the people out there generating data and validating that. The academic community, usually we have alliances with researchers and other kind of universities to really engage on validation and exchange of knowledge with the participant. We call, sorry, mobilizing community. The mobilizing community are usually the local NGOs that we need on the ground to really engage people. We are not like as a platform going there to the people, use the platform. Usually we provide or we invite the people that is on the ground, social organizations, conservationists to engage, this is what we call mobilizing. And facilitated community is what we call governments and other kind of actors that are necessary to do any kind of transformation in the territory or even have the access to collect some data. Then for our governance model, all of these actors are necessary to sit and to try to consulate to take over decision of the platform and reflect their needs and their expectation in terms of settings, functionalities, protocols, and process. This is our expectation, in fact, it’s extremely challenging, it’s extremely challenging. We create this that is nice, always like kind of drawing to say, okay, we are going to have a panel by the different actors, we are going to have notes by regional areas, we will have an executive board, we will have a coordination team. There are many lessons learned behind this because it’s, in truth, saying that this is functional is very ambitious, it’s not. It’s very complicated to see all these actors and trying to do these demands. But what we are doing, trying to implement step by step. One implementation that we have done is something called consent commons, for instance. One is how to make transparent the agreements or the terms of use behind the platform. Most of us, we know that every time that we go to a new platform and you say, do you serve the terms of use? How many of you are reading the terms of use? We don’t have time. This is going to be our life. This is an initiative like creative commons that through an icon try to communicate very easy to the participant who is managing to the data, if there is transfer to the personal data for other purposes beyond the platform. I know it’s pretty ambitious right now, but we implemented with the expectation that in the future could work, that many people would easily recognize these icons and instead of reading a terms of use of 15 pages, is going to understand that this implies, for instance, that one important for us is there is no transfer of data outside of the platform, personal data. It’s important for us to communicate. We have this icon saying to the user, but it’s part of our commitment, but it’s still ongoing. Also, we are working on the recognition of the data produced by the users. And one of these is we create citation guidelines. We are working in a process where the people receive a notification of who is using their data. It means if you produce a data, then if someone was using for a research article, for a policy, or for any other purpose, you receive daily in your email a notification of who owned and where purchased. We are working on that, and it’s part of the benefit of taking back to the user. And maybe one last but a little bit, I can say, polemic in some point of view is the idea of the data as a commons. Citizen science data rely a lot on the validation of the data by the community. Even if you produce a photo of right now a plant that you don’t know, you log to the platform, there are many people there saying, this is what you are seeing is this. Then we started to have the conversation. Now the photo that you didn’t know what it is and has been identified by people with knowledge on that is only your photo, and now that have added value is by the community and not just only you. That’s why we create that data sharing agreement, and it’s part that we are saying to our community, we respect your rights, but once the data is in our platform and it’s validated, it’s started to think of data as a commons. And this has many implications, but also we think it’s part of the discussion nowadays about this digital safe data and what is a data as a commons. What tensions are we facing? Many human procedural technology. I have been talking about that throughout my days, and I want to keep with my two minutes for the questions, sorry because I was taking longer. And actions that we are invited to take is last platforms. We need to communicate clearly our governance models and principles. People need to understand and decision makers and funders need to ask for that by the platforms. And it’s necessary to engage and keep growing in this field to really, because citizen science, and even if it’s bringing a lot of data for many, we are not really working, there is not a lot of development in terms of governance and principles. Thank you so much.

Karen Soacha

Speech speed

166 words per minute

Speech length

Data governance | Digital business models

Continued development in governance and principles is necessary for the citizen science field

Explanation

Karen concludes that the citizen science field needs ongoing development in governance and principles. Despite the valuable data contributions from citizen science, she argues there hasn’t been sufficient development in governance frameworks and ethical principles.

Evidence

She states that ‘citizen science, and even if it’s bringing a lot of data for many, we are not really working, there is not a lot of development in terms of governance and principles.’

Major discussion point

Future Actions and Recommendations

Topics

Data governance | Capacity development

Agreements

Agreement points

Similar viewpoints

Unexpected consensus

Overall assessment

Summary

This transcript contains a presentation by a single speaker (Karen Soacha) discussing governance in citizen science technology. There are no multiple speakers present to form agreements or consensus points.

Consensus level

Not applicable – single speaker presentation format with no multi-party discussion or debate to assess consensus levels.

Differences

Different viewpoints

Unexpected differences

Overall assessment

Summary

This transcript represents a single-speaker presentation by Karen Soacha about governance in citizen science technology. There are no disagreements present as this is not a multi-speaker discussion or debate. Karen presents her research findings and recommendations without opposition or alternative viewpoints from other speakers.

Disagreement level

No disagreement level applicable – this is a monologue presentation rather than a discussion with multiple perspectives. The speaker does acknowledge internal tensions and challenges within her own work (such as the difficulty of implementing multi-stakeholder governance models), but these represent practical implementation challenges rather than disagreements between different speakers or stakeholders.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Takeaways

Key takeaways

Governance of citizen science technologies must be transparent and responsive to their participatory nature

Citizen science platforms have agency and influence beyond being mere tools – they affect thousands of projects and hold significant amounts of data

Platforms negotiate data relationships through three key areas: ownership, sharing, and accountability

Multi-stakeholder governance models are theoretically important but extremely challenging to implement in practice

Data validated by community knowledge should be considered as commons rather than individual property

There are over 300 citizen science platforms in Europe alone, with some like iNaturalist holding over 253 million data points

The field of citizen science governance and principles is still in early development stages

Resolutions and action items

Platforms need to communicate their governance models and principles clearly to users and stakeholders

Decision makers and funders should require transparency in governance from citizen science platforms

Continued development and research in governance and principles is necessary for the citizen science field

Step-by-step implementation of governance models rather than attempting full transformation at once

Implementation of consent commons, data citation guidelines, and data sharing agreements as practical governance tools

Unresolved issues

How to effectively implement multi-stakeholder governance models in practice remains extremely challenging

The tension between individual data ownership rights and community-validated data as commons needs further resolution

How to ensure users actually understand simplified terms of use icons and consent mechanisms

How to balance platform agency with user rights and community needs

The broader question of digital data ownership and what constitutes data as commons in citizen science contexts

Suggested compromises

Using simplified icons (similar to Creative Commons) to communicate terms of use instead of lengthy legal documents

Implementing gradual, step-by-step governance changes rather than attempting comprehensive transformation

This moment of honest vulnerability about implementation challenges is particularly insightful because it acknowledges the gap between idealistic governance models and practical reality. Rather than presenting a success story, Soacha admits the difficulties, which adds credibility and realism to the discussion.

Impact

This admission shifts the tone from prescriptive to exploratory, acknowledging that multi-stakeholder governance in citizen science platforms remains an ongoing challenge rather than a solved problem. It invites further research and collaboration rather than presenting final solutions.

Overall assessment

Explanation

Karen mentioned this is ‘a topic that still is not very well known within our citizen science community’ and represents ongoing research into platform positionality

Disclaimer: This is not an official session record. DiploAI generates these resources from audiovisual recordings, and they are presented as-is, including potential errors. Due to logistical challenges, such as discrepancies in audio/video or transcripts, names may be misspelled. We strive for accuracy to the best of our ability.

IGF Parliamentary Track Welcome and Introduction

WS #144 Bridging the Digital Divide Language Inclusion As a Pillar

Session at a glance

Summary

This discussion focused on bridging the digital divide through language inclusion as a fundamental pillar of digital rights and internet governance. The panel, moderated by Ram Mohan and featuring experts from organizations like ICANN, Unicode Consortium, and various domain registries, explored how linguistic diversity remains an overlooked barrier to digital inclusion despite global efforts to expand internet access. With over 7,000 languages spoken worldwide, the dominance of a few major languages online prevents billions of users from fully participating in digital spaces.

Panelists highlighted numerous challenges, including limited multilingual content availability, poor machine translations, cultural irrelevance in literal translations, and bias in AI systems toward dominant languages. They emphasized that these barriers create a vicious cycle where younger generations lose fluency in ancestral languages, further weakening the user base for language inclusivity efforts. The discussion revealed that while technical solutions like Unicode character encoding and internationalized domain names exist, the primary obstacles are awareness, implementation, and adoption rather than technological limitations.

A central theme emerged around the need for a fundamental paradigm shift from “English first” to “multilingual by design” approaches. Speakers stressed that language accessibility should be treated as a core component of digital infrastructure rather than an afterthought or localization add-on. They advocated for universal acceptance by design, where technology serves languages rather than forcing languages to adapt to technology.

The panel discussed various practical solutions, including government incentives, educational initiatives, procurement requirements that prioritize multilingual support, and public-private partnerships. They highlighted successful examples like hackathons teaching students to build bilingual websites and community grants supporting indigenous language preservation. The discussion concluded with calls for stronger multi-stakeholder collaboration through initiatives like the Coalition on Digital Impact (CODI) to coordinate efforts and accelerate progress toward a truly multilingual internet that ensures meaningful connectivity for all users.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Language barriers as a fundamental obstacle to digital inclusion**: Despite global efforts to expand internet access, linguistic diversity remains an overlooked barrier, with over 7,000 languages worldwide but only a few dominant languages represented online, preventing billions from fully participating in digital spaces.

– **The need for a paradigm shift from “English-first” to “multilingual-by-design”**: Panelists emphasized moving away from treating multilingual support as an afterthought or localization add-on, instead making it a foundational element of digital infrastructure from the beginning of development processes.

– **Technical solutions and standards already exist but lack widespread implementation**: The underlying technology for multilingual internet experiences (Unicode, internationalized domain names, universal acceptance) has been largely developed, but the challenge lies in awareness, adoption, and overcoming inertia in existing systems.

– **Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for progress**: Success requires coordinated efforts across governments (through policy and incentives), private sector (through inclusive design practices), civil society organizations, educational institutions, and language communities themselves.

– **Cultural preservation and economic opportunities**: Multilingual internet access is crucial not only for preserving endangered languages and cultural heritage but also for enabling meaningful economic participation and safer online experiences for non-English speaking populations.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how language accessibility can be integrated into internet governance and digital rights frameworks, examining both the challenges preventing linguistic inclusion online and practical solutions for creating universal access and acceptance across all languages.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently collaborative and solution-oriented tone throughout. While panelists acknowledged significant challenges and barriers, the conversation remained optimistic and forward-looking, with participants sharing concrete examples of successful initiatives and practical next steps. The tone was professional yet passionate, reflecting the speakers’ deep commitment to digital inclusion. The discussion concluded on an encouraging note with calls to action and invitations for broader participation in addressing these challenges collectively.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Ram Mohan** – Chief Strategy Officer of Identity Digital (domain name registry company), Chair of the Coalition on Digital Impact (CODI)

– **Christian Daswon** – Executive Director of the Internet Infrastructure Coalition, Co-founder and co-facilitator of CODI, Online moderator for the session

– **Theresa Swinehart** – ICANN representative, oversees policy implementation, DNS abuse programs, Universal Acceptance and internationalized domain names work

– **Toral Cowieson** – CEO of the Unicode Consortium (nonprofit, open source, open standards body focused on ensuring communication in all languages on all devices)

– **Jennifer Chung** – Vice President of Policy for DotAsia Organization (DotAsia top-level domain registry operator)

– **Sophie Mitchell** – Chief Communications Officer at DOTAU (Registry Operator for Australia)

– **Manal Ismail** – National Telecom and Regulatory Authority of Egypt, European Sector member working on internationalized domain names and universal acceptance

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members who asked questions during the session

**Additional speakers:**

– **Mohammed Abdul Haq Onu** – Secretary General of Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum

– **Gabriel** – Audience member who asked about website implementation challenges

– **Elisabeth Carrera** – Wikimedia Norway representative

– **Roberto Gaetano** – Individual user representative who commented on multilingualism improvements

Full session report

# Comprehensive Discussion Report: Bridging the Digital Divide Through Language Inclusion

## Executive Summary

This comprehensive discussion examined language inclusion as a fundamental pillar of digital rights and internet governance, bringing together experts from organizations including ICANN, Unicode Consortium, and various domain registries. The panel, moderated by Ram Mohan (Chief Strategy Officer of Identity Digital and Chair of the Coalition on Digital Impact) and Christian Daswon (Executive Director of the Internet Infrastructure Coalition), explored how linguistic diversity remains a critical yet overlooked barrier to meaningful digital participation despite global efforts to expand internet access.

Ram Mohan opened by highlighting that while over 7,000 languages are spoken worldwide, only a handful dominate online spaces, preventing billions of users from fully participating in digital environments. Panelists emphasized that this creates not merely inconvenience but genuine safety risks, economic exclusion, and cultural erosion. The conversation maintained a consistently collaborative and solution-oriented tone throughout, with participants sharing concrete examples of successful initiatives while acknowledging significant systemic challenges that require coordinated multi-stakeholder responses.

## Key Participants and Their Perspectives

The discussion featured diverse expertise across technical standards, policy implementation, and regional perspectives. **Theresa Swinehart** from ICANN provided insights into policy implementation and DNS abuse programs, emphasizing that no single organization can solve multilingual internet challenges alone. **Toral Cowieson**, CEO of the Unicode Consortium, offered technical perspectives on character encoding while acknowledging limitations in supporting oral-only languages. **Jennifer Chung** from DotAsia Organisation consistently advocated for paradigm shifts from “English first” to “multilingual first” thinking, while **Sophie Mitchell** from DOTAU shared Australia’s experiences with Indigenous language preservation. **Manal Ismail** from Egypt’s National Telecom Regulatory Authority contributed policy and regulatory perspectives, particularly around government incentives and procurement approaches.

Audience participation enriched the discussion significantly, with **Mohammed Abdul Haq Onu** from Bangladesh highlighting Universal Acceptance challenges despite 250 million Bangla speakers and three years of Universal Acceptance Day events at the Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum focusing on Bangla language. **Elisabeth Carrera** from Wikimedia Norway shared optimistic news about AI systems learning minority languages, noting that Northern Sami Wikipedia sees “88% bot/AI traffic vs 12% human traffic, with AI desperately trying to learn the language.” **Roberto Gaetano** provided a particularly thought-provoking critique of the community’s own practices, using an Animal Farm metaphor to highlight how even multilingual advocates often default to English-dominant behaviors.

## Fundamental Barriers to Digital Linguistic Inclusion

### The Scale of Exclusion

The discussion established that linguistic barriers represent a massive yet underappreciated form of digital exclusion. This exclusion extends beyond basic access to what Sophie Mitchell termed “meaningful connectivity” – the ability to use the internet for essential services like healthcare, education, and government services rather than merely basic functions like social media.

Jennifer Chung introduced a critical safety dimension through a personal example about her elderly father and healthcare appointments, explaining that language barriers create cybersecurity vulnerabilities as people cannot identify suspicious content or phishing attempts in unfamiliar languages. This reframing elevated the discussion from convenience to safety, demonstrating how linguistic exclusion creates tangible harm.

### Technical Infrastructure Challenges

Toral Cowieson provided crucial insights into the invisible infrastructure of digital privilege, explaining that “for those of us in majority languages there are many things that we can take for granted. So for example, can I exchange currency, date and time format, time zone adjustments, usage of numerical symbols or decimals and commas separators used appropriately.” This comment grounded the discussion in concrete, granular examples of digital exclusion that most people never consider.

The technical challenges extend beyond basic character encoding. Theresa Swinehart highlighted Universal Acceptance issues that prevent proper functionality of internationalized domain names across applications and systems. She provided a simplified definition: “the resolvability of one’s experience with one’s address or with one’s website or with one’s domain name and for that to interface through the different applications.”

An audience member (Gabriel) raised practical implementation barriers, noting that font rendering and screen reader accessibility remain obstacles for website creators wanting to implement their native languages, even when they have the motivation to do so. Toral mentioned the issue of “Tofus” – little squares that appear when characters don’t render properly – illustrating ongoing technical challenges.

### Cultural and Generational Impact

The discussion revealed how digital linguistic exclusion creates vicious cycles of cultural erosion. Jennifer Chung presented a stark statistic: “90% of the world’s languages might become extinct at the end of this century. That’s like, that is a big loss, not in terms of how we communicate, but really, it’s human culture.” This reframed the entire discussion from a technical accessibility issue to a cultural preservation crisis.

Sophie Mitchell provided specific context from Australia, where the population includes 8.5 million people born overseas out of 28 million total, and “about half of its 250 Indigenous language groups” have been lost due to colonization, with many remaining languages endangered and originally oral rather than written. Manal Ismail explained how limited multilingual content availability and poor machine translations create cycles where younger generations lose fluency in ancestral languages, further weakening the user base for language inclusivity efforts.

## The Paradigm Shift: From English-First to Multilingual-by-Design

Jennifer Chung introduced what became the central theme of the discussion: “The one thing that will accelerate it the most is actually a paradigm shift to thinking about looking at it as multilingual first as opposed to English first. To look at it by, you know, multilingual by design, universal acceptance, UA by design.” This concept was immediately adopted and referenced by multiple other panelists throughout the remainder of the discussion.

Manal Ismail provided an equally powerful articulation of the required change: “So instead of making languages change technology, we need to start making technology serve languages.” This phrase captured the power dynamic at the heart of the digital divide, showing how current systems force linguistic communities to adapt to technology rather than technology adapting to serve diverse communities.

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus that language inclusion must be treated as foundational digital infrastructure rather than an afterthought. This represents a fundamental shift from treating multilingual support as a localization add-on to making it a core design principle from the beginning.

## Technical Solutions and Implementation Challenges

### Existing Infrastructure and Capabilities

The discussion revealed that many technical foundations for multilingual internet experiences already exist but suffer from implementation and adoption challenges. Toral Cowieson explained that Unicode encoding has addressed core technical limitations, but challenges remain in engaging language communities and ensuring full user experience. He provided a specific example of how the spaceship emoji renders differently in various tools, noting that Canva works correctly because “Unicode was in its technical stack.”

Theresa Swinehart outlined ICANN’s support for internationalized domain names and Universal Acceptance through technical standards, education programs, and partnerships with universities. She highlighted a successful hackathon in Bahrain with 60 students creating bilingual Arabic-English websites. However, she emphasized that the primary obstacles are awareness, implementation, and adoption rather than technological limitations.

### Gaps in Current Approaches

Despite technical progress, significant gaps remain in supporting the full spectrum of linguistic diversity. Toral Cowieson acknowledged that the Unicode Consortium focuses on written languages, stating: “that is not something that the Unicode Consortium is addressing at this point because of the work still to be done with the written scripts.” This creates a fundamental limitation for many Indigenous and minority languages that were traditionally oral.

Elisabeth Carrera from Wikimedia Norway highlighted the need for quality text and data to be available under open licenses, noting that AI systems need access to quality multilingual data, but much existing content in minority languages isn’t available under open licenses for training purposes. Christian Daswon referenced the Creative Commons CC Signals program as addressing some LLM scraping concerns.

## Policy and Governance Approaches

### Government Incentives and Regulatory Frameworks

The speakers demonstrated strong agreement on the potential for government policy to drive multilingual adoption, though they emphasized different mechanisms. Manal Ismail advocated for comprehensive regulatory approaches, suggesting that governments should integrate multilingual support into digital accessibility laws, procurement requirements, and national digital transformation strategies. She proposed both incentive-based approaches like tax breaks and grants, and regulatory mandates making language support prerequisites for government contracts.

Jennifer Chung focused on de-incentivizing non-compliance through procurement processes and requiring Universal Acceptance readiness reporting in tenders. This approach uses market mechanisms rather than direct regulation to encourage adoption. Theresa Swinehart preferred soft enforcement mechanisms including education system requirements, government agency leadership by example, and procurement policy preferences.

### Leading by Example

A recurring theme was the importance of government agencies and educational institutions demonstrating multilingual technologies in their own operations. Theresa Swinehart emphasized that leading by example through government agencies using multilingual technologies creates both awareness and market demand. This approach avoids regulatory mandates while creating practical demonstrations of feasibility and benefits.

The discussion also highlighted the role of educational integration through university modules, hackathons, and curriculum development to create awareness among the next generation. This educational approach addresses both technical capacity building and cultural change needed to support multilingual internet development.

## Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration and Coordination

### The Essential Role of Partnership

There was unanimous agreement among speakers that the complexity of creating a multilingual internet requires coordinated efforts across multiple stakeholder groups. Theresa Swinehart stated definitively that “no single organization can solve multilingual internet challenges alone; success requires coordinated multi-stakeholder approach.” Toral Cowieson reinforced this by noting “we can only be successful together.”

Christian Daswon introduced the Coalition on Digital Impact (CODI) as a coordinating mechanism, explaining that it “aims to bring together diverse stakeholders and coordinate existing efforts rather than duplicate work.” This approach recognizes that numerous organizations are already working on various aspects of multilingual internet development, but coordination and communication need improvement.

### Clarifying Roles and Responsibilities

Toral Cowieson highlighted that strengthening existing cross-stakeholder work requires clarity on roles and responsibilities, better communication, and accountability measures. The discussion revealed that while many organizations have relevant expertise and programs, language communities often lack clear pathways to engage and contribute to solutions.

The speakers agreed on working simultaneously on supply and demand sides – creating user awareness while building technical capabilities. This dual approach recognizes that lack of demand reduces supply incentives and vice versa, requiring coordinated efforts to break the cycle.

## Economic and Social Benefits

### Business Case for Multilingual Internet

The discussion revealed strong consensus on the business case for multilingual internet access. Theresa Swinehart explained that multilingual internet access creates economic opportunities by connecting businesses with previously unreachable consumer populations. Sophie Mitchell noted that capacity building and digital skills training in native languages increases economic participation and civic engagement.

However, Christian Daswon identified a critical gap in available data, asking “How can we gather data that shows if people build tools for language inclusion at the last mile, recipients will use the Internet more?” He explained that while the benefits seem obvious, hard data is needed to convince businesses to commit time and resources to language inclusion tools.

### Social and Cultural Value

Beyond economic benefits, speakers emphasized the social value of multilingual internet access. Sophie Mitchell highlighted how digital inclusion enables access to essential services like healthcare, education, and government services in users’ native languages. Jennifer Chung positioned language preservation as maintaining cultural identity and human heritage while enabling meaningful digital participation.

The discussion also revealed how multilingual internet access contributes to civic engagement and democratic participation. When people can access government services, educational resources, and civic information in their native languages, they become more engaged citizens and participants in democratic processes.

## Artificial Intelligence: Opportunity and Opportunity

### AI’s Positive Potential

Elisabeth Carrera from Wikimedia Norway provided optimistic news about AI’s role in minority language development, saying “I just thought I’d add a little bit of optimism” before sharing that Northern Sami Wikipedia sees significant AI traffic with systems “desperately trying to learn Northern Sami.” She framed this as hopeful: “So I think there’s hope.”

Sophie Mitchell explored the potential of AI translation technology, asking thoughtful questions about “whether technology will help solve it” while acknowledging both opportunities and challenges in AI-assisted multilingual internet development.

### Data Inequality Concerns

Christian Daswon framed AI challenges in terms of data inequality, noting that “in the era of advancing AI, when people are using the internet directly with LLMs. There are these data-rich languages and many, many, many data-poor languages.” This creates new forms of digital divide where AI systems amplify advantages for languages with abundant training data while marginalizing those without.

The discussion highlighted the need for quality text and data to be available under open licenses for AI training, but also recognized language communities’ concerns about giving up ownership rights. This tension between open data needs and community control represents an ongoing challenge requiring careful balance.

## Practical Implementation Strategies

### Individual and Organizational Actions

The discussion concluded with concrete action items for participants. Theresa Swinehart suggested that individuals can contribute through personal networks and professional connections to raise awareness and create opportunities. Each participant was encouraged to contact two people in their networks to raise awareness about multilingual internet opportunities.

Organizations were encouraged to integrate language awareness into existing educational curricula and professional programs rather than creating entirely new initiatives. This approach builds on existing infrastructure while expanding scope to include linguistic inclusion considerations.

### Systemic Changes Required

Beyond individual actions, speakers identified systemic changes needed across multiple sectors. Government agencies and organizations were urged to lead by example by implementing multilingual technologies in their own operations. Stakeholders were encouraged to treat language inclusion as a requirement in procurement processes and tender evaluations.

The discussion emphasized working with existing successful initiatives rather than starting new competing programs. Toral Cowieson noted the importance of “connecting existing successful initiatives rather than starting new programs, and making it easier for language communities to participate.”

## Unresolved Challenges and Future Directions

### Technical and Implementation Gaps

Several significant challenges remain unresolved. The question of how to effectively support oral-only languages that lack written representation in digital systems represents a fundamental gap that current technical approaches cannot address. Font rendering and accessibility tool limitations continue to prevent website creators from implementing native languages, even when they have the motivation to do so.

### Data and Evidence Needs

Christian Daswon identified critical data gaps that prevent effective business cases for multilingual internet investment. He emphasized the need to gather evidence showing that language inclusion tools increase internet usage. Without this evidence, convincing businesses to invest in language inclusion tools remains challenging.

The discussion also revealed the need for better data collection from last-mile connectivity providers to understand what tools and support they need for language inclusion. This direct feedback from practitioners could inform more effective solution development.

### Cultural and Behavioral Change

Roberto Gaetano provided perhaps the most challenging critique, using an Animal Farm metaphor to highlight how even multilingual advocates often default to English-dominant behaviors: “We behave in a way that I would call the syndrome of animal farm, in the sense that we all say, okay, all languages are equal, but then in practice we behave as if we have one language that is more equal than the others.” He noted this in the context of interpretation services and panel behavior.

This comment challenged the audience to examine their own practices, not just advocate for policy changes, highlighting the need for cultural change within the very communities promoting linguistic inclusion.

## Conclusions and Path Forward

The discussion demonstrated remarkable consensus among diverse stakeholders on both the urgency of addressing linguistic barriers to digital inclusion and the fundamental approaches needed. Jennifer Chung concluded by emphasizing: “It’s absolutely a language justice movement. And again, repeating multilingual first and UA by design.”

The Coalition on Digital Impact (CODI) emerged as a concrete mechanism for ongoing coordination, with Christian Daswon inviting continued engagement through CODI postcards and the call to action. The commitment to survey last-mile connectivity providers and gather evidence of language inclusion benefits represents practical next steps toward building stronger business cases for investment.

However, Ram Mohan raised a closing concern about AI potentially leading to “one language to rule them all,” highlighting ongoing challenges in the AI era. The discussion revealed the depth of systemic change required, moving from “English first” to “multilingual by design” thinking requires not just technical solutions but fundamental shifts in how digital systems are conceived, developed, and implemented.

The path forward requires sustained multi-stakeholder collaboration, with clear roles and responsibilities, adequate funding for both technical development and community engagement, and ongoing commitment to treating language inclusion as foundational digital infrastructure rather than optional enhancement. The discussion provided both the conceptual framework and practical starting points for this essential work, while acknowledging the significant challenges that remain in creating a truly multilingual internet that serves all of humanity’s linguistic diversity. The reference to UNESCO’s International Decade of Indigenous Languages provides additional context for the urgency of this work.

Session transcript

Ram Mohan: Good morning and good day. My name is Ram Mohan and welcome to the session Bridging the Digital Divide, Language Inclusion as a Pillar. Despite global efforts to expand Internet access, linguistic diversity remains an overlooked barrier to digital inclusion. With over 7,000 languages spoken worldwide, the dominance of a few major languages that are online prevents billions of users from fully participating in digital spaces. Today’s workshop will explore how language accessibility can be integrated into Internet governance as well as digital rights frameworks and what connectivity strategies can ensure universal access and universal acceptance. What we have here is a panel of experts and leaders who’ve been working in the multilingual domain name and multilingual space and we will have both a bit of a policy discussion as well as a conversation about actual use cases that demonstrate both the need as well as the ability to solve. for the actual problems of digital inclusion. So let me begin first with some introductions. Let me start with myself. My name is Ram Mohan. I am the Chief Strategy Officer of Identity Digital, but which is a domain name registry company. But I’m here in addition to that as the chair of an exciting and newly formed group, the Coalition on Digital Impact or CODI in short. And we’re really pleased to be here and we invite you to become a part of CODI by going to codi.global. Let me turn to my online moderator, Christian, ask him to introduce himself and then carry on from there.

Christian Daswon: Happy to do so. I am the online moderator for today. My name is Christian Dawson. I’m Executive Director of the Internet Infrastructure Coalition. We’re a tech trade association. We have been working for over a decade on issues involving universal acceptance. And I’m proud to be a co-founder and co-facilitator of the CODI effort that we’ll talk a little bit about today.

Ram Mohan: Theresa.

Theresa Swinehart: Yes. Ah, ah. There we go. This is a press the button one. Okay, fantastic. Let me try that again. Theresa Swinehart, I’m with ICANN. I oversee our work with regards to policy implementation and various other aspects on DNS abuse and some of the programs that we have that are across collaboration with the community and the board as well. In one area in particular here is our work on not only the next round of top level domains which will afford opportunities. but also Universal Acceptance and our work around internationalized domain names. So very excited to be here and to look forward to the discussion.

Ram Mohan: Thank you. Thank you so much. Let me turn to you, Toral.

Toral Cowieson: Great. Good morning. Good afternoon. Good evening, everyone. Thank you, Ram and Cody, for this invitation. I’m Toral Cowieson. I’m the CEO of the Unicode Consortium. Unicode is a nonprofit, open source, open standards body whose mission is to ensure that everyone can communicate on all devices in their own languages. Digital inclusion starts with Unicode, starts with the work of Unicode, which includes character encoding.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Ram and Cody, for the invitation. My name is Jennifer Chung. I’m Vice President of Policy for DotAsia Organization. We are the DotAsia top-level domain registry operator. In terms of internationalized domain names, we have done quite a lot of work and, of course, we support Universal Acceptance and looking forward to the discussion. Back to you, Ram.

Ram Mohan: Thank you so much. Sophie, let me come to you.

Sophie Mitchell: Thanks very much, Ram. Hi, everyone. I’m really pleased to join you from here in Australia. I’m Sophie Mitchell. I’m the Chief Communications Officer at the DOTAU, so the Registry Operator for Australia. And yeah, OUTER is really committed to enhancing digital inclusion and improving the utility of the internet or the DOTAU for the benefit of all Australians. We do quite a bit of work in this space through our public benefit and grants program, which we may touch on in the course of this evening. So, thanks, Ram. Back to you.

Ram Mohan: Thank you so much. And Manal.

Manal Ismail: Thank you, Ram. Hello, everyone. My name is Manal Ismail. I’m with the National Telecom and Regulatory Authority of Egypt and I’ve been a member of the European Sector for some 5 years. working on introduction of internationalized domain names and universal acceptance efforts and now progressing multilingual internet experiences for quite a number of years now and I look forward to our discussion today. Thank you Ram, back to you.

Ram Mohan: Thank you Manal, so we are looking to have a discussion here in a couple of parts but the first part I thought that might be useful to illustrate the nature of the issues that are facing us and the kinds of not just challenges but also some potential solutions that might be there. We thought it might be instructive to ask folks who are actually doing the work of inclusion and to have them share what they are finding from the ground. So Toral, shall I turn to you and ask you for what you’re seeing in your role and in your organization’s role in this area.

Toral Cowieson: Certainly, thank you so much. So when we’re looking at digital inclusion, for those of us in majority languages there are many things that we can take for granted. So for example, can I exchange currency, date and time format, time zone adjustments, usage of numerical symbols or decimals and commas separators used appropriately. If I am using an application, does the country name appear appropriately. And so those are things that we take for granted but that’s not necessarily the case for those in digitally disadvantaged language communities. And I think that’s where the bulk of the work has to be done, Ram, when you mentioned the 7,000 languages. The majority of languages, the characters of those languages are encoded, but it’s all of those other things that we take for granted. Can I search on my emoji in the language that I use? So there’s still a lot to do, and I think even with IDNs, we know that from a content perspective, that full representation and that full user interface is not there.

Ram Mohan: Thank you, Toral. Jen, what do you see?

Jennifer Chung: I guess in terms of multilingual internet, I think that is really the foreground and the background and all through the entire thread of what we’re looking at. I’m going to take a half step back, because when you look online and you’re searching online, if your language is not English, is not your native language, you’re not really searching in that language. I will take out my phone, I’ll be searching in Chinese, I’ll be speaking in Cantonese to my phone as well. So that’s the first thing. And of course, the content also still, right, online, almost 50% of that content is still in English. And of course, even though English is most widely spoken language, in terms of population, in terms of breadth, it is not the native language or first language or even second or third languages for a lot of people who use the internet and those who, of course, are yet to come online. I think it’s really important to remember the other part of the need to actually think about why we need this multilingual internet is if we don’t have this, exactly what you said, all these languages will go away. I think there was a statistic somewhere that said, you know, 90% of the world’s languages might become extinct at the end of this century. That’s like, that is a big loss, not in terms of how we communicate, but really, it’s human culture. So just kind of just putting this out there as a first kind of demonstrating the need and something that we really do need to start looking at and doing something about.

Ram Mohan: Thank you, Jen. Sophie, what has your experience been in the regions that you and your organization have been involved in?

Sophie Mitchell: Thanks, Ram. So, yeah, just taking it back to here in Australia, I think Australia is one of the greatest countries in the world. I, of course, would say that. But we have about 30% of our population are actually born overseas. So they don’t just come from parents who were born overseas, they are themselves born overseas. That’s in a population of 28 million, it’s about 8.5 million people or thereabouts that are born overseas. Some of those come with English language skills, but many, of course, do not. So that’s our migrant population. But, of course, Australia was a colonised country. So first Australians who’ve been living here for many thousands of years actually have 250 language groups, or indeed they did when the British arrived and settled Australia. Unfortunately, through the process of colonisation over the last 200 plus years, that we’ve lost about half of those Indigenous language groups and many of those are endangered today. So certainly echo what Jen was saying, and that is an issue here in Australia is capturing those endangered languages. Because, of course, the other problem we have in capturing them is that they weren’t written languages, they were oral languages and told through a culture of storytelling. And, of course, that culture was impacted adversely by colonisation because Indigenous families were, children were separated from their families and moved on to reservations, as has occurred in many colonial countries. And so a lot of that knowledge was lost. So really, we’re starting from a step back in trying to find those languages, preserve those languages. And then, of course, then we can address some of the digital inequities that we see with Indigenous communities. And I’m sure we’ll go on to talk about those this evening. Thanks, Ram. .

Ram Mohan: Thank you, Sophie. So, as you heard from, you know, Jen, what you’re saying, as well as what you just shared with us, Sophie, the challenges are not just in representing languages, but in some cases, representing languages that have no written representation. Toral, how does that work, you know, from the perspective of the Unicode Consortium?

Toral Cowieson: That’s certainly a very real issue, and in fact, Unicode’s work is really around written languages, so that is not something that the Unicode Consortium is addressing at this point because of the work still to be done with the written scripts. So, I’m curious to hear how others are addressing that, but that’s just the reality of Unicode’s mission.

Ram Mohan: Manal, what is your perspective on other challenges that may exist when it comes to, you know, getting the internet to be more multilingual?

Manal Ismail: Thank you, Ram, and from a government perspective, of course, truly multilingual internet is crucial for digital inclusion. It’s essential for the continued growing of online population and necessary to have the next billion users connect meaningfully to the internet. As already mentioned, we have already one-third of the world’s population still offline, and it was quite alarming to read in the Fact of the Future that progress on most of the SDGs is either moving too slowly or has regressed below the 2015 baseline. So, I think we need to think about the reasons and how to make sure technology is really serving humanity in that respect. And while digital inclusion really promises global information access, language remains a fundamental axis of inequality and a barrier that’s commonly overlooked. It hinders equitable, meaningful digital participation. It restricts individuals’ access to critical services, limits economic opportunities, and as already Jen mentioned, it erodes cultural identity. And we have a long list of challenges here. The limited availability of online multilingual content, poor quality or absence of machine translations, cultural irrelevance resulting from literal translations without really cultural localization. As you already mentioned, some platforms and softwares prioritize a small subset of global dominant languages. And this also touches on the bias in AI and natural language processing. High cost of building robust digital tools, making it economically unfeasible. Sometimes really deprioritizing language accessibility in favor of faster and broader market scalability. And even when it comes to trainings, they are often delivered in dominant languages resulting in digital literacy gaps. And all this unfortunately results in a vicious cycle with younger generations not being fluent in ancestral languages, thus weakening even more the user base for potential language inclusivity. I’ll leave it at this. Back to you, Ram. Thank you.

Ram Mohan: Manal, that is powerful what you just said. And you listed not just the some of the challenges, but also some of the consequences of not addressing these challenges. Theresa, what are your points of view on the policy gaps, as well as some of the technical challenges that we’re seeing? And what is your organization doing to help bridge those? And I’d also be interested to hear your views on what you think are the remaining inequities even after the work that is being done.

Theresa Swinehart: Those are a lot of questions. We have a couple hours, right? So there’s a couple factors, and I think what I’m really quite struck by in these conversations is the internet itself. And within our context of what ICANN does, the addressing space is an incredibly powerful medium. And its goal is to be unfragmented and enable more people to come online. And yet at the same time, we are seeing a saddening erosion of use of languages around that. And so from that, I think we need to cross this barrier of, yes, the internet was originally designed in the context of the use of Roman character sets, and that’s just a historical factor. Had it developed in a different part of the world, it would have been different. But how do we now create the right awareness that we can bridge into these areas? And so from ICANN’s perspective, we’re engaged in quite a few different things. One is the work around internationalized domain names. And so from a technical standpoint, enabling the use with language tables and various others. on the technical interface from that standpoint. And there’s a lot of material around that and colleagues working on that. And with that, you know, how does one not only have one’s email or anything of that sort, but also to the right or to the left of the dot, if I can put it that way, in the context of Arabic scripts. So, working with many communities there. And then partnering with many other organizations with regards to awareness of universal acceptance. Now, the term universal acceptance may sound a little bit odd, but what it actually means is the resolvability of one’s experience with one’s address or with one’s website or with one’s domain name and for that to interface through the different applications and enable a communication. Now, that’s a very simplified description of it. And I think the engineers would probably just pull me aside and say that’s, you know, there’s a lot more to this. But the point is that we have a demand for languages. You know, UNESCO is running a decade of indigenous languages and this is quite important for preserving languages, whether they’re written or oral. But we now need to do an awareness that there is a demand and the supply needs to meet the demand. And that disconnect is one that’s fundamentally important. It is feasible to have one’s entire experience online as one would expect offline. But we need to now take that next step to make that feasible. I’ll just do one more thing and then I’ll hand it over. So we have been engaged with many others. We have a partnership, MOU, with UNESCO, with many other organizations and working with them for awareness, but also have a universal acceptance day that is really looking at creating awareness. at local levels about the opportunities that can occur if one works towards this. So we have a lot of work to do, but I’m hopeful. And for oral languages, that is the content that can then be online, and it’s fundamentally important around that. So a few things here and there, and I’m happy to add on later.

Ram Mohan: Thank you. Thank you, Theresa. So, Sophie, I’m just going to come to you and ask, what kinds of incentive-based approaches have you and your organisation thought of as effective ways for the adoption of digital content and services in local languages?

Sophie Mitchell: Thanks, Ram. I think one of the things we’re focused on here, and I think Theresa summed it up really nicely then when she said we need supply to meet demand. And so part of the problem we see here is that Indigenous languages aren’t widely spoken, and we also have a really quite a big skills gap in Australia in our Indigenous population. So that has been mapped. The government’s been doing some work since the early 2020s on the Indigenous digital inclusion, and we do have in Australia an Indigenous digital inclusion index. So this gap is actually mapped, and we’ve just had funding to continue that index over the next three years. So there’s an access gap, so Indigenous access, there’s an ability gap, so that’s that skills gap, and also an affordability gap, because we do see in Australia that our Indigenous population are more likely to live in remote areas and therefore less likely to have access to high-paying jobs in those areas. And so ARDA, as I mentioned earlier, does through its public benefit fund have a community grants program through which it funds a number of initiatives. And the initiatives we’ve really tried to fund over recent years have been about supporting both recording Indigenous languages so that they can be used, and also increasing the skills of Indigenous communities, so their digital skills, so that they can participate in the digital economy, and upskill so that they, you know, may get jobs and I guess also can participate. in civic society and access government services as well, because that’s another area we see gaps. People who lack those digital skills tend to use the internet in a more simplistic way. So often for social connection, so using social media or for telephone calls, but they don’t extend that use for other purposes. So it can be quite exclusionary and they’re things we’re looking to try and improve so we can increase that economic participation and grow Australia’s digital economy. Thanks, Ram.

Ram Mohan: Fantastic. So Jen, Sophie just brought in this concept of meaningful connectivity, right? It’s not enough to simply be connected and stream and use for social media, but make that connectivity more meaningful. What do you see in the Asia Pacific region in terms of meaningful connectivity? Many governments and other folks are spending lots of money connecting populations, but what challenges exist to make connectivity meaningful to get populations to actually achieve agency online?

Jennifer Chung: Thanks, Ram. I’m gonna pick up on the last word. You mentioned agency is absolutely the most important part because after you connect the populations who are previously unconnected or underserved, they might not know how to use technology. They might not know what kind of ways they can search. For example, like I said, they wouldn’t know that they could search on with their native language if all the content they see right now is in a different language that they don’t understand. Capacity building is definitely the key thing here, but then targeted to actually bringing them online to understand what they can do. There could be e-services, there could be education. and the different parts of capacity building must really direct to the populations that are most vulnerable for them to understand. One thing that I really want to point out is multilingual internet is not only about preserving language. In fact, having it in the thinking that multilingual internet actually makes it safer. And you know, for example, I like to take my father, who’s a bit elderly now, if I tell him that he needs to do certain things on this website to make an appointment for his health checkup, he would most likely be like, I won’t want to do this if I can’t read this. I don’t know. I don’t understand. I have to find someone else to explain to me all these different procedures. But if everything is able to be searched, navigated content wise, also in his native language, he will feel a lot better. Another thing I want to point out is, you know, we talk all about, you know, different bad actors online try to spoof these things, but actually understanding the language makes it much easier for perhaps populations who don’t have English as a first language to first understand, oh, this actually looks a little bit strange to me and understand that, you know, I’m fortunate to be able to understand that when, you know, I see some spoof email or something like that, I won’t click on it because that looks strange to me and I can read the English. But for someone who absolutely don’t understand these characters at all, that could be a huge mystery. And I think understanding that having this is actually makes for a safer Internet is something that we need to think about.

Ram Mohan: Thanks Jen. Christian, you’ve been helping work on this area for quite a long while. And you know, recently you helped co-found Kodi. What is happening there to help address some of these challenges?

Christian Daswon: Thanks Ram. I’m really glad that Jen brought up cyber security. I think that’s a very important topic. There are a number of different reasons why focusing on digital inclusion is so important right now, and that is certainly one of them. There are, surfacing all of the reasons why it is important to act on this at the moment, it’s one of the goals of CODI as an initiative. The initiative is focused on attempting to bring together all the different parts of the community that are going to need to collaborate together in order to make a difference, to move this forward. One of the fundamental things that we sort of have to realize is that the underlying technology in many ways has been complete and has been complete for some time. What we’re dealing with is a situation where the awareness is required because we are fighting inertia. And there’s a timeliness now in the era of advancing AI, when people are using the internet directly with LLMs. There are these data-rich languages and many, many, many data-poor languages. And so you get into these situations where we need to advance all of the arguments for people to put the effort in to go ahead and take the technologies that already exist and advance them towards multilingualism. And so we need to bring the arguments about cybersecurity, about the importance of inclusion so that they can be part of the digital economy and grow the economy. But also, as we were saying, because we can’t lose the stories and the histories that exist from these cultures. There are many reasons why we learn history in order to make sure that we don’t repeat it, but also so that we can live harmoniously in societies and not advance towards war and disharmony. and all of these different arguments are the things that we need to bring to bear. So we’ve got a number of initiatives that we’re pulling together with CODI. Some are simple. One of them that we’re advancing at the moment is we’re starting to try to figure out how to gather data that will show that if people build tools for language inclusion at the last mile, it will be more likely that the individuals who are recipients of those tools will use the Internet more. It’s quite obvious that that would be the case, but in order for businesses to go ahead and commit time and resources, quite obvious isn’t good enough. They actually need hard data, and there aren’t really a lot of studies that show these sorts of things. So that’s just one example of some of the many projects that we’re going to be putting together and advancing with CODI, and we’re hoping that you join us.

Ram Mohan: Thanks so much. Manal, in terms of government initiatives to support language accessibility in digital spaces, what has been the experience with your government?

Manal Ismail: Thank you. Thank you very much. When the Internet fails to speak your language, it’s not just inconvenient, it becomes a barrier to health, education, and livelihood. As Sophie hinted, governments have an important and powerful role in encouraging the development and adoption of multilingual digital content in order to foster digital inclusion. This can be a mix of both regulatory approaches but also incentive-based approaches in order to balance enforcement. with support of frameworks and capacity building. Regulatory approaches may include mandating multilingual access for key digital platforms and services, especially in public sectors, expanding digital accessibility laws and regulations to explicitly include language accessibility alongside disabilities, and making multilingual support a prerequisite for public procurement contracts or national projects. As for the incentives, these may also include offering targeted grants and funding for projects that develop digital tools, content or platforms in underrepresented languages, providing tax breaks or reductions or subsidies even to companies that integrate inclusive language practices, and forming public-private partnerships also with technology firms and or universities to build and maintain inclusive digital ecosystems. It would be also good to establish a recognition or some sort of certification program for digital inclusion and digital language inclusion in order to recognize platforms that meet government requirements in that respect. Finally, also investing in capacity building and training programs for developers and translators as needed. So, in a nutshell, in order to ensure that inclusive language support is not an afterthought but a core pillar of national digital transformation strategies, Effective government strategies should integrate regulatory mandates to ensure compliance, incentive schemes to ensure investment and innovation, and collaborative frameworks to ensure sustainability and community participation. Thank you Ram, back to you.

Ram Mohan: Thank you Manal. Toral, what are the fundamental technical limitations or design paradigms that have historically contributed to the Internet’s bias linguistically towards just a few dominant languages?

Toral Cowieson: So I think, you know, the technical limitations have been, at least from a Unicode perspective, have been addressed on our side, but where the challenge is, is really engaging the language communities themselves for the remaining work to be done. And that’s where, you know, when I talked about kind of that full immersed experience, that’s where the limitation is. And, you know, part of it is on the Unicode side is people don’t know that there is work to be done, and how do we effectively equip and empower those communities to be part of the solution to ensure that solution is in place. So that’s really, that’s really the issue. And, you know, our member organizations have tended to be the big tech companies, and originally the priorities were the majority languages. But now they are also realizing that it doesn’t, it serves their better interests as well to make sure these other communities are online. And so we do see organizations like, you know, certainly Google, Meta, Airbnb, where they have access to native speakers. and they’re bringing those individuals into that work for that full experience. So, you know, from a kind of a core technology perspective, it’s just getting language communities.

Ram Mohan: Thank you, Toral. I’m going to turn to now, you know, we’ve spent some time looking at the challenges, identifying some of the barriers that exist. Let’s turn our attention to practical things that we can actually do. So, I’m actually going to turn to each of the folks here on the panel and I’m going to ask you this question. Looking at the landscape of existing efforts, what is one area where you see significant potential for accelerating progress towards a multilingual internet? So, let me ask that and turn to you, Jen, first.

Jennifer Chung: The one thing that will accelerate it the most, I think the one thing that will accelerate it the most is actually a paradigm shift to thinking about looking at it as multilingual first as opposed to English first. To look at it by, you know, multilingual by design, universal acceptance, UA by design. That actually sets us up for success because when we have that mentality, all of the stakeholder groups would be, the governments will understand exactly what Manal says. You know, this is part of national strategy. It’s not an afterthought. For those who are coding, they will know this is what it is that we learn. This is how we do it instead of doing it the previous way. In terms of, you know, private sector too, that’s also the incentive. So, that is really the mind shift that’s the one thing that will accelerate it.

Theresa Swinehart: I think it’s spot on to have a paradigm shift, that one should have an expectation that one’s experience online is the same as offline. I think there’s a couple areas where one can look at that. One is around education and educating and creating modules in coursework, whether it’s around policy or around technical areas. We run a program where we are working with universities on specific modules to have awareness and education around these areas. We just recently ran a hackathon in Bahrain, which was incredible to watch 60 students have a task of coming up with a website and how to have that be able to work in both Arabic and in English. So I think there’s some very pragmatic, very specific things to do. I think there’s also some other areas around procurement and that there is just an expectation that one is going to in the future need to supply things in this kind of way. And to add on to that, I think that there’s also opportunities as we’ve talked about. We open the next round next year with applicant support for specific categories to create the opportunity to have what one wants to the right or the left of the dot in one’s language. But it’s fundamentally that there is a paradigm shift, as has been said, about the expectation is, as a user, have the experience in the online digital world as one would in the offline world. And the benefit is not only societal. It’s not only the opportunity to engage with a hospital or a university or education or provide that information and retain cultural norms and cultural values. One’s home, you know, that is anchored in who we are as individuals and how we communicate with each other. There’s also economic opportunities from a business perspective. You know, there’s entire populations that have no consumer interest potentially in whatever somebody is providing because they don’t have a connection because of the language barrier. So, it’s not about economics only, it’s about society and affording that ability for everybody to have that experience in the Internet. And so, I think we have many, many, many things to do. From ICANN’s perspective, we’re doing some of them very specific and partnering with others because nobody can do this alone.

Ram Mohan: Thanks, Theresa. Sophie, one area where you see significant potential for accelerating progress towards a multilingual Internet?

Theresa Swinehart: Thanks, Ram. I find it really difficult because I think both Jen and Theresa there have hit on two really key elements. I think, yeah, people don’t participate because they’re, in many cases, because they’re excluded so they can’t, and that mindset shift isn’t there. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking, since I was invited to speak on this panel, about whether technology will help solve it. So, will AI translation actually accelerate it or be part of the problem? Because do we worry about a multilingual Internet if you don’t have to, or if you’ve just got those translation skills there? So, I think that that’s not really a mindset shift, but I do think it will be a very big shift and I hope accelerate the availability of the Internet for those who are currently excluded. But I do still think it’s that upskilling. Even if you have the language skills, certainly I know we find in migrants in Australia, many arrive without English skills, but they actually, many of them don’t have great skills in their own native languages either. So, if you’re illiterate, that’s probably a barrier to using the Internet in any language. So, we spend a lot of time focusing on multilingual abilities, but I think it’s also, sorry, technology, but I think it’s also upskilling people with digital skills in whatever language they have as well.

Ram Mohan: Christian.

Christian Daswon: For as long as I’ve been coming to IGF, we’ve been talking about connecting the next billion. We are, we are focusing our attention on how we can connect the unconnected. And there are lots of stakeholders who are doing that, putting efforts into last mile connectivity. We’ve spent time here talking about meaningful connectivity. And earlier today, you asked Jen what she thought it would take to add language along with access devices and training into the definition of meaningful connectivity everywhere. What I would really like to do is to go out individually to all those stakeholders to have a survey, to actually go to the people that are connecting the unconnected with last mile and ask them en masse, try to gather up that information and then disseminate it. Because all of us then need to take what they are saying they are missing, what they are telling us they are missing, and we need to figure out how we can collectively build those tools. So what I want most is I want direct information for the people that aren’t making it happen now and for them to tell us how we can make it happen.

Ram Mohan: Toral?

Toral Cowieson: Yeah, thank you. Those are hard answers to follow. I don’t know what to add. So I actually want to build off of something that Theresa said, that no one can do this alone. And I think, you know, the one key thing is strengthening the work that’s already happening across stakeholders. You know, when we think about all the stakeholders who are required, NGOs, governments, tech companies, standards organizations, language communities, and really taking a step back and organizing ourselves, kind of clarity around the roles and responsibilities that each of us have. in this multilingual internet, and then communicating that effectively, because there’s so much work. We talked about UNESCO’s International Decade of Indigenous Languages, for example, and all the other initiatives, ICANN’s initiatives, for example, and how do we bring those together in a way that we can make it clear for how language communities can be engaged? Because I think we make it so hard, and it’s hard to know, all of us have so many things coming at us. How do we make it easier? And then how do we engage and empower those communities to be, again, part of that solution? So, you know, my thoughts are really around our work across stakeholders and the responsibility that we have to one another, to the language communities, and how do we hold ourselves accountable to success? You know, like Christian said, we’ve been talking about that next billion for a long time, and how are we actually demonstrating that we’re bringing that to closure in some way? So, thanks, great question.

Ram Mohan: Thank you. Manal?

Manal Ismail: Thank you, Ram, and I truly believe that the most significant mindset shift needed from all stakeholders, as we mentioned, across the internet ecosystem, is to treat language equity not as a localization add-on that comes as an afterthought, but as a core driver of global meaningful participation and a foundational layer of digital infrastructure. I mean, same as connectivity, as cyber security. And accordingly, rather than thinking of linguistic plurality as a challenge that we need to fix, and sometimes by adding translations later. or by trying to find workarounds, we all know how IDNs were introduced and keep it if there is demand. I think we need to think of multilingual by design, as Jen also mentioned, as an integral to inclusive, scalable and ethical digital infrastructure innovation. We also need conscious and deliberate, maybe national initiatives that involve all stakeholders, like has been mentioned also the importance of collaboration in that respect. Such initiatives could be government-supported, publicly-funded, open-source-based, something that could provide high-quality language resources, tools or APIs for underrepresented languages. So instead of making languages change technology, we need to start making technology serve languages. Thank you, Ram. Back to you.

Ram Mohan: Thank you, Manal. That’s a really powerful way to encapsulate what we’re trying to do. Technology should be serving languages rather than the other way around. So let me ask a question. You know, we have here in our panel, we have diverse perspectives, technical perspectives, civil society, industry, government. So, Christian, let me start with you. How can these diverse stakeholders collaborate and coordinate so that we can amplify their impact in promoting linguistic inclusion in digital policies?

Christian Daswon: I think we have a lot of people with a lot of good intentions and a lot of us don’t know exactly what it is we need to do to put those good intentions to active good. There are lots of programs that do active good in here. We’ve heard about some of the active good programs that ICANN has been doing for a long time in this area. One of the things that we’re doing with COTI is we’re trying to find all the people that are doing active good. We’re trying to bring them into a sort of single coordinating stream where people can talk to one another about things that are going on and raise programs that need to get done. I think there just needs to be a lot more talking and a lot more organization around all of the efforts that are going on so that we can centralize them and surface other ways to help that will get people to be able to raise their hands and say, well, that’s the kind of work that I can do. I’ve been looking for a way to contribute to these efforts. I’m ready.

Ram Mohan: Theresa, what do you think? How can we better coordinate and collaborate among the various stakeholders? If the goal is to have language as a pillar of digital inclusion strategies worldwide, what can we do better?

Theresa Swinehart: I think not be shy to pursue ideas. By that I mean different organizations may be engaged, I’ll just give some examples, with educational modules around internet-related issues or digital inclusion-related aspects or how certain things function. Are there opportunities there to add on additional modules around language awareness, around internationalized domain names or universal acceptance or how to build that in? I think sometimes looking at things in isolation and our own work in isolation, we lose sight of the opportunity that for somebody who’s involved in a, let’s say, policy track of education for international relations, let’s say, by example. It might not make sense to create awareness that there is actually the opportunity to have one’s own language online and what that would entail. But a chapter or two in a book that is part of that sets off that awareness. In a business school, awareness that one actually, from a business standpoint, has a population that could very well be interested in using their own languages for educational institutions or for medical professions, that one serves a population. Many of us, when we go to our medical facility, it may say, if you need somebody to help interpret this, please contact this number and we can provide these languages. Where is that online? Where is that source of the click down? So I think that there’s, we tend to look at either our areas of work in isolation or our sectors in isolation, and we need to do what we can to help connect the dots. And in those dots, what are the opportunities, what are the tools in the toolbox for different sectors, different organizations to fully serve a population that is not only speaking with Roman character sets, by example, from a technical standpoint, but is speaking so many different languages and some of them are written in oral. And how does one then go to serve them? So it’s a big task, but I would say if each of us walked away today and said, here are the two things I’m going to follow up on and the two people I know in wherever it might be, I’m going to contact and say, hey, did you know? it could go a long way.

Ram Mohan: Jen, what mechanisms are missing or need strengthening when we look at collaboration and coordination?

Jennifer Chung: I think both Christian and Theresa have actually hit on a lot of these points, and Toral as well, and when she mentioned, you know, you can’t go at it alone. Missing things still, I mean, just filling in the gaps, I think what it is. Theresa’s last call for action really is personal for all of us here at the table and those in the room as well. Making that connection, connecting the two dots, understanding that each of the organizations, DotAsia, of course, we have a lot of work that we do in IDNs, and we do a lot of work in capacity building, but in the act of doing all these things, we come across different organizations also in the region that can help us with these efforts, especially when we’re looking at CODI, you know, connecting good things that people are doing and allowing them to do them together. So again, I mean, the answer is the same thing, filling in the gaps in the way that we know how. I think that is what is missing and that really takes a collective effort.

Ram Mohan: Thank you so much. So let me turn to you, Manal, with a different question. So we’ve been talking here about, you know, the principles of linguistic diversity and multilingual by design. So how can these principles become more explicitly embedded into digital rights frameworks and more embedded in governance discussions?

Manal Ismail: Thank you, Ram. Can you hear me? Yeah, so, as I mentioned earlier, This could be extended in laws and regulations that already support disabilities and this could be also part of such laws and regulations. And have this expanding the digital accessibility laws and regulations to explicitly include language accessibility alongside disabilities. And also through the regulatory and approaches we’ve mentioned and the incentives that could be done as well. And I believe also as everyone mentioned it’s a multi-stakeholder thing and it’s also as a special characteristic that we need to work on the supply and demand side at the same time. As some have already mentioned, even the demand side they don’t know they can have this service. So they see everything in Latin, in English or whatever dominant languages and they don’t know that this luxury is even possible. And on the other side, the supply side, they don’t see it visible from a business point of view. So we need to work on wearing the demand side and triggering the supply side at the same time. And maybe governments can help with national initiatives, help with government support or public funds. And lastly, also connecting the dots and making sure that we’re all pushing in the same direction as everyone else mentioned. I think one good thing about the Universal Acceptance Global Day that we can learn from, it started globally and now it’s connecting with on-the-ground national activities, which I think is a good thing that we can also follow when we talk about a really multi-lingual and digital future.

Ram Mohan: Thanks Manal. Let’s go to getting questions and really an interaction with the audience. Let’s start online, Christian.

Christian Daswon: Sure, we do have one question in the chat. Feel free if you’re in the chat to add others and we’ll also welcome people to come to the mics as well. You’ll go into the queue next. Fantastic. A question from Nicholas Fumarelli. How can countries accelerate IDN compliance and readiness in the light that these measures are not advancing from year to year at the same pace of other adoptions, such as RPKI validation enabled networks or DNSSEC deployment? What can be alternatives other than law enforcement on this topic? I’ll read the rest. We’re actually having a fragmentation of languages due to this. Some efforts from UASG to reach popular software owners, messaging apps, among others. But how can, for example, local chapters help? Do you have any examples of soft enforcement for UA readiness? To note, UA is also part of UNESCO Rome X framework. Would anybody on our panel like to take this?

Ram Mohan: I think Theresa is probably closest to the response to that question. Christian, I think there were several questions in there. So, let’s get to just one thing that perhaps…

Christian Daswon: So, let’s see. Let’s focus in on the idea soft enforcement for UA readiness. How can on the idea soft enforcement for UA readiness? How can countries accelerate IDN compliance and readiness with soft enforcement mechanisms?

Theresa Swinehart: So, I think that there’s many different ways, and we saw efforts around with IPv6 at different points. I think that there’s soft ways to do it are through the education system and the next generation through the schools and the opportunities to both create awareness but maybe require that some of the digital engagement is done through the use of internationalized domain names or universal acceptance tools and work with the technical community in order to make sure that the schools have that capacity. That creates awareness for the next generation, which is essential if we want to actually preserve languages moving forward. Maybe it’s also soft ways through requirements of medical facilities or government social facilities that are providing to their citizens that the government agencies themselves look to have those mechanisms put into place and work with providing that for their citizens in their languages. Many countries have multiple languages, and then they have indigenous languages as well that they could serve. So, I think leading by example is essential that if one wants to actually have this resonate, one has to lead by example around that. I think that there’s other ways within the context of the private sector. Maybe if one’s procurement policy may suggest that one would encourage the use of that, and if not, to be willing to help to figure out how different agencies could do that or different bidders could do that. So, I think that there’s many, many different ways to build it into one’s own effort, but part of it is walking the talk and leading by example. I think that’s an important fundamental step around that.

Ram Mohan: Thank you. Jen?

Jennifer Chung: I don’t know if I like the phrase soft enforcement, but really I think we’re looking at incentivizing, especially when you’re looking at industry. I think a lot of, you know, registries, registrars, we are incentivized to be able to do this, you know, in our own internal systems as well. And then I want to pick up on something that Theresa mentioned. Not so much, again, not so much self-enforcement, but de-incentivizing. I think Manal also touched on it when she mentioned, you know, tax incentives, tax breaks, putting it, requiring it in the procurement process in kind of stages where you first, you know, prioritize those contractors that do have this. And then finally, you know, in the end, you know, this would become a requirement. And then including the requirement of reporting of UA readiness in tenders, I think that, you know, combined would have the effect that I think the answer was looking for. Yeah.

Ram Mohan: Thank you, Jen. Let’s go to the gentleman here.

Audience: Thank you. This is Mohammed Abdul Haq Onu, or everybody call Onu. I’m a Secretary General of Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum. Myself with Bangladesh Internet Governance Forum actively organizing Universal Acceptance Day event for the last three years with a special focus on Bangla language. I truly welcome this discussion on language inclusion. Using the digital device is not only about infrastructure, it is about ensuring every community can access the internet in their own language. In Bangladesh, our efforts to promote UA and local script adoption have shown that digital inclusion become meaningful when people can use technology in their native language. Despite the challenges spoken by over 200 Bangla languages, 250 million people still face challenges in full UA readiness. I urge global stakeholders to treat language inclusion as a core digital right to invest in technical and policy framework. that support meaningful internet access in multilingual access also. Also challenges meaningful internet connectivity, especially rural areas. Thank you.

Ram Mohan: Thank you so much for your thoughtful intervention, appreciate it. Let’s take another question from the audience there.

Audience: Hello, my name is Gabriel and I have a question regarding implementation. So for someone wanting to implement a website in their own language, it’s often that you would get into trouble with, for example, font rendering not displaying it properly or the font not having support. And when you get into other accessibility things like screen readers, if even those are mandated, they might not have support for that language. So my question is then how do you ensure that the underlying tools that people are using to build websites are accessible to these languages so that other people who are educators or bloggers can make websites in their own languages without having to have deep knowledge about how all these things about font rendering or technology works. Thank you.

Ram Mohan: Thank you so much. I think, Toral, that is adjacent to some of the core things that you’re doing, so perhaps you want to take that.

Toral Cowieson: Yeah, it’s a great question. I’ll give you an example. I was recently working with a designer on some stickers or something, and we were using, let’s say, the spaceship emoji, and what are the different languages in which you could search for that. And we put it into one tool. I’m not going to say which organization. And we were getting a lot of Tofus, right, little squares with just nothing that was useful. And then we put it, I said, let me try it in Canva. And I put that same block of information into Canva and everything rendered correctly. And what that told me is that Canva had built Unicode, had Unicode in its technical stack. Technology stack. And what was different about how Canva was approaching it is their products are built to be world ready. So Canva is not a Unicode member, so I’m just, let me just put that out there. But it really depends on what tools you’re using. And if Unicode is in the tech stack, that will make it easier for your website development to happen. So it’s really finding the right tool and not being frustrated that something isn’t working the way that you were hoping that it would. But there are solutions that are out there. And if Unicode is in the tech stack, that can accelerate the work.

Ram Mohan: And Christian, I wonder whether that idea that Toral was just speaking about and what the gentleman was identifying as a real need may be one of the kinds of initiatives that might be useful on a global scale.

Christian Daswon: Well, I think that’s exactly why the organization that we’re trying to build is focused on listening. Because identifying where there are gaps is an important thing that we need to be doing. But also where there is effective work that needs to be connected with the people who need to know that it’s being done is also a vital tool that needs to be done as well.

Ram Mohan: Thank you so much. I’ll go to the lady there on my right.

Audience: Hi, my name is Elisabeth Carrera, and I’m with Wikimedia Norway. And one of the many things we do to do with language diversity is we support the community that creates and curates Northern Sami Wikipedia. So we’re sort of the movement behind Wikipedia. And I just thought I’d add a little bit of optimism when it comes to tech and language. diversity. Well, what we’re seeing now, you mentioned we should make technology serve languages. I think technology is quite keen to go bilingual, full force. With our encyclopedia in Northern Sami, currently, human traffic is about 12%. And Northern Sami is a tiny language. The remaining traffic is bots, spiders, large language models, desperately trying to learn Northern Sami. So I think there’s hope. One of the obstacles we’re facing with small languages is just the same that we faced when we first started gaining like public access, general access to the internet here in Norway in the 1990s. There isn’t enough text, quality text and quality data available. So frustratingly, in Northern Sami, in this case, text is available. It’s just not available under open licenses. So it’s not there to be scraped. So if you want tech to learn multilingual approaches quickly, we need to make available what we have. So that’s the first step. And it’s a very elementary step that we can easily make. And even public entities don’t realize how much of a difference they can make by making their data sets available under open licenses. So just a small piece of optimism, we can easily do this.

Ram Mohan: Thank you so much, Christian.

Christian Daswon: I’ve got a couple of thoughts. First of all, one of the things that we have been doing as we’ve been trying to organize CODI is a movement that we are trying to start in this area is talking to a number of groups who are doing important work in this space. And I want to say that the work that Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia are doing is phenomenal. They’re doing incredible things when it comes to language and in the areas where we are talking about the challenges that are coming because of AI. They’re doing it not just in languages, but in cultural contexts, right? And the things that they’re doing there are incredibly impressive. I think that you’re right, that open needs to be an important component of what it is we’re talking about. Of course, open has its own challenges in the era of LLMs because large data scraping is a challenge for a lot of people who are designed to have open environments. Yesterday, I joined the kickoff call for a Creative Commons program called CC Signals that’s trying to address some of the concerns that people have when it comes to scraping in open environments for LLMs. And that’s an area that we’re going to try to connect CODI to. I encourage everybody to take a look at the efforts that are happening there because I agree with you, it’s very important and hopeful.

Ram Mohan: Thank you. Toral?

Toral Cowieson: Great, thank you for that positive news there. I just wanted to comment on this notion of open. And this is where we’ve hit some concerns from language communities that by granting rights that they are giving up something. And that is an ongoing challenge. One of the distinctions that we’ve been working on as we’ve been talking with language communities is this open license is the only way for full participation and access for other users. And being really clear that by licensing that you are granting licensing but you’re not giving up. You still retain ownership. And I think that distinction is clear as we can make it. And I’ve had to work with our general counsel on this a bit because it can be very easy to get deep into the legalese and I think that frightens and scares off language communities, rightfully so. and just raises some huge concerns, but that open license piece is a huge step towards access.

Ram Mohan: Thank you. We have another question from the audience on my left.

Audience: Yes, Roberto Gaetano, Uralo Individual Users. This is not really a question, it’s rather a comment or a contribution on the question, what can we do to improve multilingualism? I think that I agree completely with what has been said, that we need a paradigm shift. We have really a cultural problem with this, and this is something that is now, that we are subject to this particular mentality. We behave in a way that I would call the syndrome of animal farm, in the sense that we all say, okay, all languages are equal, but then in practice we behave as if we have one language that is more equal than the others. And let me make an example. In a lot of meetings we have interpretation, also here in the main room at ICANN meetings we have several situations in which we have interpretation. And the situation is more often than not that the panel consistently speaks in English. And the interpretation is used by people who speak English. in the audience to understand, to listen in their own language. And just rarely there’s a question from the audience in a different language and then maybe somebody from the panel as a courtesy replies in that language. But why can’t we establish the rule, the behavior that when we have interpretation and your language is one of the interpreted languages, why don’t you speak in your own language or in the language that you are more comfortable with than in English? I think that this cultural change is done like every cultural change by little steps. We don’t need huge changes, but just make the people think that there are more languages. This will not achieve the 7,000 languages having same status over the internet, but at least we can start moving slowly in that direction.

Ram Mohan: Thank you so much. In many ways, I think, especially with the advent of large language models and artificial intelligence engines, we’re quickly moving to a path where we may end up having one language to rule them all, rather than the diversity of languages that really represents the world around us. So, thank you so much. I’m going to ask each of the panelists one sentence that sums up what you want to provide to our audience as a takeaway, but only one sentence. Let me start with you, Sophie.

Sophie Mitchell: Oh, Ram, that’s unfair. I’m still ruminating on the question from the last gentleman about animal farm. So, I almost want my one overarching thought to be, let’s not be animal farm. and let’s ensure that all languages are equal. But I think, am I allowed one more? Sorry Ram, I’m already breaking your rule.

Ram Mohan: Please go ahead.

Sophie Mitchell: I was just gonna say it’s such a multifaceted issue that I really think it does require a multi-stakeholder response. And I think if we start quantifying the benefits for people, then we might be able to see better unification and unified action. And I’d love to see that.

Ram Mohan: Thank you. Toral, one sentence.

Toral Cowieson: We can only be successful together.

Ram Mohan: Thank you. Manal.

Manal Ismail: We need to all continue working on the supply and demand side together. Multilingual by design, not an afterthought. Thank you.

Ram Mohan: Thank you. Jen.

Jennifer Chung: It’s absolutely a language justice movement. And again, repeating multilingual first and UA by design.

Ram Mohan: Thank you, Theresa.

Theresa Swinehart: Lead by example and connect everybody to change this.

Ram Mohan: And last word, Christian.

Christian Daswon: My sentence is, there are Cody postcards on the corner table over there. You should grab one and let’s do more together than we can apart.

Ram Mohan: Thank you so much. That concludes this session. Thank you.

Ram Mohan

Speech speed

118 words per minute

Speech length

1390 words

Speech time

704 seconds

Over 7,000 languages exist worldwide but only a few dominate online spaces, preventing billions from full digital participation

Explanation

Despite global efforts to expand Internet access, the dominance of a few major languages online creates a significant barrier to digital inclusion. This linguistic inequality prevents billions of users from fully participating in digital spaces, making language diversity an overlooked aspect of connectivity efforts.

Evidence

Over 7,000 languages spoken worldwide with dominance of few major languages online

Major discussion point

Barriers to Digital Inclusion Through Language

Topics

Multilingualism | Digital access | Cultural diversity

Sophie Mitchell

Speech speed

146 words per minute

Speech length

836 words

Speech time

341 seconds

Digital inclusion gaps exist not just in access but in meaningful connectivity, with people using internet only for basic functions like social media rather than essential services

Explanation

There’s a distinction between basic internet access and meaningful connectivity that enables full participation in digital society. People with limited digital skills tend to use the internet in simplistic ways, primarily for social connection through social media or phone calls, but don’t extend usage to access government services, education, or economic opportunities.

Evidence

People who lack digital skills tend to use internet for social connection via social media or telephone calls but don’t extend use for other purposes like accessing government services

Major discussion point

Barriers to Digital Inclusion Through Language

Topics

Digital access | Inclusive finance | Future of work

Australia has lost about half of its 250 Indigenous language groups due to colonization, with many remaining languages endangered and originally oral rather than written

Explanation

Colonization has severely impacted Indigenous languages in Australia, with about half of the original 250 language groups lost over 200+ years. The remaining languages face endangerment, and the challenge is compounded by the fact that these were oral traditions passed through storytelling rather than written languages, making digital preservation more complex.

Evidence

Jennifer Chung

Speech speed

185 words per minute

Speech length

1250 words

Speech time

404 seconds

Language barriers create safety risks online as people cannot identify suspicious content or phishing attempts in unfamiliar languages

Explanation

When users cannot understand the language of online content, they become more vulnerable to cybersecurity threats. People who don’t understand English or other dominant languages online cannot recognize suspicious emails, phishing attempts, or fraudulent websites, making multilingual internet access a cybersecurity issue as well as an inclusion issue.

Evidence

Agreed with

– Manal Ismail
– Theresa Swinehart

Agreed on

Paradigm shift from English-first to multilingual-by-design approach

De-incentivizing non-compliance through procurement processes and requiring Universal Acceptance readiness reporting in tenders

Explanation

Rather than relying solely on enforcement, governments can use procurement processes to incentivize multilingual readiness by prioritizing contractors who demonstrate Universal Acceptance capabilities. This creates market incentives for companies to develop multilingual technical capabilities.

Evidence

Prioritizing contractors with UA readiness in procurement, requiring UA readiness reporting in tenders, using staged approach from prioritization to eventual requirement

Major discussion point

Policy and Governance Approaches

Topics

Digital standards | Data governance | Multilingualism

Agreed with

– Manal Ismail
– Theresa Swinehart

Agreed on

Government policy and procurement can drive multilingual adoption

Language preservation maintains cultural identity and human heritage while enabling meaningful digital participation

Explanation

Multilingual internet access serves dual purposes of preserving cultural heritage and enabling practical digital participation. By supporting languages digitally, we both maintain cultural identity and ensure that speakers of those languages can meaningfully engage with digital services and opportunities.

Evidence

Multilingual internet preserves language and culture while enabling digital participation

Major discussion point

Economic and Social Benefits

Topics

Cultural diversity | Multilingualism | Human rights principles

Manal Ismail

Speech speed

102 words per minute

Speech length

Agreed on

Paradigm shift from English-first to multilingual-by-design approach

Language inclusion should be treated as foundational digital infrastructure like connectivity and cybersecurity, not as localization add-on

Explanation

The most significant paradigm shift needed is treating language equity as core digital infrastructure rather than an optional feature added after primary development. Language accessibility should be considered as fundamental as connectivity and cybersecurity in digital infrastructure planning and implementation.

Evidence

Treat language equity as core driver of global meaningful participation and foundational layer of digital infrastructure, same as connectivity and cybersecurity

Major discussion point

Paradigm Shift Requirements

Topics

Infrastructure | Digital standards | Multilingualism

Agreed with

– Jennifer Chung
– Theresa Swinehart

Agreed on

Paradigm shift from English-first to multilingual-by-design approach

Working simultaneously on supply and demand sides – creating awareness of possibilities while building technical capabilities

Explanation

Effective multilingual internet development requires coordinated efforts on both supply and demand sides of the equation. Many potential users don’t know multilingual digital services are possible, while service providers don’t see visible business cases, requiring simultaneous awareness-building and capability development.

Evidence

Demand side doesn’t know multilingual services are possible when they see everything in dominant languages, supply side doesn’t see visible business case, need to work on both sides simultaneously

Major discussion point

Practical Implementation Strategies

Topics

Capacity development | Digital access | Multilingualism

Toral Cowieson

Speech speed

143 words per minute

Speech length

1175 words

Speech time

492 seconds

Many technical aspects taken for granted in majority languages don’t work properly for minority languages, including currency exchange, date formats, and search functionality

Explanation

Users of majority languages can take for granted that basic digital functions like currency exchange, date and time formatting, numerical symbols, and search capabilities work seamlessly. However, these fundamental features often don’t function properly for users of minority languages, creating barriers to full digital participation even when basic language support exists.

Evidence

Examples include currency exchange, date and time format, time zone adjustments, numerical symbols, decimal and comma separators, country names appearing appropriately, emoji search in native languages

Major discussion point

Barriers to Digital Inclusion Through Language

Topics

Digital standards | Multilingualism | Digital access

Unicode Consortium focuses on written languages, leaving gaps in supporting oral-only languages that lack written representation

Explanation

While Unicode has made significant progress in encoding written scripts, the organization’s mission is specifically focused on written languages, creating a gap in support for oral-only languages. This limitation means that communities with purely oral traditions face additional challenges in digital representation beyond what Unicode can address.

Evidence

Theresa Swinehart

Speech speed

148 words per minute

Speech length

Paradigm Shift Requirements

Topics

Human rights principles | Multilingualism | Digital access

Agreed with

– Jennifer Chung
– Manal Ismail

Agreed on

Paradigm shift from English-first to multilingual-by-design approach

Soft enforcement mechanisms include education system requirements, government agency leadership by example, and procurement policy preferences

Explanation

Rather than relying on legal mandates, governments can promote Universal Acceptance and multilingual internet adoption through educational requirements, leading by example in their own digital services, and using procurement policies to encourage private sector adoption. This creates market incentives while building awareness among the next generation.

Evidence

Education system requirements for digital engagement through internationalized domain names, government agencies implementing multilingual services for citizens, procurement policies encouraging UA adoption with support for implementation

Major discussion point

Policy and Governance Approaches

Topics

Online education | Legal and regulatory | Capacity development

Agreed with

– Manal Ismail
– Jennifer Chung

Agreed on

Government policy and procurement can drive multilingual adoption

No single organization can solve multilingual internet challenges alone; success requires coordinated multi-stakeholder approach

Explanation

The complexity and scope of creating a truly multilingual internet means that no individual organization, whether technical, governmental, or civil society, can address all the necessary components alone. Success requires coordinated efforts across multiple stakeholder groups with different expertise and capabilities.

Evidence

Christian Daswon

Speech speed

164 words per minute

Speech length

1452 words

Speech time

528 seconds

Coalition on Digital Impact (CODI) aims to bring together diverse stakeholders and coordinate existing efforts rather than duplicate work

Explanation

CODI is designed to address the coordination challenge in multilingual internet development by bringing together different parts of the community that need to collaborate. Rather than creating new programs, the focus is on connecting existing successful initiatives and helping people with good intentions find ways to contribute effectively to ongoing efforts.

Evidence

CODI focuses on bringing together different community parts that need to collaborate, surfacing arguments for cybersecurity and inclusion, finding people doing active good and bringing them into coordinating stream

Major discussion point

Collaborative Solutions and Stakeholder Coordination

Topics

Interdisciplinary approaches | Capacity development | Multilingualism

Agreed with

– Toral Cowieson
– Theresa Swinehart
– Sophie Mitchell

Agreed on

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for success

Need better data collection from last-mile connectivity providers to understand what tools and support they need for language inclusion

Explanation

To effectively support multilingual internet adoption, there’s a need for systematic data collection from organizations working on last-mile connectivity to understand their specific needs and challenges. This information can then guide the development of appropriate tools and support systems for language inclusion at the local level.

Evidence

Survey of stakeholders connecting the unconnected to gather information about what they’re missing, then collectively build needed tools based on their input

Major discussion point

Collaborative Solutions and Stakeholder Coordination

Topics

Digital access | Capacity development | Data governance

Audience

Speech speed

123 words per minute

Speech length

Paradigm Shift Requirements

Topics

Cultural diversity | Multilingualism | Human rights principles

Agreements

Agreement points

Paradigm shift from English-first to multilingual-by-design approach

Speakers

– Jennifer Chung
– Manal Ismail
– Theresa Swinehart

Arguments

Need fundamental shift from “English first” to “multilingual first” thinking, with Universal Acceptance designed in from the beginning rather than added later

Technology should serve languages rather than forcing languages to adapt to technology limitations

Language inclusion should be treated as foundational digital infrastructure like connectivity and cybersecurity, not as localization add-on

Users should expect same online experience as offline experience, with language accessibility as core expectation rather than luxury

Summary

All speakers agree that the fundamental approach must shift from treating multilingual support as an afterthought to making it a core design principle from the beginning, treating language accessibility as foundational infrastructure rather than optional add-on

Topics

Digital standards | Multilingualism | Human rights principles

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for success

Speakers

– Toral Cowieson
– Theresa Swinehart
– Christian Daswon
– Sophie Mitchell

Arguments

We can only be successful together

No single organization can solve multilingual internet challenges alone; success requires coordinated multi-stakeholder approach

Coalition on Digital Impact (CODI) aims to bring together diverse stakeholders and coordinate existing efforts rather than duplicate work

Multi-stakeholder response needed for multifaceted issue

Summary

There is unanimous agreement that the complexity of creating a multilingual internet requires coordinated efforts across multiple stakeholder groups, with no single organization capable of addressing all necessary components alone

Topics

Interdisciplinary approaches | Capacity development | Multilingualism

Language barriers create cybersecurity vulnerabilities

Speakers

– Jennifer Chung
– Christian Daswon

Arguments

Language barriers create safety risks online as people cannot identify suspicious content or phishing attempts in unfamiliar languages

Cybersecurity is one of the important reasons why focusing on digital inclusion is so important right now

Summary

Both speakers recognize that language barriers make users more vulnerable to cybersecurity threats because they cannot identify suspicious content in languages they don’t understand

Topics

Cybersecurity | Multilingualism | Digital access

Government policy and procurement can drive multilingual adoption

Speakers

– Manal Ismail
– Jennifer Chung
– Theresa Swinehart

Arguments

Governments should integrate multilingual support into digital accessibility laws, procurement requirements, and national digital transformation strategies

De-incentivizing non-compliance through procurement processes and requiring Universal Acceptance readiness reporting in tenders

Soft enforcement mechanisms include education system requirements, government agency leadership by example, and procurement policy preferences

Summary

All speakers agree that government policy, particularly through procurement processes and regulatory frameworks, can create effective incentives for multilingual internet adoption

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Data governance | Digital access

Cultural diversity | Multilingualism | Human rights principles

Unexpected consensus

Economic benefits of multilingual internet access

Speakers

– Theresa Swinehart
– Sophie Mitchell
– Manal Ismail

Arguments

Multilingual internet access creates economic opportunities by connecting businesses with previously unreachable consumer populations

Capacity building and digital skills training in native languages increases economic participation and civic engagement

Incentive-based approaches like tax breaks, grants, and public-private partnerships can encourage private sector adoption of multilingual technologies

Explanation

While the discussion was primarily framed around cultural preservation and digital rights, there was unexpected strong consensus on the business case and economic benefits of multilingual internet access, suggesting market-driven solutions alongside policy approaches

Topics

Economic | Digital business models | Multilingualism

AI and technology as both opportunity and threat for language diversity

Speakers

– Sophie Mitchell
– Audience
– Christian Daswon

Arguments

Question whether AI translation will accelerate multilingual internet or be part of the problem

Northern Sami Wikipedia seeing 88% bot/AI traffic vs 12% human traffic, with AI desperately trying to learn the language

In the era of advancing AI and LLMs, there are data-rich languages and many data-poor languages creating new challenges

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus that AI presents both opportunities and risks for language diversity – while AI systems are actively seeking to learn minority languages, they may also create new forms of digital divide between data-rich and data-poor languages

Topics

Digital standards | Multilingualism | Technical Solutions and Infrastructure Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated remarkably high consensus across multiple dimensions: the need for paradigm shift from English-first to multilingual-by-design thinking, the essential role of multi-stakeholder collaboration, the importance of government policy in driving adoption, and the recognition that language barriers create both cultural and security vulnerabilities. There was also unexpected agreement on economic benefits and the dual nature of AI as both opportunity and threat for language diversity.

Consensus level

Very high consensus with strong alignment on fundamental principles, implementation strategies, and the urgency of action. The implications are significant as this level of agreement among diverse stakeholders (technical, policy, civil society, government) suggests strong potential for coordinated action and indicates that the multilingual internet movement has moved beyond awareness-building to practical implementation planning. The consensus also validates the approach of treating language inclusion as core digital infrastructure rather than optional feature.

Differences

Different viewpoints

Scope of organizational mission regarding oral-only languages

Speakers

– Toral Cowieson
– Sophie Mitchell

Arguments

Unicode Consortium focuses on written languages, leaving gaps in supporting oral-only languages that lack written representation

Australia has lost about half of its 250 Indigenous language groups due to colonization, with many remaining languages endangered and originally oral rather than written

Summary

Toral explicitly stated that Unicode’s mission is limited to written languages and cannot address oral-only languages, while Sophie discussed the need to preserve oral Indigenous languages. This represents a gap in coverage rather than disagreement on approach.

Topics

Digital standards | Multilingualism | Cultural diversity

Unexpected differences

Role of AI translation in multilingual internet development

Speakers

– Sophie Mitchell

Arguments

Digital inclusion gaps exist not just in access but in meaningful connectivity, with people using internet only for basic functions like social media rather than essential services

Explanation

Sophie raised uncertainty about whether AI translation would help solve multilingual internet challenges or potentially reduce the need for true multilingual internet development. This was an unexpected point of ambivalence in an otherwise unified discussion, though other speakers didn’t directly address this concern.

Topics

Digital standards | Multilingualism | Digital access

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus among speakers on both the problems (language barriers to digital inclusion) and solutions (multilingual-by-design approaches, government incentives, stakeholder coordination). The few disagreements were primarily about organizational scope limitations rather than fundamental approaches.

Disagreement level

Very low disagreement level. This consensus suggests strong alignment in the multilingual internet community but may also indicate potential groupthink or lack of diverse perspectives on implementation challenges. The unified approach could facilitate coordinated action but might benefit from more critical examination of different strategies and their trade-offs.

Partial agreements

Cultural diversity | Multilingualism | Human rights principles

Takeaways

Key takeaways

Language inclusion must be treated as a foundational pillar of digital infrastructure, not an afterthought or localization add-on

A paradigm shift from ‘English first’ to ‘multilingual first’ thinking is essential, with Universal Acceptance designed in from the beginning

Technology should serve languages rather than forcing languages to adapt to technological limitations

No single organization can solve multilingual internet challenges alone – success requires coordinated multi-stakeholder collaboration

Digital inclusion through language accessibility creates both social benefits (cultural preservation, safety, civic participation) and economic opportunities (reaching new consumer populations)

The underlying technology for multilingual internet largely exists, but awareness, implementation, and coordination are the primary barriers

Language barriers create safety risks online as users cannot identify suspicious content in unfamiliar languages

90% of world’s languages might become extinct by end of century without digital preservation efforts

Meaningful connectivity requires more than just internet access – it needs language accessibility, digital skills, and relevant content

Resolutions and action items

Individual participants committed to contacting two people in their networks to raise awareness about multilingual internet opportunities

Coalition on Digital Impact (CODI) established as coordinating mechanism for stakeholders working on language inclusion (accessible at codi.global)

CODI to conduct surveys of last-mile connectivity providers to identify what tools and support they need for language inclusion

CODI to gather data showing that language-inclusive tools increase internet usage to provide business case for implementation

ICANN to continue Universal Acceptance education through university modules, hackathons, and partnerships

Participants encouraged to integrate language awareness into existing educational curricula and professional programs

Government agencies and organizations urged to lead by example by implementing multilingual technologies in their own operations

Stakeholders to treat language inclusion as requirement in procurement processes and tender evaluations

Unresolved issues

How to effectively support oral-only languages that lack written representation in digital systems

Whether AI translation will accelerate multilingual internet adoption or become part of the problem by reducing incentives for native language development

How to balance open licensing needs for AI language model training with language communities’ concerns about giving up ownership rights

Specific mechanisms for quantifying and demonstrating the economic benefits of multilingual internet investment

How to address font rendering and accessibility tool limitations that prevent website creators from implementing native languages

Strategies for overcoming the vicious cycle where lack of demand reduces supply incentives and vice versa

How to scale successful local initiatives to global implementation

Methods for ensuring cultural context and localization beyond literal translation

Suggested compromises

Soft enforcement mechanisms for Universal Acceptance readiness through education, procurement preferences, and leading by example rather than regulatory mandates

Phased approach to procurement requirements – first prioritizing contractors with multilingual capabilities, then eventually making it mandatory

Working simultaneously on supply and demand sides – creating user awareness while building technical capabilities

Integrating language inclusion modules into existing educational programs rather than creating entirely new curricula

Focusing on strengthening and coordinating existing initiatives rather than launching new competing programs

This comment was particularly insightful because it called out the hypocrisy within the very community discussing linguistic inclusion. Using the Animal Farm metaphor, he pointed out how even multilingual advocates default to English-dominant behaviors in practice.

Impact

This comment created a moment of uncomfortable self-reflection that was evident in Sophie Mitchell’s response, where she admitted to ‘ruminating’ on his point. It challenged the audience to examine their own practices, not just advocate for policy changes.

Overall assessment

Explanation

Better data on the concrete benefits of language inclusion could help unify different stakeholders around common goals and justify investments

Day 0 Event #257 Enhancing Data Governance in the Public Sector

Session at a glance

Summary

This discussion focused on enhancing data governance in the public sector, featuring experts from Latin America, the United States, and Papua New Guinea who examined challenges and opportunities in implementing effective data governance frameworks. Luca Belli from Brazil emphasized that while over 150 countries have adopted data protection laws, including all BRICS nations, these laws are necessary but insufficient for successful digital transformation. He argued that countries must complement data protection legislation with strategic investments, multi-stakeholder governance, and locally-adapted solutions rather than copying policies from developed nations. Belli highlighted successful examples from BRICS countries, particularly India’s Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) approach and China’s substantial investments in domestic technology development.

Chelsea Horn from American University outlined the fundamental components of data governance, including data stewardship, usage controls, security measures, and quality metrics. She stressed that effective data governance requires breaking down silos within government, fostering collaboration, and building public trust through ethical data handling practices. Horn emphasized the importance of standardized frameworks and training as relatively low-cost starting points for improving data governance.

Nancy Kanasa from Papua New Guinea provided a practical perspective on implementing data governance in a developing nation context. She explained that Papua New Guinea recently approved its National Data Governance and Data Protection Policy in September, prioritizing governance over protection due to existing institutional challenges. Kanasa highlighted significant obstacles including fragmented data ecosystems, limited civil society input in policy development, infrastructure constraints, and cultural resistance to change within government departments. The discussion concluded with recognition that successful data governance implementation requires addressing both technical and cultural barriers while ensuring that solutions are contextually appropriate and financially sustainable for developing nations.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Data protection laws are necessary but insufficient for effective digital transformation** – Luca Belli emphasized that while over 150 countries have adopted data protection laws, these alone don’t drive innovation without accompanying investments, multi-stakeholder cooperation, and practical implementation strategies.

– **Multi-stakeholder governance is critical for both policy development and implementation** – All panelists stressed the importance of involving government, private sector, academia, and civil society in data governance frameworks, with particular emphasis on building public trust and ensuring inclusive policy-making processes.

– **Developing countries need context-specific approaches rather than copying developed nation models** – The discussion highlighted how countries like India (with Digital Public Infrastructure) and China (with massive industrial investment) have created innovative solutions tailored to their specific circumstances and capabilities.

– **Cultural and institutional barriers pose significant challenges to data governance implementation** – Nancy Kanasa from Papua New Guinea illustrated how government departments resist data sharing due to siloed thinking, fear of change, and misunderstanding of data governance concepts, representing broader challenges faced by developing nations.

– **Breaking down data silos while maintaining security requires balancing openness with protection** – The panel explored the tension between enabling data sharing for better public services (like one-stop citizen services) and maintaining robust data protection, particularly in resource-constrained environments.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine practical approaches for enhancing data governance in the public sector, particularly focusing on challenges and opportunities in developing countries. The session sought to share lessons learned from different regional experiences (BRICS countries, Pacific Islands) and provide actionable insights for building effective, inclusive data governance frameworks that can support digital transformation while protecting citizen rights.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a pragmatic and collaborative tone throughout, with speakers acknowledging both opportunities and significant challenges in implementing data governance. The tone was notably realistic rather than overly optimistic, with panelists candidly discussing failures and limitations alongside successes. There was a consistent emphasis on learning from diverse global experiences rather than promoting one-size-fits-all solutions. The conversation became increasingly focused on practical implementation challenges as it progressed, particularly around cultural change and resource constraints, reflecting the real-world complexities faced by practitioners in this field.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Judith Hellerstein** – Moderator of the session on “Enhancing Data Governance in the Public Sector”

– **Sarai Tewita** – Online moderator, handling questions from online audience participants

– **Luca Belli** – Professor at FGV Law School in Rio de Janeiro, Director of the Center for Technology and Society, expert in data governance with focus on Latin America and BRICS countries

– **Chelsea Horn** – Senior lecturer at American University in Washington DC, Co-president of the Washington D.C. Internet Society chapter, expert in data protection, privacy and security concerns

– **Nancy Kanasa** – Lead for data governance and data protection within the Department of ICT with Papua New Guinea government

– **Audience** – Various audience members asking questions during the Q&A session

**Additional speakers:**

– **Guy Berger** – Working with the G20 on data governance in the public sector

– **Robert Sun** – Online participant from Cambodia who submitted questions

Full session report

# Enhancing Data Governance in the Public Sector: A Comprehensive Discussion Report

## Introduction and Context

This discussion on “Enhancing Data Governance in the Public Sector” brought together international experts to examine the challenges and opportunities in implementing effective data governance frameworks, particularly in developing countries. The afternoon session was moderated by Judith Hellerstein, with online moderation by Sarai, and featured perspectives from Latin America, the United States, and Papua New Guinea. The conversation addressed the critical gap between policy development and practical implementation, exploring how countries can build robust data governance systems that serve both citizen needs and national development goals.

## Key Participants and Their Perspectives

The discussion featured three primary speakers, each bringing distinct regional and professional perspectives. Lillian Nalwoga was originally scheduled to speak but her plane was delayed.

Luca Belli, Professor at FGV Law School in Rio de Janeiro and Director of the Center for Technology and Society, provided insights from his extensive work on data governance across Latin America and BRICS countries. His perspective emphasized the importance of digital sovereignty and context-specific solutions for emerging economies. He noted that materials from his research are available at cts.fgv.br and cyberbrics.info.

Chelsea Horn, Senior Lecturer at American University in Washington DC and Co-president of the Washington D.C. Internet Society chapter, offered expertise in data protection, privacy, and security concerns from a developed country perspective. Her contributions focused on the technical and structural components necessary for effective data governance frameworks.

Nancy Kanasa, Lead for data governance and data protection within the Department of ICT with Papua New Guinea government, provided crucial real-world insights from a developing nation context. Her practical experience implementing data governance policies offered grounding for the theoretical discussions and highlighted the cultural and institutional challenges faced by practitioners.

Additional contributions came from Guy Berger, working with the G20 on data governance in the public sector, and Robert Sun, an online participant from Cambodia, who raised important questions about metrics and implementation challenges.

## The Insufficiency of Legal Frameworks Alone

A central theme throughout the discussion was the recognition that data protection laws, while essential, are insufficient for achieving effective digital transformation. Luca Belli emphasized this point strongly, noting that while over 150 countries have adopted data protection laws, including all BRICS nations, these laws represent only the beginning of the journey towards effective data governance.

Belli argued that “data protection law is essential, but really not enough to be able to foster a sustainable digital transformation.” He stressed that countries must complement data protection legislation with strategic investments, multi-stakeholder governance, and locally-adapted solutions rather than simply copying policies from developed nations.

This perspective was reinforced by Nancy Kanasa’s practical experience in Papua New Guinea, where she observed that government departments often prioritize technical infrastructure over governance frameworks when implementing data protection measures. She explained that “when I say data protection, it is the technical part of data protection… they think it’s to do with the infrastructure. So they put more effort in the infrastructure and not the framework, the governance framework.”

## Implementation Challenges and Regional Perspectives

### The Implementation Gap

The discussion revealed a significant gap between policy creation and implementation across different contexts. Belli noted that countries like Brazil excel at stakeholder input during policy creation but struggle with stakeholder participation during implementation phases. He highlighted Brazil’s success in digitizing more than 4,200 public services but noted ongoing challenges in ensuring effective governance of these systems.

Chelsea Horn addressed this challenge by outlining five fundamental components necessary for effective data governance: clear data ownership and stewardship, usage controls and policies, defined circumstances for data use, robust collection, storage, processing, and security protocols, and compliance metrics. She emphasized that these components must work together systematically rather than being implemented in isolation.

### BRICS Countries and Innovation Examples

Luca Belli highlighted successful examples from BRICS countries, particularly praising India’s Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) approach and specifically mentioning the DEPA (Digital Data Empowerment and Protection Architecture) as a concrete example of innovative governance frameworks. He argued that emerging economies often develop innovative strategies precisely because of resource constraints, leading to more creative and locally appropriate solutions.

Belli’s analysis of digital sovereignty was particularly noteworthy, as he defined it as countries’ ability to “understand, develop, and regulate technologies domestically to exercise control and self-determination.” This concept extends individual data protection principles to the national level, addressing concerns about technological dependence on foreign platforms and infrastructure.

### Pacific Island Nations’ Unique Challenges

Nancy Kanasa provided detailed insights into the specific challenges faced by Pacific Island nations, using Papua New Guinea as a case study. She explained that Papua New Guinea recently approved its National Data Governance and Data Protection Policy in September, deliberately prioritizing governance over protection due to existing institutional challenges. She noted that expatriates often questioned why they put “data governance and data protection” rather than “data protection and data governance” in their policy title.

Kanasa highlighted several significant obstacles, including fragmented data ecosystems, limited civil society input in policy development, infrastructure constraints, and cultural resistance to change within government departments. She noted that “most of the policies that are drafted within the government from my country, we don’t have much input from the civil society that we really need.”

Currently, the police clearance certificate is the only government service working online in Papua New Guinea, illustrating the early stage of digital transformation. The country is also exploring the global cross-border privacy rules framework as part of their governance approach.

## Multi-Stakeholder Governance and Capacity Building

### The Critical Role of Civil Society

All panelists emphasized the importance of multi-stakeholder governance, though they acknowledged significant gaps in current practice. Chelsea Horn stressed that civil society partnerships are crucial for building public trust by providing impartial oversight and transparent research about government data practices.

However, the discussion revealed substantial challenges in achieving meaningful stakeholder engagement. Nancy Kanasa’s candid admission about the lack of civil society input in Papua New Guinea’s policy development process highlighted how multi-stakeholder rhetoric often fails to translate into practice.

### Skills and Capacity Challenges

The discussion highlighted significant capacity challenges across different contexts. Luca Belli noted that Brazil alone needs 700,000 cybersecurity professionals, illustrating the scale of the skills gap in data governance and cybersecurity. This shortage affects both the public and private sectors’ ability to implement effective data governance frameworks.

Nancy Kanasa described Papua New Guinea’s establishment of a National Data Governance Steering Committee to provide coordination and ensure multi-stakeholder input, as well as the launch of a secure data actions platform in 2024 as practical steps toward building capacity.

## Technical Challenges and Global Platform Dependence

### Infrastructure and Platform Dependencies

A significant concern raised during the discussion was the dominance of global technology platforms and infrastructure providers. Luca Belli noted that “most people in the global south… are primarily connected to social media of one enterprise… the way in which their data are hoovered and processed is not defined by the law but is defined by the very same corporation.”

He provided a specific example of how Meta.ai is automatically downloaded and people contribute data for free, illustrating how platform dependencies can undermine national data governance efforts regardless of strong national laws. The discussion highlighted how the dominance of few cloud infrastructure providers (AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud) can challenge effective data governance.

### Emerging Technology Considerations

Guy Berger raised questions about the integration of AI and other emerging technologies into public services, asking about the implications for data governance frameworks. The discussion touched on how countries need to consider these evolving technologies when designing governance frameworks, though specific solutions remained largely unresolved.

## Practical Implementation Strategies

### Low-Cost Improvement Approaches

The discussion identified several practical, low-cost approaches for improving data governance implementation. Chelsea Horn suggested that countries could begin with creating structured frameworks, standardizing data definitions, and investing in training programs through organizations like the International Telecommunication Union (ITU).

Luca Belli emphasized the importance of making solutions “cheap and easy” to implement, contrasting this with current data protection laws which are often perceived as difficult and costly. He mentioned GovStack as one example of available open-source solutions that countries could leverage, and suggested building on countries’ existing strengths rather than attempting to build comprehensive systems from scratch.

### Balancing Protection and Sharing

The conversation highlighted ongoing tensions between data protection and beneficial data sharing. While Chelsea Horn emphasized the need for robust protection frameworks, audience members argued for equal attention to both protection and sharing to enable accountability and innovation, including local AI development.

Nancy Kanasa’s approach in Papua New Guinea of prioritizing governance frameworks before protection measures illustrated one strategy for addressing this balance, though she acknowledged this approach faced resistance from some stakeholders who expected protection to come first.

## Audience Engagement and Unresolved Questions

The session included audience participation with two microphones available for questions. Robert Sun from Cambodia raised important questions about metrics and measurement of data governance effectiveness, highlighting the need for better evaluation frameworks.

Other audience members contributed perspectives on balancing data protection with data sharing for accountability purposes, and the importance of ensuring that governance frameworks enable rather than hinder beneficial uses of data for public good.

## Key Takeaways and Future Directions

The discussion revealed several areas of strong consensus among the diverse participants. All agreed that data protection laws alone are insufficient for effective digital transformation, that multi-stakeholder governance is essential, that context-specific solutions are needed rather than copying developed nation models, and that cultural and organizational barriers present major implementation challenges.

However, significant challenges remain unresolved, including how to break down data silos between government departments, how to overcome cultural resistance to change within government agencies, how to address fundamental dependency on foreign infrastructure providers while maintaining sovereignty, and how to build adequate skills and capacity for effective implementation.

The conversation demonstrated that successful data governance implementation requires addressing both technical and cultural barriers while ensuring that solutions are contextually appropriate and financially sustainable. The emphasis on practical, low-cost improvements and the recognition that emerging economies often develop innovative strategies due to resource constraints provides hope for creative solutions to persistent challenges.

Ultimately, the discussion highlighted that data governance remains a complex and evolving challenge requiring ongoing dialogue between academics, practitioners, and civil society to bridge the gap between policy aspirations and practical realities. The path forward appears to require continued collaboration and adaptation as countries work to develop governance frameworks that serve their specific contexts and needs.

Session transcript

Judith Hellerstein: Good afternoon. Thanks for everyone. We are starting in a few seconds. So if everyone can take a seat we are going to our session today on enhancing data governance in the public sector. I am Judith Hellerstein. I am going to be the moderator along with my online moderator over here, Sarai. And today’s session is Enhancing Data Governance in the Public Sector. We will have representation from Luca Belli is at the end. He is from the Latin American Caribbean He is an expert in data governance. Next to him is Chelsea Horn. She is a professor at American University on data governance as well as being the co-president of the Washington D.C. Internet Society chapter. And then our host is Nancy Kanasa with the government of Papua New Guinea and we are also talking about the use case of data governance in Papua New Guinea. Again, I am Judith Hellerstein and this… This is Sara, and for those who are online, Sara will be working to get your questions and answers to you, and also maybe to hopefully feature some of you. I will gather questions from the audience, and we have two mics on either side, so when we start the Q&A, we’ll ask you to come up to the mic and give your name and what sector you’re from. Thanks so much, and let me turn it over to Luca, who will be our first presenter. Thank you.

Luca Belli: Good morning. Thank you very much, Judith and friends, for organizing this panel. I think I will take off my headphones not to hear myself. I think you can hear me. My name is Luca Belli. I’m a professor at FGV Law School in Rio de Janeiro, where I direct the Center for Technology and Society there, and over the past years, we have done quite a few research on several topics related to data governance and in the public sector, especially in two of our main areas of focus, which is Latin America and the BRICS grouping, so Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, plus the six new countries that have adhered as of last year. The ideas I want to share are directly related to the research we have conducted over the past years, and everything actually I’m mentioning is available in open access on the website of our Center, cts.fgv.br, and also on the dedicated website of our CyberBRICS project that analyzes and compares the digital policies of the BRICS grouping, which is cyberbrics.info. So the first thing that I want to stress is that I think over the past… Especially since the pandemics, we have witnessed a great scramble to digital transformation in most countries, but not necessarily all countries organize it in a very structured and coherent way. And even if we have heard over the past 15 years that data is the most valuable asset or a new asset class, there is this difference between the type of policies that are usually adopted, especially data protection policies that is essential for digital transformation, but then what happens in practice in terms of leveraging data for digital transformation, especially of the public sector. And here I think that some of the initiatives that we have mapped in the BRICS grouping could be very interesting. The first example that could come to my mind is the fact that China, all BRICS members have adopted data protection laws over the past years, but I will get into this in a couple of minutes. Before this, I would like to mention also some interesting complementary initiatives that make the adoption of data protection more meaningful, especially for the public sector. First, investments and very well-focused industrial policy in China is a very good example, but also investment in innovation. And here I think that India comes to mind, creating digital public infrastructures precisely to digitize public services through open software, interoperable software. And then Brazil has been also leading the path in terms of digitalization of public services. There are now more than 4,200 public services that have been digitized in Brazil over the past five years, which is quite a record. Brazil is also investing in the creation of data spaces. to make the use of data, local use of data more easy, particularly for the government. And here our research on digital transformation encounters two other streams of our research, one on data protection and the other one on digital sovereignty. The one on digital sovereignty that we have developed over the past five years, it’s really about understanding to what extent these countries have managed to understand, develop and regulate digital technologies, which is how we define it, digital sovereignty, understanding, developing, regulating digital technologies in order to exercise control, power, self-determination over the technology. And this is actually, it makes it easy to connect it to data sovereignty, meaning being able to understand how data intensive technology function, develop them ideally domestically and regulate them effectively. Actually, if you take our Brazilian data protection law, one of the key principles is informational self-determination. So the fact that every individual must be able to control data, to know how data is used and by whom. And you can, what we stress in our research on data sovereignty is that you can think about it also in a collective fashion. So not only the individual being able to understand how data is used and control it, but also the nation itself being able to understand who is hoovering up data, how data are utilized and with whom are shared. So this is also something that we have stressed and analyzed deeply in our research and also then coming back to my first point, the essential nature of data protection laws, which is something that all BRICS members have adopted over the past 10 years, especially over the past five and more than 150 countries in the world have adopted, including Most of global south countries have already adopted data protection law, but then why you may wonder people are not developing an enormous quantity of Data driven innovation if there is all such legislation well because the data protection law is essential Is necessary but not sufficient. So if you don’t also articulate it with investments and with multi-stakeholder Cooperation and here I’m speaking about multi-stakeholder governance not to pay lip service to multi-stakeholder Thinking or philosophy if you want, but to really thinking about the government working with the private sector working with academics Working with civil society actors to identify how data could be used by whom to direct investment and finding because this innovative Research that can be elaborated by researcher then translates into products and services and to keep it in so Regulated that those who maintain the control on the data are the individual users but also those who reap the benefit of it is the local community and not necessarily a Let’s say a handful of global corporations that are in this moment hoovering all data from global south and Let’s say giving back Not a lot after at least in fiscal terms. And so yeah, that’s my what are my initial provocations on this issue stressing that’s this this all the elements I’ve shared are freely available online and Yeah, I think that we have to be if I can give also a provocation and the suggestion We have to be a little bit more critical on how we Translate the nice policies and regulation we spend a lot of time to developing into concrete action and I think that for this Both investments and multi-stakeholder governance are critical

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much Luca for your presentation will next move over to Chelsea and she’s also going to talk about some of the biggest challenges that countries face when trying to get started with data governance in the public sector. So I’ll move over to Chelsea.

Chelsea Horn: Thank you Judith. Hello and good afternoon. My name is Chelsea Horne and I am a senior lecturer at American University in Washington DC. So thank you for having me and thank you in particular to Judith and to Nancy, our organizers. It’s an honor to be a part of this really important discussion. My research focuses on data protection and in particular in privacy and security concerns, but today my remarks be more at a high level. So I want to give more of an overview of some of the major concerns that we should be thinking about when we talk about data governance. When we talk about data governance it might sound like something that’s massive and has a lot of complexities. It’s because it does, but fundamentally at its core it’s something about, it’s something very simple. It’s just thinking about how we collectively manage and how we use people’s information and it’s hopefully with the aim of improving the lives and bettering our communities. So that’s the ideal version of data governance. So thinking about a quick overview or what are some of the major questions we think about data governance. It’s to think about five things. First, who is responsible for what data? So thinking about data ownership and stewardship. Do we have data stewards? Who’s taking control of it? Is there somebody in charge? Are there multiple departments? But thinking about who is responsible for what data. Secondly, what actions can be taken with specific data? So thinking about controls, settings, usage policies, what can be done with the data that’s being collected. Third, when and what and under what circumstances data can be used. Fourth, how data is collected, stored, processed and secured. So thinking about, that’s a very big one, it’s a and Laura. I will say it quickly, but that’s a massive part of data governance, making sure that the collection storage, processing and security of these data is very well thought out. And finally, fifthly, having metrics for measuring the data quality and compliance, so making sure that there are checks in place to make sure that the data governance frameworks are being applied correctly, accurately and effectively. And finally, the last but not least, making sure that we are able to optimize the value of data while mitigating the risks, ensuring compliance, and building public trust. Effective data governance is not just a bureaucratic exercise, it’s a foundation for delivering essential public services more efficiently. It’s about safeguarding privacy, fostering trust in institutions and making sure that the power of data is harnessed ethically and effectively. So, to conclude, I would like to highlight a couple of key considerations, first, a solid data governance plan, sorry, a solid plan for data governance is crucial, as it ensures information is managed wisely and it enables governments and the public sector to make better decisions and deliver more effective strategies. Second, to make sure that we’re fostering broad collaboration, that we’re breaking down data silos within the government, and as well as making sure that we’re actively engaging the public sector in the data governance process. And third, and finally, to think about how we are going to be building trust and ensuring ethical use by establishing these robust data governance frameworks that make sure that they protect privacy, prevent misuse, and that they ensure that the data is handled in an ethical and meaningful fashion. So, I’ll finish my remarks there.

Judith Hellerstein: ≫ Thanks so much for setting the scene there. And next we’ll talk about, move over to Nancy Kanasha, who’s really talking about a news case in her country in Papua New Guinea where data governance is a pretty new concept and idea and also where they just passed last year a data protection and data privacy policy and they’re working on creating a data governance law and data protection law which is all very new concepts for people in Papua New Guinea who haven’t really had that much experience on privacy issues and data governance.

Nancy Kanasa: Thank you, Judith. Good afternoon, everyone. I’m Nancy Kanasa. I lead data governance and data protection within the Department of ICT with Papua New Guinea government. It is a privilege to share our journey towards building an all-of-government approach to managing data responsibly and securely. In Papua New Guinea, data governance is still a very new concept for us, for the government. The agenda is also new, but it’s one that is rapidly gaining traction recently due to digital transformation reforms. Most government departments prioritize data protection over data governance. And when I say data protection, it is the technical part of data protection. As the department responsible for ICT policy and coordination across government, the Department of ICT plays a central role in shaping how data is managed, shared and protected. The department is also a very new established department. In 2020, the department started implementing the need for digital transformation reform across all of government. One of these reforms came to be data governance and data protection. All government departments face fragmented inconsistencies. The National Data Governance and Data Protection Policy was approved and came into effect on September. The National Data Governance and Data Protection Policy, this policy is for all of government departments and any actors that come to make business with government departments in regard to data. The policy establishes clear principles for data handling, including transparency, purpose limitation, and data minimization, which are core tenets of the European GDPR. We are also exploring adoption of the global cross-border privacy rules framework, which we believe will help us align with global best practices and enable secure data exchange across borders, which is a critical step towards Papua New Guinea’s participation in the global digital economy. Why are we leading this work in data governance? The decision for the Department of ICT to lead this work is driven by real and urgent challenges that we’re facing as a third world country. Fragmented data ecosystem, inconsistent practice across agencies, and limited use of data for informed decision making. Without proper data governance, digital transformation efforts risk falling short. That’s why we’re moving now to improve transparency, public trust, and more strategic national planning. Our current implementation is the policy framework. We’re looking at a centralized oversight, a national data governance steering committee which is currently in progress to provide eye level coordination and ensure multi-stakeholder input from government, civil society and all the actors. Secure interoperability. Our secure data actions platform was launched in 2024. It has now been piloted across ministries. For instance, citizens can access, can already access police clearance certificate online and that is the only government service online across all of government that has been piloted and is currently working. The key challenges that we have like any other countries, we have gaps in digital transformation, legal alignment and workforce skills and we also need deeper engagement from communities, academics and the private sector to fully realize our goals. From the government, working from the government, I can truly say that the government, most of the policies that are drafted within the government from my country, we don’t have much input from the civil society that we really need. So when policy is drafted and when it’s approved and we come to realize that the civil society kind of have no say in the policy. So they kind of, we see that they are kind of left out from what has already been established. So like I said, like many other developing nations, Papua New Guinea face infrastructure limitation, gaps between policy and departmental practice, financial and human resource constraint, and public awareness. We need a lot of public awareness in regard to data and data governance and the need for framework, governance framework, multi-stakeholder collaborations. So to conclude, I want to thank my fellow speakers and our moderators. Thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Nancy. We were supposed to have another speaker, Lillian Nalwoga, but her plane got delayed and she only just landed. So she is not going to be able to give her part. But it just means that we’ll have a lot more time for questions and answers from you. And I just wanted also to make sure that people line up on either side and also that we have any questions from our online audience. I’ll first turn to online. Do we have any questions? Not yet. Not yet. OK. Well, I have some other questions right now until we get some other questions from the audience. But we would love to hear your questions and comments. But first, I’ll ask Luca, what lessons can we learn from digital transformation and data governance in the BRICS countries that you’ve mentioned? And if you can elaborate a little bit more on that.

Luca Belli: Yeah, I think that one of the main points that could be learned is that adopting data protection law by itself is essential, but really not enough to be able to foster a sustainable digital transformation. The elaboration of the policymaking that to be of high quality must be as inclusive as possible. And here, I think that’s something that, again, one has to. to mention, to praise multi-stakeholder approach, not only for the sake of multi-stakeholder reason, because if it is organized in an effective and efficient way, multi-stakeholder participation really increases a lot the quality level of the output of the process, of the regulation that will be adopted. But then it’s also very important to use this, to leverage this in the implementation. And it has a cost to implement a policy, of course. And this is why, for instance, if we take the example of data protection, we have seen over the past 10 years at least sometimes very intense criticism about the law, because it increases the cost. But then it increases the cost if you consider compliance with it as a cost and not as an opportunity to have a far to it. We have actually new types of businesses, of products and services that can be created to comply with the law. And actually that is very interesting. It is precisely what happens in India, where they are leveraging DPIs to implement the law. And I think that sometimes it’s very interesting to study developing countries precisely, because as they don’t have the same level of institutional maturity and the same type of resources of highly developed countries, they have to find some different strategies to be effective. And I think that the Indian strategy, everyone knows about the ADAR, which is the digital identity, but a few people know about the DEPA, the Digital Data Empowerment and Protection Architecture, which is a software, a constant manager that allows people, data subjects, to manage the concept to personal data. And that is in use since at least 80 years in the financial sector. It is going to be… widen up to all type of data now with the entering force of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023. And so that is a very interesting, I think, case study to understand that if you are in a developing world and you know that your citizenry does maybe not have the skills to understand very well the law, you know that it is not easy to implement the law, copying and pasting from Europe is not necessarily the best option. First, because as any good academic, I would tell you that you should not copy and paste, but you should study. You should study what the others have done and what are the reasons why it may have succeeded or failed. And so I think that the Indian example to leverage the DPIs and the software skills that they have to help implement this is something very interesting. The Chinese example of putting billions to construct new products and services that can already bake the values that their law, the people, the personal information protection law embeds into legislation is also something very interesting. I think that Brazil is very unique in terms of multi-stakeholder governance, but I’m a little bit critical because the Brazilian approach is very good for policy suggestions, to gather stakeholder inputs, to shape, to elaborate the policy, but it’s quite limited in stakeholder participation, multi-stakeholder governance for implementation, which is what the Indians are very good at. So I think that there is a lot to be learned from studying developing world, if we can use this term, approaches to data governance, and maybe not only focusing on the most developed countries.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much for that very elucidative answer. My next question will be… to Chelsea and it is question is how can public sector bodies effectively partner with civil society organizations? I mean Nancy touched on it but a bit that it’s very difficult sometimes to partner with the from governments to partner with civil society or academia or private sector how can they do that and strengthen it build public trust but sometimes it’s not very strong with government and others and so I’ll let you answer that question. Thank you Judith.

Chelsea Horn: You touched upon it in your question itself but one of the reasons why having a multi-stakeholder approach and talking and working for the government to talk and work with civil society, academia, NGOs and other types of outside of government agencies is exactly to build that public trust. Sometimes there can be suspicions of why government is collecting data even if there’s the government is putting forward information saying that this is how we’re using your data why we’re using it what we need it for and how we’re going to protect it there still might be some type of suspicion or worry about governments owning and using that type of sorry not owning using and collecting that type of data so what the civil society and other members of the multi-stakeholder group can offer is in theory and hopefully in practice an impartial view and opportunity to research and transparently provide information about how and what the government is doing with that data so those partnerships are absolutely crucial in making sure that we’re ensuring transparency but not just for it to say that we are doing transparency but making sure that it is credible rigorous and informative for the general public so the the trust element and how the multi-stakeholder approach can offer that trust in an imperical matter its really really critical and why those partnerships are really important and how we aproach them.

Judith Hellerstein: Thank you so much. We do have an online question and I’ll give it to Sarai to represent who the online question is from.

Sarai Tewita: Thank you, Judith. Good afternoon. This is a question from Robert Sun from Cambodia. I think this relates to Luca’s comments and presentation. Do you have a report on data governance that I can download? And question two, are there any metrics for platform or applications to ensure data sovereignty?

Luca Belli: Can I reply that? Yeah. I have quite a few reports and publications on this. I think that pretty much all of them are in open access. There is a nice website called cyberbricks.info where you can literally find dozens of reports, including on data sovereignty. And again, let me also stress, because I’m fairly aware that when one uses the S word of sovereignty, a lot of people get a little bit nervous. And rightly so, because there are conceptions of the digital or data sovereignty notion that flirt very much with authoritarianism and protectionism. But there are also others that are very much based into promoting national development, national competition and empowering people through technology. Actually, we have a book called Digital Sovereignty in the Bricks that was published in December by Cambridge University Press. And you find it also freely available both on the website and Cambridge University Press and on our website that illustrates some of the examples of how this has happened in the BRICS countries. However, again, here I think that is my word of caution and I think that one should really make a difference between the policy and the declarations and then what happens in practice. That is why I think that leveraging multi-stakeholder governance also in the implementation and not only in the conception of the policy is key here. Because to translate the policies in concrete actions, you need to have this kind of coordination, communication and ideally cooperation. And it also costs money, obviously. It costs money, so that is why investments are critical. But if you have a well-focused industrial policy, then your investment really triggers a new area of products and services that are developed at the domestic level. And China or India are very good examples of this, to some extent South Africa as well. In Brazil, I think that there are a lot of paradoxes in Brazil and if I can just add a very interesting example of one of those paradoxes, as I was mentioning, Brazil has more than 3,200 public services, which is a stellar record. Brazil has data protection law since 2018, entering force in 2020 that mandates data security. Brazil is a data protection authority. Brazil has at least seven or eight different sectoral regulations in information security spanning from banking sector to telecom sector. So you might say, well, Brazil is heaven of data governance, right? Well, it is not. And there is actually ransomware and cyber incidents are booming in Brazil at the same time climbing the ranking of the most cyber secure countries, because it has adopted a lot of very interesting and very good policies, but also in the top five of the most attacked. and vulnerable countries. Why? Because data governance and data security and cyber security are still perceived as a cost and not as an opportunity to make. In this moment, there are more than 700,000 cyber security professionals that are needed in the country, so it would be 700,000 jobs that you would have created immediately if you were to invest in capacity building, for instance, right? So I think that if you start considering data governance not as a cost of compliance that everybody hates, but as an opportunity to make money, that I think is the secret ingredients to make a successful digital transformation. Because yes, it will cost money in training and in capacity building and infrastructure development, yes, of course, but after some years, you will have an enormous return on investment.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. Do we have another online question yet? Okay, so I’ll have another question. This is for Nancy. And the question is, how can Pacific Island nations develop resilient and inclusive data governance frameworks that not only look towards building trust within the government and capturing the data, but also uphold indigenous data sovereignty and support sustainable development?

Nancy Kanasa: Thank you, Judith. In the Pacific, I speak for Pacific because PNG is Papua New Guinea is in the Pacific. We have a lot of our context is quite different. I mean, every country is different. And the data governance initiative is very new for us. And I think we have to look at our context and the issues that are currently within our country and not follow just like Lucas said, just copy or cut and paste from a developed country and put it in because it will not work for us and that was some of the Some of the things that we’ve been doing in With the PNG government. We’ve came up with a policy and we were asked by a lot of Expatriates that we’ve worked with in regard to why did you put data? Governance and data protection and not data protection and data governance so looking back at that we have used cases in Use cases with other government departments and we’ve realized that data protection is not gonna solve our problem our problem is Governance, we like governance in all the government departments So I think that also goes with the other Pacific Islands, it’s we have to have data governance framework within and After that, we could have protection Data protection to come in place because in PNG we when you talk about data protection They in Papua New Guinea, sorry, they think it’s to do with The infrastructure So they put more effort in the infrastructure and not the framework the governance framework And this is one of the issue that we faced in my country and the Pacific. Thank you

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much do we have a question online yes, could you go to the mic Thank you so much and then introduce yourself to

Audience: Thank you to the panelists, my name is Guy Berger I’m working with the G20 on this data governance in the public sector. So I’ve got two questions quickly for Luca, question of procurement of systems in the public service. As we know, AI agents are going to be using incredible volumes of data in their autonomous and hard-to-trace ways and they will also likely feed data back to the vendor. And so the question is, as this technology becomes integrated in the public service, does it make a mockery of effective data governance possibility? My second question goes to Chelsea. Data protection, as you said, is especially important. I think we’ve seen this in the US with the centralization and abuse of data under Doge. But I want to ask you about the other side of data governance, because while upholding data security and data protection, there’s also governance that promotes data sharing inside the public service and open data for the outside, which of course can help with accountability, local AI development, etc. Shouldn’t one give equal attention to that side of data governance, not only to the data protection side? Thank you.

Luca Belli: Yes, I think that in your question, there was already a sort of answer I would hint to, which is the reason why I’m really keen on stressing that adopting data protection law is essential, but far from being sufficient to be sure that these values and obligations and rights are de facto correspond to the reality of how data are processed, right? And I think that you raise a very good point, which is the fact that pretty much everyone in the world, out of China and Russia, depends on a cloud infrastructure that is provided by three corporations, AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud. And I think that’s a very good point. and well the Chinese have their own and they are exporting it globally as well and Russia depends on China so it’s not really so often in this but here’s the point if you if you spend a lot of time crafting the best possible data protection law and also lavish efforts into defining a very good institutional framework that can work well but at the end of the day the way in which data is processed is defined by the architectures of a specific service that and the way in which data is hoovered is defined by a few very dominant players it’s very it’s really useless and let me give you a very concrete example that I have been providing for the past 10 years I think and very few countries except India have understood this in most of the global south people don’t have access to meaningful connectivity they are connected to meta family of apps social media without entering into what this means for competition and democracy let’s focus on the data this means that most people in the global south in Brazil 78% of the population that does not have meaningful connectivity there is a very good report by SETIC of last year these people are primarily connected to social media of one enterprises so they are they are giving or even if you have the best possible law the way in which their data are hoovered and processed is not defined by the law is defined by the very same corporation that and let me give you a very explicit example about this and why there is difference between Brazil and India for instance in 2021 right in the middle of the pandemic meta announced that all data metadata of whatsapp would be merged with at the time meta did not exist yet but with Facebook and in the middle of the pandemic social distancing in distance in the global south whatsapp was the only way for communicating I if I had to book a COVID test, my pharmacy network only accepted booking it to WhatsApp, the WhatsApp business account of the pharmacy network. What does it mean? That it was simply not possible for the Global South to have the actually meaningful choice that was given in Europe. Do you want to accept this term or refuse them? So pretty much everyone in the Global South has accepted in January, between January and May 2021, that all their data are hoovered by WhatsApp and then transferred to Facebook and now Meta. Same thing with Meta.ai that has been automatically downloaded in all smartphones of everyone in the world. So what does it mean that everyone now is contributing data and trading for free Meta.ai and probably as we had reports in 2015 that people in several Global South countries, including Brazil, thought that WhatsApp was, that Facebook was the internet. I’m pretty sure, I would bet that in six months, maybe not even a year, we will have, if we do the same kind of survey in the Global South, people will think that Meta.ai is AI because they have understood very well what Lessig was writing 25 years ago, that you regulate technology not only by the law, but also by the code, by the architecture, and they are doing it very well. And that is what I think most countries in the world, except maybe China and India, have not understood yet. Brazil is doing a lot of effort to try to design its own solution, but the huge problem is that, well, usually governments start to work well after two years, two and a half, and then they have six months to work and then they have elections. So it’s very difficult to have sustainable change in these conditions.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. Chelsea?

Chelsea Horn: Yes. Thank you for the question. I think it’s a very important question. Just to remind everyone, it’s more or less that We need to have data protection data governance frameworks that are securing information But also isn’t there something to be said about having more open? frameworks to I Certainly, but more data doesn’t necessarily mean better results, but I can see many compelling cases, especially when it comes to health and research that having access to more data and more information can Create quicker and more innovative solutions That’s a very compelling reason and we also see that we hear that quite often from the the platforms that the reason why they need So much data about us is because they can offer us better services. They can offer more personalized recommendations There’s different stakes involved with when the government has information and they’re sharing information Especially between different departments and how it was collected versus how the private sector has it. So those are Little bit apples and oranges the comparison but to think about There’s many use cases I’m trying to imagine something like Facial recognition if we have biometric information about a missing child’s face We could very likely find them within minutes and that’s a wonderful I mean, I’m promising a lot of things from the technology, but we see that also even in Fiction shows where they are trying to imagine these things where the data allows for very positive use cases My personal take on it is I think that that’s wonderful. I think that we see more harms though And I have more concerns about the way those protections are being Guaranteed and offered to us. So It’s it’s a bit of push and pull Is a bit of push and pull but we do need to like I think without having protection having open shared data Is is a concern and a worry to have but so there needs to be some sort of framework that’s protecting that that’s protecting citizens so It’s a balancing act so but I would say I’m It’s easier to say open, and it’s harder to put in the frameworks. I think that’s why there’s such emphasis on data protection. And I would even say I know that in your remarks, Nancy, you mentioned about data governance, prioritizing that over data protection. But in good data governance frameworks, which you are outlining here, implicitly data protection is a part of that. So not necessarily like the primary driving force, but it’s already being built in there from what you described. So it’s definitely a component.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. Do we have other questions from the audience? Okay. While we go think about some questions, and then we’ll get back to you. But I was going to ask Chelsea or Luca, what are the practical low-cost options for public sector to take that they can improve data quality? And also try, how are we going to break down some data silos? As you all know in each of the departments, many of the public sectors are silo-based, and they don’t want to step on inside other people’s, other departments’ toes or do other things. But oftentimes the goal is, how are we going to help the citizens? We want the citizens to be able to do one-stop shopping and not have to, you hear the same refrain from many other places, that, oh I wish that I only had to fill out the form once instead of 5,000 times. But how do we do that and effectively share the data between the agencies when most of the countries don’t have any data sharing laws? So, whoever wants to tackle first.

Luca Belli: Well, that is a $1 billion question, and if one had a very good answer, I think the problem would already be solved. I think that my first suggestion, coming back to my previous comments, would be not to copy and paste what has been done in Estonia or Norway, because it will likely not work in Ecuador or Zimbabwe, because you have to think about local realities first. And that is why I think it is very interesting to study what emerging developing economies do, not because I think they are better or worse than others, but because they know very well the limits of the policies in their countries. So, the fact that if you have… And I can witness this firsthand. I mean, in Brazil, data protection law was introduced in 2018, and it simply means that before that, pretty much no one, there was no specialist of data protection. So, how can you think that the law, by magic, would regulate the sector, the economy, the society, the democracy even, right? Because the digital data intensive technologies are nowadays essential for our democratic processes. So, if you do not embed data protection in that, meaning being very transparent in which kind of purposes, for which kind of purposes you use the data, and which kind of consequences this might have, that has enormous consequences, not only on society and democracy, sorry, not only on society and economy, but also on the democracy. Now, the fact that you bet on alternative strategies, regulatory strategies to tackle this, it might be more successful. And again, you have to leverage what you know to do well. and that is the Indian case of the DPI. They have a very large population of highly skilled information society, information engineers and information and data scientists that they have leveraged to do DPIs, to do software, to directly translate the normative command into architecture. That is what China has done. They have, they know they have, they are an industrial powerhouse and they have lavished billions, literally, to produce the technology they wanted to have. And the result is that after 20 years, they are not dependent on any other country. And even if you sanction them, that actually is productive for them because they coordinate internal market to be to outcompete you. So that is the kind of thinking that I think global South countries should have. Of course, this does not happen overnight. And actually, last year, we did a study on data protection, data security and open data in public sector in Brazil, together with the UN University. And actually, we mapped the regulation that already exists in Brazil. And then we wanted to go farther. So we did, it was the moment where everyone was speaking about GPTs. And so we did a chatbot that could help local municipalities or public servants to draft their own policies. But then we ended up realizing what everyone ends up realizing when you want to do something that is related to AI, that the code is something that doesn’t cost too much to do, but having it running on something costs you a lot. And so if you do not have computing infrastructure that is cheap and available, and you all depend from the same enterprises, then you end up losing what we call digital sovereignty. So being able to understand the technology, develop it and regulate it.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much, Luca. Chelsea, do you have any comments?

Chelsea Horn: Sure, so I’ll leave you first. So it’s like what are some low-cost ways? Comparatively low cost would be to go back to the question of who’s managing what data and how. So to create a structured framework within the government or whichever department or agency will be responsible for the data. So thinking about just a structured format and to formalize that in a standardized way. Similarly thinking about how you can whoever’s in charge of that can standardize the ways that they’re understanding data. So like a word like the word like a term location, it can mean many different things. So thinking about a general location, a specific location, down to a house, large, where are we at? So standardizing what you mean by what is being what data is being collected is a very simple way of starting to think about who and what data and it will improve the data quality. And along those similar lines thinking about investing again comparatively low cost in training and workshops across whoever will be managing those types of data. There’s certain organizations like the ITU has a online course on data governance. And so there are other organizations too. So in having that type of standardized training and workshops across whoever will be managing and however that structure response is a relatively low cost way of approaching these these issues.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. I think the the question is also is from what I own and in especially in a lot of global south countries and developing countries is that it’s not so much also is it is a silos, but it’s also the culture. Many countries, many citizens are loathe to change processes on government agencies and they dont want to change policies since they were working so long. And you cant get as many as these work done without that. So you can have best system and the bestvpolicy and data, but if you dont have best companies working on it, how are we going to change the culture of the society?

Nancy Kanasa: Okay, firstly i would say that the question really goes well

in my country what is happening, with the goverment are are feeling like not content with the changes coming in in regard to sharing their personal data or government departments opening up to another government department to have interoperability with systems. So they feel that what has worked for them is not going to work if something new is added on. So they use a lot of excuses like, for example, the Department of Health would say that, oh, my act, we are mandated, and our act does not allow us to share data. But then the very same data is also required by the Department of Education. And so the changes are not really accepted with each government department because they probably fear the technological change and with that I think we need more awareness with the public in regard to educating public for the data and the importance of data and coming from the government we are doing that and we also face challenges in financial side and also challenges in educating our citizens because this is some of the new approaches that we’re taking so yeah that’s from my end thank you.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much we have like two minutes left for our panel but I just want to get and maybe Luca might have since he’s worked with a lot of developing countries might have some ideas on how to get around this cultural change which seems to be a big problem in a lot of smaller countries.

Luca Belli: I think that’s more than a cultural change which is very difficult to trigger I think that people so the reason why we all use social media or several apps that are very common is that they are cheap and easy so the way I think that the successful ingredients to trigger this cultural change if you want is to make this cheap and easy and that is the reason why if you analyze the implementation of data protection law is maybe not as effective as we would like because it is perceived as extremely difficult even Byzantine to implement to understand and not cheap but costly because you have to hire specialists that will do it for you. Now there are already solutions that are even in open source for I mean the ITU has been working for years on the GovStack which is a certain set of building blocks for digital public infrastructure there are a lot of example that can already be adopted so yeah I think that you if you want to translate to policy into actions and cultural change, you need investments and you need training. And so I think that if you use already what we have for training, maybe you will not need so much in terms of investment, but you need a little bit of both if you want to trigger change.

Judith Hellerstein: Thanks so much. I’m just going to turn to the panel for any closing thoughts in the last 45 seconds that we have. Luzra, do you have any closing thoughts? Chelsea, any closing thoughts for you? No. Nancy, otherwise I wanted to thank the panel so much for the topics and the discussion here. We could talk a long time about this because, you know, he mentioned the GovStack in the ITU and yes, it may be open source, but then you need to be implementing them with engineers and other things which other countries don’t have. And so it’s like a cat’s cat and cat’s crown. So we could be talking for a long time about this, but I just wanted to thank very much for everyone for coming and staying to the end. And thanks so much for being our panelists. I hope you enjoyed it. Thank you.

Luca Belli

Speech speed

149 words per minute

Speech length

3827 words

Speech time

1534 seconds

Data protection laws are essential but far from sufficient for sustainable digital transformation – countries need investments and multi-stakeholder cooperation to translate policies into concrete actions

Explanation

Belli argues that while over 150 countries have adopted data protection laws, this alone doesn’t lead to data-driven innovation. He emphasizes that effective digital transformation requires complementary investments in industrial policy, innovation, and multi-stakeholder governance that involves government, private sector, academics, and civil society working together.

Evidence

Belli argues that global dependence on three major cloud providers means that data processing is ultimately controlled by these corporations rather than national laws. He warns that even the best data protection legislation becomes ineffective when the actual data processing architecture is determined by dominant global players.

Evidence

Global dependence on AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud (except China and Russia); Brazil’s example where 78% of population without meaningful connectivity depends on Meta’s family of apps; WhatsApp data merger with Facebook/Meta during pandemic when people had no meaningful choice

Major discussion point

Balancing Data Protection with Data Sharing and Innovation

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Chelsea Horn

Speech speed

184 words per minute

Speech length

1491 words

Speech time

485 seconds

Effective data governance requires five key components: data ownership/stewardship, usage controls, circumstances for data use, collection/storage/processing/security protocols, and compliance metrics

Explanation

Horn outlines a comprehensive framework for data governance that addresses fundamental questions about data management. She emphasizes that effective governance must systematically address who controls data, what can be done with it, when and how it can be used, how it’s secured, and how compliance is measured.

Evidence

Five specific components: who is responsible for what data; what actions can be taken with specific data; when and under what circumstances data can be used; how data is collected, stored, processed and secured; metrics for measuring data quality and compliance

Major discussion point

Data Protection Laws Are Necessary But Not Sufficient for Digital Transformation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Infrastructure

Agreed with

– Luca Belli
– Nancy Kanasa

Agreed on

Data protection laws alone are insufficient for effective digital transformation

Civil society partnerships are crucial for building public trust by providing impartial oversight and transparent research about government data practices

Explanation

Horn argues that multi-stakeholder approaches involving civil society, academia, and NGOs are essential for building credible public trust in government data practices. She contends that these external partners can provide impartial analysis and transparent information about how governments collect and use data, addressing public suspicions about government data collection.

Evidence

Nancy Kanasa

Speech speed

118 words per minute

Speech length

1134 words

Speech time

574 seconds

Data governance should be prioritized over data protection in developing contexts because governance frameworks address fundamental organizational issues before technical protection measures

Explanation

Kanasa argues that Papua New Guinea deliberately prioritized data governance over data protection in their policy framework because their primary challenge is organizational governance rather than technical protection. She explains that when people hear ‘data protection’ in PNG, they think of infrastructure rather than governance frameworks, missing the fundamental organizational issues.

Evidence

Fragmented data ecosystems and inconsistent practices across agencies limit effective decision-making and digital transformation progress

Explanation

Kanasa identifies systemic challenges in Papua New Guinea’s government data management, including fragmented approaches across departments and inconsistent practices that hinder effective governance. She explains that these issues prevent the government from making informed decisions and slow digital transformation efforts.

Evidence

All government departments facing fragmented inconsistencies; limited use of data for informed decision making; the risk that digital transformation efforts will fall short without proper data governance

Major discussion point

Balancing Data Protection with Data Sharing and Innovation

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development

Judith Hellerstein

Speech speed

148 words per minute

Speech length

1260 words

Speech time

510 seconds

Cultural resistance to change in government agencies is a major barrier to implementing data governance policies, even when the best systems and policies are in place

Explanation

Hellerstein identifies that in many global south and developing countries, citizens and government agencies are reluctant to change long-standing processes and policies. She argues that without changing the culture of society and government institutions, even the best data governance systems and policies will fail to achieve their intended outcomes.

Evidence

Observation that many countries have citizens who are loathe to change government processes that have been working for a long time; the challenge that you can have the best system and policy but without cultural buy-in, implementation fails

Major discussion point

Practical Implementation and Cultural Change Barriers

Topics

Sociocultural | Development | Legal and regulatory

Agreed with

– Nancy Kanasa

Agreed on

Cultural and organizational resistance presents major implementation challenges

Citizens desire simplified government services through one-stop shopping rather than filling out multiple forms across different departments

Explanation

Hellerstein highlights the common citizen complaint about having to repeatedly provide the same information to different government departments. She emphasizes the need for effective data sharing between agencies to enable citizens to complete government transactions more efficiently, though this is complicated by the lack of data sharing laws in most countries.

Evidence

The common citizen refrain of wishing to ‘fill out the form once instead of 5,000 times’; the challenge of breaking down data silos between departments when most countries don’t have data sharing laws

Major discussion point

Balancing Data Protection with Data Sharing and Innovation

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Audience

Speech speed

148 words per minute

Speech length

195 words

Speech time

78 seconds

AI agents integrated into public services may undermine effective data governance due to their autonomous operation and data feedback to vendors

Explanation

The audience member (Guy Berger) raises concerns about AI procurement in public services, noting that AI agents will use large volumes of data autonomously in ways that are difficult to trace. He questions whether the integration of such technology into public services makes effective data governance impossible to achieve.

Evidence

AI agents using incredible volumes of data in autonomous and hard-to-trace ways; AI systems likely feeding data back to vendors

Major discussion point

Balancing Data Protection with Data Sharing and Innovation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Human rights

Data governance should give equal attention to promoting data sharing and open data, not just data protection, to enable accountability and local AI development

Explanation

The audience member argues that while data protection is important, data governance frameworks should equally emphasize the benefits of data sharing within public services and open data for external use. He contends that this approach can improve government accountability and support local AI development initiatives.

Evidence

Examples of data sharing helping with accountability and local AI development; the observation that there are two sides to data governance – protection and sharing

Major discussion point

Balancing Data Protection with Data Sharing and Innovation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Human rights

Disagreed with

– Chelsea Horn

Disagreed on

Approach to balancing data protection with data sharing

Sarai Tewita

Speech speed

121 words per minute

Speech length

50 words

Speech time

24 seconds

International collaboration and knowledge sharing are essential for developing effective data governance frameworks, as evidenced by cross-border questions and engagement

Explanation

Sarai facilitates international dialogue by presenting questions from remote participants, demonstrating the global nature of data governance challenges. Her role in connecting online participants from different countries (like Robert Sun from Cambodia) shows the importance of cross-border knowledge exchange in addressing data governance issues.

Evidence

Question from Robert Sun from Cambodia about data governance reports and metrics for data sovereignty; facilitation of online participation in the discussion

Major discussion point

Multi-Stakeholder Governance and Implementation Challenges

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Agreements

Agreement points

Data protection laws alone are insufficient for effective digital transformation

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Chelsea Horn
– Nancy Kanasa

Arguments

Data protection laws are essential but far from sufficient for sustainable digital transformation – countries need investments and multi-stakeholder cooperation to translate policies into concrete actions

Effective data governance requires five key components: data ownership/stewardship, usage controls, circumstances for data use, collection/storage/processing/security protocols, and compliance metrics

Data governance should be prioritized over data protection in developing contexts because governance frameworks address fundamental organizational issues before technical protection measures

Summary

All speakers agree that having data protection legislation is necessary but not sufficient – effective data governance requires comprehensive frameworks, proper implementation, and addressing fundamental organizational challenges before technical protection measures can be effective.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Multi-stakeholder participation is essential for effective data governance

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Chelsea Horn
– Nancy Kanasa

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder participation significantly increases policy quality during elaboration, but countries like Brazil excel at stakeholder input for policy creation while lacking stakeholder participation in implementation

Civil society partnerships are crucial for building public trust by providing impartial oversight and transparent research about government data practices

Government policies often lack meaningful civil society input, leaving communities without voice in established frameworks

Summary

All speakers emphasize the critical importance of involving multiple stakeholders – government, private sector, academia, and civil society – in both policy development and implementation phases, though they acknowledge significant gaps in current practice.

Topics

Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Context-specific solutions are needed rather than copying developed country models

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Nancy Kanasa

Arguments

Countries should study local realities rather than copy-paste solutions from developed nations – emerging economies often develop innovative strategies due to resource constraints

Pacific Island nations need context-specific approaches that address governance challenges first, as infrastructure-focused data protection doesn’t solve fundamental organizational problems

Summary

Both speakers strongly advocate for developing locally appropriate solutions that address specific national contexts and challenges rather than simply adopting frameworks from developed countries.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Cultural and organizational resistance presents major implementation challenges

Speakers

– Nancy Kanasa
– Judith Hellerstein

Arguments

Government departments resist change due to fear of technological transformation and concerns about data sharing mandates, requiring extensive public awareness and education efforts

Cultural resistance to change in government agencies is a major barrier to implementing data governance policies, even when the best systems and policies are in place

Summary

Both speakers identify cultural resistance within government institutions and society as a fundamental barrier to implementing data governance reforms, requiring significant change management and education efforts.

Topics

Sociocultural | Development | Legal and regulatory

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected consensus

Prioritizing governance frameworks over technical protection measures in developing contexts

Speakers

– Nancy Kanasa
– Luca Belli

Arguments

Data governance should be prioritized over data protection in developing contexts because governance frameworks address fundamental organizational issues before technical protection measures

Explanation

This represents unexpected consensus because conventional wisdom typically emphasizes data protection first. However, both speakers from different perspectives (practitioner and academic) agree that fundamental governance structures must be established before technical protection measures can be effective, particularly in developing country contexts.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

The limitations of global technology dependence on data governance effectiveness

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Audience

Arguments

The dominance of few cloud infrastructure providers (AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud) undermines effective data governance regardless of strong national laws

AI agents integrated into public services may undermine effective data governance due to their autonomous operation and data feedback to vendors

Explanation

This unexpected consensus emerges around the recognition that technological dependence on global platforms and AI systems fundamentally challenges the effectiveness of national data governance frameworks, regardless of how well-designed the policies are.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on fundamental principles: data protection laws are necessary but insufficient, multi-stakeholder governance is essential, context-specific solutions are needed, and cultural/organizational barriers present major implementation challenges. There is also agreement on the need for practical, low-cost approaches and balancing protection with beneficial data sharing.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on core principles with significant implications for policy development. The agreement suggests a mature understanding of data governance challenges that transcends traditional academic-practitioner divides. However, the consensus also reveals the complexity of implementation challenges, suggesting that while there is agreement on what needs to be done, the practical pathways remain difficult. This high level of agreement among diverse stakeholders (academic, government practitioner, and international participants) indicates that data governance discourse has evolved beyond basic concepts toward more nuanced implementation challenges.

Differences

Different viewpoints

Priority between data governance and data protection frameworks

Speakers

– Nancy Kanasa
– Chelsea Horn

Arguments

Data governance should be prioritized over data protection in developing contexts because governance frameworks address fundamental organizational issues before technical protection measures

Data governance must balance protection with beneficial data sharing for accountability and innovation, though protection frameworks should be established before enabling broader data access

Summary

Nancy argues that data governance should come first because in PNG context, people think data protection means infrastructure rather than frameworks, and governance problems need solving first. Chelsea suggests protection frameworks should be established before enabling data access, implying protection should precede or accompany governance rather than follow it.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Approach to balancing data protection with data sharing

Speakers

– Chelsea Horn
– Audience

Arguments

Data governance must balance protection with beneficial data sharing for accountability and innovation, though protection frameworks should be established before enabling broader data access

Data governance should give equal attention to promoting data sharing and open data, not just data protection, to enable accountability and local AI development

Summary

Chelsea emphasizes the need for protection frameworks first before enabling data sharing, expressing more caution about potential harms. The audience member argues for equal attention to both protection and sharing, suggesting less emphasis on protection-first approaches.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Human rights

Unexpected differences

Fundamental sequencing of data governance components

Speakers

– Nancy Kanasa
– Chelsea Horn

Arguments

Data governance should be prioritized over data protection in developing contexts because governance frameworks address fundamental organizational issues before technical protection measures

Low-cost improvements include creating structured frameworks, standardizing data definitions, and investing in training programs through organizations like ITU

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are addressing similar developing country contexts and practical implementation challenges, yet they have fundamentally different views on whether governance structures or protection frameworks should be prioritized first. Nancy’s PNG experience suggests governance must come first, while Chelsea’s framework implies structured protection elements should be built in from the start.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on implementation sequencing (governance vs. protection first), the balance between data protection and sharing, and approaches to context-specific solutions. Most disagreements are about methodology rather than fundamental goals.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement level with significant implications – the speakers largely agree on goals (effective data governance, multi-stakeholder approaches, context-specific solutions) but differ substantially on implementation strategies and sequencing. These methodological differences could lead to very different policy outcomes, particularly regarding whether developing countries should prioritize governance structures or protection frameworks first, and how to balance protection with beneficial data sharing.

Partial agreements

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development

Takeaways

Key takeaways

Data protection laws alone are insufficient for digital transformation – countries need complementary investments, multi-stakeholder cooperation, and implementation strategies to translate policies into effective action

Effective data governance requires five core components: clear data ownership/stewardship, usage controls and policies, defined circumstances for data use, robust collection/storage/processing/security protocols, and compliance metrics

Developing countries should prioritize context-specific solutions rather than copying frameworks from developed nations, as emerging economies often develop innovative strategies due to resource constraints

Multi-stakeholder governance significantly improves policy quality during development but many countries struggle with stakeholder participation during implementation phases

Digital sovereignty involves understanding, developing, and regulating technologies domestically to maintain control and self-determination over data-intensive systems

Cultural resistance to change within government departments presents a major barrier to data governance implementation, requiring extensive public awareness and education efforts

The dominance of few global cloud infrastructure providers (AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud) can undermine national data governance efforts regardless of strong domestic laws

Resolutions and action items

Papua New Guinea established a National Data Governance Steering Committee to provide coordination and ensure multi-stakeholder input

Papua New Guinea launched a secure data actions platform in 2024, piloted across ministries with police clearance certificates now available online

Recommendation to leverage existing open-source solutions like ITU’s GovStack building blocks for digital public infrastructure

Suggestion to invest in standardized training programs and workshops across government departments managing data

Proposal to create structured frameworks and standardize data definitions as low-cost initial improvements

Unresolved issues

How to effectively break down data silos between government departments when most countries lack data sharing laws

How to overcome cultural resistance to change within government agencies that prefer existing processes

How to balance data protection with beneficial data sharing for innovation and accountability

How to address the fundamental dependency on foreign cloud infrastructure providers while maintaining data sovereignty

How to ensure meaningful civil society participation in policy implementation rather than just policy development

How to make data governance solutions affordable and accessible for developing countries with limited resources and technical expertise

How to address the skills gap in data governance and cybersecurity professionals needed for effective implementation

Suggested compromises

Prioritize data governance frameworks over data protection in developing contexts to address fundamental organizational issues first, with protection measures following

Focus on making solutions ‘cheap and easy’ to implement rather than comprehensive but complex frameworks that are perceived as costly and difficult

Leverage existing technical skills and infrastructure strengths (like India’s software expertise for Digital Public Infrastructure) rather than trying to build everything from scratch

This question introduces the complexity of AI governance and challenges the panel to consider whether current data governance frameworks are adequate for emerging technologies. It also pushes back on the emphasis on data protection by advocating for data sharing and openness.

Impact

This question elevated the discussion to consider future challenges and the tension between protection and utilization of data. It prompted nuanced responses about balancing competing interests and highlighted the evolving nature of data governance challenges.

Overall assessment

Explanation

This highlights the capacity building and technical implementation challenges that create barriers between policy development and practical implementation in developing countries.

Day 0 Event #259 Motorolas Digital Inclusion Initiative

Session at a glance

Summary

This discussion focused on Lenovo Foundation and Motorola’s Digital Inclusion of Endangered Indigenous Languages Initiative, presented by Santiago Mendez Galvis, Gianluca Diana, and Delaney Gomez-Jackson. The Lenovo Foundation, part of the global Lenovo Group operating in over 180 countries, aims to impact 15 million people through technology access and education programs. The organization has developed six major digital inclusion initiatives, including solutions for hearing impairment, ALS support, and cultural heritage preservation.

Gianluca Diana outlined Lenovo’s commitment to responsible AI development, emphasizing their comprehensive AI policy framework and participation in global governance initiatives like the EU AI Pact and UNESCO AI Business Council. The main focus shifted to their Indigenous Language Support program, which addresses the critical gap in endangered language representation on mobile devices. Delaney Gomez-Jackson explained that approximately 40% of the world’s 6,700 languages are endangered, with UNESCO estimating one indigenous language is lost every two weeks.

The initiative has successfully localized several endangered languages onto smartphone interfaces since 2021, including Kaingang and Nheengatu from South America, Cherokee from the United States, Konkani and Kuvi from India, Maori from New Zealand, and Ladin from Italy. Most recently, they launched Zapotec keyboards supporting five script layouts for communities in Oaxaca, Mexico. Their selection criteria include UNESCO endangerment classification, digital inclusion status, community input, and availability of subject matter experts.

The presentation detailed their collaborative approach with Professor Ambrosio Gutierrez Lorenzo for the Zapotec project and Professor Paul Vitasot for the Ladin localization, emphasizing community leadership and acceptance throughout the process. During the Q&A session, representatives from Ghana, Benin, and Mauritius inquired about expanding the program to African languages and replication processes. The team confirmed they welcome requests from NGOs and communities, not just governments, and have made over one million translated words available as open source resources. The initiative aligns with UNESCO’s International Decade of Indigenous Languages (2022-2032) and demonstrates how technology companies can contribute to cultural preservation and digital inclusion.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Lenovo Foundation’s Digital Inclusion Mission**: The presentation outlined Lenovo Foundation’s broader charitable mission to empower communities through technology access and education, targeting 15 million people globally through various digital inclusion initiatives including sign language translation, ALS avatar solutions, and cultural heritage preservation.

– **Indigenous Language Endangerment Crisis**: The speakers highlighted the urgent need for language preservation, noting that approximately 40% of the world’s 6,700 languages are endangered, with UNESCO estimating one indigenous language is lost every two weeks, potentially resulting in 3,000 extinct languages by century’s end.

– **Motorola’s Indigenous Language Support Initiative**: The core focus was on Motorola’s specific program to digitize endangered languages on smartphones, including detailed case studies of their work with languages like Zapotec (Mexico), Latin (Italy), Cherokee (US), Kaingang and Nheengatu (Brazil), and others, involving community workshops and collaborative keyboard development.

– **Community-Centered Approach and Selection Criteria**: The discussion emphasized their four-pillar selection process based on UNESCO endangerment classification, digital inclusion status, community consent and input, and availability of subject matter experts, with strong emphasis on respecting indigenous communities’ wishes and leadership in the digitization process.

– **Replication and Future Expansion**: Audience questions from representatives of Ghana, Benin, and Mauritius led to discussions about how other regions, particularly Africa, could access or replicate this initiative, with speakers explaining their open approach to working with NGOs, universities, and community leaders rather than requiring government channels.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to present Motorola and Lenovo Foundation’s Indigenous Language Support Initiative as part of their broader digital inclusion efforts, demonstrating how technology companies can contribute to cultural preservation while making technology more accessible to underrepresented communities. The presentation served both as a showcase of their work and an invitation for other communities to engage with their program.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently professional, collaborative, and respectful tone throughout. The presenters demonstrated cultural sensitivity when discussing indigenous communities and emphasized partnership rather than top-down implementation. The tone became more interactive and encouraging during the Q&A session, with speakers showing genuine interest in expanding their work to new regions and communities. There was an underlying sense of urgency about language preservation balanced with optimism about technology’s potential to help address this crisis.

Speakers

– **Santiago Mendez Galvis**: Representative of the Lenovo Foundation (Lenovo’s Charitable Arm), focuses on empowering communities with access to technology and education through digital inclusion initiatives

– **Gianluca Diana**: Colleague at Lenovo, specializes in policy and AI, works on responsible AI development and global policy engagement

– **Delaney Gomez-Jackson**: Works with Lenovo Foundation and Motorola, leads the Digital Inclusion of Endangered Indigenous Languages Initiative, specializes in language localization and community engagement

– **Audience**: Multiple audience members including representatives from Ghana (West African youth IGF coordinator) and Benin (youth IGF Benin representative)

– **Dharam Gokhool**: President of the Republic of Mauritius

– **Juliana Rebelatto**: Team member participating remotely via Zoom, works on the indigenous languages initiative and community partnerships

Additional speakers:

– **Osei Keja**: From Ghana, West African youth IGF coordinator, interested in language preservation initiatives in Africa

– **Yao Senou**: From Benin, represents youth IGF Benin, interested in replicating language digitization processes in Africa

Full session report

# Comprehensive Summary: Lenovo Foundation’s Digital Inclusion of Endangered Indigenous Languages Initiative

## Introduction and Participants

The discussion centered on Lenovo Foundation and Motorola’s Digital Inclusion of Endangered Indigenous Languages Initiative, presented by three main speakers: Santiago Mendez Galvis (Lenovo Foundation representative), Gianluca Diana (Lenovo policy and AI specialist), and Delaney Gomez-Jackson (Digital Inclusion of Endangered Indigenous Languages Initiative lead). The session also featured remote participation from Juliana Rebelatto, a team member working on indigenous languages initiatives and community partnerships.

## Organizational Context and Broader Initiatives

Santiago Mendez Galvis opened the presentation by establishing the context of Lenovo Foundation’s charitable mission. As the charitable arm of the global Lenovo Group, which operates across more than 180 countries with 70,000 employees, the Foundation aims to empower communities in need through technology access and education. The organization has set a target of impacting 15 million people globally through various digital inclusion initiatives, maintaining partnerships with over 100 organizations worldwide.

Santiago briefly outlined six major digital inclusion initiatives, including the LIBRAS project for hearing impairment in Brazil, partnership with the Scott Morgan Foundation for ALS avatar solutions, collaboration with Tech to the Rescue for nonprofit empowerment, work with universities in China on cultural heritage, mental well-being support for Gen Z, and the indigenous languages initiative being discussed.

## Responsible AI Development Framework

Gianluca Diana provided context regarding Lenovo’s commitment to responsible AI development, though his presentation was interrupted by President Gokhool. Diana outlined Lenovo’s comprehensive internal policy frameworks and governance structures for ethical AI implementation. He highlighted Lenovo’s engagement in the global AI policy landscape, including their role as a signatory of the EU AI Pact, membership in the UNESCO AI Business Council, and support for the Canadian Voluntary Code on responsible AI.

Diana explained that Lenovo regularly hosts panel discussions and workshops on responsible AI with government officials and industry experts worldwide, ensuring their indigenous language initiatives are developed within an ethical framework that prioritizes community benefit.

## The Indigenous Language Endangerment Crisis

Delaney Gomez-Jackson presented statistics contextualizing the urgency of their initiative. Approximately 40% of the world’s 6,700 currently spoken languages are classified as endangered, with UNESCO estimating that one indigenous language is lost every two weeks. This could potentially result in 3,000 extinct languages by the end of the century.

The initiative specifically addresses the gap in endangered indigenous language representation on mobile devices. As Delaney explained when discussing Professor Paul Vitasat’s perspective: “Mobile phones are like the pencil of the 21st century, and having minority languages and having Ladin in them has the same importance of having a language in a book in the centuries before.”

## Community-Centered Selection Process and Implementation

The program employs a four-pillar selection process: UNESCO endangerment classification, digital inclusion status, community consent and input, and availability of subject matter experts. Community acceptance and leadership serve as guiding principles throughout the entire process, with decisions made by communities themselves while the technical team provides support.

The program welcomes requests from NGOs and communities, partnering with universities and nonprofit organizations rather than requiring government channels. This accessibility removes bureaucratic barriers that might prevent communities from accessing technological support for language preservation.

## Successful Projects and Technical Implementation

Since 2021, the initiative has successfully localized several endangered languages onto smartphone interfaces. The implemented languages include Kaingang and Nheengatu from South America (2021), Cherokee from the United States (2022), Konkani and Kuvi from India (2023), Maori from New Zealand and Ladin from Italy (2024), and Zapotec keyboards supporting five script layouts for communities in Oaxaca, Mexico (2024).

The technical work involves addressing challenges with Unicode, Gboard, and CLDR support. The Zapotec keyboard project involved workshops across five communities in Oaxaca, with community-led decision making determining keyboard layouts. The Ladin localization required creating new terminology for modern technology concepts, involving extensive collaboration with cultural institutes and language experts, including Professor Paul Vitasat.

## Open Source Commitment

The initiative has made over one million translated words available as open source resources at Motorola.com for educators, researchers, and industry experts. Juliana Rebelatto emphasized that the program aims to inspire other companies and organizations to support minority languages and engage with communities, representing a collaborative rather than competitive approach to cultural preservation.

## Global Interest and African Expansion

The discussion revealed significant interest from African representatives. Osei Keja, representing Ghana as the West African youth IGF coordinator, highlighted critical situations facing African languages, noting that some dialects have only two remaining speakers according to BBC reports. Yao Senou, representing youth IGF Benin, expressed interest in replicating the initiative across different regions, noting that Benin alone has approximately 60 different dialects requiring revitalization support.

The team confirmed their openness to working with African communities and organizations, emphasizing that official government channels are not required for participation. When President Gokhool asked about working through NGOs versus government channels, the team clarified their preference for direct community engagement.

## Questions and Responses

During the Q&A session, three main questions were addressed:

1. **Osei Keja** asked about addressing deeper challenges beyond interface translation, specifically ensuring that digitized languages evolve and remain culturally relevant over time.

2. **Yao Senou** inquired about replicating the initiative across different regions, particularly in Benin with its 60 dialects.

3. **President Gokhool** questioned whether the program works through NGOs or government channels.

The presenters responded by emphasizing their community-first approach, willingness to work globally, and preference for direct community engagement. They offered to share contact information for follow-up discussions.

## Future Commitment and Timeline

The initiative operates within the framework of UNESCO’s International Decade of Indigenous Languages (2022-2032). The team employs ongoing community-needs assessment to guide future implementations rather than following a predetermined roadmap.

Juliana Rebelatto articulated the program’s philosophy: “We truly believe that small steps, like the creation of a keyboard, can change lives, and we hope this will trigger others to follow our path.” The sustainability model relies on continued corporate commitment combined with community engagement and academic partnerships.

## Conclusion

The presentation demonstrated a comprehensive, community-centered approach to addressing indigenous language endangerment through technological innovation. The Lenovo Foundation and Motorola initiative shows how corporate resources can support cultural preservation while maintaining community agency and academic rigor.

The strong interest from African representatives and the team’s openness to global expansion suggest significant potential for scaling these efforts. The initiative’s commitment to open-source principles and industry collaboration, combined with their community-first methodology, provides a model for how technology companies can meaningfully contribute to cultural preservation while respecting indigenous communities’ sovereignty over their cultural heritage.

The program’s alignment with UNESCO’s International Decade of Indigenous Languages provides an international framework for their continued efforts through 2032, with the potential to inspire broader industry engagement in cultural preservation initiatives.

Session transcript

Santiago Mendez Galvis: Hello, everybody. My name is Santiago Mendez, and I’m here with my colleagues Gianluca Diana and Delaney Gomez-Jackson, and we’re going to talk to you about digital inclusion and the Motorola initiative that we have called Indigenous Language Support. First of all, let us talk a little bit about who we are. We’re part of the Lenovo Group, which covers over 180 countries. We have 70,000 employees, and with more than 30 manufacturing sites spread all across the world. On top of that, we have our research and development labs spread out in 18 different countries. So we are a total global organization, and I’m here representing the Lenovo Foundation. The Lenovo Foundation is the Lenovo Charitable Arm, and we focus on empowering the ones who need it with access to technology and education. As you will see later on from the project that my colleague Delany is going to talk to you, digital inclusion is very close to our heart, and it’s completely aligned to our mission. On top of that, we are targeting to impact through our programs 15 million people, and we’re on target to achieve that during this year. And just to show you a little bit about the outreach of our community impact. So as you can see on the map above us, we have over 100 partners spread out all over the world. We have different layers, and I’m not going to take you through all of them because it will take us a lot of time. However, today we’re going to focus on one very, very specific, which is very also innovative, which is the indigenous language support, which you will see later on. But on top of that, we have created another, we have a full set of digital inclusion initiatives. Here I’m going to share with you six of them that you can review. I mean, one of them will go in deep in the next slides. However, you know, I just wanted to very quickly highlight what we’re doing in the field. So let’s start with, we have converted, we create a solution for people with hearing impairment in Brazil that translate sign language, which is called the LIBRAS project. It’s the one you can see. We’ll have also partnered with Scott Morgan Foundation in the creation of an avatar solution with people with ALS. We empower nonprofits with digital solutions, thanks to our partnership with Tech to the Rescue. On the cultural side, we have partnered with universities in China to utilize cultural heritage moments. Of course, you know, like the multi-indigenous program you’ll hear in a minute. And we have also worked to support the mental well-being of Gen Z in different places, all to make sure they find ways to communicate better. So having said that, I’ll hand over to my colleague, Gianluca Diana, who is going to talk a little bit about our digital engagement.

Gianluca Diana: Thank you, Santi. And before I hand over to Delany, I just want to give you a very brief overview of what we’re doing in terms of policy and AI. Because at Lenovo, we are strongly committed to responsible AI development, both through how we design our technology and how we engage globally with policymakers. And our mission is really to have advanced, trustworthy, human-centric AI, and to contribute helping shaping ethical transparency, transparent policy through international cooperation. And we really believe in that innovation and AI can only thrive when supported by strong governance aligned with key principles like fairness, accountability, transparency, and human oversight. Internally, we have a comprehensive AI policy framework that guides the way we build and deploy AI systems, ensuring legal compliance, privacy, data protection, and ethical standards across the entire AI life cycles. And this is enforced through a strong internal governance led by our responsible AI committee and our chief AI officer. Also, we engage externally, and Lenovo is very active in contributing to the AI global policy landscapes. We are indeed very proud to be one of the first signatories of the European Union AI Pact.

Audience: I am Mauritius, the president. It’s all right. All right. Oh, thank you very much. Just to say hello to you. Nice to meet you. I’m going to listen to you. Thank you. I’m going to talk about what we realize.

Gianluca Diana: Yes, in a minute. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. We are also a member of the UNESCO AI Business Council, and we are a supporter of the Canadian Voluntary Code on Responsible AI. And we are also engaging in terms of AI policy around the world. We host several panel discussions and workshops on responsible AI, gathering government officials, EU institutions, and industry experts to have open discussions on responsible AI. Just recently, we hosted one in the Italian Senate in Spain, but also more at the global level outside of Europe, in Tokyo, Sao Paolo. And through these initiatives, we really want to promote cross-sectoral collaboration to ensure that AI serves society in positive, human-centered ways. And now I will just hand over to Beleni that will focus on the Motorola Intelligent Language Program.

Delaney Gomez-Jackson: Great. Thank you, Gianluca. Today, I’ll be introducing Lenovo Foundation and Motorola’s Digital Inclusion of Endangered Indigenous Languages Initiative. Motorola and Lenovo Foundation’s Digital Inclusion Initiative has the main goal of serving communities through raising awareness of endangered indigenous languages. The Digital Inclusion Initiative also aims to address the needs of indigenous people through easier access to technology, as well as bring action toward the revitalization of endangered languages. Finally, it aims to help empower future generations of indigenous communities to use technology in their native language. In 2020, we discovered a gap in the representation of endangered indigenous languages on mobile phones. While smartphones are becoming more globally available and used, they are not fully accessible to many indigenous communities since they lack indigenous language representation. We took the first step to address this gap by launching the first user interface in two South American languages, Kaingang and Ningatu, in 2021. In 2022, we joined UNESCO in the kickoff of the International Decade of Indigenous Languages from 2022 to 2032. We hope that this Digital Inclusion Initiative will help to promote the written usage, as well as the overall daily usage, of indigenous languages so that technology can become accessible for all, in alignment with Lenovo’s mission of smarter technology for all. The Digital Inclusion Initiative aims to bring awareness to the language revitalization cause. Approximately 40% of the 6,700 languages that are currently spoken are in danger of becoming extinct. UNESCO estimates that one indigenous language is lost every two weeks, meaning that by the end of the century, almost 3,000 languages will no longer be in use. In addition to this, oftentimes indigenous languages are not well supported by governments and therefore do not have many educational or media programs centered around them. It is important to highlight the revitalization of endangered indigenous languages. As language is an important part of culture, consider the histories, stories, and traditions which are shared through such languages. By joining in this language revitalization effort, languages and cultures can be uplifted and preserved. The criteria for selecting languages for a Digital Inclusion Initiative is based on four main pillars. First is the classification. regarding how endangered a language is based on factors such as intergenerational transfer. The UNESCO language endangerment classifications have five levels, excluding a non-endangered status, which are vulnerable or endangered, definitely endangered, severely endangered, critically endangered, and extinct. We also assess the language’s digital inclusion status. For example, whether the language has received support from Unicode or Gboard. Community input and feeling regarding the digitization of a language is paramount to the success of the initiative. We understand the importance of respecting indigenous languages and cultures, and the fact that not every community wants their language digitized the same way, if at all. We must respect all decisions and not push our goals ahead of their needs. Finally, we assess the availability of subject matter experts to guide the project in the direction of the community’s needs. Subject matter experts, such as professors or scholars, are also often the bridge which helps connect us to these indigenous communities. Over the past five years, we have collaborated with subject matter experts, scholars, community leaders, and community members across the world to include indigenous languages onto our smartphones. In 2021, we collaborated with Ningatu and Kaingang speaking communities to localize these languages into the user interface of our smartphones. Ningatu, considered to be severely endangered by UNESCO’s classification system, is spoken by indigenous communities in the Amazon regions of Brazil, Colombia, and Venezuela. Kaingang, a definitely endangered language, is spoken in Southern Brazil. Likewise, in 2022, we became the first phone manufacturer to fully support Cherokee, spoken in the United States, on the user interface of our smartphones. Cherokee is considered to be endangered by UNESCO. In 2023, we localized Congaree, spoken in Northern India, onto our mobile phones. Additionally, we collaborated with the Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences to create a writing system that was then made into a smartphone keyboard for the Kuvi language, spoken in Eastern India. For the first time, the Kuvi community could type in their native language on their smartphones. In 2024, we localized Maori, spoken in New Zealand, as well as Latin, spoken in Italy, onto our phones. And last week, we launched our newest addition to the Digital Inclusion Initiative, a Zapotec keyboard supporting five script layouts. I’ll now speak on some details of our localization and keyboard creation processes for two particular communities. Zapotec is an endangered language spoken by about 490,000 people in Oaxaca, Mexico. There are more than 50 Zapotec languages, some of which are mutually intelligible with one another. This means that sometimes, speakers of different Zapotec languages can understand each other. UNESCO categorizes the Zapotec languages as definitely endangered, since younger generations are becoming increasingly monolingual in Spanish. Zapotec languages can be divided into four main groups, Northern Zapotec, Southern Zapotec, Isthmus Zapotec, and Valley Zapotec. The focus of this project was Valley Zapotec, because our SME for this phase of the initiative is connected with this region. For this phase of the initiative, we worked with Professor Ambrosio Gutierrez Lorenzo, Professor of Linguistics at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and he is also a native speaker of Teotitlan Zapotec, spoken in the Central Valley of Oaxaca. Through this project, he helped us understand the landscape of the Zapotec languages, as well as connect us to the five communities that were involved in this phase. And these five communities were San Pablo Guila, Teotitlan del Valle, Santa Ynez Yatzeche, San Bartolome Cuiolana, and San Miguel del Valle. With Ambrosio’s leadership, we helped to host workshops in these communities for the development of the keyboard. Each community had a workshop that covered topics such as the sound system of the language, the alphabet, keyboard layout discussions, and keyboard testing. The guiding principle throughout the workshops was community acceptance and leadership. It was crucial that these communities made the decisions about the keyboards, while our team could provide technical advice when needed. Between the days of each workshop, the globalization team at Motorola worked with Professor Ambrosio and the community to develop multiple iterations of the keyboards according to the layouts that they had devised during the workshop. Decisions that were considered by our team and the communities included how many rows the keyboard should have, how to include characters that are specific to Zapotec languages, and the layout of the entire keyboard, including numbers, symbols, and special characters. Our team wanted the keyboards to be representative of the communities. Some of the communities requested images to be on the space bar. For example, the Teotitlan community requested a symbol of a cloud with a lightning going through it to appear on the space bar since it is symbolic of their community. As the first Zapotec keyboard on a smartphone, this project has made it possible for these communities to write in Zapotec on their smartphones for the very first time. In Oaxaca City, we hosted a large workshop in which participants from all five communities were invited to discuss the project at large. Members of the different communities were able to see each other’s work and discussions were had about the importance of language revitalization for the Zapotec community. Overall, community feedback was positive. People remarked that the keyboard was important for the revitalization of the language as well as very practical for daily use. And now I’ll talk about one of our localization projects for the Latin language. Latin is categorized as definitely endangered and is spoken by about 32,000 people in the Dolomite region of Italy. It is an autochthonous language, meaning that it is native to the region. Since it is a minority language that does not have a kin state or an associated political entity supporting it, the impact of this project is powerful and highlights the importance of helping to promote minority languages. While Latin is taught in schools in some areas, there are not many protective measures for the language in other areas. In these areas, Latin is not used in administrative scenarios, nor in the media, nor at public events, and nor in education. With the increase in globalization in the Dolomite region, it is important to ensure that a minority language such as Latin is preserved. Thus, our team collaborated with Professor Paul Vitasot, who is a professor of Romance Philology at the Free University of Bozan-Bolzano, as well as a team of Latin translators to localize over 200,000 words that now appear in the user interface of our smartphones when a user selects Latin as the device language. To make important decisions towards the digitization of the language, Professor Paul Vitasot had several meetings among translators and representatives of three Latin cultural institutes, Badia, Fassa, and Fodon. In some cases, and even in an entire domain of a language, Latin had never been used before. For example, the terminology related to the use of different functions of the camera. One case was the term bokeh effect, and this was crafted by Latin translators and linguists who created a word in Latin which roughly translates to the equivalent of an effect with undefined contours. Another difficult aspect of an initiative like this was the choice on which of the written dialects to use. There is essentially one Latin dialect per valley, but the team decided to use the variety of Valbadia, which is the most widely spoken and used. However, the team made a concerted effort to use words and forms that are as comprehensible as possible throughout the entire Latin territory. Thank you. Laudan speakers can now use their smartphones with a Laudan user interface, thus helping to highlight the importance of including endangered indigenous languages in this technology. Professor Paul Vitasat believes that having Laudan in these mobile phones shows not only for the Laudans, but to all users of smaller languages in the world, that their language was not only useful for the 20 centuries before our time, but will be useful also in the future. Definitively, this project will help Laudan and other minority languages to be more visible. Mobile phones are like the pencil of the 21st century, and having minority languages and having Laudan in them has the same importance of having a language in a book in the centuries before. As leaders of technology, Lenovo Foundation and Motorola recognize our responsibility to positively influence society through environmental and social governance. We are committed to the international decade of indigenous languages from 2022 to 2032 and look toward community feedback to improve our process. We also value sharing our process with the public We also value sharing our process with the public so that others can join the language revitalization and digitization causes. Through this digital inclusion initiative and the communities that we have collaborated with, we have translated and open sourced over 1 million words that are available at Motorola.com so that they can be downloaded by educators, researchers, and industry experts aiming to promote the revitalization of endangered indigenous and minority languages. With the core tenets of passionate employee experts, a commitment to respect for diverse and underrepresented cultures, commitment to quality through collaboration of scholars and institutions, and a vision for an impact broader than Motorola devices, the digital inclusion of indigenous languages initiative will continue. We will now take questions for our Q&A session.

Audience: Hello everyone. Good morning. I hope I’m audible enough.

Santiago Mendez Galvis: Hello. We hear you.

Audience: Good. My name is Osei Keja. I’m from Ghana and very excited to be part of this conversation. I’m also the rep for West African youth IGF coordinator. This particular topic is of very great interest because in my country, Ghana, there are two dialects which are only one dialect which two people only speak is going to stand by BBC report last year. I didn’t see much of work being done in Africa and maybe more on that will help. Beyond interface translation, I would like to know how the Motorola intends to address the deeper challenges when it comes to ensuring that digitized languages evolve and remain culturally relevant. Also, about co-creation of local communities. If you can just provide clarity on that, I would be grateful. Thank you very much.

Santiago Mendez Galvis: Thank you.

Delaney Gomez-Jackson: As you know, we have done localization and keyboard projects. If I understand your question correctly, it’s how can we expand beyond that beyond the digitization to really impact communities? And what I can say on that is we when we look to initiate new phases of the project, we make sure that we work very closely with the community to ensure that something like localization or keyboard creation is part of their needs. As I mentioned before, community acceptance and feedback is one of our primary parameters for when we decide to include and work with the community into our phones. And so when it comes to other sorts of initiatives that expand beyond localization and keyboard projects, we really want to collaborate with the community to ensure that another sort of project fits that. So it really is a case by case basis, depending on what the community wants and how they feel that their language can best be preserved and represented.

Santiago Mendez Galvis: Thank you, Delany. And so just to reinform that, then when we partner with organizations in the regions that the language are developed, then we’re pulling resources also into their own, let’s say, ecosystem. So at the same time, we’re kind of revitalizing the community around the language. Do we have any other questions? Yes, please.

Audience: Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Hello, everybody. My name is Yao Senou. I’m from Benin. I represent the youth IGF Benin. Thank you for your presentation. I just have one quick one. I was a bit late, so I didn’t follow all the slides you presented. I want to understand how do you actually select the language you work on? And also the second question is, at the current stage of the process you’ve developed, how we can replicate it into other regions like Africa? You know, mostly we are one tiny country and we have 60 different dialects that people want to revitalize. And since we’re also looking at how to include people, everybody, into the digital inclusion sphere, so how we can replicate what you already developed in those contexts? Thank you very much.

Santiago Mendez Galvis: Thank you.

Delaney Gomez-Jackson: I can take this question. I have put back onto the slides our parameters for language selection. And so these parameters include various things such as the official UNESCO endangerment status of the language. So we work with languages that are endangered. So this can include the vulnerable slash endangered category, the definitely endangered category, severely endangered, and critically endangered categories. We also assess whether the language has been supported by Unicode, for example, or Gboard or CLDR. So we look at all of these technical aspects of digital inclusion to see where the language falls in that. And then, as I mentioned before, community input and feeling regarding the digitization. So as Motorola and Lenovo Foundation, we want to ensure that the community is respectfully involved from the beginning to the end of the process. So we work with the community to figure out what sort of digitization process will best suit their language preservation needs. And then, finally, the availability of subject matter experts to guide the project in the direction that the community wants. So these can be community leaders. These can be professors or scholars, basically anyone who can help us bridge that gap between us to the community to ensure that everyone can respectfully communicate their needs with one another. And then I’ll pass it over to my colleague, Juliana Rebelatto, who is here over Zoom to answer the second part of the question, which is how something like this project can be replicated or how other communities can go through this process.

Juliana Rebelatto: Thank you so much, Delaney. Can you hear me all right?

Santiago Mendez Galvis: Yes, we can hear you.

Juliana Rebelatto: Well, thank you for your question. And I’m sorry to hear about the language of your community that only has two speakers. We understand the importance of those actions. And I would say that there are a couple of ways that one community could replicate the work that we’re doing. I’ll give an example of what’s happening with the Kaingang community in the south of Brazil. They’re using our smartphones to bring the technology and the language into classrooms. So, of course, that is an expansion of what we’re doing. The actual replication, I would say, fits into the second example I will give. Based on the language, Latin in Italy that we speak. supported. There have been continuity studies that researchers used our corpus, the data, the data set, the language set that we made available in Motorola.com web page, and they’re working on building machine translation models for their communities to be able to further use the language, for example. I would say that for languages such as the ones that have not been part of our program yet, one thing that could be possible to be done is for us to initiate a conversation, because like Delaney mentioned earlier, we’re always looking at how else we can contribute to communities, so we’ll be happy to share our email addresses, and hearing out what the community’s needs are helps us define the next steps of our journey. Motorola and Lenovo Foundation are fully committed to digital inclusion. Lenovo’s mission is smarter technology for all, so we take real respect on any type of needs that the community has. Of course, we cannot make promises, but we can, of course, be committed to listening to your needs and understanding how else we could be collaborating with the language.

Santiago Mendez Galvis: Thank you very much, Juliana. Do we have any other questions in the audience, or do we have any questions online? No questions online. Anyone else?

Dharam Gokhool: Good morning. Good morning. Myself, the President of the Republic of Mauritius. I’ve traveled a long distance to come to this conference, and I must congratulate the speaker and other speakers, because it has to do deal with cultural heritage, and I find it very interesting that Motorola is partnering with UNESCO for the preservation of indigenous languages. I have a very simple question, that is, in terms of requests that are channeled to UNESCO and the Motorola Foundation, could NGOs also forward requests based on the criteria that you have mentioned, or should it be channeled officially by governments?

Delaney Gomez-Jackson: Juliana, would you like to take that question?

Juliana Rebelatto: I can, yes. Thank you. Nice meeting you virtually. So, yes, I’ll be happy to share my email address in chat, and you’re welcome to share requests. We’re open to listening to what the community’s needs are. It does not need to come through government official requests. We have been partnering up with professors from universities, from local universities, as well as nonprofit organizations, and this is normally the model of work we do. We partner up with nonprofit organizations to make payments to the translators that are going to be working with us, and to the researchers that are going to be onboarded in our initiative phase. We want to make sure everyone works in the initiative. It’s treated the same way as any translator or linguist of any other widely spoken language is. That’s why it is important that we also have a contact of a nonprofit organization. But, yes, short answer is feasibilities of that that we would be happy to hear out what your requests would be. We’ll be glad to assess the

Gianluca Diana: . Just to summarize, so it doesn’t have to be an NGO. It’s mostly about the subject matter experts for the specific language, and how they can help us to build the program. So, we can share later our contacts, and we can actually follow up. Okay. Thank you very much.

Santiago Mendez Galvis: Do we have something online?

Delaney Gomez-Jackson: Um, just a request to share email addresses.

Santiago Mendez Galvis: Any other comments? Maybe, Juliana, would you like to add something?

Juliana Rebelatto: Yeah. I think one piece of information that has always helped for adding here is one curiosity that normally comes to us. A question is how this program initiated, and what motivated Motorola and Lenovo Foundation to look into languages that are normally not seen in technology. I would say that the reason the three of you are there speaking, and the reason that we’re doing the work since 2019 when we initiated the research is precisely the gap that we have identified. We identified that digital, that endangered indigenous languages are not fully well represented, and certainly not represented well enough in technology. We hope this speech and this initiative that we have been delivering to the globe will inspire others, will inspire other companies, other groups to look into minority languages, and to, you know, talk to the community and hear out what they have to say, what is important for them. We truly believe that small steps, like the creation of a keyboard, can change lives, and we hope this will trigger others to follow our path.

Santiago Mendez Galvis: And just a little bit, like, would you mind to share any roadmap? You know, we don’t have to formalize, but is there anything we could share with the audience about, like, future languages? Because there’s still a few years to come.

Juliana Rebelatto: Yes, we normally do not fully cover a stiff roadmap. Like, I answered two questions before, we’re always looking out to the current community needs, and the actual goals that we have are aligned with the community needs, first and most important of all. What I can say, Santi, is that we have been at UNESCO’s kickoff event for the International Decade of Indigenous Languages, and that was in 2022. The decade is declared from 2022 to 2032, so although there is no defined cadence for us to announce new languages, we are fully committed to the UNESCO decade, and we’re going to be constantly looking at what else could be done, what other languages in the globe could be part of our initiative, so that we announce them, and we work closely with expert matters, subject to expert matters, the community, translators, professors, leaders of the community, and government parties to make sure that we are onboarding more. So, there is no predefined roadmap, but there is certainly one that we’re very excited to keep on working on, and we are committed up until the end of the UNESCO’s International Indigenous Languages.

Santiago Mendez Galvis: Thank you, Juliana. I think then we are good to go. Any last questions for the audience before we finish? Then, on behalf of Mott and the Lenovo Foundation, we thank you for taking your time to listen to us, and wish you a very nice day. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Thank you.

Santiago Mendez Galvis

Speech speed

133 words per minute

Speech length

696 words

Speech time

312 seconds

Lenovo Foundation’s Digital Inclusion Mission and Global Impact

Explanation

Santiago presents the Lenovo Foundation as the charitable arm of Lenovo Group that focuses on empowering those in need with access to technology and education. The foundation operates globally with ambitious targets to impact millions of people through various digital inclusion programs.

Evidence

Lenovo Group covers over 180 countries with 70,000 employees, 30+ manufacturing sites worldwide, and R&D labs in 18 countries. The foundation has over 100 partners globally and targets impacting 15 million people. Specific initiatives include LIBRAS project for hearing impairment in Brazil, Scott Morgan Foundation partnership for ALS avatar solution, Tech to the Rescue partnership, cultural heritage work with Chinese universities, and Gen Z mental well-being support.

Major discussion point

Digital inclusion and global technology access

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Agreed with

– Delaney Gomez-Jackson
– Juliana Rebelatto

Agreed on

Digital inclusion as a fundamental mission

Gianluca Diana

Speech speed

115 words per minute

Speech length

380 words

Speech time

197 seconds

Responsible AI Development and Policy Framework

Explanation

Gianluca emphasizes Lenovo’s commitment to responsible AI development through both internal governance and external policy engagement. The company believes that AI innovation can only thrive when supported by strong governance aligned with principles like fairness, accountability, transparency, and human oversight.

Evidence

Lenovo has comprehensive AI policy framework ensuring legal compliance, privacy, data protection, and ethical standards across AI lifecycles. Internal governance includes responsible AI committee and chief AI officer. External engagement includes being first signatories of EU AI Pact, member of UNESCO AI Business Council, supporter of Canadian Voluntary Code on Responsible AI. They host panel discussions in Italian Senate, Spain, Tokyo, and Sao Paolo.

Major discussion point

Responsible AI governance and policy engagement

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Delaney Gomez-Jackson

Speech speed

136 words per minute

Speech length

2352 words

Speech time

1030 seconds

Indigenous Language Digital Inclusion Initiative Overview

Explanation

Delaney explains that the initiative addresses the critical gap in endangered indigenous language representation on mobile phones, discovered in 2020. The program aims to serve communities by raising awareness, providing easier access to technology, and empowering future generations to use technology in their native languages.

Evidence

Agreed with

– Juliana Rebelatto

Agreed on

Community-centered approach to language preservation

Over 1 million translated words have been open-sourced and made available for educators, researchers, and industry experts

Explanation

Delaney highlights the broader impact of the initiative beyond Motorola devices by making linguistic resources publicly available. This open-source approach enables educators, researchers, and industry experts to contribute to language revitalization efforts.

Evidence

Over 1 million words translated and open-sourced, available at Motorola.com for download by educators, researchers, and industry experts. Core tenets include passionate employee experts, commitment to respect for diverse cultures, commitment to quality through scholar collaboration, and vision for impact broader than Motorola devices.

Major discussion point

Open-source approach to language preservation resources

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Agreed with

– Juliana Rebelatto
– Audience

Agreed on

Need for global expansion of language preservation initiatives

Audience

Speech speed

150 words per minute

Speech length

320 words

Speech time

128 seconds

African communities face significant language endangerment challenges, with some dialects having only two remaining speakers

Explanation

Audience members from Ghana and Benin highlight the critical situation of language endangerment in Africa, where some dialects are on the verge of extinction. They express interest in expanding the initiative to address the numerous endangered languages across African countries.

Evidence

Ghana has dialects with only two speakers remaining according to BBC report. Benin has 60 different dialects that need revitalization. Limited work being done in Africa compared to other regions.

Major discussion point

Language endangerment crisis in African communities

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Agreed with

– Delaney Gomez-Jackson

Agreed on

Urgency of language preservation crisis

There is interest in replicating the initiative across different regions, particularly in Africa where countries have numerous dialects needing revitalization

Explanation

Audience members express strong interest in understanding how the Motorola initiative can be replicated in their regions. They seek guidance on the process for expanding the program to address the numerous endangered dialects in African countries.

Evidence

Questions about replication process for Africa. Benin mentioned as having 60 different dialects needing revitalization. Interest in digital inclusion for everybody in the digital sphere.

Major discussion point

Scaling language preservation initiatives globally

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Agreed with

– Delaney Gomez-Jackson
– Juliana Rebelatto

Agreed on

Need for global expansion of language preservation initiatives

Dharam Gokhool

Speech speed

100 words per minute

Speech length

100 words

Speech time

59 seconds

Official government channels are not required for requests, as the program works directly with subject matter experts and community organizations

Explanation

President Gokhool inquires about the process for submitting requests to the UNESCO-Motorola partnership, specifically whether NGOs can directly submit requests or if government channels are required. The response clarifies that direct community engagement is preferred.

Evidence

Question from President of Republic of Mauritius about whether NGOs can forward requests based on mentioned criteria or if requests should be channeled officially by governments.

Major discussion point

Accessibility of language preservation programs to communities

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Juliana Rebelatto

Speech speed

148 words per minute

Speech length

– Santiago Mendez Galvis
– Delaney Gomez-Jackson

Agreed on

Digital inclusion as a fundamental mission

Small technological steps like keyboard creation can significantly impact lives and language preservation efforts

Explanation

Juliana argues that seemingly small technological interventions, such as creating keyboards for indigenous languages, can have profound effects on language preservation and community empowerment. These tools enable practical daily use of endangered languages in digital contexts.

Evidence

Belief that small steps like keyboard creation can change lives. Examples of communities using smartphones to bring technology and language into classrooms. Researchers using corpus data to build machine translation models.

Major discussion point

Impact of incremental technological solutions on language preservation

Topics

Sociocultural | Infrastructure

Agreements

Agreement points

Community-centered approach to language preservation

Speakers

– Delaney Gomez-Jackson
– Juliana Rebelatto

Arguments

Community acceptance and leadership are guiding principles, with decisions made by communities while technical advice is provided by the team

The program welcomes requests from NGOs and communities, partnering with universities and nonprofit organizations rather than requiring government channels

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that successful language preservation requires community leadership and decision-making, with technology companies providing support rather than imposing solutions. They agree that communities should drive the process while receiving technical assistance.

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Development

Digital inclusion as a fundamental mission

Speakers

– Santiago Mendez Galvis
– Delaney Gomez-Jackson
– Juliana Rebelatto

Arguments

Lenovo Foundation’s Digital Inclusion Mission and Global Impact

Indigenous Language Digital Inclusion Initiative Overview

The program aims to inspire other companies and organizations to support minority languages and engage with communities

Summary

All Lenovo/Motorola speakers share a unified commitment to digital inclusion as a core organizational mission, specifically targeting underserved communities and endangered languages to ensure technology accessibility for all.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Urgency of language preservation crisis

Speakers

– Delaney Gomez-Jackson
– Audience

Arguments

Indigenous Language Digital Inclusion Initiative Overview

African communities face significant language endangerment challenges, with some dialects having only two remaining speakers

Summary

Both the presenter and audience members acknowledge the critical nature of language endangerment globally, with specific recognition that many languages are on the verge of extinction and require immediate intervention.

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Need for global expansion of language preservation initiatives

Speakers

– Delaney Gomez-Jackson
– Juliana Rebelatto
– Audience

Arguments

Over 1 million translated words have been open-sourced and made available for educators, researchers, and industry experts

The initiative is committed to UNESCO’s International Decade of Indigenous Languages (2022-2032) without a predefined roadmap but with ongoing community-needs assessment

There is interest in replicating the initiative across different regions, particularly in Africa where countries have numerous dialects needing revitalization

Summary

All parties agree on the need to scale language preservation efforts globally, with the company committed to expanding their initiative and audience members expressing strong interest in replication across different regions, particularly Africa.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Development | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

Open-source approach to proprietary technology solutions

Speakers

– Delaney Gomez-Jackson
– Juliana Rebelatto

Arguments

Over 1 million translated words have been open-sourced and made available for educators, researchers, and industry experts

The program aims to inspire other companies and organizations to support minority languages and engage with communities

Explanation

It is unexpected for a commercial technology company to open-source over 1 million translated words and actively encourage competitors and other organizations to replicate their work. This demonstrates unusual corporate altruism in prioritizing social impact over competitive advantage in the language preservation space.

Topics

Sociocultural | Development

Direct community engagement bypassing government channels

Speakers

– Juliana Rebelatto
– Dharam Gokhool

Arguments

The program welcomes requests from NGOs and communities, partnering with universities and nonprofit organizations rather than requiring government channels

Official government channels are not required for requests, as the program works directly with subject matter experts and community organizations

Explanation

The consensus that a major corporate initiative can and should bypass official government channels for cultural preservation work is unexpected, especially when discussed with a sitting president. This represents agreement on grassroots empowerment over traditional diplomatic protocols.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion demonstrates strong consensus across all participants on the critical importance of language preservation, the need for community-centered approaches, and the urgency of scaling digital inclusion initiatives globally. Key areas of agreement include the crisis of language endangerment, the effectiveness of community-led technology solutions, and the need for direct engagement with communities rather than government intermediaries.

Consensus level

Very high consensus level with significant implications for the future of indigenous language preservation. The alignment between corporate commitment, academic support, and community needs creates a strong foundation for expanding these initiatives. The unexpected willingness of a commercial entity to open-source resources and encourage replication suggests a paradigm shift toward collaborative rather than competitive approaches to cultural preservation technology.

Differences

Different viewpoints

Unexpected differences

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus among all speakers on the importance of indigenous language preservation, digital inclusion, and community-centered approaches. The only tension emerged around implementation pace and scale.

Disagreement level

Very low disagreement level. This was primarily a presentation format rather than a debate, with speakers from Lenovo/Motorola presenting their initiative and audience members asking clarifying questions. The minimal disagreement around implementation approaches reflects different regional urgencies rather than fundamental philosophical differences, which actually strengthens the overall consensus on the importance of the work while highlighting the need for adaptive strategies based on local contexts.

Partial agreements

Development | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Takeaways

Key takeaways

Lenovo Foundation’s Indigenous Language Support initiative addresses a critical gap in digital inclusion by bringing endangered languages to smartphone interfaces and keyboards

The program has successfully implemented 8+ languages across multiple continents since 2021, with community-led decision making as the core principle

Approximately 40% of world languages are endangered with one lost every two weeks, making technological preservation efforts urgent

The initiative has open-sourced over 1 million translated words for broader educational and research use

Community acceptance and collaboration with subject matter experts are essential prerequisites for language digitization projects

The program operates through partnerships with universities, NGOs, and cultural institutes rather than requiring government channels

Small technological interventions like keyboard creation can have significant impact on language preservation and community empowerment

Resolutions and action items

Team committed to sharing contact information with interested communities and organizations for potential collaboration

Ongoing commitment to UNESCO’s International Decade of Indigenous Languages (2022-2032) with continued language assessment and implementation

Open invitation for NGOs and communities to submit requests based on established criteria without requiring government approval

Continued collaboration with existing communities to expand beyond basic digitization based on their specific needs

Unresolved issues

No specific roadmap or timeline provided for future language implementations beyond the 2032 UNESCO commitment

Limited discussion of how to scale the initiative to address the vast number of endangered languages globally, particularly in Africa

Unclear resource allocation or capacity limitations for handling multiple simultaneous requests from communities

No detailed explanation of technical requirements or infrastructure needed for communities to participate

Insufficient detail on how the program measures long-term impact on actual language revitalization beyond technological implementation

Suggested compromises

Case-by-case assessment approach for expanding beyond localization and keyboard projects based on individual community needs

Flexible partnership models working with various types of organizations (universities, NGOs, cultural institutes) rather than requiring specific institutional structures

This comment was particularly impactful because it brought urgent, real-world context to the discussion with specific data about language extinction. It highlighted geographical gaps in current efforts and personalized the crisis by referencing a language with only two remaining speakers, making the abstract concept of language endangerment concrete and immediate.

Impact

This comment introduced a sense of urgency and geographical awareness to the discussion, prompting the presenters to address how their model could be replicated in underserved regions. It shifted focus from celebrating achievements to acknowledging gaps and considering scalability and global equity in language preservation efforts.

Overall assessment

Explanation

This highlights a research gap in understanding and addressing endangered language preservation efforts specifically in African contexts.

Media Hub

Closing Ceremony

Day 0 Event #252 Editorial Media and Big Tech Dependency the Material Conditions for a Free and Resilient NeWS Media

Session at a glance

Summary

This discussion at the Internet Governance Forum focused on the material conditions for distribution of media content and the challenges posed by concentrated ownership of internet infrastructure to free and resilient journalism. The session was chaired by Professor Helle Sjøvåg and featured keynote speakers Chris Disspain and Anja Schiffrin, followed by a panel discussion with experts from various fields.

Chris Disspain emphasized that the internet is not an abstract space but a physical, centralized, and privately owned infrastructure controlled by a handful of companies. He warned that this concentration creates potential vulnerabilities and choke points that can be used to silence journalism or manipulate public discourse, particularly through control of undersea cables and content delivery networks. However, he noted that press barons have always tried to manipulate media, and humans demonstrate remarkable resilience in seeking information even when access is restricted.

Anja Schiffrin painted a more dire picture, describing the current moment as terrifying due to the dismantling of democratic institutions by autocrats supported by oligarchs and corporations. She argued that platform companies have been bad actors, polluting the information ecosystem, stealing intellectual property, and engaging in monopolistic practices. Schiffrin highlighted how these companies resist regulation through lobbying and threats to exit markets, as seen in Australia and Canada when news payment laws were implemented.

The panel discussion revealed broad agreement about the concentration of power in US-based technology companies and the resulting dependencies for news media globally. Panelists discussed how this affects different regions, with African representatives noting particular vulnerability due to limited bargaining power. The discussion covered various regulatory approaches, from Australia’s bargaining code to potential AI taxes and digital levies.

Several speakers emphasized the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches to governance rather than traditional regulation, noting that authoritarian governments might interpret “regulation” differently than democratic societies intend. The panel also discussed the role of ethics in journalism and the need for transparency and accountability from platform companies. Ultimately, the discussion concluded that while the challenges are significant, there are still choices available to governments, media organizations, and citizens to build more resilient information ecosystems through collective action, alternative infrastructure development, and maintaining high journalistic standards.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Concentrated ownership of internet infrastructure and its threat to media independence**: The discussion extensively covered how a small number of US-based technology companies now control critical internet infrastructure (undersea cables, content delivery networks, cloud services, social media platforms), creating potential vulnerabilities and dependencies for news media globally.

– **Platform dependency and the collapse of traditional media business models**: Speakers addressed how news organizations have become increasingly dependent on tech platforms for distribution, audience reach, and revenue, while these same platforms have disrupted traditional advertising models and appropriated content without fair compensation.

– **Regulatory challenges and the need for global coordination**: The conversation explored the difficulties of regulating global tech companies through national laws, the failure of self-regulation, and the need for international cooperation – particularly given the US government’s opposition to tech regulation and taxation.

– **Geopolitical implications and digital sovereignty**: Participants discussed how concentrated tech ownership creates geopolitical vulnerabilities, with particular attention to the power dynamics between the US, China, and smaller nations, and the need for countries to develop digital sovereignty and alternative infrastructure.

– **The role of AI in exacerbating existing dependencies**: The discussion touched on how artificial intelligence development by the same tech giants is creating new forms of content appropriation and further threatening independent journalism’s sustainability.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine the material conditions and infrastructure dependencies that affect the sustainability and independence of news media in the digital age, with a focus on identifying policy solutions and alternatives to ensure a free and resilient media ecosystem globally.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently serious and concerned tone throughout, with speakers expressing alarm about current trends while remaining constructively focused on solutions. The tone was academic yet urgent, with participants acknowledging the gravity of the challenges while avoiding despair. There was a notable shift from diagnostic (identifying problems) in the keynotes to more solution-oriented discussions during the panel, though the overall sense of urgency remained constant. The speakers demonstrated both expertise and genuine worry about democratic institutions and press freedom.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Helle Sjovaag** – Professor of journalism at the University of Stavanger, Norway; research focuses on material conditions for distribution of media content; session chair

– **Chris Disspain** – Corporate lawyer; former CEO of Australian Internet Country Code manager for 16 years; former ICANN director for 9 years; former member of UN Secretary General’s Internet Governance Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group for 6 years; keynote speaker

– **Anya Schiffrin** – Director of the Technology, Media and Communications Program at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs; PhD from University of Navarra on online disinformation; former journalist covering Asia and Europe; keynote speaker

– **Pamella Sittoni** – Kenyan journalist and author; media and communications consultant; public editor at Nation Media Group in Kenya; former executive editor and managing editor of Daily Nation, the East African, and Standard newspapers; former communications specialist for UNICEF Kenya

– **Kjersti Loken Stavrum** – CEO of Tineus Trust; chair of the board of Shipstead Media; background as journalist and editor; former general secretary of Norwegian Press Association; former chair of Norwegian Freedom of Expression Commission

– **Rasmus Kleis Nielsen** – Professor at University of Copenhagen, Denmark; senior research associate at Reuters Institute for the study of journalism; former director of research at Reuters Institute; co-author of annual Reuters Institute digital news report

– **Anine Kierulf** – Norwegian lawyer; associate professor of constitutional law at University of Oslo; special advisor to Norwegian Human Rights Institution; former legal advisor to Council of Europe; former chair of Commission of Academic Freedom of Expression in Norway

– **Tawfik Jelassi** – Assistant director general for communications and information at UNESCO; PhD in information systems from New York University; former minister of higher education, scientific research and information and communication technologies in Tunisia; professor of strategy and technology management at IND Lausanne

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

Full session report

# Internet Governance Forum Discussion: Material Conditions for Distribution of Media Content

## Introduction and Context

This Internet Governance Forum session examined the material conditions and infrastructure dependencies that affect the sustainability and independence of news media in the digital age. Chaired by Professor Helle Sjøvåg from the University of Stavanger, the discussion brought together experts from journalism, law, technology governance, and media policy to address the challenges posed by concentrated ownership of internet infrastructure to free and resilient journalism.

## Opening Remarks: Constitutional Framework and Infrastructure Dependencies

Professor Helle Sjøvåg opened the session by highlighting Norway’s unique constitutional framework regarding information infrastructure. She noted that paragraph 100 of the Norwegian constitution establishes the state’s responsibility for creating conditions that facilitate open and enlightened public discourse. This constitutional provision becomes particularly relevant when considering how media organizations have become dependent on infrastructure owned by a small number of global technology companies.

Sjøvåg emphasized that this dependency creates vulnerabilities for democratic discourse, as media outlets rely on platforms and infrastructure controlled by entities with their own commercial and political interests. The session aimed to explore these material conditions and their implications for media independence and democratic governance.

## Keynote Presentations

### Chris Disspain: The Physical Reality of Internet Infrastructure

Chris Disspain, a corporate lawyer and former ICANN director, provided a detailed examination of internet infrastructure realities. He emphasized that the internet is not an abstract space but rather a physical, centralized, and privately owned infrastructure controlled by a handful of companies.

Disspain illustrated infrastructure vulnerabilities with specific examples, including a blackout that affected Portugal and Spain when undersea cables were damaged, and the UK’s experience with water system privatization, which he used as an analogy for infrastructure dependency risks. He highlighted how big tech companies now control multiple layers of infrastructure, from undersea cables to Content Delivery Networks (CDNs), creating vertical integration that affects media distribution.

However, Disspain maintained a historical perspective on media manipulation, noting that “press barons have forever tried to manipulate what we read, what we see, what we hear” but haven’t succeeded completely. He expressed cautious optimism about human resilience, citing examples of people using old modems to maintain internet access during shutdowns, demonstrating adaptability in seeking information even when access is restricted.

Importantly, Disspain warned against using the term “regulation” in international policy discussions, as different governments interpret this differently. He noted that authoritarian regimes might use calls for regulation to justify censorship, preferring instead to discuss “global policy” developed through multi-stakeholder processes.

### Anja Schifrin: Platform Power and Democratic Threats

Anja Schifrin, Director of the Technology, Media and Communications Program at Columbia University, presented a more urgent assessment of current challenges. She described how platform companies have become problematic actors in the information ecosystem, engaging in what she characterized as monopolistic practices and intellectual property appropriation.

Schifrin provided detailed analysis of how platforms resist regulation, describing their use of standard corporate lobbying tactics, public relations campaigns, and misinformation about proposed laws. She highlighted examples from Australia and Canada, where platforms threatened to exit markets when news payment laws were implemented.

A significant element of Schifrin’s presentation was her analysis of US government opposition to tech regulation globally. She noted that the US actively opposes tech regulation and taxation worldwide, citing a “revenge tax” provision that was included in Trump’s budget, though she noted this was opposed by the US business community. She suggested that US isolationism might actually benefit global policy development by removing a major obstacle to progress.

Schifrin also addressed artificial intelligence development, noting how AI tools like Google’s AI overview reduce traffic to media websites by presenting information directly rather than directing users to original sources, creating new forms of content appropriation.

## Panel Discussion: Regional Perspectives and Policy Solutions

### African Perspectives on Platform Dependencies

Pamella Sittoni, a Kenyan journalist and media consultant, provided insights into how platform concentration affects developing countries. She highlighted the asymmetrical power relationships, where platform exit threats would have minimal impact on company profits but major consequences for information access in African markets.

Sittoni emphasized the lack of accountability in platform operations, noting how companies can arbitrarily choose which media organizations to work with and how much to pay them. She stressed the need for consistent global standards, arguing that what platforms are compelled to do in Australia should also apply in Africa.

Particularly concerning was her example of how platform data sharing can endanger lives. She cited a specific Kenyan case where someone was murdered in police cells after being tracked through information shared by platforms, highlighting the life-and-death implications of platform power beyond economic concerns.

### Nordic Models and Policy Innovation

Kjersti Loken Stavrum, CEO of Tineus Trust and former general secretary of the Norwegian Press Association, brought insights from Nordic media governance. She highlighted successful Nordic press ethical systems and their role in building trust and maintaining standards.

Stavrum introduced the “polluter pays” principle as a framework for platform accountability, drawing parallels with environmental policy. She argued that platforms should be held responsible for information pollution in the same way companies are held accountable for environmental damage.

She also provided specific examples of media success, noting that VG, a Norwegian publication, maintains impressive statistics with 2 million daily visitors and 1.5 million accessing the site directly rather than through platforms, demonstrating that direct audience relationships remain possible.

Stavrum noted a shift in European perspectives on transatlantic cooperation, observing that assumptions about US support for liberal democracy have been challenged by recent developments in digital governance.

### Academic and Legal Analysis

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen from the University of Copenhagen provided historical context, arguing that current concentration represents “the same old story only much more pronounced.” He emphasized the political nature of current conditions, noting a long period where corporate consolidation was “not only accepted but endorsed and wholeheartedly pursued by establishment political parties of both the centre-left and the centre-right.”

Nielsen challenged narratives of inevitability, referencing a 2015 Obama quote about US companies creating the internet while arguing against accepting “pretend helplessness of powerful politicians.” He noted that public alternatives exist, including decentralized, federated, and open-source solutions, but few in power pursue them.

Anine Kierulf, a constitutional law professor from the University of Oslo, addressed the challenge that law consistently trails behind fast-moving technology, with democracy’s inherent deliberative processes making rapid regulation difficult. She noted that current students have better critical thinking abilities than previous generations but less factual knowledge, highlighting the complexity of digital literacy challenges.

### UNESCO’s Multi-Stakeholder Approach

Tawfik Jelassi, Assistant Director General for Communications and Information at UNESCO, presented the organization’s approach to digital platform governance through inclusive processes involving 194 member states. He emphasized the principle that “without facts there is no truth, without truth there is no trust, and without trust there is no shared reality for action.”

Jelassi argued that ethics standards need to be both local and global since platforms operate across borders. He highlighted UNESCO’s work in developing guidelines that balance global principles with local implementation needs.

## Policy Discussions and Recommendations

The discussion generated several specific policy approaches. Speakers advocated for collective negotiation by countries and publishers rather than individual approaches to increase bargaining power against platforms. There were calls to develop national and regional digital infrastructure as alternatives to dependency on US-based technology companies.

Several participants supported implementing transparency and accountability requirements for digital infrastructure decisions, with human rights and freedom of expression as foundational principles. More innovative suggestions included requiring platforms to post bonds before operating in countries to ensure fines can be collected, and pursuing digital levies with funding earmarked for journalism support.

The panel also discussed the importance of digital literacy education and establishing regional press ethical systems to build trust and maintain standards.

## Unresolved Challenges

The discussion highlighted several ongoing challenges, including how to balance national sovereignty with the global nature of internet infrastructure, and questions about whether regional alternatives to US tech companies would behave fundamentally differently. The conversation also touched on concerns about Chinese alternatives potentially filling gaps if US companies exit markets.

Technical questions about enforcement mechanisms, funding for public alternatives, and fair compensation for AI use of media content remained largely unresolved. The complexity of achieving digital sovereignty for smaller states given resource constraints was acknowledged but not fully addressed.

## Conclusion

The session demonstrated broad recognition that internet infrastructure concentration creates vulnerabilities for media independence and democratic discourse. While speakers acknowledged the severity of current challenges, they also emphasized that alternatives exist and that current conditions result from specific political and economic choices rather than technological inevitability.

The discussion highlighted the need for continued dialogue and experimentation in developing policy mechanisms that can address platform power while maintaining democratic values. The emphasis on multi-stakeholder approaches and collective action provides a framework for future policy development, though specific implementation mechanisms require further development.

The session reinforced that addressing these challenges requires active engagement from political leaders, media organizations, and citizens rather than accepting current dependencies as permanent features of the digital landscape.

Session transcript

Helle Sjovaag: and big tech. My name is Helle Sjøvåg. I will be chairing this session today. I’m a professor of journalism at the University of Stavanger here in Norway, and my research currently is about the material conditions for distribution of media content. And editorial media are, as you know, responsible for overseeing power and for providing an arena for democratic conversation. So here in Norway, it’s the responsibility of the state to ensure that the infrastructure for information, communication and expression is open, diverse and free to all. This responsibility is in fact embedded in paragraph 100 of the Norwegian constitution on freedom of expression. So media used to largely own distribution infrastructures in the past, they owned television towers that relayed broadcasting signals, the trucks that delivered newspapers, and they leased the bandwidth where radio signals were transmitted. But they have also always been somewhat reliant on third parties to get their content out to audiences. In the past, these were cable distribution companies, video stores, movie theaters and newsstands. Today, news delivery is modular. It’s distributed through a range of platforms, most of which are owned by a handful of US-based technology companies. News media rely on terrestrial and submarine fiber cables to enable hyperlinking, but also co-production and audience reach. They need content delivery networks like Akamai to stream content. They rely on cloud service. like the ones provided by Microsoft and Amazon Web Services to store and manage data. They rely on web architecture like the ones provided by Google for website functionality. And news media have also relied for quite some time on social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok to reach and engage their users and also to generate advertising revenue. More and more, news media also grow increasingly dependent on the AI services provided by Microsoft, Alphabet and Amazon for research and production, analytics and also personalization of content. So, many of the key players here, they operate across sectors. Now this creates potential vulnerabilities along the value chain of news production and distribution raising questions as to the resilience of the overall technological infrastructure for news globally. These resilience issues emerge because these technologies, and these are technologies that work really well by the way, they’re concentrating in power and they’re also concentrating geographically. So, we are quickly approaching the point where it becomes impossible to operate sustainably without these services. So, this leads to issues of dependency and potential capture, posing questions about the resilience of the information ecology overall. So, how does this infrastructure create vulnerabilities for editorial media’s ability to operate sustainably? How do we secure free editorial media in the future? So, we will delve into these issues in this session. We will start by hearing two speakers. keynotes followed by a panel discussion. So our first keynote is by Chris Dispain. Chris is a corporate lawyer who for 16 years was the CEO of the manager of the Australian Internet Country Code where he started the Australian IGF. He was a director of ICANN, so Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, for nine years and he was a member of the United Nations Secretary General’s Internet Governance Multi-Stakeholder Advisory Group for six years and he continues to be heavily involved in ICANN and all areas of internet governance. So Chris, the floor is yours.

Chris Disspain: Good morning everybody. This is a really, really weird setup. Hang on, that’s it. Let’s get rid of that. I can hear myself properly, sort of cutting out. Good morning everybody. Thanks for asking me to be here. I’m gonna, I was in two minds about how to do this and in the end I decided that the best thing for me to do is a sort of level set and save all of the sort of controversial stuff for the discussion because I have no doubt there’s going to be some of that. So let me start by asking you to imagine waking up tomorrow morning to find that your favourite news outlet, maybe an independent investigative site or a local newspaper, trying to expose corruption has vanished. Not because it’s run out of money, not because it’s broken the law, but because the infrastructure that it depended on, servers, cloud storage, content delivery systems etc, was quietly turned off by a private company acting in its own interests and with no oversight or transparency. That’s the reality that could happen today. So the question that I’m going to address now is how does the concentrated ownership of the Internet’s infrastructure, affect a free and resilient news media. And in an era where information is both our most valuable resource and our most contested battleground, understanding the invisible hand shaping our access to news is more crucial than ever. We tend to think of the Internet as an abstract space, a borderless cloud, a place where information flows freely. But it’s not some ethereal democratic realm floating above us. It’s physical, centralised and privately owned. At every layer, from the undersea cables that carry data to the data centres that host it, to the platforms that distribute it, real companies control real assets. And with that comes enormous power. So I think we’re all clear what we mean by Internet infrastructure. And I’m going to talk mainly about, with reference mainly to undersea cables and CDNs, content delivery networks, but it applies to all the layers. And these layers aren’t just technical scaffolding. They’re points of control. And when ownership of the layers is concentrated in the hands of a few, then we can create choke points that can be used intentionally or not, to silence journalism, suppress dissent or manipulate public discourse. The concentration isn’t just about market share. It’s about infrastructural power. The ability to shape, restrict or enable the flow of information at the most fundamental level. As platforms and infrastructure providers consolidate, they evolve from mere gatekeepers to architects of the entire media ecosystem. Their control extends from the creation of news, through its distribution, and to how and whether it reaches you at all. When a small number of CDN providers control the infrastructure that delivers most of the web content, they also effectively act as gatekeepers. If they choose, voluntarily or under government or corporate pressure, to restrict access to certain news sources, those outlets may become practically invisible or unreliable. And of course undersea cables are the physical backbone to the global internet and that includes news delivery. A lot of people who aren’t involved in this area think that the undersea cables are all owned by governments, and indeed some of them are, but a lot of them are owned by a small number of corporations, and the number of governments that own them is also very small. Control of this part of the infrastructure enables you to prioritise or deprioritise certain data flows, so you can favour your own platforms, your own services or your own partners. It creates potential choke points where governments or companies can interfere with the transmission of independent journalism, and that’s especially true in the case of crises or conflicts, not that we have any of those around at the moment. It can enable censorship by infrastructure, denial of access and bandwidth throttling. Speaking of censorship, we traditionally worry about government censorship, but corporate censorship can be just as impactful and is often far more opaque. CDNs can remove or block content they consider controversial, false or harmful, and whilst this may align with societal goals, it can also be abused to suppress legitimate investigation or whistleblowers. Infrastructure owners have, at times, been pressured by governments or acted on their own to block content or services. Examples include financial intermediaries cutting off funding to news organisations, app stores removing controversial apps, or network providers shutting down entire countries’ access to the internet during political crises. That’s the imagine you woke up in the morning and you couldn’t access the news channel. There are surveillance and privacy risks as well. Companies that own cables may, can, may, monitor or will be forced to share data with governments. It undermines the confidentiality of journalists, whistleblowers and sources. Surveillance at the infrastructure level, not just the software level, is far harder to detect or to resist. CDNs often handle DNS queries, TLS handshakes and metadata about who accesses which news content and concentrated ownership allows the aggregation of highly sensitive consumption data which could be abused. The concentration can also put economic pressure on independent media. Tech giants who own cables also dominate social media distribution, search engines, cloud hostings, advertising markets, you’ll notice I haven’t named any of them, that’s because I suspect we all know who they are. This vertical integration can financially squeeze independent media who become dependent on a few platforms for both content distribution and monetisation. Infrastructure control gives big companies even more leverage over the digital news economy. And there’s of course the risk of geopolitical weaponisation. Countries that dominate cable ownership, currently the US and China, can pressure or disrupt global information flows. In authoritarian regimes, state-owned or state-influenced companies can influence how news circulates internationally. And for smaller countries, the lack of ownership or control creates a dependency which reduces sovereignty over the information access. History shows that concentrated ownership, whether in traditional media or in digital infrastructure, poses serious risks to media pluralism and independence. When a few entities control the spaces and relationships on which media organisations depend, end. They can shape public discourse not just by what they amplify, but by what they suppress. There’s economic leverage too. News organisations, especially the smaller ones and local outlets, are dependent on the infrastructure owners for access, distribution and revenue. This dependency can erode their editorial independence and long-term sustainability. And there’s homogenisation. Consolidation often leads to less original, more homogenised content with a decline in local reporting and diversity of voices, even if overall content quality doesn’t always suffer. I live in a small village in Norfolk in the UK and it’s reached the point now where the only way that I can really find out about what’s going on in the local area is in the individual parish magazines that still get printed and delivered through the front door, because the local news is over. It doesn’t really exist anymore. There are local papers, but all they have become is the delivery of advertising. The concentration introduces vulnerabilities that threaten the resilience of both the internet and the news media. Again, a small number of companies control critical infrastructure, so outages or targeted disruptions can have outsized effects. Look at the recent blackout in Portugal and Spain. If that doesn’t highlight the importance of diverse providers and the reliance on a few actors making the system brittle, then nothing does. Witness the beautiful and glorious United Kingdom’s privatised water system, where individual water authorities have a monopoly over delivery of water in various parts of the country, nearly all of whom are polluting our rivers and waterways so that they can pay more money to their shareholders. Infrastructure owners can also become instruments of the state or corporate power. and wielding their control to advance political or economic interests, sometimes at the expense of press freedom and public interest. And when ownership is concentrated, failure of one operator or geopolitical tension, the thing I mentioned we didn’t have very much of at the moment, can lead to severe disruptions. It’s important to remember that news organisations often depend on real-time global access to sources, feeds, witnesses and correspondence. And concentration makes the system itself more vulnerable to things like cable cuts, political sanctions or regulatory capture, and corporate decisions driven by profit, not by public interest. The consequences for democracy could be profound. As ownership concentrates, local and regional news media struggles. Their dependence on infrastructure and platforms controlled by distant actors undermines their ability to serve their communities and hold local power to account. It used to be possible. You may not be able to hold national power to account until there’s an election, but you used to be able to hold local power to account simply because you had all the news and information and you could turn up at your council offices and shout at them a lot. Homogenised content and diminished local reporting weakens the public’s ability to scrutinise those in power, leading to less informed citizens and diminished political participation. And of course, there are threats to pluralism. With fewer independent actors, the diversity of perspective shrinks. Minority voices are marginalised. Communities, marginalised communities are marginalised and risk being excluded from conversation. So, the challenges require a multi-pronged approach, of course, and I’ve no doubt we’re going to talk about that some when we get to the panel. It may be that the traditional tools for limiting media concentration are not appropriate or don’t work anymore. They’re certainly broken down in the mainstream media. The rules used to be you couldn’t own a newspaper and a television channel. No, not anymore. Policy should encourage a diverse ecosystem of infrastructure providers and media organisations. Policy is important. How you set it is obviously also important, but that’s another conversation. And infrastructure owners need to be held to high standards of transparency regarding their control over data flows and so on. And we should be investing in alternative infrastructure, community-owned networks, independent hosting and decentralised platforms are all within our own control if we choose to take that control. It’s a fundamental challenge to the freedom, diversity and resilience of our news media. And if it’s left unchecked, it risks entrenching new forms of gatekeeping, undermining local journalism and narrowing the spectrum of voices that sustain our democracy. But that said, it was ever thus. It might sound as if I’m suggesting we’re headed towards the end of a diverse media or the death of local news or a single point of control of our news. And I don’t believe that we are. Press barons have forever tried to manipulate what we read. If you look at the relatively recent fight between Prince Harry and Rupert Murdoch’s news media and his case for which he sued them, he won front page news in lots of newspapers, but bizarrely in the Murdoch press, a small article on the bottom of page eight. But the point is that Murdoch, the Murdoch press didn’t have the power, despite the fact that it owns an awful lot of the media, to suppress the story. There are more opportunities today also for citizen journalists than there have ever been. And I think we’re taking advantage of them. Part of the challenge, of course, is it’s not always journalism. Sometimes it’s just rhetoric. But above all else, we should never underestimate the resilience of us humans and our desire to be heard. I started out by asking you to imagine your favourite news network had vanished. Well, that’s not something some people need to imagine. It has happened in several countries over the last 10 to 15 years, where the government has attempted to switch off the population’s access to news. And what happens when that happens? Our own resilience kicks in. In one particular case, by folks heading up to their attics and dusting off their old modems and connecting to the world of news with two rubber caps and the soundscape of squeaks and buzzes over the good old-fashioned telephone. Even so, the choices we make today about the digital arteries of our society will shape the future of news for expression and democratic participation for generations to come. It’s our collective responsibility, policy makers, industry leaders, journalists and citizens alike, to ensure that the infrastructure of the internet serves the public good and not just private power. Thank you for listening, and I look forward to the panel discussion.

Helle Sjovaag: Thank you very much, Chris, for that. Our next keynote speaker is Anja Schifrin. Anja is the Director of the Technology, Media and Communications Program at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. She has a PhD from the University of Navarra on the topic of online disinformation, and she has published extensively on journalism’s sustainability, capture and policies to support journalism globally. Anja is also a former journalist. She’s been covering both Asia and Europe as a reporter for many years. So, Anja, the floor is yours.

Anya Schiffrin: Great. Thank you all for inviting me and Hayley for organizing this. Can everybody hear me okay? Good, and I’m going to time myself because I have 15 minutes, but if I have to skip, I’m happy to send my talk to you later. It’s really great to see old friends here like Pamela and Guy and Rasmus and make some new friends too, and thank you to UNESCO for all the support over the years. I’m going to be depressing. I’m from Columbia University and I’m an American, so I’m extremely worried right now. We’re in a terrifying moment, one in which it feels like everything we’ve worked to build over decades is being dismantled. Not for any good reason, not because thoughtful people who share the values of an educated or equal society built on truth and science and scientific inquiry decided it was time to carefully consider how to make the world more fair, more just, provide services more efficiently. I’m referring to Doge, of course. No, everything we’ve worked for and believe in is being torn apart by autocrats because they can do it. They came to power because they had support from oligarchs and corporations with money enough to influence political processes. They had the support of frustrated voters who were variously angry about income inequality, wokeism, and migration. And in the US, as well as in other countries, these new leaders use every method they have to grab and hold power, define courts and institutions, civil service, and civil society. So now we’re here trying to figure out what to do next. As usual, the media is on the front lines. Journalists believe that they’re the guardians of truth and their work holds power to account. They work in local communities covering local news, institutions, and politicians. And they work across borders exposing massive global problems. They provide new information to change hearts and minds and be acted on by responsible government that want to act. Quality information is even more important now in an age of AI. Slop, where the information ecosystem is awash in misleading images and strange blah words that sound like they mean something but don’t. Public discourse has been totally debased in the U.S. Our leaders lie without compunction. They seem to lie on every topic, whether migration or vaccines or climate. They attack and they defame their opponents. They did what they did in the McCarthy era when they attacked the Voice of America and librarians burned and pulped books in the U.S. overseas. What comes after this attack on science and academia? Confusion. Nathan Heller’s New Yorker piece last November summed up the U.S. today. It’s no longer the micro-targeted online disinformation that’s the problem, but the general miasma of confusion. As he said, it’s about seeding the ambience of information, throwing facts and fake facts alike into an environment of low attention. Worse is the terrifying public violence, the assassination in Minnesota, the people bringing their cars to protest to either crash into protesters or threaten them, not once but repeatedly. It’s all reminding me of the French sociologist Gabriel Tardé, who I teach in my class at Columbia. He talks about life before the public. Without the public, what did we have in the Middle Ages? Fairs, pilgrimages, tumultuous multitudes dominated by bias or belligerent emotions, angers or panic. Sounds like today. I won’t go into all the details that we all know so well about what happened to quality news media, the collapse of the business models, IP and content stolen by social media, changes in audience consumption patterns, loss of advertising revenue captured by the state, the spread of news deserts. Rasmus will talk to you about trust. I’m sure COVID-19 hitting advertising. advertising. Quality information is a public good, as my husband’s been saying for decades, and few want to pay the full cost of production and dissemination. And that’s true of course of art, culture, health, and many other essentials. So here, but there’s a cost to not producing public goods and we are paying that price now. So here we are in 2025, Trump and Musk decided to cut funding for journalism around the world, Voice of America, startups in Africa, exile media from Russia and Ukraine, the intermediary organizations. It’s a bloodbath ripping through the ecosystem. Some, such as Gina Neff and Taylor Owen, are saying that we need to have new regulatory frameworks. As the previous speaker pointed out, much of what we’ve done may not be enforceable in the future. Others like Reddy and Glacier have said we have to prepare for systems collapse. And they lay out in a recent paper in, I think it was in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, different options for funders, whether it’s protecting communities, blocking the worst parts, or being creative and willing to transform and fundamentally reimagine the sectors surrounded, supported by foundations and under attack. Since we’re talking today about platform dependency and the material conditions for a free and resilient news media, I want to talk about where I think those discussions are going and what I’m hearing around the world. I first want to acknowledge that there has been a tremendous amount of creative thinking already. I strongly disagree with the view that journalists didn’t innovate, that they spent too much time blaming the platforms. I think that journalists and donors have spent decades promoting engagement with audiences, supporting local news, trying to communicate and build trust with communities. They’ve innovated in endless ways, trying the subscription model, community building models, trying to earn income to replace what was lost to the tech advertising monopoly, governments in many countries, including Norway, have done a huge amount to support public interest news. So I don’t think this is a moment when we all need to sit around and criticize ourselves. I think we’ve done enough of that. The time is action. There’s been also, let me point out, tremendous engagement with the platforms. Attempts have been made to create voluntary codes of conduct, require data transparency, work together to develop new forms of technology and income stream, and it was only when those attempts were not sufficient that governments stepped in and tried to help publishers. The good news is we have the tools. Governments tried first with voluntary measures, but they know how to do tax policy and they know how to regulate monopolies. Many, especially in this part of the world, have done a terrific job supporting public broadcasting and journalism. But when government has tried to use their powers to tax and legislate, they were met with platform resistance. The platforms have shown themselves to be bad actors in many cases. I have a little list. They have polluted the information ecosystem by making money from spreading misinformation and hate speech. They steal intellectual property and by stealing it, they weaken the ability of those who want to provide good information to be able to do it. They’ve become monopoly capitalists and they have stifled innovation. They’ve engaged in tax avoidance despite reaping enormous profits from their monopoly power. The oligarchs heading these firms have used their wealth to interfere with the political process and written the rules in the U.S. to benefit themselves, their monopolies, and they’ve done the same things in countries around the world. They have not respected attempts to get them to pay for IP copyright. Their playbook was and is the U.S. classic corporate playbook for lobbying, PR efforts, spreading misinformation about laws, commissioning research. and threatening exit, and I have a book chapter that I wrote with Felipe Lauritzen coming out next year that looks at South Africa and Brazil as case studies for this classic American corporate playbook in tech. So, some regulators, I’m thinking here of Rod Sims and the Australian Competition Commission, came to realize that the heart of the problem is platform dominance and power asymmetries between platforms and publishers. This is why in Australia it was the competition authorities rather than the copyright office that tried to get platform remuneration for publishers. The Australian case is significant because it led to payments by Google and Meta along with a raft of measures enacted by government which helped shore up declining local news. But we saw what happened in Canada when they adopted a similar law. Meta responded by dropping news, which caused a collapse in website traffic. We saw in Brazil how Google lobbied against similar laws. South Africa, and in California, and all over Europe, dropping news as a test. And now we have yesterday’s announcement from Google that they’re also going to pull out of many of the Australian laws. And as always, they blame the victim. Oh, it’s the Labour Party’s fault for not being clear. Anyway, my point is that the platform intransigence has led regulators to consider a host of new measures. Late 2024, Australia announced that platforms that didn’t want to negotiate with publishers could pay a digital levy, which would be more expensive than what bargaining code payments would be. South Africa is also looking at digital levies. And many countries are considering things like digital services taxes with funding earmarked for journalism. I don’t want to go over time, but I’ll just say a few things. So, in the OSCE, we have this report coming out on platform dependencies and publishers, which we’re presenting in September and October. And we talk about must-carry and visibility policies. This, I think, is a big issue. is a very dramatic shift, and I’m not sure that much of it would actually even be implementable in the U.S. because of First Amendment considerations, which preclude compelled speech. But I think there’s two things to remember. One is, had the platforms agreed to previous laws and attempts, we would not be in this position where we’re now looking at really what I consider fourth-best measures. And the only way to get concessions from platforms is to proceed with legislative proposals, otherwise they do not act. I think that the next frontier is going to have to be some sort of AI tax, possibly with funding given to support journalism, and I see four policy options. Free-for-all, where the LLM AI companies can scrape whatever they want online, and creators and publishers have no protection. This is what we saw during the training period. The second path would be one in which there is a strict policy of no use of intellectual property. This is clearly unrealistic. So now we have two options which involve paying for the use of IP. One would be a fixed scale of fees that are predetermined. Payments to pharma companies during periods of compulsory licensing of medications are one example. The South Africans in the room are very familiar, and India as well, with compulsory licensing regimes. I think, frankly, I’m working on a paper now with a team of economists, and that is what we’re going to be proposing. And then the other point, of course, is more what Australia did, which is you lay out a negotiations framework. And this has to be done because the competitive environment has a direct bearing on negotiations. This was the whole entire point that Australia understood you don’t have fair negotiations when it’s a couple of monopolies that are doing at the table. So I want to be really clear. I’ve got five more minutes. I’ll give back a couple of minutes. updates, I want to be clear about what we’re up against. The US government has made it clear that it opposes both tech regulation and taxation all over the world. There is a proposal in Trump’s current budget to preempt state regulation on AI for 10 years. This is really important, because in the US, we have federal systems, so states do quite a lot. And if they’re not able to regulate AI for 10 years, we have a huge problem on our hands. Another thing is, I don’t know if you’ve heard about the revenge tax. This is a provision in the new budget which would punish companies in countries that try to enforce the OECD tax agreement on global minimum corporate taxes, which you may remember was settled at 15%, which is pretty low, or impose digital services taxes. So this is the US saying, we’re taxing you back if you do either of these things. Now, the funny thing about this, the revenge tax is such a bad idea that the US business community has hired lobbyists to try to kill it. That’s amazing, if US business doesn’t even want a law that’s supposed to protect them. And the New York Times had a great article about this last week. So let’s make no mistake about what’s happening in the US. Trump and his friends oppose misinformation research and legislation because they like to lie online. Trump and Vance and their Silicon Valley allies oppose paying for IP because that would eat into their profit. That’s what’s happening here. Let’s not muddy the waters with talking about First Amendment or anything else. So here’s the question. Can Europe stick together? In the US, those of us who care about this stuff want to know whether the EU and the rest of the world will cave, capitulate, or whether it will stick with its plans to tax and regulate big tech. India has apparently agreed to roll back its 6% tax. attacks on digital advertising. There’s also discussion, including a head of financing for development meeting in Seville next week, where I’ll be going, about whether having the US out of global discussions is better, because it means the rest of the world can go on with making their own plans. Normally, what the US does is their negotiators demand concessions to international frameworks. They drag out the discussions. And they were then, in the end, after dragging out, wasting everyone’s time, watering down, they just refused to sign, because Congress won’t pass it anyway. So I don’t think the EU and the rest of the world and the international community has any choice. Either the US is isolationist and out of the picture for the long term, in which case the rest of the world has to move ahead in all sorts of areas without us, or the US returns to sanity, in which case it’s good to have spent a few years developing smart policies, and the US can catch up later. Thank you for including me, and I look forward to the discussions. Thank you.

Helle Sjovaag: Thank you for that, Anja. I’m going to introduce the panel now. Our panel today consists of five distinguished actors working in the areas of policy, industry, and academia. First, we have Pamela Sitoni. She’s a Kenyan journalist and author. She’s a media and communications consultant and the public editor at Nation Media Group in Kenya. She’s previously served as executive editor and managing editor of Daily Nation, the East African, and Standard newspapers in Kenya. She has also worked as a communications specialist for the United Nations Children’s Fund, UNICEF, in Kenya. Pamela. Gustav Röhm is CEO. Tineus Trust and she’s the chair of the board of Shipstead Media. She has a background as a journalist and editor and she served as the general secretary of the Norwegian Press Association and chair of the latest Norwegian Freedom of Expression Commission. We have Rasmus Claes Nielsen. He is a professor at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark and a senior research associate at the Reuters Institute for the study of journalism, where he also served as director of research for many years. He’s published extensively on political communication, the business of news, platform dependency and misinformation and he is co-author of the annual Reuters Institute digital news report. Annine Kjærhølf is a Norwegian lawyer and associate professor of constitutional law at the University of Oslo. She’s a special advisor to the Norwegian Human Rights Institution. Annine has served as legal advisor to the Council of Europe and she served as chair of the Commission of Academic Freedom of Expression here in Norway. Tarfik Djelassi is the assistant director general for communications and information at UNESCO. He has a PhD in information systems from New York University and he served as minister of higher education, scientific research and information and communication technologies in Tunisia. He’s also professor of strategy and technology management at IND Lusanne. And we also have on stage our two keynote speakers Anja Schifrin and Chris Despain and Tarfik is joining us now. Okay, welcome to the panel everyone. We’ll start with the section on reactions to our two keynote presentations I think. I want to start maybe with you Rasmus. Chris tells this story of a concentration in the internet sector and he draws this line back to the press barons in a sense. Do you think it’s a good parallel? Is it the same old story? I mean I think I’m

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen: reminded of the quote from the movie Casablanca that he is like other men only more so. I think it is the same old story even only much more pronounced in that the concentration of power we see today is increasingly transnational even global and and that is a more accentuated than the history that Chris rightly outlined. I also think it’s important to keep in mind that in addition to the sort of corporate story of triumph and tragedy that we all know so well the sort of the animal spirits of the market and they have been quite animalistic that have been unleashed in these areas. There’s also a political story that I think Chris gestured towards when you mentioned sort of privatization of water for example utilities but also the watering down of cross-media ownership legislation and I think if we want to understand where we are today it’s important to pay attention to the current inhabitant of the White House but also the history of this. The moment we’re in today I think has a political history that goes back at least to George W Bush and the Barack Obama administration to the Blair prime ministership and the David Cameron prime ministership to Chancellor Schroeder and to Chancellor Merkel in terms of a long period in which corporate consolidation, liberalization opening up media markets have not only been accepted but endorsed and wholeheartedly pursued by establishment political parties of both the center-left and the center-right. So for example here is a quote, our companies have created the internet, expanded it, perfected it in ways that other countries can’t compete. And oftentimes what is portrayed as high-minded positions and issues, sometimes it’s just a sign to carve out some of their own commercial interests. This is not a quote from the current inhabitant of the White House, this is a quote from President Obama from 2015. So there’s a political story here of deliberate non-intervention and deregulation that is across the political spectrum and across the Atlantic. And in fact, if we are to believe what we read in the press today, the brief of the current European Commission is not to respond to the hopes of many people who attend events like this. It is allegedly deregulation, corporate consolidation, and apparently if what we’re told today by the Wall Street Journal about the possibility of pausing enforcement of the DSA for US companies, it’s to make geopolitical concessions in the interest of maintaining some sort of tie across the Atlantic. So I think there is a very important political story here. If we want to understand who is responsible for where we are today, and I think that should probably inform as to what we hope from the same actors going forward.

Helle Sjovaag: Thank you. Annina, do you think we’re too late in regulating this space? How would you describe the current challenges to the information, ecology, and human rights?

Anine Kierulf: Yeah, I very much agree with Rasmus. We’re certainly too late. But in some ways, I think lawyers’ law is always too late. We’re sort of trailing the world. The world goes on, and we run after it and try and regulate it and mend all the things that don’t work with regulations. And that’s the way that law works generally, and it’s been like that in the meeting of all new technologies and even like, I don’t know, cars, everything. But the situation today is very different because the world is spinning a lot faster, so it’s hard to trail. The internet is fast. The technology companies are really fast. Everything’s going at a much higher pace. reaching out to a number of more people a lot faster than in any previous ways of technology, I think. And so law is trailing the world, but democracy is by its nature slow. And that’s to try and get people involved and listen to what the constituents have to say about things. Obviously, we have to do that. But seeing a model for regulation that incorporates that slowness into the pace that the world is working with today, I think is very, very difficult. So the challenges to free speech, obviously, but particularly perhaps freedom of information. I mean, the big internet revolution, obviously, it’s where all people get to speak freely about what they want, where they want, in some ways, at least on the mercy of big tech companies. But the big difference, I think, with internet and even before social media is the absolute overflow of unchecked information. So the model that we’ve sort of been relating to up until the internet came is one where some fact checkers, some quality checkers, some guardians have always sort of filtered the information that we get. And that’s so very different today. And it’s really hard to envision how to meet that even with more training in digital literacy and critical thinking. It’s very hard to keep up because we as human beings are netizens are also a lot slower than the machines are going right now.

Helle Sjovaag: Yeah. So regulation is usually reactionary, right? And politics is usually national and these systems are global, in a sense. So Anja paints a kind of a bleak picture. of where we are today, I want to ask you, Pamela, what do you think about Anja’s warning that we shouldn’t rely on the US to regulate this space? How has this dependency felt in the African context?

Pamella Sittoni: Thank you, and thank you, Anja, for that wonderful presentation. I couldn’t agree with you more in terms of the rest of the world really looking at America’s opposition to regulation, America’s opposition to taxation of these media tech companies, and thinking about a solution that includes everybody else. I think for me, my question would be the how to go about it because when you look at Africa’s situation, for example, we find ourselves in a situation where we can’t really have the bargaining power against these companies. We look at a company like Google or Meta, and if they pulled out of Africa, what difference would it make to their bottom line? Obviously none, but what impact would it have on the information flow in that part of the world? A great impact. So we find ourselves kind of in a catch-22 situation, and I think I would look at what Chris said about policies and also about creating an ecosystem where these companies are actually made to play by a global playbook and not specific rules for specific countries. So what Google does in Australia, it should also be compelled to do the same in Africa. And also we have had situations where these companies are allowed to pick and choose. They pick and choose who to work with, which media house to work with, who to pay and how much to pay. So this call for accountability and transparency, I think should. be made to apply globally and not in specific regions only. Thank you. Yeah, thank you for that.

Kjersti Loken Stavrum: Kjersti, from a sort of an industry perspective, how real is this power relief felt in the industry? What are the threats to freedom of information? I think it was two great keynotes. I think what we see in my opinion is that social media or the platforms, they are amplifying the weaknesses of the society in way where they operate. So when we see this polarization in the US, it was there already. Like in the Philippines, where Maria Ressa always had strong and clear messages from. The Philippines were never a good place before Facebook either. But I guess at least we in this room share this mission of trying to foster a well-informed and enlightened public debate. And depending on the problem, the answer is almost always trusted media, trusted edited media. And at this very moment, actually, VG, Norway’s major private free media outlet, is celebrating its 80th anniversary. So the Prime Minister is there. I should have been there myself, but I’m here. Anyway, that makes it possible for me to tell you that VG has in a population of 5 million people, daily 2 million visitors, and 1.5 million comes directly to VG. That is both extremely impressive, I think, almost all media outlets in the world. And with them, those figures, isn’t that right, Rasmus? But it is a result of them. They were funded actually after the Second World War as a democracy project. and that project is still going on. They’ve had a very clear policy for what their role was in society and they work on that role very proudly. And I think the, yeah, I agree with Anina also because I agree to all, I guess that is why, that is how Echo Chamber developed. But I think the regulation has been too slow because we had the assumptions wrong. We assumed that the US was an ally for our liberal democracy and now we know for sure that it’s not. So we of course, yeah, it was too late. We didn’t treat the challenges seriously enough but we are doing it now, I think. And I think we more and more see parallel to what we saw in the 1990s when the climate policy also understood that the polluter had to pay. So we are sort of copying the polluter pays principle that was established back then. And I think that has, of course, both an economic aspect but it’s likewise important that it has a moral aspect of it. And I think that’s fair because we see that when not accountable platforms are spreading pollution into our information climate, there are someone else that are left to clean up the mess and very often that is the edited media. And I think that to make the polluter pay, I think we can enforce those that are edited and those that are responsible. And like, for instance, VG, they adhere to the Norwegian. media responsibility law and and also is part of a very beautiful press ethical system that Norway has and the Nordics share almost likewise that I think is of great importance but but in the end we cannot sort of be lame-duck facing those that are not playing by the rules that we others are it’s not more complicated than that you’re talking about some very clear institutional

Helle Sjovaag: differences I guess between the two sectors how fake how is UNESCO working to to ensure that we have a free information space in the context of the keynotes that we hear today thank you Hele first of all my thanks to both

Tawfik Jelassi: keynote speakers because I think that they set the stage very carefully and thoroughly and they were very eloquent in putting the arguments forward I am tempted to add to the title it’s not only conditions for a free and resilient news media but also for a trustworthy news media to pick on the previous panelist who brought up the issue of trust and the previous panelist also mentioned Maria Ressa and her famous quote she said without facts there is no truth and without truth there is no trust and without trust there is no shared reality upon which we can act today we do have a new shared reality and as it was mentioned before it’s caused us to act so what UNESCO has done three years ago it has launched a major global initiative called for an internet of trust which was an inclusive multi-stakeholder process involving not only the 194 member states of UNESCO but also civil society organizations tech companies, platform operators, academia, research, technical community, organizing free global open consultations, receiving 10,000 inputs from these stakeholders, inputs coming from over 134 countries. And what I have in my hand here is a booklet published about a year ago. It’s called the UNESCO Guidelines for the Governance of Digital Platforms. And it calls or it spills out the conditions for a free, resilient, trustworthy media, clearly defining the responsibility in terms of transparency, accountability, user empowerment, independent regulators and oversight bodies. Why doing that? Because I don’t think the why is clear and the what is clear. But the how today is the challenge. How to go about it? And we believe that regulation showed its limits. Self-regulation did not work, did not deliver. We need maybe a core regulatory system, which is truly multi-stakeholder. And that was our base. And to anchor the process in human rights standards, because it’s also about individual dignity. It’s about data privacy. It is about the user empowerment, as I said a minute ago. So the good news is that we are now implementing these guidelines. We have pilot implementation underway. We set up a network of 80 regulators from all over the world. And we had last year the first UNESCO Global Conference for Regulatory Authorities. Why we need them? Because, of course, they can contextualize these guidelines and they can, of course, take into account, and they have to, the specificities of regions and countries when implementing these set of principles. So this is an effort. But again, I stress the multi-stakeholder. the multilateral, the inclusive process, because what some of you mentioned is a problem for society at large. And there is no one single country or actor who can tackle this issue successfully. We need to join forces to achieve our goal.

Helle Sjovaag: Thank you. So, Anja, how you kind of outline where the US is now, sort of isolationist. What’s your hope or belief in these sort of global systems? Is it going to work if the US isn’t able to, or willing to collaborate, to pull out, as you say?

Anya Schiffrin: Well, I think it’s, and I know we talked about this during the South African hearings, it’s very normal for companies to threaten to exit. That is what they always do. And I understand, I’ve heard so many people in Africa say what Pamela is saying. In terms of economics, the exit threat really makes no sense, because these companies make money off news and quality information. And even if they had to share some of the surplus, they would still be making plenty of profit, right? So, it makes no sense to exit. I think sort of three things. One is clearly, as Pamela pointed out, countries and publishers have to negotiate collectively. The Danish example is really important. So, Kenya by itself might not feel like a good market, but all of Africa is a market. So that’s the first thing. Second thing is, let’s be realistic. If these companies exit, Chinese technology will take over. So, TikTok or whoever will just take on this job. So, there is actually an alternative and those platforms know that. And then finally… eventually other countries would develop their own technology. So, you know, Indonesian telecom, Brazil, South Africa, there would be more innovation later. And I’m not, as I mentioned before, you know, none of these options are great options, but that’s where we’re at.

Helle Sjovaag: Yeah. Chris, it seems like most of the panel agree with you. Are you disappointed? You’re assuming I agree with myself. Care to disagree with yourself?

Chris Disspain: I do think, sorry, I do think that we need to be a little bit careful about what we say. I’ve heard everyone, most people talking about regulation. Different people hear different things when you say regulation. Is that better? Lovely. If the Chinese government hears regulation, it means something completely different to when Tavik was talking about regulation, with him I agree, because he was talking about multi-stakeholder regulation, or what I would call policy, global policy that can be implemented around the world. And I think there’s quite a danger in talking about regulation because it feeds into the narrative of some of the more authoritarian governments around the world. What we need is global policy. And what we need is the good guys, and I’m not going to say who I think the good guys are, but the good guys need to actually buy into the global multi-stakeholder way of making policy. And what that means is that you have to take the good with the bad. It means that you’re not going to win every argument. And what you can’t do, if you are a government, is if you don’t win something, pick up your bucket and spade and go home and create your own laws to make it happen. And there’s a tendency for that to be happening right now in certain places around the world, not a million miles from where we are today. So what I would say is, yes, I do agree. that we need to figure out ways of Making sure that we maintain the diversity we maintain an open and free resilient media But but just by saying we probably need to regulate isn’t isn’t going to cut it I just want to say one other thing which is that we We do have Open resilient media it does exist around the world It’s not everywhere, but it does exist it exists in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in Australia exists in the jolly old BBC It’s been with me all my life and and is and and wins as independent because everyone hates it And that’s a key point if everyone is equally unhappy if when when the left is in government They think the BBC is right-wing when the right is in government. They’d be they think the BBC is left-wing That’s how you do it, and it does work But of course they’re under threat to you because of the funding model not because Google owns an undersea platform But because of the funding model and how’s that going to work? So this is a much bigger problem. I think than just Those you know ownership of stuff and as I knew said if if Google or Microsoft or that lot can own Undersea cables then the Chinese will come and put them in and so on and so forth And then there’s even more of a challenge one final thing which is We get an awful lot of stuff for free We there is except it isn’t of course free, and I’m reminded of a conversation with Tim Berners-Lee. Sorry to name-drop when When was the agreement that we would get free access to? Everything that’s on the internet and a free email account that we can use completely freely And we wouldn’t have to pay anything for that at all when did that happen? It never did there was always a price. Thanks

Helle Sjovaag: Can we get back to just the issue of trust a little bit because Shasti you talked a little bit about this and and about resilience and the power of these companies and the discrepancies between the institutional ethics of journalism and technology companies on the other side. What do you think the media can do to counter these dependencies or is there any way to work together in a very competitive space? What’s the future here?

Kjersti Loken Stavrum: Well maybe my answer can start by addressing Chris’s sort of warning against regulation or thinking of and using the word regulation because everything that we’re discussing has these dilemmas and what seems bright from a democracy perspective is black when you go to Turkey and then it is the opposite if you are Erdogan and hear the lovely word of anti-terror law then he will just run out and find another journalist that maybe has assaulted him. So that is the dilemma but at this time I still think that we need to take care of our own geographies so that not more and more are sort of sliding into a situation which is not bearable and very difficult to handle. That was the start but I do think that we should talk about ethics because ethic is of such an extreme importance and I think it’s interesting for instance since we’re sitting here in Oslo to see what the Nordics has in common. All the Finland, Sweden, Norway and to some extent Denmark has this brilliant press ethical system. I think the Danish is a little bit different because it’s the Ministry of Justice that appoints the press council but in the other countries it’s independent. If I have one dream it would be that the media in all the geographies that are natural to divide for instance Europe into, come together and establish a free, fair and fast press ethical system, because that makes everything so much easier. And it’s it’s a it’s a fast lane towards trust, I think, because then you can you can complain, you over years, you will you will see that media that adhere to a press ethical system, they, they comply, and they they feel part of holding up the the standards, like, like take a very, very easy example is that how often do you think that the Norwegian media has published a story that have been criticized in the press council for revealing people’s privacy, private life, it hardly never happened.

Helle Sjovaag: I mean, you have a comment.

Anine Kierulf: No, I just wanted to add on to what just said, and what Chris says is true, because keeping that that local perspective, even while looking at the world, going backwards, I think is very important. And also, both to sort of be examples for, for other regions, obviously, but also to sort of remind ourselves what is really at stake here, and how far we can really get with regulations, no matter what kinds of regulations we’re talking about. Because if you see, like some of the backsliding in the US now, is really following the books of the law that digging up like really old statutes from the 1700s, and so forth, but but you’re using laws as a pretext for doing what is absolutely contrary to both the rule of law and to democracy. So it takes really sort of good faith constitutionalism for that to work. And I think the same applies in this sector, you would have to have sort of a good faith approach to all of this stuff. And, and in that respect, I think the the ethic dimension comes in to be really important.

Helle Sjovaag: Yeah, and you’re thinking both at the sort of local, national, and global level. So, because Pamela was talking about issues of accountability and transparency, how do you think we achieve that at these different levels? Is it a global question, or can we work nationally, locally for that? Yes, Pamela, please.

Pamella Sittoni: I think it has to be both. So, at the local level, as the panelist who spoke before me has mentioned, it’s important that we have regulations or ethical guidelines that guide us. And I think this is really, for what we call legacy media, it’s a no-brainer. We all operate within the tenets of good journalism. The issue really is that the platforms are open for anybody and everybody, and there’s disinformation and misinformation. In fact, I always look at this as the flip side to that is that then the credible media have a chance to forge more trust with their audiences because they are the to-go-to platforms, and people will go there for what they believe to be factual, and so, therefore, they have to operate within the rules. But when I was talking about accountability and transparency for the big platforms, I mean, we’re just looking at issues of even how they work out their algorithms, which they do not disclose. They decide, as Chris said, they can decide what information to put out there and what to censor based on their relationships with government. They can endanger lives. I think the most current story from Kenya, where I come from right now, is about a young man who put out something on X, and it displeased a high-ranking police official. And because of that, he was literally, he was arrested and he was murdered in the police cells because this information was made available, was revealed by the platform. And they were able to track him down and actually arrest him, and then he was murdered in the police cells. So when you’re talking about these issues, it’s life-threatening, it threatens the rights of the people to expression, the freedom of expression, even to freedom to just be alive. So these are serious issues, and it’s important that we look at the best way to have that accountability and to hold platforms accountable for what they do. And then the other issue is the whole issue of media sustainability. I’m happy to see that in Europe, most countries actually, the media is funded by states, but in places like Africa, where independent media used to rely on a business model that has now collapsed. Transition to digital media has become very slow and painful, and it affects the quality of the journalism, it affects how much information, how they can do their stories, how they cannot do, for example, deep investigative stories for lack of funding. And it’s all because of how the whole ecosystem is owned by somebody who can decide how much money they can pay you for your content. They can take your IP for no pay, and you literally have nowhere to go. We have a case right now where Mitai is arguing on whether it should be sued in Kenya or not, and because they don’t have physical offices in Kenya, and yet they continue to violate the IP of Kenyans. or Kenyan organizations. So I think the whole governance in that space is very important.

Anya Schiffrin: Can I come in, Hayley, with an add on? You know what my husband is now saying is that the platforms need to post a billion dollar bond before they start operations in countries like Kenya or Brazil, so that when there’s a fine, they have to pay it. Because in too many places, they’re going around saying, we don’t have staff. So let them put down a bond or a deposit, and then they can be fined.

Helle Sjovaag: Yeah, like a rainy day fund. Is sovereignty a word we can use here? And is data sovereignty, digital sovereignty, is that a path?

Anine Kierulf: Well, we wish, I suppose. It would be nice if we had our own ecosystems and our own infrastructure for taking care of our own data and our own information. But it seems that’s a little way ahead. I think it would be very important to think like that. And we’re obviously totally lagging behind, was that, I think it was Timothy Garton Ash, in his 10 Principles of Free Speech, he was talking about the dogs and the cats and the mice. So the dogs are the states, and the mice are us. And the cats are the big tech companies in between, who obviously don’t obey by any rules and do whatever they like. And so that’s kind of the situation where we’re in, only that some of the big dogs are teaming up with some of the big cats. And that leaves us a lot more vulnerable than we’ve been up to now. So I think there’s no way outside of thinking sovereignty. I’m not a technologist, so I have no idea how that would actually be able to work out in practice. And I sometimes miss in conversations like this, not like this one, but conversations on this topic, is that people who are interested in freedom and journalism and democracy and human rights are not always talking so much to the technologists and vice versa, so that if we could team up in a way that informed us both better, maybe that could be at least one step ahead in that direction.

Helle Sjovaag: Well, we’re here at IDF, so maybe. I want to ask Rasmus about alternatives in a minute, but Chris and Kjersti have asked for comments, so Chris?

Chris Disspain: Just a couple of things I wanted to say, just on the digital sovereignty thing. The challenge with that is, does it work unless you try and go extra territorially? That’s a really difficult thing. The European Commission continues to attempt to regulate various parts of the domain name system extra territorially, and it’s a real challenge, because it simply basically doesn’t work. But the thing I wanted to pick up on was what Pamela was talking about, because she gave a really good example about the ethics of revealing someone’s name, and in therein lies the real challenge, because there are the ethical judgment in some cases, the good ethical judgment in some cases will be you should reveal, and the bad ethical judgment in some cases will be you should reveal. So it’s really, really hard to figure out a way through that, because at the end of the day, it’s not you should reveal or you shouldn’t, it’s what are the circumstances, and that by definition depends on your definition of who the good guys are, and who the bad guys are. I just wanted to start with me, I have that cat

Kjersti Loken Stavrum: and it’s absolutely ignorant to all the rules. You say you have a big tech company? Well, I definitely have, it’s a cat. But let’s build on that one, because I think we have no choice. We need to develop national digital infrastructure. No, I mean, what we see around us, leaves us no other choice. And, and I think we have in Norway, for instance, Telenor working on cloud storage, extremely important. We have some huge media companies like shipstead where I’m board head and and I think the policymakers need to to find out how can how does this 2025 going onward media policy look like it should facilitate tech development, it should make it it should be as broad as possible so that it sort of communicates with the framework of the free press in the world we live today. That will leave the media free and not so vulnerable to changes in the in the policymaking but but but sort of leveling the playing field with this big ignorant cats.

Helle Sjovaag: Yeah. Asmus, do you think that’s an option to build public alternatives?

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen: Of course it is. I mean, there are plenty of options. But I think the the real question is, we need to hold people in positions of power, including public and political power to account in terms of how they understand the system and whether they act accordingly. And I think the question here is, when looking at dependence on US American, big commercial platform companies, is which part of that phrase you stress, right? So if you think the problem is that they’re US American, then the path you pursue is obvious, it is that you try to create national or in the case of Europe, regional champions. And then when they have the right passport, and you are reliant on grande technologie, rather than big tech, things are fine, right? Because then those companies have the whole into a different set of politicians and then let’s just hope that whoever is the next inhabitant of the LSA is not going to abuse that power the way that we see in some other cases. And then the question is whether we as the mice can expect very different behavior from large corporations who hold different passports and I think that all of those of you have been at the receiving end of European capitalism around the world I think you will ask yourself whether you really think it’s fundamentally different from US American capitalism. Then the second way to think about the problem is that the problem is that they are big. Now then the alternatives are also I think quite clear. You’re thinking about decentralized, federated, open-source solutions. Now I think it needs to be very clear that very few people in positions of power seem to think this is the problem because if they did they would pursue those alternatives already because they exist like the Fediverse right with Mastodon or Lieber office. There are options in this space and we have now 25 years of revealed preference from people in positions of power this is not what they want. So those alternatives exist but they are not being pursued. And finally of course your analysis might be that the problem is that they are commercial and that’s where we can turn to the possibility of public service alternatives and I think it’s possible to do this. It’s not easy. We need to decide what are they going to do. You know there are many layers of the stack one could look at. How are they going to be funded? This is not going to be cheap. Who’s going to make the rules and who’s going to enforce them? Like all the controversies we see around content moderation decisions imagine those only with the politicians in your country of origin making the decisions rather than Mark Zuckerberg and his oversight board. So it’s not easy but it can certainly be done. The question then is a question of priorities right? In Europe alone we spend an estimated 40 billion euros a year on public service media. That has been stagnant in some cases declining in recent years but we could make investments of a similar size. Europe is a 20 trillion US dollar GDP region. Public spending in Europe alone is 10 trillion euros a year. It’s a question of priorities and that’s why I think we really need to be clear about, you know, if we are to pursue the route that Christie endorsed, you know, we have the means. It’s a question of choices.

Helle Sjovaag: Yes, exactly. Tawfiq, did you have a comment?

Tawfik Jelassi: Yes, the issue of ethics was brought up by a couple of panelists earlier and the question was, well, the statement was that the media needs to adhere to ethical standards and norms, but the question is, are these local national ethics standards or are these global? I would say I think it’s both because technology and the platforms are global by nature, are borderless, therefore you cannot only apply national policy or approach to it. And here I wanted to flag out a piece of work that UNESCO has done, which is the recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence, which was approved by all 193 member states back in 2021, and the set of principles, including on the media, including on freedom of expression, including on access to information, within this ethics of AI recommendation, are currently being implemented in over 70 countries, 70, 70 countries worldwide. So again, we have a base. I’m not saying that’s the answer to all issues, but there is a base and this is part of the UNESCO work, which is a standard setting, normative instruments in a consensus, multi- stakeholder way. So of course we are not, because some of you mentioned the European Commission and the DSA, etc., UNESCO does not have that executive power, cannot find the bad guys, the bad players, all what it can do is advocacy, norm setting, and trying to help move the needle.

Helle Sjovaag: Well, you brought up artificial intelligence, and I also have that on my notes, how does that development sort of increase or challenge these dependencies? These are many of the same companies… involved in the material internet and also in the AI race. What should we really be prepared for here in terms of how market power develops and ethics and regulation, and also for independent journalism in general? Maybe I can start with you, Pamela.

Pamella Sittoni: Thanks, I think first of all, I strongly believe that any technological advancement, including AI, is good. And it is not mutually exclusive to good journalism. And the core of journalism will always remain, which is to tell stories. AI will not replace journalism, it is not going to replace the way we tell, it might replace how we tell some of our stories, but it will not create stories for us if it’s used responsibly as a tool. And we’ve seen already a lot of media houses are applying AI. But I think for me, it just goes back to that whole control and ownership conversation about the platforms where you have, now you have the tech companies, they own the platforms, they own the distribution network, but they also want to own that content. And I’ll just give the example of the Google AI overview and what it’s doing for media houses already right now, just by gleaning all information about topics and putting it out there for the audience. Media houses have done research and they’ve seen that because of that, the traffic to their own websites reduces significantly. And what that means is therefore that they cannot monetize their own content, they cannot monetize it for advertising either. And eventually I see a vision. a cycle of just doom for both the media houses and even the internet ecosystem. Because the more you starve the media houses of revenue and ability to generate independent verified information, the more you starve the whole ecosystem of this information. So for me, I think the world should be very worried about what these companies are doing with AI and also force them to be ethical or force them to pay for that content. If they are gleaning content from the credible sites, then they need to pay those sites for what they’re generating out of it.

Helle Sjovaag: These are also large global structures that we’re talking about here. And I want to sort of end the panel or come to a discussion about what we can do is maybe small states or the role of small states in this context and maybe start with Rasmus and also ask you, Anja, after that what advice you could give to small states in this context?

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen: I mean, I speak as an academic who come from a small state. So I think I’ll wear both hats. And I think as an academic, my finest obligation is to call it as I see it, also when it’s inconvenient or unpopular. And when we think about this from the point of view of small states, perhaps I’m reminded of the quote from Thucydides’ Peloponnesian Wars that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must, which we should, of course, remember he didn’t write because he was sort of an inspiring manosphere would-be influencer. He didn’t write this to endorse this. He wrote this as a description of what he saw as the reality of power politics. And I think that is useful to keep in mind if you come from a small country. And as an academic, I would just say I think we need an honest debate, public debate, with politicians taking responsibility for the choices that they’re making. I don’t think my personal views on how elected officials balance between. in the urgency of climate change, of national security, of assuring welfare systems with aging populations, of ensuring a productive economy while also ensuring sustainability, vis-a-vis issues of digital sovereignty and technological autonomy. I don’t think my personal views and how they balance those are particularly interesting. What I will say is I think it’s very important to be clear that even small states, as long as they’re not desperately poor, have power and can make different choices and those choices matter greatly in terms of the outcomes. I don’t think we should accept the sort of pretend helplessness of powerful politicians who that way escape scrutiny and responsibility for the actions that they take. And I don’t think that’s any different from their choices about where they buy their military hardware, how they deal with climate change, how they deal with changes to the welfare system, migration or anything else. So I think there are choices also for small states, at least if they’re not desperately poor and marginalized, which of course some are. And I think we’re seeing some countries exercise those choices. And then we can hope that they will be informed by all the wonderful sentiments that have been expressed at a sort of aspirational palette like this.

Helle Sjovaag: Yeah, so accountability also towards the political system. Anja, did you have a comment?

Anya Schiffrin: Sure, I’m not obviously from a small state unless we count New York, but I think I would absolutely agree with Rasmus. And clearly I’m thinking about when all the island nations got together because of climate change, because they knew they were going to get affected first. I think that there are regional leaders. So I think South Africa and in Nigeria, I think Brazil, I think there’s Indonesia. I think there’s lots of countries out there that can play a role. On taxes, I think it’s been really interesting the push towards. it’s having the UN instead of the OECD. So I think it’s going to have to be collective efforts to tackle a lot of this.

Helle Sjovaag: Anina, is there a balance here between states’ responsibilities and people? What can we do? Oh, the mice? Yeah, the mice.

Anine Kierulf: Well, if you can’t sort of fix the things that threatens you, maybe you can fix how you’re being threatened. So some practice in digital literacy, obviously. And being a teacher myself, but at the university level, I seem to see a shift in students in that their critical thinking is a lot better, which is good, because that’s been sort of a priority, I suppose, but that their knowledge is a lot less. So I think it was Tawfik quoting Maria Ressa saying that without facts, there’s no truth. So just to stick to that part of the quote, I think that’s very important that we, our focus on critical thinking is not sort of going on the cost of thinking about truth and knowledge too, because we need to have some basis for that critical thinking. And I believe that’s really important now. Not just that we learn how these systems and these algorithms are working and how these black boxes are affecting us, but also that we learn more about ourselves and why we’re so vulnerable to this way of manipulation that we’re being subject to right now.

Helle Sjovaag: I think that’s a great way to end the panel. We’re approaching the end of our time. So I’ll make a brief attempt at summarizing and concluding here. So the internet, you know, it’s a material, physical thing that’s made up of cables and servers. They transmit content and it also connects us globally. But the internet is- not ownerless. Somebody actually owns this stuff, and ownership constitutes power. And this power is growing in concentration. So we are already past the point of dependency on the infrastructures that the global technology providers provide. So we have to start asking how resilient our societies really are to maintain healthy information spaces, particularly when we see increasing unrest and crises. So at what point does this dependency actually compromise national sovereignty, national political, and digital and data sovereignties? How do we regulate the space to ensure the conditions for a free and resilient media that actually help to uphold these societies? So I had three thoughts on how to maybe offset these dependency problems. The first would be to keep transparency and accountability at the front of every conversation that we have about private as well as public maintenance of digital infrastructures. Second, to regulate the digital infrastructure to make sure that we have universality, human right, and freedom of expression at the base of every decision. And third, to immediately start building alternatives. So with that, I want to thank our keynote speakers, Anja and Chris, very much for your perspectives today and also to all of our panelists for giving us this rich context. Thank you also to online audiences and you for being here in the room. Thank you.

Chris Disspain

Speech speed

154 words per minute

Speech length

2875 words

Speech time

1115 seconds

Internet infrastructure is physical, centralized and privately owned, creating choke points that can silence journalism or manipulate public discourse

Explanation

Disspain argues that the internet is not an abstract democratic realm but consists of real physical assets owned by real companies, from undersea cables to data centers to platforms. This concentration of ownership creates points of control that can be used intentionally or not to silence journalism, suppress dissent, or manipulate public discourse.

Evidence

Examples include financial intermediaries cutting off funding to news organizations, app stores removing controversial apps, network providers shutting down entire countries’ access to the internet during political crises, and the recent blackout in Portugal and Spain

Major discussion point

Concentration of Internet Infrastructure and Media Control

Topics

Infrastructure | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Agreed with

– Helle Sjovaag
– Anya Schiffrin
– Rasmus Kleis Nielsen

Agreed on

Internet infrastructure concentration creates vulnerabilities and control points

Disagreed with

– Rasmus Kleis Nielsen

Disagreed on

Whether the problem is primarily corporate concentration or political choices

Big tech companies control multiple layers from cables to platforms, creating vertical integration that financially squeezes independent media

Explanation

Disspain explains that tech giants who own cables also dominate social media distribution, search engines, cloud hosting, and advertising markets. This vertical integration gives big companies leverage over the digital news economy and can financially squeeze independent media who become dependent on a few platforms for both content distribution and monetization.

Evidence

Companies that own undersea cables can prioritize or deprioritize certain data flows, favor their own platforms or partners, and create potential choke points where governments or companies can interfere with transmission of independent journalism

Major discussion point

Concentration of Internet Infrastructure and Media Control

Topics

Economic | Infrastructure | Human rights

Rasmus Kleis Nielsen

Speech speed

180 words per minute

Speech length

1446 words

Speech time

481 seconds

Current concentration resembles historical press baron control but is more pronounced due to transnational and global reach

Explanation

Nielsen agrees with the historical parallel to press barons but emphasizes that today’s concentration of power is increasingly transnational and global, making it more accentuated than historical examples. He stresses there’s also a political story of deliberate deregulation that created current conditions.

Evidence

Quote from President Obama in 2015: ‘our companies have created the internet, expanded it, perfected it in ways that other countries can’t compete’ – showing cross-party political support for non-intervention

Major discussion point

Concentration of Internet Infrastructure and Media Control

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Human rights

Agreed with

– Chris Disspain
– Helle Sjovaag
– Anya Schiffrin

Agreed on

Internet infrastructure concentration creates vulnerabilities and control points

There’s a political history of deliberate non-intervention and deregulation across the political spectrum that created current conditions

Explanation

Nielsen argues that the current situation has political roots going back to Bush, Obama, Blair, Cameron, Schroeder and Merkel administrations. He emphasizes that corporate consolidation and liberalization have been endorsed by establishment parties of both center-left and center-right, not just accepted but actively pursued.

Evidence

Mentions watering down of cross-media ownership legislation and cites Obama’s 2015 quote defending US tech companies, plus current European Commission brief allegedly focused on deregulation and corporate consolidation

Major discussion point

Regulatory Challenges and Approaches

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Agreed with

– Anine Kierulf
– Anya Schiffrin
– Kjersti Loken Stavrum

Agreed on

Regulation has been too slow and inadequate to address platform power

Disagreed with

– Chris Disspain

Disagreed on

Whether the problem is primarily corporate concentration or political choices

Small states have power and can make different choices despite constraints, and shouldn’t accept pretend helplessness

Explanation

Nielsen argues that even small states, as long as they’re not desperately poor, have power and can make different choices that matter greatly in terms of outcomes. He believes politicians shouldn’t escape scrutiny by claiming helplessness, and that choices exist just as they do for military hardware, climate change, or welfare systems.

Evidence

References Thucydides’ quote ‘the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must’ but notes this was descriptive, not prescriptive. Points to Europe spending 40 billion euros annually on public service media and having 10 trillion euros in public spending

Major discussion point

Solutions and Alternatives

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Economic

Public alternatives exist including decentralized, federated, open-source solutions, but few in power pursue them

Explanation

Nielsen explains that if the problem is seen as companies being too big, then decentralized alternatives exist like the Fediverse with Mastodon or LibreOffice. However, 25 years of revealed preference from people in power shows this is not what they want, despite these alternatives being available.

Evidence

Mentions specific examples like Mastodon, LibreOffice, and the Fediverse as existing alternatives that could be pursued but aren’t being chosen by those in power

Major discussion point

Solutions and Alternatives

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Development

Helle Sjovaag

Speech speed

132 words per minute

Speech length

1930 words

Speech time

875 seconds

Media dependency on platforms creates vulnerabilities where outlets can become practically invisible if access is restricted

Explanation

Sjovaag explains that news media have become increasingly dependent on platforms owned by US-based technology companies for distribution, audience reach, and revenue generation. This dependency creates vulnerabilities where news outlets can become practically invisible if platforms choose to restrict access, either voluntarily or under pressure.

Evidence

Examples include reliance on social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok for audience engagement and advertising revenue, plus dependence on AI services from Microsoft, Alphabet and Amazon for research, production, analytics and content personalization

Major discussion point

Concentration of Internet Infrastructure and Media Control

Topics

Infrastructure | Human rights | Economic

Agreed with

– Chris Disspain
– Anya Schiffrin
– Rasmus Kleis Nielsen

Agreed on

Internet infrastructure concentration creates vulnerabilities and control points

Anya Schiffrin

Speech speed

157 words per minute

Speech length

2868 words

Speech time

1091 seconds

Platforms have polluted the information ecosystem, stolen intellectual property, become monopoly capitalists, and interfered with political processes

Explanation

Schiffrin argues that platforms have shown themselves to be bad actors by making money from spreading misinformation and hate speech, stealing intellectual property which weakens those providing good information, stifling innovation through monopoly power, and using their wealth to interfere with political processes globally.

Evidence

Mentions tax avoidance despite enormous profits, oligarchs using wealth to write rules benefiting their monopolies, and a forthcoming book chapter with Felipe Lauritzen examining South Africa and Brazil as case studies of classic American corporate lobbying playbook

Major discussion point

Platform Power and Corporate Behavior

Topics

Economic | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Agreed with

– Chris Disspain
– Helle Sjovaag
– Rasmus Kleis Nielsen

Agreed on

Internet infrastructure concentration creates vulnerabilities and control points

Platform intransigence and resistance to regulation has led to consideration of more drastic measures like digital levies

Explanation

Schiffrin explains that platform resistance to previous laws and voluntary measures has forced regulators to consider what she calls ‘fourth-best measures’ like digital levies. She argues that platforms only make concessions when faced with actual legislative proposals, not voluntary agreements.

Evidence

Agreed with

– Pamella Sittoni
– Tawfik Jelassi
– Kjersti Loken Stavrum

Agreed on

Need for collective action and global cooperation

Companies threaten exit as a standard corporate playbook tactic, but this makes little economic sense as they profit from news content

Explanation

Schiffrin explains that threatening to exit is a normal corporate tactic, but economically it makes no sense because these companies make money off news and quality information. Even if they had to share some surplus, they would still make plenty of profit, and exit would just allow Chinese technology or other alternatives to take over.

Evidence

Points out that if companies exit, Chinese technology like TikTok would take over, and eventually other countries would develop their own technology like Indonesian telecom, Brazil, or South Africa, leading to more innovation

Major discussion point

Platform Power and Corporate Behavior

Topics

Economic | Development

Kjersti Loken Stavrum

Speech speed

134 words per minute

Speech length

1079 words

Speech time

482 seconds

Platforms amplify existing societal weaknesses and polarization rather than creating new problems

Explanation

Stavrum argues that social media platforms amplify the weaknesses of the societies where they operate rather than creating entirely new problems. She uses examples of the US polarization and Philippines’ situation, noting these issues existed before Facebook but were amplified by the platforms.

Evidence

Agreed with

– Pamella Sittoni
– Anya Schiffrin
– Tawfik Jelassi

Agreed on

Need for collective action and global cooperation

Pamella Sittoni

Speech speed

141 words per minute

Speech length

1097 words

Speech time

466 seconds

African countries face catch-22 situations where platform exit would have minimal impact on company profits but major impact on information flow

Explanation

Sittoni explains that African countries lack bargaining power against companies like Google or Meta because if these platforms pulled out of Africa, it would make no difference to their bottom line, but would have a great impact on information flow in that part of the world. This creates a catch-22 situation for African nations.

Major discussion point

Impact on Developing Countries and Africa

Topics

Development | Economic | Human rights

Platforms pick and choose which media houses to work with and how much to pay, lacking accountability and transparency

Explanation

Sittoni argues that platforms are allowed to pick and choose which media houses to work with, who to pay and how much to pay, without accountability or transparency. She calls for global standards where what Google does in Australia should also be required in Africa, rather than allowing companies to have different rules for different countries.

Evidence

Current case where Meta is arguing whether it should be sued in Kenya despite not having physical offices there, while continuing to violate IP of Kenyans and Kenyan organizations

Major discussion point

Impact on Developing Countries and Africa

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Human rights

Platform actions can endanger lives, as seen in cases where user information leads to arrests and deaths

Explanation

Topics

Economic | Intellectual property rights | Human rights

Tech companies want to own platforms, distribution networks, and content, creating a cycle that could doom both media houses and the internet ecosystem

Explanation

Sittoni warns that tech companies’ desire to control platforms, distribution networks, and content creates a vicious cycle. The more they starve media houses of revenue and ability to generate independent verified information, the more they starve the entire ecosystem of quality information.

Major discussion point

Artificial Intelligence and Content Control

Topics

Economic | Infrastructure | Human rights

Countries and publishers need to negotiate collectively rather than individually to have bargaining power against platforms

Explanation

Sittoni argues that individual countries like Kenya might not feel like good markets to platforms, but collective negotiation by all of Africa would create a significant market. She emphasizes the importance of collective bargaining to achieve accountability and transparency from platforms.

Evidence

References the Danish example as important for collective negotiation

Major discussion point

US Opposition and Global Cooperation

Topics

Economic | Development | Legal and regulatory

Agreed with

– Anya Schiffrin
– Tawfik Jelassi
– Kjersti Loken Stavrum

Agreed on

Need for collective action and global cooperation

Anine Kierulf

Speech speed

158 words per minute

Speech length

997 words

Speech time

378 seconds

Law is always trailing behind fast-moving technology, and democracy’s inherent slowness makes regulation difficult

Explanation

Kierulf explains that law is always too late, trailing behind the world and trying to regulate and fix things that don’t work. However, today’s situation is different because the world is spinning much faster, with internet and technology companies operating at a much higher pace than previous technologies, while democracy remains inherently slow.

Evidence

Tawfik Jelassi

Speech speed

143 words per minute

Speech length

707 words

Speech time

294 seconds

UNESCO has developed guidelines for digital platform governance through inclusive multi-stakeholder processes involving 194 member states

Explanation

Jelassi describes UNESCO’s ‘Internet of Trust’ initiative launched three years ago as an inclusive multi-stakeholder process involving not only 194 member states but also civil society, tech companies, academia, and technical community. The process received 10,000 inputs from over 134 countries and produced guidelines for platform governance.

Evidence

UNESCO Guidelines for the Governance of Digital Platforms published about a year ago, defining responsibilities for transparency, accountability, user empowerment, independent regulators and oversight bodies

Major discussion point

Regulatory Challenges and Approaches

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Agreed with

– Pamella Sittoni
– Anya Schiffrin
– Kjersti Loken Stavrum

Agreed on

Need for collective action and global cooperation

Disagreed with

– Chris Disspain
– Rasmus Kleis Nielsen

Disagreed on

Use of the term ‘regulation’ and approach to policy-making

Without facts there is no truth, without truth there is no trust, and without trust there is no shared reality for action

Explanation

Jelassi quotes Maria Ressa’s famous statement to emphasize the importance of trustworthy news media, not just free and resilient media. He argues that today we have a new shared reality that requires action, and this chain from facts to truth to trust to shared reality is essential.

Evidence

Maria Ressa’s quote and UNESCO’s focus on creating conditions for trustworthy media through their guidelines

Major discussion point

Trust, Ethics, and Media Standards

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Ethics standards need to be both local and global since platforms are borderless by nature

Explanation

Jelassi argues that because technology and platforms are global and borderless by nature, you cannot only apply national policy approaches. He emphasizes that both local and global ethics standards are needed, referencing UNESCO’s work on AI ethics that has been approved by all 193 member states.

Evidence

UNESCO recommendation on ethics of artificial intelligence approved by all 193 member states in 2021, currently being implemented in over 70 countries worldwide

Major discussion point

Trust, Ethics, and Media Standards

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Agreements

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Development

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Unexpected consensus

Optimism about alternatives and human resilience

Speakers

– Chris Disspain
– Rasmus Kleis Nielsen
– Pamella Sittoni

Arguments

Internet infrastructure is physical, centralized and privately owned, creating choke points that can silence journalism or manipulate public discourse

Small states have power and can make different choices despite constraints, and shouldn’t accept pretend helplessness

AI is a useful tool that won’t replace journalism’s core function of storytelling, but raises concerns about content ownership and control

Explanation

Despite painting dire pictures of concentration and control, speakers unexpectedly showed optimism about human resilience, available alternatives, and the agency of smaller actors to make meaningful choices

Topics

Human rights | Development | Sociocultural

Importance of ethics and trust in media systems

Speakers

– Kjersti Loken Stavrum
– Tawfik Jelassi
– Anine Kierulf

Arguments

Nordic countries have brilliant press ethical systems that create fast lanes to trust and maintain high standards

Without facts there is no truth, without truth there is no trust, and without trust there is no shared reality for action

Citizens need both critical thinking skills and factual knowledge base, with focus on digital literacy and understanding manipulation

Explanation

Unexpected strong consensus emerged around the fundamental importance of ethical frameworks and trust-building mechanisms, with speakers from different backgrounds emphasizing similar principles

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

Speakers showed remarkable consensus on core issues: infrastructure concentration creates democratic vulnerabilities, regulation has been inadequate, collective action is necessary, and ethical frameworks remain crucial. Agreement spans technical, legal, and normative dimensions.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications – suggests broad expert agreement on problem diagnosis and general solution directions, indicating potential for coordinated policy responses despite political and economic challenges

Differences

Different viewpoints

Use of the term ‘regulation’ and approach to policy-making

Speakers

– Chris Disspain
– Tawfik Jelassi
– Rasmus Kleis Nielsen

Arguments

Different people hear different things when you say regulation. If the Chinese government hears regulation, it means something completely different to when Tavik was talking about regulation, with him I agree, because he was talking about multi-stakeholder regulation, or what I would call policy, global policy that can be implemented around the world

UNESCO has developed guidelines for digital platform governance through inclusive multi-stakeholder processes involving 194 member states

There’s a political history of deliberate non-intervention and deregulation across the political spectrum that created current conditions

Summary

Chris Disspain warns against using the term ‘regulation’ because it can be misinterpreted by authoritarian governments, preferring ‘global policy’ through multi-stakeholder processes. Tawfik Jelassi advocates for UNESCO’s multi-stakeholder regulatory approach. Nielsen focuses on the political history of deregulation as the root problem.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Whether the problem is primarily corporate concentration or political choices

Speakers

– Chris Disspain
– Rasmus Kleis Nielsen

Arguments

Internet infrastructure is physical, centralized and privately owned, creating choke points that can silence journalism or manipulate public discourse

There’s a political history of deliberate non-intervention and deregulation across the political spectrum that created current conditions

Summary

Disspain focuses on the structural problem of concentrated corporate ownership of infrastructure, while Nielsen emphasizes that this concentration resulted from deliberate political choices of deregulation by establishment parties across the political spectrum.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Infrastructure

Optimism vs pessimism about current state and future prospects

Speakers

– Chris Disspain
– Anya Schiffrin

Arguments

But that said, it was ever thus. It might sound as if I’m suggesting we’re headed towards the end of a diverse media or the death of local news or a single point of control of our news. And I don’t believe that we are

We’re in a terrifying moment, one in which it feels like everything we’ve worked to build over decades is being dismantled

Summary

Disspain maintains historical perspective and optimism, arguing that press barons have always tried to manipulate media but haven’t succeeded completely, while Schiffrin presents a much more pessimistic view of current threats to democratic institutions and media freedom.

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Takeaways

Key takeaways

Internet infrastructure is physical and privately owned, creating concentrated power that can control information flow and threaten media independence

Current concentration of digital infrastructure resembles historical press baron control but is more pronounced due to global reach and vertical integration

Platforms have become bad actors by polluting information ecosystems, stealing intellectual property, and using monopoly power to squeeze independent media

Traditional regulation approaches are too slow for fast-moving technology, requiring new multi-stakeholder global policy frameworks

The US government actively opposes tech regulation and taxation globally, forcing other countries to develop solutions without US cooperation

Developing countries face particular vulnerabilities where platform exit threats have asymmetric impacts – minimal effect on company profits but major disruption to information access

Trust in media requires ethical standards, transparency, and accountability, with Nordic press ethical systems serving as successful models

AI development by the same tech companies increases content control concerns, with tools like Google AI overview reducing traffic and revenue to original news sources

Small states and regions have more power than they realize and must make deliberate choices about digital sovereignty and infrastructure development

Citizens need both critical thinking skills and factual knowledge bases to navigate manipulated information environments

Resolutions and action items

Countries and publishers should negotiate collectively rather than individually to increase bargaining power against platforms

Develop national and regional digital infrastructure as an alternative to dependency on US-based tech companies

Implement transparency and accountability requirements for all digital infrastructure decisions

Regulate digital infrastructure with human rights and freedom of expression as foundational principles

Immediately begin building public alternatives including decentralized, federated, and open-source solutions

Establish regional press ethical systems similar to Nordic models to build trust and maintain standards

Require platforms to post bonds or deposits before operating in countries to ensure fines can be collected

Pursue digital levies and AI taxes with funding earmarked for journalism support

Invest in digital literacy education that combines critical thinking with factual knowledge

Unresolved issues

How to balance national sovereignty with the global nature of internet infrastructure and platforms

Whether European or other regional alternatives to US tech companies would behave fundamentally differently

How to implement multi-stakeholder global policy when major powers like the US refuse to participate

What specific mechanisms can ensure platform accountability and transparency in practice

How to fund and govern public service digital alternatives at scale

Whether current legal frameworks can effectively address extraterritorial regulation challenges

How to protect journalists and sources when platforms share data with authoritarian governments

What constitutes fair compensation for AI companies’ use of media content and intellectual property

How small states can practically achieve digital sovereignty given resource constraints

Whether voluntary ethical standards can be effective without enforcement mechanisms

Suggested compromises

Co-regulatory systems that combine government oversight with multi-stakeholder participation rather than pure self-regulation or state control

Fixed scale fees for AI use of intellectual property similar to compulsory licensing in pharmaceuticals, as an alternative to complex negotiation frameworks

Regional cooperation and collective bargaining to balance platform power while respecting national differences

Gradual development of alternative infrastructure while maintaining interoperability with existing systems

Polluter-pays principles applied to information pollution, requiring platforms to fund cleanup efforts by credible media

Global ethical standards implemented through local regulatory bodies that can contextualize principles for specific regions

This comment challenged the narrative of inevitability and helplessness that often surrounds discussions of tech power. By invoking Thucydides while rejecting fatalism, Nielsen demanded accountability from political leaders who claim they have no choices.

Impact

This comment served as a powerful call to action, rejecting defeatism and demanding that politicians take responsibility for their choices. It helped conclude the discussion on an empowering note, emphasizing agency rather than victimhood.

Overall assessment

Explanation

AI tools like Google’s AI overview are reducing traffic to news sites by scraping content without compensation, threatening the sustainability of journalism

Day 0 Event #250 Building Trust and Combatting Fraud in the Internet Ecosystem

Session at a glance

Summary

This discussion focused on building trust and combating fraud in the internet ecosystem, bringing together experts from regulatory bodies, telecommunications companies, international organizations, and technology platforms. The session was moderated by Johannes Vallesverd from the Norwegian Communications Authority and featured representatives from organizations including the Global Anti-Scam Alliance, UN Office of Drugs and Crime, Meta, Telenor, and ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee.

The speakers presented alarming statistics about the global fraud landscape, with an estimated $1 trillion in annual losses worldwide and 25% of the connected population having been victims of scams. Rens Grimm from the Global Anti-Scam Alliance highlighted that only 2.5% of fraudsters are prosecuted, while 67% of people believe they can recognize scams despite high re-victimization rates. The discussion emphasized that fraud has evolved from traditional methods to sophisticated digital operations using artificial intelligence, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish between authentic and fraudulent content.

Several panelists shared successful mitigation strategies, including Norway’s anti-spoofing roaming shield that blocks fraudulent mobile numbers from abroad, and Meta’s deployment of facial recognition technology to combat public figure impersonation scams. The Global Signal Exchange was presented as an innovative solution for real-time cross-sector data sharing to combat fraud internationally. Speakers stressed the importance of treating fraud as serious organized crime rather than petty theft, noting that current international legal frameworks need strengthening to enable better cooperation between countries.

A key theme throughout the discussion was the tension between privacy protection and fraud prevention, with experts arguing that privacy laws should not inadvertently protect fraudsters while hindering legitimate security efforts. The panelists concluded that effective fraud prevention requires unprecedented collaboration between public and private sectors, standardized international approaches, and operational rather than just theoretical solutions to protect global citizens from this serious criminal threat.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Scale and Impact of Global Fraud**: The discussion revealed staggering statistics about fraud’s global reach, with 25% of the world’s connected population being victims, causing approximately $1 trillion in annual losses, yet only 2.5% of fraudsters face prosecution. Fraud has become the first or second most reported crime in most countries.

– **Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Data Sharing**: Panelists emphasized that effective fraud prevention requires unprecedented cooperation between governments, telecom operators, social media platforms, law enforcement, banks, and international organizations. The Global Signal Exchange was highlighted as a practical example of real-time cross-sector data sharing to combat fraud.

– **Regulatory and Legal Framework Challenges**: The discussion addressed the need for harmonized international legal frameworks, with UNODC noting that fraud isn’t consistently criminalized as “serious crime” globally, hampering international cooperation. Privacy regulations like GDPR were debated as potentially protecting fraudsters rather than victims when implementation lacks clarity.

– **Technology’s Double-Edged Role**: AI and emerging technologies were identified as both enabling more sophisticated fraud (deepfakes, voice mimicking, automated scams) while also providing tools for detection and prevention. The challenge lies in deploying protective technologies at the speed needed to counter rapidly evolving fraud tactics.

– **Operational Prevention Measures**: Concrete examples were shared of successful fraud prevention, including Norway’s anti-spoofing shield that blocks fraudulent mobile numbers from abroad, Meta’s takedown of 1.4 billion fake accounts, and Telenor’s blocking of 2.2 billion fraud attempts in 2024.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to move beyond merely talking about fraud to identifying actionable, operational measures that different stakeholders can implement collaboratively. The goal was to share successful practices, explore technical and regulatory solutions, and build a coordinated international response to combat digital fraud across all channels (voice, SMS, email, internet, social media).

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a serious, urgent tone throughout, reflecting the gravity of fraud’s impact on global society. While acknowledging the enormity of the challenge, the tone was constructively solution-oriented, with speakers sharing concrete examples of successful interventions. There was a sense of cautious optimism about collaborative approaches, though tempered by realism about the persistent and evolving nature of fraud. The tone became particularly somber when addressing tragic consequences like suicide from sextortion, but remained focused on actionable responses rather than despair.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **MODERATOR** – Role/Title: Not specified, Area of Expertise: Session moderation

– **Johannes Vallesverd** – Role/Title: Senior legal advisor at the Norwegian Communications Authority, Chair of the National Expert Group Against Digital Fraud, Chair of the Global Informal Regulatory Anti-Fraud Forum, Area of Expertise: Legal affairs, regulatory anti-fraud

– **Rens Grim** – Role/Title: Anti-scam specialist, Area of Expertise: Anti-scam operations at Global Anti-Scam Alliance

– **Camilla Sharma** – Role/Title: Director of Market and Services, Department of Norwegian Communications Authority, Area of Expertise: Regulatory affairs, market services

– **Riika Puttonen** – Role/Title: Program Manager of UNODC (UN Office of Drugs and Crime), Area of Expertise: International legal frameworks, organized crime

– **Emily Taylor** – Role/Title: Co-Founder of GSE (Global Signal Exchange), Area of Expertise: Cybersecurity, data sharing for fraud prevention

– **Lucien Taylor** – Role/Title: Co-Founder of GSE (Global Signal Exchange), Area of Expertise: Technical systems, information exchange platforms

– **Rima Amin** – Role/Title: Security Policy Manager, Community Defence at META, Area of Expertise: Platform security, adversarial threats

– **Birgitte Engebretsen** – Role/Title: Managing Director of Telenor Norway, Area of Expertise: Telecommunications, digital security

– **Nico Caballero** – Role/Title: Chair of the GAC (Government Advisory Committee to ICANN), Area of Expertise: DNS governance, domain name policy

– **Andrew Campling** – Role/Title: Trustee of the Internet Watch Foundation, Area of Expertise: Internet safety, content moderation

– **Audience** – Role/Title: Not specified, Area of Expertise: Not specified

**Additional speakers:**

– **Frode Sørensen** – Role/Title: Online moderator, colleague of Johannes Vallesverd, Area of Expertise: Online session moderation

– **Shiva Bisasa** – Role/Title: Not specified, Location: Trondheim, Tobago, Area of Expertise: Not specified (audience member who asked a question)

Full session report

# Comprehensive Discussion Report: Building Trust and Combating Fraud in the Internet Ecosystem

## Executive Summary

This session at the Internet Governance Forum brought together leading experts from regulatory bodies, telecommunications companies, international organisations, and technology platforms to address the escalating global fraud crisis. Moderated by Johannes Wallesward from the Norwegian Communications Authority, with Frode Sørensen as online moderator, the session featured representatives from the Global Anti-Scam Alliance, UN Office of Drugs and Crime, Meta, Telenor, ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee, and other key stakeholders. The discussion revealed alarming statistics about fraud’s global reach whilst showcasing successful mitigation strategies and emphasising the need for international cooperation.

The session was structured as individual presentations followed by a panel discussion, with speakers presenting concrete examples of successful fraud prevention measures and identifying actionable steps for coordinated global response. Key themes included the massive scale of global fraud, the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, regulatory framework challenges, and the balance between privacy protection and fraud prevention.

## Scale and Impact of Global Fraud

Rens Grimm from the Global Anti-Scam Alliance opened with striking statistics that established the magnitude of the global fraud epidemic. He revealed that 25% of the world’s connected population has fallen victim to scams, resulting in approximately $1 trillion in annual losses worldwide. Despite this massive impact, only 2.5% of fraudsters face prosecution, highlighting a critical enforcement gap.

Grimm provided historical context, noting that fraud has been a persistent human behaviour for millennia. He cited research showing that of 70 million pet animals mummified in ancient Egypt, one-third were fake—demonstrating that deception predates modern technology by thousands of years. He also shared a contemporary example of a Japanese lady who paid 35,000 euros believing she could help her lover return from space, illustrating how incredible some modern scams can be.

The scale of daily attacks was further illustrated by Birgitte Engebretsen from Telenor Norway, who reported that her company blocked more than 2,200 million fraud attempts in 2024, equivalent to two attempts each day towards their customers. Interestingly, Norwegian data shows that fraudsters “take ordinary Christmas breaks and well-deserved weekend off,” suggesting organised criminal operations with regular schedules.

Grimm noted that fraud has become either the first or second most reported crime in most countries, yet the low prosecution rate creates a climate of impunity. He also revealed that globally, 7% of people admit they would participate as money mules, and despite 67% believing they can recognise scams, re-victimisation remains common. Only 4% of fraud victims globally can obtain full refunds.

## Norwegian Anti-Fraud Measures and Multi-Stakeholder Approach

Camilla Sharma from the Norwegian Communications Authority presented Norway’s comprehensive approach to fraud prevention. She announced that Norway’s digital anti-spoofing roaming shield entered force on November 19, 2024, making it “one of the first in the world” to implement such measures. This system blocks fraudulent mobile numbers from abroad and has helped restore public trust in mobile communications.

Norway’s success stems from its multi-stakeholder approach, where the national anti-fraud group includes mobile operators, authorities, police, and banks working together operationally. Sharma emphasised that this goes beyond theoretical discussions to practical collaboration, with regular meetings and shared intelligence.

The Norwegian model demonstrates how regulatory innovation can enable fraud prevention while maintaining international cooperation. Sharma noted that their approach required careful coordination with international partners and technical implementation that respects both privacy and security needs.

## International Legal Framework and UN Initiatives

Riika Puttonen from the UN Office of Drugs and Crime explained significant gaps in current legal frameworks that hamper effective fraud prevention. She noted that fraud is not consistently criminalised as “serious crime” across all countries, which prevents the use of international cooperation mechanisms available under UN conventions. Serious crime typically requires a minimum sentence of four years’ imprisonment, but many countries classify fraud as a lesser offence.

To address these gaps, Puttonen announced that a new UN Convention Against Cybercrime will open for signature in October 2024, designed to address modern forms of fraud and enable better international cooperation. The UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime has 193 parties, providing a strong foundation for international cooperation when fraud is properly classified.

Puttonen also announced that UNODC and Interpol will host a Global Fraud Summit in March 2026 in Vienna to further coordinate international efforts. She emphasised that privacy laws establish qualified rather than absolute rights, which can be legitimately compromised for public safety purposes when prescribed by clear, accessible law.

## Global Signal Exchange and Threat Intelligence Sharing

Emily Taylor and Lucien Taylor from the Global Signal Exchange presented their platform as a practical example of cross-sector collaboration. The platform enables real-time intelligence sharing across more than 160 organisations, processing threat signals with a 40-second input time and four-day average time-to-live.

Emily Taylor highlighted a critical asymmetry: whilst criminals collaborate globally and share information seamlessly, legitimate defenders remain largely siloed within industry verticals and national boundaries. The Global Signal Exchange started with 40 million threat signals and demonstrates the potential for coordinated defensive efforts that match the scale and speed of modern fraud operations.

The platform processes significantly more threat intelligence than traditional reporting mechanisms, showing the value of automated threat detection and sharing compared to manual consumer reporting processes.

## Platform Response: Meta’s Approach

Rima Amin from Meta described her company’s comprehensive approach to fraud prevention. Meta removed 1.4 billion fake accounts in Q4 2024 alone, with 99.9% caught proactively before being reported by users. This demonstrates the scale of automated fraud prevention efforts and the importance of proactive rather than reactive approaches.

Meta’s strategy focuses on disrupting the fraud attack chain as early as possible, from infrastructure building through to victim engagement. Amin explained their ABC framework, which prioritises Actor and Behaviour detection over Content analysis, as fraudsters can more easily modify their messaging than change their fundamental operational patterns.

She provided a practical example of balancing privacy and security through Meta’s use of facial recognition technology to detect misuse of public figures’ images in scams. This technology deployment required careful consideration of privacy implications whilst addressing a significant fraud vector affecting celebrities and public figures.

## Telecommunications Industry Response

Birgitte Engebretsen from Telenor described how telecommunications companies serve as critical infrastructure in fraud prevention. Beyond the massive number of blocked attempts, she explained how Telenor integrates fraud filters directly into customer subscriptions as a standard security measure rather than an optional add-on.

Engebretsen proposed a triangular burden-sharing model between customers willing to pay for enhanced security, government financing, and private sector investment. She argued that effective collaboration requires clear distribution of responsibilities and costs across all stakeholders, rather than expecting any single entity to bear the full burden of fraud prevention.

The telecommunications perspective highlighted how fraud prevention has become an essential service that operates largely invisibly to protect customers from daily attack attempts.

## DNS and Domain Name System Security

Nico Caballero from ICANN’s Government Advisory Committee focused on domain name system security challenges. He noted that phishing comprises more than 90% of DNS abuse cases, with research from the Internet Society indicating an annual impact of $12 billion.

ICANN is developing stricter service level agreements for takedowns and contractual penalties for repeat offenders. However, Caballero noted challenges in achieving uniform enforcement against rogue registrars globally, as different jurisdictions have varying levels of regulatory oversight and enforcement capability.

The DNS perspective highlighted how fraud prevention requires coordination across different layers of internet infrastructure, from domain registration through to content hosting and delivery.

## Privacy and Security Balance

Johannes Wallesward posed what he called a “provoking question” that became central to the discussion: “Are the privacy rules now protecting the victims or the fraudsters?” This prompted nuanced responses from speakers who sought to move beyond binary thinking about privacy versus security.

Riika Puttonen emphasised that privacy laws establish qualified rather than absolute rights, which can be legitimately compromised for public safety purposes when prescribed by clear law. Emily Taylor noted that privacy and security can coexist when proper legal frameworks are established and followed from the outset.

However, speakers acknowledged ongoing implementation challenges. Rima Amin noted operational challenges where privacy regulations can slow deployment of anti-fraud technologies in Europe. Andrew Campling briefly raised concerns that privacy-focused changes to internet standards might remove signals needed for consumer protection.

## Regulatory Coordination and GIRAFF

Camilla Sharma highlighted the Global Informal Regulatory Anti-Fraud Forum (GIRAFF), chaired by ANCOM with 40 countries participating. This forum enables regulators to share best practices and coordinate approaches across different jurisdictions.

The forum represents an important mechanism for regulatory learning and coordination, allowing countries to adapt successful measures like Norway’s anti-spoofing shield to their own contexts and legal frameworks.

## Victim Impact and Human Cost

The human cost of fraud was powerfully illustrated when Shiva Bisasa, an audience member from Trinidad and Tobago, shared knowledge of a financial sextortion victim who took his own life. This testimony transformed the discussion from abstract statistics to human tragedy, emphasising the life-and-death consequences of fraud, particularly in developing nations where awareness campaigns and law enforcement capabilities may be limited.

This intervention highlighted particular challenges in developing countries, where limited law enforcement resources, lower awareness levels, and fewer reporting mechanisms create environments where fraud can flourish with minimal consequences.

## Technology and AI Considerations

Rens Grimm acknowledged that AI will enhance fraudsters’ capabilities through better text generation, voice mimicking, and image creation. However, he expressed cautious optimism that “we’re not yet at the tipping point” where AI fundamentally transforms the fraud landscape beyond recognition.

The speakers agreed that the key to managing AI’s impact lies in the speed of defensive deployment. Legitimate organisations must be able to implement protective technologies as quickly as fraudsters adopt offensive capabilities.

## Actionable Outcomes and Next Steps

The discussion produced several concrete commitments and action items:

– Regulators were encouraged to join GIRAFF to share best practices across participating countries

– The Global Fraud Summit in March 2026 in Vienna will provide a focal point for continued international cooperation

– Countries were urged to criminalise fraud as serious crime with sentences of four years or more to enable international cooperation under UN conventions

– The new UN Convention Against Cybercrime, opening for signature in October 2024, provides a framework for harmonisation

– ICANN’s development of stricter service level agreements represents concrete progress in addressing DNS-based fraud

– The public sector was encouraged to give higher weight to quality and security in procurement processes

## Conclusion

This comprehensive discussion revealed both the enormous scale of the global fraud challenge and the potential for coordinated international response. With 25% of the world’s connected population affected and $1 trillion in annual losses, fraud represents one of the most significant criminal threats of the digital age.

The session demonstrated successful prevention measures across different sectors—from Norway’s anti-spoofing shield to Meta’s proactive account removal to the Global Signal Exchange’s threat intelligence sharing. These examples show that effective countermeasures are possible when properly implemented and coordinated.

The upcoming UN Convention Against Cybercrime and the planned Global Fraud Summit represent important opportunities to build on the foundations established in this discussion. The challenge ahead lies in scaling successful approaches globally whilst navigating the balance between privacy protection and security needs, supported by the operational cooperation frameworks like GIRAFF that enable practical collaboration between stakeholders worldwide.

Session transcript

MODERATOR: Fraud is crime. Every second, somewhere in the world, a new victim is hurt. Are we losing the battle? We are entering unprecedented times where artificial intelligence makes it more and more difficult to differentiate false from true. The fight against fraud is fought everywhere. On voice, SMS, RCS, messaging, email and on internet. The fraudsters are smart and ruthless. Countries and networks are setting up individual and highly necessary digital shields to protect their citizens from the millions of attacks. It’s a whack-a-mole game. The fraudsters change the channel or target another country. Almost always, the fraudster go free. Cooperation is the only way forward. But we must do more than talk. Action is key. It’s time to act. Let’s take action together.

Johannes Vallesverd: Welcome, everybody, to this session on building trust and combating fraud in the internet ecosystem. My name is Johannes Wallesward. I’m a senior legal advisor at the Norwegian Communications Authority. I’m also chairing the National Expert Group Against Digital Fraud, also chairing the Global Informal Regulatory Anti-Fraud Forum. We also have today an online moderator, Frode Sørensen, my good colleague. He is online and taking questions online. So, welcome again, everybody. The goal of this session is to not only talk, but also to look at what we are doing and what can we do in operational terms, regulatory and technical, to reduce fraud. We should aim at not just identifying the vulnerabilities, but also to use our collective intelligence to identify potential mitigating measures. So, in order to do so, you need a good team, a team that has different angles to the problem. So, today, at the stage, we have a powerhouse of fraud fighters. These are people who are working on reducing the problem of fraud from very different angles. We have on my right side Rens Grimm. He’s an anti-scam specialist from Gaza, the Global Anti-Scam Alliance. We have Camilla Sharma, Director of Market and Services, Department of Norwegian Communications Authority. We have Riika Putunen, Program Manager of UNODC, UN Office of Drugs and Crime. We have Emily Taylor, Co-Founder of GSE and the Global Signal Exchange. She will be accompanied by Lucien Taylor on the presentation. We’re also very happy to have Rima Amin, Security Policy Manager, Community Defence at META. Also, Birgitte Engebretsen, Managing Director of Telenor Norway. Last but not least, we also have Nico Caballero, Chair of the GAC, the Government Advisory Committee to ICANN. So, it’s a fantastic lineup. I’m looking forward to hearing your presentations. So, let’s jump right into it. The first speaker can take the podium now. He is Rens Grimm. He is an anti-scam specialist. They have a lot of information on the global picture of fraud. So, tell me, Rens, how is the global picture like?

Rens Grim: Yeah. Welcome, everybody. I hope you enjoyed your lunch. My name is Rens. As Johanna said, I work for the Global Anti-Scam Alliance and I just wanted to show you that I promise you, no artificial intelligence was used to make this presentation, but I’ll leave it up to you at the end of the session. So, Global Anti-Scam Alliance. So, who are we? We are a non-profit organisation. What we try to do and we aim is get all the stakeholders together that are involved in fighting crime. So, we do that by exchanging knowledge. We do that by sharing the best solutions there are on the market to fight fraud. Our mission is very simple. We protect consumers worldwide from scams. If the room was the world today, then 25% of you have literally been a victim, not confronted with scam, but have been a victim of scam. 25%. Imagine that of the worldwide connected population. That’s quite a lot. What we’ve done is we’ve tried to extrapolate on the basis of a worldwide survey that we do on the 60,000 people and we have estimated that the total volume of losses is estimated to be $1 trillion. I’m from the Netherlands and that’s more or less the GDP from my country. In most countries, crime, online scamming, online fraud is either the first or the second most reported crime. I’ve highlighted England with 38%. If you can imagine that only 2.5% of those behind the scenes, those to fraudsters and the online scammers are actually prosecuted. 2.5% is actually good because worldwide it is estimated it’s five hundreds of a percent. So, the English are doing a pretty good job with a 50-fold of that number, but still imagine 2.5% is a desperately low number. I’ve put down some highlights from a survey that we’ve done in 2024. You see that 67% of world citizens believe that they have the skills to recognize a scam. At first sight, you’d say that’s pretty good. That’s two out of three people are capable of seeing a scam and possibly being protected against the scam they’d be confronted with. However, re-victimization is quite a problem. On the basis of the same survey, we’ve seen in many countries that victims are not only victimized twice, but in some cases three times. So, the number is maybe a good number, but if you look behind the scenes, it’s still troubling. Phone calls and text messages are still the most popular media to scam. Almost half of the world encounters a scam once a week. Globally, 31% are uncertain whether AI was used to scam. Shopping scams are the most frequently encountered scams, followed by investment scams and identity theft. Many victims are caught out by reacting quickly to attractive offers. Either it’s too good to be true or they don’t have the knowledge to judge if they are doing the right thing in making a purchase of the services delivered. 74% concluded that they were the victim of the scam themselves. That is a rather high number. It’s also culturally determined. If you go to countries like, say, the Philippines, it’s more a family thing together, that people together say, hey, guy, best friend, you’ve been a victim of a scam. Bank transfers and e-wallet are the dominant scam payment method. Globally, only 4% are capable of getting a full refund, only 4%. The last one, and I saved that one for last, is that 7% of people globally admit they would be taking part in a money mule. They would be asked a question, if I gave you $20,000, you can keep $1,000, and 7% say, well, I think that’s a pretty good idea, I’ll do that. Even 50% of the 7% say, why should I give back $1,000? I’m going to keep the money at all. Looking here at the audience, I would like to, of course, statistically, 7% could be here. Of course, you’re not the piece of people, but if you are, I’d like to meet you at the bar later on, and we can discuss. Scamming has gone back for 3,000 years. In old Egypt, it was good to favor the gods to mummify a pet animal. 70 million animals have been mummified. In recent research in England, of the sarcophagus that were still there, they noticed that almost 33%, one in three was fake. We’ve been scamming, and we have been scamming for about 3,000 years. This is an interesting one. This is a Japanese lady, 65 years old, who actually paid 35,000 euros to get her lover back from space because he needed a rocket. This sounds incredible, but it’s happened. It’s true. 28 seconds. My ex-wife is a scammer. and a whole bunch of non fiction business people like Elliot GSE and Frank Snyder. For more info about the Pew Media Apps and 2017,

MODERATOR: head to www.pewmedia.com. www.pewmedia.com www.pewmedia.com www.pewmedia.com www.pewmedia.com .

Camilla Sharma: Welcome to the first meeting. Today the group has participation from several public and private stakeholders, including mobile operators, the CRDB, authorities, police, bank sector and others. And we are very happy to have three mobile network operators, Telenor, Telia, ÖYSLYSETELE, on board. They are providing crucial and constructive contributions in the collaboration. But it is not just collaborations and discussions. The group also conducts vulnerability assessments and finds mitigating operational measures. This is, for example, one picture here. This is a table from the result of the digital anti-spoofing roaming shield that entered into force 19 November 2024 as one of the first in the world. This shield is the reason why no practical Norwegian mobile number can be spoofed from abroad. The trust in mobile numbers was low some years ago due to a lot of spoofing, but now it is almost restored. A fun fact of this slide, as you may have noticed, that you can see that the fraudsters take ordinary Christmas breaks and they also take a well-deserved weekend off, so they are not on duty all the time. But it is not a full or total shield. This is a very simplified illustration of some of the blocking measures that protects Norway. As you can see, it is missing a chunk, and there are dotted lines breaking through. But again, we are blocking almost all spoofing Norwegian numbers, but we are not blocking foreign spoofing numbers. We are blocking a lot of SMS, but not all. A lot of blocking of fraudulent URLs, but a lot goes through, as you can see. And on the OTTs and the Internet-based services, we do not know how much is blocked or how much is passed through. That is why we are expanding our initiatives towards Internet-based services. It does not matter for the end user where he or she gets defrauded. We need to protect them on all channels. But how do we begin with difficult and or? The answer, we believe, is to reuse the successful multistakeholder working methods that have produced results of both voice and SMS. We need to be collaborative, operational, and pragmatic. Why pragmatic, you may ask? Well, we will never get rid of fraud. The world is far too complex. Crime will always be there, and AI will make it difficult or probably impossible to differentiate fake representatives for true. So, I think it stopped working, Johannes. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Lastly, I want to mention the importance of teamwork. One collaborative project that we find very interesting, that is the Global Informer Regulatory Antifraud Forum, or GIRAFF, as we called it. The group is chaired by ANCOM, and 40 countries from all regions of the world have participated in meetings. The goal is to compare best practices and create harmonizing measures in the global fight against digital-enabled fraud. If you’re a regulator, please consider to join GIRAFF. With these concrete operational remarks, I will close my intervention, and I look forward to the rest of this session. Thank you.

Johannes Vallesverd: Thank you very much, Camilla. It’s good to see that some mitigating measures are indeed working and protecting the citizens every day. That’s very good. So, we will move on. Let’s kick it up a notch. We will go over to the UNODC. So, Riika, you can take the stage. So, my question to UNODC and Riika is, what can you tell us about the international legal framework addressing fraud as a form of an organized crime? Very happy to have you here, and good luck.

Riika Puttonen: Thank you very much, and good afternoon to everybody. As we saw in Ren’s presentation, fraud is really as old as humankind. But in this post-truth era, supercharged by technology, artificial intelligence, deep fakes, and so forth, fraud is not only surviving, but it is absolutely thriving. It is evolving in terms of speed, scope, and scale, and it is absolutely exploding in that regard. Also, fraud really affects every one of us. If I asked you if there’s anybody in the room who was never targeted for fraud, I don’t imagine many hands going up. I think all of us are constantly targeted by fraudsters in various ways and forms. So, we don’t fall for fraud. That terminology we should leave aside. We are targeted for fraud. Whom are we targeted by? We are targeted by organized criminal groups. There is a UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, which is almost universally adhered to, with 193 parties to the convention. So, that is a very, very broadly adhered to convention of the UN. The idea behind the convention is simply to promote cooperation. Because clearly, when it comes to fraud, there is nothing one single country can do in isolation, but we need a concerted effort by every single state. And all the different players, like this morning we heard about the multi-stakeholder approach, the private sector, civil society, academia, and all the players. We need everybody around the table. How does the Organized Crime Convention, which is already 20 plus years old… has it really withstood the test of time in terms of applying to fraud as it manifests itself in today’s world? I’m very glad to say that it has, because the drafters, meaning all the member states of the UN, actually drafted the convention to apply to all serious crime. And serious crime, if I again asked you as the audience, what does serious crime actually mean, I would probably get as many answers as we have people in the audience. So drafters had to come up with a threshold. Any offence that in your domestic legal system is punishable by four years or more of imprisonment. The maximum penalty, four years or more, is serious. I’m also very sad to say that fraud, despite the severe consequences that we heard about, is not a serious crime in all countries. So there is homework for all of us to do. The consequences are severe and the nature of fraud keeps on evolving, so does the international legal framework. And there was just the new UN convention against cybercrime that was adopted recently, actually at Christmas last year, and that convention now kind of takes the whole fraud debate also to another level and includes also manipulation of electronic data and ICT systems. So that manipulation is now also covered, not only the traditional forms of fraud through deception. But that convention, which will open for signature in October this year, that’s when the signing ceremony takes place, that convention also builds upon the Budapest Convention, for those of you who may know the Budapest Convention already, and adds, proposed by Singapore, which is a leading country in the world when it comes to combating fraud, proposed by Singapore one more type of a fraud through more kind of traditional deception. This is how fraud is often carried out. So that convention again will mean a bit of homework for all of us, for countries to continue criminalizing fraud in a way that actually reflects the reality in today’s world. So I was very punctual today. I would just like to finish with a little announcement to say that UNODC and Interpol will host a Global Fraud Summit in March 2026 in Vienna, and we hope to see many of you there. Thank you very much.

Johannes Vallesverd: Thank you very, very much, Rikke. Always a pleasure to hear you and your insightful comments. So it’s good to see that there are exciting regulatory measures on the pipeline and looking forward to signing procedures in October. Let’s go to the next one. Please stay up, Emily. We are now going to hear from Emily and Lucien Taylor. They are co-founders of GEC, the Global Signal Exchange. I first learned of GEC this winter, and it was quite refreshing to see the operational aspect of the GEC. So with no further ado, I will give the floor to you both. Could we have our slides? I think we’ve got ICANN slides, which I’m happy to have a go at, but it’s for the Global Signal Exchange. Sorry for this little hiccup. So while we are here now, those of you online, you can ask questions in the chat field, and Frode will arrange which one will be presented later on. So now, Lucien and Emily.

Emily Taylor: Johannes, thank you so much for the floor and for inviting us here to present the Global Signal Exchange. My name is Emily Taylor, and I’m joined by Lucien, and the more observant will have noticed that we have the same surname, and yes, we are married. So RENS has given you a very detailed overview of the scale of scams and fraud and cybercrime generally, so I’m not going to dwell on this slide. Instead, I want to think about the way that cybercrime and fraud and scams can be disrupted, and the journey that a scam will take from building infrastructure, whether that’s establishing a company, a website, a domain, establishing a false identity, using and abusing the services of platforms and of other services, engaging with the victim, so they will be relying on platforms, they will be relying on internet service providers, telephone companies, and it’s only at the very last second when they persuade a victim to part with their money that it becomes obvious that there is a fraudulent payment there. So all of that happens prior to the payment, and all of those services are used and abused. Now, the current status has been that there can be quite advanced sharing of information within each of those industry verticals, perhaps nationally, but there’s almost nothing that takes information across those different sectors and shares that information internationally. The scammers work internationally, they share information, and to fight it effectively, so do we need to do. So the global signal exchange is really a clearinghouse, it’s not a takedown service, it’s about enabling those different services along the fraud attack chain to share intelligence with one another in real time to combat fraud and scams, and it was announced last October, so it was set up, the global signal exchange is a non-profit, and it was set up in partnership with the global anti-scam alliance, bringing together their amazing international scam fighting network, and with the support of Google, which committed to sharing threat signals from right across its business services for the benefit of scam fighters. At the session in London, which Johannes was talking about, the global signal exchange was called out by two ministers, the home office minister, the anti-fraud minister, and the DCIT minister, who I believe is here, and we are already getting many partners on boarded. And so the latest is that we have over 160 organisations either joined up or in the onboarding channel, including four of the big tech, who are committed to sharing those data, and we also of course work across the non-profit sector with fellow civil society organisations, so truly this is a multi-stakeholder, voluntary initiative. So now I will hand over to Lucien.

Lucien Taylor: Thank you, Emily. I’m going to do a full tech demo. I had three minutes, and now Emily took 12 seconds of that. So my job, I built this global signal exchange not overnight, it’s happened over 20 years, we’ve been developing information exchange systems for 20 years, my team in Oxford Information Labs. Our job is to make a difference, both pursue and prevent crime. So on the pursue, we’ve got a new acronym, the QUIC factor, we’re developing systems that support quantity, immediacy, and the quality of threat signals exchanged. In terms of the quantity, we’re now going into the actual global signal exchange. Every day we do an audit of new signals. We started with 40 million threat signals. When you think the British police advertise that they’re getting 30,000 threat signals from consumers every month, we’re getting a million a day. And I don’t think we’re seeing half of it, folks, that’s the problem out there. But we’re also interested in what we call when we share signals, uplift and overlap. And we’re going to go steampunk here. Uplift. When all parties share signals and thereby find new information, we observe uplift. Overlap. When all parties share signals and simultaneously detect the same signal, we increase confidence. And so what we’re now looking at is also the immediacy of the signals. We’ve got the time to live of signals, and we’re getting signals in in 40 seconds, and you can see that the average time to live of signals is basically up to four days. So we all have a job here to try and reduce that time lag. Quality, you have the provider score of the threat signal provider, but also the quality of each signal. And the provider themselves can give a quality score, a confidence rating, and also the people receiving the signal. can give a feedback and we’re missing feedback from this whole game between us all and that’s what we’re trying to do. Another part of our job is to develop league tables. We have registry league tables. Who’s the best? Who’s the worst? Here you can see a huge percentage of the bottom registries have their stock is toxic. Registrars, those with over 50,000 domain names, we say that they’re actually big players. You’re looking at large percentages of stock at the bottom that are toxic. Finally, we have a number of pilots. We’re working with advertisers, registries, registrars, ASN block providers, big tech, marketing providers, and we have a new public sector service for police and law enforcement, which is basically an investigations platform where they can look signal by signal at various metrics in there. Thank you very much. Finally, the impact, we all need to change the game. We need to do cross-sectorial international signal sharing and make things quicker and reduce the cost of threat intelligence for the small players. Thank you for the extra 10 seconds.

Johannes Vallesverd: Thank you, Lucien, and yes, it’s so refreshing to see. This is data sharing in practice. We’re talking a lot about data sharing. We’re doing it. We’re talking about real-time. You’re doing it. We’re talking about scale, so you’re doing it. So it’s very impressive the work that you have carried out and are doing. What you forgot was to say that .no, the Norwegian top level is on the top of that list, but so I said it now. So in a panel on fraud fighting, we need to have social media, and I’m very happy to say that Meta could join this session. We have all seen fake profiles, fake stores, and all the fraudulent activity on social media. So Rima, tell us the work you are doing on Meta

Rima Amin: against fraud. Sure, happy to, and thank you for having us here today. I’m going to start by talking a little bit about where fraud sits sort of within our team. So my team’s focus on tackling adversarial threats. Those are the threat actors who are persistent in nature, often have resourcing behind them, and have a strategic goal in mind. So those threats tend to typically manifest as foreign influence operations, cyber espionage, hacking, and frauds and scams. The reason frauds and scams falls within this subset is because they are some of the most aggressive and agile of actors sort of out there. They also have a huge amount of infrastructure underpinning them as well. Emily’s spoken a little bit about the attack chain. I’m going to add a little bit more sort of detail because this really is the anchor behind a lot of the way in which Meta is thinking about this problem as well. We took a step back and identified what are all the different tactics that these operations are, you know, what are they doing? And then we categorized them in terms of the sequencing within which they happened. And essentially we came up with this sort of attack chain. It starts off with the building of infrastructure, and that’s where people and tools are essentially being organized to conduct scams. It’s important to say that at this point harm is already happening. You may have heard about people being tricked into sort of job scams and being forced into scam centers where they are essentially forced to conduct these scams. The next stage is around preparing digital assets. So when you have the people and the equipment, you are then creating your online identities. The scammer moves on to engage the victim. That can be through a post, an ad, a message. It’s that first point of contact where they’re engaging. They then move on to execute, which is where the financial transaction takes place, and then cleanup, which is when the actor is trying to conceal their activity to avoid being detected. It can involve things like money laundering. In terms of the attack chain, a couple of things that we observe. One is for us as META, we have sort of the most visibility and therefore the most opportunity to really intervene at the engage stage, where the victim is being contacted by a scammer, and a prepared digital asset stage. We’re also conscious that there are others working to counter frauds and scams that may have more visibility into other parts. So law enforcement may have more information on the criminal groups that are building up the infrastructure, or banks may have more information at the execute stage where the financial transaction is taking place. So for us, we’re really focused on what can we do within the space we have visibility, and then what can we do to support others who may have visibility in other sort of phases. And then the other thing that we’re thinking about a lot is how do we push this as far left as possible? Because the further left you put in your interventions, the more chance you have at stopping this at scale. Okay, so I’m gonna try and give an overview of our the pieces of our strategy to tackle frauds and scams. The first is actually building up our product defenses to make them as sort of resilient as possible to scammers who may try to abuse them. Of course, if we know that somebody is a scammer, we’ll take them sort of down off a platform. But there may be times where we don’t have enough signal, and so putting in frictions and warnings and things like that are incredibly important. We’re also thinking about how can we leverage new technologies to counter frauds and scams. So you may have heard that public figures’ images are being sort of misused to trick people into scams. So we launched sort of use of facial recognition technology to understand if a public figure’s face is being misused, and then if we have some signal to accompany that, we’re able to pull it down. That has helped us to be able to tackle that particular problem, and we’re constantly thinking how do we utilize sort of technology in that way. The second area is empowering users. So how do we encourage people to or equip people in the best way possible to be as cyber resilient as possible? So that includes suites of tools, so things like two-factor authentication, making sure that they have everything they need to be cyber secure on our platforms, but also on other platforms across the internet as well. The third piece is disrupting scammers. So here I’m talking about pulling out these criminal networks that I was talking about before. We have investigators who are able to do that, pull those networks out, share that intelligence with others who are tackling the problem, and then be able to use that intelligence to rebuild our product defenses to make them stronger to prevent things in the first place. And then the fourth pillar, and this is really important and goes back to the attack chain as well, is how can we collaborate across society, leveraging organizations like the GSC who is facilitating sort of signal exchange, building up sort of other pilot programs, working with others on sort of campaigns to help inform people around how to tackle frauds and scams. Okay, I’m out of minutes, so I will stop there, but really looking forward to the rest of the discussion.

Johannes Vallesverd: Thank you, Rima, and we will also come back to your interventions in the panel discussion that we will have in not many minutes. But of course, another important part of the global fraud-fighting team, this powerhouse of resourceful people and businesses, is the mobile operators. So what are they doing and how are they doing it? To give you an example, we are very happy to have Birgitte Engelbretsen, Managing Director of Telenor Norway, on the stage. So tell us, Birgitte, what is your insights on this?

Birgitte Engebretsen: Thank you, Johannes. Telenor is a global company currently operating both in the Asian markets, but also in the Nordics, with more than 200 million customers. We have connected both people and societies safely for over 170 years, and in Norway we have close to 3 million customers. The majority of the data traffic in Norway is going through our networks and our services. We are therefore in a unique position to look into what kind of problems do we have related to fraud and digital crime, which is targeted towards the Norwegian society. In Telenor Norway, we have one of the leading security teams in Norway, with the expertise to combat advanced threat actors as well. as well as criminal groups. That means that if you are a Telenor customer, you have some of the best security experts on your team at all times. Our ambition is to be the safety net for the Norwegian customers and society at large. Since we are digitizing services to make our life easy, both in our private lives and in our work lives, this is fantastic. However, that increases the push from criminal actors from the physical space to the digital space. Telenor is experiencing that customers and the public are more concerned about security in their digital lives now, much more than before. There is a high demand for both information and security advices and assistance in protecting against fraud and threat actors. There. All of Telenor’s both mobile and broadband customers will get their subscriptions with fraud filters integrated into those subscriptions. In addition to that, we offer extra services in order to secure both private customers, but also the business customers, with security in their digital life or work life. In addition to a yearly publication, which is called the Annual Digital Security Report, and combined with an open press assessment, we also publish a quarterly security pulse for the security situation in the Norwegian society. In 2024, we could see that we blocked more than 2200 million attempts of fraud and digital crimes towards our customers in Norway. That’s similar to two attempts of digital crime each day towards our customers. This is a huge number, and it shows that we need to take this threat seriously, and it’s not a local threat, it’s a global game for these actors. Although we are taking many, many steps to stop digital crime and fraud towards our customers and the society as a whole, there are still jobs to be done in order to combat this together. And to effectively combat digital crime, it’s crucial for both businesses, government agencies and law enforcement to collaborate closely. The collective effort can lead to a more robust defense against cyber threats. Organizations must prioritize investments in advanced cybersecurity capabilities. By adopting cutting-edge technologies and proactive strategies, businesses can better protect both themselves, but also their customers and the society at large. Quality and security must be given a higher weight in tender processes. It’s crucial that the public sector creates a market for security and robust services and uses their purchasing power in order to support that. By doing that, we can keep the public safer, but also create the market for security services. Effective laws and regulations related to cybercrime can create a safer digital environment. Legislation can stop criminal activities. In this context, effective also implies clear. Let me give you one example. How do we balance customers’ need for data privacy protection and secure communication channels with the need to share data between relevant actors, such as banks and telcos, in order to fight digital crime? Dilemmas such as this must definitely be discussed in a collaborative context. Thank you.

Johannes Vallesverd: Thank you very much, Birgitte, for those insightful comments. I totally agree with the multi-stakeholder comment you made. Also, those operational remarks on the purchasing power and the clarity of law. Last but not least, when I discussed with my co-moderator, Frode, who is online now, we needed the domain name market industry regulations on board. We have FactFinders, we have regulators, UN operators, social media, GSE Hub. We started at the top with the chair of the Government Advisory Committee to ICANN, and he answered, I think, within a couple of minutes. Very happy to have you here, Nico. We want to hear about the issue of phishing that remains a dominant form of DNS abuse, often used in exploiting domain registration loopholes. What specific measures is ICANN advocating to enhance register and registrar accountability?

Nico Caballero: Thank you, Yohannes. Can you hear me? I can’t hear myself here. Thank you. My name is Nico Caballero, and I’m the GAG chair of the Government Advisory Committee to ICANN. I assume everybody knows what ICANN is. I was surprised. I had to explain a little while ago what ICANN is, but broadly speaking, ICANN deals with domain names and, let’s say, the translation between those names and IP address, IPv4 or IPv6 addresses. So let’s take a quick look, and I only have five and a half minutes. The DNS abuse landscape, as we understand it within ICANN, there are five main, I mean, I would say the top five DNS abuse types. The first one being phishing, which makes up more than 90 percent. According to some numbers, it’s 95 or 96 percent of the cases as per NetBeacon Institute, and there are some other sources as well. And then malware, botnets, farming, and spam for the remaining percentage, spam when used as a delivery mechanism for the other four. And a huge impact. I won’t get into the details. It’s been already explained. But broadly speaking, we’re talking about a $12 billion impact in terms of annual losses, and these are numbers coming from the Internet Society from last year. What it does is it basically erodes trust in the DNS ecosystem, which is a very bad thing. Sorry, let me move this. And that’s what I was more or less talking about. So I want to share with you some highlights from our last meeting, ICANN 83 in Prague, about two weeks ago, as a matter of fact. Some highlights from the GAC sessions. On the one hand, we have malicious registrations that clearly enable phishing, and we also identified that there’s a lack of uniform enforcement against rogue registrars. And again, there are many different sources for this, this one coming from a clean DNS study. There’s another case study that says that registrar X, let’s just say, unnamed, is linked to more than 60% of phishing domains in 2024. And we can talk about that a little bit later with more specific numbers. So I won’t read the whole thing because there’s obviously no time for this, but phishing scams account for a large portion of DNS abuse, with, again, some reports indicating they comprise all in all 62%, more or less 62%, and this is according to AAG IT services and some other sources, and you have the sources right there and you can check later. And then we have spam, malware, and botnets. Farming is almost non-existent, but they are at least in the DNS abuse landscape. And then botnets, you know, which are basically networks of infected devices controlled by attackers and so on and so forth. And I’m taking a look at the time. So I won’t get into details, but I want to concentrate on this, you know, the DNS Abuse Mitigation Program that ICANN has at this point and divided into three main pathways, so to say. The first one, you know, is basically contributing data and expertise to fact-based discussions. And there are four things there, the first one being the D.A.R. D.A.R. stands for Domain Abuse Activity Reporting, which is a system that measures domain abuse and registration activity for GTLDs and for volunteer CCTLDs, Country Code Top Level Domains, volunteer CCTLDs. And then Domain Metrica and I.T.H.I., and we can talk about what A.T.H.I. is later on. And then Capacity Building and Training, that’s one track, so to say. The second track being, you know, providing tools to the ICANN community, you know, through the Infermal, Infermal again standing for Inferential Analysis of Maliciously Registered Domains. As you know, ICANN is kind of like an acronym romance, so I’m just trying to be careful to actually explain what each of the acronyms means. And then SIFT, which is Special Interest Forums on Tech. So that’s basically the second track. The third track being enforcing contractual obligations with registries and registrars. You know, ICANN compliance enforces COs, that is Contractual Obligations, again, sorry for the acronym, in policies and agreements, including R.A., which is Registry Agreement, and R.A.A., again, the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. And I’m running out of time. And there are also some potential sanctions and service level agreements being discussed. These are proposed solutions, you know, and some brainstorming we had within the GAC. Sorry. Sorry. Yeah. There we go. The first one being, you know, stricter SLAs for takedowns, you know, 24-hour response mandate, and we’re discussing that. This is not in place yet, but, you know, this is, you know, just some brainstorming session we had in Prague two weeks ago. Contractual penalties, the second one, you know, fines and suspension for repeat offenders within the ICANN contracts, that is. And then proactive screening, you know, as was mentioned before, AI-driven pattern detection, you know, like bulk registrations, and, you know, there’s lots of information in that regard. And then finally, and I’ll finish with this, because we’re running out of time, absolutely, the most important point would be, you know, collaboration frameworks, you know, as per the NetBeacons idea, you know, reporting tools, you know, and standardized abuse reporting, as per the Internet Society’s trust initiatives, you know, capacity building for Global South registries, and, you know, the real-time data sharing, you know, within the GAC itself. Again, the GAC being the Governmental Advisory Committee within ICANN. And there are so many sources there, you know, no more time for that, but anyways, thank you so much, and very happy to engage in conversations or taking questions. Thank you so much.

Johannes Vallesverd: Thank you very much, Nico, and I must say I was in a GAC meeting back in 2007, and it’s good to see that the role of GAC is now evolving, and that you are mentioning taking some stricter operational measures. That’s very, I think, very, very, very needed, because the registrar and registered units are a very important part of the puzzle, where you actually get the domain names. So we are now moving over to a panel session, and I’m looking forward to this for many months now. So we will go through some questions to the panellists, and then we will engage with our online community. So but I will start with my man on the right here, Rens. We’ve been talking about AI in many of these different sessions, so what do you think about AI and in the future of scams? Are we able to see the difference?

Rens Grim: Difficult question, but I mentioned the research that we did in 2024, where the conclusion was that in relation to 2023, we saw about the same amount of scams. The amount of money defrauded was more or less the same. Is that reason to be happy, or I compare that with that the bad didn’t get better. I like to make a comparison with the sporting arena. Let’s say, for instance, your football team that you support has lost 10-0, and the next game they lose again 10-0. I wonder what the atmosphere is in the changing room. Do they say, oh, we did a pretty good job because it wasn’t worse than last year? I doubt that very much. With AI, I think we’ll see writing of fraudulent text in SMSs, in emails. We see that in generating dialogues on platforms like WhatsApp, Telegram, Facebook messaging. We see an increase in mimicking of voice, creation of images, being that a person or a product, and also the producing of voice, again, be it a product or an image. I think it’s a very difficult question, Johannes, to answer, but I think we are not yet at a tipping point, I believe, but that’s my personal opinion. It will get worse before it gets better.

Johannes Vallesverd: I think you’re right. Let’s embrace ourselves, and then we have to tackle it, but it’s getting increasingly difficult to differentiate. Let’s talk a little bit more with the regulator when you are here on the table, Camilla. You talked about the transition, that we will transition towards Internet-based services. What are your thoughts on this transition?

Camilla Sharma: I don’t think that it is a very easy, straightforward answer to that question. I don’t think so. But I think that we must entail that Internet-based services is a very broad term. It is a very complex field, both technically, legally, and culturally. But I really, strongly, truly believe that the industry and the regulators share many of the same goals. We have seen it in so many ways in the past time, so I think we can base that also with the future collaboration. We all want increased digital trust. We all want increased digital inclusion, and we all want to reduce fraud. We will get some new regulatory tools, no doubt about that. But I think that the most important aspect is that we work together with the Internet stakeholders and the traditional stakeholders, both from the regulator’s side and from the industry. I truly believe that is the answer in many ways, and we have to find out how to do it.

Johannes Vallesverd: Thank you very much, Camilla, for those comments. I totally agree. So we sometimes see that we ask for regulations, but many times the regulation is really there. We ask for clearer rules on privacy, but they are really there. Sometimes you just need some guidance. But let’s take a look on the legal framework, and let’s go a question to Rikke and to UNODC. How are countries doing with the criminalization of fraud as it manifests itself in the world today?

Riika Puttonen: Thank you, Johannes. Criminal law is not a magic bullet. It exists in the regulatory framework, and it has to be a complementary measure, and it certainly doesn’t exclude the kind of civil and administrative measures against fraud. They coexist, so to say. Globally speaking, different countries use different terminology for fraud. Some use fraud, scams, trickery, theft, deception, swindling, misrepresentation, and so forth. We are far away from actually having a common understanding of what fraud entails in today’s world. As I mentioned earlier, fraud under these various names is not always criminalized as serious crime, but we’ve heard of the serious consequences of fraud, and therefore I do think that it warrants to be criminalized as serious. This really is problematic for international cooperation, because judiciaries around the world would have to rely on each other for mutual legal assistance, extradition, law enforcement cooperation, and so on. and so forth to be able to tackle the organized criminal groups which operate without any regard for rules and so forth. They operate transnationally, so must countries as well. And if we do not criminalize fraud in a somewhat uniform manner as serious crime, we don’t necessarily have the legal tools for countries to actually cooperate internationally. So these international conventions are not only paper, but they constitute real tools to combat fraud. So really, criminalization matters, and we are not yet there. Thank you, Johannes.

Johannes Vallesverd: Fantastic. Good intervention. So I totally agree. Fraud is not petty theft, as we heard from Rens Grim. The consequences of fraud can be lethal. So let’s tackle this organized crime, international organized crime, as that organized international crime. So, but we always hear about privacy. We can’t share data. We can’t share data. But can we share data? And let’s talk to somebody that has shared data. How did you do it, Emily? How have you been handling the data privacy issue?

Emily Taylor: Thank you very much for the question, Johannes. And I should say, you know, in any healthy democracy, protect for fundamental rights and the rule of law are not unnice to have. They’re absolutely essential. And they also give the bright lines for law enforcement to adhere to. I think often in these sort of debates, you know, we as humans love binary. So we like, you know, are these in opposition to each other, criminal justice and privacy? No, they’re absolutely not. And in the UK, we were very fortunate that our national data protection regulator actually issued some guidance to clarify this matter, which is extremely helpful. And as Erica says, this is not, you know, whether it’s in the criminalization area or in the data sharing area, this is not a static legal international framework. We’ve got, we’ve had the OECD principles, the second additional amendment to the protocol to the Budapest Convention, EU Evidence Act, and the list goes on. So, you know, within the GSE, we have been working on the protections for privacy alongside the technical development from the outset. And I think that that’s really the way to do it. And to make sure that whoever is sharing data is always in control or in charge of what happens to it. And there’s no sort of really over lax default settings. So, you know, privacy laws are not an annoyance. They need to be baked in. The adherence needs to be baked in from the start so that people who are using the system can have confidence that their privacy will be respected and that they, you know, that helps to give the benchmark and the level playing field so that people feel confident in sharing data to combat scams and fraud.

Johannes Vallesverd: Excellent. Good answer. And I concur also in Norway, when we had the talk about the digital shields, we got input from the industry saying, okay, we need just some guidance. Please give us some guidance. And it took a couple of days to provide the guidance and that’s what all it needed to get the ball started. Of course, the industry did all the work, but we made some guidance in the start and that kicked it off. So totally agree. Okay. Now, Rima, many people are being confronted daily, perhaps not daily, but often with fake profiles on different social media channels. And you don’t have to talk for everybody here, but what do you think about the challenges of fake profiles and fake content? How do we reduce this problem? You talked a little bit about it in your intervention, but do you have

Rima Amin: any supplementary comments on it? Sure. Happy to do that. So fake accounts are an incredibly important thing for us to be able to counter. Again, if we go back to the attack chain, creating that deceptive identity is one of the sort of the earlier parts that we are able to have sort of visibility in. So we have teams that are working to create technology to be able to detect this stuff at scale. And just to give you an example of the type of scale that we are looking at, in Q4 of 2024, we took down 1.4 billion fake accounts, 99.9% of those proactively, often at the point of creation before they were reported to us. So our technology is catching these fake profiles. And I should caveat here that because we’re catching them very early on, we don’t know the purposes for which they would be used, right? It’s not necessarily all frauds and scams, but we know that fake profiles are important when it comes to frauds and scams. Now, when it comes to 0.1% of the ones that we weren’t able to catch that were reported to us, there is a challenge that comes with that. So the teams are constantly thinking, okay, how do we close that gap and get closer on it? The challenge can be is that as you become sort of more aggressive and you catch innocent people within that as well. So yes, very important part of the work and something that we’re focused on. I want to touch on content a little bit here as well, as you mentioned it. I don’t know if anyone’s come across a piece of research by Camille Francois, which talks about how you handle or ways to handle adversarial harm on the internet. She says that you can focus on an actor who is behind the activity. Then there’s behavior, which is what are the behaviors that the person is doing sort of on the platform. Things like trying to reach out to numbers of people that they’re not connected with, that type of behavior. And the third piece is content, which is what is it that they’re actually posting on the internet. Now, all three of those components in the ABC framework are incredibly important. For frauds and scams, content is important, but it’s a harder lever to pull. If you compare it to a harm like terrorism, fraud, it’s not as obvious. And they deliberately construct this to not be as obvious. And then the second thing is the content switches over time. Fraudsters will try to promote one item and then move on to another. So they’re constantly shifting, like that’s part of their MO. Whereas it’s much harder for a fraudster to shift sort of their behavior or try to hide who they are. Of course, they will try to. But I think that’s really important to sort of bear in mind. And that framework is something that we think about a lot when it comes to how do we tackle fraud across the ecosystem. Thank you. Thank you very much. We will get some questions afterwards from the

Johannes Vallesverd: room also. So if you have anything, just prepare yourself if you want to do that. Birgitte, you emphasized the importance of cooperation. And I know that many of the measures that Telenor are taking to combat fraud are quite costly. How can the private and public cooperation be in order to help in this regard? I think we should reflect upon

Birgitte Engebretsen: the magnitude of the problems that has been presented from all of us and the fact that we need to work together and we need to share the burden. So maybe let’s think about it in a triangle where you have the customers. They should ask for secure and safe services and be willing to pay for that. The government needs to finance parts of those costly measures. And the tech and telco companies also need to invest. So it’s in this triangle I think we need to really

Johannes Vallesverd: divide the burden between the three. Good. I agree. I think also the money that you put in protecting citizens is in the long run you get it all back with interest. So good intervention. Last but not least, over to Nico. You are in a key position here as the chair of the Governmental Advisory Committee. And you have a lot of data and you have a lot of issues at your hand, but in particular to this fishing topic that you mentioned. Is there any, let’s talk a little bit out of the box now, possibility for data sharing, real-time data sharing, a kind to the anti-fishing working group that you have mentioned, while still balancing the GDPR? Absolutely. And I took the time to prepare some.

Nico Caballero: It’s a very Very short list, you know, mainly four things, but important to take into account. The first one is layered access models, you know, implementing, you know, tiered access to who is data, where, you know, the critical fields, like, for example, anonymized email contacts, you know, are available for legitimate purposes, like cybersecurity, of course, while protecting personal data through reduction or encryption. That’s one thing. The other thing would be, you know, a centralized accreditation. Can you hear me? Because I’m having trouble with my, you know, developing a unified accreditation system for vet entities, so to say, like law enforcement, cybersecurity professionals, and so on, to request nonpublic data, ensuring compliance with GDPR, GDPR’s legitimate interest provisions. Also, you know, a collaborative framework engaging with, you know, data protection authorities and industry stakeholders to align policies with GDPR, as in, you know, as you can see in the temporary specification and the EPDP, that’s expedited policy development process, again, a long and complicated acronym coming from ICANN, but it is what it is. While preserving, again, as I said before, interests, like, you know, like fraud prevention, which is our main point here. And then, finally, there are some technical solutions, like, you know, coming from ICANN, I mean, you know, like supporting innovations like the RDRS, that is the Registration Data Request Service, you know, formerly, you know, known as the SSAD, you know, to streamline secure data requests without, I would say, overburdening the registrars. So that’s more or less what I can share at this point.

Johannes Vallesverd: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mikko. So we will have a couple of open questions first, and you can answer if you, when you want, the one where you just raised your hand, and then we will open the floor. But by first, we’ll talk a little bit about privacy. So I will give you a provoking question on privacy. Are the privacy rules now protecting the victims or the fraudsters?

Rima Amin: Anyone want to give that a shot, or both? I can give it a shot. Thank you. But hopefully, I’ll, yeah, so I think, I spoke a little bit earlier about the facial recognition technology that we deployed in order to protect people from scams relating to public figures. We deployed that pilot across the world in, I think it was October of last year, basically. And one of the challenges were that we were just unable to deploy it within sort of Europe and the UK at that particular time, because we were, you know, navigating with the regulator and putting all those pieces into place to ensure that they were sort of comfortable with this technology. So what I would say there is that these protections were designed for the right reasons and the right sort of principles behind them. But I think what needs to be sort of added to them is understanding sort of the adversarial landscape, especially when it comes to fraudsters as well, to enable us to deploy things at the speed of which we need to, because these are some of the fastest actors out there. And so we need to make sure that we’re able to deploy things in the right way at the speed of which we need to.

Johannes Vallesverd: Thank you. Good comment. Good comment. Riika?

Riika Puttonen: Yes, I totally agree. And indeed, privacy laws were actually put in place to also prevent fraud. So the intention, as Rima said, was a good one. But it’s the implementation of those laws that leaves some room for improvement. The right to privacy is not an absolute right in international human rights law. It is a qualified right. So there are certain conditions, and if those conditions are fulfilled, it can be compromised, the right to privacy. And it can be compromised for certain good reasons, a legitimate aim, and that would be, for example, public order, public safety, national security. And when we look at the scale of fraud, I do think that the legitimate aim is there. So indeed, it is not an absolute but a qualified right. But in addition to that legitimate aim, it also has to be prescribed by clear and accessible law. So again, for legislators, some work to do, serve this legitimate aim, and it has to be necessary and proportionate. And then you are in compliance with international human rights framework.

Emily Taylor: Thank you. Yeah. Emily? Well, I think Rima and Riika have both made excellent points, which I won’t repeat. I think that where I would come in on this is just reflecting on the transatlantic tensions around data sharing, you know, between very close allies, all democracies, all subject to the rule of law. And you know, Nico, I had the misfortune to be on the EPDP, and the expedited bit was certainly not really very apparent in this multiyear process. But actually, rather than blaming ourselves, I think we reflect on how difficult it is and that who is a microcosm of wider difficulties of sharing data. But Riika, you talked about the importance of laws being accessible and also understandable. I mean, there was a story of a guy going around an international law conference wearing a T-shirt saying, only God is GDPR compliant. And I think, you know, if we reflect on how difficult it is to comply, and particularly given the extraterritorial nature for US companies, which are very, very risk averse because they come in a much more litigious society and are not really used to the aspirational quality of many European laws, I think this is a moment of reflection to think, well, how do we do it better? You know, the fundamental rights need to be protected, and legitimate people also need to be protected from intrusion. But we can do better.

Johannes Vallesverd: Thank you for those words. I totally agree. Let’s move on now to, we will take one question from the floor, and then we will get the online community on for the next one, and then we will go back and forth. So we have the first question. When you present your question, just say who you are or where you come from, and then question. Thank you. Hi. Hello. Oh, we have two here. So you first in the front.

Andrew Campling: Hi. Thank you. I’mAndrew Campling. I’m a trustee of the Internet Watch Foundation. We’ve heard why signal is important by effectively everyone in the panel, whether it’s to identify criminals, to aid enforcement, or to protect end users. Building on Emily’s comments about the forced binary choice between privacy and security and the weaponization of, as Rikke quite rightly said, the qualified right of privacy, we’re seeing some significant unintended consequences. For example, current and planned changes to Internet standards are removing signal, which will make those consumer protections that the Norwegians are enjoying ineffective because you’ll lose the signal that you need for that and make it far harder to, again, to identify criminals, or to the ICANN example, the lack of proper know-your-customer processes mean that we’re aiding the criminals that undertake phishing because we’ve got no idea who registered the domains. So registers and registrars are hiding behind those privacy protections. How do we get people like on this panel more involved in actually stopping those harms, those unintended harms, by engaging Internet standards? Is that a question to Nico on know-your-customer? Perhaps.

Johannes Vallesverd: Let’s try. Thank you very much for a good question. Thank you for the question.

Nico Caballero: Even though I’m not involved in any kind of commercial activity within ICANN, ICANN is certainly taking steps in that regard, and I can mention, you know, a stricter registration data accuracy enforcement, like, for example, registrars now must verify and update inaccurate who is data within seven days of changes or face suspension of domains, on the one hand. You know, broadly speaking, ICANN’s Accuracy Reporting System, the ARS, has historically monitored compliance, though I must recognize it was paused after GDPR. But on the other hand, you know, as of right now, registrants are obligated to maintain accurate contact details, you know, to investigate complaints within 15 days, which is good progress, as compared to, well, not an ideal situation, not the best solution, but ICANN is doing, you know.

Johannes Vallesverd: Good, we are just looking at the time here. Thank you for the question, thank you for the answer, and we can connect the dots from GSE to ICANN and then you will get a very good picture. I think we will get the online community up now. Frode, are you there? I feel like it’s a Melody Grand Prix here, Frode Sørensen’s online moderator, so we will get him up on the screen. Many thanks for the presentations from the panelists and for an interesting discussion. So far, there is no question in the chat, but we encourage people to ask questions in the chat, which can be read aloud afterwards. So, I just hand back to you, Johannes, to take more questions in the room. Good, so you are in contact with the producer and then she will give him a sign if there will be, but that doesn’t matter, because we have four people here, three people waiting in line. So, let’s take this one first. No, I was on. Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry.

Audience: So, Rens brought up an issue. You have to say your name first and where you’re from. Shiva Bisasa, Trondheim, Tobago. Rens brought up the issue of financial sextortion, and this is something I had personal experience with earlier this year, where I knew the victim and the victim took his life. And as Rima showed, the engagement aspect is conducted on platforms. In this case, it was WhatsApp. My question is for the Global South, for developing nations. How can we increase awareness? What is the responsibility of platforms to increase awareness on these scams? And further, law enforcement is not as equipped as developed states within the developing world. How can we get law enforcement up to date? And if there is no mechanism to report these things to law enforcement, how can we report directly to the platforms?

Johannes Vallesverd: Thank you, sir. Very good question. I will now go to Rens.

Rens Grim: Thank you for your question, and sorry to hear about your loss. It is a difficult area, especially in the sextortion that I was talking about, because in the country of origin, the people behind these scams are seen as heroes, and even the nation is discouraging people to go to school and, you know, just go scamming. So, but to answer your question, I think, is the whole purpose of the stakeholder participation, you know, getting into touch with local enforcement agencies and propagate that cooperation. It is a difficult story, because as it is said here early on the panel, there is no strict criminal prosecution possible. So, if it happens in country A and the extortionist is in country B, it is extremely difficult to get that person in country B to be prosecuted. And it is a difficult, we are not there yet, but I believe that encouraging countries, nations, governments to also actively go after the people within their country who are propagating and who are actually committing these crimes, that is the first step forward. Does that answer your question?

Rima Amin: Yes, somewhat. I can also take some of that question, and I’m personally so sorry for your personal loss. I think in terms of the question you asked around sort of raising awareness and what we can do there, I think there’s a couple of pieces there, right? So, you’ve got sort of campaigns that we can work sort of together on. I think that’s the working together piece is really important, because what we often see is fragmented sort of awareness campaigns and people, and young people especially, being bombarded with so many different messages that actually bringing those together is incredibly important. And so, that’s something that we look to do with governments and those types of entities. The next is sort of interventions and building products in a way that creates safe environments. So, separating, for example, messages that come from people that you’re not connected with and putting in sort of the guard rails there. And the piece on law enforcement, I think it’s something that we try to do at META is work with law enforcement. So, we have people focus specifically on outreach to help law enforcement identify what information that they can request, how they can request it, and how they can actually use that information to be able to investigate and enforce there. And then the piece on reporting is also particularly sort of important. One of the challenges we have in that type of scam, but also sort of other scams that might end up on websites and other sort of platforms, is that we don’t necessarily have the context that we need to be able to enforce. And so, reporting through the platform or through sort of the law enforcement channels that are available is important for us to then be able to look back and be able to enforce on that particular actor. Thank you very much, Riika and then Emily. And we

Riika Puttonen: have to close down, but it’s an important question, so we need to reflect on it. Yeah, thank you for that important question and example as well. At UN, UNODC, we have these intergovernmental processes, which we’ve done a couple of on fraud, and there’s an increasing awareness of the seriousness of fraud as such, and including naturally also sexual extortion. Tragic example. We also carry out technical assistance activities, and they kind of range from prevention to protection of victims and witnesses, pursuing the criminals, the organized criminal groups behind it, and also promoting that cooperation. So, I hope in the years to come there is an increased awareness, but clearly we still have a lot of work ahead of us.

Emily Taylor: Very briefly, Shiva, very sorry to hear of your loss. I just wanted to address another aspect of getting law enforcement up to date, which is the collaboration with industry. Global South and also other countries are suffering from lack of resources in law enforcement and are simply not able to follow up all of the potential leads, and I think industry has a part to play in it. I think this also goes to the point that Birgitta made about burden sharing, and this is something that we’re doing within the Global Signal Exchange with pilots between law enforcement and industry to see to what extent can industry sort of take some of the burden from law enforcement, enabling them to do what only law enforcement can do, which is the pursue element, but there’s an awful lot of prevent and a lot of following up that industry can do in that. Thank you very much

Johannes Vallesverd: all for those comments to that, and I’m very sorry that we don’t have time for more questions, but we are here, so you can approach us after this session. I would like to thank everybody for your contributions. I would like to thank the panelists. Well, we will never get rid of fraud, it will always be there, but we can tackle it one piece at a time, we can eat the elephant one piece at a time. I would like to thank Frode for his online moderator and also the IGF team for having this session on these important topics. I hope this is not the end of anything, this is the start of anything. We have to be more operational, we have to get action done, share data, share guidance, and we have to tackle this fraud because it’s serious, it’s lethal, so we have to protect the global citizens against this international crime. So, thank you very much everybody for your participation and your presence. you

Rens Grim

Speech speed

145 words per minute

Speech length

1221 words

Speech time

504 seconds

25% of world’s connected population has been victim of scams with $1 trillion in estimated losses annually

Explanation

Rens presents alarming statistics showing that one in four connected people globally have been scam victims, not just confronted with scams but actually victimized. The total estimated losses amount to $1 trillion annually, which he compares to the GDP of the Netherlands.

Evidence

Based on worldwide survey of 60,000 people; $1 trillion is approximately equivalent to Netherlands’ GDP

Major discussion point

Scale and Impact of Global Fraud

Topics

Cybersecurity | Economic

Agreed with

– Birgitte Engebretsen
– Nico Caballero
– Johannes Vallesverd

Agreed on

Fraud represents a massive global problem requiring serious treatment

Fraud is either first or second most reported crime in most countries with only 2.5% prosecution rate

Explanation

Rens highlights that online fraud has become one of the most commonly reported crimes globally, yet the prosecution rate remains desperately low. He notes that while England’s 2.5% prosecution rate is actually good compared to the global average, it’s still inadequate.

Evidence

Agreed with

– Rima Amin
– Nico Caballero

Agreed on

Technology and AI present both challenges and opportunities in fraud prevention

Birgitte Engebretsen

Speech speed

108 words per minute

Speech length

710 words

Speech time

393 seconds

Telenor blocked over 2200 million fraud attempts in Norway in 2024, equivalent to two attempts per customer daily

Explanation

Birgitte reveals the massive scale of fraud attempts targeting Norwegian customers, with Telenor’s systems blocking over 2.2 billion attempts in a single year. This translates to approximately two fraud attempts per customer every day, demonstrating the relentless nature of these attacks.

Evidence

Specific figure of 2200 million blocked attempts in 2024; calculation showing 2 attempts per customer daily

Major discussion point

Scale and Impact of Global Fraud

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Agreed with

– Rens Grim
– Nico Caballero
– Johannes Vallesverd

Agreed on

Fraud represents a massive global problem requiring serious treatment

Effective collaboration requires burden sharing between customers, government, and tech companies

Explanation

Birgitte proposes a triangular model for combating fraud where responsibility is shared among three key stakeholders. Customers should demand and pay for secure services, governments should finance costly protective measures, and technology companies must invest in security infrastructure.

Evidence

Nico Caballero

Speech speed

126 words per minute

Speech length

1347 words

Speech time

640 seconds

Phishing makes up more than 90% of DNS abuse cases with $12 billion annual impact

Explanation

Nico presents data showing that phishing dominates the DNS abuse landscape, comprising over 90% of cases according to some sources reaching 95-96%. The remaining abuse types include malware, botnets, farming, and spam, with the total economic impact reaching $12 billion annually.

Evidence

NetBeacon Institute data showing 95-96% phishing rate; Internet Society figures showing $12 billion annual losses

Major discussion point

Scale and Impact of Global Fraud

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Agreed with

– Rens Grim
– Birgitte Engebretsen
– Johannes Vallesverd

Agreed on

Fraud represents a massive global problem requiring serious treatment

ICANN is developing stricter SLAs for takedowns and contractual penalties for repeat offenders

Explanation

Nico outlines ICANN’s proposed solutions for combating DNS abuse, including mandatory 24-hour response times for takedowns and implementing fines and suspensions for repeat offenders. These measures aim to create stronger accountability within the domain registration system.

Evidence

24-hour response mandate proposal; fines and suspension mechanisms for repeat offenders; AI-driven pattern detection for bulk registrations

Major discussion point

Regulatory and Legal Framework Challenges

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Agreed with

– Rens Grim
– Rima Amin

Agreed on

Technology and AI present both challenges and opportunities in fraud prevention

Emily Taylor

Speech speed

149 words per minute

Speech length

1156 words

Speech time

464 seconds

Global Signal Exchange enables real-time cross-sector intelligence sharing with over 160 organizations onboarded

Explanation

Emily describes the Global Signal Exchange as a clearinghouse that facilitates information sharing across different industry sectors and internationally. Unlike existing vertical sharing within industries, GSE enables horizontal collaboration across sectors to combat fraud more effectively.

Evidence

Over 160 organizations joined or in onboarding; partnership with Global Anti-Scam Alliance; support from Google; includes four big tech companies

Major discussion point

Multi-stakeholder Cooperation and Data Sharing

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Agreed with

– Johannes Vallesverd
– Camilla Sharma
– Birgitte Engebretsen
– Rima Amin
– MODERATOR

Agreed on

Multi-stakeholder cooperation is essential for effective fraud prevention

Privacy laws are qualified rights that can be compromised for legitimate aims like public safety when prescribed by clear law

Explanation

Emily argues that privacy and criminal justice are not in opposition but can coexist within proper legal frameworks. She emphasizes that privacy protections are essential in healthy democracies but can be balanced with security needs when done correctly with proper legal foundations.

Evidence

UK data protection regulator guidance; OECD principles; Budapest Convention amendments; EU Evidence Act

Major discussion point

Multi-stakeholder Cooperation and Data Sharing

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Agreed with

– Riika Puttonen
– Rima Amin
– Johannes Vallesverd

Agreed on

Privacy and security can coexist with proper legal frameworks

Disagreed with

– Rima Amin
– Riika Puttonen

Disagreed on

Privacy vs Security Balance in Data Sharing

Camilla Sharma

Speech speed

151 words per minute

Speech length

676 words

Speech time

267 seconds

Norwegian anti-fraud group includes mobile operators, authorities, police, and banks working operationally together

Explanation

Camilla describes Norway’s multi-stakeholder approach to fraud prevention, bringing together various sectors including telecommunications, law enforcement, financial services, and regulatory bodies. This collaborative model focuses on operational measures rather than just discussions.

Evidence

Participation from mobile operators (Telenor, Telia, Ice), CRDB, authorities, police, bank sector; vulnerability assessments and operational measures

Major discussion point

Multi-stakeholder Cooperation and Data Sharing

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Agreed with

– Johannes Vallesverd
– Birgitte Engebretsen
– Emily Taylor
– Rima Amin
– MODERATOR

Agreed on

Multi-stakeholder cooperation is essential for effective fraud prevention

Norway implemented digital anti-spoofing roaming shield as one of first in world, restoring trust in mobile numbers

Explanation

Camilla presents Norway’s pioneering anti-spoofing shield that entered force in November 2024, preventing Norwegian mobile numbers from being spoofed from abroad. This measure has successfully restored public trust in mobile communications that had been eroded by spoofing attacks.

Evidence

Shield entered force November 19, 2024; described as ‘one of the first in the world’; data showing fraudsters take Christmas breaks and weekends off

Major discussion point

Regulatory and Legal Framework Challenges

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Riika Puttonen

Speech speed

127 words per minute

Speech length

Multi-stakeholder Cooperation and Data Sharing

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Agreed with

– Emily Taylor
– Rima Amin
– Johannes Vallesverd

Agreed on

Privacy and security can coexist with proper legal frameworks

Disagreed with

– Emily Taylor
– Rima Amin

Disagreed on

Privacy vs Security Balance in Data Sharing

Rima Amin

Speech speed

158 words per minute

Speech length

2019 words

Speech time

762 seconds

Meta removed 1.4 billion fake accounts in Q4 2024, with 99.9% caught proactively before being reported

Explanation

Rima reveals the massive scale of Meta’s proactive enforcement against fake accounts, with their technology detecting and removing accounts often at the point of creation. While not all fake accounts are necessarily for fraud, they represent a critical component of the fraud infrastructure.

Evidence

1.4 billion fake accounts removed in Q4 2024; 99.9% detected proactively; 0.1% were reported by users

Major discussion point

Platform and Industry Response Strategies

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Focus should be on disrupting fraud attack chain as early as possible, from infrastructure building to victim engagement

Explanation

Rima outlines Meta’s strategic approach based on understanding the complete fraud attack chain, from building infrastructure and preparing digital assets to engaging victims and executing transactions. She emphasizes that intervening earlier in the chain provides better opportunities for large-scale prevention.

Evidence

Five-stage attack chain: infrastructure building, preparing digital assets, engaging victims, executing transactions, cleanup; Meta has most visibility at engage and digital asset stages

Major discussion point

Platform and Industry Response Strategies

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Agreed with

– Johannes Vallesverd
– Camilla Sharma
– Birgitte Engebretsen
– Emily Taylor
– MODERATOR

Agreed on

Multi-stakeholder cooperation is essential for effective fraud prevention

Meta uses facial recognition technology to detect misuse of public figures’ images in scams

Explanation

Rima describes Meta’s deployment of facial recognition technology to identify when public figures’ images are being misused in fraudulent advertisements or content. This technology helps combat celebrity impersonation scams by automatically detecting and removing such content.

Evidence

Facial recognition technology launched to detect public figure image misuse; deployed globally in October with regulatory navigation in Europe and UK

Major discussion point

Technology and AI Impact on Fraud

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights

Agreed with

– Rens Grim
– Nico Caballero

Agreed on

Technology and AI present both challenges and opportunities in fraud prevention

Disagreed with

– Emily Taylor
– Riika Puttonen

Disagreed on

Privacy vs Security Balance in Data Sharing

Lucien Taylor

Speech speed

167 words per minute

Speech length

491 words

Speech time

176 seconds

Global Signal Exchange processes over 1 million threat signals daily compared to 30,000 monthly consumer reports to British police

Explanation

Lucien demonstrates the massive scale difference between automated threat detection and traditional consumer reporting. The GSE system processes over 1 million signals daily, vastly exceeding the 30,000 monthly reports that British police receive from consumers, highlighting the need for automated systems.

Evidence

Started with 40 million threat signals; now processing 1 million daily; British police receive 30,000 monthly consumer reports; average signal time-to-live is up to four days

Major discussion point

Platform and Industry Response Strategies

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

MODERATOR

Speech speed

102 words per minute

Speech length

132 words

Speech time

76 seconds

Cooperation is the only way forward as fraudsters operate internationally and change channels when blocked

Explanation

The moderator establishes the fundamental premise that fraud is a global problem requiring coordinated international response. Fraudsters adapt by switching channels or targeting different countries when individual defenses are implemented, making isolated national efforts insufficient.

Evidence

Fraudsters described as ‘smart and ruthless’; they ‘change the channel or target another country’; described as ‘whack-a-mole game’

Major discussion point

Multi-stakeholder Cooperation and Data Sharing

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Agreed with

– Johannes Vallesverd
– Camilla Sharma
– Birgitte Engebretsen
– Emily Taylor
– Rima Amin

Agreed on

Multi-stakeholder cooperation is essential for effective fraud prevention

Andrew Campling

Speech speed

115 words per minute

Speech length

186 words

Speech time

97 seconds

Current Internet standards changes are removing signals needed for consumer protection

Explanation

Andrew warns about unintended consequences of privacy-focused changes to Internet standards that are eliminating the technical signals necessary for fraud detection and prevention. He argues that these changes will make existing consumer protections ineffective and aid criminals by reducing visibility into their activities.

Evidence

Norwegian consumer protections becoming ineffective due to signal loss; lack of proper know-your-customer processes in domain registration; registers and registrars hiding behind privacy protections

Major discussion point

Technology and AI Impact on Fraud

Topics

Infrastructure | Human rights

Audience

Speech speed

145 words per minute

Speech length

141 words

Speech time

58 seconds

Financial sextortion can lead to tragic outcomes including suicide, requiring increased awareness campaigns

Explanation

An audience member shares a personal experience where a sextortion victim took their own life, highlighting the severe psychological impact and tragic consequences of these crimes. The question emphasizes the need for better awareness campaigns and law enforcement capabilities, particularly in developing nations.

Evidence

Personal experience with victim who committed suicide; engagement conducted on WhatsApp platform; challenges in Global South with less equipped law enforcement

Major discussion point

Victim Impact and Awareness Challenges

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights

Johannes Vallesverd

Speech speed

156 words per minute

Speech length

Agreed with

– Rens Grim
– Birgitte Engebretsen
– Nico Caballero

Agreed on

Fraud represents a massive global problem requiring serious treatment

The fight against fraud requires eating the elephant one piece at a time through incremental operational progress

Explanation

Johannes acknowledges that while fraud will never be completely eliminated, it can be effectively tackled through systematic, incremental approaches. He advocates for practical, step-by-step operational measures rather than attempting to solve the entire problem at once.

Evidence

Metaphor of ‘eat the elephant one piece at a time’ and emphasis on being ‘more operational’ and getting ‘action done’

Major discussion point

Platform and Industry Response Strategies

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Agreements

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder cooperation is essential for effective fraud prevention

Speakers

– Johannes Vallesverd
– Camilla Sharma
– Birgitte Engebretsen
– Emily Taylor
– Rima Amin
– MODERATOR

Arguments

The goal should be operational action rather than just talk, focusing on regulatory and technical measures to reduce fraud

Fraud fighting requires a diverse team with different angles to the problem, bringing together various stakeholders

Norwegian anti-fraud group includes mobile operators, authorities, police, and banks working operationally together

Effective collaboration requires burden sharing between customers, government, and tech companies

Global Signal Exchange enables real-time cross-sector intelligence sharing with over 160 organizations onboarded

Focus should be on disrupting fraud attack chain as early as possible, from infrastructure building to victim engagement

Cooperation is the only way forward as fraudsters operate internationally and change channels when blocked

Summary

All speakers agree that combating fraud requires coordinated efforts across multiple sectors including government, industry, law enforcement, and international organizations. They emphasize moving beyond discussions to operational cooperation.

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Fraud represents a massive global problem requiring serious treatment

Speakers

– Rens Grim
– Birgitte Engebretsen
– Nico Caballero
– Johannes Vallesverd

Both speakers present nearly identical arguments about privacy being a qualified right in international law that can be limited under specific conditions for legitimate purposes like fraud prevention, emphasizing the need for clear legal frameworks.

Speakers

– Emily Taylor
– Riika Puttonen

Arguments

Privacy laws are qualified rights that can be compromised for legitimate aims like public safety when prescribed by clear law

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both Norwegian representatives emphasize the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration in their country’s successful fraud prevention model, highlighting how different sectors work together operationally.

Speakers

– Camilla Sharma
– Birgitte Engebretsen

Arguments

Norwegian anti-fraud group includes mobile operators, authorities, police, and banks working operationally together

Effective collaboration requires burden sharing between customers, government, and tech companies

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Both speakers provide concrete statistical evidence of fraud’s massive scale, demonstrating the relentless nature of fraud attempts and their significant impact on populations.

Speakers

– Rens Grim
– Birgitte Engebretsen

Arguments

25% of world’s connected population has been victim of scams with $1 trillion in estimated losses annually

Telenor blocked over 2200 million fraud attempts in Norway in 2024, equivalent to two attempts per customer daily

Topics

Cybersecurity | Economic

Unexpected consensus

Privacy laws protecting fraudsters rather than victims

Speakers

– Rima Amin
– Riika Puttonen
– Emily Taylor

Arguments

Meta uses facial recognition technology to detect misuse of public figures’ images in scams

Privacy laws are qualified rights that can be compromised for legitimate aims like public safety when prescribed by clear law

Explanation

Despite representing different sectors (tech platform, UN organization, and civil society), all three speakers agreed that current privacy law implementation sometimes inadvertently protects fraudsters. This consensus is unexpected given their different organizational perspectives and typical debates around privacy vs. security.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Need for proactive rather than reactive approaches to fraud prevention

Speakers

– Rima Amin
– Emily Taylor
– Camilla Sharma
– Nico Caballero

Arguments

Meta removed 1.4 billion fake accounts in Q4 2024, with 99.9% caught proactively before being reported

Global Signal Exchange enables real-time cross-sector intelligence sharing with over 160 organizations onboarded

Norway implemented digital anti-spoofing roaming shield as one of first in world, restoring trust in mobile numbers

ICANN is developing stricter SLAs for takedowns and contractual penalties for repeat offenders

Explanation

Representatives from social media, civil society, government regulation, and domain name governance all emphasized proactive prevention over reactive response, showing unexpected alignment across traditionally different approaches to internet governance.

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated remarkable consensus on key fraud prevention principles: the necessity of multi-stakeholder cooperation, the serious nature of the fraud threat, the possibility of balancing privacy with security, and the importance of proactive technological solutions. Agreement was strongest on operational approaches and the need for international coordination.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for fraud prevention policy. The alignment across diverse stakeholders (government regulators, tech platforms, telecom operators, international organizations, and civil society) suggests strong potential for coordinated global action. The consensus on treating fraud as serious organized crime and the need for operational rather than just policy responses indicates readiness for concrete implementation measures.

Differences

Different viewpoints

Privacy vs Security Balance in Data Sharing

Speakers

– Emily Taylor
– Rima Amin
– Riika Puttonen

Arguments

Privacy laws are qualified rights that can be compromised for legitimate aims like public safety when prescribed by clear law

Meta uses facial recognition technology to detect misuse of public figures’ images in scams

Privacy laws are qualified rights that can be compromised for legitimate aims like public safety when prescribed by clear law

Summary

While all speakers agree privacy isn’t absolute, they differ on implementation approaches. Emily emphasizes the need for clear legal frameworks and proper compliance from the start. Rima highlights operational challenges where privacy regulations slow down deployment of anti-fraud technologies in Europe. Riika focuses on the legal technicalities of when privacy can be legitimately compromised.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Unexpected differences

Impact of Internet Standards on Fraud Prevention

Speakers

– Andrew Campling
– Emily Taylor

Arguments

Current Internet standards changes are removing signals needed for consumer protection

Global Signal Exchange enables real-time cross-sector intelligence sharing with over 160 organizations onboarded

Explanation

Andrew Campling raises an unexpected concern that privacy-focused changes to Internet standards are actually helping criminals by removing technical signals needed for fraud detection. This creates tension with Emily Taylor’s work on the Global Signal Exchange, which aims to enhance signal sharing. The disagreement is unexpected because both are working toward fraud prevention but see different technical approaches as problematic versus beneficial.

Topics

Infrastructure | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows remarkably high consensus among speakers on the fundamental challenges and goals of fraud prevention, with disagreements primarily focused on implementation approaches rather than objectives. Main areas of disagreement center on balancing privacy with security, specific mechanisms for multi-stakeholder cooperation, and technical approaches to maintaining fraud detection capabilities.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high strategic alignment. The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on the severity of the fraud problem, the need for international cooperation, and the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches. Disagreements are primarily tactical and procedural rather than fundamental, suggesting good potential for collaborative solutions. The most significant tension appears around privacy versus security trade-offs, but even here speakers acknowledge the need for balance rather than taking absolute positions.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers present nearly identical arguments about privacy being a qualified right in international law that can be limited under specific conditions for legitimate purposes like fraud prevention, emphasizing the need for clear legal frameworks.

Speakers

– Emily Taylor
– Riika Puttonen

Arguments

Privacy laws are qualified rights that can be compromised for legitimate aims like public safety when prescribed by clear law

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both Norwegian representatives emphasize the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration in their country’s successful fraud prevention model, highlighting how different sectors work together operationally.

Speakers

– Camilla Sharma
– Birgitte Engebretsen

Arguments

Norwegian anti-fraud group includes mobile operators, authorities, police, and banks working operationally together

Effective collaboration requires burden sharing between customers, government, and tech companies

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Both speakers provide concrete statistical evidence of fraud’s massive scale, demonstrating the relentless nature of fraud attempts and their significant impact on populations.

Speakers

– Rens Grim
– Birgitte Engebretsen

Arguments

25% of world’s connected population has been victim of scams with $1 trillion in estimated losses annually

Telenor blocked over 2200 million fraud attempts in Norway in 2024, equivalent to two attempts per customer daily

Topics

Cybersecurity | Economic

Takeaways

Key takeaways

Fraud is a massive global problem affecting 25% of the world’s connected population with $1 trillion in annual losses, requiring urgent international cooperation

Multi-stakeholder collaboration between governments, private sector, law enforcement, and civil society is essential – no single entity can combat fraud in isolation

Real-time data sharing across sectors is both technically feasible and legally permissible when properly implemented with privacy safeguards

Privacy laws are qualified rights that can be balanced with legitimate public safety aims when prescribed by clear, accessible law

Operational measures like Norway’s anti-spoofing shield and integrated fraud filters are proving effective in protecting citizens

AI will make fraud more sophisticated but we haven’t reached a tipping point yet – proactive technology deployment is crucial

Current legal frameworks need updating to criminalize fraud as serious crime globally and enable better international cooperation

Prevention and early intervention in the fraud attack chain is more effective than pursuing criminals after damage is done

Burden sharing between customers, government, and technology companies is necessary for sustainable fraud prevention

Resolutions and action items

Regulators should join the Global Informal Regulatory Anti-Fraud Forum (GIRAFF) to share best practices across 40+ countries

UNODC and Interpol will host a Global Fraud Summit in March 2026 in Vienna

Countries need to criminalize fraud as serious crime (4+ years imprisonment) to enable international cooperation under UN conventions

New UN Convention Against Cybercrime will open for signature in October 2024, requiring country implementation

ICANN is developing stricter service level agreements for takedowns and contractual penalties for repeat offenders

Public sector should give higher weight to quality and security in tender processes to create market incentives

Expand successful multi-stakeholder working methods from voice/SMS to internet-based services

Continue developing and deploying technology solutions like facial recognition for detecting misuse of public figures’ images

Unresolved issues

How to effectively balance data privacy protections with the need for rapid threat intelligence sharing, especially across different jurisdictions

Addressing the removal of signals from internet standards that are needed for consumer protection measures

Developing effective know-your-customer processes for domain registration while respecting privacy rights

Scaling law enforcement capabilities in developing countries that lack resources to combat sophisticated fraud operations

Creating unified global standards for fraud criminalization and enforcement across different legal systems

Determining optimal burden-sharing arrangements between public and private sectors for fraud prevention costs

Addressing cultural and jurisdictional challenges where some countries view scamming as acceptable economic activity

Developing effective awareness campaigns that don’t overwhelm users with fragmented messaging

Suggested compromises

Implement layered access models for domain registration data with tiered access based on legitimate purposes while protecting personal data through redaction or encryption

Develop centralized accreditation systems for vetted entities like law enforcement to request non-public data while ensuring GDPR compliance

Create collaborative frameworks between data protection authorities and industry stakeholders to align policies with privacy regulations

Use technical solutions like ICANN’s Registration Data Request Service to streamline secure data requests without overburdening registrars

Deploy fraud prevention technologies at the speed needed to counter fast-moving fraudsters while working with regulators to ensure compliance

This historical perspective provides crucial context that fraud is not a modern technological problem but an ancient human behavior, suggesting that technological solutions alone are insufficient.

Impact

This comment grounded the discussion in historical reality, preventing over-focus on technology as the sole solution and emphasizing the enduring human elements of deception and trust that must be addressed.

Overall assessment

Explanation

Current privacy regulations are often difficult to understand and comply with, creating barriers to legitimate fraud prevention efforts

Parliamentary Session 4 From Dialogue to Action Advancing Digital Cooperation Across Regions and Stakeholder Groups

Session at a glance

Summary

This discussion focused on advancing digital cooperation across regions and stakeholder groups, building on the 2024 parliamentarian track at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The session brought together parliamentarians, technical community representatives, private sector actors, civil society organizations, and intergovernmental bodies to explore practical approaches for collaborative digital policymaking.

Key themes emerged around capacity building and multi-stakeholder cooperation. Representatives from organizations like Internet Society and APNIC Foundation emphasized the importance of national and regional IGFs as platforms for norm-setting and knowledge exchange. Several parliamentarians highlighted the need for enhanced technical understanding among legislators, with speakers from Timor-Leste and Tanzania proposing specific mechanisms for integrating internet governance expertise into parliamentary committees.

A significant concern raised was addressing power imbalances between national governments and major technology companies. The German parliamentarian stressed the need for legislators to reclaim authority over digital platforms that currently operate with quasi-monopolistic power. This sentiment was echoed by speakers from Pakistan and Lithuania, who called for greater accountability from social media platforms regarding content moderation and compliance with national laws.

Regional cooperation emerged as a crucial element, with representatives from Africa, Latin America, and Europe sharing successful models. The African Union and various African organizations highlighted the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance (APRINIC) as an effective capacity-building initiative. Similarly, Chile’s senator discussed future committees as innovative parliamentary structures for addressing digital challenges.

Several speakers emphasized the importance of trust as the foundation of digital cooperation, while others called for transparent and accountable AI development. The discussion concluded with strong support for creating ongoing platforms for parliamentarian collaboration beyond the annual IGF meetings.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Multi-stakeholder collaboration and capacity building for parliamentarians**: Multiple speakers emphasized the need for ongoing training and knowledge exchange between parliamentarians, technical communities, private sector, and civil society to bridge knowledge gaps in digital governance and AI policy-making.

– **Power imbalances and accountability of big tech companies**: Several parliamentarians, particularly from Germany and Pakistan, raised concerns about the quasi-monopolistic power of major technology platforms and the need for stronger mechanisms to hold them accountable to national laws and public interests.

– **Operationalizing digital cooperation beyond the IGF**: Speakers discussed practical steps for sustaining collaboration, including establishing permanent platforms for dialogue, creating knowledge-sharing portals, and integrating internet governance into parliamentary committee structures.

– **Regional cooperation and harmonization of regulatory frameworks**: Many participants highlighted the importance of regional networks (like APNIC in Africa) and the need to harmonize digital governance approaches across regions, especially to help developing countries build capacity.

– **Trust, transparency, and technical infrastructure protection**: Discussion centered on building trust in digital systems through transparency (especially in AI), protecting the technical underpinnings of the internet, and ensuring policy decisions don’t compromise global internet interoperability.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to move “from dialogue to action” by bringing together parliamentarians with multi-stakeholder representatives to identify concrete, collaborative approaches for advancing digital governance and sustaining cooperation beyond the Internet Governance Forum.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was constructive and collaborative throughout, with participants sharing experiences and best practices rather than engaging in confrontational debate. There was a sense of urgency about addressing digital governance challenges, but the atmosphere remained solution-oriented. The tone became slightly more pointed when discussing big tech accountability, but overall maintained a diplomatic and cooperative spirit focused on building bridges between different stakeholder groups.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Jennifer Chung** – Moderator, from DotAsia and 2025 MAG member

– **Olaf Kolkman** – Principal of Internet Technology Policy and Advocacy at the Internet Society

– **Raul Echeberria** – Executive Director of the Latin American Internet Association (private sector)

– **Abel Pires da Silva** – Former Chair of Infrastructure Committee, National Parliament of Timor-Leste

– **Rajnesh Singh** – CEO at APNIC Foundation (Asia Pacific Network Information Centre)

– **Anna Luhrmann** – Member of Parliament from Germany

– **Rodrigo Goni** – Member of Parliament from Uruguay

– **Anusha Rahman** – Senator from Pakistan

– **Nazarius Kirama** – President of Internet Society Tanzania chapter, from Tanzania IGF

– **Johannes Vallesverd** – Norwegian regulator

– **Becky Burr** – Representative from ICANN

– **Kenneth Pugh** – Senator from Chile

– **Laura Gerasim** – Member of Romanian Parliament, Chairperson of committee on investigation of abuses, corruptions, and petitions

– **Adel ElMessiry** – Justice from Egypt

– **Jekaterina Rojaka** – Lithuanian Parliament member, heads committee for suicide and violence prevention

– **Peace Oliver Amuge** – Works for Association for Progressive Communications, involved with AFRICIG

– **Munir Ibrahim Suroor** – Member of Parliament from Bahrain Kingdom

– **Guilherme Canela** – Director for Digital Policies and Transformation at UNESCO

– **Sarah Lister** – Director of Governance at UNDP

– **Sean Maher** – Global Vice Chair of Public Policy for EY

– **Shuaib Afolabi Salisu** – Senator from Nigeria, Chair of Nigerian Senate Committee on ICT and Cybersecurity, Chairman of West African Parliamentarians Network on Internet Governance

– **Amira Saber** – Member of Parliament from Egypt

– **Speaker 1** – Representative from IPU (Inter-Parliamentary Union)

– **Brando Benifei** – Member of European Parliament, co-chair and lead negotiator for AI Act

– **Desiree Milosevic** – RIPE Corporation Working Group Co-Chair, RIPE NCC representative

– **Adil Suleiman** – Representative from African Union and APNIC (African Parliamentary Network)

– **Lillian Nalwoga** – Works with CIPESA (Collaboration on International ICT Policy for Eastern and Southern Africa), based in Kampala, Uganda

– **Mactar Seck** – Dr., Chief of Technology and Innovation at United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA)

Full session report

# Comprehensive Report: From Dialogue to Action – Advancing Digital Cooperation Through Multi-Stakeholder Parliamentary Engagement

## Executive Summary

This comprehensive discussion brought together parliamentarians, technical community representatives, private sector actors, civil society organisations, and intergovernmental bodies to explore practical approaches for collaborative digital policymaking. The session, moderated by Jennifer Chung from DotAsia and the 2025 MAG, aimed to move beyond theoretical discussions towards actionable frameworks for digital cooperation, building upon the successful 2024 parliamentarian track at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF).

The 19-minute session (which ran longer) was interpreted in English, Spanish, and French, and included representatives from diverse organizations including OpenAI, Ally, Google, Meta, ISOC, APNIC Foundation, ICANN, RIPE NCC, Center for Democracy and Technology, Oversight Board, AFRICIG, Atlantic Council, African Union, GIZ, UNDP, UNESCO, and UNICEF.

The dialogue revealed strong consensus around key digital governance challenges, with participants demonstrating agreement on the necessity of multi-stakeholder collaboration, the critical importance of capacity building for parliamentarians, the need for technical expertise to inform policy decisions, and the urgency of addressing platform accountability issues.

## Key Themes and Areas of Focus

### Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration and Governance Mechanisms

The discussion opened with strong emphasis on the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration. Olaf Kolkman from the Internet Society highlighted how “national and regional IGFs serve as collection points for norming and operationalising solutions that can be shared globally,” positioning these forums as crucial infrastructure for collaborative governance.

Raul Echeberria from the Latin American Internet Association provided insightful analysis of the cultural challenges inherent in multi-stakeholder cooperation, observing differences between consensus-building approaches common in internet governance and majority-rule systems in traditional politics.

Abel Pires da Silva from Timor-Leste’s Parliament advocated for specific working groups on AI, data privacy, and misinformation to improve multi-stakeholder collaboration. Rodrigo Goni from Uruguay introduced the concept of “future committees” in parliaments that practice multi-stakeholder governance and overcome traditional political dichotomies.

Johannes Vallesverd from the Norwegian regulator demonstrated practical multi-stakeholder cooperation through the Global Informal Regulatory Anti-Fraud Forum (GIRAFFE), which operates across 40 countries with participants from multiple nations. Norway’s anti-fraud measures have been particularly effective, blocking 61 million spoofed numbers over six months.

### Platform Accountability and Power Dynamics

Anna Luhrmann from the German Parliament raised fundamental questions about power structures in digital governance, arguing that “the actual power in the internet currently resides with the big tech companies that have in their respective fields quasi-monopolies in many areas.” She emphasized that parliamentarians, national governments, and the UN system lack sufficient power in this system.

Senator Anusha Rahman from Pakistan challenged existing legal frameworks, specifically questioning intermediary liability protections and arguing for making platforms more responsible for content on their platforms. She also highlighted Pakistan Senate’s launch of the first AI-generated chat platform for legislative transparency and information sharing.

Jekaterina Rojaka from Lithuania provided concrete examples of platform inconsistencies, noting that platforms block legitimate parliamentary content while allowing harmful content. She specifically mentioned harmful TikTok challenges that have caused deaths, demonstrating the real-world consequences of inadequate content moderation.

### Capacity Building and Knowledge Sharing for Parliamentarians

There was overwhelming consensus on the critical importance of capacity building for parliamentarians. Abel Pires da Silva emphasized the particular needs of developing countries, whilst Nazarius Kirama from Tanzania advocated for anchoring programming within permanent parliamentary committees to institutionalize internet governance.

Peace Oliver Amuge from the Association for Progressive Communications highlighted the success of AFRICIG, which has trained over 40 parliamentarians across three years (since 2022) with meaningful ongoing engagement. This example demonstrated the importance of sustained, long-term capacity building.

Guilherme Canela from UNESCO described the scale of international efforts, noting that the UNESCO-IPU joint program trained 3,300 parliamentarians and staff from 180 countries through online courses. This programme importantly included parliamentary staff, recognizing continuity challenges when elected officials change through electoral cycles.

Sarah Lister from UNDP emphasized coordination with international actors to support parliamentary digital transformation and AI regulation, whilst Mactar Seck from UNECA described capacity building modules on emerging technologies and knowledge-sharing platforms specifically designed for African contexts.

### Technical Infrastructure and Internet Governance

Technical community representatives provided crucial perspectives on the importance of understanding technical implications in policy decisions. Rajnesh Singh from APNIC Foundation emphasized that policy decisions must consider technical underpinnings to avoid breaking basic internet infrastructure.

Becky Burr from ICANN stressed that “ICANN focuses on coordination not control, ensuring globally interoperable and resilient internet.” This distinction between coordination and control proved important in discussions about governance mechanisms and sovereignty concerns.

Desiree Milosevic from RIPE NCC highlighted how technical coordination work maintains robust internet foundation that powers all digital services, emphasizing the often-invisible technical infrastructure that enables all digital governance discussions.

### Artificial Intelligence Governance and Regulation

AI governance emerged as a particularly important area with multiple approaches being proposed. Abel Pires da Silva called for transparent artificial intelligence mechanisms, arguing that current fears about AI stem from it being treated as a “black box” without understanding how it reaches conclusions.

Brando Benifei from the European Parliament described the EU AI Act as representing the “first co-legislative multi-stakeholder approach to regulating powerful AI models,” providing a concrete example of how regulatory frameworks can incorporate multi-stakeholder input whilst maintaining democratic oversight.

Sean Maher from EY emphasized that “technology doesn’t have to be in black boxes – audit and governance mechanisms can ensure compliance and effectiveness,” suggesting that transparency could be achieved through verification mechanisms.

Kenneth Pugh from Chile introduced concerns about AI bias and cultural appropriateness, advocating for investing in regional AI models to solve local problems rather than relying on models trained primarily on Anglo-Saxon data. Chile has also implemented Cybersecurity Awareness Month legislation as part of their comprehensive digital strategy.

### Regional and International Cooperation

Regional cooperation emerged as a crucial element for effective digital governance. Adil Suleiman from the African Union emphasized that parliamentarians should be incorporated in continental digital policy development cycles, demonstrating institutional commitment to parliamentary engagement.

Kenneth Pugh from Chile described building a coalition of parliamentarians with digital agendas across Iberoamerica, representing approximately 1 billion people and showing how linguistic and cultural connections can facilitate regional cooperation.

Shuaib Afolabi Salisu from Nigeria highlighted the West African Parliamentarians Network on Internet Governance, which addresses common challenges across the region. Senator Salisu also noted the absence of US senators or congresspeople in the discussion, despite the focus on big tech companies that are largely US-based.

Munir Ibrahim Suroor from Bahrain advocated for cross-border digital partnerships between public, private and civil society sectors, emphasizing multi-stakeholder regional cooperation rather than just government-to-government collaboration.

Lillian Nalwoga from CIPESA described the Uganda Parliamentary Internet Governance Forum with 31 members, demonstrating successful national implementation of global models adapted to local contexts.

### Specific National Initiatives and Best Practices

Several speakers shared concrete examples of successful digital governance initiatives. Norway’s comprehensive approach includes a four-point framework: regulate, know your customer (KYC), trace back capabilities, and accountability/transparency mechanisms. Romania has established committees for investigating abuses and corruption in digital spaces.

Laura Gerasim from Romania described their committee’s work on investigation of abuses and corruptions, while Justice ElMessiry emphasized using existing UN legal frameworks as the foundation for international cooperation.

The discussion included mention of upcoming events, including the UNDP-CPA-IPU conference on responsible AI in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and continued UNESCO-IPU collaboration on training parliamentarians and their staff on digital policy issues.

## Areas of Strong Consensus

The discussion revealed remarkable consensus across several key areas:

**Multi-stakeholder collaboration necessity**: Speakers from all stakeholder groups emphasized that effective digital governance requires bringing together diverse stakeholders including governments, private sector, civil society, and technical community.

**Critical importance of capacity building**: There was overwhelming agreement that parliamentarians need continuous capacity building and training, including parliamentary staff, with sustained rather than one-off programmes.

**Technical expertise in policymaking**: Strong agreement that policymakers must understand technical implications to maintain internet stability and interoperability.

**Platform accountability challenges**: Parliamentarians from different regions shared concerns about big tech companies’ inconsistent content moderation and resistance to national regulations.

**Regional cooperation value**: Speakers emphasized the importance of regional networks and cooperation to address shared digital governance challenges.

**Trust as foundation**: Both private sector representatives and civil society emphasized trust as the fundamental foundation for digital cooperation.

## Actionable Outcomes and Next Steps

The discussion generated several concrete action items:

**IGF Secretariat initiatives**: Creating an ongoing platform where parliamentarians can share legislative experiences, materials, and best practices beyond annual meetings. The Secretariat committed to gathering information for distribution to participants.

**Expanded participation**: Recognition of the need to include US parliamentarians in future IGF parliamentary tracks to address big tech accountability concerns.

**Capacity building expansion**: Strengthening integration between parliamentary track and main IGF programme, expanding participation in initiatives like GIRAFFE, and establishing regional parliamentary networks.

**Institutional changes**: Institutionalizing internet governance programming within permanent parliamentary committees and incorporating parliamentarians into continental digital policy development cycles.

**Upcoming collaborations**: The UNDP-CPA-IPU conference on responsible AI in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and continued UNESCO-IPU collaboration on training programmes.

## Conclusion

This comprehensive discussion demonstrated the strong potential for multi-stakeholder digital cooperation. The consensus around fundamental principles—the necessity of collaboration, the importance of capacity building, the need for technical expertise in policymaking, and the value of regional cooperation—provides a solid foundation for continued work.

The concrete examples shared, from Norway’s anti-fraud measures blocking 61 million spoofed numbers to Pakistan’s AI-generated parliamentary chat platform, demonstrate that effective digital governance is achievable when stakeholders work together with clear frameworks and sustained commitment.

The identification of specific action items and next steps, including the IGF Secretariat’s commitment to creating ongoing collaboration platforms, offers clear pathways for moving from dialogue to action. The success of this initiative will be measured by the concrete actions taken by participants in their respective roles and institutions to advance collaborative digital governance in the months and years ahead.

As Jennifer Chung noted in her closing remarks, the session’s collaborative tone and practical focus on actionable outcomes reflects the maturation of multi-stakeholder digital governance from theoretical discussions to practical implementation. The path forward requires sustained commitment to dialogue, continued investment in capacity building, and creative approaches to bridging different governance cultures while maintaining trust as the foundation for all digital cooperation efforts.

Session transcript

Jennifer Chung: It looks like almost everyone of us is a huge contributor to this event. Hello, everyone, and welcome. Welcome to the session from dialogue to action, advancing digital cooperation across regions and stakeholder groups. So building on the outputs of the 2024 parliamentarian track and the discussions you’ve had in this room for the past two days, this is the open dialogue session where we have multi-stakeholder representation and consultations to bring together the members of parliament and key digital players to reflect on how to operationalize, how to concrete tangible, inclusive, and collaborative policy-making efforts that you are doing all in your home jurisdictions. All groups are invited to propose collaborative and co-operative approaches to building digital governance and to identify practical steps for sustaining cooperation beyond the IGF. I’m your moderator. My name is Jennifer Chung. I’m from DotAsia and also the 2025 MAG this year. A little bit of housekeeping rules. So this session is scheduled for the next 19 minutes and interpreted into English, Spanish, and French. It’s an open dialogue, as I mentioned, with no panelists, but there will be support staff around the room, and I think I see them. Yes. Holding the mics. If you would like to take the floor, please do raise your hand. A brief reminder, the previous sessions that you’ve had included many different experts from the technical community, from the private sector, from civil society and intergovernmental organizations, and members of parliament. I know you’ve been waiting for an open dialogue as well. I know you have a lot to contribute in this session as well, and you’ve been discussing emerging trends on freedom of expression, information integrity, and other online harms. So we also have invited, of course, I see in the rows here, different representatives from the stakeholder groups, from private sector. I see representation from Open AI, from Ally, from Google and Meta. From technical community, I see ISOC. There is APNIC Foundation. There is ICANN. There should be RIPE NCC, I think, in the room as well, and Center for Democracy and Technology. From civil society and academia, we have the Oversight Board, AFRICIG, and Atlantic Council. We invite, of course, the whole of government, the executive, legislative, and judicial branch members to speak here. And from intergovernmental organizations, we have the African Union, GIZ, UNDP, UNESCO, UNICEF, and, of course, the Parliamentary Associations and Organizations. Before I open the floor, there are some brief guiding questions, I think, which start to, you know, get your creative juices flowing and thinking about things you’d like to share. And after yesterday and today’s parliamentary track sessions, how can we operationalize concrete, inclusive, and collaborative policymaking efforts? Are there any proposals for cooperative approaches to building strong and efficient, effective digital governance? And also, finally, any practical steps for sustaining cooperation with members of Parliament and other valuable and important stakeholders beyond the IGF? So now, without further ado, I’m going to open the floor, and I’m seeing in the front row there are already representatives that might want to start us off. Maybe Olaf? From ISOC?

Olaf Kolkman: Olaf Kolkman, I’m a principal of Internet Technology Policy and Advocacy at the Internet Society. That means a lot. It also means not that much. But at the Internet Society, we have been basically trying to operationalize this interaction with policymakers for, I would say, the duration of our existence. And one of the ways we have been doing that, and there are numerous ways, is through the funding and enabling and training of national and regional IGFs. That is a way where you can have a very, very, very, very large number of IGFs, and that is a way where you can take the ideas that come out of the global IGF back to the national level, and vice versa. I see this as a flying wheel. Ideas and new norms are being discussed. Things that work are being sorted out at the national level. The Internet is global. Software is being developed global. The Internet itself is a global infrastructure, a network of networks. But at the local level, we have perhaps different norms than in other places in the world, and we have different approaches to how we organize our societies. And things that work at one place might be an inspiration for other places. I strongly believe that the national IGFs are sort of those collection points of norming, forming, and storming about solutions, and operationalizing those solutions. And then bringing them back in the regional level and the global level where people can discuss them and bring them back as examples of how to to collaborate and actually operationalize the things that you’re dealing with within your local and national jurisdictions. I don’t want to go on too long. I think this is I’ll be happy to answer any any questions you have.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you so much, Olaf, from Internet Society. Perhaps Raul, Raul from Allied, from private sector.

Raul Echeberria: Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for the invitation to participate in this session. My name is Raul Echeverria. I’m the executive director of the Latin American Internet Association. It’s a private sector association. in Latin America. We have in our DNA the idea of cooperating with the policymakers. So we are always trying to find avenues of participation and collaboration with the policymakers. As Olaf said before, we have in the region regional IGF, and we have also national IGFs in many countries of Latin America. The participation of governments and parliamentarians is not is not very high in the in the in the regional and local IGFs. This is something that I hope we could change with this based on this experience of the parliamentarian track in IGF and that that allow many people to to have an idea, a more concrete idea, about what the IGF is and what the regional IGFs are. In addition to that, we are trying to promote other possibilities of cooperation and working opportunities to work together. We recently organized a meeting in in Mexico that were attended by 30 parliamentarians from the region. Colleagues from Uruguay joined us in that meeting. So we are very hopeful in this sense that that is a something that we are building, something in construction, but that we will progress in the in the future with bigger participation. But there are other initiatives ongoing. I think that if we take all these initiatives together, there are reasons to be optimistic in having a more cooperative work in the in the region. One thing that we have learned from all those years working in the in IGF and internet governance field is that the wisdom and expertise is highly distributed and so only with the participation of everybody we can really develop not only the best policies that we need, but also in the right time. Timing is not a minor thing. So this is a reason to encourage people to work together. Those of us who come from the internet community are accustomed to what we could call maximizing the consensus opportunities. We are accustomed to do that. We work hard until we realize that we achieve the best possible consensus. The traditional politics systems work in a different manner. Work not in the maximizing the opportunity of consensus, but based on the construction of majorities. That is a rule of democracy. So I think that we have to bring those two cultures close together, understand each other, and try to produce the best results we can. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Raul, for those really good collaborative proposals and suggestions. I now have on my list Abel Da Silva from Timor-Leste.

Abel Pires da Silva: Thank you very much, Jennifer. My name is again Abel Da Silva from Timor-Leste. I’m a former chair of the Infrastructure Committee in the National Parliament. So I would like to propose perspective from developing countries. I think, add on to what mentioned by the two previous speakers, I would like to propose three main points here. First is how to improve multi-stakeholder collaboration mechanism. Because we are coming from so many different backgrounds. You have Google here, big tech corporates with different interests, academics, governments, and also NGOs. So we have how to say, sometimes conflicting interests. So we need some sort of real mechanism for us to sit together and then discuss honestly about the issues we are facing here. For instance, we need perhaps specific, how to say, specific group on AI, data privacy, misinformation or disinformation, something like that. So that will increase our capacity to work together. The second issue, the point that I would like to promote is how to harmonize regional and global regulatory framework. Because if you if you try to engage with different countries from Western Hemisphere, they have more advanced capacity to develop their own legal frameworks. But if you’re speaking like from my background in East Timor, we have very, very, very limited capacity. So this kind of mechanism will help us to evaluate ourselves and then to plan and develop our capacity. The last point that I would like to suggest is that how to promote a more transparent artificial intelligence. Well, yesterday we visited the Parliament of Norway and they introduced something that’s really, really important, really, really interesting, which is a more accountable AI machine. At the moment, we are fearing AI because it has been treated as a black box. We don’t know how it reaches its conclusions. So that makes us very, very, how to say, suspicious of the machine. But if somehow we can develop a technology with a very transparent mechanism, then all of a sudden we don’t You don’t need to fear the machine anymore. We have more transparent way of accountability for the machine in how it reaches its conclusion. So that’s really, really important effort here. The last one, for the above three proposals, I think we really, really need to actually increase effort to enhance parliamentary capacity for digital policy-making process. And I think, speaking from my background, I think not only Timor-Leste, but other developed countries are in need of such capacity-development process. I think that’s all from me. Thank you so much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you so much. You brought up very, very good points because, you know, even in a multi-stakeholder model or conflicting interests, I think that is actually somewhere where you can have open and frank dialogue. It’s really good. Building capacity is also extremely important. And of course, there’s transparent and accountable development of emerging technology like AI. I’m going to next go to Raj Singh from APNIC Foundation, right in front. Raj, please.

Rajnesh Singh: Thanks Jennifer. Good afternoon. My name is Raj Singh. I’m CEO at the APNIC Foundation. APNIC is the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre. Our claim to fame is that over the last 30 years, we have helped build most of the internet in the Asia Pacific region. As you all, I’m sure, are aware, the Asia Pacific is a very diverse region. We have some of the most advanced economies in the world and we have some of the least developed economies in the world as well. So the region itself has been a bit of a challenge in how we’ve been able to do things. And I was just listening to my colleague from Timor-Leste. A couple of things I would just like to say. As policy makers, you have a responsibility to reach or create outcomes for your citizens. But when you go down that path, I would urge you to consider that there are a range of technical experts around the world who are there ready to help you with those decisions. Oftentimes we see around the world, not just in the Asia Pacific, but around the world, there are decisions made at the policy level which don’t really take into account the technical under workings of the internet, the interoperability that is required to make things work. We rely on the internet every day, from your AI to whatever else that you use today. But what makes all that work is the internet. And once you start fiddling at the basic structure of the internet, you start creating a whole lot of problems that you may not realize. As I said, I have a lot of my colleagues here from the technical community. All of us are always ready to help you better understand what the implications could be of certain policy decisions that you make. Now, I know there are challenges at the higher layers of the internet, the applications we use, the services we use, but when you are working at those layers and trying to control things or change things, ensure that the decisions you make at that higher level do not affect the basic co-internet infrastructure. Because if we lose that basic co-internet infrastructure, all this other stuff won’t work either. So I think it’s very important to recognize and realize that. One very quick other point I’ll make, some of my previous colleagues spoke about IGFs and local IGFs and regional IGFs, APNIC Foundation has been supporting that since our inception as well. But there’s another group that work in all regions, which are also very, very important for you to recognize and engage with, and they are network operator groups. They are the groups from the private sector, from the public sector, from academia, who run the actual networks that we all use every day. Now, most of them compete at the commercial level, but they come together at these NOG meetings to solve technical problems. And again, in most of your economies, you will have network operator groups, and therefore you can be a good resource as well to better understand the technicalities of the internet and what policy implications, you know, how policy implications could affect the actual technical end workings of the internet. So, I’ll stop there. I’ve said quite a bit, but I’m happy to continue the dialogue, and I’ll offer you my card, say from Tim Oleste. We should have a chat. Yeah. Please. Thanks, Jennifer.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Raj. Very important as well. Near and dear to my heart, because I’m also a technical community, and it’s really important for policy decisions to actually take into account the technical underpinnings of the critical infrastructure of the internet. You know, don’t break the internet, is what we like to say. I think next on my queue, I do have a parliamentarian in the back. I think the lady with the glasses, yes, please.

Anna Luhrmann: Thank you. My name is Anna Luhmann. I’m a member of parliament from Germany, and since yesterday, I’m thinking about a comment that an esteemed colleague from Kenya made yesterday in the bigger session, the bigger room. Namely, it was a very strong plea for IGF to provide a forum to actually support us as national parliamentarians. in actually addressing the power dynamics that exist in the internet at the moment, which is that the actual power in the internet currently resides with the big tech companies that have in their respective fields quasi- monopolies in many areas, and that we as parliamentarians, as national governments, but also as the UN system as a whole, doesn’t have power in this system. I think that’s the fundamental problem that we should address here as parliamentarians, and that we should think about how we can use this forum, IGF, but also maybe potentially other ways of working together as parliamentarians across borders to actually address this issue, to make sure that we are the ones who voice the concerns of citizens, who voice the public interest, and that we get some power over the big tech companies that are currently playing with us as national governments, as national parliaments, as they want. Threatening to leave, threatening not to have a service, threatening not to pay this, threatening to maybe use some other tactics, and I think that’s something that we need to work on and use this forum also to address this, particularly when it comes to hate crimes, when it comes to issues that we were talking about, digital colonialism, that is a key concern I know from many colleagues here from the African continent, so I would like us to talk actually about that also as parliamentarians and think about that, while at the same time of course preserving the Internet, the technology behind it, and as well providing a space for freedom of speech, so that at the same time is something that needs to be safeguarded, so I also don’t want national governments or international organizations to limit the freedom of speech, on the contrary, to provide an even better realm for that, so that we can actually have a space where everyone feels encouraged and is not repressed in expressing themselves, no matter which gender, which orientation, which religion, which country, and I think currently we don’t have that, so I came here to work together with you on creating that.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, you brought together a very, very important point, adjusting the power imbalances, I think as well having a multi-stakeholder process and a way to dialogue in the way that we can talk to each other at the IGF, that is very important, and I don’t know, I’m looking at IGF Secretariat, maybe in the future parliamentarians can be even more integrated with the rest of the program where we don’t have to come to you or you don’t have to come to us, but it is together we have a dialogue, that’s very important. I think I have on my list next Rodrigo Goni from Uruguay,

Rodrigo Goni: yes, oh I’m sorry, can I speak in Spanish? Creo que después de haber escuchado y lo que sabemos de la de los challenges that are raised, the parliaments, yes or yes, have to put it in the center of their agenda and also integrate it into their activity. We have to bring all the issues that we are seeing to the parliament. Of course we have to overcome distrust for that, we have to change the paradigm that we have today in the parliaments, we have to get out of the reactive paradigm, we have to get out of the paradigm of wanting to control artificial intelligence, new technologies, the internet. We have to find a space in the parliaments to address all these challenges and we simply wanted to share an experience in Uruguay that other parliaments in the world are also doing, which are the future committees. Future committees have found a model that practices, cultivates the multistakeholder, practices early governance. It is a model that allows to overcome left and right dichotomies, because these issues really demand it and allow it. So, to invite the parliamentarians who are in this room today to cultivate this model, which I reiterate, in some parliaments is being implemented, and also that it allows the other parties, from ALAI, internet associations, industries, academia, to integrate in these spaces in a permanent way, not as guests of one day, not as guests of a second level, but as a in a parliamentary space, which is still the democratic space by antonomy to address and define the issues, but in a different model, in a different paradigm that allows to address this issue in the way that I think we all agree that we have to address it. And there, what is known, and the United Nations is encouraging it as that model of innovative and responsible anticipatory governance can be applied, and I reiterate, we are applying it in some parliaments and I think it is giving us good results. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much.

Anusha Rahman: First of all, I’d like to really appreciate this joint effort by the UN and IGF to put together a multi-stakeholder forum because this is what was missing from the IGF, to have the parliamentarians and to build out a guided policy framework with everybody on board. It was extremely essential and my compliments. And your launching ceremony today, where we could see the UN and the political leaderships all coming together, opened new opportunity for solving the issues that we’ve been debating for years. Now, in Pakistan, the Senate of Pakistan is the first Senate that I know of has launched the AI-generated chat platform where they are going to provide and use the technology for transparency and sharing of the information for legislative purposes. And this initiative under the chairman of the Senate, Mr. Yusuf Zaghilani, is a unique model that would be taken forward. And you would see Pakistan leaping in technology in terms of the parliament. But for me, one more important point is is that we consider internet as the public good. And appreciating that it is two kilometers above the ground still makes it within the bounds and the boundaries of the sovereign countries who have the right to legislate. Now, we are fighting over what is being legislated versus what is being violated. So what we are legislating in our own land is being infringed by companies, the platforms, who are very far away from us. So what we are trying to advocate is that please respect the law of the land. And when we are requesting you to harmonize with our laws, we find a very blanket answer that we are not responsible for the content that goes on the platform. This is the basic flaw now in the legislation that we have had, is providing intermediary liability protection to the social media platforms, absolving them of the content that is placed on that platform, which essentially is the responsibility of the social media company that runs it. So I would say that the parliamentarians who are sitting here to go back and review their legislation and see that we can put more onus on the social media companies to be more responsible with respect to the content. Otherwise, this is going to become very ugly, because I see the temperature of the parliamentarians going up very fast, because the citizens are demanding their online rights to be the same as their offline rights. But the countries are failing to give the guarantee of the online rights to their citizens in the same way that they could or be accountable for their offline rights. So I would say that the countries are now or have crossed that point where they were continuously sending the request to the social media platforms and sitting on those requests, waiting for them to take action. There is a review that is required by the social media companies, and I would request the IGF to put some sense into their heads and make them realize that before the water is actually above the heads, it’s important to review the whole landscape in which we are working. Thank you very much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, Senator from Pakistan. I think it’s a very important point, especially internet as a public good, looking at learning from the unique platform that Pakistan is actually going to establish. The next person I have on the list is Nisar. Nisar, please go ahead.

Nazarius Kirama: I thank you, Jennifer and Celine, for putting this together. My name is Dr. Nisar Nicholas Kirama from Tanzania IGF, and I also serve as the president of the Internet Society Tanzania chapter. Mine is just a very simple proposal in terms of actually actualizing programming of the capacity building. My idea is that everything should now be upside down. They should start from the parliament. For example, the National Assemblies have all these permanent committees on, for example, infrastructure. So my idea is we do the programming for the capacity building, for the awareness within the parliament committees. So when the parliamentarians come to a space like this, instead of actually getting lectures from stakeholders, they start actually lecturing from the point of what they are actually achieving in terms of internet governance from their parliament. So the idea is to have everything anchored and programmed within the permanent committees of the parliament. For example, in Tanzania. we have a permanent committee on infrastructure, so if we are able to anchor this and make it home for the Internet Governance in the Parliament, we will be able to achieve a lot. I’m saying this because if you think about 10 years ago when UNDESA, you know, make the Internet Governance Secretariat a home for it, you know, we’ve been able to achieve a lot. So my proposal is let us institutionalize the programming and programming of the Internet Governance things, I might say, within the Parliament, so when they are doing the policy making and legislating, they are legislating actually from the lenses of Internet Governance. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Nazar, and thank you for sharing the learnings from Tanzania. I think you echo a lot of the things that have been said from Raj, from AAPNIC Foundation, from our Parliamentarian from Germany, as well as Timor-Leste. The next person I have on the list has the mic, please go ahead.

Johannes Vallesverd: Thank you very much. My name is Johannes Wallesward and I’m from the Norwegian regulator. Welcome to Norway. Pleasure to have you here. So I’m just ignited by this fantastic overview that we need to go from talk to action, so I would just mention a couple of actions that you might be interested in, and I’m very interested to hear your reflection afterwards. So in Norway we have created a multi-stakeholder group trying to generate increased trust in digital communications. It’s a national expert group against digital fraud, consisting of police, banks, network operators, and security professionals. So what we’re trying to do is then to do operational measures, so we actually managed to, through the MNOs, put up a digital shield, so to speak, around Norway. Norway, making it almost impossible to spoof Norwegian numbers coming into Norway. So for six months we have blocked, there have been blocked 61 million numbers, mobile numbers. So the reason why I’m saying this is that the whole notion of action, you need to some, one of you explained it here, you need to also do it together with industry. So we have also tried to expand this notion of multilateral, multilateral stakeholder together on a more global level. So we have together with industry, with something called One Consortium, it’s an international carrier industry, we have together created something called GIRAFFE, which is the Global Informal Regulatory Anti-Fraud Forum, I know it’s a long, long word, but it, so we’re trying to, we are now 40 members, 40 participants in the meeting, including from Nigeria, also from Colombia, from the US, from Brazil, we have had participation from, in some of the meetings from Australia. We miss a little bit more of the Asian footprints, so if there are any Asian regulators, please contact me. The goal is to get a global best practice on enhancing digital trust. So I will give you, before I end, I will just give you four of the key elements that have come up, so it can be used either nationally, in your national legislation, or it can be more used internationally for a best practice. So one, regulate. You can regulate, nationally, spoofing. You can regulate taking action against misuse and fraud. You can regulate age limits. Second, KYC, know your customer. You can regulate obligation that you should at least know the customer. Third, trace back. You should have some obligation to provide trace back of fraudulent traffic. Accountability, and also transparency. So we are now in the sort of a pathway where we should maintain freedom of speech. we should not have freedom of fraud. We should put up operational sidebars, so that the good guys know where to go. And the good guys want to go in the right way, but we need to set up the clear path for them, the sidebars. And then we can build up reputation on those who want to follow the best practice, and those who don’t, okay, we’ll never have a perfect world where everybody will follow the best practice, but we could meet at least make it transparent who are following the best practice and who are not. So that’s why we are also, in collaboration with UNODC, try to get there on board to endorse this best practice that we hope we will get ready next year. This is a two-year project, so we are in a hurry, but we are going to try. Thank you very

Jennifer Chung: much, and thank you, of course, for welcoming us to Norway, it’s a beautiful country. I think there was a call to action there about Asian AIPAC colleagues to actually find our Norwegian regulator, and it’s good to know about the global best practice to enhance digital trust. The next person I have on the list is Becky Burr from ICANN.

Becky Burr: Thank you, and thank you for welcoming us to Norway. It’s a beautiful country, and I just want to say what we’re seeing today is a really good example of what’s important about internet governance. ICANN is about coordination, not control. We’re part of the ecosystem, and we work hard to ensure that all of the policymaking that parliamentarians are entitled to do in their country, that all of the regulatory work is informed and has access to the technical information that you need to provide policies that are coordinated and consensus-based, practical and implementable and globally coherent policies. By working together in an environment like the IGF, all of us come together as peers. We then go back to our work, better informed about what everybody else is doing and how the internet works and what we can do to make sure that it stays globally interoperable and resilient. We think that it’s wonderful that there’s this parliamentary track in IGF because you are all very important to maintaining a globally interoperable, not fragmented internet. I think one of the other speakers mentioned that the technical community is available and willing to provide technical input and information whenever you are thinking about regulation lawmaking, please take advantage of the technical resources that are available in your country, in your region, and globally.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Becky. Very important points, ICANN does a lot of the coordination of critical internet resources and it’s really good to hear also another aspect and view from the technical community. Next I’m going to go to Kenneth Pugh, our senator from Chile.

Kenneth Pugh: Thank you, Jennifer, I’m Kenneth Pugh, senator from the Republic of Chile, South America. Why is it important to be sharing our experiences here? Because maybe we face the same problem but different ways. In our country, I started eight years ago at the Senate trying to build a digital transformation agenda. The problem, this was not a political issue. Every march for the digital agenda, there are no votes. My colleagues say, you’re wasting your time. Well, I’m working for the next generation, not for my re-election. And that is very important because this should be a cause. And when we are speaking digitally, we need to secure the environment. So cyber security is actually a very important aspect, but not the traditional definition. It’s a nearly broader definition from data protection to protection of critical infrastructure, protecting the environment, but granting all the rights of the people, taking control of this information, but with digital ethics. We need then to add all these elements all together. So in our experience, and what I want to share with you, is our last seven years. First, we created a law in order to define a month dedicated to these events, taking the good experience of Europe. North America. Cybersecurity Awareness Month, you can call it whatever you want, and a month to update information, threats and everything, they’re changing, but also to force to have exercises, digital exercises, to prevent as you have to face earthquakes, tsunamis, you have to train, and you have to train every year and check that capability. Companies, they use ISO, and they, yes, make check boxes, but they really are not relying on what they did. Second, we create a forum, and a forum in a country is very special because you can have everybody. If we want to have a global governance, we have to first govern our countries and get together all the stakeholders and the meaningful stakeholders, because sometimes there are different levels. One little example of knowledge on Internet, Wikimedia, Wikifoundation with Wikipedia, they are the fifth most used website in the world. They’re trying to get funds from everywhere. If we want to have a system like an Internet without knowledge and proven logic checked, we need to invest in this. So we have to give them time in order to ask the legislators to work. Then having a forum with a platform, you have to have both physically, physical connection, and a platform working, you can get all the feedback you need for public policy. You need a strategy and a plan. What we did, we’re using the university, the model of maturity capabilities of Oxford University, but planning to 15 years. 12 years, it’s good enough. Why we say 12 years? It’s a time that goes from grade 1 to grade 12. So it’s more a political view rather than 5 or 10 years where you cannot really achieve it. What we are working now is to create a coalition of parliamentarians that have digital agendas. Digital agendas are very specific, it’s a lot of knowledge, and we need this parliamentarian bench across our region, and our region is Iberoamerica. That means Spain, we have three colleagues from Spain, Portugal, Brazil, and all Latin American countries. We are 1 billion people all together, and the artificial intelligence, which is now trained with material learning, I hope for good, with models from Anglo-Saxon countries and data from them, they’re not resolving our problem. So we are investing in our own models. Yesterday we were presented with a Nurean solution, it’s in Norwegian, but we are going to try to understand it. But now we’re going to invest in creating models that can solve our problems. So we need to have this as part of our national strategy, build it, then make the coalition. We would like to work with all the parliamentarians with the digital agendas, that they really will be focused with knowledge on this, and to have this bench, to have it at the higher level. Global level is much more difficult, and that’s something we’re living for United Nations, but as I said, it’s good to share the experiences and to see what’s working, what’s not working. In Chile, my colleagues call me the cyber senator, because I’m always involved in this issue. I hope there will be many of you then in the same public policy way. Thank you very much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, legislator from Chile. The next I have on the list is legislator, member of parliament from Romania, please.

Laura Gerasim: Hello everybody, thank you for having us here. My name is Laura Gerasim, I’m member of the Romanian parliament, and I’m speaking today not only as a member of a parliament, but mother of a 16 years old daughter, and of a 24 years old son, that they are using all the gadget, and everything you prepare here, or in your countries, and I also want to tell you something. I’m the president, I’m the chairperson of the committee on investigation of abuses, corruptions, and petitions. And it is where the voice of the citizens arrive, where the voice of the institutions close. And I think here we are all together because of the values, and I want to remember you, these kind of values, the freedom of speech, the freedom to have the plane and arrive here, to bring our culture, our problems, our worries. So please, use this platform to promote peace, because if we have it online, we can keep it also offline. It is important to also have critical thinking, to have education for critical thinking, and to be sure that all together we use the algorithm for the people and not the people for the algorithm. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much for the learnings from Romania. Good reminder that we need to use this for peace. Again, you know, quoting from someone that I know, the internet is a reflection of the society, and we need to have that also. The next person I have on the list is our justice from Egypt. Justice Adel Majid.

Adel ElMessiry: Thank you. As a matter of fact, I’ve been hearing your nice comments, all of you, and I can find that there are some specific issues representatives are focusing on, like hate speech, respecting human rights, freedom of speech, this issue, and strengthening international cooperation. And I’m going to ask you, as a panel, and other stakeholders and parliamentary representatives, we have a legal framework which is organizing everything. We have many resolutions by the UN General Assembly on internet, on digital information, on cyber crimes, and most of these resolutions refer to international cooperation and ask states to strengthen international cooperation between them and ask developed countries to assist developing countries in issue of capacity building because you can’t engage international cooperation unless you have capacity for this. Recently, last December, the UN have adopted the United Nations Convention Against Cyber Crimes. One of the goals of this convention is to strengthen cooperation between states to combat cyber crimes committed by means of communications and technologies. And then, as I mentioned before, it’s repeat and repeat, please, international cooperation. So while I’m attending the forum, as a matter of fact, I didn’t hear about this legal framework, the UN legal framework, that is, I am not saying it is obligatory, sometimes it’s obligatory after states sign the treaties or conventions, but why we don’t use this legal framework as a base for our work, for our cooperation? And I’m putting this comment as a question to everybody. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much. This is from Egypt, and it’s really important to remember we do have treaties and legal frameworks, especially the ones that would strengthen cooperation between states, especially regarding cyber crime, very, very important. The next person I have on the list, yes, right in the front there.

Jekaterina Rojaka: Thank you very much. Ekaterina Rayakova, Lithuanian Parliament. Well, there was a very good mention about the Committees of the Future. We also have the Committee for the Future, so we do collaborate with the stakeholders on a pretty much weekly basis, raising all the issues, all the questions, however, I’m also heading a committee for suicide and violence prevention, and I just want to talk about the dual standards, where legislation is already put in, but there are kind of dual standards regarding what social networks can do and what they can’t do, because every single time when we are on the open parliament session on YouTube, when we start our session, we name the name of the committee, and they block us, because it’s suicide, so it’s out of the range. Then, of course, they reinstall, but there are so many harmful YouTube roles that are not stopped, and again, we have quite a lot of accidents, and just very recently, we have two lives lost because of the harmful TikTok challenges in Lithuania, so it is definitely important, what a colleague from Armenia told about the critical thinking, but again, the critical thinking, and this is the part of the program which is already fully integrated in our schools, and unfortunately, there is still a rise of addiction, also because the younger children could access restricted things via internet, unfortunately, and there are also quite bad statistics regarding the effect on the children, so unfortunately, I very much believe in the business, and the responsibility of the business, however, nowadays, I see that there is definitely a lack of mechanism that is really working, because the longer we are looking for this balance, the harsher the response would be from the government, and we are talking now further regarding the hash taxation of the platforms, or the total responsibility on the content, so we definitely need to make it clearer, and we make it now, and also to make it more globally, because even a national response wouldn’t be enough, we definitely need it regional, and we definitely need it global. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, yes, there’s always this balance we need to strike, and I think it’s important from the parliamentarians, those who are looking at this, to actually figure this out, the balance between child protection and online harms, and also in enabling enriching environment, where you can have knowledge, and you can use this technology and network of networks for good. Next on my list, I have a representative from AFRICIG, is it Peace?

Peace Oliver Amuge: Yes, Peace, please. Thanks very much for the mic. My name is Peace Olivamu. and I work for the Association for Progressive Communications, that in partnership with the research ICT Africa and African Union, brings together the school on Internet governance, African School on Internet Governance, AFRICIC. And I will briefly say that this is a very impactful project that I have worked on in my life and I’m very proud to share how impactful it is. We work in collaborations with the parliamentary track, with other partners that support the school, like GIZ, Luminate, ISOC, ICANN, PRR, Identical Digital and host governments whenever the Africa IGF is happening. And through the parliamentary track, since 2003 until now, those are three years, we’ve had over 40 members of parliament come to AFRICIC. So it’s really something great. And when you, like in this room, we have very many AFRICIC alumni members of parliament that have continued to meaningfully engage in the space. And not only at Africa, I mean at global IGF, but also at Africa IGF, at sub-regional IGF and national IGF. So I think this is a great way to build capacity of members of parliament and ensure that they can meaningfully engage in conversations of IGF and yeah, make meaningful contributions in their different parliament. We only don’t bring members of parliament, of course, we have other stakeholder groups that come and some of the outputs that we have, all the output that we have are really resourceful tools that different stakeholders can use for policies and the rest. In 2023, 2022 first, we had a recommendation to the open-ended working group on cybersecurity and we were giving out recommendations from the African perspective. In 2023, we made a recommendation, a multi-stakeholder recommendation to the implementation of African Union data policy framework. In 2024, our output looked at the African Union data framework and African continent of free trade area digital protocol. And we also gave recommendations to its implementation, we looked at the two documents. And this year, we are finalizing on our output that is giving a recommendation to the CSTD working group on data governance. So this is something that can be replicated in other regions and I just want to call out on anyone who is interested to support such initiatives and we are very grateful to the parliamentary track. We are very committed to continue to do this and have members of parliament join the school and interact and engage with the different stakeholders that join the school. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, Peace. You brought together a very important point as well, capacity building, especially in the schools of Internet governance. I know Africa region is doing a lot of very good work. I know Latin America has the South School of Internet Governance as well that does a lot of work for parliamentarians. In Asia Pacific, there is also AP SIG and APIGA as well. The next person I have on the list is from Bahrain, the Shura Council. Please.

Munir Ibrahim Suroor: Hi. Assalamu alaikum. My name is Munir Surur. I am from Bahrain Kingdom, a member in the Parliament of Bahrain. I have some notes I would like to share with you. We all recognize that the digital world is shared space. When will the government, the private sectors, civil society and academia must work together? The more we build. bridge between these sectors, the great capacity will be promoted and will be inclusive growth and address common challenges. Based on our legislative and oversight experience, I believe we can focus on three areas. First, we need to develop new legal frameworks by developing flexible and supportive legislation that promote the exchanging of data and best practice, while ensuring privacy and respect the surfacing thing. Number two, investing in human capacity. Provide the detailed skills and capacity, build a program to bridge the knowledge gap across regions and the stakeholders’ groups. Number three, establish sustainable coordination mechanism by creating permanent platforms for dialogues and follow-up between countries and organizations to ensure country and measurable progress. Allow me also to highlight what Kingdom Bahrain is doing in this field. Bahrain has made significant progress in creating an inclusive digital ecosystem that supports innovation and collaboration. Our national strategy such as the Economic Vision 2030 and National Communication Plan have accelerated digital transformation across all sectors. Furthermore, Bahrain was one of the first countries in the region that introduced cloud first place policy to public sector service, braving the way we create openness and cross borders partner. Additionally, Bahrain has invested heavily in the capacity building through initiatives like Bahrain Institute of Finance and Temkin programs, which support youth and professionals in acquiring advanced digital skills. These efforts have strengthened cooperation between public and private sectors and enhanced regional partnership and supporting start-up ecosystem to integrate into international network. Some practical recommendations I would like to recommend. Supporting cross-border digital partnership between public, private and civil society sectors. Sharing successful initiative across region to scale up solution that work. Launching dedicated fund and a partnership to support innovation and local digital internships, especially in under-revered community. In closing, strengthening digital collaboration across region and stakeholder group is not only shared responsibility, it is real opportunity to achieve sustainable and inclusive digital development to everyone. And then I have question, if you allow me, how we can leverage our experience to encourage deeper region collaboration and ensure that country across the Gulf and Middle East can equally benefit from this achievement. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, learnings from Bahrain and that call there for deeper regional collaboration. And I’ll take that initiative to also call for deeper inter-regional and international cooperation as well. I do have, one, two, three, four, I have eight more on my list so far, but before I go to the next eight speakers, I’m just wondering if we do have anybody from open AI in the room. I’m not seeing any. And in that case, I’d like to go next to UNESCO. Hello, everyone.

Guilherme Canela: Good afternoon. My name is Guilherme Canela. I’m the Director for Digital Policies and Transformation at UNESCO. But for many years, I was the Head of Freedom of Expression and Safety of Journalists, so connecting these two worlds. So very briefly, three things that can contribute to the action part of the title. We have a joint agreement with the Inter-Parliamentarian Union, precisely to offer to MPs all over the world this overview of the international standards on freedom of expression applied to these different discussions we have here today. And there are some good news there. Last year, we launched a massive online course with the Inter-Parliamentarian Union. 3,300 parliamentarians and their staff did the course from 180 countries. So the first good news is that, as you can see here, there’s lots of interest. Second important point, we can’t forget about the staff of the parliaments, because parliamentarians rotate a lot, is the logic of democracy, but their staff remains. So they also need to receive capacity building, and they are very much interested on that. And the third lesson learned, in many countries, there are schools of parliamentarians, official institutes, and we need to engage them in this conversation as well. And all those things were very much part of this initiative with the IPU. With also with IPU, we are offering some technical support for parliaments that are drafting legislation about these issues, with the aim of guaranteeing that this draft legislation is aligned with international human rights law. So this is the first thing. Second thing, cross-fertilization between the different duty bearers. UNESCO also has a big program for training judges and prosecutors, just from Egypt, Egypt just mentioned the importance of this. We have trained 36,000 judges and prosecutors on these issues, and we are putting them in touch with the parliamentarians, because some of the questions. are similar, and we also have a global program for regulators, and also with UNDP, with electoral authorities. So, putting all these different players together is essential because the problem is too complex to solve it alone. And the final issue, as a suggestion for the action, we also work a lot with women parliamentarians, which are particularly and unfortunately targeted with this current situation, technologically facilitated gender-based violence and so on. And there are several lessons learned from other constituencies. For example, the women journalists are also very much attacked, and there are different tools available out there that could be shared among those different groups. So, from UNESCO, obviously, always ready to help. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, UNESCO. Very important points, especially when we’re looking at capacity building for parliamentarians, their staff, their aides, and also schools for parliamentarians, especially pointing out women parliamentarians. I think the next person I have is right in the middle of the room here. Yes.

Sarah Lister: Hi, I’m Sarah Lister. I’m Director of Governance at UNDP. So, it’s a good segue from my dear colleague Guilherme at UNESCO, and I will just add a few things to what he said in terms of what the UN system is doing to move from dialogue to action. So, UNDP supports parliaments in our partner countries on many of the issues that we’re talking about today in their digital and AI transformation, and we coordinate our support offer with other international actors, such as UNESCO, IPU, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and others. And so, we work alongside those in supporting knowledge development, training, capacity building, peer expert networking, cooperation, and practical tools for regulation, oversight, and public engagement on these issues. And UNDP, together with IPU, co-hosts an expert group on parliamentary and digital policy to support this work. So, I wanted to bring that to the attention of those in the room, and it serves as a global platform for parliamentarians, parliamentary staff, whom Guilherme mentioned, academics, and representatives from international organizations to exchange information on these issues, share good practices, and develop resources jointly. And we are joined in that expert group with representatives from other organizations, CPA, IGF, Parl America, and others. And in that light, just to highlight that UNDP is planning, together with CPA and IPU, a conference on the role of parliament in shaping the future of responsible AI, to be held at the end of November in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. So, we’re expected to bring together parliamentarians from across regions and parliamentary staff to further that conversation on parliamentarians and responsible AI. So, I’m participating in another session tomorrow, this is a bit of a PR slot at 2.45 where we’ll be talking about some of the lessons from that engagement. Thank you very much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much UNDP, UNESCO and UNDP, very good work that you do with the IPU and I think the call to action there is to go to this conference that’s shaping the responsibility of AI in Kuala Lumpur. Okay, the next person I have on the list is Sean Maher from EY, right in the middle of the room.

Sean Maher: Thank you Jennifer and Celine for inviting EY to be here. Hello everyone, my name is Sean Maher, I’m the Global Vice Chair of Public Policy for EY, we’re a large global professional services organization. I am not a parliamentarian, I am not a former parliamentarian, however, I have worked for former parliamentarians in the federal government of the United States, as well as for a former president, and one of our finest but least known former parliamentarians was a gentleman named Morris Udall from Arizona, and he was known for his patience and he would often be among the last speakers in a very long meeting of his fellow parliamentarians, and he would stand up and he would say, everything has been said, but not everybody has said it. And then he would proceed to make his statement, touching on the comments of his various colleagues. So in that spirit. Jennifer, you’ve challenged us to think about practical steps that we can take to advance digital cooperation, and we at EY have thought and think a lot about that issue. And I would just make a couple of high-level observations. One is trust is the foundation of digital cooperation. And trust has two ingredients. One is communication. And forums like this play such an important role in advancing communication and understanding among all stakeholders in the digital ecosystem. The other is verification. And I don’t know if we have anyone in the room who speaks Russian, but I want to apologize because I’m about to butcher your wonderful language. But the saying that comes to mind is trust but verify. And that really goes to the heart, I think, of the challenge we all face, regardless of whether we’re in the public sector, the private sector, the nongovernmental space. How do we verify that the AI and other technologies, systems that we’re developing, we’re deploying, we’re using every day, how do we verify that those systems are as we say they are or as we believe them to be, that they’re safe, that they’re effective, that they’re reliable? That’s a critical, critical issue that requires the work of all of us across society. We, as I say, spend a lot of time thinking about this. We believe there are practical steps that are being taken today that can continue to be taken in an expanded way. way to build trust in the technologies that are playing an increasing role in all of our lives. The foundation of our organization is audit, auditing companies, auditing governments. This is a foundational principle. So the technology that we see today does not have to be in a black box. It doesn’t have to be something that’s not comprehensible to us. We have the ability to understand it, to make sure it is properly governed, to make sure it complies with any applicable rules and regulations, and to make sure it is effective for the purposes that it’s created. We would welcome an opportunity to talk with you more about some of the work we’re doing in this area. But again, my thanks to all of you for everything you’re doing here at the IGF, in your home countries and around the world.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, Sean, reminding us trust is the foundation of the dual cooperation. Next on the list, I have Senator Salisu from Nigeria.

Shuaib Afolabi Salisu: Thank you. My name is Senator Shoeba Falabe Salisu from Nigeria. I chair the Nigerian Senate Committee on ICT and Cybersecurity, and I’m also the chairman of the West African Parliamentarians Network on Internet Governance. I’d like to speak to three issues very quickly. First one is an appreciation, the second is an observation, and the third is a request. Let me start with the appreciation. I’d like to appreciate the IGF Secretariat, particularly for this year’s edition of the parliamentarian track. You could see how engaged the parliamentarians are, because the issues that we are discussing are issues that are very important to us, and I could see that. I would like to thank the IGF for this, and we must also thank the UNDP, UNESCO, IPU, ICANN on to the table, so I would like to start on a note of our presentation. Now moving to observation, I discovered that almost all the issues I talked about in my presentation are related to the IGF, so I would like to start on a note of our presentation. Discovered that almost all the issues are the same, particularly in the global south, from Malaysia to Pakistan to Mauritius, even Romania, the issues seem to be the same, the challenges of making laws, the laws that are more often than not trailing behind the development and also trying to hold the social media big giants accountable. Be that as it may, how comforting will it have been if you have a US senator, a congressman sit with us, listening to us as we express frustrations, as Romania, as Philippines, experience frustrations, also the roles and worth the big tech companies, who are largely US companies, are doing in terms of not respecting national laws, national values, and helping us to address the issues of disinformation and misinformation. I think it would be nice for the next IGF, for the IGF sectariat, the same way we have senators from Europe, from Romania, from Africa, from Asia, to also have parliamentarians from the US to sit with us, so perhaps they can share their thoughts and views as to how they have been able to have legislations or moral solutions to ensure that the the big tech companies, the same algorithm, the same accountability that they have in their home countries, they also extend it when they come to other parts of the world. Lastly, the request. I have listened in the last two days to some very innovative and very creative means that parliamentarians from different parts over the world have adopted. I’m making a request on the IGF sectariat. Can we have a portal, a platform, where we could go and have a glimpse of some of this? Where I can go and say, well, I am about to lead an effort to have a cyber crime act in Nigeria amendment. Is there anyone who has done something similar that can share views and materials with me? Or, oh, we’re looking at amending the Data Protection Act. Is that something new that we need to incorporate from the recently adopted UN conventions? I think we need such a forum beyond the conversation that we have here, something that can go on on a regular basis. Do peer review, share information, put inside there, and then have these conversations, not just within the period of the IGF alone, but on a long-term basis, even when we return back to our various parliament. Again, I’d like to thank the IGF sectariat for this opportunity, and I bring you the best wishes and goodwill of the government and people of Nigeria.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, Senator El-Solisu from Nigeria. I think IGF sectariat hears you loud and clear. We’ll probably try to take that proposal forward as well. Next, I have Amira Saber from Egypt.

Amira Saber: Thank you so much. I am a member of parliament, Amira Saber from Egypt, and it brings to my mind this kind of important dialogue, several tips, actually. Whenever in Egypt we have a kind of a grant, or… alone, I’m very keen to scrutinize on the topic of exchanging experiences because sometimes we just have the experts coming from the UNDP, coming from whatever UN agency, they consult, but the amount of knowledge and experience that needs to be transmitted, it doesn’t happen unless there is a certain track for transmitting this digital cooperation to national entities and parties inside Egypt. One other important thing is the experience which we had at APNIC. APNIC is a network, it is the African Parliamentary Network on Internet Governance and this network is adding a lot to the African parliamentarians in terms of digital cooperation to see what really works in a country and what could possibly work in another and when it comes to the role of legislators, was it to put a legislation on the table or to scrutinize the budget or to ask the government and held them accountable for whatever topic related to internet connectivity, AI, any related topic, the experience exchange is extremely important, especially for legislation. I introduced the first draft bill to the Egyptian Parliament on AI governance and I learned a lot from the space which had the EU Act, which had another contributions from diversified and different parliamentarians from Africa and somewhere else in the world. So what I suggest here clearly is that we meet from one year to another at the IGF. I suggest that all across the year, away from the African IGF to or whatever other group of the IGF, the parliamentary track could have from time to time sessions that talk to the UN agencies, that talk to the experts, that brings all the stakeholders together and also we could have a room for exchange of experiences along with other MPs. All the time it’s about the knowledge gap, all the time it’s about the exchange of experiences and how much of them could be inspiring others to move and to act. I think this could cross the divide in a way or another. Thank you. Thank you

Jennifer Chung: very much. The learnings from the Africa region and Egypt, I think that’s really important to actually attire closer, not just at the global IGF but the regional schools, the regional IGFs, even the national IGFs. I think I have a very quick response from the IPU to the senator from Nigeria, IPU.

Speaker 1: Just a quick response. Thank you very much. And yes, taking good note of the observation and request from the member of parliament from Nigeria for ongoing exchange of information, what are different parliaments doing on these subjects we’re discussing? So one of the initiatives at the IPU at the moment is to publish a monthly summary of parliamentary actions on AI policy. So we try to observe and report on which parliaments are taking different kinds of actions, whether that’s introducing legislation, carrying out committee reports and inquiries, so that different parliaments can see what their peers are doing and can help to make contact and to learn from each other, as we do in this kind of forum, but also in other ways. And so what we’re observing is that many parliaments, currently 37 parliaments are listed. Many parliaments are considering framework legislation, but other parliaments are setting up specialized institutes on AI. Sometimes it’s the education committee carrying out an inquiry or the health committee, et cetera. There are many types of parliamentary actions, and it’s part of our job to help to share that information and help you connect to each other. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, IPU. And from IPU, I have, next, going to European Parliament, Brando Benifei. European Parliament, please.

Brando Benifei: Yes, thank you very much for this opportunity. I think that this topic is extremely relevant. We see from the different interventions. And I would like to underline that we are now, in this moment, as European Union, trying to do some very special and very important work, and we will see from your interpretation and also the word interpretation that we will see multiple interventions that will be able to enact an event for when the European Union becomes Committee Member. So, yes, Moderator. I think we discuss a lot of issues here about proprietarian governments and pro-European governments I’m a member of the European Parliament, and I’m the co-chair of the European Parliament, which is a multi-stakeholder process in this sense, so on the involvement of stakeholder groups, but also across regions, which is the work based on the AI Act of which I was the lead negotiator for the European Parliament, which is the code of practice, which is being developed with a multi-stakeholder discussion in the EU, and also with the European Parliament, and also with the European Parliament and the EU at all, that are contributing to, and in fact we are in the final phase on these code for how to operationalise the obligations of the AI Act for the most powerful models, the ones we define as bearing systemic risks, because of their role in the EU, and also in the European Parliament, and also in the European Parliament, and also in the EU at all. So this is the first case of rules that are the fruit of a co-legislative process regarding this specific very high level of the AI, the one that is, in fact, the engine of everything today. And this entails also the need to actually have, and I say that as a guarantee that these authors should be perhaps regulated, because the truth is that institutions have difficulty in checking that we actually can apply these rules on such complex entities, like very powerful big tech companies, that are behind these very powerful models. very powerful models. the objective of this regulating is in fact to put more transparency and more obligations to reduce risks on those very powerful subjects. On the other hand we do need their cooperation because to make this operational and to avoid a situation of extreme confrontation but rather of cooperation in the way we implement the rules we need to have this dialogue and in fact their active involvement which was there in the development of the code of practice. This has brought two different results I can say as a parliamentarian who chairs the implementation working group of the AI Act that there are stronger and in our view I know I can speak on this in the name of the working group we have a clear position a better in our view result in terms of defending fundamental rights so reducing risks on fundamental rights including damage to democracy through the very powerful models. While we could say that on copyright protection and downstream transparency so from the larger providers to the various deployers that are under the original providers until we reach to the actual affected user on this part of transparency some of us could say we could get more but in the end we are finalizing that that’s going to be real at the beginning of August and I think it will become obviously an interesting element to discuss how we regulate the most powerful models but also and I conclude and this was the reason of my intervention the way we did it because it’s a co-legislative multi-stakeholder in fact involving people from outside Europe in this work that is very unique. If it will be effective, we will see. But the reasoning is the one I explained, the very strong difficulty that we need always to reflect on, on containing and controlling in a way that is effective, very powerful actors that are exercising a state-like power sometimes, even though they are not. And the institutions, sometimes they need to find a way so that they can be brought into a process and then can be more transparently checked. Thank you very much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, European Parliament, noting our time is really coming to an end very, very soon. I have four last speakers on my list. I will tell you who they are so you are ready to take the mic. Next, I’m gonna go to RIPE NCC, Desiree in the front. After that, I will come to Africa Union. After African Union, I will come to CIPESA. I think that’s Lillian. And our last speaker will come from UNECA. Desiree, please.

Desiree Milosevic: Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Desiree Milosevic. I’m a RIPE Corporation Working Group Co-Chair and the RIPE NCC provides the secretariat for the RIPE technical community. And I’m really pleased to see such a big room with a lot of discussion, very useful discussion, just introduce the RIPE NCC as a technical coordination body, whose work plays an important and essential role in maintaining the resilient and robust internet. And we do that with registering IP addresses and other key resources and also doing the registration of these resources throughout Europe, throughout the Middle East, and the part of Central Asia. And the work of NCC contributes directly to the sustainable digital goals as well as the WSIS action lines by helping connect the unconnected. And we work with many stakeholders, including governments and parliamentarians to help them realize and build some capacity building for this important foundation that we run, which powers then all the digital services that run on this foundation, be it artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and all the applications and platform. And with our capacity building efforts, we are not just doing the capacity building by involving other stakeholders, but also in upskilling engineers in these regions. So that is a part of our contribution. I think the other thing I would like to say that perhaps today when we look at the Internet Governance Forum, which is the premier platform for internet governance discussion, it is important to recognize that it has this record and has achieved a record of inclusive dialogue. And I believe this is what we need to come here together with tools and trust, the colleague earlier said from EU, and the time to share our expertise together and to support, to invest in our shared policymaking platform as we hear today and hopefully also continue with these efforts. So because of the time, I think I will stop here and please stop by and we’re happy to continue our conversation with the UIP and the RIPE NCC is a member of the European Internet Platform. So these discussions are also taken back within European Union and likewise, there are governmental roundtables in Southeastern Europe, in the Middle East, and parts of Central Asia. So we really welcome the opportunity to talk to you. Thank you.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you, Desiree, for highlighting all the good work that RIPE NCC is doing and please do to grab Desiree afterwards if you have any more questions. I’m gonna come to the front now to African Union from Adil Suleiman. Thank you.

Adil Suleiman: Thank you very much. I’m going to speak on behalf of the African Union and APNIC, the African Parliamentary Network. When we established this network in 2022, we were very nervous, we want the network to survive, so we focused on two elements. We focused on making sure that it’s a part of the African IGF, we have a fixed track on African IGF since 2022, and then we provided also capacity building, but it’s not sustained capacity building, it was like a couple of session on capacity building. We, thanks to, by the way, thanks to the support we received from UNDESA and also GIZ, but now we want to go to the next level. We are responsible for developing continental policy, digital continental policy, and we want our African parliamentarian to be part of this policy, actually policy development, policy adoption, policy implementation, policy domestication. Today we rely on our member state to nominate candidate, and most of the time they are not parliamentarians, so we want to make sure that parliamentarian are incorporated in the policy development cycle within the African Union Commission. I think this is very important, it’s a very concrete proposal, and we also want our parliamentarian. to receive continuous training. I think it was mentioned all the time that they need continuous training. As I said, we are working with GIZ to get parliamentarians to participate in the African IGF, the UN IGF, but also now, thanks to our collaboration with the EU, we have a new program called PRIDA, which is Policy Regulation Initiative for Digital Africa, aimed at providing capacity building for youth, parliamentarians, established national IGF, and so forth. So we want to make sure that also they receive sustained capacity building, because you know the environment is very dynamic, and it is important that they receive, so that they can be also part of the policy development. Then also, we are very limited in terms of resources. We want to make sure that also during the UN processes, our parliamentarian can be part of this negotiation. We know that we have staff in New York, but we want to make sure that they get complemented by our parliamentarian at their work, so that they can provide guidance and advice. And I think finally, I was also to echo the comments from the honourable parliamentarian from Nigeria. I think it’s important to have a platform where parliamentarians from all over the world, they come together and exchange knowledge, expertise, what works, what doesn’t work. So it’s very important. So I think now we are doing it throughout the African IGF, the UN IGF, but I think it’s important to have this separate track, where all the parliamentarian meet and then exchange expertise. Thank you very much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, African Union. We have our final two speakers, and of course, thank you, Tech, for indulging us for a few more minutes. We’re running a little over. Last two speakers, we have one from, I think it’s Lilian from CIPESA, if you could be a little brief with your remarks.

Lillian Nalwoga: Thank you. Thank you so much, Jennifer. I feel I’m under pressure, because I’m holding you between now and the next session. My name is Lilian Naroga, based in Kampala, Uganda, and I work with CIPESA, which is the Collaboration on International ICT Policy for Eastern and Southern Africa. We are a non-government organization. We work around advocating for digital policies, inclusive digital policymaking within Africa, and our work on the parliamentary track, we’ve been engaging with parliamentarians within Uganda and in East Africa, mainly on the issue of digital policymaking, and I’m happy to hear APRINIC being mentioned, because I think one of the key recommendations that came from APRINIC is to strengthen national processes, and in Uganda, we have a member of parliament who is part of APRINIC, who went ahead and registered the Uganda Parliamentary Internet Governance Forum, and it consists of 31 members. They are very active, and this year, when we held the Uganda Internet Governance Forum, the Uganda Parliamentary Forum was launched officially by the Parliament of Uganda, and we had the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, and the Minister were happy to launch this forum. So, in terms of collaborating, the key message that perhaps I can put out to parliamentarians within this meeting is, we listen to so much, we come, we have conversations at these processes, but when we go back home, we should be able to concretize and take action, and this is what we are seeing happening in Africa, and I think maybe in terms of collaborations, even if we don’t know what’s going to happen to the IGF after this, but these processes that have been established need to be able to provide input. So, if there’s APRINIC in Africa, maybe there should be something in, you know, there’s, I think, Eurodig or, you know, other kind of, you know, processes. So, our work has mainly been around capacity building, and with support from GIZ, we currently are working at the East Africa community level, pushing for the adoption of an East Africa digital governance strategy, and we are working, we are training, working with members of parliament from the East Africa Legislative Assembly in being able to understand the policies, because one of the things is, members keep changing, members of parliament keep changing, and this year we have elections in Uganda, we don’t know if the same members will come, but when we target at institutional level, working directly with institutions like, say, the Ugandan Parliament or the East African Legislative Assembly, then you know there will be continuity. So, that’s the key message that I wanted to share from what we are doing within East Africa, and thank you so much.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, Liliane, for sharing. It’s really good work, again, there, coming from the Africa region. Our final speaker, the last word, we do have UNECA, I believe this intervention will be done in French.

Mactar Seck: Give me to speak in French, it’s okay. My name is Dr. Magata Sek, I’m the Chief of Technology and Innovation at United Nations. Commission for Africa. Let me highlight some key activity undertaken by UNECA. I’m going to do it in French. Qu’est-ce que nous avons remarqué au niveau du continent africain? Les parlementaires ont un rôle important au niveau de l’élaboration des lois politiques et règlements au niveau de leur pays, surtout en matière de technologie de l’information et de la communication. Et ceci, ce n’est pas seulement en Afrique, c’est dans tous les pays du monde. C’est le rôle du parlementaire de voter les lois, de les examiner, de faire des amendements. Le problème qui se pose en Afrique, c’est que nos parlementaires ne sont pas bien formés avec le développement rapide de ces technologies de l’information. On parle d’emerging technologies, frontières technologies, on parle d’intelligence artificielle, on parle d’internet des objets, on parle de nanotechnologies, de biotechnologies, on va parler aussi de quantum technologies plus tard. Comment outiller nos parlementaires? On vient ici et nous avons un programme de capacity building, de renforcement des capacités de ces parlementaires africains. Comment on renforce leurs capacités? On a des modules de formation sur ces technologies, AI, blockchain, comment on peut développer les policiers et aussi des guidelines pour les parlementaires pour pouvoir adopter les politiques en matière de la stratégie nationale, en matière de la technologie de l’information. Plusieurs parlementaires en ont bénéficié. On a organisé récemment durant African IGF en Tanzanie un cours sur l’intelligence artificielle politique et aussi à Cotonou. Je vous rappelle que ICI also gère l’African Internet Governance Forum Secretariat avec l’Union africaine. Une autre activité, je pense que l’honorable délégué de l’MP de Nigeria, it is knowledge-sharing. We are developing now a knowledge-sharing platform to share experience and best practices across the continent and across other regions. What is the best rule and regulation in terms of technology? How a country like America, Latin America, or Europe find a solution for the dis- and misinformation? And why we are going to now to develop a strategy, African strategy guideline for mis- and disinformation, because it is a big challenge across the continent. Also, we are going to work with several African countries to develop a platform for dis- and misinformation to exchange all information, all best practices across this policy. It is what we are doing now at UNECA, and I think before I conclude, I would like to congratulate Celine for the successful organization of this African parliamentary track, and congratulations, and well done. Thanks.

Jennifer Chung: Thank you very much, UNECA. I think you should give yourselves a big round of applause. There’s a very good best practices shared, resources shared. I think we heard that trust is the foundation of digital cooperation. I hear, you know, we need to address power imbalances. I hear so many things. Conversation is here. It’s here in the IGF. It’s here in this room, in the corridors. I hope you take advantage of all of this. I’ve been asked to do a little bit of housekeeping as well. We will be meeting again at half past for the final session of the day, but there is coffee break right now. IGF Secretariat has been very diligently gathering all the information that we heard during the session, and I believe they will be distributing and circulating all these resources to all of you. Thank you very much. ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

Olaf Kolkman

Speech speed

123 words per minute

Speech length

298 words

Speech time

144 seconds

National and regional IGFs serve as collection points for norming and operationalizing solutions that can be shared globally

Explanation

Kolkman argues that national and regional IGFs function as a ‘flying wheel’ where ideas and new norms are discussed, tested at local levels, and then brought back to regional and global levels. This creates a cycle where solutions that work locally can inspire other places globally.

Evidence

Internet Society has been funding and enabling training of national and regional IGFs throughout their existence

Major discussion point

Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Governance Mechanisms

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Agreed with

– Raul Echeberria
– Anna Luhrmann
– Rodrigo Goni
– Johannes Vallesverd
– Jennifer Chung

Agreed on

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for effective digital governance

Abel Pires da Silva

Speech speed

138 words per minute

Speech length

426 words

Speech time

185 seconds

Need specific working groups on AI, data privacy, and misinformation to improve multi-stakeholder collaboration despite conflicting interests

Explanation

Da Silva proposes creating dedicated working groups for specific issues like AI, data privacy, and misinformation to facilitate collaboration among stakeholders with different backgrounds and sometimes conflicting interests. This would provide a structured mechanism for honest discussion of key digital governance issues.

Evidence

Examples of diverse stakeholders present including Google, big tech corporates, academics, governments, and NGOs with different interests

Major discussion point

Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Governance Mechanisms

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Need to enhance parliamentary capacity for digital policy-making, especially in developing countries

Explanation

Da Silva emphasizes that developing countries like Timor-Leste have very limited capacity compared to Western Hemisphere countries that have more advanced capacity to develop their own legal frameworks. Enhanced capacity building would help evaluate and plan development of digital governance capabilities.

Evidence

Disagreed with

– Brando Benifei
– Sean Maher

Disagreed on

Approach to AI governance and transparency

Raul Echeberria

Speech speed

141 words per minute

Speech length

433 words

Speech time

183 seconds

Multi-stakeholder model allows maximizing consensus opportunities, unlike traditional politics based on majority construction

Explanation

Echeberria explains that the internet community is accustomed to working hard to achieve the best possible consensus, while traditional political systems work differently by constructing majorities. He suggests bringing these two cultures together to produce better results.

Evidence

Latin American Internet Association’s experience working with policymakers and organizing meetings with 30 parliamentarians from the region

Major discussion point

Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Governance Mechanisms

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Agreed with

– Olaf Kolkman
– Anna Luhrmann
– Rodrigo Goni
– Johannes Vallesverd
– Jennifer Chung

Agreed on

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for effective digital governance

Disagreed with

– Rodrigo Goni
– Anna Luhrmann

Disagreed on

Multi-stakeholder governance implementation approaches

Anna Luhrmann

Speech speed

156 words per minute

Speech length

414 words

Speech time

158 seconds

Multi-stakeholder processes need to address power imbalances between big tech companies and national governments

Explanation

Luhrmann argues that the fundamental problem is that actual power in the internet currently resides with big tech companies that have quasi-monopolies, while parliamentarians and national governments lack power in this system. She advocates for using IGF and cross-border parliamentary cooperation to address this issue.

Evidence

Reference to colleague from Kenya’s plea about power dynamics and big tech companies threatening to leave or use other tactics against national governments

Major discussion point

Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Governance Mechanisms

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Agreed with

– Olaf Kolkman
– Raul Echeberria
– Rodrigo Goni
– Johannes Vallesverd
– Jennifer Chung

Agreed on

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for effective digital governance

Disagreed with

– Raul Echeberria
– Rodrigo Goni

Disagreed on

Multi-stakeholder governance implementation approaches

Big tech companies threaten to leave or withdraw services when faced with national regulations

Explanation

Luhrmann describes how big tech companies use threatening tactics against national governments and parliaments, including threats to leave, not provide services, or not pay taxes. This demonstrates the power imbalance that needs to be addressed while preserving internet technology and freedom of speech.

Evidence

Examples of companies threatening to leave, threatening not to have a service, threatening not to pay taxes

Major discussion point

Platform Accountability and Content Governance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Agreed with

– Anusha Rahman
– Jekaterina Rojaka

Agreed on

Platform accountability and content governance need improvement

Disagreed with

– Anusha Rahman
– Jekaterina Rojaka

Disagreed on

Platform accountability and content responsibility approaches

Rodrigo Goni

Speech speed

103 words per minute

Speech length

341 words

Speech time

197 seconds

Future committees in parliaments practice multi-stakeholder governance and overcome left-right dichotomies

Explanation

Goni proposes that parliaments establish ‘future committees’ that practice multi-stakeholder approaches and early governance models. These committees allow overcoming traditional left-right political divisions because digital issues demand and allow for this different approach.

Evidence

Uruguay’s experience with future committees and mention that other parliaments worldwide are implementing this model

Major discussion point

Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Governance Mechanisms

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Agreed with

– Olaf Kolkman
– Raul Echeberria
– Anna Luhrmann
– Johannes Vallesverd
– Jennifer Chung

Agreed on

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for effective digital governance

Disagreed with

– Raul Echeberria
– Anna Luhrmann

Disagreed on

Multi-stakeholder governance implementation approaches

Need to move from reactive to proactive paradigm in addressing technology challenges

Explanation

Goni argues that parliaments must shift from reactive approaches to proactive governance, moving away from trying to control AI and new technologies toward finding appropriate spaces to address challenges. This represents a fundamental paradigm change needed in parliamentary approaches.

Evidence

Uruguay’s experience with future committees as a model for this paradigm shift

Major discussion point

National Digital Strategies and Implementation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Johannes Vallesverd

Speech speed

147 words per minute

Speech length

586 words

Speech time

238 seconds

Global Informal Regulatory Anti-Fraud Forum demonstrates operational multi-stakeholder cooperation across 40 countries

Explanation

Vallesverd describes GIRAFFE as a successful example of multi-stakeholder cooperation involving 40 participants from countries including Nigeria, Colombia, US, and Brazil. The forum aims to develop global best practices for enhancing digital trust through operational measures.

Evidence

Norway’s digital shield blocking 61 million fraudulent numbers over six months; collaboration with One Consortium and international carriers

Major discussion point

Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Governance Mechanisms

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Agreed with

– Olaf Kolkman
– Raul Echeberria
– Anna Luhrmann
– Rodrigo Goni
– Jennifer Chung

Agreed on

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for effective digital governance

Digital trust can be enhanced through operational measures like blocking fraudulent communications

Explanation

Vallesverd argues for implementing operational safeguards that maintain freedom of speech while eliminating freedom of fraud. This involves creating clear pathways for legitimate users while building reputation systems for those following best practices.

Evidence

Norway’s success in blocking 61 million fraudulent mobile numbers through MNO cooperation and digital shield implementation

Major discussion point

Trust and Verification in Digital Systems

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Nazarius Kirama

Speech speed

107 words per minute

Speech length

269 words

Speech time

150 seconds

Programming should be anchored within permanent parliamentary committees to institutionalize internet governance

Explanation

Kirama proposes that capacity building and internet governance programming should be institutionalized within permanent parliamentary committees, such as infrastructure committees. This would ensure parliamentarians legislate from the lens of internet governance rather than receiving external lectures.

Evidence

Tanzania’s permanent committee on infrastructure as an example; comparison to UNDESA making Internet Governance Secretariat a home for IGF achievements

Major discussion point

Capacity Building and Knowledge Sharing for Parliamentarians

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Agreed with

– Abel Pires da Silva
– Peace Oliver Amuge
– Guilherme Canela
– Sarah Lister
– Mactar Seck
– Jennifer Chung

Agreed on

Capacity building for parliamentarians is critically important

Rajnesh Singh

Speech speed

188 words per minute

Speech length

581 words

Speech time

184 seconds

Policy decisions must consider technical underpinnings to avoid breaking basic internet infrastructure

Explanation

Singh emphasizes that policymakers have a responsibility to create outcomes for citizens but must consider technical experts’ advice to avoid decisions that don’t account for internet’s technical workings and required interoperability. Breaking basic internet infrastructure would make all higher-level applications and services fail.

Evidence

APNIC’s 30 years of experience building internet infrastructure across diverse Asia Pacific region economies

Major discussion point

Technical Infrastructure and Internet Governance

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Agreed with

– Becky Burr
– Desiree Milosevic
– Jennifer Chung

Agreed on

Technical expertise must inform policy decisions to avoid breaking internet infrastructure

Network operator groups are crucial resources for understanding technical implications of policy decisions

Explanation

Singh highlights that network operator groups exist in most economies and serve as valuable resources for policymakers to understand technical implications. These groups bring together competitors who collaborate on solving technical problems, making them ideal for providing technical guidance on policy implications.

Evidence

Network operator groups exist in most regions and economies, bringing together private sector, public sector, and academia to solve technical problems

Major discussion point

Technical Infrastructure and Internet Governance

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Anusha Rahman

Speech speed

136 words per minute

Speech length

533 words

Speech time

233 seconds

Pakistan Senate launched first AI-generated chat platform for legislative transparency and information sharing

Explanation

Rahman describes Pakistan Senate as the first to launch an AI-generated chat platform for providing transparency and sharing information for legislative purposes. This represents a unique model for parliamentary use of technology that could be adopted elsewhere.

Evidence

Initiative under Senate Chairman Mr. Yusuf Zaghilani; Pakistan leaping in technology in terms of parliament

Major discussion point

Artificial Intelligence Governance and Regulation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Social media platforms should respect national laws rather than providing blanket intermediary liability protection

Explanation

Rahman argues that social media companies violate national legislation while hiding behind intermediary liability protection that absolves them of content responsibility. She advocates for platforms to harmonize with local laws and take responsibility for content on their platforms.

Evidence

Internet considered public good within sovereign boundaries; platforms providing blanket answer that they’re not responsible for content

Major discussion point

Platform Accountability and Content Governance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Agreed with

– Anna Luhrmann
– Jekaterina Rojaka

Agreed on

Platform accountability and content governance need improvement

Disagreed with

– Jekaterina Rojaka
– Anna Luhrmann

Disagreed on

Platform accountability and content responsibility approaches

Need to review legislation to put more responsibility on social media companies for content on their platforms

Explanation

Rahman calls for parliamentarians to review their legislation to place more responsibility on social media companies for content, as citizens demand the same online rights as offline rights. She warns that failure to act will lead to increasingly harsh responses from governments.

Evidence

Citizens demanding online rights equal to offline rights; countries failing to guarantee online rights as they do offline rights

Major discussion point

Platform Accountability and Content Governance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Citizens demand same online rights as offline rights, requiring government accountability

Explanation

Rahman emphasizes that citizens are demanding their online rights be the same as their offline rights, but countries are failing to provide guarantees for online rights in the same way they can be accountable for offline rights. This creates pressure on governments to take stronger action.

Evidence

Temperature of parliamentarians going up because citizens are demanding accountability for online rights

Major discussion point

Digital Rights and Online Safety

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Peace Oliver Amuge

Speech speed

124 words per minute

Speech length

428 words

Speech time

205 seconds

AFRICIG has trained over 40 parliamentarians across three years with meaningful ongoing engagement

Explanation

Amuge describes AFRICIG as a highly impactful project that has brought over 40 members of parliament to capacity building programs since 2003. These parliamentarians continue to meaningfully engage at global, regional, sub-regional and national IGF levels, demonstrating sustained impact.

Evidence

Partnership with Association for Progressive Communications, research ICT Africa, African Union, and support from GIZ, Luminate, ISOC, ICANN; alumni continue engaging at multiple IGF levels

Major discussion point

Capacity Building and Knowledge Sharing for Parliamentarians

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Agreed with

– Abel Pires da Silva
– Nazarius Kirama
– Guilherme Canela
– Sarah Lister
– Mactar Seck
– Jennifer Chung

Agreed on

Capacity building for parliamentarians is critically important

Becky Burr

Speech speed

103 words per minute

Speech length

223 words

Speech time

129 seconds

ICANN focuses on coordination not control, ensuring globally interoperable and resilient internet

Explanation

Burr explains that ICANN’s role is about coordination rather than control, working to ensure that parliamentary policymaking is informed with technical information needed for coordinated, consensus-based, practical and globally coherent policies. The goal is maintaining a globally interoperable, non-fragmented internet.

Evidence

ICANN’s work in coordination of critical internet resources; IGF as example of peers working together and returning better informed

Major discussion point

Technical Infrastructure and Internet Governance

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Agreed with

– Rajnesh Singh
– Desiree Milosevic
– Jennifer Chung

Agreed on

Technical expertise must inform policy decisions to avoid breaking internet infrastructure

Kenneth Pugh

Speech speed

145 words per minute

Speech length

747 words

Speech time

307 seconds

Building coalition of parliamentarians with digital agendas across Iberoamerica (1 billion people)

Explanation

Pugh describes creating a coalition of parliamentarians focused on digital agendas across Iberoamerica, including Spain, Portugal, Brazil, and Latin American countries representing 1 billion people. This coalition would address the need for regional AI models trained to solve local problems rather than relying on Anglo-Saxon models.

Evidence

Laura Gerasim

Speech speed

124 words per minute

Speech length

203 words

Speech time

97 seconds

Internet should be used to promote peace and critical thinking, using algorithms for people not vice versa

Explanation

Gerasim emphasizes using digital platforms to promote peace and ensure that algorithms serve people rather than people serving algorithms. She stresses the importance of critical thinking education and maintaining values like freedom of speech while promoting peace both online and offline.

Evidence

Personal experience as mother of 16 and 24-year-old children using digital technology; role as chairperson of committee on investigation of abuses where citizens’ voices arrive

Major discussion point

Digital Rights and Online Safety

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Adel ElMessiry

Speech speed

105 words per minute

Speech length

250 words

Speech time

141 seconds

UN legal framework including cybercrime convention should be used as base for international cooperation

Explanation

ElMessiry questions why existing UN legal frameworks, including the recently adopted UN Convention Against Cyber Crimes, are not being used as a foundation for cooperation work. These frameworks specifically call for strengthening international cooperation and capacity building between states.

Evidence

Multiple UN General Assembly resolutions on internet and digital information; UN Convention Against Cyber Crimes adopted in December focusing on international cooperation

Major discussion point

Legal Frameworks and International Standards

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

International cooperation and capacity building essential for developing countries to engage effectively

Explanation

ElMessiry emphasizes that UN resolutions repeatedly call for international cooperation and ask developed countries to assist developing countries in capacity building, as effective international cooperation requires adequate capacity from all participants.

Evidence

UN resolutions consistently referring to international cooperation and requesting developed countries assist developing countries in capacity building

Major discussion point

Legal Frameworks and International Standards

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Jekaterina Rojaka

Speech speed

120 words per minute

Speech length

356 words

Speech time

176 seconds

Dual standards exist where platforms block legitimate parliamentary content while allowing harmful content

Explanation

Rojaka describes how YouTube blocks their parliamentary committee sessions because the committee name contains ‘suicide,’ yet harmful content like dangerous TikTok challenges that have caused deaths in Lithuania are not stopped. This demonstrates inconsistent platform content moderation.

Evidence

YouTube blocking parliamentary suicide prevention committee sessions while harmful TikTok challenges caused two deaths in Lithuania; critical thinking education integrated in schools but addiction still rising

Major discussion point

Platform Accountability and Content Governance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Agreed with

– Anna Luhrmann
– Anusha Rahman

Agreed on

Platform accountability and content governance need improvement

Disagreed with

– Anusha Rahman
– Anna Luhrmann

Disagreed on

Platform accountability and content responsibility approaches

Need balance between child protection and enabling enriching digital environment

Explanation

Rojaka acknowledges the importance of business responsibility but notes the lack of effective mechanisms, warning that delays in finding balance will lead to harsher government responses including harsh taxation of platforms or total content responsibility. Solutions need to be regional and global, not just national.

Evidence

Rising addiction statistics despite critical thinking education; younger children accessing restricted content; two lives lost from harmful TikTok challenges in Lithuania

Major discussion point

Digital Rights and Online Safety

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Munir Ibrahim Suroor

Speech speed

87 words per minute

Speech length

419 words

Speech time

286 seconds

Need flexible legislation promoting data exchange while ensuring privacy and respecting sovereignty

Explanation

Suroor advocates for developing flexible and supportive legislation that promotes data exchange and best practice sharing while ensuring privacy protection and respecting national sovereignty. This should be combined with investment in human capacity and sustainable coordination mechanisms.

Evidence

Bahrain’s Economic Vision 2030, National Communication Plan, cloud-first policy for public sector, and Bahrain Institute of Finance programs

Major discussion point

Legal Frameworks and International Standards

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Agreed with

– Kenneth Pugh
– Shuaib Afolabi Salisu
– Adil Suleiman

Agreed on

Regional cooperation and knowledge sharing are vital

Bahrain’s cloud-first policy and Economic Vision 2030 demonstrate comprehensive digital transformation approach

Explanation

Suroor highlights Bahrain as one of the first countries in the region to introduce cloud-first policy for public sector services, combined with Economic Vision 2030 and National Communication Plan to accelerate digital transformation across all sectors. This includes heavy investment in capacity building and supporting startup ecosystems.

Evidence

Bahrain’s cloud-first policy for public sector; Economic Vision 2030; Bahrain Institute of Finance and Temkin programs; supporting startup ecosystem integration into international networks

Major discussion point

National Digital Strategies and Implementation

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Guilherme Canela

Speech speed

152 words per minute

Speech length

430 words

Speech time

168 seconds

UNESCO-IPU joint program trained 3,300 parliamentarians and staff from 180 countries through online courses

Explanation

Canela describes UNESCO’s massive online course with the Inter-Parliamentary Union that trained 3,300 parliamentarians and their staff from 180 countries on international standards for freedom of expression. This demonstrates significant interest and the importance of training both parliamentarians and their staff who provide continuity.

Evidence

3,300 parliamentarians and staff from 180 countries completed the course; UNESCO also trained 36,000 judges and prosecutors on related issues

Major discussion point

Capacity Building and Knowledge Sharing for Parliamentarians

Topics

Development | Human rights

Agreed with

– Abel Pires da Silva
– Nazarius Kirama
– Peace Oliver Amuge
– Sarah Lister
– Mactar Seck
– Jennifer Chung

Agreed on

Capacity building for parliamentarians is critically important

Women parliamentarians particularly targeted by technologically facilitated gender-based violence

Explanation

Canela highlights that women parliamentarians are particularly and unfortunately targeted with technologically facilitated gender-based violence. He suggests sharing tools and lessons learned from other constituencies like women journalists who face similar attacks.

Evidence

UNESCO’s work with women parliamentarians; comparison to women journalists who are also heavily attacked; different tools available for sharing among groups

Major discussion point

Digital Rights and Online Safety

Topics

Human rights | Sociocultural

Sarah Lister

Speech speed

137 words per minute

Speech length

303 words

Speech time

132 seconds

UNDP coordinates with international actors to support parliamentary digital transformation and AI regulation

Explanation

Lister describes UNDP’s coordination with UNESCO, IPU, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and others to support parliaments in digital and AI transformation. This includes knowledge development, training, capacity building, peer networking, and practical tools for regulation and oversight.

Evidence

UNDP-IPU expert group on parliamentary digital policy; upcoming conference on parliamentary role in responsible AI in Kuala Lumpur with CPA and IPU

Major discussion point

Capacity Building and Knowledge Sharing for Parliamentarians

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Agreed with

– Abel Pires da Silva
– Nazarius Kirama
– Peace Oliver Amuge
– Guilherme Canela
– Mactar Seck
– Jennifer Chung

Agreed on

Capacity building for parliamentarians is critically important

Sean Maher

Speech speed

119 words per minute

Speech length

540 words

Speech time

271 seconds

Trust is foundation of digital cooperation, requiring both communication and verification mechanisms

Explanation

Maher argues that trust has two essential ingredients: communication (which forums like IGF provide) and verification (ensuring AI and other technologies are safe, effective, and reliable as claimed). Both elements are critical for digital cooperation across all sectors.

Evidence

EY’s experience as global professional services organization with foundation in auditing companies and governments; reference to ‘trust but verify’ principle

Major discussion point

Trust and Verification in Digital Systems

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Technology doesn’t have to be in black boxes – audit and governance mechanisms can ensure compliance and effectiveness

Explanation

Maher emphasizes that technology can be understood and properly governed rather than remaining incomprehensible. Audit mechanisms can ensure technology complies with applicable rules and regulations and is effective for its intended purposes.

Evidence

EY’s foundational principle of auditing; organization’s work in making technology comprehensible and properly governed

Major discussion point

Trust and Verification in Digital Systems

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Disagreed with

– Abel Pires da Silva
– Brando Benifei

Disagreed on

Approach to AI governance and transparency

Shuaib Afolabi Salisu

Speech speed

141 words per minute

Speech length

608 words

Speech time

257 seconds

West African Parliamentarians Network on Internet Governance addresses common challenges across the region

Explanation

Salisu observes that issues are remarkably similar across the global south, from Malaysia to Pakistan to Mauritius, particularly regarding laws trailing behind development and holding big tech companies accountable. He chairs the West African network addressing these shared challenges.

Evidence

Chairs Nigerian Senate Committee on ICT and Cybersecurity and West African Parliamentarians Network; similar issues observed from Malaysia to Pakistan to Mauritius to Romania

Major discussion point

Regional and International Cooperation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Agreed with

– Kenneth Pugh
– Adil Suleiman
– Munir Ibrahim Suroor

Agreed on

Regional cooperation and knowledge sharing are vital

Need for ongoing platform where parliamentarians can share legislative experiences and materials beyond IGF meetings

Explanation

Salisu requests IGF Secretariat create a portal where parliamentarians can access innovative approaches from peers, share materials for legislation like cybercrime acts or data protection amendments, and have ongoing conversations beyond the annual IGF meeting period.

Evidence

Examples of needing guidance on cybercrime act amendments in Nigeria or incorporating UN conventions into data protection acts; desire for peer review and information sharing

Major discussion point

Capacity Building and Knowledge Sharing for Parliamentarians

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Amira Saber

Speech speed

158 words per minute

Speech length

380 words

Speech time

144 seconds

Brando Benifei

Speech speed

140 words per minute

Speech length

708 words

Speech time

302 seconds

EU AI Act represents first co-legislative multi-stakeholder approach to regulating powerful AI models

Explanation

Benifei describes the EU AI Act as the first co-legislative process specifically targeting high-level AI models that pose systemic risks. The implementation involves multi-stakeholder code of practice development with active involvement from big tech companies, balancing cooperation with regulation.

Evidence

Benifei was lead negotiator for European Parliament on AI Act; code of practice being developed in final phase for most powerful AI models; multi-stakeholder discussion including global participants

Major discussion point

Artificial Intelligence Governance and Regulation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Disagreed with

– Abel Pires da Silva
– Sean Maher

Disagreed on

Approach to AI governance and transparency

Desiree Milosevic

Speech speed

119 words per minute

Speech length

387 words

Speech time

194 seconds

RIPE NCC’s technical coordination work maintains robust internet foundation that powers all digital services

Explanation

Milosevic explains that RIPE NCC’s technical coordination of IP addresses and key resources throughout Europe, Middle East, and Central Asia provides the essential foundation that powers all digital services including AI and quantum computing. This work directly contributes to sustainable digital goals and connecting the unconnected.

Evidence

RIPE NCC registers IP addresses and key resources across Europe, Middle East, and Central Asia; capacity building efforts include upskilling engineers; member of European Internet Platform

Major discussion point

Technical Infrastructure and Internet Governance

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Agreed with

– Rajnesh Singh
– Becky Burr
– Jennifer Chung

Agreed on

Technical expertise must inform policy decisions to avoid breaking internet infrastructure

Adil Suleiman

Speech speed

141 words per minute

Speech length

466 words

Speech time

197 seconds

African Union wants parliamentarians incorporated in continental digital policy development cycle

Explanation

Suleiman explains that the African Union is responsible for developing continental digital policy and wants African parliamentarians to be part of policy development, adoption, implementation, and domestication. Currently they rely on member state nominations that are often not parliamentarians.

Evidence

African Parliamentary Network established in 2022 with fixed track at African IGF; support from UNDESA and GIZ; new PRIDA program with EU for capacity building

Major discussion point

Regional and International Cooperation

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Agreed with

– Kenneth Pugh
– Shuaib Afolabi Salisu
– Munir Ibrahim Suroor

Agreed on

Regional cooperation and knowledge sharing are vital

Lillian Nalwoga

Speech speed

136 words per minute

Speech length

455 words

Speech time

200 seconds

Uganda Parliamentary Internet Governance Forum with 31 members demonstrates successful national implementation

Explanation

Nalwoga describes how a member of parliament from APRINIC registered the Uganda Parliamentary Internet Governance Forum with 31 active members, officially launched by Parliament with Deputy Speaker and Minister present. This shows successful translation of regional capacity building into national institutional action.

Evidence

Uganda Parliamentary Forum consists of 31 members; officially launched by Parliament of Uganda with Deputy Speaker and Minister; member came from APRINIC background

Major discussion point

National Digital Strategies and Implementation

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Mactar Seck

Speech speed

114 words per minute

Speech length

433 words

Speech time

227 seconds

UNECA provides capacity building modules on emerging technologies and develops knowledge-sharing platforms

Explanation

Seck describes UNECA’s capacity building programs for African parliamentarians on emerging technologies including AI, blockchain, IoT, nanotechnology, and biotechnology. They provide training modules, policy guidelines, and are developing knowledge-sharing platforms for best practices across regions.

Evidence

UNECA manages African Internet Governance Forum Secretariat with African Union; organized courses on AI policy in Tanzania and Cotonou; developing African strategy guidelines for mis- and disinformation

Major discussion point

Capacity Building and Knowledge Sharing for Parliamentarians

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Agreed with

– Abel Pires da Silva
– Nazarius Kirama
– Peace Oliver Amuge
– Guilherme Canela
– Sarah Lister
– Jennifer Chung

Agreed on

Capacity building for parliamentarians is critically important

Speaker 1

Speech speed

133 words per minute

Speech length

198 words

Speech time

88 seconds

IPU publishes monthly summaries of parliamentary AI policy actions to facilitate peer learning

Explanation

The IPU representative explains their initiative to publish monthly summaries of parliamentary actions on AI policy, observing and reporting on which parliaments are introducing legislation, carrying out committee reports and inquiries. This helps parliaments see what peers are doing and facilitates connections for mutual learning.

Evidence

Currently tracking 37 parliaments taking various actions including framework legislation, specialized AI institutes, committee inquiries across education and health sectors

Major discussion point

Legal Frameworks and International Standards

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Jennifer Chung

Speech speed

114 words per minute

Speech length

2034 words

Speech time

1064 seconds

Multi-stakeholder dialogue should be integrated rather than separated, bringing parliamentarians and other stakeholders together

Explanation

Chung suggests that in future IGF events, parliamentarians should be more integrated with the rest of the program rather than having separate tracks. She emphasizes the importance of having dialogue together rather than stakeholders coming to parliamentarians or vice versa.

Evidence

Observation of the current session structure and suggestion for future IGF integration

Major discussion point

Multi-stakeholder Collaboration and Governance Mechanisms

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Agreed with

– Olaf Kolkman
– Raul Echeberria
– Anna Luhrmann
– Rodrigo Goni
– Johannes Vallesverd

Agreed on

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for effective digital governance

Technical community input is essential for policy decisions to avoid breaking internet infrastructure

Explanation

Chung emphasizes the importance of policy decisions taking into account the technical underpinnings of critical internet infrastructure. She advocates for the principle of ‘don’t break the internet’ when making regulatory decisions.

Evidence

Agreed with

– Abel Pires da Silva
– Nazarius Kirama
– Peace Oliver Amuge
– Guilherme Canela
– Sarah Lister
– Mactar Seck

Agreed on

Capacity building for parliamentarians is critically important

Balance must be struck between child protection/online safety and enabling enriching digital environments

Explanation

Chung acknowledges the ongoing challenge of finding the right balance between protecting children from online harms while maintaining an enabling environment where technology and networks can be used for knowledge sharing and positive purposes.

Evidence

Response to discussions about platform accountability and child safety concerns raised by various speakers

Major discussion point

Digital Rights and Online Safety

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Agreements

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for effective digital governance

Speakers

– Olaf Kolkman
– Raul Echeberria
– Anna Luhrmann
– Rodrigo Goni
– Johannes Vallesverd
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

National and regional IGFs serve as collection points for norming and operationalizing solutions that can be shared globally

Multi-stakeholder model allows maximizing consensus opportunities, unlike traditional politics based on majority construction

Multi-stakeholder processes need to address power imbalances between big tech companies and national governments

Future committees in parliaments practice multi-stakeholder governance and overcome left-right dichotomies

Global Informal Regulatory Anti-Fraud Forum demonstrates operational multi-stakeholder cooperation across 40 countries

Multi-stakeholder dialogue should be integrated rather than separated, bringing parliamentarians and other stakeholders together

Summary

Multiple speakers emphasized that effective digital governance requires bringing together diverse stakeholders including governments, private sector, civil society, and technical community to work collaboratively rather than in isolation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Capacity building for parliamentarians is critically important

Speakers

– Abel Pires da Silva
– Nazarius Kirama
– Peace Oliver Amuge
– Guilherme Canela
– Sarah Lister
– Mactar Seck
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

Need to enhance parliamentary capacity for digital policy-making, especially in developing countries

Programming should be anchored within permanent parliamentary committees to institutionalize internet governance

AFRICIG has trained over 40 parliamentarians across three years with meaningful ongoing engagement

UNESCO-IPU joint program trained 3,300 parliamentarians and staff from 180 countries through online courses

UNDP coordinates with international actors to support parliamentary digital transformation and AI regulation

UNECA provides capacity building modules on emerging technologies and develops knowledge-sharing platforms

Capacity building is extremely important for effective digital governance participation

Summary

There was strong consensus that parliamentarians need continuous capacity building and training to effectively engage with rapidly evolving digital technologies and governance challenges

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Technical expertise must inform policy decisions to avoid breaking internet infrastructure

Speakers

– Rajnesh Singh
– Becky Burr
– Desiree Milosevic
– Jennifer Chung

Arguments

Policy decisions must consider technical underpinnings to avoid breaking basic internet infrastructure

ICANN focuses on coordination not control, ensuring globally interoperable and resilient internet

RIPE NCC’s technical coordination work maintains robust internet foundation that powers all digital services

Technical community input is essential for policy decisions to avoid breaking internet infrastructure

Summary

Technical community representatives and moderator agreed that policymakers must understand and consider technical implications to maintain internet stability and interoperability

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Platform accountability and content governance need improvement

Speakers

– Anna Luhrmann
– Anusha Rahman
– Jekaterina Rojaka

Arguments

Big tech companies threaten to leave or withdraw services when faced with national regulations

Social media platforms should respect national laws rather than providing blanket intermediary liability protection

Dual standards exist where platforms block legitimate parliamentary content while allowing harmful content

Summary

Parliamentarians from different regions shared frustration with big tech companies’ inconsistent content moderation and resistance to national regulations

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Regional cooperation and knowledge sharing are vital

Speakers

– Kenneth Pugh
– Shuaib Afolabi Salisu
– Adil Suleiman
– Munir Ibrahim Suroor

Arguments

Building coalition of parliamentarians with digital agendas across Iberoamerica (1 billion people)

West African Parliamentarians Network on Internet Governance addresses common challenges across the region

African Union wants parliamentarians incorporated in continental digital policy development cycle

Need flexible legislation promoting data exchange while ensuring privacy and respecting sovereignty

Summary

Speakers from different regions emphasized the importance of regional networks and cooperation to address shared digital governance challenges

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Legal and regulatory | Development

Development | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around five key areas: the necessity of multi-stakeholder collaboration, critical importance of capacity building for parliamentarians, need for technical expertise in policymaking, platform accountability challenges, and value of regional cooperation. There was also notable agreement on making technology transparent rather than black-box systems.

Consensus level

High level of consensus across diverse stakeholders and regions, indicating mature understanding of digital governance challenges. The convergence of views from parliamentarians, technical community, international organizations, and private sector suggests these principles could form the foundation for actionable digital cooperation frameworks. However, the consensus was more about identifying problems and principles rather than specific solutions, indicating need for continued dialogue on implementation mechanisms.

Differences

Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected differences

Absence of US parliamentary representation in global discussions

Speakers

– Shuaib Afolabi Salisu

Arguments

Need for ongoing platform where parliamentarians can share legislative experiences and materials beyond IGF meetings

Explanation

Salisu specifically called out the absence of US senators or congresspeople in the discussion, noting that while parliamentarians from Europe, Africa, and Asia were present to discuss frustrations with big tech companies (largely US-based), there was no US parliamentary perspective. This represents an unexpected structural disagreement about representation in global internet governance discussions.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Reliance on existing UN legal frameworks vs. new governance mechanisms

Speakers

– Adel ElMessiry

Arguments

UN legal framework including cybercrime convention should be used as base for international cooperation

Explanation

ElMessiry’s emphasis on using existing UN legal frameworks as the foundation for cooperation stands in contrast to other speakers who focused on creating new multi-stakeholder mechanisms, capacity building programs, and innovative governance approaches. This represents an unexpected disagreement about whether to build on existing legal structures or develop new governance models.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed moderate disagreements primarily around implementation approaches rather than fundamental goals. Key areas of tension included platform accountability mechanisms, AI governance methods, and multi-stakeholder implementation strategies. Most disagreements were constructive, focusing on different pathways to achieve shared objectives of better digital governance.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with high potential for convergence. The disagreements were largely tactical rather than strategic, suggesting that collaborative solutions addressing multiple approaches simultaneously could be developed. The absence of certain key stakeholders (particularly US parliamentarians) may limit the comprehensiveness of proposed solutions.

Partial agreements

Legal and regulatory | Development

Takeaways

Key takeaways

Trust is the foundation of digital cooperation, requiring both communication and verification mechanisms

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential but requires new mechanisms to address conflicting interests and power imbalances between big tech companies and national governments

National and regional IGFs serve as crucial collection points for developing and sharing digital governance solutions that can be scaled globally

Parliamentarians need continuous capacity building and institutionalized internet governance programming within permanent parliamentary committees

Technical expertise must inform policy decisions to avoid breaking basic internet infrastructure while addressing higher-level application concerns

Platform accountability requires reviewing intermediary liability protections and ensuring social media companies respect national laws and values

Regional cooperation and knowledge sharing are essential, especially for developing countries with limited regulatory capacity

AI governance requires transparent, accountable development moving away from ‘black box’ decision-making toward auditable systems

Digital rights online should match offline rights, with particular attention to protecting vulnerable groups like women parliamentarians and children

International legal frameworks and UN conventions should serve as the foundation for cross-border digital cooperation

Resolutions and action items

IGF Secretariat to create an ongoing platform/portal where parliamentarians can share legislative experiences, materials, and best practices beyond annual meetings

Include US parliamentarians in future IGF parliamentary tracks to address concerns about big tech accountability

Expand Asian participation in the Global Informal Regulatory Anti-Fraud Forum (GIRAFFE)

Strengthen integration between parliamentary track and main IGF program rather than separate sessions

Develop knowledge-sharing platform for exchanging best practices on misinformation and disinformation strategies

Institutionalize internet governance programming within permanent parliamentary committees

Create sustained capacity building programs rather than one-off training sessions

Incorporate parliamentarians into African Union continental digital policy development cycle

Establish regional parliamentary networks similar to APNIC in other regions

Continue UNESCO-IPU collaboration on training parliamentarians and their staff on digital policy issues

Hold upcoming UNDP-CPA-IPU conference on responsible AI in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Develop African strategy guidelines for addressing mis- and disinformation

Unresolved issues

How to effectively balance child protection and online safety with maintaining an enriching digital environment and freedom of expression

Mechanisms for ensuring big tech companies apply the same accountability standards globally as they do in their home countries

How to address the fundamental power imbalance between sovereign governments and quasi-monopolistic tech platforms

Sustainable funding models for ongoing parliamentary capacity building and knowledge sharing platforms

Technical implementation details for transparent and accountable AI systems that move beyond ‘black box’ decision-making

Harmonization of regional and global regulatory frameworks while respecting national sovereignty and local values

How to ensure continuity of digital governance expertise as parliamentarians change through electoral cycles

Effective enforcement mechanisms for international digital cooperation agreements and conventions

Balancing innovation and technological development with necessary regulatory oversight

Addressing digital colonialism concerns while maintaining global internet interoperability

Suggested compromises

Multi-stakeholder approach that brings together competing interests (government, private sector, civil society, technical community) in structured dialogue rather than adversarial relationships

Co-legislative processes like the EU AI Act that involve industry cooperation in developing implementation guidelines while maintaining regulatory authority

Maximizing consensus opportunities (internet governance approach) while respecting democratic majority-based decision making (traditional politics)

Using algorithms and technology ‘for people’ rather than ‘people for algorithms’ – human-centered approach to digital development

Operational measures that maintain freedom of speech while eliminating ‘freedom of fraud’ through clear guidelines and reputation systems

Flexible legislation that promotes data exchange and innovation while ensuring privacy protection and respecting national sovereignty

Anchoring internet governance within existing parliamentary committee structures rather than creating entirely separate processes

Building on existing international legal frameworks (UN conventions) while allowing for regional adaptation and implementation

This comment was thought-provoking because it introduced the concept of digital sovereignty through technological independence, while also demonstrating practical long-term planning that aligns political cycles with educational development. The idea of developing region-specific AI models challenged the assumption of universal technological solutions.

Impact

This comment influenced the discussion by introducing themes of technological sovereignty and regional cooperation. It demonstrated how parliamentarians could think strategically about technology policy beyond reactive regulation, inspiring other speakers to discuss regional collaboration and capacity building initiatives.

Overall assessment

Explanation

This suggests improving the structure of IGF to create more integrated multi-stakeholder dialogue rather than separate tracks.