Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion focused on the evolution and future of Internet governance in Latin America and the Caribbean, marking the 20th anniversary of the Global Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The session was structured in two rounds, with the first examining the historical development of multi-stakeholder governance in the region and the second exploring future challenges and opportunities.

Participants highlighted significant regional achievements over the past two decades, including the establishment of LACNIC, the Latin American and Caribbean IGF, and the Caribbean IGF among the world’s first regional forums. Speakers emphasized that the region has demonstrated strong capacity for multi-stakeholder dialogue and collaboration, with successful examples like Brazil’s Internet Management Committee serving as models for inclusive governance. However, panelists acknowledged persistent challenges, noting that current multi-stakeholder processes often lack broad participation from all sectors and sometimes fail to reach meaningful conclusions.

The discussion revealed concerns about the fragility of democratic dialogue in an increasingly polarized world, with speakers calling for more efficient mechanisms that move beyond mere discussion to concrete cooperation and action. Participants stressed the importance of addressing regional inequalities, digital gaps, and human rights protection in digital environments. The role of civil society was highlighted as crucial, though speakers noted growing pressures on these organizations through funding constraints and political challenges.

Looking toward the future, panelists emphasized the need to strengthen regional coordination, develop shared digital infrastructure, and ensure meaningful participation in global governance processes like the WSIS+20 review. The session concluded with calls for continued capacity building, better integration of diverse stakeholders, and protection of the multi-stakeholder model against emerging threats to democratic participation in Internet governance.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **20-Year Evolution of Multi-stakeholder Internet Governance in Latin America and Caribbean**: Speakers reflected on the region’s pioneering role in multi-stakeholder governance, including early adoption of IGF models, creation of LACNIC, and successful regional collaboration, while acknowledging that dialogue processes sometimes fail to reach concrete conclusions.

– **Current Challenges to the Multi-stakeholder Model**: Participants identified significant threats including rising authoritarianism, democratic setbacks, monopolization by large tech companies, fragmentation of governance spaces, and difficulties for civil society organizations to participate meaningfully in increasingly complex and numerous governance processes.

– **Need for Enhanced Regional Cooperation and Concrete Action**: Speakers emphasized moving beyond dialogue to collaborative projects, developing regional digital infrastructure, coordinating responses to AI and cybersecurity challenges, and creating mechanisms that address the specific needs and inequalities of Latin American and Caribbean communities.

– **WSIS+20 Review Process and Future Governance**: Discussion focused on the importance of the World Summit on Information Society review process, integration of the Global Digital Compact, and ensuring that established multi-stakeholder principles from NetMundial and São Paulo guidelines are maintained and strengthened rather than diluted.

– **Urgent Issues Requiring Regional Attention**: Participants highlighted immediate concerns including internet shutdowns during protests (specifically in Panama), funding crises for civil society organizations, the need for differentiated approaches to global challenges, and the importance of training new generations of governance participants.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to commemorate 20 years of the Internet Governance Forum while critically assessing the current state and future of multi-stakeholder internet governance in Latin America and the Caribbean. The session sought to identify regional achievements, persistent challenges, and strategies for strengthening collaborative governance models in an increasingly complex digital landscape.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive yet sobering tone throughout. It began with celebratory recognition of regional achievements and pioneering efforts in multi-stakeholder governance, but gradually shifted to express serious concerns about current threats to the model. The tone became more urgent when addressing immediate challenges like civil society funding crises and internet shutdowns, while maintaining an underlying commitment to collaborative solutions and regional solidarity. Despite acknowledging significant obstacles, participants remained cautiously optimistic about the region’s capacity for continued cooperation and innovation in internet governance.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Moderator** – Session moderator for the first round of discussions

– **Raul Echeverría** – Executive Director of ALAI (Latin American Internet Association)

– **Ernesto Majo** – Executive Director of LACNIC (Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry)

– **Veronica Ferrari** – Coordinator of Policies and Global Incidence at APC (Association for Progressive Communications)

– **Nigel Cassimire** – Telecommunications Specialist at Caribbean Telecommunications Union

– **Rocío de la Fuente** – Session moderator for the second round of discussions

– **Carolina Aguerre** – Doctor and expert in global governance and internet policies, Associate Professor at Universidad Católica del Uruguay

– **Renata Mielli** – Coordinator of the Internet Management Committee in Brazil (CGIBR), Special Advisor to the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation in Brazil

– **Paloma Lara Castro** – Director of Public Policies at Digital Rights

– **Olga Cavalli** – Dean of the Faculty of Defense (Ministry of Defense of Argentina)

– **Erick Iriarte** – Tribunal of Ethics of the Peruvian Press Council in Peru

– **Participants** – Multiple unidentified participants who made various interventions

**Additional speakers:**

– **Iria Puyolza** – From the Atlantic Council Democracy and Tech Initiative

– **Lilian Chamorro** – Secretary of the AQGF (Latin American and Caribbean IGF)

– **Cristian Robles** – From IPANDETEC, organization working for digital rights in Central America and the Caribbean

– **Gabriel Adonailo** – From LaQX (Association of Internet Exchange Points of Latin America and the Caribbean)

# Report: 20 Years of Internet Governance in Latin America and the Caribbean – Evolution, Challenges, and Future Directions

## Executive Summary

This discussion examined the evolution of Internet governance in Latin America and the Caribbean, marking the 20th anniversary of the Global Internet Governance Forum (IGF). The session brought together regional experts, policymakers, and civil society representatives to assess two decades of multi-stakeholder governance achievements while addressing current challenges facing collaborative governance models.

The discussion was structured in two 30-minute segments: the first examining historical development and successes of multi-stakeholder governance in the region, and the second exploring contemporary challenges and future opportunities. Participants celebrated the region’s pioneering role in multi-stakeholder governance while acknowledging concerns about current limitations and emerging threats to democratic participation in Internet governance processes.

## Historical Achievements and Regional Leadership

### Pioneering Multi-stakeholder Models

**Raul Echeverría**, Executive Director of ALAI, emphasized the region’s early success in multi-stakeholder work, highlighting the collaborative creation of LACNIC as an example of community-driven governance. He noted that LACNIC is celebrating its 30th anniversary, demonstrating the longevity of successful regional initiatives.

**Ernesto Majo**, Executive Director of LACNIC, detailed how LACNIC emerged organically from community processes and has maintained its collaborative approach. He emphasized that this success stemmed from genuine community engagement rather than imposed structures.

**Nigel Cassimire**, Telecommunications Specialist at the Caribbean Telecommunications Union, noted that the Caribbean IGF began in 2005, predating the global IGF by one year. This early adoption created policy frameworks that subsequently spawned national IGFs throughout the Caribbean. He mentioned the Caribbean Internet Governance Policy Framework document, now in its fourth edition, and announced the upcoming 21st Caribbean IGF in Varadero, Cuba, from August 20-22.

### Institutional Successes and Capacity Building

**Olga Cavalli**, Dean of the Faculty of Defence at Argentina’s Ministry of Defence, highlighted successful training programs, including the 17th edition of the School of Southern Internet Governance in Mexico with 400 students. She also mentioned the creation of new careers in cyber defense at Argentina’s Faculty of Defense, demonstrating institutional commitment to developing governance expertise.

**Renata Mielli**, Coordinator of CGIBR and Special Advisor to Brazil’s Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, highlighted Brazil’s Internet Management Committee (CGIBR) as a model for inclusive governance that has successfully integrated multiple stakeholders while maintaining effectiveness in policy development.

## Contemporary Challenges

### Declining Effectiveness and Participation

**Raul Echeverría** provided a critical assessment of current conditions, noting that “we live in a world where peace is a little undervalued, and international cooperation does not go through its best moment.” He criticized what he termed “a misuse of energy, or a waste of energy, that is too big and gigantic” in political discussions that fail to reach meaningful conclusions.

**Erick Iriarte** from Peru’s Press Council Tribunal of Ethics argued that the Internet governance community has become somewhat insular, stating: “We have evangelised ourselves so well that we have believed the story of what we did.” He noted that other actors with more resources are now successfully lobbying for different approaches while traditional Internet governance advocates are losing influence.

### Threats to Civil Society Participation

**Iria Puyolza** from the Atlantic Council Democracy and Tech Initiative raised concerns about threats to civil society organisations, which she identified as “an indispensable engine” for the multi-stakeholder model. She highlighted that these organisations face financing challenges for sustainability and significant pressure towards state-centric governance models.

**Paloma Lara Castro**, Director of Public Policies at Digital Rights, reinforced these concerns by highlighting the rise of authoritarianism and democratic setbacks that threaten civil society participation. She emphasized that civil society participation is essential as a fundamental human right necessary for addressing real situations affecting communities.

### Structural Challenges

**Renata Mielli** identified the proliferation of governance forums and processes as creating participation challenges. She noted the difficulty of ensuring effective participation of Global South countries and civil society in multiplying governance processes across different agencies and topics.

**Veronica Ferrari**, Coordinator of Policies and Global Incidence at APC, emphasized that regional discussions must address historical inequalities and digital gaps through human rights-focused approaches. She mentioned specific work on cybersecurity and cybercrime legislation analysis, and referenced the 2014 hearing on human rights on the Internet at the Inter-American Commission.

## Future Directions and Adaptations

### Moving Beyond Traditional Approaches

**Carolina Aguerre**, Associate Professor at Universidad Católica del Uruguay, participated remotely and expressed regret about not being present in person. She argued for the need to move beyond dialogue-focused approaches to concrete cooperation projects, including regional infrastructure development. She emphasized that “we cannot continue walking or tracing the same lines of action and the same discourses when this world has changed, when the Internet has changed.”

### Expanding Governance Scope

**Renata Mielli** advocated for broadening the focus from traditional Internet governance to comprehensive digital governance and policies, encompassing emerging challenges such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, data protection, and broader digital rights issues.

### Regional Cooperation

**Gabriel Adonailo** from LaQX highlighted successful regional connectivity improvements through collaborative agreements between organisations, demonstrating the potential for concrete cooperative projects. The discussion included consideration of regional infrastructure development, including supercomputer capacities for artificial intelligence applications.

## Global Governance Processes

### WSIS+20 Review and Global Digital Compact

Multiple speakers addressed the World Summit on Information Society (WSIS) +20 review process and the Global Digital Compact as critical opportunities to strengthen multi-stakeholder principles.

**Veronica Ferrari** emphasized that NetMundial principles should guide governance processes toward more inclusive and transparent approaches. She referenced the NetMundial+10 event and São Paulo Multi-stakeholder Guidelines as important reference points.

**Renata Mielli** focused on the importance of integrating the Global Digital Compact within the WSIS framework to avoid duplication and ensure meaningful participation.

**Paloma Lara Castro** warned against the risk of lowering standards in global commitments while real problems require stronger responses.

## Urgent Issues

### Internet Shutdowns and Human Rights

**Cristian Robles** from IPANDETEC, working on digital rights in Central America and the Caribbean, highlighted the urgent situation in Panama, where the government had implemented Internet shutdowns in Bocas del Toro province during protests. He called for community support to oppose these actions.

### Institutional Sustainability

**Lilian Chamorro**, Secretary of the LACIGF, highlighted the mandate in new statutes to strengthen intersessional work groups and year-round coordination beyond annual forums, requesting community contributions on implementation.

## Key Areas of Agreement

Participants generally agreed on several fundamental points:

– The region’s historical leadership in multi-stakeholder governance development

– The importance of capacity building and training programs for developing governance expertise

– Current governance processes face significant challenges in ensuring meaningful participation from all stakeholders

– The need for sustainable financing and support for civil society organizations

– The importance of addressing regional inequalities and digital gaps

## Conclusion

The discussion revealed a regional community capable of honest self-assessment while maintaining commitment to multi-stakeholder principles. Participants celebrated significant historical achievements in developing collaborative governance models while acknowledging serious current challenges including declining participation, threats to civil society, and the need for adaptation to changing global circumstances.

The path forward requires balancing continuity of successful principles with adaptation to new challenges, strengthening regional cooperation while maintaining global engagement, and protecting democratic space for civil society participation while addressing resource and political constraints. The region’s demonstrated capacity for innovation and collaboration in Internet governance provides a foundation for meeting these challenges, though success will require sustained commitment and strategic adaptation to evolving contexts.

Moderator: Thank you, Rocio. Thank you all. We are going to start the ICF Lab Space session. of our region, we meet in the framework of the Global IGF to share initiatives and reflections around Internet Governance. This year, in particular, the session will have an hour long, as Rocío explained, with two rounds of 30 minutes, where they will participate in each of the organizations that represent all sectors and that will address the evolution and the future of Internet Governance with a view of Latin America and the Caribbean. In addition, we will have a space for comments and interventions in which the other participants will be able to make their comments. Regarding the dynamics, each organization will have four minutes to make their intervention and, well, I will be moderating this first round and then Rocío will follow up. At the 20th anniversary of the Global IGF, where both the Internet Governance Forum and the consolidation of the multi-stakeholder model originated, we have a key opportunity to reflect on the achievements, on the persistent challenges and, mainly, on the importance of continuing to strengthen an inclusive, open and collaborative approach in Internet Governance. In this sense, then, this first round will address the history and the evolution of Internet Governance and I will start by giving the floor to Raúl Echeverría, Executive Director of ALAI. Welcome, Raúl.

Raul Echeverría: It is different in each room. Okay, well, then it is in Spanish. Thank you. Well, in four minutes, how can we make some interesting comments. I think our region has a good record in multistakeholder work and successful experiences. The very creation of LACNIC, of which I was part, was an experience of a work of the community in an integrated way, the work of the Internet Management Committee of Brazil. We have in the region the LAC IGF and the IGF of the Caribbean, which are among the oldest in the world. We were among the first to adopt this mode of work. This speaks well of our capacities and the opportunity for dialogue that we have. Today we are celebrating the 20th edition of this event, of the IGF, and I think it is a good opportunity to see where we are and how we project ourselves into the future. We are clearly living in a tumultuous world. When one speaks of dialogue, multistakeholder dialogue, generally dialogue is associated with situations of peace, of concord, of understanding. We live in a world where peace is a little undervalued, and international cooperation does not go through its best moment. So, although it is a very big challenge for our region, which is a region that is mostly peaceful and democratic, it is a great opportunity to show how we can continue working in this way. But it does not mean that it is all pink, because in fact in Latin America we need to work much better. Some of the processes, such as the IGF, are processes that do not have the strong participation of all the actors. It is necessary to bring more people to these dialogues, but also in the development of more daily policies. It is important to generate the participation of all the actors from the very beginning of the dialogues. It is becoming more and more important. It was never so clear that wisdom and experience are so highly distributed. And if we do not involve all the actors from the beginning in the political discussions, we become very inefficient. And this is what is happening in Latin America, where we have a misuse of energy, or a waste of energy, that is too big and gigantic, I would say, in political discussions that do not even reach a conclusion. We cannot even say that we agree or disagree. Generally, they do not reach anything. So, well, it is a good time to value what we have, to value our capacities, the favorable environment that the region gives us, for our culture, the democratic culture, a majority pacific society, and to base ourselves on that, to look for more efficient ways of dialogue that allow us to go through these moments of change in the world in a successful way. Thank you.

Moderator: Perfect, Raúl. You were excellent in the four minutes that were left. Thank you for the intervention. Can we continue talking? Yes. We will give you back the minute later. Well, let’s continue then. I give the floor to Ernesto Majó, Executive Director of LACNIC.

Ernesto Majo: Hello, good afternoon. Well, taking a little bit of the challenge that they pose to us, to tell a little bit of the story, and reflect on it from that story. I’m going to get this out of me, listening to myself, it’s scary. For us, well, now it’s my turn to represent LACNIC. The truth is that it’s an honor, and in that sense, LACNIC, when it emerged, the World Cup of Social Information, it was a young organization, it was barely a few years old. So it was very natural for us to get involved in those processes and to get involved in that process. in the process of discussion of Internet governance. I say natural, I don’t say easy. Indeed, in those times there were very strong, very extreme discussions where it was difficult to bring the parties together and in that sense ACNIC, as an actor, had a very important role, in this case personalized by Raúl, who was leading those issues at that time. As an example of an organization that, in short, lives and communicates with the construction of agreements, with the collaboration, ACNIC is an entity that arises from a community process, where the community of operators and different entities from different countries with different characteristics promote the construction of an organization to provide services for their region. And in this way we have also continued collaborating and articulating with various actors, trying to build mechanisms of collaboration, articulation and discussion on issues that are relevant to the region in what has to do with Internet governance. Raúl already mentioned it, it is an example of that, it is an example, again, it does not mean that it is a good example, it is an example of a tool that we build, that we defend and work for a long time, but that also has its challenges and needs to be updated. The times we live are very different from those we lived 20 years ago, the themes and priorities are also different and I think that is precisely what has to make us think and help us to see in what way this instrument, so favorable or so fabulous that we have, the multiparty dialogue, the construction of dialogues and consensus on the issues of Internet governance, are still valid and are still alive. How do we, in these new times, with the challenges we live as societies, as a society as a whole, building the dialogue and developing points of agreement to support the development of the Internet for the benefit of humanity. So, from that point of view, I think that the work has to be in that, in identifying those things that we have to improve, how we make the dialogues more balanced, that the actors are present because they understand that they contribute and that they enrich themselves in that process, and not that eventually they become a process of deaf dialogue where some say something and others make us listen. So, I think that’s the challenge. The challenge is, I wouldn’t say re-founding, but at least re-defining and re-working and re-enhancing the multiparty dialogue mechanism and the search for consensus.

Moderator: Thank you very much, Ernesto. We will now give the floor to Veronica Ferrari, Coordinator of Policies and Global Incidence at APC.

Veronica Ferrari: Hello, can you hear me well? Well, I’m going to imitate my colleague in the panel, and I’m not going to listen to myself. Well, thank you very much for the invitation. My name is Veronica Ferrari, I work at APC for those people who don’t know much about APC. We are an organization of civil society, and we are also a network of organizations and activists working on issues of human rights, environmental justice, social justice, gender and technology. APC works very actively in governance processes, both globally and in the different regions, in close collaboration with our members, which are organizations mainly in the global south. In relation to the question of the panel, as a first point, to take into account the discussions of governance in Latin America, they are marked by certain peculiarities of the region, such as, for example, historical inequalities in social, cultural, economic matters, and linked to that, with digital gaps that exist between the countries, within the countries, between urban areas, between rural areas, there are gender gaps, there are gaps in terms of skills, and another characteristic that I wanted to mention, and on which I am going to articulate the points that I wanted to bring, are, in many cases, legal frameworks and public policies that do not take into account issues linked to human rights. For example, we, in fact, work with Paloma and with Digital Rights in an analysis of legislation linked to cyber security and cyber crime, which in many cases, having broad and vague provisions, end up affecting human rights. So, around that, I thought of some milestones in the region, in terms of public policies, of governance, of human rights, as was the concern of the panel. As a first milestone, let’s say, we thought of the 2014 edition of NETMundial as a key event in the context of Snowden’s revelations, an event that gave the possibility to governments, for example, of the region, to participate in international discussions, bringing other types of issues to the agenda. NETMundial was, as you all know, organized by the Brazilian government. It gave rise to certain principles of NETMundial, of how governance processes have to be done. Those principles indicate that it has to be multisectoral, open, participatory, and based on consensus, as Ernesto said, transparent, and that it allows significant participation, with access and low entry barriers, which, in many cases, at this moment, it is difficult for civil society to participate in the governance processes of technology issues. There is a movement towards more and more discussions in multilateral spaces, and with many difficulties, especially for civil society, to participate in a significant way. Ten years later, in 2024, there is an update of these principles with the São Paulo Multisite Holder Guidelines, with NETMundial plus 10. There, too, in those principles, the idea that multisectoral processes must take into account the asymmetries of power between the different actors that participate. Governance, we know that it is not necessarily a panacea and that there are inequalities in terms of incidence and the weight that each of these actors has in these discussions, that the governance processes have to be guided by respects of international principles of human rights, including social and cultural political rights. And these principles are key for a lot of the incidence work that PC and other organizations are doing in other global governance spaces. They are key for what has to do with the review of WISIs, that is, civil society is taking a lot of those principles for its own incidence. Other things I wanted to bring up have to do with the role of the CDH and a general framework of human rights protection in the region. Internet governance also has to do with concrete effects on different rights. So, as a milestone I wanted to bring up in 2014, it was the first hearing on issues of human rights on the Internet. In the CDH, organizations like APC, like Digital Rights, like Carisma, the CELE coordinated that work at the time, ADC brought freedom of expression issues for the first time to the Inter-American Commission. In other words, in the words of the former editor, Edison Lanza, that was a milestone in the region. And also linked to the CDH is all the work that the Freedom of Expression Report has done within the Commission, bringing issues of freedom of expression in digital environments. And especially the report published some standards for an open and inclusive Internet that highlights the role of the multisectoral model. So, well, given the time limit, I’m going to stop here, but I just wanted to highlight those links, the link to Internet governance, with issues of human rights, and then I have a couple more points that we can talk about later. Thank you very much.

Moderator: Thank you, Verónica. Well, to finish this round, I’m going to give the floor to Nigel Cassimire Telecommunications Specialist in Caribbean Telecommunications Union. Welcome, Nigel.

Nigel Cassimire: Thank you very much, Nigel Cassimire of the Caribbean Telecommunications Union, giving you a little background about our historical growth as regards internet governance in the Caribbean. We convened our first Caribbean Internet Governance Forum in September 2005 in an attempt to galvanize Caribbean positions going to the final session of WSIS in Tunis which was November 2005 and we’ve met annually ever since and in fact the UN started its own Internet Governance Forum in 2006 and we’ve kept in step with that since then. Our intention at the outset was and still is to harmonize Caribbean views and policies with respect to internet governance and each time our forum has met we’ve sought to record the agreements that might have been forged at our meetings and we’ve recorded them in a document we call the Caribbean Internet Governance Policy Framework and this particular document has in fact gone through four different editions since 2005. Actually I think the first edition was like 2009, I think 2013, 2016 and 2024 and as we meet we would update the policies associated with it. Back in the original days our focus tended to be more on internet infrastructure and the more technical issues because there was a lot of infrastructure development that still needed to take place. We were talking in some cases of electricity supply in various of our countries. Nowadays, the infrastructure is still spoken about, but it’s a lot less, it has a lot less focus on the agenda now and the focus is now on things like AI and rights and all that good stuff. So this year, we propose to have our 21st Caribbean Internet Governance Forum and it would be in Cuba this year, in Varadero, Cuba, from August 20th to the 22nd. And the agenda for it is still under development. In fact, just last Friday, we closed the call for topics essentially, which would help us to finalize the contents of the agenda. So within the next, I would say probably couple weeks time, we would be putting out our agenda for the 21st Internet Governance Forum. The policy framework that I talked about has been used as a guide for policy development in the Caribbean territories. It has been used as a guide for the CTU’s own work in supporting our member states to develop national policies. And one of the things we’re very concerned about is getting appropriate impact from our forum. And we realized that notwithstanding, we had a regional forum, there needed to be impact at the national level. So we sought to create or encourage the development of national Internet Governance Forum in each of our member countries. To date, we have about four of them that are operating or have operated. And we continue to move the Caribbean Internet Governance around to the various member states so that each one we land in. we could try to make an impact on that local community to develop its own multi-stakeholder group and its own national IGF. When we get, we’ve succeeded in increasing the number of Caribbean persons involved in fora like this. And with the national IGFs that we’ve helped to spawn, we also strengthening the implementation of appropriate internet governance policies throughout the Caribbean. I probably could stop there. There’s a lot more I could say. We’ve had quite a fair amount of success in the work that we’ve done. We’ve helped to spawn internet exchange points and so on. But I can stop at this point. Thanks.

Moderator: Thank you very much, Nigel. Well, thank you very much to the speakers of this first block for their interventions. Without a doubt, there have been successive achievements over the past 20 years that have strengthened the multi-stakeholder model in our region. And they have allowed us to emphasize dialogue, right? And constructive dialogue. However, the challenges persist. As you can see, our panelists have highlighted them. And that’s why we’re going to reflect on the future in this second block, on the visions in this regard. And well, I give the floor to my colleague Rocío to continue moderating the second block.

Rocío de la Fuente: Thank you. Well, thank you very much to the panelists of the first block who gave us a first context to frame the discussion and contributions of the panelists of this second section. And for this second panel, our striking questions focused on how they imagine the future of internet governance in the region. ¿Cuáles son los principales desafíos y las necesidades inmediatas que debemos atender desde todos los sectores para que el modelo multi-stakeholder siga estando vivo y funcional para nuestros intereses y nuestros objetivos? ¿Y por qué creen que la revisión o el proceso de revisión de WSIS++20 es relevante para nuestra comunidad regional? Así que en primer lugar le voy a dar la palabra a Carolina Aguerre. Ella es doctora y experta en gobernanza global y políticas de internet y actualmente es profesora asociada de la Universidad Católica del Uruguay. Así que Carolina, bienvenida, muchas gracias y te damos la palabra.

Carolina Aguerre: Buenas tardes, muchísimas gracias. Una gran pena no poder estar con ustedes esta semana, pero estoy atenta. Bueno, en primer lugar, ya fue dicho en la primera ronda de intervenciones, o sea, hemos aprendido mucho de estos 20 años de procesos de trabajo en gobernanza de múltiples partes interesadas. Ahora bien, seguir apostando, digamos, a un modelo de gobernanza que tenga como horizonte el proyecto de la gobernanza de múltiples partes interesadas, creo que es un poco en este momento, digamos, hay que hacer una revisión, hay que hacer una revisión en la cual pongamos de manifiesto para qué es importante tener esta gobernanza de múltiples partes interesadas, pero otros mecanismos que tienen que estar fuertemente asociados a una gobernanza de una internet que fomente un desarrollo sostenible, inclusivo, centrado en las personas. Esto es un poco como parte del acuerdo de WSIS más 20 y de la revisión, porque lo que hemos visto, digamos, es que este proceso de estos 20 años ha tenido múltiples consecuencias, impactos positivos, pero que tenemos que seguir profundizando en esos impactos positivos, y esos impactos a nivel de gobernanza hoy están bastante frágiles, como ya fue dicho en la primera ronda de intervenciones, necesitamos… in a world where the project of a globalized, unified world of 25-30 years ago with the expansion of the Internet is a world that today is not failing in this way. So, how do we generate better capacities in terms of collaboration, specifically collaboration between different actors? But for this, I would like to strengthen a message that we in the region have resilience and experience. Nigel just talked about the first IGF in the Caribbean, which was an IGF that took place before the first IGFs in the world, where we have experience of work in multiple parts interested in regional format. We have a platform, and this is a concept, let’s say, let’s not think of a platform only as the platforms of digital companies and big tech, as the ILAC can be, platforms already understood as collaboration spaces in which we can deepen, let’s say, in specific cooperation. And when I mean cooperation, it is not only dialogue about cooperation, as the IGF can be, which seems fundamental to me, but it seems very important to me that we start working in cooperation on projects with the participation of multiple actors, where we can develop regional infrastructures that are in the context of artificial intelligence, mounted on the fundamental Internet, have our spaces in the region more consolidated in terms of infrastructure, supercomputer capacities. It seems very important to me, let’s say, what has already been raised, let’s say, in the review consultation in Santiago in December, let’s say, the development of capacities, not only of technological skills and literacy, but also in continuing to foster capacities in terms of regional, national and international governance, in a context that, as has already been said, and I reiterate, let’s say, we cannot continue walking or tracing the same lines of action and the same discourses when this world has changed, when the Internet has changed, even though we continue to advocate for an open, interoperable Internet that promotes inclusion. Those are my first words. Thank you very much.

Moderator: Thank you very much, Carolina. Now, I’m going to give the floor to Renata Mieli. She is the coordinator of the Internet Management Committee in Brazil, CGIBR, and special advisor to the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation in Brazil. Thank you very much, Renata. You have the floor.

Renata Mielli: Thank you, Rocio. Thank you for the invitation to be in this important session for our region. I’m going to share some points about the challenges that I consider are important for Internet governance in our region. The first point that I would like to highlight is that the changes promoted by the Internet have allowed the emergence of new technologies with diverse impacts in our societies. For a long time now, governance spaces have stopped dealing exclusively with the Internet itself and have started to encompass everything that it entails. So, I think it is necessary, as we talked about on NetMundial10 in São Paulo, that we need to broaden our view and focus on governance spaces to address not only the Internet governance processes, but also the processes and digital policies in our region. The second point is the urgency, as Carolina said, to strengthen the coordination between actors and regional organizations around common goals. We could highlight, for example, the challenges related to the promotion of policies to guarantee significant connectivity in our countries, the impacts of artificial intelligence, human rights protection, the reduction of regional asymmetries, the development of public digital infrastructures, as well as the need for coordinated responses in the face of the integrity agenda of information, among many other key issues of the digital ecosystem. This is very important and we have to create the… spaces, not only of articulation, of discussion, but also of cooperation between our governments about these issues. Also to expand this articulation to reinforce, as I said, the regional cooperation, in line with the principles and guidelines of the world network Más 10, Verónica brought here some of the principles that we discussed in the guidelines of the world network Más 10. We must also have these principles as a reference for other processes, such as the processes of the WISES and the Global Digital Pact. It is also essential to reinforce the defense of a governance with active participation of multiple interested parties, create coordinated spaces and avoid duplication of efforts. As new processes and discussion forums emerge in different agencies, or the agenda is multiplied about artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, data protection, NINES and many other issues, it becomes more difficult to guarantee the effective participation of the countries of the global south, of small countries, of civil society and even of the private sector, which are not so economically powerful. It is very difficult to guarantee participation in so many processes. That is why the concentration, the unification of the spaces is very important. I would also like to reinforce in this sense that we consider it strategic to integrate the follow-up of the Global Digital Pact within the structure of the WISES framework of action now in the review, to contemplate shared responsibilities with various organizations. Also reinforce the participation of non-state actors in government processes. including the development of intergovernmental processes, so that they can evolve into decision-making processes with multiple interested parties. This was one of the topics that we also raised in a very important way in the discussions of the World Network Plus 10. Finally, to stay within the four minutes, I would like to highlight that the multistakeholder guidelines agreed in São Paulo should serve as a key reference to advance towards a digital governance, not only a governance of the Internet, but of the Internet and digital processes in a more inclusive, legitimate and effective way. Without a doubt, we have a lot to contribute in terms of how to ensure that there is more participation and more relevance in spaces like the IJF. We all participate in other processes and ensure a more strengthened multistakeholder governance in our region. Thank you.

Rocío de la Fuente: Thank you very much, Renata. And to close this second panel, I am going to give the floor to Paloma Lara. She is Director of Public Policies in Digital Rights. Thank you very much, Paloma, and we give you the floor.

Paloma Lara Castro: Thank you very much. I am representing Digital Rights. We are a Latin American organization with 20 years of experience in the work at the intersection of technology and human rights, participating very actively in global, regional and local discussions. In this sense, one of the issues that we highlight the most as part of our central incidence is the need to consider the differentiated impacts that global issues have, to which we are referring both in substantial discussions in these processes and in this same panel. In that sense, it is important to take into account that although there are shared challenges at a global level, obviously we are in a serious situation, going through a million situations that not only deepen structural inequalities, but also create new forms of exclusion. But at the same time, we have to understand that the impacts are not the same in all regions and in all countries. So in that sense, the knowledge that comes from the communities that are in a vulnerable situation and are in greater proportion affected by certain policies, or lack of some digital policies that are located, it often happens that many global commitments are generated, which although they must be shared, they are often not translated in a way that responds to the needs of the communities. So in that sense, spaces like the KGF are key, not only to provide, as has been said several times in this panel, a space for multisectoral dialogue where various interested parties participate, but also as a key element to understand local needs and therefore generate strategies that address different perspectives, adapted to needs and adapted to local urgencies. In that sense, for example, we can see that although the world is going through a number of asymmetries, when we talk, for example, about digital gaps, we have to take into account that within the digital gaps, there are a lot of gaps that make up the same digital gap. And in that sense, it is also different in terms of how we see at the local and regional level. In that sense, supporting this type of space is key, supporting the participation of civil society in these spaces is key, especially considering the rise of authoritarianism at a global but also regional level, marked democratic setbacks, monopoly of large companies, which in turn have extractivist logics, which end up affecting especially countries in the global south. Setbacks in terms of gender, setbacks in terms of legislation, as Verónica also explained in her intervention. In that sense, to enable or guarantee the participation of civil society is not only a key element for governance, but an urgent demand to ensure that we do not continue to advance towards the deepening of new gaps, the generation of new gaps, but we continue to advance towards a situation that not only recognizes structural gaps, but also aims to address them. In that sense, the review of WSIS is now a crucial moment at a global and regional level. What we are seeing in this sense is that if you have read the Elements Paper, which is what will be debated in the next consultations, it is important to take into account that there are several commitments that are not repeated in this document, but have already been accepted and agreed upon or consensuated in previous moments of governance. That is, we are also working on a bar that has been going down more and more, and at the same time that it goes down, it generates more insufficiency to deal with current real problems. So, I know I don’t have much time, but just to close on very important points, civil society is key in the participation in terms of the visibilization of real situations, but also as a human right to participation, as a human right to significant participation that addresses concrete and situated realities. On the other hand, we have to take into account in WSIS and the countries committed to the multisectoral model, to advance to the protection of the teachings that have been shared during the panel, to the commitments that we have advanced, to ensure those commitments, but not to stay with that. WSIS is not only about updating an agenda, but it is also about recognizing not only the structural problems, but the new gaps that are being generated as a result of new global problems and challenges that have in their hands a lot of the advancement of technology, but not only the advancement itself of technology, but in the lack of accompaniment of safeguards of human rights and public policies at the same time. So, these are situations that we find ourselves in a complicated moment, but this is precisely the crucial moment for both the state and civil society to safeguard what has been advanced, but also to look ahead and understand that if we do not address the situation in a differential way, we lose the focus on what can be affected in our communities, in our countries, in our realities. Thank you very much.

Renata Mielli: Thank you very much, Paloma, and to all the panelists of these first two panels. We went a little fast with the time assigned to each one because we were interested in having these remaining 20 minutes to invite other representatives of the regional community to also make their comments, share their reflections. We see many representatives of civil society organizations, technical community, who are also present here. So, we want to invite you to also participate in the debate, to react to the ideas that were shared, and also the panelists who have already spoken can return to participate in this discussion. I have Olga’s hand first in the zoom and then Eric. Olga, go ahead.

Olga Cavalli: Ah, I did it, it’s red. Good, thank you. Thank you very much for the session. Very interesting. I know there is little time, so I want to comment on two issues. One, in my role of work in the State. As you know, I am a dean of the Faculty of Defense, which depends on the Ministry of Defense of Argentina. And at the specific request of the Minister, we have created new careers, one specifically the first in Latin America, in Spanish, virtual, free, a degree in cyber defense, which has had a … We have 600 students, we started in April, plus other more virtual courses, so we are very happy with this, which is added to the offer of the Faculty of National Defense of Argentina. We can tell you that the 17th edition of the School of Southern Internet Governance was organized in Mexico with the collaboration of the Technological University of Monterrey. Very successful, we had 400 students, 200 in the room, 200 virtual, and we address topics precisely about what we have been talking about, all the previous panelists, public policies related to artificial intelligence, cyber defense, cyber security, how to think about the future in relation to all the changes that technology has brought us. So I thank you for the space and I congratulate you for having organized this session.

Moderator: Thank you very much Olga. Erick, I give you the floor, if you can introduce yourself and use three minutes.

Erick Iriarte: Perfect, Erick Iriarte, Tribunal of Ethics of the Peruvian Press Council in Peru and other titles. I’m going to try to make a reflection that forces us to think. We have evangelized ourselves so well that we have believed the story of what we did, and we have believed it so well that we have been able to maintain it for a long time. But when, for example, we talk about a topic as practical as urban mobility taxis, while we are defending the position from the technology industry or from the principles of technology, the other industry, those that were before, also began to do their own cabaldeo in the public spaces of political decision-making and legislation generation. When we began to talk about freedoms or the use of platforms for, for example, the fight against violence against women, the forms of regulation that communities that work with these rights had before we reached the world of technology were different, and they began to make different legislations than we had proposed to them. Until just before the pandemic, we could reach out to legislators and directly stop legislation or improve legislation that could be done or propose them. Now it is almost impossible, even if we have a strong voice or a recognized voice. And it is that we are only one more actor within the equation where all society is digital. And it is no longer just the digital issue of our digital issue. So how do we manage to convince others? How are we going to evangelize others so that they join our line of thought? So that when we discuss cybersecurity issues, they are not thinking about the cybersecurity industry, which is not interested in the technology industry or technological platforms or the principles of the OASIS. What interests them is doing business. Or how are we going to talk to those who are working on other issues of domotics or robotics, which are not interested in the principles we are talking about. They do not come to these forums and they will not come to these forums. I think the reflection goes inward. We have all been involved in this issue for many years. We have managed to convince, we have managed to convince, to attract some actors. But the actors who are doing the lobby to make different policies, different regulations, going back in regulations, as was mentioned a moment ago. But they go back in regulations that we would have raised, but that are useful to these private actors of civil society and academia. It is not that we do not act only against the private sector or against some sector of civil society. It is the rest that do not necessarily understand the principles that we are defending. So when you talk about multilateralism, we understand it, but not necessarily in those spaces where they end up making totally disparate regulations. And this is also being seen in ILAC, it is also being seen in other spaces, because other actors are arriving who were not the common actors that we were used to. It is a big alert call. Because what comes next is more regulation along the same path that we cannot stop. It’s happening in various countries. We can’t stop it, even if we go to talk to the actors we used to talk to. There are simply other actors with more money, there are other actors with more involvement in the social economy, with more relationships they can have, and that’s what we’ve lost, not bringing these forums to the people who are making the political decisions in our respective countries. Thank you very much, Eric, for your comments. We see two participants in the line of the microphone. We are going to give them the floor, we ask them to introduce themselves, and we give them two minutes each. Thank you.

Paricipants: Thank you. I’m Iria Puyolza, from the Atlantic Council Democracy and Tech Initiative. There was a topic I haven’t heard in the conversations during the day, and it has surprised me a lot. I want to bring it to the conversation. For the permanence, the continuity of the multiparty model of Internet governance, an indispensable engine is civil society, civil society organizations. And in the last year, these organizations have suffered a critical situation regarding their stability, both in terms of financing for the sustainability of these organizations, but also a lot of pressure towards other models of governance more focused on the states. I think it would be interesting for this discussion to take place more in this space. It is a discussion that has been taking place in other spaces, with organizations not only from Latin America, but also from Africa and Asia. And it has caught my attention that in this conversation, in this round today, there has not been a discussion about what the community can do, particularly the civil society organizations of Latin America, to try to protect the ecosystem in this moment of crisis and threats, both economic and political. Thank you.

Rocío de la Fuente: Thank you very much. I think Lilian is next. If you can introduce yourself and we’ll give you two minutes as well. Lilian, I don’t know if you can hear me. Sorry, I couldn’t hear you. We can hear you well. Go ahead. Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, perfect.

Carolina Aguerre: Thank you. Well, thank you very much to everyone in the panel. It’s very interesting to listen to you. I’m Lilian Chamorro, secretary of the AQGF. This was one of the most important sessions for us because it’s about listening to the community and having more clarity about what is required of this space, which is a space for everyone. As a secretary, I would like to reinforce that our action is basically to facilitate the process, but the space is yours. It’s not a space that belongs to us. It’s a space that many of you are part of through the different committees, the workshop selection committee, the program committee. And as those who have been involved in this space during the last few years know, it’s a challenge. This morning they said it at the inaugural ceremony and I thought it was very successful because the multistakeholder process is of the highest importance, but it’s also a challenge to carry out. It’s something that needs to be done. that we take for granted, let’s say, but it requires a work of all of us. So, just to reiterate the invitation so that all of us can build this space, we see that we have some key challenges, for example, to make the process visible, to make the results visible, and to make visible all the work that is done in other spaces, both in these international spaces, but also at a local level, at a national level, and in spaces such as the Global Digital Compact, the WSIS, so that it is recognized that there is already a territory won. We say, there are 18, 17, the editions that have been of the AQGF, where it has been growing, it has been learning, and there is a territory won in that there is a number of people involved that can continue to contribute to the discussions. And we know that it is not enough, right? They also mentioned it here, more participation of civil society is needed, more participation of governments is needed, more participation of the technical community is needed, and many times this participation is not given because the knowledge is limited, right? There we also appreciate the work that people like Olga do, like ISOC Foundation, well, and so many training initiatives, because they are the ones that allow many new people to reach the space, and I think that these spaces must be strengthened as well, but we also have to look for other communication mechanisms to reach other actors, and that what we are doing in these discussions is understood, and that is what we want to achieve. And another of the great challenges we have is the strengthening of the intersessional processes. One of the mandates for the AQGF in the new statutes is the creation of the intersessional work groups,

Paricipants: and it is something we are working on, but we also receive their contributions, we receive their ideas, to see how we can concretize these spaces that have been discussed here, these spaces where not only can we talk, but also some agreements can be reached, some definitions, some recommendations that can go beyond and that arise from a coordinated space where multiple actors are connected during a longer period and not only during the annual forum. Eso era todo. Gracias.

Renata Mielli: Muchísimas gracias, Lilian. Vamos a darle la palabra al caballero. Le voy a pedir que se presente. Y después tenemos también a Raúl, a Gabriel, y tal vez tengamos espacio para una persona más. Les pedimos que se ajusten al límite de los dos minutos. Ah, y Ernesto también. Ok. Por favor, un minuto, cuarenta segundos cada uno. Adelante.

Paricipants: Buenas tardes a todos. Soy Cristian Robles, de IPANDETEC, una organización que trabaja por los derechos digitales en Centroamérica y el Caribe. Bien, en las últimas semanas, en Panamá, se han visto envueltos en protestas y manifestaciones sociales en contra de reformas al Seguro Social, jubilaciones, pensiones. Específicamente en la provincia de Bocas del Toro, que se han cambiado los escenarios. En las últimas semanas se han visto saqueos, vandalismos y demás. Lo que ha llevado al gobierno a declarar un estado de urgencia que eliminan algunos derechos constitucionales en esta zona. El gobierno de Panamá, a través de la Autoridad de los Servicios Públicos, ha tomado la decisión de suspender los servicios de telefonía móvil e internet durante varios días en medio de estas manifestaciones sociales. Desde IPANDETEC, nosotros rechazamos esta medida desproporcionada que no solo representa una grave violación a la libertad de expresión y derecho a la información, sino que también vulnera derechos fundamentales. Cortar este acceso al internet en contextos de protesta limita la posibilidad de documentar abusos, de comunicarse con los familiares, de recibir información confiable, e incluso de acceder a servicios de emergencia hasta la educación. Así que queremos hacer un llamado a otras organizaciones, sobre todo de nuestra región, ayudarnos a visibilizar esta acción desproporcionada de parte del gobierno de Panamá y que se levante esta medida que ofrece acceso de internet a la provincia de Bocas del Toro. en Panamá. Así que vamos a estar circulando a través de Ipandetec entre hoy y mañana un statement y esperamos contar con el apoyo de todos.

Rocío de la Fuente: Muchísimas gracias. Le doy la palabra ahora a Gabriel Adonailo de LaQX. Y por favor, un minuto y medio.

Paricipants: Sí, ahí se oye, sí. Bueno, gracias. Simplemente, bueno, LaQX es la Asociación de Puntos de Intercambio de Tráfico de América Latina y Caribe. Nombre largo y extraño, pero los puntos de intercambio de tráfico básicamente lo que hacen es mejorar la calidad de servicio de internet a todos los usuarios e intentar mantener o minimizar el costo de acceso a internet. Quería reforzar, Caro Aguerre mencionaba acerca de la colaboración entre las organizaciones. A nosotros nos parece muy importante eso. En 2018 firmamos un acuerdo de colaboración con LACNIC y con Internet Society y luego más adelante con con LACTLD y como decía Carolina, no quedarse en el diálogo sino llevar a la acción y realmente avanzamos sobre implementaciones concretas que mejoran el uso de internet en general. Otra cosa quería mencionar, he participado, creo que es mi quinto IGF, el primero ha sido el primero en Atenas, valga la redundancia, fui invitado por Raúl aquí presente a participar de una sesión plenaria en la cual el problema en ese momento tenía que ver con los costos de conectividad de nuestra región de América Latina y cómo se conectaba al mundo. Eso hoy en día ya no es un problema, tenemos fibra conectando con todas las regiones porque ahora se ha anunciado recientemente una fibra submarina nueva que unirá a Chile con el continente de Oceanía. Eso nos permite mejorar la conectividad y nuevamente… It is not a problem of costs, it is not a problem of infrastructure, but there are still some initiatives in terms of regulation that can affect the connectivity of the infrastructures and how the Internet traffic is run and, therefore, there may come back a discussion again about the Internet costs and the quality of the Internet that we have created. I don’t know if this is the right forum, in Athens it has been, but it is simply for us to be aware that there are discussions in the sphere of regulation or regulators and lobby of some companies that can have an impact on these issues.

Rocío de la Fuente: First Raúl, and then Ernesto, and I ask you, if it is possible, one minute and a half each, because we have to finish on time. Thank you very much. Go ahead, Raúl.

Raul Echeverría: Thank you. First, my solidarity with the people of Panama, with the colleagues and with the citizens of Panama who are living this horrible situation and, the truth, very bad the idea of the government’s decision. I wanted to recognize here the presence of many young people in the room, many of whom were at the time participants of training programs and training, and today they occupy leadership positions in different organizations. This also speaks well of us as a community. It gives me great joy and congratulations to all those who work in many programs. Here there are many people, Olga already spoke, but there are many people who participate in this type of program, leading for many years. We talked about everything we have achieved. I mentioned the Internet Management Committee of Brazil as an example of the success of the Multistakeholder model. I forgot to mention that they are turning 30 years old, so my congratulations to Renata and all the colleagues of the Management Committee and the NIC, who do a great job. We have spoken here, there is nothing that is guaranteed. In Brazil, although we are all proud of what the Management Committee has done as a region, well, in Brazil there are people who have bad ideas and who have proposed some policies that would set up setbacks and would take away the fundamental characteristics of success that the Management Committee has. We have expressed our support for the current model, which of course can always be improved, but never go back, so I invite you all to support the Management Committee at this stage. And finally, I wanted to say that in recent years the participation of Latin America in international discussions has decreased and we have lost capacity to influence. When we think about it and compare it with the time of the Internet Governance Working Group or the first IGF in Guizis, I think we have lost, and we have lost in all the groups of interest. There are very few governments that participate in a significant way, of course there are exceptions, like the Ambassador Eugenio García de Itamaraty, who participates in everything that can participate and gives him time, but not all governments have the same level of participation. I think we have to make a call and also press many times, in recent years many groups have been formed in the United Nations that I think could have a better representation of the region than they have had, so we have to work in that direction. Just a call for us all to join efforts in that.

Rocío de la Fuente: Thank you, Raúl. And 40 seconds for Ernesto.

Ernesto Majo: 12? I’m going to take the time I need. No, I just wanted to highlight two things. First of all, well, to reinforce the message regarding the role of the Management Committee, that surely we have all benefited from the work they have developed during these 30 years, beyond the direct link we have with Acnic as a founding member of Acnic, but also in the daily work, since 30 years ago, or in our case 22 years ago, it has been very relevant and, well, it is really worrying that these initiatives are being promoted that we understand do not have any kind of support from the point of view of how the Management Committee works and the VR link, so, well, we are very concerned about that. And regarding the aspect related to how to continue, it seems to me that one aspect, Raúl also referred to the same thing, that is, the incorporation, the recruitment of actors and the training and the training and the preparation of the generations that are coming or that are going to come, that are going to take on responsibilities in the future, is extremely important. Some of them have already been mentioned, we also have some programs in Acnic, such as the online course or other activities for the development of leaders, in short. It seems to me that this is an area in which we have to work to improve the knowledge, the information and the understanding of these processes, not only for the actors that today, as I say, the future actors who are going to participate, but for the current ones, so that they understand how to generate and manage the dialogues, to find the consensus that is needed for the future of the Internet and the world. In short, simply to reinforce the message of the need to continue working on training, on the development of skills for constructive dialogue.

Rocío de la Fuente: Muchísimas gracias. Con esto cerramos la sesión y nos alegró mucho tener tanta diversidad de voces. Así que gracias a todos y los esperamos en la próxima edición. Subtítulos realizados por la comunidad de Amara.org

Agreement points

Regional success and early adoption of multistakeholder governance models

Speakers

– Raul Echeverría
– Ernesto Majo
– Nigel Cassimire

Arguments

Regional success in multistakeholder work with early adoption of collaborative models like LACNIC creation

LACNIC emerged naturally from community processes and has maintained collaborative approach for over 20 years

Caribbean IGF started in 2005 before global IGF, creating policy frameworks and spawning national IGFs

Summary

All three speakers emphasize that Latin America and the Caribbean were pioneers in adopting multistakeholder governance models, with successful community-driven initiatives like LACNIC, Brazil’s Internet Management Committee, and the Caribbean IGF predating even global initiatives.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Need for capacity building and training programs to develop future leaders

Speakers

– Ernesto Majo
– Olga Cavalli
– Paricipants

Arguments

Critical importance of continuing education and skill development for constructive dialogue

Success in developing new generations of leaders through various training programs

Need for better communication mechanisms to reach new actors and explain governance work

Summary

Multiple speakers agree on the fundamental importance of education and training programs to develop both current and future generations of internet governance leaders, with concrete examples of successful initiatives.

Topics

Development | Capacity development

Challenges in ensuring meaningful participation from all stakeholders

Speakers

– Raul Echeverría
– Renata Mielli
– Paloma Lara Castro
– Paricipants

Arguments

Need for more inclusive participation from all actors in policy discussions to avoid inefficient dialogues

Difficulty ensuring effective participation of Global South countries and civil society in multiplying governance processes

Civil society participation essential for addressing real situations and as fundamental human right

Civil society organizations facing critical financing and political pressure threatening ecosystem stability

Summary

There is strong consensus that current governance processes face significant challenges in ensuring meaningful participation from all stakeholders, particularly civil society and Global South actors, due to resource constraints and political pressures.

Topics

Development | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Importance of moving beyond dialogue to concrete cooperation and action

Speakers

– Carolina Aguerre
– Paricipants

Arguments

Need to move beyond dialogue to concrete cooperation projects including regional infrastructure development

Success in regional connectivity improvements through collaborative agreements between organizations

Summary

Speakers agree that while dialogue is important, there is a critical need to translate discussions into concrete collaborative projects and infrastructure improvements that deliver tangible benefits.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that internet governance in Latin America must address the region’s specific context of historical inequalities and structural gaps, requiring differentiated approaches that consider local needs rather than one-size-fits-all global solutions.

Speakers

– Veronica Ferrari
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Regional discussions marked by historical inequalities and digital gaps requiring human rights-focused approaches

Requirement for differentiated approaches addressing local needs and structural inequalities

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both speakers advocate for expanding the scope of internet governance to encompass broader digital governance issues while maintaining multistakeholder principles established in processes like NetMundial.

Speakers

– Renata Mielli
– Veronica Ferrari

Arguments

Importance of broadening focus from internet governance to comprehensive digital governance and policies

NetMundial principles should guide governance processes toward more inclusive and transparent approaches

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers, representing regional technical organizations, emphasize the importance of preserving successful regional governance models while investing in capacity building for future sustainability.

Speakers

– Raul Echeverría
– Ernesto Majo

Arguments

Importance of maintaining Brazil’s Internet Steering Committee model against proposed setbacks

Critical importance of continuing education and skill development for constructive dialogue

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Urgent need to address government overreach in internet shutdowns

Speakers

– Raul Echeverría
– Paricipants

Arguments

Regional success in multistakeholder work with early adoption of collaborative models like LACNIC creation

Urgent need to address disproportionate government actions like internet shutdowns during protests

Explanation

While not directly related to their main arguments, there was immediate solidarity and consensus across speakers when the Panama internet shutdown issue was raised, showing unexpected unity on human rights violations even among speakers focused on technical and infrastructure issues.

Topics

Human rights | Freedom of expression

Recognition of declining regional influence in global governance processes

Speakers

– Raul Echeverría
– Erick Iriarte

Arguments

Need for more inclusive participation from all actors in policy discussions to avoid inefficient dialogues

Other industries and actors now lobbying effectively while traditional internet governance community loses influence

Explanation

Both speakers, despite coming from different perspectives (regional technical leadership vs. legal/policy analysis), unexpectedly agreed that the region’s influence in global internet governance has declined, with other actors becoming more effective at lobbying and policy influence.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus on several key areas: the region’s historical success in pioneering multistakeholder governance models, the critical importance of capacity building and training programs, the challenges in ensuring meaningful participation from all stakeholders (particularly civil society and Global South actors), and the need to move beyond dialogue to concrete cooperative action. There was also agreement on addressing regional inequalities through differentiated approaches and maintaining successful governance models while adapting to new challenges.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with constructive alignment on fundamental principles and challenges. The speakers demonstrated remarkable agreement on both celebrating regional achievements and acknowledging current limitations. This consensus suggests a mature regional community that can honestly assess its strengths and weaknesses while maintaining commitment to multistakeholder principles. The implications are positive for regional coordination, as the shared understanding of challenges and solutions provides a solid foundation for collaborative action in addressing WSIS+20 review processes and future internet governance evolution.

Different viewpoints

Approach to strengthening multistakeholder governance – dialogue vs. concrete action

Speakers

– Carolina Aguerre
– Ernesto Majo
– Renata Mielli

Arguments

Need to move beyond dialogue to concrete cooperation projects including regional infrastructure development

LACNIC emerged naturally from community processes and has maintained collaborative approach for over 20 years

Importance of broadening focus from internet governance to comprehensive digital governance and policies

Summary

Carolina emphasizes moving beyond dialogue to concrete cooperation projects and infrastructure development, while Ernesto focuses on maintaining collaborative dialogue approaches that have worked for LACNIC, and Renata advocates for broadening the scope to comprehensive digital governance rather than focusing on specific projects

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Primary focus for addressing participation challenges

Speakers

– Erick Iriarte
– Veronica Ferrari
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Other industries and actors now lobbying effectively while traditional internet governance community loses influence

Regional discussions marked by historical inequalities and digital gaps requiring human rights-focused approaches

Rise of authoritarianism and democratic setbacks threatening civil society participation

Summary

Erick focuses on the competitive lobbying landscape and loss of influence to other industries, Veronica emphasizes structural inequalities and human rights frameworks, while Paloma highlights authoritarianism and democratic threats as the primary challenges to participation

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected differences

Effectiveness of current multistakeholder model

Speakers

– Raul Echeverría
– Nigel Cassimire

Arguments

Need for more inclusive participation from all actors in policy discussions to avoid inefficient dialogues

Caribbean IGF started in 2005 before global IGF, creating policy frameworks and spawning national IGFs

Explanation

Unexpectedly, while both speakers represent successful regional initiatives, Raul is critical of current dialogue effectiveness calling them inefficient and wasteful, while Nigel presents the Caribbean experience as largely successful with concrete policy outcomes and sustained impact

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Urgency of addressing current challenges

Speakers

– Carolina Aguerre
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Need to move beyond dialogue to concrete cooperation projects including regional infrastructure development

Civil society participation essential for addressing real situations and as fundamental human right

Explanation

Unexpectedly, both speakers advocate for moving beyond current approaches but with different urgency levels – Carolina focuses on infrastructure and cooperation projects as evolutionary steps, while Paloma frames civil society participation as an urgent human rights demand requiring immediate action

Topics

Human rights | Development | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on: 1) Whether to focus on dialogue improvement vs. concrete action projects, 2) How to address participation challenges (competitive lobbying vs. structural inequalities vs. authoritarianism), 3) Methods for capacity building (inclusive processes vs. skills development vs. formal education), and 4) Approaches to global governance processes (integration vs. standard maintenance vs. principle application)

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement level with significant implications – while speakers share common goals of strengthening multistakeholder governance, their different approaches could lead to fragmented regional efforts. The disagreements suggest a need for more coordinated strategy development that incorporates multiple approaches rather than pursuing separate paths. The unexpected disagreements particularly highlight tensions between evolutionary vs. urgent reform approaches that could impact the effectiveness of regional coordination in global governance processes.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that internet governance in Latin America must address the region’s specific context of historical inequalities and structural gaps, requiring differentiated approaches that consider local needs rather than one-size-fits-all global solutions.

Speakers

– Veronica Ferrari
– Paloma Lara Castro

Arguments

Regional discussions marked by historical inequalities and digital gaps requiring human rights-focused approaches

Requirement for differentiated approaches addressing local needs and structural inequalities

Topics

Human rights | Development

Both speakers advocate for expanding the scope of internet governance to encompass broader digital governance issues while maintaining multistakeholder principles established in processes like NetMundial.

Speakers

– Renata Mielli
– Veronica Ferrari

Arguments

Importance of broadening focus from internet governance to comprehensive digital governance and policies

NetMundial principles should guide governance processes toward more inclusive and transparent approaches

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers, representing regional technical organizations, emphasize the importance of preserving successful regional governance models while investing in capacity building for future sustainability.

Speakers

– Raul Echeverría
– Ernesto Majo

Arguments

Importance of maintaining Brazil’s Internet Steering Committee model against proposed setbacks

Critical importance of continuing education and skill development for constructive dialogue

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Latin America and Caribbean region has strong historical foundation in multistakeholder internet governance, with early adoption of collaborative models like LACNIC and Caribbean IGF starting before global IGF

The multistakeholder model faces significant challenges including reduced regional influence in international discussions, difficulty ensuring participation from Global South countries and civil society in multiplying governance processes

Civil society organizations are experiencing critical threats to sustainability through financing pressures and political attacks, which undermines the multistakeholder ecosystem

There is urgent need to evolve from dialogue-focused approaches to concrete cooperation projects, including regional infrastructure development and coordinated policy responses

Internet governance must expand beyond technical issues to comprehensive digital governance addressing AI, cybersecurity, data protection, and human rights impacts

Training and capacity building programs have successfully developed new generations of leaders, but continued investment in education and skill development is essential

Regional coordination and cooperation between actors and organizations around common goals is critical for addressing shared challenges like connectivity, AI impacts, and information integrity

The WSIS+20 review and Global Digital Compact processes present opportunities to strengthen multistakeholder principles and avoid duplication of governance efforts

Resolutions and action items

LACIGF to strengthen intersessional work groups and year-round coordination beyond annual forums as mandated in new statutes

Community called to support Brazil’s Internet Steering Committee model against proposed setbacks that would undermine its multistakeholder characteristics

IPANDETEC to circulate statement calling for support to oppose Panama government’s internet shutdown in Bocas del Toro province during protests

Need to integrate Global Digital Compact follow-up within WSIS framework structure to avoid process duplication

Strengthen training and capacity building programs to recruit new actors and prepare future leaders for governance roles

Develop better communication mechanisms to reach new actors and explain governance work to broader audiences

Unresolved issues

How to effectively counter the influence of other industries and actors who are successfully lobbying against internet governance community positions

How to ensure sustainable financing for civil society organizations facing economic and political pressures

How to guarantee meaningful participation of Global South countries and smaller organizations in multiplying global governance processes

How to address the lowering of standards in global commitments while real problems require stronger responses

How to translate global commitments into policies that respond to local community needs and structural inequalities

How to maintain regional influence in international discussions where Latin American participation has decreased

How to balance state security concerns with human rights protections in digital governance policies

Suggested compromises

Broaden focus from internet governance to comprehensive digital governance while maintaining core multistakeholder principles

Use NetMundial+10 principles as reference for other processes like WSIS and Global Digital Compact to ensure consistency

Create coordinated spaces that avoid duplication while allowing for differentiated regional approaches to global challenges

Develop governance processes that recognize power asymmetries between different stakeholders while maintaining inclusive participation

Integrate technical infrastructure cooperation with policy dialogue to move beyond discussion toward concrete implementation

We live in a world where peace is a little undervalued, and international cooperation does not go through its best moment… we have a misuse of energy, or a waste of energy, that is too big and gigantic, I would say, in political discussions that do not even reach a conclusion.

Speaker

Raúl Echeverría

Reason

This comment was particularly insightful because it reframed the entire discussion by acknowledging the broader geopolitical context affecting internet governance. Rather than focusing solely on technical or procedural aspects, Echeverría highlighted how global political fragmentation directly impacts the effectiveness of multi-stakeholder dialogue.

Impact

This observation set a sobering tone for the entire session and influenced subsequent speakers to address the fragility of current governance models. It shifted the conversation from celebrating past achievements to critically examining current challenges and the need for more efficient dialogue mechanisms.

We must also have these principles as a reference for other processes, such as the processes of the WISES and the Global Digital Pact. It is also essential to reinforce the defense of a governance with active participation of multiple interested parties, create coordinated spaces and avoid duplication of efforts.

Speaker

Renata Mielli

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it identified a critical structural problem: the proliferation of governance forums is actually weakening participation rather than strengthening it. She pointed out that multiple parallel processes make it difficult for smaller countries and civil society to participate meaningfully.

Impact

This insight redirected the discussion toward practical solutions for consolidating governance efforts. It influenced other speakers to consider how fragmentation of governance spaces undermines the very inclusivity they aim to promote, leading to calls for more strategic coordination.

We have evangelized ourselves so well that we have believed the story of what we did, and we have believed it so well that we have been able to maintain it for a long time… Now it is almost impossible, even if we have a strong voice or a recognized voice… There are simply other actors with more money, there are other actors with more involvement in the social economy.

Speaker

Erick Iriarte

Reason

This was perhaps the most provocative comment of the session, challenging the community’s self-perception and effectiveness. Iriarte argued that the internet governance community has become insular and lost influence to other actors who don’t share their principles but have more resources and political connections.

Impact

This comment created a significant shift in the discussion’s tone, forcing participants to confront uncomfortable truths about their diminishing influence. It challenged the assumption that their model was still relevant and effective, leading to more critical self-reflection about outreach and engagement strategies.

For the permanence, the continuity of the multiparty model of Internet governance, an indispensable engine is civil society, civil society organizations. And in the last year, these organizations have suffered a critical situation regarding their stability, both in terms of financing for the sustainability of these organizations, but also a lot of pressure towards other models of governance more focused on the states.

Speaker

Iria Puyolza

Reason

This comment was insightful because it identified a fundamental threat to the multi-stakeholder model that hadn’t been explicitly discussed: the systematic weakening of civil society organizations through financial pressure and political attacks. It connected global democratic backsliding to internet governance challenges.

Impact

This observation added urgency to the discussion and highlighted a critical vulnerability in the governance ecosystem. It shifted focus from theoretical discussions about participation to concrete threats facing the organizations that enable meaningful multi-stakeholder engagement.

We cannot continue walking or tracing the same lines of action and the same discourses when this world has changed, when the Internet has changed, even though we continue to advocate for an open, interoperable Internet that promotes inclusion.

Speaker

Carolina Aguerre

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it challenged the community to move beyond familiar rhetoric and adapt to new realities. Aguerre argued for maintaining core principles while fundamentally changing approaches, calling for concrete cooperation projects rather than just dialogue.

Impact

This comment influenced the discussion by pushing participants to think beyond traditional forum-based approaches toward more action-oriented collaboration. It helped bridge the gap between idealistic principles and practical implementation needs in a changed global context.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by challenging participants to move beyond comfortable assumptions about their success and relevance. The conversation evolved from initial celebrations of past achievements to increasingly critical self-examination. Echeverría’s opening remarks about global political fragmentation set a realistic tone that influenced all subsequent contributions. Iriarte’s provocative challenge about the community’s insularity created a turning point that forced more honest assessment of current limitations. The comments about civil society under threat and the need for new approaches rather than familiar rhetoric pushed the discussion toward more urgent, practical considerations. Together, these interventions transformed what could have been a self-congratulatory session into a more substantive examination of existential challenges facing internet governance in Latin America and the Caribbean. The discussion ultimately became more actionable and realistic, with participants acknowledging both their achievements and the serious threats to their continued relevance.

How can we bring more people to multistakeholder dialogues and ensure participation of all actors from the beginning of policy discussions?

Speaker

Raúl Echeverría

Explanation

He noted that IGF processes don’t have strong participation from all actors and emphasized the need to involve everyone from the start to avoid inefficient political discussions that reach no conclusions

How do we make dialogues more balanced so that actors participate because they understand they contribute and are enriched, rather than becoming deaf dialogue processes?

Speaker

Ernesto Majó

Explanation

He identified the challenge of ensuring meaningful participation where all parties genuinely engage rather than just going through the motions

How can we develop regional infrastructures and supercomputer capacities in the context of artificial intelligence?

Speaker

Carolina Aguerre

Explanation

She emphasized the need for regional cooperation on concrete projects including infrastructure development to strengthen the region’s technological capabilities

How can we guarantee effective participation of Global South countries, small countries, civil society, and less economically powerful private sector actors in multiple governance processes?

Speaker

Renata Mielli

Explanation

She highlighted the difficulty of ensuring meaningful participation as discussion forums multiply across different agencies and topics

How can global commitments be translated in ways that respond to local community needs and address differentiated impacts?

Speaker

Paloma Lara Castro

Explanation

She emphasized that while challenges are shared globally, impacts differ by region and country, requiring locally adapted strategies

How can we evangelize and convince other actors outside the traditional internet governance community to adopt multistakeholder principles?

Speaker

Erick Iriarte

Explanation

He noted that other industries and actors are successfully lobbying for different approaches while traditional internet governance advocates are losing influence

What can the community do to protect civil society organizations facing economic and political threats to their sustainability?

Speaker

Iria Puyolza

Explanation

She highlighted the critical situation of civil society organizations suffering from financing instability and political pressure, which threatens the multistakeholder model

How can intersessional work groups be strengthened to create spaces for ongoing collaboration beyond annual forums?

Speaker

Lilian Chamorro

Explanation

She mentioned this as a mandate in new statutes and requested community contributions on how to implement these continuous working spaces

How can Latin America increase its participation and influence in international discussions?

Speaker

Raúl Echeverría

Explanation

He observed that regional participation in international discussions has decreased compared to earlier periods, with fewer governments participating significantly

Summary

This panel discussion focused on the critical role of data governance in enabling equitable and inclusive outcomes from Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), examining how governance frameworks must evolve to balance innovation with accountability. The conversation was moderated by Priya Chetty from Research ICT Africa and featured experts from various sectors discussing the intersection of data governance, DPI implementation, and sustainable development goals.

Souhila Amazouz from the African Union Commission outlined continental policy frameworks, particularly the African Union Data Policy Framework adopted in 2022, which aims to create integrated data governance approaches across Africa. She emphasized the concept of “data justice” to ensure equal representation in digital spaces and highlighted that while 60% of African countries have data privacy laws in place, only 7% have interoperable digital payment systems. Andrew Vennekotter from Amazon Web Services stressed the importance of getting data governance right for AI innovation, advocating for risk and principles-based frameworks that focus on security, responsible AI implementation, and human-in-the-loop approaches rather than premature technology mandates.

Payal Malik raised critical concerns about market concentration risks in DPI ecosystems, warning that private entities operating on public infrastructure rails could engage in data extractivism without proper governance frameworks. She argued for contractual arrangements and fiduciary obligations to prevent the creation of monopolistic enclosures while maintaining the public nature of DPI. Thomas Linder emphasized civil society’s crucial role as a third sector voice, advocating for local adaptation and operationalization of governance frameworks rather than cookie-cutter approaches.

Mariana Rielli from Data Privacy Brazil presented findings on integrating data protection frameworks with DPI governance, moving beyond privacy-focused approaches to encompass broader fundamental rights and accountability mechanisms. The discussion highlighted real-world challenges through examples from India’s healthcare DPI implementation, where exclusion of vulnerable populations and privacy concerns have emerged despite system efficiencies. The panel concluded that effective DPI governance requires integrated, multi-stakeholder frameworks that address not only privacy and security but also competition, inclusion, and democratic participation to ensure that digital public infrastructure truly serves public interests.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Data Governance as Critical Infrastructure for DPI Success**: The panelists emphasized that effective data governance frameworks are essential for Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) to deliver on its promises of digital transformation, inclusion, and sustainable development. Without proper governance, DPI cannot achieve its potential for equitable outcomes.

– **Public-Private Partnership Challenges and Market Concentration Risks**: Significant concerns were raised about how private entities operating on public DPI platforms may engage in data extractivism, create monopolistic enclosures, and concentrate market power. The discussion highlighted the need for contractual frameworks and regulatory oversight to ensure public interest is maintained.

– **Integration of Rights-Based Frameworks Beyond Privacy**: Panelists argued for moving beyond traditional privacy-focused approaches to incorporate broader data protection principles, including informational autonomy, self-determination, and contextual integrity. This includes embedding accountability mechanisms and ensuring fundamental rights are protected in data flows.

– **Multi-Stakeholder Governance and Civil Society Role**: The conversation emphasized the critical importance of including civil society organizations in DPI governance design and implementation, recognizing their unique position to represent diverse community interests and bridge between technical implementation and local contexts.

– **Real-World Implementation Lessons and Challenges**: Drawing from examples like India’s healthcare DPI and Brazil’s data protection framework, the discussion highlighted both the benefits (efficiency gains, improved service delivery) and significant risks (exclusion of vulnerable populations, privacy violations, stigmatization) of current DPI implementations.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how data governance frameworks can be evolved and strengthened to ensure that Digital Public Infrastructure delivers equitable and inclusive outcomes. The session sought to move beyond technical efficiency considerations to address broader questions of digital rights, market concentration, and democratic participation in DPI development and implementation.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, with panelists building on each other’s insights rather than debating opposing viewpoints. The conversation was notably solution-oriented, with speakers acknowledging challenges while focusing on practical recommendations and frameworks. There was an underlying sense of urgency about getting governance frameworks right, particularly given real-world examples of both successes and failures in current DPI implementations. The tone remained academic and policy-focused while being grounded in practical, on-the-ground experiences from various global contexts.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Chetty Pria** – Moderator, Research ICT Africa (digital policy think tank based in Cape Town, working across Africa on digital equality and data justice)

– **Souhila Amazouz** – Senior ICT Policy Officer, African Union Commission (over two decades of experience in ICT frameworks, policy frameworks, digital policy frameworks, data policy frameworks, regional harmonization efforts and technical support to member states in Africa)

– **Andrew Vennekotter** – Senior Manager, Amazon Web Services (expert in cybersecurity and assurance work, former NASA employee, worked in public sector for many years, now leading public-private efforts at AWS)

– **Malik Payal** – Senior Advisor, International Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICREA) (formerly based at Competition Commission, works at intersection of economics, competition, and policy)

– **Linder Thomas** – Senior Coordinator, Open North (works on initiatives related to data governance, citizen engagement, and data justice)

– **Mariana Rielli** – Co-Executive Director, Data Privacy Brazil (brings perspective from Brazil’s ground experience with data governance work)

– **Audience** – Various participants asking questions and providing comments

**Additional speakers:**

– **Nikita Jain** – Online moderator, Economist with the International Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICREA)

# Comprehensive Report: Data Governance for Equitable Digital Public Infrastructure

## Executive Summary

This Internet Governance Forum panel discussion examined the critical intersection of data governance and Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI), focusing on how governance frameworks must evolve to ensure equitable and inclusive outcomes. Moderated by Priya Chetty from Research ICT Africa, the session brought together experts from continental policy organisations, technology companies, civil society, and academic institutions to address fundamental questions about power, equity, and democratic governance in the digital age.

The discussion revealed the complexity of DPI governance challenges, with participants examining both the transformative potential of DPI and the significant risks that must be addressed through comprehensive governance frameworks. Key themes emerged around the inadequacy of traditional data protection approaches, the risk of market concentration in public-private partnerships, and the need for integrated governance frameworks that prioritise public value creation.

## Opening Framework: African Continental Perspective

### Setting the Context for Data Justice

Priya Chetty opened the discussion by establishing the African continental context, explaining that the African Union Data Policy Framework, adopted in 2022, represents a significant shift towards integrated data governance approaches across Africa. She introduced the concept of “data justice” as ensuring equal representation of all people in the digital space, including diversity of languages and cultures.

“The African Union Data Policy Framework was adopted in 2022, and it really tries to take an integrated approach to data governance across Africa,” Chetty explained. “It introduces this concept of data justice, which is about ensuring equal representation of all people in the digital space, including diversity of languages and cultures.”

Chetty outlined the current state of DPI implementation across Africa, noting significant disparities: while 60% of African countries have established data privacy laws, only 7% have implemented interoperable digital payment systems, and merely nine countries possess real-time data exchange capabilities. This uneven development landscape underscores the importance of harmonised approaches while respecting local contexts.

She positioned DPI as potentially transformative for Africa’s integration agenda, capable of accelerating achievement of Agenda 2063 goals through multi-stakeholder, multi-sectoral, and secure data sharing systems. However, she emphasised that realising this potential requires addressing fundamental questions of data justice and equitable participation.

## Continental Policy Perspective

### African Union’s Integrated Governance Approach

Souhila Amazouz from the African Union Commission elaborated on the continental framework, emphasising how the African Union Data Policy Framework moves beyond traditional transparency measures to actively address equity concerns in digital infrastructure development. She highlighted the framework’s focus on harmonisation while respecting diverse national contexts and capacity levels.

Amazouz stressed that DPI represents a “game changer” for African integration, but warned that technical implementation alone is insufficient. “We need to move beyond just the technical aspects to address fundamental questions of how data governance can serve all our people equitably,” she noted.

The continental perspective revealed the challenge of coordinating DPI development across countries with vastly different technological capabilities and regulatory frameworks, while maintaining the vision of seamless, interoperable systems that can serve the continent’s development goals.

## Civil Society and Democratic Participation

### Reframing Governance Beyond Corporate Models

Thomas Linder from Open North provided the civil society perspective, emphasising how traditional corporate data governance models are inadequate for public infrastructure. He argued that DPI governance requires fundamentally different approaches centred on democratic participation and social contracts.

“Data governance as traditionally understood originated in corporate spaces focused on efficiency and effectiveness, but DPI governance requires different approaches centred on social contracts and democratic participation,” Linder observed.

Linder outlined four key ways civil society organisations can contribute to DPI governance: policy and research work, advocacy for collective ownership models, direct advocacy and accountability work, and capacity building initiatives. He emphasised that civil society serves as an essential third-sector voice to balance state and corporate interests while adapting high-level governance principles to local contexts.

“Civil society organisations have a crucial role in ensuring that DPI implementations serve community needs and maintain democratic accountability,” Linder stated, highlighting the importance of community participation in governance frameworks.

## Economic Analysis and Market Dynamics

### Platform Economics and Monopolisation Risks

Payal Malik from the International Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) introduced critical economic analysis of DPI platform dynamics. She highlighted how the economics of multi-sided platforms create inherent network effects that can lead to winner-takes-all outcomes and monopolisation.

“The economics of multi-sided platforms where DPIs essentially function as platforms connecting multiple actors create inherent network effects that can lead to winner-takes-all outcomes resulting in the creation of monopolies,” Malik explained.

She identified a crucial “regulatory blind spot” where private entities operating on public platforms may engage in data collection and usage without adequate oversight, potentially creating “monopolistic enclosures and data hegemony in public-private partnerships.”

Malik argued for comprehensive contractual arrangements and fiduciary obligations to ensure private partners uphold public interest and maintain competitive neutrality in DPI implementations. She emphasised that without proper governance frameworks, there is significant risk that public data and infrastructure will be leveraged for private gain without corresponding public benefit.

## Private Sector Innovation Perspective

### Balancing Innovation with Accountability

Andrew Vennekotter, representing the private sector perspective with experience from NASA and U.S. government technology initiatives, advocated for risk and principles-based frameworks that enable innovation while ensuring accountability. He emphasised the importance of getting data governance right for AI innovation, arguing that premature technology mandates could stifle beneficial developments.

Vennekotter cited a Harvard Business School study showing that AI tools can improve task completion by 12.7% while democratising expertise across skill levels. “This demonstrates the potential benefits of AI when properly governed, but we need frameworks that don’t stifle this innovation through overly prescriptive regulations,” he argued.

He highlighted significant compliance costs associated with prescriptive regulatory approaches, noting that compliance can reach 40% of product value in some jurisdictions. Vennekotter advocated for frameworks based on established standards like the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and ISO 42001, focusing on security, responsible AI implementation, and human-in-the-loop approaches.

“Data governance must focus on risks and principles-based frameworks rather than premature technology standards to enable innovation,” Vennekotter stated, while acknowledging that technical solutions must be embedded within broader governance frameworks.

## Rights-Based Legal Integration

### Moving Beyond Privacy-Centric Approaches

Mariana Rielli from Data Privacy Brazil presented findings from their new report on integrating data protection frameworks with DPI governance. She argued for approaches that move beyond traditional privacy-focused frameworks to encompass broader fundamental rights and accountability mechanisms.

“Economic value being generated by data, regardless of how that is shared, does not per se guarantee the achievement of public value if the rights of people are being neglected,” Rielli observed.

She distinguished between economic value generation and public value creation, emphasising that economic benefits do not automatically translate to public good if people’s rights are neglected. Rielli introduced concepts including “contextual integrity” and briefly mentioned “informational separation of powers” as frameworks for thinking about data governance that go beyond simple privacy protection.

Rielli argued that data protection frameworks should be integrated into DPI discussions as procedural rights that provide rules for just information flows, recognising data protection as containing preventive and precautionary principles that can help ensure DPI implementations serve public rather than private interests.

## Real-World Implementation Challenges

### Lessons from India’s Healthcare DPI

The discussion was grounded through examination of India’s healthcare DPI implementation, presented by audience member Erum via online moderator Nikita Jain from ICRIER. This case study revealed both potential benefits and significant risks of current DPI implementations.

While the system has created efficiencies in patient data sharing among doctors, significant adverse outcomes have emerged. People with chronic diseases such as leprosy, or people with disabilities, struggle with Aadhaar enrollment processes. Most concerning, patients with diseases carrying social stigma, such as HIV and AIDS, exclude themselves from using the Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission (ABDM).

“Although there have been efficiencies in patient data sharing among doctors, significant adverse outcomes have been realised as well. People with chronic diseases, like leprosy, or people with disabilities, struggle with Aadhaar enrollment. Patients of diseases with social stigma, such as HIV, AIDS, exclude themselves from using ABDM,” the audience member reported.

This real-world example demonstrated how technical solutions can reproduce and amplify existing social inequalities despite stated goals of inclusion, effectively creating a two-tiered healthcare system where those most in need of services are least able to access them through the digital system.

## Key Themes and Recommendations

### Integrated Governance Frameworks

Throughout the discussion, speakers emphasised that traditional data protection approaches focusing solely on individual consent and privacy are insufficient for DPI governance. Instead, comprehensive, integrated frameworks are needed that address structural issues, public value creation, and equitable outcomes.

### Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration

Speakers consistently emphasised that effective DPI governance requires collaboration across government, private sector, and civil society organisations. This multi-stakeholder approach was seen as essential for ensuring balanced representation of interests and equitable outcomes.

### Addressing Implementation Gaps

The varying levels of DPI maturity across regions, particularly in Africa, require sustained attention to capacity building and institutional development. Speakers highlighted the need for approaches that can integrate existing digital systems rather than replacing them entirely.

### Preventing Market Concentration

The discussion emphasised the need for contractual arrangements and regulatory frameworks to prevent private monopolisation of public infrastructure, ensuring that DPI serves public purposes rather than private profit maximisation.

## Conclusion

This comprehensive discussion revealed both the transformative potential and significant governance challenges of Digital Public Infrastructure. The conversation demonstrated sophisticated understanding of the need to move beyond technical implementation to address fundamental questions of equity, rights protection, and democratic participation.

The real-world examples of both successes and failures in current DPI implementations underscore that these are urgent practical challenges affecting millions of people’s access to essential services. The emphasis on data justice, equity, and inclusion reflects growing recognition that technical efficiency alone is insufficient—DPI must actively work to serve all populations, particularly the most vulnerable.

The path forward requires continued collaboration across sectors, sustained attention to capacity building, and commitment to learning from both successes and failures in current implementations. Only through comprehensive governance approaches can DPI fulfil its promise of enabling equitable digital transformation while avoiding the risks of market concentration, exclusion, and rights violations that current implementations have revealed.

Chetty Pria: Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us after the tea break. We are very excited today about this particular panel because it brings the data conversations that we’ve been having, I think, across the last few days into focus. And today we’re speaking about data for impact and its correlation with digital public infrastructure and how we can evolve and shift our approaches to data governance to bring more equitable and inclusive approaches to data governance. This correlates, I think, with IGF Subtheme 2, which is around building sustainable and responsible innovation. And I think this has really been our experience as we’ve worked across digital public infrastructure, artificial intelligence more recently, policies that are centred on micro and small enterprises in the digital economy, and various other subjects interrelated with this subject that data governance is really being looked to as a model to bring more equity and inclusion in what technology and innovation promises in this age. So, a quick introduction of myself, the moderator for the session. My name is Priya Chetty. I come from Research ICT Africa. We are a digital policy think tank based in Cape Town, but working across Africa on a range of programmatic areas around digital equality and data justice. Your online moderator today is Nikita Jain. You’ll see her. Hello to all the online participants. You’ll see Nikita with you. She is an economist with the International Council for Research on International Economic Relations, ICREA. So welcome, online participants, and thank you, Nikita, for the online moderation. So, just a few thoughts to set the scene for today. We’ve had a number of conversations around digital public infrastructure, and really this opportunity that is presented by DPI as a foundational layer technology option for digital transformation across society. And so we’ve had a number of discussions in the lead up to this on DPI. And the promise in digital public infrastructure to drive national digital transformation, to drive regional digital transformation, to foster innovation, and to produce some outcomes for sustainable development. What is the promise behind DPI for sustainable development? At the same time, we have this realization that the ambition that we have for DPI is not realized unless we have relevant governance frameworks to give us direction, to give us a strategy, and to keep us accountable for what we will do with DPI. So, what we want from the technical perspective is high levels of efficiency. And sometimes there can be an overfocus, I suppose, on the technical side of things. So we want to have a balanced approach that is about technical efficiency, but also about equitable outcomes. If we are investing in digital public infrastructure. We want to have a fair degree of openness in terms of the systems, in terms of the applications, and in terms of the data. And at the same time, we want to balance this with assurances that we need to give society and users about the security of the data, and the protection of the data, and the assurances that will be built into the systems and applications that are constituted by digital public infrastructure. So, what we are speaking about is that we want to advance the innovation, and at the same time, we want to make sure that the governance delivers an accountability framework that we can rely on as we implement digital public infrastructure. When we speak about data governance specifically, we first speak about the association between data governance and digital public infrastructure. We have come to recognize that how we govern the data, the data exchange component, not just as a pillar of DPI, but across digital identity and digital payments implementation, really determines whether DPIs can deliver on this promise. That data governance has become so integral to the objectives of digital public infrastructure. And this is where we speak about how we are going to, one, adapt our data governance frameworks so that we can foster the innovation that we need, because we need to see the data moving across this layer at the system level. And also, how we can broaden the participation of those who are engaging with the digital public infrastructure for data-led value creation. Can they participate in the data value chain? So, when we speak about data governance, it isn’t just about the protection mechanisms and the accountability mechanisms. It’s also about whether it can be used and leveraged, the governance that we have It’s also about whether it can be used and leveraged, the governance framework, to empower citizens digitally. Can changes in access to data and use of data and sharing and exchange of data at all levels of society empower citizens and users of DPI? And when we enable this kind of integrated data governance framework, can we unlock this sustainable development gain? The challenge that we see at the same time is that this requires a different orientation to data governance. So, a reference that we work with at Research IST Africa and now a model that has been absorbed into the Global South is the African Union Data Policy Framework. And this particular framework is looking at this integrated approach to data governance. It speaks about whether the frameworks that we have currently provide for the essential digital and data rights for all. And we don’t just mean the right to privacy or the right to information. We’re speaking about the right to meaningful connectivity. Whether the frameworks actually do allow this data exchange for equitable and beneficial data access. So, where citizens are not just the providers of data, but they are in fact using the data in beneficial ways. Whether these frameworks are adequate for transparency, accountability, and responsible data use. Whether the mechanisms of enforcement and redress are there and apparent in the frameworks or whether we need to improve them to address issues of bias that can present in the data or rights violations. Do we need stronger oversight or interoperability mandates? And when we see this unique coming together of public and private sector in new models of cooperation, do we have the necessary mechanisms in our broader data governance frameworks? Not just in our data protection frameworks or in our access to information laws, but also in our consumer protection laws and our market mechanisms, our competition laws and policies to prevent monopolization while also fostering this open innovation. And that brings us to our session today. Which we hope will be interactive and we hope that you will engage with us on recommendations that we can take forward.

Souhila Amazouz: There’s been a lot of conversations on what we need. But how exactly are we going to do it? So we’re going to hear from our fantastic panelists today who are each going to bring unique perspectives from their work and their on the ground work in this space. And then we’re going to have some audience engagement where I hope you will not just raise questions for the panelists but also share your recommendations and your experience working in this space. I think what’s wonderful about the IGF is that we’re in a room of experts where everyone is equally vested in this topic but also actively engaged in this topic. So with that, I want to bring our panelists into the conversation. We are delighted to have with us today Sohila Amosu who joins us from the African Union Commission where she’s a senior ICT policy officer and has been engaged in over two decades in various situations of ICT frameworks, policy frameworks, digital policy frameworks, now data policy frameworks, including in the regional harmonization efforts and technical support to member states in Africa. We have Andrew Fenecotta from Amazon Web Services. He’s a senior manager there. And to date the only person that I know who’s worked at NASA but he has. He is an expert in cybersecurity and assurance work in the trust area and worked for many years in the public sector and now leading public-private efforts at AWS. We have Payal Malik who’s the senior advisor to the International Council for Research on International Economic Relations, ICREA. And Payal for many years has been based at the Competition Commission where she advised and informed policy shifts. So her work is at the intersection of economics, competition, and policy. We have Thomas Linder with us from the Open North. He’s a senior coordinator on various initiatives related to data governance, citizen engagement, and to data justice. And we have Mariana Rielli who’s the co-executive director of Data Privacy Brazil and brings a fascinating perspective where Brazil is really encountering these issues on the ground already and so really looking forward to Mariana’s perspective. perspectives from the ground in Brazil with her data governance work. So, over to our panelists. Souhila, if I can come to you first for your continental and public sector perspective. Can you paint the picture for us? What are the relevant continental policy frameworks that guide data governance for DPI? Especially when we speak about equitable and inclusive outcomes for society from DPI. And what is your experience with those frameworks? What can you share from your experience of engaging with those frameworks and lessons here for the IGF community? Good afternoon. Do you hear me? Good afternoon. Thank you. First of all, I would like to thank Research ICT Africa for extending the invitation to the African Union Commission to be part of this important conversation on how to develop or to advance effective and well-functioning data governance frameworks and mechanisms to support the deployment of digital public infrastructure, knowing that data is a foundational component of DPI. So, to respond to your question, I would say that from our African Union perspective, we see DPI as a game changer. Like for Africa, it will help to support our integration and development agenda. It has the potential to accelerate the attainment of the Agenda 2063 and advance digital transformation, and also address the socio-economic inequalities, knowing that DPI is a concept of integrated systems and the operability of digital systems that will create a platform for citizens’ participation, and also it will improve lives as it will facilitate access to essential services, and this will really help to bridge the digital divide affecting the continent. It also has the opportunity to create new business opportunities for people, like to boost intra-Africa digital trade, the development of an inclusive digital economy. And also, we really aim that through the implementation of the DPI concept, we can achieve the digital prosperity and inclusion of the continent. So, at continental level so far, we don’t have a continental policy on DPI, but we have many strategic frameworks that have been adopted in recent years. They are laying the foundation for the development of DPI across the continent. Maybe, as you mentioned, the main one is the African Union Data Policy Framework that was adopted in 2022. Our main objective is to see how to harness the potential of data to transform the economies and societies, and also it aims to build the capabilities of African countries when it comes to data, like how to manage data, to have the data storage capacities, and also to create a kind of data exchanges at national level that will help data access and also facilitate data transfer. So, the data policy frameworks lay the foundation for the development of integrated data governance approach across the continent, and we are now in the implementation phase, as we are implementing the framework through a continental initiative, which is a data governance initiative for Africa, where we support all African countries to develop their national data strategies or policies, to develop capacities, because there is also a need to build institutional and human capacities in data to enable data, to make data available, to enable data access, use data sharing, and it is one of the main conditions that will enable us to develop DPI. So, just to highlight that all this, another framework that is directly related to DPI is the interoperability framework for digital ID, which is also a continental framework that was adopted in 2022. It aims to create space for countries to agree on minimum standards and technical parameters, and also harmonization of policies and regulations to facilitate and enable the use of digital ID across the continent. There is also an initiative on digital payment, where we created a Pan-African payment and settlement system in Africa. It is a digital platform that is already operational, that aims to facilitate payment across the continent without relying on foreign policies. So, this is the key strategic frameworks that we have in place, but both of them are in the implementation phase, and all of them are aligned with our main core values, like the principles of equity and integrity, and also we introduced a new concept of data justice and also transparency. Through the data justice, we aim to ensure equal representation to all people in the digital space, including the diversity of languages and cultures. So, as I said, we are now working with all countries to develop national capacities, because it is important. At the same time, also, we have many countries that have started implementing DPI at national level. We have countries that advance DPI as a national priority, such as South Africa, they are also pushing through the G20 also for DPI, and we have other countries that are really making good progress in advancing DPI as an integrated approach. Like, we have already progressed when it comes to advancing digital ID systems and also some experiences on digital data exchanges. For instance, we have around 60% of African countries, they have already the data privacy in place. We have like 60% also, they have in place transactions, legislations, and when it comes to the countries with data exchanges, we have 28 countries so far, they have data exchanges. Among them, they have 22, they are cross-sectoral data exchanges, but only nine of them, they have real-time data exchanges. And we have so far, 35% of African countries, they have in place some kind of digital payment systems, but only 7% of them, they are interoperable, which shows that there is work in progress. There is a lot of policy development and also implementation, while at the same time, we try to align to the African context. We know that our main challenge is to address the infrastructure and digital deficit, while at the same time, integrating all what is related to digital transformation, including DPI in the national development agenda. I stop here and I would be happy to come back if there are any questions. Thank you. Thank you so much, Sina, and I think you’ve already introduced

Chetty Pria: into this conversation a few defining concepts for us to take forward. The one, signaling the need for interoperability of the data and the data systems, if we are really going to unlock the access to the digital services in our digital transformation ambitions. The second, data justice, where access to data benefits all, and seeing how we meaningfully deliver on that. You spoke about integrated governance and you also gave us a picture, I suppose, of the data ecosystem that we see across the continent and the need to boost the maturity of the data ecosystem. I wonder if I could bring Andrew into the conversation now. Sihila spoke a little to the ambitions of the continent and what the digital transformation ambitions are that rely heavily on innovation. So, I wanted to ask you, what is the reason for us to get the data governance right if we want to enable this kind of DPI innovation? Why is data governance so critical in this space? And I wonder, Andrew, if you can draw on your public sector and your private sector experience. Sure. So, thanks. And I want to say, first of all, I appreciate the

Andrew Vennekotter: opportunity to speak at this event. One of my, actually my last posting for the U.S. government was in Ghana. So, I spent a year living in Accra. So, to any Ghanaians out there, thank you for welcoming me to this. So, let me start with why getting data governance is so critical for enabling innovation. At its core, data governance is about asserting positive control over, especially in the AI world, generative AI outputs. So, we have to ensure that they’re not just useful, but also safe and beneficial. And so, while large language models are becoming increasingly sophisticated generating content, reducing hallucinations, and performing deep research, there’s no shortcut for around good data governance. The better we help AI understand our data, the better results we’ll achieve. And that goes for, you know, private companies and governments and public organizations alike. But then, you have to also think about security, which is a critical part of data governance. So, security is a fundamental aspect of governance frameworks. It can’t be an afterthought or a bolted-on solution. It has to be woven into organizations’ cultural fabric and prioritized by leadership, which means carefully selecting providers and partners in the public and private sector who demonstrate a strong security culture. And clear data ownership is also crucial. So we also recommend that organizations work with partners to establish distinct ownership boundaries around data and provide tools for secure data management. So another aspect of data governance that we need to get right is a responsible AI, right? You need to have a concrete plan for managing risks. I recommend starting with established frameworks like NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework or international certifications like ISO 42001. Those provide structured approaches to developing AI safely while limiting potential harmful content. And so there’s a lot of, that’s data governance, right? But why do we need data governance? What is the whole point of gathering data, processing and generating new information? What are we doing this for? And I think a lot of the benefits of gen AI have not yet been fully realized by a lot of organizations. So there’s a lot of buzz around it, but I want to share some actual research and exciting findings. There’s a Harvard Business School study recently, actually earlier this year, that investigated 776 professionals at Procter & Gamble and it revealed some pretty remarkable insights. Teams using AI showed significant performance improvements, completing tasks 12.7% faster while producing higher quality work. And what’s particularly interesting is that a single AI-enabled individual was able to perform at levels comparable to traditional teams working without AI. And so it also, the study also found that AI helps break down expertise barriers within organizations. It bridges functional silos between different specialists, such as R&D, commercial teams, and enables professionals to produce more balanced solutions regardless of their background. This democratization of expertise is transforming how organizations operate. It’s also enabling people who are, who may not be extremely technical or engineers to start thinking about creative solutions to technical problems in new ways, which is, I think, something that we’re all interested in. And we’re seeing these benefits in some real-world applications. And, you know, not speaking for all providers, but for us, we have a customer, YC, and they’re using AI to revolutionize medical writing, regulatory medical writing, which is significantly accelerating the delivery of new medicines. And by maintaining a human-in-a-loop approach, they ensure not only regulatory accuracy and compliance, but also save pharmaceutical companies thousands of hours in document preparation time. And so that human-in-a-loop approach is also critical. It goes back to the risk management framework. We have to think about where humans need to be, in fact, involved in the AI data governance. So that’s a critical thing that all organizations, public or private, should be thinking about. So, you know, we talked a lot about, we talked a lot about, like, governance and regulation. So when does government regulation of technology make sense? I think where it makes sense is when we focus on risks and principles, right? So we need to develop frameworks based on risks and principles, because the, you know, if we, if we, the compliance costs for most government imposed regulations are pretty high. In the EU, they’re about 40% of the total product’s value, right? So if you think about how to enable innovation, and you’re already taxing an organization’s resources with 40%, you can think of all the different things you can do with that, with those resources. And so harmonizing standards is also critical, right? So enable, to enable international cooperation and things like data governance. We need to figure out how to make the standards work together with each other, because technology does not have borders anymore, really. And so the more we can enable innovation everywhere in the globe, the more the entire globe benefits from that. So we also need to think about when not to do that, right? When should we be cautious when mandating new standards? Because I think we’ve all can think of an example of a standard regulating something when the technology advances much faster than the standard. And so that’s not to say that we shouldn’t do standards. Obviously we should, we have lots of standards that we comply with in my organization. But it just means that we need to make sure that the technology is in a settled place, in a place that will allow for the use of standards in a smart way that thinks about the risks and principles involved. And so the second thing we need to do is to accelerate private sector digital adoption. And that means streamlining access to private finance for startups and government funding for businesses, a factor that 45% of businesses decide is critical. We also need to think about lifting up all boats by building digital skills. So 84% of businesses see AI skills as crucial but only 26% feel adequately prepared. And that goes for the entire globe, right? Especially if you think about some of the great innovations going on in Ghana where I served. I knew a lot of folks who were itching to spread their products to the globe, but they were facing a limitation of digital skills in terms of the labor workforce. So I think that there’s a lot of work we can do both in the private sector and the public sector to enable that. And then finally.

Chetty Pria: Andrew, I wonder if we could pause there and if we could come back to your recommendations, final recommendations in the closing remarks. I thought it was a good point to bring in AI innovation as an example and to then use that as a proxy for speaking about the positive control that we might need over some of the AI innovation outputs. But at the same time, I think it’s a good time to bring in Payal now. What we’re seeing, especially in DPI, and Andrew has spoken quite a bit about AI as a proxy, but across the DPI, we’re seeing this model of public and private participation and this model of public-private sector coming together to implement DPI. And I wanted to come to you to give us a perspective on how this is influencing markets and what some of the key data governance challenges are that are emerging in that space. Are there risks of market concentration, data extractivism, privatization of public data? I make these three points because I have inside information having collaborated with you on a recent paper. But I wonder if you could come in at this point. What is the interplay between the public and private sector? What are the risks we should be aware of? And what is the potential for data governance to address some of those risks?

Malik Payal: Thank you, Priya. And yes, as you mentioned about that T20 policy brief, which we did, it was really great to collaborate with you because these issues which were not discussed in the DPI ecosystem, especially the role of data governance, etc., and how it may be a competition issue as well. So as we all know, DPI’s distinguished characteristics, and that’s what we are all excited about because it is really transformational when it comes to public service delivery, characteristics of openness, interoperability and scalability to underscore DPI’s criticality beyond just technology, but for the larger goals of public and private service delivery. So what was pathbreaking with this kind of technology where the public infrastructure was kind of rails that they provided a network or gateway that enabled other entities, and especially the private entities, and that’s where the value creation came from, to scale up to a simple plug-and-play system by building digital applications or services on these rails. But the economics of multi-sided platforms where DPI’s are essentially the platforms connecting multiple actors, be it users, be it service providers, be it the applications, the value of the platform to one side increases with increased number of participants on the other side. So these inherent network effects of DPI’s can lead to winner-takes-all outcomes resulting in the creation of monopolies. So in the data ecosystem, there are significant concerns that these applications, which are the private entities trying to create value out of the public infrastructure, may involve or may be extracting a huge amount of data. What are the data usage principles? Are they governed by any, or it is free for all? Because these zero-priced products, because these, for instance, in the case of India’s UPI, it is zero-priced. market for users, but the application providers, that is the TPAP, that is the third party application providers, are harvesting vast amounts of user data over time. Because data is like a shareable modular input that allows these firms, who are then riding on these digital public infrastructure rails, to also expand into adjacent markets. For instance, in the payment system, we are seeing that exploiting these data, harnessed and harvested from these public infrastructures, companies are then getting into retail lending, microfinance, et cetera. So what needs to be done, and that’s why we had started our discussion, that there is an absence of a contractual or regulatory framework which governs these private entities operating on these public infrastructures. So there should be some, to address these challenges, there should be some governance reforms. And what we are discussing at various forums is that DPI must be treated as a shared infrastructure and not be converted into exclusive assets because only a handful of companies are then harvesting the data. So there should be some kind of a contractual arrangement or concession agreements between the private entity and the public infrastructure provider to provide for open access, but also put limits on the kind of data which could be collected, the minimization of data collection, et cetera. And these agreements, therefore, should establish fiduciary obligations on the private partners to uphold public interest and competitive neutrality, thereby aligning the private incentives with public goals. So there is currently a regulatory blind spot, if I may say, because if this data collection, data usage by the private entities on these public platforms is not regulated, it may lead to creation of monopolistic enclosures and data hegemony in public-private partnerships. So privileged access to public data sets enables these dominant players to leverage DPI infrastructure and create more dominance in many several markets. And currently, we see that there is an absence of effective governance arrangements which exacerbates the risks of data extractivism, network effects exploitation, and reinforcements of existing hierarchies. So while these DPIs were supposed to be, by design, competitive, and of course they did allow multiple parties to participate, but the fear is they may end up as alt-big tech because of the data misuse and in the absence of data governance. So I can stop here, and there we could just then discuss what are these possibilities, what could be a good data governance framework, not just limited to the data protection laws, but because data protection laws do not take care of these structural infirmities which are arising out of indiscriminate data use by private entities.

Chetty Pria: And thank you so much, Payal, and thanks for sharing also or introducing that what we are witnessing here is these platforms connecting multiple actors. So we’re seeing these network effects, and we do need to ask the question of how we create the value, how do we embed these data governance principles, use the example of digital payments as needing those embedded frameworks, including contractual frameworks, regulatory frameworks. And it comes back to that question of what makes DPI, in fact, public infrastructure? What makes it public? So, and let’s emphasize the concepts of openness, interoperability. Andrew, you mentioned democratization and the need to develop the appropriate standards. And I think that’s where we want to place the emphasis is on the maturity of the governance frameworks we have, but also have that democratization element that you mentioned is so crucial. I wonder if we can come to you now, Thomas, to bring in the civil society perspective and your data justice work. What is the role of civil society here as these governance frameworks are being built? And how do we strengthen data governance frameworks by bringing in the crucial civil society perspective?

Linder Thomas: Thank you, Priya. Hi, everyone. Thanks for inviting me. It’s a pleasure to be here, and it’s a pleasure to follow such excellent speakers. I think from this perspective, I’d like to broaden the scope somewhat and talk about what data governance has become in this conversation about DPI. It’s been becoming this for quite a while when you think about it. Data governance as a term originated in the corporate space and was very tied to questions of efficiency and effectivity as it pertains to corporations and profit-making. However, that’s really not what we’re talking about in DPI that much anymore. I mean, sure, there will be some for-profit elements, but a lot of it is public infrastructure. It’s in the name. So really, we’re talking about something much broader than just questions of efficiency. And as you mentioned, Priya, it comes down to questions of democracy and inclusion and participation and equity and all of those things. And once we understand data governance from that perspective, it becomes far more a question of using data governance to understand the kind of social contract that we’re developing with DPI, right? This isn’t just a simple for-profit venture. This is a redesigning of fundamental parts of society. And from that perspective, including civil society is essential as it has been for a wide range of many other society-changing developments that we’ve had over the last decades. Civil society’s role there has always been as a kind of third sector, right, to balance the interests of the state and to balance the interests of corporate interests. Civil society organizations are in a very unique position in this, from this perspective, to represent different interests of groups and communities that would otherwise have been lost. And this is really essential because they function not just as a different interest, but they also function to represent these interests on different levels. They can be extremely local to transnational. We see all sorts of civil society organizations doing this, whether they’re non-profit or charity or NGO or any other guys. So as we’re thinking about introducing DPI and thinking about the data governance of it, we really need to ensure that we have this third sector voice that can represent these different organizations, these different communities, these different groups at these different levels. So including them in the conversation, including them in the design and implementation and operationalization of data governance is essential as you’re leaving out vast swaths of the people purported to be represented or you served by DPI. So what are the main ways that civil society orgs can participate in this? Because after all, it is largely up to them to take up the baton and do that, as many do. And from my perspective, there are four, if you count it differently, five different ways for civil society orgs to do this. The classic one is policy and research. Then the more, let’s call it the pie in the sky one, is collective ownership over data and also collective ownership and control over software and hardware. A fourth one would be advocacy, representing groups, pushing voices, and finally, capacity building. And I will get into each one of these one at a time. So from the policy and research perspective, civil society organizations, and there are a great number of excellent organizations who do this, have done exceptional work to not just conduct simple policy analysis and provide recommendations, but when we’re talking about this kind of wholesale application of high-level data governance principles, ethical frameworks, et cetera, what’s really needed, what we’ve seen over and over again, is a combination of integration, adaptation, and operationalization to local contexts and conditions. It will never work to simply take one model, one cookie-cutter approach, and replicate it all across the world, certainly not in a place as diverse as Africa. It just doesn’t work that way. You need civil society organizations with a deep embedded understanding of the local conditions who can help to do this integration, adaptation, and operationalization, especially for something like DPI, where there are so many pre-existing, what I like to think of as precursor DPI projects, whether they’re around digital ID, or payments, or data exchange, or whatever the next function is that we add to the DPI complex. Many of these things already exist in some form or another quite successfully, and you… can’t just replace them, they need to be integrated, they need to be adapted. So the top-down ideas of DPI need to be connected to these pre-existing projects on the ground. And the local civil society organizations that know them best are also best suited to help do this kind of work. Then civil society organizations can also help with coordination and translation of this knowledge. I’m thinking here specifically of knowledge gleaned by practitioners on the one hand, so people who’ve been doing the work to operationalize and implement this tech already, but then also the important academic work that happens. And frequently there’s a mismatch between the two, sides don’t talk to each other very well. But civil society organizations can be uniquely situated to help facilitate that connection, to bridge between the two worlds and translate that knowledge that may most effectively be adopted by both sides. We’ve seen several organizations in Africa that do this very well, Research ICT Africa is one, Open Cities Lab is another, Policy is one after that. So they already exist and it’s just a question of championing them further.

Chetty Pria: Thomas, I wonder if we could stop there. I think we’re waiting to get to Mariana as well, because Mariana, this is a good point to come in. As we’ve heard the different recommendations from the panelists and also interesting now to bring you in with also a technical perspective on this topic. So as you’ve listened in, I suppose, what are your recommendations for how some of this can be built into the technical side of DPI? These essential elements, the essential attributes of what we’re speaking about as the just information architecture, if we want to realize these outcomes from DPI. Thank you.

Mariana Rielli: Thank you, Priya. Thank you for the question and also the invitation to be on this panel and to the panelists before me. So I have this tough challenge of having little time and being the last one to kind of try to bring everything together. But we were thinking, I speak from an organization that is based in Brazil and is doing local and global work to promote fundamental rights in the face of datafication processes. And we were acquainted somehow with the idea of DPI as a framing and as a definition and that it is disputed also around the time of the transition between the G20 in India and the G20 in Brazil, which took place last year. And we were asking ourselves, I think some of these same questions, like some more conceptual or what are we talking and some more normative, what is the public and DPI? What should it be? And I think what I heard, I heard a lot about the word integration and integrating frameworks. And we have been attempting based on the Brazilian context where we have fundamental rights to data protection and a very lively current landscape of both legal and institutional movements to kind of give life to this right and to this framework. How that can also be integrated to the discussions of DPI, because I think our hypothesis was that this grammar of data protection was not duly integrated to the discussions of data governance when it comes to DPI. So what we had already at that point had some research and policy work on risks of digital identity systems in the Brazilian context. And those were risks arising from data processing specifically, but also broader risks of discrimination, exclusion. I mean, I think we all know what we’re talking about here, but basically I think our concern was to not frame the problem of data related risks of ID and of digital infrastructure only in terms of privacy, but rather understanding how data protection as a procedural right that has certain mechanisms to be implemented that already involves a whole number of actors that need to be accountable, how that can be better integrated into the discussions of first identity as a backbone of DPI, but also now with the DPI framework. So more recently we produced this new report that kind of seeks to create, to propose that integration. Of course, it considers the Brazilian legal institutional framework for data protection, but we understand that there is a lot of it that is relevant elsewhere. And I think it goes back to the idea that while privacy is substantive, the idea of data protection really starts from the idea that personal information will circulate and should circulate, and it provides the rules and the constraints to ensure that this information flow is just and protects fundamental rights, including privacy, but also other fundamental rights. So we think that this is relevant because I think we think that it provides a bridge to concerns about trust that not being formulated only in terms of trustworthiness of systems, but rather from a relational perspective that centers people, that centers their rights and that creates mechanisms to ensure transparency, accountability, and redress for people. So from this particular context, from this particular read on DPI, the report comes to a few conclusions and attempts to articulate these ideas. I will briefly share them. I know we have very little time, but it starts really addressing the public value in DPI as a condition for it, and that economic value being generated by data, regardless of how that is shared, does not per se guarantee the achievement of public value if the rights of people are being neglected, and that informational autonomy and self-determination at the same time that it ensures that individuals are able to exercise their capacity to develop their personalities, but also to know how their data is being used. It also can generate collective value as it creates more trusting people and also trustworthy databases and even can act as barriers to fraud and identities that affect when you have that kind of relationship being established and using those concepts from data protection and those ideas of self-determination. We also talk about privacy as contextual integrity. I think this is also important to kind of bring into the discussion. This is very confined usually to data protection scholarly circles, but we think that it makes sense in the context of DPI as well, and the informational separation of powers, the idea that at least on the state side of things, there needs to be also administrative oversight and certain mechanisms to make sure that the sharing of data is also not creating more concentration of power on that side of the equation. And finally, there are also some discussions on accountability mechanisms and the idea that data protection is already containing a preventive and sometimes a precautionary principle and accountability mechanisms such as assessments and things that could also be looked at in terms of being updated and being adapted to the context of DPI, but that we think really should not be taken for granted. And I think the idea is that sometimes you have this notion that data protection is solely related to privacy or that it is very individual, but what we try to kind of stress here is whether that framework also can be further assessed in terms of its public value creation. So what we have attempted to do in Brazil recently was that, and I will stop here so that we have some time for questions.

Chetty Pria: Thank you. And thanks so much, Mariana. And I think everyone’s wondering when they can get access to that report or read it. And certainly I am very keen to read it. But thanks for that. And what was really interesting was that you were speaking about embedding the rights frameworks, even in the information flows and speaking about, I suppose, beyond privacy by design. You know, what comes next in terms of these real mechanisms of accountability. And you spoke about autonomy and self-determination. And I think that goes back to what Thomas was describing as the social contract. If we want people to show up, then how do we deliver on the value that was initially promised? And so this has been an excellent set of provocations, I think, for how we get closer to the data governance framework that we need. So thank you, panelists, for bringing those very many perspectives. And Mariana, you also mentioned integrity. I think that ties in with some of what we spoke about in terms of security as well. But placing now the emphasis, even when we speak about integrity, on how we deliver assured data value for citizens. So let’s turn now to our people in the room and let’s ask Nikita if we’ve got any questions. When the screen swapped a little bit, I did see that there were a few comments or perhaps some questions in the chat. Nikita, can we go to you and get a sense of comments or questions that have come up from online participants? And while we’re doing that, can I also ask everyone in the room, if you’ve got a question, to please come up to one of these microphones and we’ll take a round of questions. So, we have one comment, so let me first go through that.

Audience: So, it says that, like, Amin has commented on it. And in Amin’s thoughts, basically, we should structure a DPI in a way that facilitates a seamless cross-border data movement. And this way, it will gonna enable innovations such as AI in designing models. So, that’s one feedback that we have got in the chat. Besides that, there is Erum, who wants to actually discuss the findings of implementation of DPI in India in a healthcare space, like focusing on the ABDM, which is Ayushman Bharat Digital Mission. So, she’s, like, kind of discussing the findings from the Anita Gurumurthy, who is the Executive Director in IT4Change. And she presented it in a seminar. So, I’m just, like, giving a brief of what are the findings that Erum has provided in the chat box. And then the panelists can provide their feedbacks if they have any. So, the findings are, basically, although there have been efficiencies in patient data sharing among doctors and in healthcare aggregate data analytics supporting insurance companies, significant adverse outcomes have been realized as well. So, these include lack of access by many patients to ABDM and ABDM-Cas. For instance, people with chronic diseases, like leprosy, or people with disabilities, struggle with Aadhaar enrollment or authentication, leading to exclusion of those in need of healthcare services, diluting their right to equitable access to healthcare. The next finding is that the prospect of sharing health data in this manner also diverts some from accessing digital healthcare at all. For example, patients of diseases with social stigma, such as HIV, AIDS, exclude themselves from using ABDM. And lastly, the sharing of medical data violates the privacy by design principle. So, these are the findings that have been presented. So, if any of the panelists, yeah, over to you, Priya, then.

Chetty Pria: Thanks so much, Nikita. And I think that’s a great example to use, because I think it makes some of what we are speaking about here really, really come alive. We, I’m looking around, and there aren’t any hands raised. So, please feel, oh, Andrew’s raised his hand. Andrew, can I ask you, when you raise your hand as well, to also maybe just share a closing thought, and perhaps it’s included in what you’re going to raise, but to share a closing thought as we turn to each of the panelists for a line, a word, something you’re taking out of the session as we close the session.

Andrew Vennekotter: Yeah, thanks for the opportunity to talk. I do have to drop in a couple of minutes. So, just a really quick reaction to that question. There are actually some pretty good approaches right now in terms of technology, such as a data clean room, which is something that you use basically to analyze data without sharing the raw data among different organizations. And that’s a technical privacy-preserving technique that can help if you’re interested in sharing some of that sensitive medical data across providers. So, an approach that’s been implemented by many different providers in many different ways, but data clean rooms are at least something to explore when related to that question. And I’ll keep my remarks at that. Thanks for the opportunity. Remember, risks and principles-based frameworks don’t lock in technology before the industry has agreed on a standard, and make sure to lift all boats with skills and technology development.

Chetty Pria: Thanks, Andrew. Can I come to you, Suheela, for a closing thought?

Souhila Amazouz: Thank you, Priya. I would, from my side, I would say that data governance is an imperative for the development of equitable DPI. We have seen that really there is a need to have, to ensure that there is multi-stakeholder, multi-sectoral, and secure and safe data sharing systems, like to support the operationalization of DPI. And this can only be achieved also with putting in place the necessary safeguards through accountability, transparency, and also measures to mitigate the risks of misuse and also the risk of exclusion in the digital space. As you mentioned, when we started the session, the DPI main objective, if we can say, is really to ensure digital inclusion and also to empower people. Thank you, Priya, for this opportunity to speak.

Chetty Pria: Thank you so much, Suheela. Payal and then Thomas, if I can come to you for closing thoughts.

Malik Payal: Yeah, thank you, Priya. So I think there was a very good question from the audience, and that basically is the core of our discussion here, that DPI’s governance system, that is, they were supposed to be having embedded privacy by design, competition by design. But those principles are continuously violated. And she gave the example of India’s Ayushman Bhadad health digital mission. So I guess the sooner the DPI community understands, which they do, but the sooner some governance frameworks, integrated governance frameworks are discussed, the better it is. Because the very benefit which these DPIs were supposed to bring on the table would be lost, because we don’t want to be in a situation by that where in the absence of clear governance guardrails, especially data governance, this data can quietly slip into quasi-private control without transparency, accountability, or equitable return to public. And why we keep on talking about integrated data governance frameworks? Because data protection laws generally just focus on individual consent and privacy. These are important, but they are insufficient as they do not address many structural risks. And lastly, the Indian government also, I just pulled out because of the question which has been put up, is quite aware of the data concerns and which not only are challenges related to cybersecurity, but also protocols regarding robust encryption protocols to safeguard data during transmission and storage. And data storage, and Andrew is here, is also to be looked into carefully. Where is most of the data getting stored? Is there so much of private control on data storage? What is the government’s control on this data? What are the cross-border data flow rules in place, et cetera? So in short, it’s not just about privacy and consent awareness, which do get protected, get covered through data protection laws if they exist. Data governance is far more broad and should not be left to just a single law, just a data protection law, but should integrate all aspects of the DPI ecosystem, such that even issues such as disproportionate control, data sharing, et cetera, interoperability and portability are also taken into consideration. Thank you.

Chetty Pria: Thanks so much, Payal. I’ve been signaled that we’ve run out of time, but Thomas, I wanted to say that both you and Mariana, that I think layering onto what Payal and Andrew have said and what Sahila has said, I think there’s also value, one, in bringing these perspectives together, and thank you for sharing those perspectives, but also value in what you described, Thomas, as the precursor projects. There are lessons to be learned from our digital identity and digital payment ventures that came before. And then Mariana, as we said, so excited to read that report, and thank you also for sharing. I think we’ve heard from India and we’re hearing from Brazil, and these are the crucial lessons as we develop maturity and interest in DPI as to what’s working, what’s not working, but really timely and current insights coming from live DPI applications. So thank you all so much, panelists. We’ve run out of time. We could have expected it. It’s a great conversation to have had and look forward to continuing these conversations and our efforts and initiatives across the spectrum of stakeholders to make the DPI governance work for the outcomes that we’re pursuing. Thanks, everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Goodbye.

Agreement points

Need for integrated and comprehensive data governance frameworks beyond traditional data protection laws

Speakers

– Chetty Pria
– Souhila Amazouz
– Malik Payal
– Mariana Rielli

Arguments

DPI requires integrated data governance approaches that balance technical efficiency with equitable outcomes and accountability

The African Union Data Policy Framework provides foundation for integrated data governance across the continent, emphasizing data justice and equal representation

Current data protection laws are insufficient as they focus only on individual consent and privacy, not addressing structural risks in DPI ecosystems

Data protection frameworks should be integrated into DPI discussions as procedural rights that provide rules for just information flows

Summary

All speakers agree that traditional data protection approaches are insufficient for DPI governance and that comprehensive, integrated frameworks are needed that address structural issues, public value creation, and equitable outcomes rather than just individual privacy concerns.

Topics

Data governance | Legal and regulatory | Human rights principles

Multi-stakeholder approaches are essential for effective DPI governance

Speakers

– Souhila Amazouz
– Linder Thomas
– Chetty Pria

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder, multi-sectoral, and secure data sharing systems are imperative for equitable DPI development

Civil society organizations serve as essential third sector to balance state and corporate interests in DPI development

DPI requires integrated data governance approaches that balance technical efficiency with equitable outcomes and accountability

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasize that effective DPI governance requires collaboration across multiple stakeholders including government, private sector, and civil society to ensure balanced representation of interests and equitable outcomes.

Topics

Development | Human rights principles | Legal and regulatory

Risk of market concentration and monopolization in DPI ecosystems requires governance attention

Speakers

– Malik Payal
– Andrew Vennekotter
– Chetty Pria

Arguments

DPI platforms connecting multiple actors create network effects that can lead to winner-takes-all outcomes and monopolization

Data governance must focus on risks and principles-based frameworks rather than premature technology standards to enable innovation

DPI requires integrated data governance approaches that balance technical efficiency with equitable outcomes and accountability

Summary

Speakers agree that DPI implementations face inherent risks of market concentration due to network effects and that governance frameworks must proactively address these risks while enabling innovation.

Topics

Economic | Data governance | Consumer protection

Public value creation must be prioritized over purely economic outcomes in DPI

Speakers

– Mariana Rielli
– Souhila Amazouz
– Chetty Pria

Arguments

Public value in DPI requires that economic value generation does not come at the expense of people’s fundamental rights

DPI serves as a game changer for Africa’s integration agenda and can accelerate achievement of Agenda 2063 goals

DPI requires integrated data governance approaches that balance technical efficiency with equitable outcomes and accountability

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasize that DPI must deliver public value and serve development goals rather than just generating economic returns, with fundamental rights protection being a prerequisite for legitimate public value creation.

Topics

Development | Human rights principles | Sustainable development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers argue that existing data protection frameworks are inadequate for DPI governance because they focus too narrowly on individual privacy rather than addressing broader structural and systemic issues in data ecosystems.

Speakers

– Malik Payal
– Mariana Rielli

Arguments

Current data protection laws are insufficient as they focus only on individual consent and privacy, not addressing structural risks in DPI ecosystems

Data protection frameworks should be integrated into DPI discussions as procedural rights that provide rules for just information flows

Topics

Privacy and data protection | Legal and regulatory | Data governance

Both speakers emphasize the need for proactive governance measures that establish clear accountability and control mechanisms for private sector participants in public infrastructure, rather than reactive or voluntary approaches.

Speakers

– Andrew Vennekotter
– Malik Payal

Arguments

Data governance requires positive control over AI outputs and embedded security as fundamental aspects, not afterthoughts

There is need for fiduciary obligations on private partners to uphold public interest and competitive neutrality in DPI implementations

Topics

Data governance | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Both speakers recognize the importance of local context and capacity in DPI implementation, emphasizing that one-size-fits-all approaches don’t work and that local adaptation and capacity building are essential for successful DPI deployment.

Speakers

– Linder Thomas
– Souhila Amazouz

Arguments

Local civil society organizations are best positioned to integrate, adapt, and operationalize high-level governance principles to local contexts

African countries show varying levels of DPI maturity with 60% having data privacy laws but only 9 countries having real-time data exchanges

Topics

Development | Capacity development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Technical solutions can address some governance challenges without requiring extensive regulatory frameworks

Speakers

– Andrew Vennekotter
– Mariana Rielli

Arguments

Privacy-preserving techniques like data clean rooms can help address sensitive data sharing concerns in healthcare and other sectors

Informational autonomy and self-determination can generate collective value by creating more trusting relationships and trustworthy databases

Explanation

Despite coming from different perspectives (private sector technology focus vs. rights-based civil society approach), both speakers acknowledge that technical design choices and privacy-preserving technologies can contribute to governance objectives and rights protection, suggesting that technical and rights-based approaches can be complementary rather than opposing.

Topics

Privacy and data protection | Cybersecurity | Data governance

Real-world implementation challenges validate theoretical governance concerns

Speakers

– Audience
– Malik Payal
– Mariana Rielli

Arguments

DPI implementations like India’s healthcare system show both efficiencies and significant adverse outcomes including exclusion of vulnerable populations

DPI platforms connecting multiple actors create network effects that can lead to winner-takes-all outcomes and monopolization

Public value in DPI requires that economic value generation does not come at the expense of people’s fundamental rights

Explanation

The audience’s real-world examples from India’s healthcare DPI implementation directly validate the theoretical concerns raised by policy experts about exclusion, rights violations, and the gap between efficiency gains and equitable outcomes, creating unexpected alignment between practitioners and theorists.

Topics

Digital access | Human rights principles | Privacy and data protection

Overall assessment

Summary

There is strong consensus among speakers on the need for comprehensive, integrated data governance frameworks that go beyond traditional privacy protection to address structural risks, ensure multi-stakeholder participation, prevent market concentration, and prioritize public value creation in DPI implementations.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles and challenges, with speakers from different sectors (public, private, civil society, academia) agreeing on core governance needs. This consensus suggests a mature understanding of DPI governance challenges and creates a strong foundation for developing actionable policy recommendations and implementation strategies.

Different viewpoints

Approach to regulation and standards in DPI governance

Speakers

– Andrew Vennekotter
– Malik Payal

Arguments

Data governance must focus on risks and principles-based frameworks rather than premature technology standards to enable innovation

Current data protection laws are insufficient as they focus only on individual consent and privacy, not addressing structural risks in DPI ecosystems

Summary

Andrew advocates for minimal, principles-based regulation to avoid stifling innovation, citing high compliance costs (40% of product value in EU), while Payal argues for more comprehensive integrated governance frameworks that go beyond current data protection laws to address structural market risks and monopolization

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Data governance | Economic

Priority focus for DPI governance – technical efficiency vs structural market concerns

Speakers

– Andrew Vennekotter
– Malik Payal

Arguments

Data governance requires positive control over AI outputs and embedded security as fundamental aspects, not afterthoughts

DPI platforms connecting multiple actors create network effects that can lead to winner-takes-all outcomes and monopolization

Summary

Andrew emphasizes technical aspects like security, AI safety, and innovation enablement, while Payal focuses on economic structural issues like market concentration, data extractivism, and the need for competitive neutrality in public-private partnerships

Topics

Data governance | Economic | Cybersecurity

Unexpected differences

Role of technical solutions vs systemic governance reforms

Speakers

– Andrew Vennekotter
– Malik Payal

Arguments

Privacy-preserving techniques like data clean rooms can help address sensitive data sharing concerns in healthcare and other sectors

Private entities operating on public infrastructure may engage in data extractivism without proper contractual or regulatory frameworks governing their activities

Explanation

Unexpected because both speakers are addressing data protection concerns, but Andrew suggests technical solutions (data clean rooms) can solve privacy issues, while Payal argues that technical solutions alone cannot address structural governance problems and regulatory blind spots in public-private partnerships

Topics

Privacy and data protection | Data governance | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The main disagreement centers on regulatory approach – whether to prioritize innovation-friendly, principles-based frameworks or comprehensive structural governance reforms. There’s also tension between technical solutions versus systemic governance changes.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications – the different approaches could lead to very different DPI governance outcomes, with Andrew’s approach potentially enabling faster innovation but risking market concentration issues that Payal warns about, while Payal’s approach might provide better structural protections but could potentially slow innovation as Andrew suggests

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers argue that existing data protection frameworks are inadequate for DPI governance because they focus too narrowly on individual privacy rather than addressing broader structural and systemic issues in data ecosystems.

Speakers

– Malik Payal
– Mariana Rielli

Arguments

Current data protection laws are insufficient as they focus only on individual consent and privacy, not addressing structural risks in DPI ecosystems

Data protection frameworks should be integrated into DPI discussions as procedural rights that provide rules for just information flows

Topics

Privacy and data protection | Legal and regulatory | Data governance

Both speakers emphasize the need for proactive governance measures that establish clear accountability and control mechanisms for private sector participants in public infrastructure, rather than reactive or voluntary approaches.

Speakers

– Andrew Vennekotter
– Malik Payal

Arguments

Data governance requires positive control over AI outputs and embedded security as fundamental aspects, not afterthoughts

There is need for fiduciary obligations on private partners to uphold public interest and competitive neutrality in DPI implementations

Topics

Data governance | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Both speakers recognize the importance of local context and capacity in DPI implementation, emphasizing that one-size-fits-all approaches don’t work and that local adaptation and capacity building are essential for successful DPI deployment.

Speakers

– Linder Thomas
– Souhila Amazouz

Arguments

Local civil society organizations are best positioned to integrate, adapt, and operationalize high-level governance principles to local contexts

African countries show varying levels of DPI maturity with 60% having data privacy laws but only 9 countries having real-time data exchanges

Topics

Development | Capacity development | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Data governance is imperative for equitable DPI development and must balance technical efficiency with accountability and inclusive outcomes

Current data protection laws focusing only on individual consent and privacy are insufficient – integrated governance frameworks addressing structural risks are needed

Public-private partnerships in DPI create network effects that risk monopolization and data extractivism without proper contractual and regulatory safeguards

Civil society organizations play a crucial third-sector role in balancing state and corporate interests while adapting governance principles to local contexts

DPI implementations show mixed results – while creating efficiencies, they also demonstrate exclusion of vulnerable populations and privacy violations

Technical solutions like data clean rooms and privacy-preserving techniques can help address sensitive data sharing concerns

African countries show varying DPI maturity levels, with foundational frameworks like the AU Data Policy Framework providing guidance but implementation gaps remaining

Data governance should be based on risks and principles rather than premature technology standards to enable innovation while ensuring accountability

Resolutions and action items

Develop contractual arrangements and concession agreements between private entities and public infrastructure providers to establish fiduciary obligations

Create integrated data governance frameworks that go beyond data protection laws to address competition, consumer protection, and market mechanisms

Implement multi-stakeholder, multi-sectoral approaches to data governance involving civil society organizations in design and implementation

Establish informational separation of powers and accountability mechanisms including assessments adapted to DPI contexts

Build digital skills capacity as 84% of businesses see AI skills as crucial but only 26% feel adequately prepared

Harmonize international standards to enable cooperation while avoiding compliance costs that can reach 40% of product value

Unresolved issues

How to prevent DPI from becoming ‘alt-big tech’ platforms due to data misuse in absence of proper governance

Addressing exclusion of vulnerable populations (people with disabilities, chronic diseases, stigmatized conditions) from DPI systems

Balancing cross-border data movement facilitation with data sovereignty and local control concerns

Determining optimal data storage governance and preventing excessive private control over public data

Resolving tensions between openness/interoperability requirements and security/privacy protections

Establishing clear boundaries between what constitutes ‘public’ versus private value creation in DPI ecosystems

Addressing the regulatory blind spot where private entities operating on public infrastructure lack adequate oversight

Suggested compromises

Implement human-in-the-loop approaches for AI systems to balance automation with human oversight and accountability

Use privacy-preserving techniques like data clean rooms to enable data sharing while protecting sensitive information

Adopt risks and principles-based regulatory frameworks rather than prescriptive technology mandates to balance innovation with governance

Establish fiduciary obligations on private partners while allowing them to participate in value creation from public infrastructure

Create data governance frameworks that enable information flows while embedding rights protections and accountability mechanisms

Balance technical efficiency goals with equitable outcomes through integrated governance approaches rather than purely technical solutions

We introduced a new concept of data justice and also transparency. Through the data justice, we aim to ensure equal representation to all people in the digital space, including the diversity of languages and cultures.

Speaker

Souhila Amazouz

Reason

This comment is insightful because it moves beyond traditional data governance concepts to introduce ‘data justice’ as a framework that explicitly addresses equity and cultural diversity. It reframes data governance from a technical/legal issue to a social justice issue, recognizing that digital infrastructure must actively work to include marginalized communities rather than simply avoiding harm.

Impact

This concept of data justice became a recurring theme throughout the discussion, with subsequent speakers building on this foundation. It shifted the conversation from focusing primarily on efficiency and protection to emphasizing equitable outcomes and inclusive participation in the digital economy.

The economics of multi-sided platforms where DPI’s are essentially the platforms connecting multiple actors… these inherent network effects of DPI’s can lead to winner-takes-all outcomes resulting in the creation of monopolies… there is currently a regulatory blind spot… because if this data collection, data usage by the private entities on these public platforms is not regulated, it may lead to creation of monopolistic enclosures and data hegemony in public-private partnerships.

Speaker

Malik Payal

Reason

This comment is particularly thought-provoking because it challenges the optimistic narrative around DPI by introducing critical economic analysis. It reveals how the very features that make DPI powerful (network effects, scalability) can paradoxically undermine their public purpose by creating private monopolies. The concept of ‘monopolistic enclosures’ and ‘data hegemony’ provides a stark warning about unintended consequences.

Impact

This comment fundamentally shifted the discussion from celebrating DPI’s potential to critically examining its risks. It introduced the crucial question of ‘what makes DPI actually public?’ and led to deeper analysis of the need for contractual frameworks and regulatory oversight of private actors operating on public infrastructure.

Data governance as a term originated in the corporate space and was very tied to questions of efficiency and effectivity… However, that’s really not what we’re talking about in DPI that much anymore… we’re talking about using data governance to understand the kind of social contract that we’re developing with DPI… This is a redesigning of fundamental parts of society.

Speaker

Linder Thomas

Reason

This comment is insightful because it recontextualizes the entire discussion by pointing out that applying corporate data governance concepts to public infrastructure is fundamentally inappropriate. By framing DPI as a ‘social contract’ and ‘redesigning of fundamental parts of society,’ it elevates the stakes and emphasizes the democratic implications of these technical decisions.

Impact

This reframing shifted the conversation toward questions of democracy, participation, and civil society engagement. It provided theoretical grounding for why traditional approaches are insufficient and why new governance models are needed that center social outcomes rather than technical efficiency.

Economic value being generated by data, regardless of how that is shared, does not per se guarantee the achievement of public value if the rights of people are being neglected… privacy as contextual integrity… informational separation of powers… data protection is already containing a preventive and sometimes a precautionary principle.

Speaker

Mariana Rielli

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it distinguishes between economic value and public value, challenging assumptions that economic benefits automatically translate to public good. The concepts of ‘contextual integrity’ and ‘informational separation of powers’ provide sophisticated frameworks for thinking about data governance that go beyond simple privacy protection.

Impact

This comment grounded the theoretical discussions in practical legal frameworks and provided concrete mechanisms for implementation. It showed how existing data protection principles could be adapted and expanded for DPI contexts, offering a bridge between current legal frameworks and future governance needs.

Although there have been efficiencies in patient data sharing among doctors… significant adverse outcomes have been realized as well… people with chronic diseases, like leprosy, or people with disabilities, struggle with Aadhaar enrollment… patients of diseases with social stigma, such as HIV, AIDS, exclude themselves from using ABDM.

Speaker

Audience member Erum (via Nikita Jain)

Reason

This comment is particularly impactful because it provides concrete, real-world evidence of how DPI systems can exclude the most vulnerable populations despite their stated goals of inclusion. It demonstrates how technical solutions can reproduce and amplify existing social inequalities, making the abstract discussions suddenly very tangible.

Impact

This real-world example served as a powerful reality check for the entire discussion, forcing participants to confront the gap between DPI aspirations and actual outcomes. It validated the concerns raised by earlier speakers about the need for robust governance frameworks and showed why theoretical discussions about data justice and inclusion are urgently practical matters.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by progressively deepening and complicating the conversation about DPI governance. The discussion evolved from initial optimism about DPI’s transformative potential to a more nuanced understanding of its risks and governance challenges. Souhila’s introduction of ‘data justice’ set an equity-focused tone that influenced all subsequent contributions. Payal’s economic analysis introduced critical skepticism about market dynamics, while Thomas’s reframing of data governance as social contract theory provided democratic legitimacy for these concerns. Mariana’s legal framework analysis offered practical pathways forward, and the audience’s real-world example from India’s healthcare system provided sobering evidence that validated the theoretical concerns. Together, these comments created a comprehensive critique that moved the discussion from technical implementation questions to fundamental questions about power, equity, and democratic governance in the digital age. The conversation became increasingly sophisticated, moving from celebrating DPI’s potential to developing frameworks for ensuring it serves public rather than private interests.

How can we develop stronger oversight or interoperability mandates in data governance frameworks?

Speaker

Chetty Pria

Explanation

This was identified as a gap in current frameworks that needs to be addressed to prevent monopolization while fostering open innovation in DPI implementations.

What are the specific contractual or regulatory frameworks needed to govern private entities operating on public infrastructure?

Speaker

Malik Payal

Explanation

There is currently a regulatory blind spot regarding how private entities collect and use data from DPI platforms, which could lead to monopolistic practices and data extractivism.

How can data governance frameworks be integrated and adapted to local contexts and conditions across diverse regions?

Speaker

Linder Thomas

Explanation

Cookie-cutter approaches don’t work for DPI implementation, especially in diverse regions like Africa, requiring local civil society organizations to help with integration and adaptation.

How can precursor DPI projects (existing digital ID, payments, data exchange systems) be effectively integrated rather than replaced?

Speaker

Linder Thomas

Explanation

Many successful digital systems already exist and need to be integrated into new DPI frameworks rather than being completely replaced, requiring careful coordination.

What are the findings and lessons from Brazil’s implementation of data protection frameworks in the context of DPI?

Speaker

Mariana Rielli

Explanation

A new report was mentioned that proposes integration of data protection rights into DPI discussions, but the specific findings and recommendations need to be shared and analyzed.

How can cross-border data movement be structured within DPI to enable AI innovations while maintaining governance?

Speaker

Amin (online participant)

Explanation

Seamless cross-border data flow is needed for AI model development, but this needs to be balanced with appropriate governance frameworks.

How can DPI systems address exclusion issues faced by marginalized populations (people with disabilities, chronic diseases, stigmatized conditions)?

Speaker

Erum (online participant via Anita Gurumurthy’s research)

Explanation

Real-world implementation in India’s healthcare DPI shows significant exclusion of vulnerable populations, violating the principle of equitable access to services.

What are the implications of data storage location and cross-border data flow rules in DPI governance?

Speaker

Malik Payal

Explanation

Questions about where data is stored, level of private vs government control, and cross-border data flow regulations are critical for DPI governance but need further examination.

How can privacy-preserving technologies like data clean rooms be implemented in sensitive sectors like healthcare within DPI frameworks?

Speaker

Andrew Vennekotter

Explanation

Technical solutions exist for sharing sensitive data without compromising privacy, but their integration into DPI systems needs further exploration.

Summary

This discussion focused on exploring how technology can enhance understanding of public and societal challenges, rather than simply providing solutions. The session was a collaborative workshop between Lithuania and Norway, examining tech-driven approaches to complex governmental problems. Lithuania’s Ambassador for Digital and Technological Diplomacy highlighted the country’s impressive achievements in digital governance, ranking 6th in the European Commission’s 2024 e-government benchmark and operating the successful GovTech Lab Lithuania, which has solved over 100 real-world public sector challenges through partnerships with startups and innovators.

Norway’s Chief Public Procurement Officer emphasized the importance of opening procurement processes to diverse suppliers, from startups to large tech companies, while noting challenges in working across bureaucratic silos for mission-oriented solutions. The interactive workshop portion involved participants working in groups to analyze specific public sector challenges using randomly assigned technology cards, encouraging them to think from a technological perspective about problem-solving approaches.

Two main challenges were discussed in detail: the exclusion of marginalized voices in digital service co-creation, and supporting people with intellectual disabilities in financial transactions. For the first challenge, participants explored how technologies like quantum computing, process mining, and agentic AI could free up public service employees to engage more directly with constituents while providing proactive government services. The second challenge involved developing personalized AI solutions that could adapt to individual conditions and capabilities, potentially incorporating medical data and stress indicators, while using augmented reality or metaverse environments for safer interactions.

The workshop revealed important ethical considerations, particularly regarding decision-making autonomy for vulnerable populations and determining appropriate levels of government, medical, or financial institution involvement in personal choices.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Technology as a lens for understanding problems rather than just solving them**: The session explored how technological perspectives can enrich understanding of societal challenges themselves, moving beyond the typical approach of viewing technology solely as a solution.

– **Digital governance achievements and GovTech ecosystems**: Lithuania’s success in digital transformation was highlighted, including their 6th place ranking in EU e-government benchmarks and the GovTech Lab’s role in connecting government institutions with startups to solve over 100 public sector challenges.

– **Procurement challenges and market engagement**: Discussion of how public sector procurement functions need to effectively engage with diverse suppliers, from startups to large tech companies, emphasizing the need for simple, predictable, and fast processes while building trust and cooperation between different organizational cultures.

– **Cross-governmental collaboration and structural barriers**: The challenge of addressing complex societal issues that don’t fit within traditional bureaucratic silos, requiring cooperation across ministries, local governments, municipalities, private sector, and NGOs.

– **Inclusion of marginalized voices in digital services**: Workshop groups explored how to include people who are not active in digital spaces in policy and institutional feedback loops, discussing solutions like proactive public services using AI and diverse channels to reach underserved populations.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how technological perspectives can enhance understanding of public and societal challenges, facilitate knowledge sharing between Lithuania and Norway on digital governance and innovative procurement, and engage participants in collaborative problem-solving through interactive workshops.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently collaborative and optimistic tone throughout. It began formally with welcoming speeches that were informative and achievement-focused, then transitioned to an energetic, interactive workshop atmosphere. The tone remained constructive and solution-oriented, with participants actively engaging in co-creation exercises. Even when discussing complex challenges like marginalization and ethical dilemmas, the conversation stayed focused on possibilities and learning rather than dwelling on obstacles.

Speakers

– **Liucija Sabulyte**: Workshop moderator/organizer, appears to be involved in organizing discussions on technology and societal challenges

– **Dag Stromsnes**: Norwegian Chief Public Procurement Officer, Agency for Public and Financial Management, expertise in public procurement and working with startups

– **Participant**: Role/title not specified, expertise not mentioned

– **Magne Hareide**: Workshop assistant/moderator, appears to be from DFO (Norwegian organization), expertise in innovative public procurement

– **Lina Viltrakiene**: Lithuania’s Ambassador for Digital and Technological Diplomacy, expertise in digital governance and GovTech

– **Dovile Gaizauskiene**: Workshop moderator/facilitator, colleague of Liucija Sabulyte, expertise in workshop facilitation and co-creation sessions

**Additional speakers:**

– **Lena Viltraitenė**: Lithuania’s Ambassador for Digital and Technological Diplomacy (Note: This appears to be the same person as Lina Viltrakiene, likely a transcription variation of the name)

# Workshop Report: Technology as a Lens for Understanding Public and Societal Challenges

## Executive Summary

This collaborative workshop between Lithuania and Norway explored an innovative approach to public sector challenges, positioning technology not merely as a solution provider but as a lens for enriching problem understanding. The session brought together participants to examine how technological perspectives can transform the way we perceive and address complex governmental problems, featuring insights from both countries’ digital governance experiences.

## Welcome Speeches and National Perspectives

### Lithuania’s Digital Governance Achievements

Lina Viltrakienė, Lithuania’s Ambassador for Digital and Technological Diplomacy, presented Lithuania’s impressive digital transformation achievements:

– 6th place in the European Commission’s 2024 e-government benchmark

– 8th position in the World Bank’s GovTech Maturity Index

– 10th ranking in the OECD’s Our Data Index

She highlighted GovTechLab Lithuania’s success in solving over 100 real-world public sector challenges through partnerships with startups and innovators, with 70% of institutions continuing to operate these solutions. Viltrakienė emphasized Lithuania’s approach of balancing “sovereignty and cybersecurity with interoperability and open innovation.”

### Norway’s Procurement Innovation Perspective

Dag Strømsnes, Norway’s Chief Public Procurement Officer, shared insights from Norway’s experience with innovative procurement, particularly highlighting the Startoff project that won a European prize. He emphasized the importance of opening procurement processes to diverse suppliers while acknowledging significant challenges in working with startups.

Strømsnes identified key barriers startups face: “They don’t have time, they don’t have resources, they don’t have knowledge, they don’t have leadership.” He stressed the need to make processes “simple, predictable and fast” for startup engagement, while also noting the cultural differences between public sector buyers with permanent contracts and entrepreneurs who “don’t know if they have a salary in two months.”

He advocated for cross-governmental cooperation, noting that “bureaucratic structures are not designed for mission-oriented challenges that span multiple organizations.”

## Workshop Framework and Methodology

### Foundational Approach

Workshop moderator Liucija Sabulytė articulated the core premise: “Usually we think of technologies as a solution to the problem. And this time we try to explore how technological perspective can enrich the understanding of problem itself. And for those of you who are working on societal challenges, you probably know that understanding problem well is the key part of solving it.”

### Workshop Execution

The practical component, facilitated by Dovilė Gaižauskienė, involved participants working in small groups to analyze specific public sector challenges using randomly assigned technology cards. The facilitator noted during the session the natural tendency of participants to jump to solutions: “We already have a feeling that you started, instead of discussing problem, thinking of solutions. That’s very natural and now we are moving actually to that part of the workshop.”

The workshop faced some technical and audio challenges, and the discussion period was somewhat rushed, limiting the depth of participant feedback that could be captured.

## Participant Reflections

### Challenge Analysis: Marginalized Voices in Digital Services

One group examined how to include people who are not active in digital spaces in policy and institutional feedback loops. A participant reflected on their group’s evolution in thinking: “We did not see how the technology would contribute significantly to solving this challenge because we had a lot of, for example, from my case it was process mining, quantum computing or agentic AI but then after discussing together with the colleagues we started discussing maybe… these technologies like quantum computing or process mining can first of all help overall public service employees to deal with their issues more that do not necessarily require human interaction so then they would have more time to engage actually with their constituents.”

The group also considered agentic AI for creating proactive public services that reach out to citizens rather than waiting for them to engage.

### Supporting Vulnerable Populations

Another group briefly discussed supporting people with intellectual disabilities in financial transactions, with some mention of ethical questions about decision-making authority when implementing AI solutions for vulnerable populations.

## Key Themes Discussed

### Cross-Organizational Cooperation

Both speakers emphasized the critical importance of cooperation across governmental silos. Sabulytė noted that “cooperation, moving through silos and building mutual trust is key to digital transformation impact,” while Strømsnes highlighted the need for coordination across “ministries, local governments, municipalities, private sector and NGOs.”

### Technology as Problem-Understanding Tool

The workshop successfully demonstrated how examining challenges through technological perspectives can reveal new dimensions of problems, particularly the insight that technology could free public servants from routine tasks to enable more direct citizen engagement.

### Public-Private Collaboration Models

The discussion revealed different but complementary approaches: Lithuania’s structured GovTechLab model focusing on startup partnerships, and Norway’s broader market engagement strategy including both startups and established suppliers.

## Future Directions

Participants were invited to continue the discussion at the GovTech Leader Conference on October 23rd in Vilnius, focusing on “GovTech dilemmas.” The session concluded with encouragement for continued cooperation between Lithuania and Norway on sharing experiences in digital governance and innovative procurement.

## Conclusion

The workshop demonstrated the value of reframing technology’s role from solution provider to problem-understanding enhancer. While the session faced some practical challenges in execution, it successfully illustrated how technological perspectives can reveal new approaches to complex societal challenges. The collaborative approach between Lithuania and Norway showed the potential for international cooperation in digital governance, while highlighting the ongoing challenges of cross-governmental coordination and public-private partnership in digital transformation initiatives.

Liucija Sabulyte: Liucija Sabulytė, Magne Hareide, Liucija Sabulytė, Dovilė Gaijauskienė Today we are going to explore how technologies can help us understand public and societal challenges better. This time we took a bit different road from what we usually do. Usually we think of technologies as a solution to the problem. And this time we try to explore how technological perspective can enrich the understanding of problem itself. And for those of you who are working on societal challenges, you probably know that understanding problem well is the key part of solving it. So I want to start by inviting two representatives of Lithuania and also Norway to give welcoming speeches. And then we will move to more interactive session and invite you all to share your thoughts and insights. So firstly, I would like to invite Lena Viltraitenė to the stage. Lena is Lithuania’s Ambassador for Digital and Technological Diplomacy. Lena, the floor is yours.

Lina Viltrakiene: Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Liucija, and good morning everyone. It is my great pleasure indeed to welcome you to this session on tech-driven solutions to societal challenges. No doubt, complex challenges in today’s world require innovative and out-of-the-box thinking and solutions. So, particularly the public sector needs to improve efficiency, enhance services, foster transparency. For this to happen, it is crucial to adopt new technologies and processes and to equip employees with skills. I am glad to open this session where there will be a possibility to learn from the experiences of two countries, and in particular from the experience of Lithuania. As in recent years, my country, Lithuania, has emerged as a European leader in digital governance. Let me share a few ratings. We rank 6th in the European Commission’s 2024 e-government benchmark. We are 8th in the World Bank’s GovTech Maturity Index, reflecting our strong public sector digital transformation. And we are 10th in the OECD’s Our Data Index, recognising our leadership in open, useful and reusable data. At the heart of this transformation is the award-winning GovTech Lab Lithuania. It’s a team in the innovation agency Lithuania that connects government institutions with startups and innovators to co-create solutions. GovTechLab has proven to be an indispensable point of contact when public sector organizations are eager to innovate. Through GovTech Challenges series, over 100 real-world public sector challenges were solved. For example, in one city in Lithuania, Šiauliai, a startup developed an urban monitoring tool that helps the city assess and manage public maintenance work more effectively. Our communication regulatory authority partnered with a startup to build an AI tool for detecting illegal online content, and it scanned over 288,000 websites, flagged violations, and even led to criminal investigations. In education, a collaboration between a school and a tech company produced a student achievement tracking tool that saves teachers time and helps tailor inventions. These are not just pilot projects. They are scalable, impactful solutions that improve lives and save time, and also build trust in government. It’s important to say that 70% of our institutions continue to operate. What sets Lithuania apart is the culture of experimentation and collaboration. We have a vibrant GovTech ecosystem, host international conferences, and also help other countries launch their own GovTech labs. And I am happy to say that we have in our delegation people who can share all this experience from an innovation agency, but also a company, NRD companies, that really work, cooperate closely with other countries to build their GovTech labs. And today I am also pleased to invite you to save the date for our annual GovTech Leader Conference, being held on 23rd of October in Vilnius. This year’s topic is GovTech dilemmas. And indeed, digital governance is a battleground where nations must balance sovereignty and cyber security on one hand, and interoperability and open innovation on the other. The rise of AI-driven disinformation, cyber warfare, and global tech decoupling deepens these dilemmas. So in this conference, there will be an opportunity to explore how governments can navigate these challenges, ensuring resilience, national security, and public trust. Let’s innovate not just for efficiency, but for equity. resilience and trust. And let’s see GovTech not as a niche but as a powerful engine for societal progress. So I wish you to have a very fruitful and inspiring workshop. Thank you very much.

Liucija Sabulyte: Thank you Elena so much for sharing a bit about Lithuanian achievements in the digital capital and GovTech space. I think these achievements wouldn’t be possible without openness and ability to cooperate. And speaking about cooperation, actually we met this workshop partners, DFO, during Lithuanian public sector representatives visit in Norway where DFO was really open and shared their experience in the innovative public procurement. And we are really grateful for that. And I think it helps us to strengthen as a whole. So with that, I really want to invite Dag Strømstøn, Norwegian Chief Public Procurement Officer, to give his welcoming speech.

Dag Stromsnes: Good morning everyone and thanks a lot for the invitation to participate on this important event. I’m very happy on behalf of Norway to give a welcoming remark from the Agency for Public and Financial Management. I think that the program description is very good, talking about the rapid We have seen rapid advancement of technology, rising public expectation for effective services and ever-expanding pool of data. Governments around the world are pressured to tackle complex societal issues with innovative solutions. This is a huge challenge and I think all countries in the Western world are struggling with this challenge. We see this in the OECD community that we are facing these challenges in different ways. From my point of view, I think it is very important to emphasize how the procurement functions are approaching this challenge. The key point from my point of view is how we open our challenges to the market. How do public sector authorities approach the market to get the best result of the suppliers? It is a huge challenge and we need to focus on getting the results from a huge variety of suppliers. From the start-ups and the very small suppliers to the huge tech companies. Some key words about how to work with the start-ups. I think we have seen from our practice, we have a project called Startoff that we actually got a European winning prize for two years ago. But approaching the start-ups represents some key challenges for the public sector. There is a lack of time and resources. We see there is a lack of innovation, knowledge and competence. and we also see there’s a lack of leadership involvement in how to go how to are going to approach this market. I think if you’re going to work with these startups that often are small, they don’t have a lot of resources, you need to make it simple, predictable and fast. I think that is really really important for these types of suppliers. I think our experience is that both the public sector that are going to buy these solutions and the startups need to have help and support throughout their procurement process. I think it’s important to create a good framework for trust and cooperation and we also need to develop a sort of respect for each other. I think a public sector buyer and a grinder have a very different approach. The grinder he doesn’t know if he has a salary in two months, a public sector buyer knows he has a permanent contract in an agency and these two cultures, these two approaches are going to meet in a cooperation that we really really need to work hard to establish. It’s important to know that the effects take time, the processes take time, you don’t see the results right away, you need to be patient. I think this procurement process that is documented both by us in start-up and the Go-Tech lab in Lithuania shows that. But I think it’s also important to keep in mind that we could get much more innovation from the huge suppliers like Capgemini, IBM, Accenture and these types of companies. I think it’s important to keep in mind that the public sector buyer does not have the solution in his head. I think we also need to open the process for the experiences that the big suppliers have made maybe in other parts of the world. So I think it’s very important to just focus on your need and then use the creativity from the supplier to develop the good solutions. So then we need to do market sounding. We need to be aware of our needs. We need to formulate that in a way that the suppliers could transfer this into some good systems. And it’s really important to take the big companies’ experiences into the account and open the procurement process to that. So we need to include all the potential good ideas in the market in a good way. The third challenge I would like to mention is that the problem we actually are facing is not following the bureaucratic structure. In Norway we have 19 ministries and I think the projects that fit into one ministry are well taken care of. But if there are more cross-governmental challenges, we need to cooperate. You maybe need to cooperate with local governments. You need to cooperate with municipalities. You need to cooperate with private sector and you need to maybe to cooperate with NGOs. Our bureaucratic structures are not made and we are struggling to make the good cooperation in this more mission oriented challenges. So it’s important to understand and learn from this. experiences and we need to work across the the world to learn what is working and what is not working that that well. But my key point is that we need to be creative in the way we are approaching the market. I really hope that this workshop can inspire to see the opportunities in using technologies in new ways and establish a good cooperation with the market. We will not succeed unless we are facing this challenge. I wish you a great workshop. Thank you.

Liucija Sabulyte: Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Definitely cooperation moving through silos and building mutual trust is key to making impacts for digital transformation and building strong economies through the power of GovTech. Now we’re going to move to more interactive part, the workshop part. People who are joining on Zoom can also scan the code and work together with us. This part is going to be moderated by my colleague Dovila with the help of our DFO colleagues Magne and Matijas. So Dovila is here on the side and we can start.

Dovile Gaizauskiene: Hello everyone. I hope you can hear me. Yes, okay. I see people nodding. Super excited to be here to see you all in our workshop. Now I will introduce very briefly what will happen, but at first you need to group yourselves because it will be some group work. How it will happen? You need to look for For paper sheets like this, it might be even behind you. So now it’s time to very, very quickly find these tables with paper sheets. Leave your computers behind, leave all your belongings behind. Just look for the paper sheets like this, with some more material. We are expecting to see six, seven groups. Just turn your chairs around and just make some round tables for now. I see that it’s happening, good. And for those who are online, we really want you to scan the code and you will find this working material in MiroBoard. So you need to register there. Now I see the groups are there. Okay. So what is happening now? We will have a very short workshop. It will be a little bit rushed, but it’s good to be rushed in the morning. It will be like training for your brains, preparation for an entire day. So it will consist of three steps. Please follow instructions, which I will be giving to you. There are not so many, we hope it will be very intuitive. It will be group work, some individual work, and group work again. Basic rules for this session are co-creation. So really, co-creation requires listening to each other. So we want you to listen to each other. At some point, you will have to take off headphones in order to be able to… but then I will show you signs so you can hear me again and you will have to put headphones. I really encourage you to think that there are no wrong answers and no wrong questions here because it’s really a co-creation session, very very short but that’s the approach we want you to have. And you also see some post-it notes or like small colorful paper sheets so please make sure that you write one idea on one post-it. And now it’s not a good time to be sustainable because later we will be grouping these ideas so it’s really important to have one idea, one concept in one post-it note separately. That’s basically the rules. Let’s move. So we will have, as I said, three steps. First of all, you will have to familiarize with public sector challenge and the challenges are printed out on these paper sheets. My colleagues will help you if you cannot find. And we pointed the challenge, you cannot choose, we already chose for you the challenge we want you to focus. You will have now ten minutes to read the challenge and talk a little bit about it, what you know. The main question for you while reading is to understand where is the real problem. Okay? So you will have ten minutes to read the challenge and discuss a little bit in the group how you understand and maybe exchange ideas how you see where is the real challenge. The time starts now. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay, now it’s time to maybe, maybe you can ask. Okay. Please put the headphones, I see that people are coming back to give attention to me a little bit. We already have a feeling that you started, instead of discussing problem, thinking of solutions. That’s very natural and now we are moving actually to that part of the workshop. It will be a little bit less time for this part and you will have to work a little bit like for 10 minutes individually. On the tables you see technology cards. You see these cards with blue color. Now it’s time to randomly pick three cards for each participant. Three cards for each participant, randomly. On this tech card you will see technology and an example how it was used by a public sector institution. Can you share cards already? Start reading through. What will happen now? You have to read the text about the technology and produce at least three ideas stemming from the technologies that you randomly picked, which would show the possible solution of the challenge you were discussing. Familiarize with technology and think of how it could be used for solution of the challenge that you were discussing in the group. This has to be done individually, so not too much sharing in this part, sorry. But we really want you to think individually, a little bit from the technological perspective. So at least three different ideas. It doesn’t have to be like real solution, but more like of technology. We have an idea of how this technology could be used to tackle this challenge. Time starts now. Ten minutes again. As I said, we will be rushed a little bit. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Ten minutes again. Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE!!!! We can see some discussions happening. You already moved very intuitively to the third part of our workshop. Now it’s the time to present the ideas you had from reading about the technologies, different examples, and discuss in the groups what you actually produced. Now it’s time to discuss actually. Try to merge ideas, try to discuss why some technologies maybe couldn’t be used in your opinion, and so on. You will have 10 minutes for this discussion, and after that we will want you to actually give us reflections of how you feel after this exercise. So last 10 minutes to share in the group the ideas you produced, the insights you got, and the most important question here is to discuss how your perception of maybe challenge itself changed. 10 more minutes, and then we will be very much pleased to hear from you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That was great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. and the first public debate on agentic AI and AI. Cosmic computing is a highly relevant topic, but agentic AI and the idea was that a disabled person or an AI agent could recognize the world, and also, depending on how incapacitated or how little intellectual capacity they had, the world could be a way of understanding you. It could be a dog, it could be a guy, it could be a human being, it could be a human being. And it had to be trained for your own personal interests. It could be trained to detect data, it could be set to research the data, it could be about similarities. It would have to be very personalized and adjusted. It had to be… Someone has the role in that, but that has to be a public debate. It has to be a society debate, it has to be a private debate. I’m sure there will be a firm representing that person. So I think agentic AI has a big role in that. Again, thank you very much for this discussion. Thank you very much for the discussions which are happening now. It’s time to really, as I said, to move to the reflection session. Our time is running very fast. And now we would like to hear from you. And we have three questions for the discussion. And we really encourage you to get the microphone which Magne can bring to you and try to answer what have we learned from this exercise. Maybe you would like to reflect. Maybe you can reflect on certain technologies which you discussed maybe more deeply. And maybe I heard in some groups you discussed some nuances. Maybe you built some arguments why not to use technologies. It would be great to hear from you now. So who wants to just raise your hands and we will bring a microphone for you to be heard. Who wants to be first? Just sharing what was happening at your table and reflecting what you’ve learned from this.

Participant: Okay. Yes, okay. We were the first group. We had the first challenge which was focused on the exclusion of marginalized voices in digital service co-creation. And I believe one thing to absorb is that first we saw it as a very, very complicated challenge. There was a lot of statistics and data. And overall marginalization of people is a very multifaceted issue whether you are rural, low-income or overall not digitally fully able person. So the key challenge that we saw is how do we include more of voices of people who are not as active in digital spaces in, for example, policies and institutional feedback loops. So that is the focus of the challenge. And I believe at the beginning we… We did not see how the technology would contribute significantly to solving this challenge because we had a lot of, for example, from my case it was process mining, quantum computing or agentic AI but then after discussing together with the colleagues we started discussing maybe, you know, these it’s a mostly faceted issue, so maybe we need to see how these technologies like quantum computing or process mining can first of all help overall public service employees to deal with their issues more that do not necessarily require human interaction so then they would have more time to engage actually with their constituents or the citizens and then for example certain aspects like agentic AI could act as something what we in Lithuania call proactive public services where the government could reach out to you and basically identify that you are entitled to certain public services whether, you know, it’s a renewal of your passport or social benefits or some other aspects that maybe colleagues would like to contribute. Okay, thank you very much. So basically the topic of inclusion of the marginalized voice in terms of bringing those individuals that are not opportune to, you know, access to the digital platforms and, you know, part of the conversations I’ve had involved, you know, so in different rural areas different locations people finding difficult to actually access those digital platforms and part of the solutions that, you know, we looked at is, you know, trying to, you know, look for diverse channels to actually take digital solutions to people. You know, there are some persons that can actually read and write but they can’t speak. You know, how do you get those people involved and people that can, you know, that can speak fluently. Dovilė Gaižauskienė, Liucija Sabulytė, Dovilė Gaižauskienė Dovilė Gaižauskienė, Liucija Sabulytė, Dovilė Gaižauskienė Dovilė Gaižauskienė, Liucija Sabulytė, Dovilė Gaižauskienė

Dovile Gaizauskiene: Dovilė Gaižauskienė, Liucija Sabulytė, Dovilė Gaižauskienė

Magne Hareide: Dovilė Gaižauskienė, Liucija Sabulytė, Dovilė Gaižauskienė while paying and that would identify the risks and that would hopefully lead us to the solutions one of which was use of agentic AI and and tailoring the the data into the in the algorithm into the into the model of AI that would have a personalized solution based on the condition of the person on on his use cases to to pay safely to pay reliably and as well to meet his budget because the the conditions are very very different across across people and one of the things that as well we would have the the medical component let’s say the variables that would bring more medical data let’s say is it the stress level elevated by you know because of the the heart rate being elevated because this the situation that stays very stressful that the person is is is anxious for some reason and that would bring more components to the solution and then as well there’s other things let’s say in the digital space it could be metaverse if if if it’s completely online we would have more control let’s say if it’s online to do the payments of some of some digital transactions and some people are very visual let’s say which may be not not so into social interactions but very visual so metaverse could help online or it could be augmented reality and in real life let’s say they would have certain visual guidances to help them to to connect with people more safely so that is one of the solutions but the the nuance we found as well that the person has very limited possibility to decide on himself how much to spend how many how what do things cost and then who who has the say in that so is it the government is in the bank is it his medical professional so that is a an ethical thing that has to be decided and it’s I think a very very thin line Where is the right and wrong in this?

Dovile Gaizauskiene: Thank you everyone for joining this session. Please meet us, come to our stand where we are this day and upcoming days and discuss with us more. Thank you very much for participation.

Agreement points

Cross-organizational cooperation is essential for addressing complex societal challenges

Speakers

– Liucija Sabulyte
– Dag Stromsnes

Arguments

Cooperation, moving through silos and building mutual trust is key to digital transformation impact

Cross-governmental challenges require cooperation across ministries, local governments, municipalities, private sector and NGOs

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that breaking down organizational silos and fostering cooperation across different entities and levels of government is crucial for successful digital transformation and addressing complex challenges

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Technology should enhance understanding of problems rather than just provide predetermined solutions

Speakers

– Liucija Sabulyte
– Dag Stromsnes
– Dovile Gaizauskiene

Arguments

Understanding problems well is key to solving them, and technological perspective can enrich problem understanding

Public sector buyers should focus on needs rather than predetermined solutions, allowing suppliers to use their creativity and global experience

Workshop demonstrated how technological perspective can change perception of challenges themselves

Summary

All three speakers advocate for an approach where technology is used to better understand and frame problems rather than imposing predetermined solutions, emphasizing the importance of open-ended exploration

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Innovation requires balancing multiple stakeholder needs and building trust between different organizational cultures

Speakers

– Lina Viltrakiene
– Dag Stromsnes

Arguments

Digital governance requires balancing sovereignty and cybersecurity with interoperability and open innovation

Both public sector buyers and startups need support throughout procurement processes, requiring trust and respect between different cultures

Summary

Both speakers recognize that successful innovation requires navigating tensions between different priorities and building trust between stakeholders with different cultures and approaches

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that addressing complex challenges requires innovative approaches and engaging with diverse market participants to achieve public sector transformation

Speakers

– Lina Viltrakiene
– Dag Stromsnes

Arguments

Complex challenges require innovative and out-of-the-box thinking, particularly in public sector efficiency and transparency

Public sector authorities need to open challenges to the market and get results from diverse suppliers, from startups to large tech companies

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers focus on AI applications for people with disabilities, with one exploring technological possibilities and the other raising critical ethical considerations about implementation

Speakers

– Participant
– Magne Hareide

Arguments

Agentic AI can enable proactive public services and personalized solutions for people with disabilities, including stress monitoring and visual guidance through AR/metaverse

Ethical questions arise about decision-making authority when implementing AI solutions for vulnerable populations – whether government, banks, or medical professionals should have control

Topics

Human rights | Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Structural limitations of bureaucratic systems in addressing cross-cutting challenges

Speakers

– Dag Stromsnes
– Liucija Sabulyte

Arguments

Bureaucratic structures are not designed for mission-oriented challenges that span multiple organizations

Cooperation, moving through silos and building mutual trust is key to digital transformation impact

Explanation

It’s unexpected that both Norwegian and Lithuanian representatives openly acknowledge the limitations of their own bureaucratic structures, showing remarkable institutional self-awareness and willingness to critique existing systems

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Technology as a lens for problem understanding rather than just solution provision

Speakers

– Liucija Sabulyte
– Dovile Gaizauskiene
– Dag Stromsnes

Arguments

Understanding problems well is key to solving them, and technological perspective can enrich problem understanding

Workshop demonstrated how technological perspective can change perception of challenges themselves

Public sector buyers should focus on needs rather than predetermined solutions, allowing suppliers to use their creativity and global experience

Explanation

The consensus on using technology as a diagnostic and analytical tool rather than just an implementation tool represents an unexpectedly sophisticated approach to technology policy that goes beyond typical solution-focused thinking

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on the need for cross-organizational cooperation, technology-enhanced problem understanding, stakeholder engagement, and acknowledgment of structural limitations in current systems

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary perspectives rather than conflicting viewpoints. The agreement spans both strategic approaches (cooperation, problem-first thinking) and practical implementation challenges (cultural differences, ethical considerations). This consensus suggests a mature understanding of digital transformation challenges and creates a solid foundation for collaborative policy development and implementation.

Different viewpoints

Approach to supplier engagement – startup-focused vs. inclusive market approach

Speakers

– Dag Stromsnes

Arguments

Public sector authorities need to open challenges to the market and get results from diverse suppliers, from startups to large tech companies

Public sector buyers should focus on needs rather than predetermined solutions, allowing suppliers to use their creativity and global experience

Summary

While Stromsnes advocates for engaging both startups and large suppliers equally, emphasizing that big companies like Capgemini, IBM, and Accenture can provide significant innovation from global experience, the Lithuanian model presented by Viltrakiene focuses primarily on startup partnerships through GovTechLab

Topics

Economic | Development

Unexpected differences

Ethical decision-making authority in AI implementation for vulnerable populations

Speakers

– Magne Hareide
– Participant

Arguments

Ethical questions arise about decision-making authority when implementing AI solutions for vulnerable populations – whether government, banks, or medical professionals should have control

Agentic AI can enable proactive public services and personalized solutions for people with disabilities, including stress monitoring and visual guidance through AR/metaverse

Explanation

While the participant enthusiastically presented AI solutions for people with disabilities, Hareide raised fundamental ethical concerns about who should have decision-making authority over these individuals’ lives. This disagreement was unexpected as it emerged from what appeared to be a collaborative workshop discussion and highlighted deep ethical tensions in implementing seemingly beneficial technologies

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed relatively low levels of direct disagreement, with most conflicts being methodological rather than fundamental. The main areas of disagreement centered on procurement approaches (startup-focused vs. inclusive market engagement) and ethical considerations in AI implementation for vulnerable populations

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most speakers shared common goals of improving public sector innovation and digital transformation, but differed on implementation approaches. The ethical disagreement about AI decision-making authority represents the most significant tension, as it touches on fundamental questions of autonomy and control that could impact policy development and technology implementation strategies

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that addressing complex challenges requires innovative approaches and engaging with diverse market participants to achieve public sector transformation

Speakers

– Lina Viltrakiene
– Dag Stromsnes

Arguments

Complex challenges require innovative and out-of-the-box thinking, particularly in public sector efficiency and transparency

Public sector authorities need to open challenges to the market and get results from diverse suppliers, from startups to large tech companies

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers focus on AI applications for people with disabilities, with one exploring technological possibilities and the other raising critical ethical considerations about implementation

Speakers

– Participant
– Magne Hareide

Arguments

Agentic AI can enable proactive public services and personalized solutions for people with disabilities, including stress monitoring and visual guidance through AR/metaverse

Ethical questions arise about decision-making authority when implementing AI solutions for vulnerable populations – whether government, banks, or medical professionals should have control

Topics

Human rights | Development | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Technology should be used not just as a solution but as a lens to better understand societal problems themselves

Successful digital governance requires balancing sovereignty/cybersecurity with interoperability and open innovation

Lithuania has achieved significant digital governance success (6th in EU e-government benchmark) through GovTechLab partnerships with startups, solving over 100 public sector challenges

Public procurement innovation requires making processes simple, predictable and fast for startups while leveraging creativity from large suppliers

Cross-governmental cooperation is essential but challenging due to bureaucratic structures not designed for mission-oriented challenges spanning multiple organizations

Marginalized voices in digital services can be addressed through diverse technological approaches including AI agents, process mining, and AR/metaverse solutions

Building mutual trust and respect between different organizational cultures (public sector vs. startups) is crucial for successful collaboration

Workshop methodology demonstrated that examining challenges through technological perspectives can change understanding of the problems themselves

Resolutions and action items

Save the date for GovTech Leader Conference on October 23rd in Vilnius focusing on ‘GovTech dilemmas’

Participants encouraged to visit the organizers’ stand for continued discussions during the event

Continued cooperation between Lithuania and Norway on sharing experiences in digital governance and innovative procurement

Unresolved issues

Ethical questions about decision-making authority when implementing AI solutions for vulnerable populations – unclear whether government, banks, or medical professionals should have control

How to effectively balance the thin line between right and wrong in automated decision-making for people with limited capacity

Specific mechanisms for achieving cross-governmental cooperation given existing bureaucratic structural limitations

How to scale successful pilot projects beyond initial implementation

Concrete methods for including diverse marginalized voices (rural, low-income, digitally disadvantaged) in digital service co-creation

Suggested compromises

Using technology to free up public servants from routine tasks so they have more time for human interaction and citizen engagement

Combining multiple technological approaches (AI agents, AR, metaverse) to address different aspects of accessibility challenges

Engaging both startups and large tech companies in different capacities to leverage their respective strengths

Requiring public debate and societal discussion before implementing AI agents for vulnerable populations

Usually we think of technologies as a solution to the problem. And this time we try to explore how technological perspective can enrich the understanding of problem itself. And for those of you who are working on societal challenges, you probably know that understanding problem well is the key part of solving it.

Speaker

Liucija Sabulyte

Reason

This comment is insightful because it fundamentally reframes the relationship between technology and problem-solving. Instead of viewing technology as merely a tool for solutions, it positions technology as a lens for deeper problem analysis. This represents a sophisticated understanding that proper problem definition is often more critical than solution implementation.

Impact

This opening comment set the entire tone and framework for the workshop. It established the unconventional approach that would guide all subsequent activities, moving participants away from their natural tendency to jump to solutions and instead focusing on problem understanding first.

The key point from my point of view is how we open our challenges to the market. How do public sector authorities approach the market to get the best result of the suppliers? It is a huge challenge and we need to focus on getting the results from a huge variety of suppliers. From the start-ups and the very small suppliers to the huge tech companies.

Speaker

Dag Stromsnes

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it highlights a critical but often overlooked aspect of public sector innovation – the procurement process itself as a barrier or enabler. It recognizes that innovation isn’t just about having good ideas, but about creating systems that can effectively engage with diverse supplier ecosystems.

Impact

This comment introduced a practical, systemic perspective that complemented the more theoretical framework. It grounded the discussion in real-world implementation challenges and set up the importance of understanding different stakeholder perspectives in problem-solving.

I think a public sector buyer and a grinder have a very different approach. The grinder he doesn’t know if he has a salary in two months, a public sector buyer knows he has a permanent contract in an agency and these two cultures, these two approaches are going to meet in a cooperation that we really really need to work hard to establish.

Speaker

Dag Stromsnes

Reason

This observation is particularly insightful because it identifies a fundamental cultural and psychological barrier that goes beyond technical or procedural issues. It recognizes that successful innovation requires understanding and bridging vastly different risk tolerances, time horizons, and motivational structures.

Impact

This comment added a human dimension to the technical discussion, highlighting that technology solutions must account for human and organizational psychology. It influenced the workshop’s later focus on understanding multiple perspectives and stakeholder needs.

We already have a feeling that you started, instead of discussing problem, thinking of solutions. That’s very natural and now we are moving actually to that part of the workshop.

Speaker

Dovile Gaizauskiene

Reason

This meta-observation is insightful because it captures a fundamental human tendency that often undermines effective problem-solving. By acknowledging this natural inclination to jump to solutions, it validates the difficulty of the exercise while reinforcing its importance.

Impact

This comment served as a crucial course correction that reinforced the workshop’s core methodology. It helped participants become more self-aware of their problem-solving approaches and emphasized the value of the structured process they were following.

We did not see how the technology would contribute significantly to solving this challenge because we had a lot of, for example, from my case it was process mining, quantum computing or agentic AI but then after discussing together with the colleagues we started discussing maybe… these technologies like quantum computing or process mining can first of all help overall public service employees to deal with their issues more that do not necessarily require human interaction so then they would have more time to engage actually with their constituents.

Speaker

Participant

Reason

This comment demonstrates a sophisticated evolution in thinking – moving from direct technology application to indirect, systemic impact. It shows how technology can solve problems by freeing up human capacity for higher-value activities, representing a more nuanced understanding of technology’s role.

Impact

This insight demonstrated the workshop’s effectiveness in changing participants’ perspectives. It showed how the structured approach led to more creative and systemic thinking about technology applications, moving beyond obvious solutions to more strategic approaches.

Someone has the role in that, but that has to be a public debate. It has to be a society debate, it has to be a private debate. I’m sure there will be a firm representing that person… Where is the right and wrong in this?

Speaker

Magne Hareide

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it introduces the critical ethical dimension that often gets overlooked in technology-focused discussions. It recognizes that technical solutions for vulnerable populations raise fundamental questions about autonomy, representation, and decision-making authority.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion from technical problem-solving to broader societal and ethical considerations. It demonstrated how deeper problem analysis reveals complex stakeholder dynamics and ethical dilemmas that must be addressed alongside technical solutions.

Overall assessment

These key comments collectively shaped the discussion by establishing a sophisticated framework that moved beyond traditional technology-as-solution thinking. The opening reframe set an unconventional approach, while the procurement and cultural insights grounded the discussion in real-world implementation challenges. The facilitator’s meta-observations helped maintain focus on the methodology, while participant reflections demonstrated the evolution in thinking that the workshop achieved. The ethical considerations raised toward the end showed how proper problem analysis reveals complex societal dimensions that pure technical approaches might miss. Together, these comments created a progression from theoretical framework to practical challenges to demonstrated learning outcomes, illustrating how technology can indeed enrich problem understanding rather than simply provide solutions.

How do we include more voices of people who are not as active in digital spaces in policies and institutional feedback loops?

Speaker

Participant from first group

Explanation

This addresses the core challenge of digital exclusion and marginalized voices in service co-creation, which is fundamental to creating inclusive digital governance

How do you get people involved who can read and write but can’t speak, and people with different communication abilities?

Speaker

Participant discussing inclusion challenges

Explanation

This highlights the need for diverse communication channels and accessibility solutions for people with different abilities and limitations

Who has the say in financial decisions for people with limited capacity – is it the government, the bank, or medical professionals?

Speaker

Participant discussing payment solutions for people with disabilities

Explanation

This raises critical ethical questions about autonomy, guardianship, and decision-making authority for vulnerable populations in digital financial services

Where is the right and wrong line when it comes to making decisions for people with limited capacity to decide how much to spend?

Speaker

Participant discussing ethical considerations

Explanation

This addresses the ethical boundaries and moral considerations in developing AI-assisted financial management tools for people with cognitive or other limitations

How can diverse channels be developed to take digital solutions to people in rural areas and different locations who have difficulty accessing digital platforms?

Speaker

Participant discussing rural access challenges

Explanation

This addresses the digital divide and the need for alternative service delivery methods to reach underserved populations

How can agentic AI be personalized and adjusted for individual needs while maintaining ethical boundaries?

Speaker

Participant discussing agentic AI applications

Explanation

This explores the technical and ethical challenges of creating personalized AI agents that can assist people with disabilities while respecting their autonomy and privacy

Summary

This discussion focused on the digitalization and development of the Arctic region, presented by Alim Khapov from the Center for Global IT Cooperation in Moscow at an Internet Governance Forum session. Khapov emphasized that the Arctic is both a zone of collaboration and competition, home to nearly 4 million people including 10% indigenous populations, representing a fragile ecosystem and culture that requires careful consideration during development. He highlighted Russia’s efforts to bridge the digital divide through initiatives like “IT camps” that provide internet access to nomadic indigenous communities in remote Arctic regions where traditional infrastructure cannot reach.

The presentation extensively covered energy solutions for Arctic development, particularly Russia’s implementation of nuclear power plants including floating nuclear facilities like the Academic Lamanosov Power Plant, which operates as a mobile power source in the Chukotka region. Khapov discussed how climate change is making Arctic routes more accessible, particularly the Northeast Passage, which offers significantly shorter shipping times compared to traditional routes through the Suez Canal. He also explored alternative energy sources including hydrogen and wind power, citing AI analysis that suggested these could serve as clean alternatives to diesel power in remote Arctic communities.

The discussion addressed infrastructure challenges, including the construction of data centers in Arctic conditions and the deployment of undersea cables like the Polar Express project. During the Q&A session, Khapov clarified that while climate change presents opportunities for Arctic exploration through melting ice, he views this as an inevitable reality rather than an advantage, emphasizing the need for responsible, collaborative development that protects indigenous communities and the environment. He concluded by urging international cooperation on ethical Arctic digitalization despite geopolitical tensions.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Arctic Digitalization and Infrastructure Development**: The speaker discussed Russia’s efforts to bridge the digital divide in Arctic regions through initiatives like “IT camps” that provide internet access to indigenous communities living nomadic lifestyles, emphasizing the need to connect remote populations while protecting their cultural heritage.

– **Energy Solutions for Arctic Development**: Extensive discussion of nuclear power implementation in the Arctic, including floating nuclear power plants like the Academic Lamanosov, small nuclear reactors, and alternative energy sources like hydrogen and wind power to support sustainable development in harsh Arctic conditions.

– **Climate Change Impact on Arctic Accessibility**: The melting ice caps are making Arctic regions more accessible, opening new shipping routes like the Northeast Passage that significantly reduce travel time compared to traditional routes, while also revealing new territories for exploration and development.

– **Technical Challenges of Arctic Infrastructure**: Discussion of the complexities involved in building data centers in Arctic conditions, laying undersea cables under ice, and the maintenance challenges these present, along with the geopolitical considerations of where infrastructure crosses territorial boundaries.

– **Balancing Development with Environmental and Cultural Protection**: The tension between inevitable Arctic development driven by resource extraction and climate change, versus the need to protect fragile ecosystems and indigenous communities who have lived in these regions for millennia.

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion aimed to highlight the importance of responsible Arctic digitalization and development, advocating for international cooperation in creating ethical approaches to Arctic exploration while balancing technological progress with environmental sustainability and indigenous rights protection.

**Overall Tone:**

The tone was informative and diplomatic, with the speaker presenting a balanced perspective that acknowledged both opportunities and challenges. The speaker maintained a collaborative tone throughout, consistently calling for international cooperation despite geopolitical tensions. The tone remained measured and academic, even when discussing controversial topics like nuclear power and climate change impacts, with the speaker acknowledging limitations in expertise on certain environmental topics while advocating for responsible development practices.

Speakers

– **Alim Khapov** – Center for Global IT Cooperation, Moscow, Russia based research center, analytical center created by Russian Coordination Center for TLD.RU.RF. Operates within the IGF and ITU ecosystems, actively engages in Internet Governance Forums, hosts and co-hosts Russian Internet Governance Forum and Youth Russian Internet Governance Forum.

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members asking questions during the session (roles and expertise not specified).

Additional speakers:

No additional speakers were identified beyond those in the provided speakers names list.

# Arctic Digitalization and Development: A Comprehensive Discussion Report

## Introduction and Context

This report examines a discussion on Arctic digitalization and development presented by Alim Khapov from the Center for Global IT Cooperation at an Internet Governance Forum session. The Center for Global IT Cooperation is a Moscow-based research and analytical center created by the Russian Coordination Center for TLD.RU.RF, which has operated within the IGF and ITU ecosystems for over five years.

This session was originally supposed to be hosted by colleagues who unfortunately didn’t have time and didn’t make it to Oslo, to Lillestrom. The discussion centered on the complex challenges and opportunities surrounding the digitalization of the Arctic region, emphasizing the balance between technological advancement, environmental protection, and cultural preservation. Khapov presented the Arctic as both a zone of collaboration and competition, home to almost 4 million people including 10% indigenous populations, representing a fragile ecosystem and culture requiring careful consideration during development.

## Major Discussion Points and Arguments

### Arctic Digitalization and Infrastructure Development

The presentation covered Russia’s efforts to bridge the digital divide in Arctic regions through innovative approaches to connectivity. Khapov highlighted the implementation of “IT Stoybyshe” (literally translating to “IT Kettle Camp”) that provide internet access to indigenous communities living nomadic lifestyles in remote Arctic regions of the Republic of Sakha, Yakutia, where traditional infrastructure cannot reach. These initiatives represent a targeted approach to connecting isolated populations while attempting to preserve their traditional ways of life.

The discussion addressed the technical challenges of building digital infrastructure in Arctic conditions, including the potential for establishing data centers in these regions. Khapov noted that while the cold climate could provide advantages for data center operations, citing examples like Iceland, such projects would require substantial supporting infrastructure. This assessment was partly based on AI analysis from a chatbot that Khapov and colleagues had designed for a previous IGF in Riyadh.

The conversation also covered undersea cable projects, particularly the Polar Express initiative, which aims to bring enhanced connectivity from Murmansk, near the Norwegian border, via the entire northern sea route to Arctic regions despite the significant operational challenges of laying and maintaining cables under ice.

### Energy Solutions for Arctic Development

A substantial portion of the discussion focused on energy solutions necessary to support Arctic digitalization and development. Khapov discussed Russia’s implementation of nuclear power in the Arctic, including floating nuclear facilities such as the Academic Lamanosov Power Plant, created in 2020 and operating in the Chukotka region. He explained that nuclear-powered icebreakers “can operate as an icebreaker, but it can also operate as a small nuclear power plant when it landed onto the shore,” demonstrating the dual functionality of these vessels as mobile power sources.

The presentation also explored alternative energy sources, including hydrogen and wind power. Khapov cited AI analysis from their chatbot suggesting these could serve as clean alternatives to diesel power in remote Arctic communities. He discussed wind power implementations in Sweden and Norway, and mentioned Kodiak Island as an example, though he admitted not knowing much about that specific case. These renewable energy opportunities were presented as part of a diversified approach to energy provision that could support sustainable development.

### Climate Change Impact on Arctic Accessibility

The discussion addressed how climate change is making Arctic routes more accessible, particularly the Northeast Passage, which takes half the time compared to standard routes. Khapov noted it takes “twice the time to travel via the standard route… than it would take via the Northeast Passage.”

When challenged by an audience member about whether ice melting should be viewed as advantageous, Khapov provided a measured response: “I wouldn’t pose this as an advantage. Rather, it is a fact. It is an ongoing process which we, well, we international community, try to abate… But so far, I think that the global temperature is still rising. And this isn’t something we can avoid. Therefore, I wouldn’t say that it is an advantage. It is an inevitable reality.”

### Technical Challenges and Geopolitical Considerations

The discussion revealed significant technical challenges associated with Arctic infrastructure development. An audience member raised specific concerns about “sub-cable under the ice” and the difficulties of repairing and maintaining undersea cables under ice conditions. The conversation acknowledged that while Arctic data center development is technically feasible, it requires substantial infrastructure investment and careful planning.

Khapov also addressed geopolitical considerations affecting infrastructure placement, noting that territorial boundaries and disputes in the Arctic could complicate development projects, requiring careful navigation of international relations and territorial claims.

## Balancing Development with Environmental and Cultural Protection

A central theme throughout the discussion was the tension between Arctic development and the need to protect fragile ecosystems and indigenous communities. Khapov emphasized the importance of responsible development, stating: “We cannot just, it would be wrong I think, by all means to just exploit those unique regions which were untouched by human hands for millennia using the same old techniques and technologies which were used prior in humanity’s history.”

He further elaborated on the complexity of digital inclusion for indigenous communities: “It is important that local communities of the Arctic are included, connected to the rest of the world, but it is also important to protect those communities from all sorts of threats which are currently online.”

## Key Insights and Observations

Several comments during the discussion provided particularly insightful perspectives. Khapov’s observation about the need for new approaches to Arctic development established an ethical framework that guided the conversation, shifting it from purely technical considerations to include moral dimensions.

The recognition that connectivity without protection can be harmful, especially for indigenous communities with traditional lifestyles, demonstrated understanding of responsible digitalization that goes beyond simple connectivity metrics.

Khapov’s call for international cooperation despite geopolitical tensions was notable: “Even throwing aside all geopolitical struggles and security matters, which were always there and which will always remain… I would urge all the colleagues to unite on that question of responsible digitalization responsible exploration and responsible Infrastructure construction in the Arctic because it’s underway.”

## Unresolved Issues and Future Considerations

The discussion highlighted several unresolved issues requiring further attention. Geopolitical tensions regarding territorial boundaries and undersea cable placement in disputed Arctic regions remain a significant challenge for infrastructure development. The technical difficulties of maintaining and repairing undersea cables under ice conditions require ongoing innovation and international cooperation.

Long-term environmental impacts from Arctic development projects need continued study. Khapov acknowledged this as an area outside his expertise requiring input from biologists and environmental experts. The challenge of balancing economic development with protection of fragile Arctic ecosystems and indigenous cultures remains complex, requiring ongoing dialogue about protecting indigenous communities’ rights and traditional lifestyles while implementing digitalization projects.

## Conclusions and Call for Action

The discussion concluded with emphasis on the need for international cooperation in Arctic digitalization efforts. Khapov urged colleagues to unite on responsible digitalization and exploration of the Arctic, calling for international cooperation in creating ethical approaches to Arctic infrastructure development despite existing geopolitical tensions.

The session positioned Arctic digitalization as requiring collaborative approaches that prioritize sustainability and respect for both natural ecosystems and indigenous communities. The call for international cooperation, despite existing tensions, framed Arctic development as an opportunity for the global community to demonstrate responsible stewardship of one of Earth’s most pristine and vulnerable regions.

The overall assessment suggests that while Arctic digitalization is inevitable and ongoing, driven by climate change making the region more accessible, it must be approached through responsible development using sustainable technologies that do not disturb traditional lifestyles of indigenous communities.

Alim Khapov: Alem Khapov, Center for Global IT Cooperation, Moscow, Russia based research center, analytical center created by Russian Coordination Center for TLD.RU.RF. We operate within the IGF and ITU ecosystems now for more than five years. We actively engage in all IGF since IGF in Poland. We also host and co-host Russian Internet Governance Forum and Youth Russian Internet Governance Forum. Originally this session was supposed to be hosted by colleagues of ours, but unfortunately they didn’t have time and didn’t make it to Oslo, to Lillestrom to visit the IGF, and we have decided to support them in this session and host it ourselves. That’s pretty much the beginning. The topic we, our colleagues decided to pick up and we also supported them in this endeavor is concerning the digitalization of the Arctic and generally speaking development of the Arctic region. We believe that this topic is of great importance and relevance nowadays and especially in forums such as IGF. Perhaps there should be more time spent on issues concerning the Arctic as a part and active member of the Arctic Council and generally speaking has a lot of projects especially near the Svalbard area which are connected to digitalization. Several things about the Arctic region. It definitely is a zone of collaboration and a zone of competition especially nowadays. We always hear here and there the talks about Greenland, about militarization of the Arctic, about resource chase concerning the Arctic oil and gas fields. But we should always keep in mind that Arctic is a fragile region. Currently it has almost 4 million population. 10% of that population is of indigenous origin, meaning people who lived and inhabited Arctic region before European countries started the process of colonization, before the modern states arrived there. It is a fragile ecosystem. It is also a fragile culture. But progress is unstoppable and it is moving on especially with the processes such as global warming. The Arctic is rapidly changing. The new passages and routes are opening. Therefore the ships are moving in, the infrastructure moves in and people also settle. As I was saying, representing the organization which operates from Moscow, from Russia, we also have a large portion of our country located in the Arctic region and ourselves we know on our own example about migration from certain parts of the country to the Arctic, about the challenges that arise there and about local communities and how they feel, how they change and adapt to new processes which go hand in hand with digitalization. For example, one of the major initiatives right now which is supported by our government and by the Ministry of Digital Affairs is the creation of certain IT camps. Interestingly enough, even there is a special phrase for it which goes as IT Stoybyshe, literally translating to IT Kettle Camp, because of the distance of certain regions of the Arctic and even inability to access those regions by the road. There are no roads, there are no railways which would lead to these regions and people especially. There are still people, there are still citizens and they still have to be connected to the Internet and that is why recently government has launched 100 plus more IT camps in certain areas of the Arctic where people, especially indigenous people who live in nomadic lifestyle, they can arrive to these IT camps, have access to Internet, free access to Internet. It is one of the efforts to combat the so-called digital divide and I believe this initiative is important and I know that it is also implemented in various other countries of the Arctic Council and initiatives like that I think should be supported and paid attention to. It is important that local communities of the Arctic are included, connected to the rest of the world, but it is also important to protect those communities from all sorts of threats which are currently online. We are not leaving them just simply open to the web, we also need to protect their rights online and I think that the first step is already done. We bring those communities, we connect them and next step is to protect those communities, protect them online. There is also an issue of energy. We not only bring digital infrastructure, examples of IT camps to Arctic, we also bring massive projects, we also bring infrastructure. We develop those regions because obviously they have massive resources which need to be used and it is important for us to use them responsibly, using technologies which do not harm the environment and people in these regions. We cannot just, it would be wrong I think, by all means to just exploit those unique regions which were untouched by human hands for millennia using the same old techniques and technologies which were used prior in humanity’s history. That is why for instance corporations like Rosatom implement decisions such as nuclear power plants in the far north. There is a long-standing debate about the security and actual greenness of nuclear technologies. There were several important infamous cases of nuclear power going out and bringing destruction, but I think the majority of experts right now agree that nuclear power plants, when managed correctly and with responsible design, can produce ample volumes of energy, supply them and be a sustainable force. As you can see, Russia has a lot of nuclear power plants, we have a lot of resource infrastructure. History of that infrastructure will also develop nuclear power plants abroad. We have a lot of international partners with whom in collaboration we build nuclear power plants and one of the particularly interesting examples of nuclear power plants built in the Arctic is the recent, there is also a nuclear-powered icebreaker fleet which I believe is also an integral part of the Arctic exploration. It is also a part of the nuclear-powered program, so for instance a nuclear-powered icebreaker can operate as an icebreaker, but it can also operate as a small nuclear power plant when it landed onto the shore. The next step of the development of this idea is the creation of the floating nuclear power plants. The first one was created in 2020, I believe, and it is called Academic Lamanosov Power Plant, an ingenious design really. It is a single reactor power plant which is used in the high north, currently it operates in Chukotka region which is on the border with Alaska and the Republic of Sakha. Depending on the energy needs of certain Regions and towns in the up north the power plants moves depending on the season And operates as a mobile power plant This is single example of this new Technological thinking applied to the exploration of the Arctic and even now there are talks of expanding this program and building more floating nuclear power plants and there are also projects of small nuclear power plants which are expected to be built in the Arctic such as the one in the Republic Republic of Sakha Yakutia far north And there is a lot of debate concerning this project right now in Russia and as well as internationally because as I was saying Projects like that They bring a lot of opportunities for local communities Aside from the clean energy and energy as such. They also may provide the Fundament for infrastructure. So whenever we build an SNPP in the high north, we need certain power grid We need roads. We need connections. We need we build entire new cities in the high north. We also employ workers We are employed local population But it can also create serious problems aside from the threats of ecological disaster We can also endanger communities which have a certain lifestyle that they have that they would like to preserve and it is very important I believe to take this into account when building such projects in the high north to provide opportunities for those who require opportunities But not to disturb the lifestyle of communities that have lived there for thousands of years There’s also an interesting debate right now going on concerning the hydrogen energy Potential in the Arctic and together with my colleagues from Rosatom we had For one conference also for IGF, but it was the IGF which took part in Riyadh. So the past year we designed our own chatbot which we asked to think on the aspects of development of the Arctic and digitalization of the Arctic and one of the interesting things with this which this chatbot offered us is to think about the hydrogen energy and how hydrogen energy can be used in the exploration of the Arctic region and there were several questions which we asked the AI and I would like to showcase you the examples of the AI thinking concerning the Arctic exploration so one of the questions was concerning the use of the hydrogen energy in the Arctic and the artificial intelligence Decided that the region has abundant renewable energy potential and indeed it is in part true. So aside from the nuclear Energy, there is a potential for wind and hydropower we resources which will be harnessed to produce green hydrogen through electricity and Interestingly, there are still countries there right now countries which actively use wind power. So for instance, I think Sweden and even Norway In certain areas implement wind turbines there was also concern concern of decarbonization of remote communities So many Arctic communities rely on diesel for electricity, which is true and heating which is expensive and environmentally harmful Hydrogen can serve as a clean alternative for power generation and heating reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving air quality So this is one of the interesting ways in which AI thinks about hydrogen energy and about alternative energy sources in application to the Arctic exploration It also highlights the opportunities industrial application geopolitical and economic potentials and of course future prospects Get sometimes I think it fantasize too much, but still there is also a debate about AI wind energy and The AI is also quite positive Concerning the implementation of wind energy in the Arctic providing us examples of the Kodiak Island I do not know about the Kodiak Island, but I do know about the large volume of wind farms in Sweden so potentially in some areas it can be used there were also examples I think of Smart data centers which were built in the Arctic region. I think Iceland has a very good experience concerning the Concerning the building of infrastructure in the high north so they apply certain technologies which are based in responsible and Sustainable power generation and apply them to the Arctic X actually there was a long debate concerning the question of can we build data centers in the Arctic because it’s so cold up there and We would not need to spend a lot of energy To you know to cool up our Cool up data centers and on paper. It seems like a great idea But there is a lot of infrastructure which needs to be taken into account and Arctic is still a very hard region to develop digital infrastructure in my view, but the climate change is ongoing and We can see in the future How it all changes? So that’s it. I would like also to once again highlight the prospects of the usage of Arctic in terms of Northeast passage and this northern sea route, I think these one these routes are essential when we are thinking about the Arctic exploration and development, especially when it comes to digitalization because These routes they serve as a fundament for all future infrastructure and development for economic activities And my view on the lines of these routes will soon be soon will Appear settlements and all those settlements will require basic infrastructure and it is our responsibility to take into account safety sustainability and Security when we are developing the Arctic region and especially collaboration even in terms of geopolitical struggle I think it is important to cooperate and stick together when it comes to such matters as the Arctic and If we lose time and if we do not cooperate on this issue if we do not work together In exploring in combining our efforts in creating ethical and responsible approaches to digitalization Exploration of the Arctic we may simply lose time and it will be far gone So I would urge all the colleagues to unite on that question of responsible digitalization responsible exploration and responsible Infrastructure construction in the Arctic because it’s underway and I think it is our responsibility and our job to work together Even throwing aside all geopolitical struggles and security matters, which were always there and which will always remain So I think that’s pretty much it I would actually very much like for someone from Norway to participate or for our colleagues We were initially supposed to host this session to be here. But unfortunately, that’s it yet We have 15 minutes and I would really encourage some sort of discussion on Dialogue with you. That’s it. Thank you Yeah, sure we can do it like this I think if we still have time What do you think that that climate change might have an impact on Arctic digitalization Sorry climate change might know what kind of effect do you think that it might have? I think it already had an effect in a sense that it made Arctic more accessible We have known for the potential Director of the Institute of Geophysics and Atmospheric Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences There was a very famous comparison that from the port of, I think, Tokyo or Vladivostok to Antwerp, it takes twice the time to travel via the standard route via Malacca Strait and Suez Canal, than it would take via the Northeast Passage. So it’s just simply, this knowledge has always been there, but what the climate change has done is that the ice caps are melting, and the routes are becoming more accessible. There is also the entire fleet of icebreakers, which is built in Russia. There are also icebreakers built in Scandinavian countries, and the United States is currently on the way building the entire fleet. So all these developments combined with the melting of the ice, it also reveals new territories which can be explored. So I believe that is the biggest contribution of the global warming in relation to the Arctic. If there are no more questions, maybe there will be questions of the panel, so-called informal discussions. Anyway, thank you very much for this opportunity, and once again, thank you for the organizers. Oh, yeah, sure, there are questions online, that’s great.

Audience: First off, is he asking if it is possible to build data centers on the Arctic?

Alim Khapov: Well, yeah, as I was saying, it is a very debatable question. There are currently several examples of that. In Iceland, they actively build data centers, and they use the Arctic climate as an advantage, but because they have the necessary infrastructure. I think maybe in the future, for instance, the Svalbard would be a perfect place to build data centers, because there are already some storages and facilities on the island, and there is some basic infrastructure which would help. Iceland would also perfectly be… There is also an issue of undersea cables. So currently, there are not a lot of undersea cables. There is one which is called Polar Express, which is currently built in the Russian Federation from Murmansk, near the Norwegian border, via the entire northern sea route. So it is also a question of the sea cables. Whenever we bring that connection to the North Pole, there will be data centers there. So I think that is also significant.

Audience: Okay, sorry about that. I missed maybe the beginning by just mentioning about cable. Could you elaborate a little bit more on the challenge specific to operate sub-cable under the ice? I guess this is also in terms of resiliency. If anything happens below the ice, I suppose it is not very easy to maintain or to repair.

Alim Khapov: True, true. It is very true that it is hard to repair and maintain sea cables when they are under the ice. But as I was saying, the ice is melting, the climate is changing. There is also, I think, an issue of geopolitics, because certain lines in the Arctic are not drawn… Not all countries agree on the lines right now in the Arctic region. So when sea cables will be laid down in this region, we need to take into account the possibility of geopolitical tensions when it comes to where these cables lie and where they cross. So it is an entirely new dialogue. But concerning the hardships which are environmental, yeah, it is true. But construction is underway. There are several projects. I know very well about the Russian project. And I’m absolutely sure that there are some projects of Canada and US probably as well concerning the sea cables in the Arctic. It is becoming quite relevant. Thank you. We’re getting one final question from online. He’s logging on and will be on screen. Thank you.

Audience: I would like to ask. You say that the melting ice will pave the way for us to explore other regions. So are you saying it’s an advantage for the ice to melt and it won’t cause any damages in the future? I wouldn’t pose this as an advantage.

Alim Khapov: Rather, it is a fact. It is an ongoing process which we, well, we international community, try to abate. We try to reverse this process of global warming by introduction of green technologies, by reducing carbon emissions. But so far, I think that the global temperature is still rising. And this isn’t something we can avoid. Therefore, I wouldn’t say that it is an advantage. It is an inevitable reality. And of course, there will be challenges when the ice melts. There will be challenges connected to the global warming. Definitely, there are some parts of the world which will experience floods because of that. And there are rising sea levels. And when it comes to Arctic as well, there are some regions which may suffer greatly. Some biological issues which also need to be taken into account. There are certain species of animals and plants which may be harmed. But I’m not a biologist. Nor am I a great expert in environmentalism. So I don’t think it’s up to me to judge. But I would rather say this is an inevitable process. And we need to adapt to this process and do as much as we can to preserve the Arctic and to reduce the potential damage in the region. So that would be my answer. If you have any comments, I would look forward to answering to them as well. All good? Thank you. NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology

Agreement points

Arctic infrastructure development faces significant technical challenges

Speakers

– Alim Khapov
– Audience

Arguments

Data centers could potentially be built in Arctic regions due to cold climate advantages, but require proper infrastructure

Building data centers in Arctic regions is technically possible but requires addressing infrastructure challenges

Repairing and maintaining undersea cables under ice presents significant operational difficulties

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge that while Arctic infrastructure development (data centers, undersea cables) is technically feasible, it presents substantial challenges requiring careful planning and robust supporting infrastructure

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Climate change impacts on Arctic accessibility require careful consideration

Speakers

– Alim Khapov
– Audience

Arguments

Climate change is an inevitable reality that requires adaptation rather than being viewed as advantageous

Ice melting raises concerns about future environmental damages and challenges

Summary

Both speakers recognize that while melting ice makes Arctic regions more accessible, this should not be viewed as purely advantageous due to potential environmental consequences and future challenges

Topics

Development

Similar viewpoints

Arctic data center development is feasible but requires substantial infrastructure investment and careful planning to overcome harsh environmental conditions

Speakers

– Alim Khapov
– Audience

Arguments

Data centers could potentially be built in Arctic regions due to cold climate advantages, but require proper infrastructure

Building data centers in Arctic regions is technically possible but requires addressing infrastructure challenges

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Climate change effects on Arctic accessibility should be approached with caution and environmental responsibility rather than opportunistic exploitation

Speakers

– Alim Khapov
– Audience

Arguments

Climate change is an inevitable reality that requires adaptation rather than being viewed as advantageous

Ice melting raises concerns about future environmental damages and challenges

Topics

Development

Unexpected consensus

Balanced approach to Arctic development opportunities and environmental concerns

Speakers

– Alim Khapov
– Audience

Arguments

Climate change is an inevitable reality that requires adaptation rather than being viewed as advantageous

Ice melting raises concerns about future environmental damages and challenges

Explanation

Despite the speaker representing Russian interests in Arctic development, there was unexpected consensus with audience concerns about environmental impacts, showing shared recognition that Arctic accessibility should not be viewed purely as an advantage

Topics

Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed agreement on the technical feasibility but practical challenges of Arctic infrastructure development, and shared concern for environmental responsibility in Arctic exploration despite economic opportunities

Consensus level

Moderate consensus exists on the need for responsible Arctic development that balances technological opportunities with environmental protection and infrastructure challenges. This suggests potential for collaborative approaches to Arctic digitalization that prioritize sustainability and technical viability over purely economic exploitation.

Different viewpoints

Whether melting ice should be viewed as advantageous for Arctic development

Speakers

– Alim Khapov
– Audience

Arguments

Melting ice caps make Arctic routes like the Northeast Passage more accessible for shipping and development

Ice melting raises concerns about future environmental damages and challenges

Summary

Khapov presents melting ice as an inevitable reality that creates accessibility opportunities, while audience member questions whether this should be considered advantageous given potential environmental damages

Topics

Development

Unexpected differences

Framing of climate change impacts on Arctic development

Speakers

– Alim Khapov
– Audience

Arguments

Melting ice caps make Arctic routes like the Northeast Passage more accessible for shipping and development

Ice melting raises concerns about future environmental damages and challenges

Explanation

The disagreement is unexpected because both speakers seem to understand the environmental consequences of climate change, yet they differ significantly on how to frame the discussion. The audience member’s challenge suggests a fundamental disagreement about whether discussing accessibility benefits is appropriate when addressing climate change impacts

Topics

Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows minimal direct disagreement, with only one clear point of contention regarding the framing of climate change impacts on Arctic accessibility

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with limited implications. The session was primarily a presentation format with few audience interactions, resulting in limited opportunity for substantive debate. The main disagreement centers on environmental ethics and communication framing rather than technical or policy substance, suggesting broad alignment on most practical aspects of Arctic digitalization

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Arctic data center development is feasible but requires substantial infrastructure investment and careful planning to overcome harsh environmental conditions

Speakers

– Alim Khapov
– Audience

Arguments

Data centers could potentially be built in Arctic regions due to cold climate advantages, but require proper infrastructure

Building data centers in Arctic regions is technically possible but requires addressing infrastructure challenges

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Climate change effects on Arctic accessibility should be approached with caution and environmental responsibility rather than opportunistic exploitation

Speakers

– Alim Khapov
– Audience

Arguments

Climate change is an inevitable reality that requires adaptation rather than being viewed as advantageous

Ice melting raises concerns about future environmental damages and challenges

Topics

Development

Key takeaways

Arctic digitalization is an inevitable and ongoing process driven by climate change making the region more accessible

Digital infrastructure development must balance connectivity with protection of indigenous communities and their traditional lifestyles

Multiple energy solutions are being implemented in the Arctic including nuclear power plants, floating nuclear facilities, and renewable energy sources like wind and hydrogen

IT camps are successfully providing internet access to nomadic indigenous communities in remote Arctic regions

International cooperation is essential for responsible Arctic development despite existing geopolitical tensions

Climate change is creating new opportunities for Arctic exploration through melting ice caps and accessible shipping routes like the Northeast Passage

Technical challenges exist for Arctic infrastructure including undersea cable maintenance under ice and data center construction requirements

Resolutions and action items

Urged colleagues to unite on responsible digitalization and exploration of the Arctic

Called for international cooperation in creating ethical approaches to Arctic infrastructure development

Emphasized the need to work together despite geopolitical struggles and security matters

Unresolved issues

Geopolitical tensions regarding territorial boundaries and undersea cable placement in disputed Arctic regions

Technical challenges of maintaining and repairing undersea cables under ice conditions

Long-term environmental impacts and potential damages from Arctic development projects

Balancing economic development with protection of fragile Arctic ecosystems and indigenous cultures

Debate over the safety and environmental impact of nuclear power plants in the Arctic region

Infrastructure requirements and feasibility of large-scale data center construction in Arctic conditions

Suggested compromises

Adapting to climate change as an inevitable reality while working to reduce potential environmental damage

Developing Arctic regions responsibly using sustainable technologies rather than exploitative old techniques

Providing opportunities for those who need them while not disturbing traditional lifestyles of indigenous communities

Combining international efforts for Arctic exploration while respecting different national interests

We cannot just, it would be wrong I think, by all means to just exploit those unique regions which were untouched by human hands for millennia using the same old techniques and technologies which were used prior in humanity’s history.

Speaker

Alim Khapov

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it frames Arctic development as an ethical imperative rather than just a technological or economic opportunity. It acknowledges the pristine nature of these regions and calls for a fundamentally different approach to development that respects their unique character. This perspective elevates the discussion beyond mere resource extraction to consider moral responsibility.

Impact

This comment established the ethical framework that guided the entire discussion. It shifted the conversation from purely technical considerations to include moral dimensions, setting up the tension between development needs and environmental/cultural preservation that became a central theme throughout the session.

It is important that local communities of the Arctic are included, connected to the rest of the world, but it is also important to protect those communities from all sorts of threats which are currently online. We are not leaving them just simply open to the web, we also need to protect those communities, protect them online.

Speaker

Alim Khapov

Reason

This comment reveals the complex dual nature of digital inclusion – it’s not just about providing access but also about protecting vulnerable communities from digital harms. It shows sophisticated understanding that connectivity without protection can be harmful, especially for indigenous communities with traditional lifestyles.

Impact

This comment introduced the concept of responsible digitalization, moving beyond simple connectivity metrics to consider the holistic impact on communities. It added nuance to the discussion by highlighting that digital inclusion must be coupled with digital protection.

But it can also create serious problems aside from the threats of ecological disaster. We can also endanger communities which have a certain lifestyle that they have that they would like to preserve and it is very important I believe to take this into account when building such projects in the high north.

Speaker

Alim Khapov

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it acknowledges the potential for cultural destruction alongside environmental risks. It recognizes that indigenous communities have agency in wanting to preserve their lifestyles and that development projects pose threats beyond just environmental damage.

Impact

This comment deepened the discussion by introducing the concept of cultural preservation as equally important to environmental protection. It shifted the conversation to consider the rights and autonomy of indigenous communities, adding a human rights dimension to Arctic development.

I wouldn’t pose this as an advantage. Rather, it is a fact. It is an ongoing process which we, well, we international community, try to abate… But so far, I think that the global temperature is still rising. And this isn’t something we can avoid. Therefore, I wouldn’t say that it is an advantage. It is an inevitable reality.

Speaker

Alim Khapov

Reason

This response is particularly insightful because it demonstrates intellectual honesty and nuanced thinking. When challenged about whether ice melting is advantageous, Khapov carefully distinguishes between acknowledging reality and endorsing it. This shows sophisticated understanding of the difference between adaptation and approval.

Impact

This comment was crucial in maintaining the credibility of the discussion. It prevented the conversation from being dismissed as climate change denial or opportunism. By clearly stating that climate change is not advantageous but rather an inevitable reality requiring adaptation, it kept the focus on responsible response rather than ideological positioning.

Even throwing aside all geopolitical struggles and security matters, which were always there and which will always remain… I would urge all the colleagues to unite on that question of responsible digitalization responsible exploration and responsible Infrastructure construction in the Arctic because it’s underway.

Speaker

Alim Khapov

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it calls for transcending geopolitical divisions for a greater cause. Given that this comes from a Russian representative during a time of significant international tensions, it represents a bold call for cooperation that prioritizes environmental and ethical concerns over national interests.

Impact

This comment elevated the entire discussion to a global governance level, framing Arctic digitalization as a shared human responsibility that transcends national boundaries. It positioned the Arctic as a commons requiring collaborative stewardship rather than competitive exploitation.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing it as a multidimensional conversation that went far beyond technical considerations. Khapov’s insights created a framework that balanced technological possibility with ethical responsibility, environmental protection with development needs, and national interests with global cooperation. The comments collectively transformed what could have been a narrow technical presentation into a nuanced exploration of responsible development in fragile ecosystems. The speaker’s willingness to acknowledge complexities and contradictions – such as the reality of climate change creating opportunities while not being advantageous – gave the discussion intellectual credibility. Most importantly, the call for international cooperation despite geopolitical tensions positioned Arctic digitalization as a test case for humanity’s ability to collaborate on global challenges, making the discussion relevant beyond its specific geographic focus.

What kind of effect might climate change have on Arctic digitalization?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This question seeks to understand the broader implications of climate change on digital infrastructure development in the Arctic region

Is it possible to build data centers in the Arctic?

Speaker

Audience member (online)

Explanation

This question explores the technical feasibility and practical considerations of establishing data centers in Arctic conditions

What are the specific challenges to operate sub-cables under the ice, particularly in terms of resiliency and maintenance?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This question addresses the technical and logistical difficulties of maintaining underwater cable infrastructure in Arctic conditions

Are you saying it’s an advantage for the ice to melt and it won’t cause any damages in the future?

Speaker

Audience member (online)

Explanation

This question challenges the framing of ice melting as beneficial and seeks clarification on potential negative consequences

How can geopolitical tensions regarding territorial boundaries in the Arctic affect the placement of undersea cables?

Speaker

Implied by Alim Khapov’s response

Explanation

This area needs further research as disputed territorial lines could complicate infrastructure development and international cooperation

What are the biological and environmental impacts of Arctic development on local species and ecosystems?

Speaker

Implied by Alim Khapov

Explanation

Khapov acknowledged this as an area outside his expertise that requires input from biologists and environmental experts

How can indigenous communities’ rights and traditional lifestyles be protected while implementing digitalization projects?

Speaker

Alim Khapov

Explanation

This represents a critical balance between technological progress and cultural preservation that requires further study and dialogue

What are the safety and security implications of nuclear power infrastructure in the Arctic?

Speaker

Implied by Alim Khapov’s presentation

Explanation

The debate around nuclear power plants and floating nuclear facilities in the Arctic requires ongoing research and international dialogue

Summary

This discussion focused on protecting refugees through digital resilience and information integrity, examining how misinformation and hate speech online directly impact forcibly displaced populations. Katie Drew from UNHCR moderated a panel exploring solutions to strengthen digital protection, improve access to reliable information, and foster social cohesion through multi-stakeholder partnerships.

The conversation centered on a case study from South Africa, where panelists described rising xenophobia and anti-foreigner sentiment amplified through social media platforms and online groups like “Operation Dudula.” Mbali Mushathama explained how misinformation targeting foreign nationals creates real-world violence, particularly affecting refugee children in schools who face xenophobic bullying. Liko Bottoman from South Africa’s Department of Basic Education highlighted how anti-foreigner narratives spread beyond classrooms into communities, making curriculum-based solutions insufficient.

The panel presented an innovative “pre-bunking” approach through a board game called “Nzanzi Life,” designed to counter anti-foreigner sentiment before children are exposed to harmful narratives online. Michael Power described how this gamified intervention, combined with facilitated discussions, achieved remarkable results, with student perceptions about online manipulation changing by nearly 50% after just three hours of engagement.

Participants discussed significant barriers to reporting hate speech and digital violence, including language barriers, fear of retaliation, and inadequate platform reporting mechanisms. Oluwaseun Adepoju emphasized the need for localized, anonymous reporting systems and partnerships between tech platforms and trusted local organizations. The discussion concluded with calls for continued multi-stakeholder collaboration, emphasizing that addressing information integrity challenges requires sustained partnerships across government, private sector, and humanitarian organizations to create comprehensive solutions rather than single technological fixes.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital resilience challenges for forcibly displaced communities**: The discussion explored barriers to safe information access including vulnerability to misinformation, xenophobia, surveillance, censorship, lack of network access, and trust issues with digital platforms and reporting mechanisms.

– **Information risks and xenophobic narratives in South Africa**: Panelists examined how anti-foreigner sentiment spreads through online platforms like “Put South Africa First” and “Operation Dudula” movements, leading to real-world violence and affecting refugee children in schools through xenophobic bullying.

– **Pre-bunking strategies and the “Mzanzi Life” board game**: The team presented their innovative approach using a board game (rather than digital tools due to connectivity issues) to proactively counter false narratives before they take hold, showing significant success in changing student perceptions about anti-foreigner sentiment.

– **Multi-stakeholder partnerships and collaboration**: The discussion emphasized the importance of bringing together humanitarian organizations, government departments, private sector partners, and tech platforms to address the complex “wicked problem” of information integrity for displaced populations.

– **Reporting mechanisms and platform accountability**: Participants discussed the inadequacies of current hate speech reporting systems on social media platforms, highlighting issues with localization, trust, fear of retaliation, and the need for anonymous reporting options supported by local civil society organizations.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to examine how multi-stakeholder partnerships can strengthen digital protection and information integrity for forcibly displaced people, focusing on practical solutions like pre-bunking strategies, improved access to reliable information, and fostering social cohesion while addressing xenophobia and misinformation.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, collaborative, and solution-oriented tone throughout. While acknowledging serious challenges like xenophobia and digital violence, the conversation remained constructive and forward-looking, emphasizing practical innovations and partnerships. The tone was particularly encouraging when discussing the success of their board game intervention and the potential for scaling solutions across different contexts.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Katie Drew** – Works for UNHCR (UN Refugee Agency), specifically for UNHCR’s digital service on a work stream called information integrity, focusing on strengthening information integrity to mitigate information risks online that impact forcibly displaced and stateless people

– **Therese Marie Uppstrom Pankratov** – Head of the Humanitarian Innovation Program at Innovation Norway, previously worked with the Permanent Mission of Norway to the UN in Geneva, the Norwegian Refugee Council, Save the Children and UNHCR

– **Mbali Mushathama** – UNHCR protection associate working for UNHCR’s multi-country office, based in Pretoria, supports social cohesion in South Africa and advocates for refugee rights with a community-based approach

– **Micheal Power** – Public interest lawyer, managing director and co-founder of ALT Advisory and Power Associates (South African office of Power Law Africa), serves as chairperson of the Power Law Africa Alliance, specializes in technology law, information rights, and digital governance

– **Likho Bottoman** – Senior official within the South African government department of basic education, holds the position of director of social cohesion and equity in education

– **Oluwaseun Adepoju** – Technology and innovation leader, managing partner at Co-Creation Hub, oversees Co-Creation Hub’s design lab and supports technology and society work streams, has a master’s in public policy with focus on technology policy and is a PhD researcher in creative technologies

**Additional speakers:**

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members who asked questions during the Q&A session, including Olivia (from London story working in India context), Pumzele (works on disinformation in South Africa), and others

# Protecting Refugees Through Digital Resilience and Information Integrity: A Multi-Stakeholder Approach

## Executive Summary

This comprehensive discussion examined the critical intersection of digital protection and refugee safety, focusing on how misinformation, hate speech, and inadequate digital infrastructure create significant risks for forcibly displaced populations. Held as an IGF (Internet Governance Forum) workshop, the session was moderated by Katie Drew from UNHCR’s information integrity work stream and brought together humanitarian practitioners, government officials, technology experts, and legal professionals to explore innovative solutions for strengthening information integrity and fostering social cohesion through collaborative partnerships.

The conversation began with an interactive Mentimeter session where audience members contributed key terms including “access,” “protection,” “vulnerability,” “xenophobia,” “misinformation,” and “digital literacy,” setting the stage for the discussion. The panel then focused on a compelling case study from South Africa, where rising xenophobia amplified through social media platforms has created tangible threats to refugee communities, particularly affecting children in educational settings. The panel presented an innovative board game intervention that achieved significant success in countering anti-foreigner sentiment before harmful narratives take hold.

## Key Participants and Perspectives

The discussion featured diverse expertise across sectors. **Katie Drew** from UNHCR’s information integrity work stream provided the humanitarian perspective on digital protection challenges. **Therese Marie Uppstrom Pankratov**, Head of the Humanitarian Innovation Programme at Innovation Norway, brought insights on multi-stakeholder partnerships and innovation processes, explaining how UNHCR responded to Innovation Norway’s annual call for proposals. **Mbali Mushathama**, a UNHCR protection associate based in Pretoria, offered ground-level experience working with refugee communities in South Africa’s complex social environment.

**Michael Power**, a public interest lawyer and technology governance expert, contributed legal and policy analysis alongside practical experience developing digital protection interventions. **Likho Bottoman** from South Africa’s Department of Basic Education provided the government perspective on addressing xenophobia in educational settings. **Oluwaseun Adepoju**, a technology and innovation leader from Co-Creation Hub, shared expertise on platform engagement and community-based reporting mechanisms.

## Digital Resilience Challenges for Displaced Communities

Katie Drew defined digital resilience as creating robust information ecosystems that allow displaced communities secure access to information and freedom of expression. As Therese Marie Uppstrom Pankratov articulated, “Safeguarding information integrity is one of the key challenges of our times… in humanitarian operations, we tend to talk about information being protection… when we have access to quality information, it helps keep us safe. And when we don’t, it causes a significant risk.”

The panel identified multiple barriers preventing refugees from achieving digital security. These challenges include vulnerability to misinformation campaigns, exposure to xenophobic narratives, surveillance concerns, censorship, inadequate network access, and fundamental trust issues with digital platforms and reporting mechanisms.

Mbali Mushathama emphasized that refugees seek safe spaces to share their stories and access reliable information in languages they understand. She stressed that digital literacy initiatives must be context-specific and utilize real-life examples from the community rather than generic approaches. This localization requirement emerged as a recurring theme throughout the discussion.

## Information Risks and Xenophobic Narratives in South Africa

The South African context provided a stark illustration of how online hate speech translates into offline violence. Mbali Mushathama described the rise of misinformation and hate speech targeting foreign nationals, particularly during election periods, with groups using coded language across South Africa’s 11 official languages to evade platform moderation systems.

She explained how movements like “Put South Africa First” and “Operation Dudula” (which means “to push out or to push away”) have leveraged social media to spread anti-foreigner sentiment, creating direct correlations between online incitement and physical violence in host communities. This digital-to-physical violence pipeline particularly affects refugee children in schools, who face xenophobic bullying that extends beyond educational settings into broader community tensions.

Likho Bottoman provided crucial context about South Africa’s multicultural complexity, noting that the country’s innate diversity management challenges create vulnerabilities that anti-foreigner narratives exploit. He observed that foreign nationals become scapegoats for socioeconomic problems, particularly given South Africa’s unemployment rate of just over 32% and limited public resources.

## Innovative Pre-bunking Strategies: The Mzanzi Life Board Game

One of the discussion’s most compelling elements was the presentation of an innovative “pre-bunking” approach through a board game called “Mzanzi Life,” similar to snakes and ladders. Michael Power explained that pre-bunking involves addressing harmful narratives before they take hold, rather than attempting to debunk false information after it has spread.

The team chose a board game format rather than digital tools due to connectivity issues and the need to reach populations without reliable internet access. This decision proved highly successful, with the intervention achieving significant results. As Michael Power reported, when students were asked whether they agreed with the statement about online manipulation, agreement increased from 43% to 86% after just three hours of engagement combining gamification with facilitated learning.

The board game approach addressed several critical challenges simultaneously. It provided an offline solution to online problems, created safe spaces for discussion about sensitive topics, and allowed for nuanced conversations about information manipulation that might be difficult to achieve through digital platforms alone.

Therese Marie Uppstrom Pankratov contextualized this success within broader innovation principles, explaining that “we call it a wicked problem, not because the problem is evil, but because it is really complex.” She noted that innovation processes require iterations, multiple testing, and redevelopments rather than linear solutions. The board game project exemplified this iterative approach, moving into a second phase of testing scheduled to conclude by August, followed by printing and distribution with digital facilitation guides.

## Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships and Collaboration

A central theme throughout the discussion was the necessity of multi-stakeholder partnerships for addressing complex information integrity challenges. Therese Marie Uppstrom Pankratov argued that solving these challenges requires partnerships across sectors with different expertise in context, technology, and behavioral sciences.

The panel demonstrated this collaborative approach in practice, bringing together humanitarian organizations, government departments, private sector partners, and civil society organizations. Each stakeholder contributed distinct capabilities: humanitarian organizations provided community access and protection expertise, government offered policy frameworks and educational infrastructure, private sector contributed technological solutions and innovation capacity, and civil society organizations served as trusted intermediaries.

The success of the South Africa project was attributed partly to this collaborative approach, with each partner contributing essential elements that no single organization could have provided independently. This model suggested potential for scaling across different contexts while maintaining local adaptation.

## Platform Engagement and Reporting Mechanisms

The discussion revealed significant inadequacies in current social media platform reporting mechanisms for vulnerable populations. Oluwaseun Adepoju provided particularly critical analysis, noting that “80% of the reporting platforms from the big techs are afterthoughts, after building the technology… The pressure was mounted by civil society organizations and technology activists to be able to do that. So it’s always challenging to even create the awareness about some of these tools for people using their platforms.”

These reporting systems suffer from multiple deficiencies: lack of localization, limited awareness among vulnerable populations, trust issues stemming from past failures to act on reports, and fear of retaliation among potential reporters. Oluwaseun Adepoju described cases where organizations had to work with multiple intermediaries to escalate situations to platforms because individuals refused to report directly due to past experiences where reports were made but no action was taken.

Despite these challenges, the panel identified some positive developments in platform engagement. Mbali Mushathama described productive engagement with platforms like TikTok and Meta to understand moderation systems and create opportunities for refugees to develop counter-narratives. However, she emphasized that meaningful engagement requires platforms to work with local civil society organizations as trusted intermediaries rather than expecting direct reporting from vulnerable populations.

## Policy and Regulatory Challenges

The panel identified significant gaps in current policy frameworks for protecting displaced populations from digital harm. Michael Power provided stark assessment of existing systems: “The practice in supporting vulnerable groups who are subjected to hate speech missing disinformation is wholly inadequate. There’s often re-victimization… from policing stations… The practice is simply not to involve people or to re-victimize or victim-blame through a series of processes.”

This re-victimization problem extends beyond platform reporting to institutional responses across law enforcement, legal systems, and government services. The panel noted that South Africa lacks specific policy addressing refugees and displaced people regarding digital protection, with scattered regulatory approaches across different government departments and jurisdictions.

An audience member raised the critical question of “how does UNHCR respond when harmful narratives are either generated or tolerated by state actors?” This highlighted the complex operational challenges facing humanitarian organizations in non-cooperative or hostile government environments.

Likho Bottoman emphasized that protecting refugee rights requires global conversation rather than just action by host countries due to international influences, suggesting the need for coordinated international responses rather than purely national solutions.

## Community Participation and Voice

A fundamental principle that emerged throughout the discussion was the necessity of meaningful refugee participation in developing solutions that affect them. Mbali Mushathama articulated this principle clearly: “We cannot make decisions for them and about them without them… unless you’re a refugee and you have that lived experience, we can’t really dictate what works and what doesn’t work.”

She emphasized that refugees want to be included in policy drafting conversations and need safe spaces for open dialogue and to report violations without re-traumatization. The discussion highlighted how community-based approaches and local civil society organizations serve as trusted intermediaries between vulnerable populations and formal systems.

This participatory approach influenced the methodology of the South Africa project, which prioritized refugee voices in identifying problems, developing solutions, and evaluating effectiveness. However, the panel also acknowledged challenges in ensuring authentic participation rather than tokenistic consultation.

## Audience Engagement and Key Questions

The session included significant audience participation, with several important questions raised. One audience member provided detailed context about India’s situation, describing how refugees face challenges accessing basic services and how misinformation spreads through WhatsApp groups. Another critical question addressed whether digital resilience initiatives should be prioritized when basic needs like food, water, and shelter aren’t met.

Mbali Mushathama responded that different contexts require different approaches, noting that “South Africa’s progressive legislation allows focus on xenophobia rather than basic service access,” highlighting how context determines appropriate intervention priorities. She emphasized that in South Africa, progressive legislation already provides basic services, making xenophobia the primary challenge rather than basic needs access.

## Global and Contextual Considerations

The discussion grappled with balancing global coordination with local contextualization. While refugee protection requires international cooperation, effective interventions must address specific local dynamics and cultural contexts.

The panel recognized that digital resilience initiatives must not overshadow urgent basic needs but should address context-specific challenges. The success of non-digital solutions in addressing digital problems challenged assumptions about the need for purely digital solutions to digital challenges.

## Implementation and Next Steps

The discussion concluded with several concrete action items. The Mzanzi Life board game project is moving into its second phase of testing, with plans for printing and distribution accompanied by digital facilitation guides.

Continued engagement with tech platforms aims to improve reporting mechanisms and empower refugee communities to create counter-narratives. The panel emphasized the need for developing anonymous reporting policies and accountability measures for those responsible for protecting vulnerable populations.

Implementation of combination approaches using both digital and non-digital methods emerged as a priority for reaching all population segments, recognizing that purely digital solutions exclude those without reliable internet access.

## Conclusion

This comprehensive discussion revealed both the complexity of protecting refugees in digital environments and the potential for innovative, collaborative solutions. The success of the South Africa project demonstrates that effective interventions are possible when humanitarian expertise, government support, private sector innovation, and community participation are combined strategically.

However, the discussion also highlighted significant systemic challenges that require sustained attention and resources. Current platform reporting mechanisms, policy frameworks, and institutional responses are inadequate for protecting vulnerable populations from digital harm.

The path forward requires continued multi-stakeholder collaboration, sustained investment in community-centered approaches, and recognition that digital protection is as essential as physical safety for displaced populations. The innovative pre-bunking strategies and participatory methodologies presented offer promising models for scaling across different contexts while maintaining local relevance.

Most importantly, the discussion reinforced that effective refugee protection in digital environments cannot be achieved through technological solutions alone but requires comprehensive approaches that address social, political, and economic dimensions of displacement and discrimination. The principle that refugees must be meaningfully included in decisions that affect them must guide future efforts to ensure that digital resilience initiatives genuinely serve the communities they aim to protect.

Katie Drew: Hi, good afternoon, everyone. Welcome back from lunch. I hope you had a good break and a great lunch. This is the session on protecting refugees, digital resilience and information integrity. So I hope everyone is on Workshop 2 channel and everyone can hear. There’s some very reassuring nods. So that’s great. Thanks. So hello, everyone. Thank you so much for your time today. I’m really excited to have a great panel with me and hopefully a very interesting panel discussion coming up. So today we’re going to examine information risks through the lens of forced displacement. So my name is Katie. I work for UNHCR, which is the UN Refugee Agency. I work for UNHCR’s digital service and on a work stream called information integrity, which is looking at how we can strengthen information integrity to mitigate against the challenges of information risks online that directly impact the lives of forcibly displaced and stateless people. So this includes refugees, asylum seekers, people who’ve been internally displaced within their own countries and people without a citizenship, so people who are stateless. We also address the impact that information integrity risks have to humanitarian operations and obviously this is a very challenging space. So hopefully today we can actually focus on some of the positives and some of the solutions that we’ve been working on when we look at addressing information risks. So today we are going to look at how we can strengthen digital protection, how we can improve access to reliable information, how we can uphold the freedom of expression and how importantly we can foster social cohesion and inclusion. So our key question is how can we do this collectively as well and I think that this really speaks to the purpose of the IGF. How can we really strengthen multilateral partnerships, how can we really engage with different community members, different groups within societies to address this challenge and hopefully this is a sort of exciting panel where we can talk about some of these solutions as well. But just to get started and I’m going to ask my colleague Ondine online to help us with this process. It’s a little bit of enforced audience participation and there might be some resistance to this after a heavy lunch but please do give us your views and ideas. We’re going to do a little bit of an online mentee. So hopefully you can see coming up on the screen a QR code. This might be a familiar process to you. If not, please go to the mentee.com and enter your code. So if you’re joining online and hello to participants online. If you’re joining online and you can’t you know take a photo of your own phone, please go to mentee.com and enter the code and we should start having coming up a couple of questions. I’ll just wait for everyone to take a photo of the code. Please wave your hands if you’re still taking photos of the code. If not, we’ll move to the first Mentimeter question. There are no wrong answers, don’t worry. Just in your own word or words, can you tell me what you think we mean when we talk about digital resilience for forcibly displaced communities? What does this mean in relation to information integrity? And hopefully we’ll have a lovely word cloud up there when we when we think about digital resilience. We’ll give a few minutes for those online and those off. I can see at the bottom that it says zero out of 29 participants. Okay, thank you. Whoever was the first person to have the courage to hit send. Brilliant. We’ll wait for a few more answers to come through. I see access is coming across quite strongly there. That’s very interesting. Protection, regulation. We’re going to hopefully touch on a number of these topics today. Freedom of expression, safety, safe care. Sorry, it keeps jumping around. Access to information, I think we’ve already said. So I think that’s brilliant. Financial security, safety online, rights and duties. That’s also something that we’ll talk to today. Authenticity. So brilliant. You can see that when we talk about digital resilience, we’re really talking about the ability for forcibly displaced communities to have access to an information ecosystem that is robust. It meets their needs. It allows them to express their concerns, their stories. Tell them, you know, have a voice in a place where they feel that they have access to information securely and safely. And that’s what we’re talking about when we come to digital resilience. Now that sounds great, but we’ll move to the next question on Dean. Obviously, there are some challenges when we talk about digital resilience for forcibly displaced people. And so can we think of some of the, what might be some of the barriers when we look at that sort of safety, security, freedom of expression and access to information ecosystem that we were considering. So we’ll just spend a little time thinking about the barriers. Oh, that’s interesting. So we’ve got vulnerability coming up. Capitalism. I’m not sure we’re going to be able to sort of knock that one on its head today. But xenophobia, that’s definitely something we will be able to touch on. Lack of network. Yeah. Some of the digital divide challenges as well. Fear and censorship and surveillance. I think that’s also coming across quite strongly here. Knowledge. Yeah. Untrusted trust. Trust and safety and access and reliability as well. Okay. So not wanting to focus too heavily on the challenges and hopefully moving quite quickly to sort of the solutions, I wanted to introduce Therese for our opening remarks. So Therese Marie-Obstrom-Pankratov is the head of the Humanitarian Innovation Program at Innovation Norway. And Innovation Norway are our key donor that we’ve been working with on one of the case studies or on the case study that we’re going to present today. So Innovation Norway supports humanitarian organizations to enter into innovative partnerships with the private sector. And so we also have our private sector partner on the panel today, which I’m quite excited to talk about the collaboration that we’ve had in South Africa. Therese is a strong believer in partnerships across sectors being worth the effort. And I think, again, that speaks to the spirit of the IGF. She’s previously worked with the Permanent Mission of Norway, to the UN in Geneva, the Norwegian Refugee Council, Save the Children and UNHCR, the refugee agency. So quite a familiar topic when it comes to some of the challenges that forcibly displaced and stateless persons experience. And Therese, it’d be great to hear from you sort of some of the reasons why you are interested to support multi-stakeholder

Therese Marie Uppstrom Pankratov: partnerships. Thank you. Sure. Great. Thank you. I’m really looking forward to this session. I think already this week, I’ve attended quite a lot of sessions where information integrity has been the topic. And so I think this conversation will fall well within that discourse and help us focusing on one of the key topics I think we need to look at, which is people that are forcibly displaced. I think we all know that vulnerable populations are particularly affected by misdeeds and malinformation. And so this focus is really important. And I think we’ve also established throughout this week that safeguarding information integrity is one of the key challenges of our times. It’s augmented by technological development that has made it easier to develop and spread misinformation. And in humanitarian operations, we tend to talk about information being protection, and it sounds a bit humanitarian language-wise, but when we think about it, it makes a lot of sense in that we know that when we have access to quality information, it helps keep us safe. And when we don’t, it causes a significant risk. So as Katie said, I work for the Humanitarian Innovation Program. It’s a program that is fully financed by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and it is managed by Innovation Norway. And we’re set up to encourage, support, and de-risk innovation partnerships between humanitarian organizations and the private sector that would like to design and develop solutions to humanitarian challenges. And we have an annual call for proposals. So about two years ago, UNHCR responded to that call, and they said that they had identified a lack of solutions in combating misinformation, disinformation and hate speech, targeting or affecting forcibly displaced and stateless people. And so they wanted to design an innovation process and find partners from other sectors to test the use of pre-bunking strategies that could proactively counter false and potentially harmful narratives before they take hold. And safeguarding information integrity in crisis has become one of those areas of work that is referred to as a wicked problem. I think it was illustrated really well now with the word cloud and all the challenges that you listed. So we call it a wicked problem, not because the problem is evil, but because it is really complex and it has a lot of interdependent factors and there is not one clear-cut fix that can help us address it. So when we want to solve key challenges like this, we need innovation and we need partnerships. We cannot go it alone. Solving wicked problems requires a deep understanding of the stakeholders involved. It requires a deep insight into various technologies or other possible solutions. It requires an innovative approach characterized by dialogue with actors from various sectors and expertise. And it requires trust-based partnerships and collaboration along a process shaped by design thinking. It is really complex. And in this case, the partnership was needed between those who have a deep insight into the context and needs of people affected by crisis and that are forcibly displaced, deep insights into social media, artificial intelligence and other technologies that are used to spread misinformation, and deep insight into behavioral sciences that can help us understand how people establish trust in information that they seek or receive. So one actor alone will not be able to master all these skills. And so a good way forward then is to design a multi-sectorial innovation partnership to address the challenge in an appropriate way. And I think traditionally often we’ve thought of innovation as a fairly linear process. So you identify a challenge, you develop a solution, you implement the solution, and the problem is solved. And I think this view of innovation has caused a lot of disappointment because it normally doesn’t look like this. I’ve seen a few in my work on humanitarian innovation, but normally an innovation process is a lot messier than that. They go in loops and circles, they require iterations, multiple testing, redevelopments, and so on. And when it comes to wicked challenges, the solution is also most likely not one shiny new thing. It is often multiple processes, partnerships, and technologies that when they come together help us address the challenge at hand. So this means that in addition to developing various solutions, we also need to develop an ecosystem of partnerships and solutions that can come together. And this is not an easy task. What I think is particularly inspiring about the initiative that we’ll hear more about today is how these various partnerships have come together around a common challenge, bringing their various expertise and asking how can we strengthen the digital resilience of people affected by crisis, keeping people safe and preventing harm. In the panel we’ll hear from government, private sector, and the humanitarian sector, and together their insights create a unique basis for an innovation process that can help us develop solutions. I think the panel discussion today will help us both understand how we can support the digital resilience of people affected by crisis and how we can shape innovation partnerships to solve wicked challenges. So I very much look forward to hearing from the panelists.

Katie Drew: Thanks so much, Therese. And so without much further ado, we’re going to move to the panel. I’ll do my best to introduce quite a formidable bunch of speakers today, so I’m very excited. So first I’ll start with my colleague Mbali. Mbali Moshitama is a UNHCR colleague. She is a protection associate. She works for UNHCR’s multi-country office, which covers a number of countries, and she’s based in Pretoria. So in her role, she really supports social cohesion in South Africa. She’s a strong advocate for the rights of refugees and helps to address protection challenges that they face, really ensuring a community-based and community-led approach. And so hopefully Mbali is going to touch on some of the ways in which we really try to bring in the community voice into the project. On her immediate left is Michael Power. So Michael is a public interest lawyer. He’s a managing director and co-founder of ALT Advisory and Power Associates, which is the South African office of Power Law Africa. He serves as the chairperson of the Power Law Africa Alliance. He specializes in litigation, legal advisory, and policy development, including a focus on technology law, information rights, and digital governance. And he works to advance constitutional rights and good governance in the digital age. And then at the end of the table, to his left, we have Liko Boteman. Liko is a senior official within the South African government department of basic education. He holds the position of director of social cohesion and equity in education. And he’s dedicated to advancing inclusive, equitable, and socially cohesive schooling in South Africa. And then to my right, I have Oluwashin Adipoju. Sorry, I had been practicing all day and I knew I wasn’t going to be able to get through that, so my apologies. He is a technology and innovation leader. He currently is serving as a managing partner at Co-Creation Hub. And he oversees Co-Creation’s Hub design lab and supports several of Co-Creation Hub’s work streams, which includes the technology and society work stream. He has a master’s in public policy with a focus on technology policy from Career Development Institute School of Public Policy and Management and is a PhD researcher in creative technologies at Auckland University of Technology. So, to start our conversation today, I’m going to pass to Mbali to provide us with an understanding of some of the information risks and digital protection risks that we’re talking about, specifically in South Africa, as we highlight to begin with that case study. So, would you like to give us an overview of those challenges?

Mbali Mushathama: Yeah, sure. Thank you so much and good afternoon to everyone once again. In my experience working with refugees in South Africa, we have observed over years a rise of misinformation and hate speech, particularly targeted at foreign nationals. And we see a rise in this, especially during towards the election period as well. But we also have to look at the context of South Africa. South Africa is 31 years into its democracy. And during the early stages of its democracy, a number of commitments were made around equality, inclusion and access to resources. While South Africa has made significant strides in achieving this, we also must recognize that there are still significant gaps. And an example of this is the high unemployment rates in the country. I think it’s currently sitting at just over 32%, as well as the limited public resources. And so we find that where there are limited public resources, it can create a sense of competition. And that can also result in a lot of social tensions, which is what we have observed within the host communities where refugees particularly reside. And so foreign nationals, including forcibly displaced persons, are oftentimes used as scapegoats for socioeconomic problems in South Africa. And we have seen a rise in many online groups such as Put South Africa First, as well as Operation Dudula. So Dudula is a vernacular term that basically means to push out or to push away. So these are groups that will use trendy words, trendy phrases to gain momentum and gain traction. And they have used a lot of these online platforms to incite violence and looting in the host communities. Just to also highlight how serious the seriousness of the hate speech that these groups perpetuate, we have Operation Dudula, who was recently taken to court by civil society organizations so that they can be held accountable for some of the actions that they are perpetuating. So we’ve seen a direct correlation of online incitement to violence manifesting itself into the host communities as well. And this, unfortunately, also trickles down to young people. And young people are especially sensitive to this type of rhetoric, because both in the online space as well as in their communities. So you will find that refugee students, for example, have reported cases of xenophobic-motivated bullying as well as targeting in schools. So these are refugee children who are born in South Africa or perhaps fled to South Africa at a very young age. They identify as South Africans even. They speak the language. However, when they get to school, they find that they’re being bullied simply because they’re considered as not from South Africa. and Michael Power. We have a lot of research that has been done on this, but also we have a lot of real-life examples. Thanks, Katie. ≫ Maybe I’ll pass now to Likho to talk a little bit around the social cohesion challenges in schools, and maybe the role of digital information risks in that environment. Thanks, Likho. ≫ Thank you, Micheal.

Likho Bottoman: I do want to start by saying that some of the issues that we find in South Africa relate to the fact that South Africa in itself is a very multicultural and multiracial or even multilingual country on its own. And that on its own is bringing a set of innate challenges to diversity management in the country. And so when you then add foreign nationals into that whole compound of diversity elements in the country, you find then that there are already existing complications, and the anti-foreigner, the anti-racist, the anti-racist and the anti-racist narratives just simply finds themselves at the center of all of those complications. The second thing that we find is that even though as a country we have agreed that we will use schools as centers of life where young minds are being molded and being prepared for an inclusive society, school alone and curriculum alone is not going to solve the problem because curriculum is only delivered in the classroom during school hours. And this child goes back to school where these narratives are perpetuated, I mean, they go back home, rather, where these narratives are perpetuated. But they also then go into cultural and religious spaces in community where it is advocated for very strongly that anti-foreigner narratives are actually religiously correct. And so our curriculum is not able to help us shift the mindset, not just on issues of people of foreign nationality, but even on other issues related to HIV prevention or prevention of early unintended pregnancies and all of those things. And so these issues are not, I mean, this particular issue is not immune to those issues that we find in South Africa. And so we’ve got a greater task as the basic education sector to begin to think about education beyond the classroom and understand ourselves playing a role to educate not just the child in the classroom in front of the teacher, but to educate even the country because we are a basic education department. And that is going to take a while because on the one hand, the creative thinking around positioning education as a public education entity. But on the other hand, there is this thing that says that it’s not your role to guide value systems of the country. It’s not your role to guide belief systems of the country. And so you need to start and end with the core business of education, which is literacy and numeracy and other school subjects. And so we find ourselves in a tug of war quite a lot because now we’ve got to play this role of helping the country move forward but at the same time understanding how far we can go and what our limits are as a sector.

Katie Drew: Thanks, Liko. Maybe I can just follow up on that a little bit with the sort of point around digital resilience. So when we came to you and said, you know, we wanted to work on the concept of sort of strengthening digital resilience, how did you think that that was valuable and how did you think it might support the national action plan? And maybe for the purposes of the audience, just sort of outline that a little bit for us. Thank you.

Likho Bottoman: Well, there had been a belief that in South Africa we’ve got digital divide, we’ve got inequality, this and that. But actually, people have undertaken research about access to technology in our country are coming up with some very interesting data that actually says that even the most rural people have got access to technology and in spaces where we never thought that there is access to technology. And so for a very long time as a government, we didn’t think that we need to address technology-facilitated discrimination of any kind. But what is happening now is that our population is growing ahead of us because they’ve got access to technology, they are already absorbing the misinformation and disinformation. So it is up to us as government to rethink how we see ourselves and how we see our country and begin to maybe intentionally begin to work on disinformation and misinformation that exists in the digital spaces. Because children are already there. South Africans are already there. And if we don’t, by the time we get them, we would have lost them to the misinformation and disinformation.

Katie Drew: Great. Thank you. Thanks, Lico. Michael, I’m going to pass to you now, and just for the technicians at the back, I think we’re going to have a couple of slides on. We’ve been talking about this project in South Africa, and I think probably we need to sort of outline a little bit what we mean. So if you could walk us through sort of some of the approaches we’ve been testing together. Thanks, Michael.

Micheal Power: Sure. So thank you, Katie, and to the entire UNHCR team, as well as Innovation Norway for hosting us on this panel. And maybe thank you to the technical team at the back. This is my first ever silent seminar, and you’re doing a wonderful job. So thank you for that. You know, flowing from what Lico said, we’ve been working now with UNHCR for about 18 months, and we were simply asked, how do you change children’s perspectives? This was ultimately the macro question that we were asked within the purview of anti-foreigner sentiment in South African schools. And we really went to the drawing board. For the parents in the room, for those who work with learners, changing a perception is not easy, particularly when someone is in an echo chamber, and those beliefs that are held are being reinforced within their communities, by their parents, potentially by their educators as well. And, you know, as Mbalia said, we have a long history of xenophobia in South Africa for multiple socioeconomic reasons, but the fact that xenophobia is inherent in our community, I don’t think can be dispelled at this stage. So we went to work. And, you know, talking about Internet penetration, I think context is always really important to understanding any situation. And our Internet penetration rates in South Africa, while they are increasing, the biggest challenges we have in schools, for example, a brief explainer video. You explain what the problem is. You warn about certain types of narratives that are occurring in online spaces. You then have a preemptive refutation. You explain why those narratives are incorrect. And then, lastly, you microdose to try explain how you counterbalance that narrative, but the microdose is meant to be just that. It’s not meant to further perpetuate the harm. So you’re really and simply trying to get ahead of the story. You’re trying to get ahead of the narrative in terms of pre-bunking. So when we turned to South African context, we had hoped to start digital. You know, a lot of this program is around digital, but we found in consultations with learners that our Internet penetration rates were too low and access to technology just simply wasn’t viable at that stage. So we got thinking, and we ultimately came up with the concept of a board game, right? So I’m not certain what slide is on the screen, but we can flip the slide. And our game is really called Nzanzi Life. So what it is, for those who have played snakes and ladders before, it’s a very similar type game. But you start the game by taking a character card. You become a character. And throughout the course of this game, we gently microdose to avoid anti-foreigner content. So as this character, you go through life in the game. You have the ups. You have the downs. And you are rewarded for good behavior. You go up the game. You move towards your future. And for problematic behavior, you move backwards. And what we’ve done, and really the difficulty and challenge with pre-bunking, I think the key to debunking is getting the narratives right. If you’re too blunt about the situation, you often lose your audience. It’s about nuance. It’s about subtlety. And it’s really about ensuring that before children are exposed to these types of narratives, they already have some type of information to countermand it. You know, we learned today that Norway has a critical thinking day, where critical thinking is promoted in schools throughout the country. We don’t have that day. And it’s something for our department, most certainly, to think about. But this type of educational material, which is the board guide, coupled with a facilitation guide, is an approach that we’ve looked into to pre-bunking this anti-foreigner sentiment that we’re seeing online. If you go to the last slide, and for us, what has been most telling is, you know, adopting a multi-stakeholder approach, ensuring extensive consultation. The early results of testing of this game have somewhat exceeded our expectations. You know, when we initially started piloting, we thought it would be just another game, something that would be thrown in the cupboard and not used. But when we started rolling it out in our test groups, we really started to see really fantastic results. The most important result is the one at the bottom, and I’ll move back from there. But when it came to the question of perception, and on the question to learners who are surveyed after playing the game and going through a facilitated discussion on anti-foreigner sentiment, for the statement, some people online are trying to influence me by using emotional or shocking messages that spread quickly. After a three-hour engagement with learners, the perception of agree changed from 43% to 86%. I can’t remember personally when my perception was changed by almost 50% in the course of a three-hour conversation. So the combination of gamifying a concept with facilitated learning seems to be a magic ingredient, at least in our context. The traditional notions of pre-bunking, which is watch a 15-second TikTok video or watch this explainer video for a minute, are traditional mechanisms that are being rolled out and still often adopted. We’ve seen a more substantive approach as yielding slightly more significant results. Katie, I hope that gives a bit of an overview as to the pilot project, and I look forward to continuing the conversation.

Katie Drew: Excellent. And of course, if you’ve got any questions, we’ll be able to come to them at the end. Or please do grab Michael, Lico, Bali, and myself to talk a little bit more about this case study. I have one of the old iterations of the game with me, so if you want to see some of the play cards and things like that, I think it would be worth looking into if you would like a little bit more information. I’d like to bring us a little bit back to looking at the engagement that we can have with different stakeholders. And Bali, I mean, Michael mentioned sort of the jigsaw approach, jigsaw Google approach, but could you tell us a little bit more about some of the engagement that we’ve had with the tech platforms on this project?

Mbali Mushathama: Sure, thank you. I think one thing we also need to take into consideration is the fact that – it’s a bit weird when I hear myself. I think another thing we need to take into consideration is the fact that refugees are on these platforms, these various platforms. We can’t run away from that. The one thing we wanted to ensure was that they feel empowered to use these platforms. They feel safe enough to use these platforms as well. But also, since there is an existing narrative, we wanted them to also put out their own stories, their own lived experiences. And so we’ve been closely engaging TikTok, who recently hosted a webinar that was dedicated to just helping us learn more about how the users can stay safe while using the platform as well. So the session focused on equipping participants on tools and knowledge to navigate the platform safely as well as understand how TikTok’s moderation system works. The webinar also served as a platform for open dialogue. So we were afforded the opportunity to directly ask the team, the TikTok team, some of the challenges that we’re seeing on the ground because there are certain trends that we’re seeing that TikTok might not be aware of. There are certain subtle misinformation or hate speech that is being spread in such a way where they’re using coded language. So they might not use a particular word. They might change a word to another language. South Africa has about 11 official languages. So you have about 11 languages to play with to basically perpetuate hate speech. And so the TikTok team was very helpful in offering insights also into their community guidelines, their different reporting mechanisms. And for us, what was really encouraging was just their openness for continued collaboration. We’re also looking at empowering the refugee community on how they can create their own content as well. So how can they then start making content to counteract what is already on the ground? How can they also do this safely whereby they feel like they can express themselves? I saw that in the Mentimeter. I think one of the key things that kept coming up was freedom of expression. How can refugees… They should be afforded the right to a voice, right? They are contributing members of society. They have their own lived experiences. And so for us, really engaging platforms such as TikTok, engaging platforms such as Meta, where we’re able to say we have this marginalized group of people where oftentimes they are left behind. How do we bring them to the table so they can tell their own stories where they can also access safe information in a manner that does not endanger them?

Katie Drew: Thank you, Katie. Thanks, Mbani. And maybe zooming a little bit out of the South Africa context and speaking a little bit more broadly, Oluwosin, I’d love to hear a little bit more around some of these reporting mechanisms that we know that maybe the platforms have if it does come to someone saying that they have been directly a recipient of hate online. Do you feel that maybe displaced communities use these reporting platforms? And what could be some of the barriers that would stand in their way when it comes to reporting?

Oluwaseun Adepoju: Thanks, Katie. I think I’ll start by saying 80% of the reporting platforms from the big techs are afterthoughts, after building the technology. For most of the social media platforms, for example, the reporting platforms for hate speech or digital violence were afterthoughts. The pressure was mounted by civil society organizations and technology activists to be able to do that. So it’s always challenging to even create the awareness about some of these tools for people using their platforms. But also, as technology creators, sometimes we tend to create a one-size-fit-all types of technology for people, which is not really helping vulnerable people to be able to use these platforms effectively. And when we talk about… We can have classification of internally displaced people, forcibly displaced people. There are refugees as well. And some of the reporting platforms are not really fitting to the different classifications that we might have as well. And in the work that we do every day, we’ve seen increasingly that these people are not… Some of them are not even aware of some of these reporting platforms. But more importantly is the familiarity, first of all, with what you call hate speech or offensive opinion, first of all. We’ve worked with people that are seriously emotionally battered, that when you even use hate speech on them, they are not even aware, they are not emotionally sensitive to some of these things. And this brings the complexity of even helping and supporting, you know, internally displaced people or refugees. First of all, from the emotional level of classification. Number two is the language and localisation of some of these reporting platforms. And that is why we begin to see organisations creating different app desks offline where people can come to and make reports. And then those platforms escalate to the platforms where some of these things have been perpetrated. And I think it speaks to what you were saying around the fact that foreigners, internally displaced people or refugees coming into a new country, sometimes they don’t even understand the slangs and the languages being used, you know, for hate speech on them. And we’ve also seen in our work fear of retaliation. We’ve seen a lot of people who have experienced hate speech or violence, digital violence, they don’t want to report because of fear of retaliation or the power play in the mix of, you know, those who have used this word against them. And also, a particular situation that we’ve seen is our… And this is a co-created story with some organisations we worked with recently. In a particular IDP camp in Nigeria, the… Should we call them the warders or the people in charge a particular person in charge was making sexual sexually violent comments towards a particular young lady and It comes with intimidation. They don’t want them to speak out. So he took another IDP to Report to law enforcement and the first thing the law enforcement did was to ask if the lady was suggestive in a behavior You know and then that you know Just discourage a lot of young ladies facing this kind of situation to report. So it also comes to the responsibility of those that we have actually, you know appointed as those in charge of the refugees or IDPs in the first place as well. So There’s a wide range of you know I would say challenges facing IDPs and internally displaced people but I think more importantly is the localization of the platforms that for example we addressed a situation where it was a violent Revenge porn. That’s the word right image based digital violence on a particular platform and we had to work with two other organizations to be able to escalate the situation to the platform because these particular person didn’t want to go on the platform to use it because of a lot of historical issues when it comes to We’ve seen people report in the past and nothing was done about it So it shouldn’t be a case of afterthoughts. I think in terms of the development of these platforms now they have to be You know, it has to be with integrity. It must drive trust in people, but also it must be contextual in the way that people use it and The kind of work that we do we have a command center where people can come to you know, and for those Trust to escalate to us and then we escalate to the platforms and those who need psychological support as well. We provide that

Katie Drew: Great thank you. I was gonna ask you as my follow-up question But you already came there in terms of some of the practical steps to improve these these reporting mechanisms So along with sort of the localization, I heard you talk about sort of some of the partnerships that you were working with as well So is there any sort of other, you know, how how can the tech sector help do this better? Is it by engaging, you know local actors?

Oluwaseun Adepoju: I think the big tech need to engage the local actors because the truth is that when there’s breakdown in trust people don’t want to use this platform to report directly and if people have a structure they already trust either in the Community or with other civil society organizations that they are comfortable speaking with I think big tech should be able to come down and work with those organizations to be able to address these issues better there’s a lot of under reporting happening because of this trust issues and also the way in different contexts our law enforcement has also addressed some of these issues with levity, right so there should be a community approach where there’s a Report the offender kind of situation in those community. They could be we organize You know people on whatsapp. We also organize on people can reach out via You know other platforms as well But it truth is that there are more than in every local government You can have at least 25 civil society organizations or local actors who are genuinely interested in addressing some of these issues and they are a great gateway to the big techs to be able to get some of this reporting and We should not also limit this to what is happening on on platforms online there are offline situations as well that can be Escalated via independent platforms outside of social media as well, and I think we should build more platforms outside of social media that Encourages people to come out and speak about these things because for social media. It’s either you resort to Cancelling people or you keep quiet before independent platforms for offline situations, and I think we have more flying situations physical words violent words or actions spoken to Internally displaced people refugees that should be escalated Because when we go the route of digital literacy you might say some of these guys don’t even are not on Facebook Or they are not an X or they are not on any social media But the offline one is even more and what that we do that we see every day

Katie Drew: So we’ve talked about reporting mechanisms and Michael I’m gonna put you on a spot with quite a long question now But looking at if we bring it back to the conversation around sort of digital resilience And how can we create an environment that is supporting the digital resilience of refugees of asylum seekers? how Up to the challenge is the policy and regularly regulation Environment when we look when we look at that question are they sort of protected currently when it comes to policy and regulation

Micheal Power: Thanks Katie, I mean it’s a it’s a complex question and I would yeah I really welcome a conversation with colleagues in the room who who work and have different perspectives on this I mean, you know my view at least from the context we’re in I Think the practice is really the challenge and I’ll start there I mean the practice in supporting vulnerable groups who are subjected to hate speech missing disinformation is wholly inadequate There’s often re-victimization You know, we’ve heard a series of lessons learned and it’s not only the platforms here that are the culprits from policing stations whether it’s a you know, a The practice is simply not to involve people or to re-victimize or re-blame or victim-blame through a series of processes So given that the platforms have increased their dominance over an extended period of time The state response practically has been wholly insufficient and I think that is informed by the regulation So I think it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s it’s Insufficient and I think that is informed by the regulatory landscape Regulating hate speech is difficult, right? We’re seeing as we speak that Twitter is challenging new laws sort of, you know Hiding behind the hate act or New York’s hiding behind the hate act, you know in our jurisdiction South Africa We do have legislation it is somewhat enforced but I think that secondary vulnerability that a refugee has The ability and the enabling space to come forward and report in the first instance is Something that we haven’t got past at this stage so policy At least in the South African perspective There’s no specific policy that that looks to refugees or internally displaced people on these particular questions The broader framework is emergent, but it’s very much whack-a-mole and scattershot, right? We’re dealing with cyber crimes here. We’re dealing with non-consensual image distributions here We’re trying to look into platform power through competition policy There’s nothing harmonized that is really there to create the supportive environment And for me, I think that the state needs to play a far bigger role You know colleagues have references independent mechanisms that are being used for reporting one of the partners on our project media monitoring Africa Runs a platform called the real 4-1-1 Which is an independent platform that you can report to that then pursues complaints with the platform themselves And I think there’s been varying degrees of success But again, it’s a question of scale and it’s that scale that I think the platforms when it comes to content moderation Or the erstwhile concept of fact-checking which is a big problem. We have at the moment Coupled with these independent platforms, which just don’t have the capacity to get through the volume So well from a legal standpoint, at least in the South African context, there are safeguards in place Those safeguards are severely impeded by the willingness of those in power to support People in vulnerable positions to actually pursue their rights through them

Katie Drew: And I’m just going to turn back to you because I know that you also work on in terms of policy and Regulation and sort of governance actions Is there sort of any recommendations that you would make to try and sort of address some of these challenges? I know we spoke a little bit about like sort of the the challenge of reporting under reporting and and and re-victimization But at the sort of policy and governance level, do you see any? You know positive steps that could be could be taken to build that resilience

Oluwaseun Adepoju: recently, we’ve had invitations from a number of international organizations or But also some local actors on how do we effectively make policies around anonymous reporting that is effective? I think there’s a lot of fear Depending on the the the level of violence or how deep the situation is, right? the And I like what you said around Re-victimization and we’ve seen that over and over again You you know, maybe it’s a process started from somebody making rape you know statement to what’s a particular person and They didn’t report it continues the rape eventually happened and then they eventually Reported or somebody even supported them and encouraged them to report and from the launch On the law enforcement side, they started with derogatory comments right from the police station, right? And this person was shamed right from the police station. What do you expect to happen next, right? So most of the cases that we’ve been involved in is around how can we make anonymous reporting so effective, and can we also introduce policies around accountability of vulnerable people that are in charge of accountability for vulnerable people, which I think in most parts of, not just in Africa, most parts of the world, it’s very contextual and subjective as well. We’ve also seen situations where people that are supposed to be in charge of addressing these issues have their own independent way of seeing the situations, because we don’t have a lot of policy framework that helps us address some of these issues. So you judge it based on what you feel, that, well, that is not a rape, or that is not violence. I don’t believe, you know, a lot of personal opinion. So how do we introduce policies that takes lessons from some of these practical issues? Number one, to make anonymous reporting very easy and effective, accountability for people in charge of addressing some of these issues in government and in law enforcement. And number three, the localization of the platforms. We’ve seen, you know, reporting platforms that are just in English language, but somebody only speaks a particular language in a part of Nigeria, how do they report? And then also for EBDESC by independent organizations to also have different mediums of reporting as well. I think policy in these three areas can be a long and fruit to get started. Thank you.

Katie Drew: So Mbani, I’ll just pass back to you, because we’ve heard a little bit around some of the practical case study through Mbazi, Mzanzi Life. We’ve also heard a little bit around sort of the role of potentially of reporting mechanisms and sort of regulatory policy, but you engage directly with refugees themselves. What practical ideas have they given you to sort of strengthen their own digital resilience?

Mbali Mushathama: Thanks Katie. Working with refugees on a daily basis has really shown me how resilient refugees are. I mean, they are, yes, we agree, very traumatized because of the different things that they’ve had to go through from their country of origin, traveling to then find a country of asylum where they can be accepted and safe. And oftentimes I can’t agree more with my colleagues that we try and avoid re-traumatizing them. I don’t want the refugees to keep telling you the story over and over and over again, because that’s their lived experiences and no one wants to recount a trauma event. However, one thing I have come to recognize and appreciate is that they want safe spaces to tell their stories. They want safe spaces to have an open dialogue. They want safe spaces to report any activities or any incidents that they feel they may have been violated. Someone may have violated their human rights. And so for me, I think what I’ve heard over and over again is that it’s great that we meet in these platforms to discuss these issues, but more than ever, we cannot make decisions for them and about them without them. And so they want to be included in these conversations when policies are being drafted. They want to be brought in, because unless you’re a refugee and you have that lived experience, we can’t really dictate what works and what doesn’t work. So for me, I think in my conversations with refugees, the number one thing is create a safe space where we can bring in our ideas, where we can bring in, because they’ve got a lot to share. They have a lot to say. I think to also echo my colleague, accessing reliable information in a language that they understand. So many times we’ve seen there’s a number of communication policy changes that are communicated and refugees oftentimes don’t understand. And so they find themselves on the wrong side of the law, sometimes simply because they genuinely just did not understand what was being communicated to them. And so I think for me also, how can they access reliable information in a language that they understand? Lastly, I think ongoing digital literacy that is context specific and uses real life examples from their own community. The context of South Africa is very different from the context of Nigeria, very different from the context of Ghana. How can they protect themselves in the context of South Africa? How do they stay safe in their host communities in the context of South Africa? So these are some of the few examples I would give. Thanks, Katie.

Katie Drew: Thanks, Mali. Maybe we just pass to one final question back to Liko, if we can. Liko, we’ve heard a little bit about sort of some of the challenges, maybe different ways of working in partnership, some of the approaches that you’ve seen, and I know you’ve played the game as well. If you were to sort of give advice or guidance to maybe government counterparts, both in South Africa, but also in other countries, thinking about is this something that we could adopt to try and think of a way of building digital resilience? What advice would you give or what practical caution would you maybe advise?

Likho Bottoman: I think I would rather say that when it comes to making use of digital platforms versus a game like the board game that we have on Zanzibar, we need to understand that when we say yes to a fully digital approach, what we are saying no to. And when we say yes to digital platforms, we’re actually saying no to the ability for us to reach those that Michael is talking about who still don’t have access to digital platforms. Therefore, if you want to drive a pre-banking agenda, you need to use a combination approach. The one is not replacing the other, but they should be complementary to one another. That’s the first thing. The second thing that I want to say is that probably the conversation about protecting the rights of refugees is not a conversation that should be had by a country where they are, because there are other international influences that need to be taken into consideration. We need to have a global conversation as a global community about it. The third and the last thing that I want to say is that, yes, the fourth industrial revolution has brought on us the pressure to get onto technological and digital platforms, but we also have the responsibility to ensure that when we push children into those spaces where they need to now access information about misinformation and disinformation and pre-banking and so forth, we also then have another responsibility which is a hidden responsibility to protect them when they are online. Thanks, Liko.

Katie Drew: Thank you so much. I’d love to say thanks to the panellists. We have a few moments now to ask some questions and first of all I’m going to, whilst people are, I think this is the microphone that people come to ask questions, don’t be shy, there’s one there. First of all, whilst people are hopefully making their way to the microphone, I’m going to ask Ondine online, were there any questions coming in the chat? Thanks, Ondine. I can say no questions so far, so participants online, feel free to add your question and I’ll read them out for you. Yeah, thanks, Ondine. We’ll come back to you. Thanks for your question.

Audience: Hello, my name is Olivia and I’m coming from the London story and we work in the context of India. It’s a little bit different, so I don’t know if you can answer my questions, but also I would like to hear your experience on that. We document cases where we work a lot on refugee protection, et cetera, and India is not a party to the refugee convention and there are a lot of different groups of refugees which are also treated differently, et cetera, and especially in terms of the hate speech online. We document that refugees in India are systematically targeted by disinformation and they’re being labelled as terrorists, criminals, illegal infiltrators, et cetera, and these narratives are often pushed both by the government and by the media. by the state actors, and also by non-state actors. And they’re being accused of different things, that they want to grab lands, etc., all sorts of things. And this also results into arbitrary detention, expulsion, all sorts of violence, and also communal violence. So I would like to ask if UNHCR, if you have experience and knowledge, if UNHCR has taken specific steps to target this disinformation online by state and non-state actors in India? And more broadly, how does UNHCR respond when harmful narratives are either generated or tolerated by state actors? And also, I would like to know what you do in the context where the state did not ratify the convention, and UNHCR has a limited mandate, like in India. Thank you.

Katie Drew: Do we have some more questions to come through, Andine, if there’s any on the screen? No, nothing. Any further questions? I heard an um. Yeah, yeah, please do ask questions afterwards. Thank you, thank you for your questions. So I mean, personally, I’ve been working on the South Africa project, so obviously I’m not able to speak to or comment on the India case study, the India example, on this occasion. I would say that a lot, when it comes down to working in countries where maybe we don’t have such an enabling environment as South Africa, for example, a lot does come from the importance of being seen to be a trusted entity, and being seen to be able to have access and engagement. And I think that this comes from how can we really make sure that we are able to operate and have access to information available on channels around what services are available. A lot of what we’ve been doing on a global level as well is around really trying to make sure that people understand what is a refugee, how do we really try and tell these narratives around solidarity. But I think the sort of examples that you were saying strike to some of the work that we needed to do in South Africa around identifying what are these narratives, and actually what is the sort of behaviour science behind this? What is the fear that people are being exploited? What fear is being exploited here? And so, for example, I think, Michael, I’ll pass back to you, but some of the narratives we identified in South Africa are really deep-seated, and I’m sure in many other contexts there are hooks or narratives that it’s very easy for people to manipulate, because that’s where the fear is. And I think that my advice would be really to bring it back to a behavioural science approach and identify what are these grand narratives, and what fears, and what levers are people pulling, and to highlight, not to run after the hang on, hang on, the debunking piece, but actually look at how can you try and allow people to recognise that maybe their fear is being manipulated? And this is why pre-bunking has that warning, that warning sort of piece at the very beginning. The moment you say to someone, warning, psychologically, and it’s been tested in a number of different languages, not just English, psychologically someone is more receptive to the next piece of information. So, warning, your fear might be being manipulated, and then you can start to have a conversation that maybe opens up, you know, now we can start to address the issue that in this context refugees are always, you know, aligned with criminalisation. I don’t know whether you want to build a little bit more on that point.

Micheal Power: Yeah, I mean, I don’t want to speak to a context I don’t know enough about invariably, but I mean, you know, when looking at these challenges, and, you know, we’re seeing it, we’re seeing it in the US, where there’s often political alignment with a lack of safeguards, should we say, on the platforms. And then, I think you need to look for mechanisms within the state that may be supportive, right? So, if there’s executive support for what’s going on, for example, in the Indian context I know the competition authority has recently given a relatively landmark ruling against Android television, for example, and you may need to look at somewhat radical strategies to test these types of questions. You know, in the South African context, our competition authority is working on this. You’ve got people in the Department of Education who value the need for this, but then you do have other state departments which simply are not interested in these regulatory questions. So it’s really about trying to find those loose-knit partners at the right time, particularly where there’s a recalcitrant state. I think pre-bunking plays a really important role, as does civil society, but to the specifics I can’t speak to, but that broader alignment between potentially strategic litigation, policy reform, and activism.

Katie Drew: I’m just letting the online colleagues know that that was a comment from the floor, but it wasn’t in the microphone, so I could see Andine was looking at me like as if she’d lost connection, so apologies, online participants. Thank you. Were there any further… There’s one more question, and then we can maybe move to Therese to closing remarks. No rush, no rush. There’s a question in the chat also, Katie. Okay. Andine, do you want to read your question in the chat, and then we’ll come to the question on the mic? So, that’s a question from Beric Serbisa, so I’m bringing it out. How do we ensure that digital resilience initiatives for refugees and IDPs in Africa do not overshadow their urgent needs, like access to food, water, and shelter? What many displaced communities still lack in basic necessities is investing in digital tools of luxury or necessity, and how can we do both without trade-offs? Great question, and then we’ll come to the question on the mic, and then I can… Should I ask? Yes, please.

Audience: Yeah. Hi, everyone. A very informative discussion. So I personally worked for one of the big tech company before, and before that I worked in NGO in China for educational assistance for refugee children, and I actually found out in addition to disinformation, misinformation, which is inaccurate information, there are some of the information with refugees that maybe is true. For example, maybe some negative news, maybe some crime or violence happened because of, you know, it could happen to everyone, but then some information would easily get spread because of, I guess, algorithm, or also maybe people’s human has cognitive bias, just you reinforce the negative image. So I think these… It’s neither misinformation, disinformation, also not really like hate speech, it’s just the fact that spread may be faster than the opposite way. So I’m just curious, because for me, I think that’s make actually also huge damage in terms of public’s perception of this vulnerable group. So I’m just curious about if you people on the stage have worked or think about approach that could address this issue.

Katie Drew: Great. Thanks. I think we have one last question, and then we can come back to the panel. Thanks.

Audience: Hi. My name is Pumzele, and I do a lot of work around disinformation in South Africa. And I’ve worked on a couple of projects around foreign influence operations. And this has been kind of xenophobia in South Africa has been a big concern of mine for a very long time. So I’m glad to see that this kind of work is taking place. But what does it look like in future, in the next couple of months? Is there something going to continue? Because right now, I think it’s kind of not as busy as it can be, especially on the online space, but heading to a local government election, it’s going to start. And the thing is that it doesn’t, with this, it doesn’t remain online, like with other kind of disinformation campaigns. This spreads offline and results in, you know, of violence and death. So what does it look like going forward? Thanks.

Katie Drew: Okay, so I’m going to very quickly give the panellists one minute to answer each of the questions. Somebody, can I come to you for prioritisation? Micheal, what does this look like next? What are the next steps? And then, do you want to take the piece around sort of, you know, how to, you know, amplification and the algorithms that maybe run away with some of the sort of bad content as opposed to, you know, less positive content. So, one, two, three, and then we’ll pass to Therese. Thank you. Sorry, can you please remind me the prioritization? Prioritization. Why are we focusing on digital protection when we also have to make sure basic needs are met when it comes to refugee protection? Yeah. No, thank you very much. I think

Mbali Mushathama: for me, a lot are, well, in the context of South Africa, we are fortunate in that our legislation is very progressive in that refugees are afforded the right to work, they have the right to education regardless of their documentation status, they have access to basic services, healthcare, social grants as well, and so I think the number one problem that we’re seeing in South Africa is really just xenophobia, whereby as much as there’s access, there are limited resources, as I previously said, and because of this, we have a lot of the host communities saying, we don’t have jobs because foreigners are here and they’re taking our jobs. Our children don’t have spaces in school because foreigners are here taking all the spaces of our children in schools, and so for us, the main priority is not necessarily access to basic services for refugees in South Africa, but rather how do we ensure that in the country of asylum, they are protected in various ways. We have a huge problem with documentation, access to documentation. A lot of times, refugees will try and get themselves documented to access such services and legalize their stay in the country. However, there’s a lot of systematic issues within our Ministry of Home Affairs, so this also further perpetuates the narrative that we have a lot of foreigners that are undocumented that don’t care to get documented within the country. Therefore, this further incites violence, so I think for us, this is why this is a priority for us in South Africa because xenophobia is truly, I think, even as Pumzile has said, a really huge problem. Michael, one minute. Yeah, sure. What next?

Micheal Power: So, Pumzile, thank you. I mean, there’s a few things going on. Just speaking briefly to our project, we’re now moving into our second phase, which we hope to conclude by August. The second phase is the last round of testing, and then we’re actually going to start printing and distributing this game coupled with sort of digital facilitation guides and potentially a digital game. We’re still testing to see if we can pull it off in time. So, I think from the social pre-bunking approach, we’re hoping to move this relatively quickly. I think just for interest’s sake, in the South African context, there’s two broader developments. I mean, our Competition Commission, in its provisional findings and some of its recent reporting, is likely to recommend that there must be an amendment to ECTA to create a degree of platform liability for the amplification of hate speech. Now, a lot of people are not supportive of that amendment, but this is quite contested in the South African space, and that’s likely to be on the agenda. And then I know our National Human Rights Institute is looking into some of these questions as well, and they’ll probably be making sort of announcements in due course. But there’s a lot afoot, you know, both social, regulatory. So, we are trying to move cognizant of the deep concerns, but equally, you know, with deference to Lico, I think rolling this out in South African schools is also a process, but I think we’re live to the urgency of it, undoubtedly. Thank you.

Katie Drew: I realize that we are being told that we’re really strictly out of time. So, Therese, I’m sorry, we’re just going to sort of skip over the last question, but maybe we can find you after to discuss the points around sort of what do we do about sort of the algorithms that augment, you know, narratives that sort of spin out and drown out positive content. So, I’ll ask you to stay behind, Odersan. Therese, sorry, I think you probably have minus minutes, but it would be great to hear sort of a wrap-up summary. I think we’ve got a couple of minutes to hear from you. Thank you.

Therese Marie Uppstrom Pankratov: Okay, great. Thank you so much for an enlightening and inspiring conversation. It’s really great to see the trust-based relationship that has been created amongst you as partners, and I think that’s really key and essential to have an innovation process with impact. So, we’ve, it’s also equally inspiring and great to hear the fundamental understanding of the need that you’re designing the innovation process around, the deep insight into the challenges around information integrity in the context of displacement. So, we’ve heard about the rise in online misinformation and hate speech, and the wide range of challenges faced by people that are forcibly displaced, and you’ve all emphasized the importance of community-based approaches and multi-stakeholder engagement. We’ve heard about the participatory process that you’ve had in South Africa with the youth, how you’ve listened to them and iterated your solutions, and the importance of localization of digital platforms, and we’ve also heard about the potential pre-bunking, which was new to most of the participants, so that’s really encouraging to hear. Now, I said in the beginning that an innovation process to solve wicked challenges rarely leads to a shiny new thing, and I think what we’ve heard about today is exactly this, multiple partnerships and multiple smaller solutions that come together and create impact, but we have also heard about a game, and shiny new things are always fun, and the significant impact that that game seems to have already now. So, I look forward to seeing how that is being further rolled out. We’ve also heard about the need for safe spaces for people that are forcibly displaced to have their voices heard and share their stories, and I hope that’s something that we take with us as we move forward. I hope you all leave inspired to engage in this process moving forward, and that we’ll see all of you and have a future opportunity to collaborate. So, thank you.

Katie Drew: Therese, thank you for summing up. I always think that that’s always like one of the hardest tasks of the panel, so I think that was excellent. I’d like to say a huge thank you to Lico, Michael, Mbali, Olushan, and Therese for their participation today, and thank you everyone for attending. It was great, and sorry we didn’t have time. Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2 Workshop 2

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder partnerships are essential for addressing complex information integrity challenges

Speakers

– Katie Drew
– Therese Marie Uppstrom Pankratov
– Micheal Power

Arguments

Digital resilience means creating robust information ecosystems that allow displaced communities secure access to information and freedom of expression

Solving ‘wicked problems’ like information integrity requires partnerships across sectors with different expertise in context, technology, and behavioral sciences

The Mzanzi Life board game achieved 43% perception change in three hours by combining gamification with facilitated learning

Summary

All speakers agree that complex challenges like information integrity for displaced communities cannot be solved by single actors alone and require collaborative approaches bringing together different sectors and expertise

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Community participation and inclusion of displaced people in decision-making is crucial

Speakers

– Katie Drew
– Mbali Mushathama
– Oluwaseun Adepoju

Arguments

Decisions cannot be made for refugees without including them in policy conversations and solution development

Refugees want safe spaces to tell their stories and access reliable information in languages they understand

Community-based approaches and local civil society organizations serve as trusted intermediaries for reporting and support

Summary

There is strong consensus that displaced communities must be directly involved in developing solutions that affect them, with emphasis on creating safe spaces for their voices and using trusted local intermediaries

Topics

Human rights | Development | Sociocultural

Current reporting mechanisms and policy frameworks are inadequate for protecting vulnerable populations

Speakers

– Micheal Power
– Oluwaseun Adepoju

Arguments

Current practice in supporting vulnerable groups subjected to hate speech is wholly inadequate, often leading to re-victimization

Tech platforms’ reporting mechanisms are often afterthoughts that lack localization and awareness among vulnerable populations

Many displaced people are unaware of hate speech classification or fear retaliation when reporting incidents

Summary

Both speakers agree that existing systems for protecting vulnerable populations from digital harm are fundamentally flawed, leading to re-victimization and under-reporting

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Localization and context-specific approaches are necessary for effective interventions

Speakers

– Mbali Mushathama
– Oluwaseun Adepoju
– Likho Bottoman

Arguments

Digital literacy must be context-specific and use real-life examples from the community

Big tech companies need to engage local actors and civil society organizations to build trust and improve reporting

Combination approaches using both digital and non-digital methods are necessary to reach all populations

Summary

All three speakers emphasize that one-size-fits-all solutions don’t work and that interventions must be tailored to local contexts, languages, and cultural specificities

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Human rights

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers understand xenophobia in South Africa as a complex issue rooted in the country’s diverse social fabric, with online hate speech directly translating into offline violence, particularly affecting children in educational settings

Speakers

– Mbali Mushathama
– Likho Bottoman

Arguments

Online incitement directly correlates with physical violence in host communities, affecting refugee children in schools through xenophobic bullying

South Africa’s multicultural complexity creates innate diversity management challenges that anti-foreigner narratives exploit

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Development

Both speakers advocate for sophisticated, iterative approaches to addressing misinformation that move beyond simple linear solutions to embrace complex, multi-step methodologies

Speakers

– Therese Marie Uppstrom Pankratov
– Micheal Power

Arguments

Innovation processes are messy and require iterations, multiple testing, and redevelopments rather than linear solutions

Pre-bunking involves warning about narratives, explaining problems, providing preemptive refutation, and microdosing counternarratives before harmful content takes hold

Topics

Sociocultural | Development | Cybersecurity

Both speakers see platform engagement as essential but emphasize the need for meaningful collaboration that goes beyond surface-level consultation to include capacity building and trust-building with communities

Speakers

– Mbali Mushathama
– Oluwaseun Adepoju

Arguments

Engagement with platforms like TikTok helps understand moderation systems and provides opportunities for refugees to create counter-narratives

Big tech companies need to engage local actors and civil society organizations to build trust and improve reporting

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

The effectiveness of non-digital solutions in addressing digital problems

Speakers

– Micheal Power
– Likho Bottoman

Arguments

The Mzanzi Life board game achieved 43% perception change in three hours by combining gamification with facilitated learning

Combination approaches using both digital and non-digital methods are necessary to reach all populations

Explanation

Despite the focus on digital resilience, there was unexpected consensus that analog solutions (like board games) can be highly effective in addressing digital information problems, challenging assumptions about the need for purely digital solutions to digital challenges

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Infrastructure

The global nature of refugee protection requiring international rather than national solutions

Speakers

– Likho Bottoman
– Audience

Arguments

Protecting refugee rights requires global conversation rather than just action by host countries due to international influences

UNHCR’s response to state-generated or tolerated harmful narratives needs clarification, especially in countries with limited mandate

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus from both a government representative and civil society that refugee protection challenges transcend national boundaries and require coordinated international responses, even when discussing local implementation

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus around the need for multi-stakeholder partnerships, community participation, localized approaches, and recognition that current systems are inadequate. There was also unexpected agreement on the value of non-digital solutions and the global nature of refugee protection challenges.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for policy and practice. The agreement suggests a mature understanding of the complexity of information integrity challenges for displaced populations and points toward collaborative, community-centered, and contextually-sensitive approaches as the way forward. The consensus also indicates readiness for innovative solutions that combine multiple methodologies and stakeholder engagement.

Different viewpoints

Prioritization of digital resilience versus basic needs for displaced populations

Speakers

– Audience
– Mbali Mushathama

Arguments

Digital resilience initiatives should not overshadow urgent basic needs like food, water, and shelter for displaced communities

Different contexts require different approaches – South Africa’s progressive legislation allows focus on xenophobia rather than basic service access

Summary

An audience member questioned whether digital resilience should be prioritized when basic needs aren’t met, while Mbali argued that in South Africa’s context, progressive legislation already provides basic services, making xenophobia the primary challenge rather than basic needs access

Topics

Development | Human rights | Economic

Unexpected differences

Scope of information integrity challenges beyond misinformation

Speakers

– Audience
– Panel speakers

Arguments

True but negative information about refugees spreads faster due to algorithms and cognitive bias, causing significant damage to public perception

Various arguments about misinformation and disinformation

Explanation

An audience member raised an unexpected point that the panel hadn’t directly addressed – the problem of factually accurate but negative information being algorithmically amplified, which creates different challenges than traditional misinformation/disinformation. This highlighted a gap in the panel’s focus on false information versus the broader challenge of information ecosystem manipulation

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The panel showed remarkable consensus on most issues, with speakers largely agreeing on problems and complementing each other’s perspectives rather than disagreeing. The main areas of difference were around prioritization (digital vs basic needs) and implementation approaches (digital vs non-digital methods)

Disagreement level

Very low level of disagreement among panelists, which suggests strong alignment on the fundamental challenges and approaches to digital resilience for displaced populations. The few disagreements were more about context-specific priorities and tactical approaches rather than fundamental philosophical differences. This high level of consensus may indicate either genuine alignment in the field or potential groupthink, and could benefit from more diverse perspectives in future discussions

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers understand xenophobia in South Africa as a complex issue rooted in the country’s diverse social fabric, with online hate speech directly translating into offline violence, particularly affecting children in educational settings

Speakers

– Mbali Mushathama
– Likho Bottoman

Arguments

Online incitement directly correlates with physical violence in host communities, affecting refugee children in schools through xenophobic bullying

South Africa’s multicultural complexity creates innate diversity management challenges that anti-foreigner narratives exploit

Topics

Sociocultural | Human rights | Development

Both speakers advocate for sophisticated, iterative approaches to addressing misinformation that move beyond simple linear solutions to embrace complex, multi-step methodologies

Speakers

– Therese Marie Uppstrom Pankratov
– Micheal Power

Arguments

Innovation processes are messy and require iterations, multiple testing, and redevelopments rather than linear solutions

Pre-bunking involves warning about narratives, explaining problems, providing preemptive refutation, and microdosing counternarratives before harmful content takes hold

Topics

Sociocultural | Development | Cybersecurity

Both speakers see platform engagement as essential but emphasize the need for meaningful collaboration that goes beyond surface-level consultation to include capacity building and trust-building with communities

Speakers

– Mbali Mushathama
– Oluwaseun Adepoju

Arguments

Engagement with platforms like TikTok helps understand moderation systems and provides opportunities for refugees to create counter-narratives

Big tech companies need to engage local actors and civil society organizations to build trust and improve reporting

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

Digital resilience for displaced communities requires multi-stakeholder partnerships combining humanitarian organizations, private sector, government, and civil society to address complex ‘wicked problems’

Pre-bunking strategies that proactively counter false narratives before they take hold are more effective than reactive debunking, with the Mzanzi Life board game demonstrating 43% perception change in three hours

Information integrity challenges for refugees extend beyond digital spaces to offline violence, requiring both digital and non-digital intervention approaches

Tech platform reporting mechanisms are inadequate for vulnerable populations due to lack of localization, awareness, trust issues, and fear of retaliation

Refugees must be included in policy conversations and solution development rather than having decisions made about them without their participation

Context-specific approaches are essential – South Africa’s focus on xenophobia differs from other contexts where basic service access may be the priority

Education and digital literacy interventions must extend beyond classrooms to counter narratives perpetuated in homes and communities

Resolutions and action items

The Mzanzi Life board game project is moving into second phase testing to conclude by August 2024, followed by printing and distribution with digital facilitation guides

Continued engagement with tech platforms like TikTok and Meta to improve reporting mechanisms and empower refugee communities to create counter-narratives

Development of anonymous reporting policies and accountability measures for those responsible for protecting vulnerable populations

Implementation of combination approaches using both digital and non-digital methods to reach all population segments

Establishment of safe spaces for refugees to share stories and participate in policy development conversations

Unresolved issues

How to address algorithmic amplification of negative but factually accurate information about refugees that reinforces harmful stereotypes

Balancing digital resilience initiatives with urgent basic needs like food, water, and shelter in resource-constrained environments

Addressing state-sponsored or state-tolerated disinformation campaigns against refugees, particularly in countries that haven’t ratified refugee conventions

Scaling independent reporting mechanisms and civil society interventions to match the volume of online hate speech and misinformation

Preparing for increased xenophobic content during upcoming local government elections in South Africa

Harmonizing scattered regulatory approaches across different government departments and jurisdictions

Suggested compromises

Using combination approaches that complement rather than replace each other – digital platforms alongside offline interventions like board games

Engaging local civil society organizations as trusted intermediaries between vulnerable populations and tech platforms for reporting

Finding supportive mechanisms within resistant state structures, such as working with competition authorities or human rights institutions when executive support is lacking

Developing context-specific solutions that address local priorities while maintaining global coordination on refugee protection principles

Safeguarding information integrity is one of the key challenges of our times… in humanitarian operations, we tend to talk about information being protection… when we have access to quality information, it helps keep us safe. And when we don’t, it causes a significant risk.

Speaker

Therese Marie Uppstrom Pankratov

Reason

This reframes information integrity from an abstract concept to a concrete protection mechanism, establishing the life-or-death stakes of misinformation for vulnerable populations. It provides the foundational framework that justifies why digital resilience is as critical as physical safety.

Impact

This comment established the conceptual foundation for the entire discussion, shifting the conversation from viewing digital protection as secondary to recognizing it as fundamental to refugee safety. It influenced how subsequent speakers framed their contributions around protection rather than just technology access.

80% of the reporting platforms from the big techs are afterthoughts, after building the technology… The pressure was mounted by civil society organizations and technology activists to be able to do that. So it’s always challenging to even create the awareness about some of these tools for people using their platforms.

Speaker

Oluwaseun Adepoju

Reason

This exposes a fundamental flaw in how technology platforms approach vulnerable user protection, revealing that safety mechanisms are reactive rather than built-in by design. It challenges the assumption that existing reporting tools are adequate or accessible.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from focusing on how to better use existing reporting mechanisms to questioning their fundamental design and effectiveness. It led to deeper exploration of trust issues, localization needs, and the necessity for community-based alternatives to platform-provided solutions.

We cannot make decisions for them and about them without them… unless you’re a refugee and you have that lived experience, we can’t really dictate what works and what doesn’t work.

Speaker

Mbali Mushathama

Reason

This challenges the traditional top-down approach to refugee assistance and asserts the principle of meaningful participation. It highlights how well-intentioned interventions can fail without authentic community involvement.

Impact

This comment reinforced the participatory approach throughout the discussion and validated the community-centered methodology used in their South Africa project. It influenced how other panelists discussed their work, emphasizing consultation and co-creation rather than external solutions.

When we say yes to a fully digital approach, what we are saying no to… when we say yes to digital platforms, we’re actually saying no to the ability for us to reach those that Michael is talking about who still don’t have access to digital platforms.

Speaker

Likho Bottoman

Reason

This introduces critical thinking about digital exclusion and the unintended consequences of digital-first solutions. It challenges the assumption that digital solutions are inherently better and highlights the need for hybrid approaches.

Impact

This comment prompted reflection on the board game approach as complementary rather than inferior to digital solutions. It influenced the discussion toward recognizing that effective interventions require multiple modalities to ensure inclusive reach.

There’s a wide range of challenges… more importantly is the localization of the platforms… we had to work with two other organizations to be able to escalate the situation to the platform because these particular person didn’t want to go on the platform to use it because of a lot of historical issues when it comes to… people report in the past and nothing was done about it.

Speaker

Oluwaseun Adepoju

Reason

This reveals the breakdown of trust between vulnerable communities and formal reporting systems, showing how past failures create barriers to future help-seeking. It demonstrates the need for intermediary organizations and alternative pathways.

Impact

This comment deepened the conversation about why direct platform reporting fails and led to discussion of community-based intermediary solutions. It influenced the panel’s recommendations toward building trusted local partnerships rather than relying solely on platform improvements.

The practice in supporting vulnerable groups who are subjected to hate speech missing disinformation is wholly inadequate. There’s often re-victimization… from policing stations… The practice is simply not to involve people or to re-victimize or victim-blame through a series of processes.

Speaker

Michael Power

Reason

This exposes systemic failures across multiple institutions (not just platforms) and introduces the concept of re-victimization as a barrier to reporting. It shows how the entire ecosystem of protection can become harmful rather than helpful.

Impact

This comment expanded the scope of the problem beyond platform design to institutional culture and practice. It influenced the discussion toward recognizing that technological solutions must be accompanied by broader systemic changes in how institutions respond to vulnerable populations.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by challenging assumptions about digital solutions and institutional responses to refugee protection. They moved the conversation from a narrow focus on technology tools to a broader understanding of systemic barriers, power dynamics, and the critical importance of community participation. The comments created a progression from identifying the stakes (information as protection) to exposing systemic failures (afterthought design, re-victimization) to asserting principles (nothing about us without us) and practical considerations (digital exclusion, trust breakdown). This created a more nuanced and realistic framework for understanding digital resilience that acknowledged both technological and social dimensions of the challenge. The discussion evolved from presenting solutions to critically examining why existing approaches fail and what fundamental changes are needed in how we design and implement protection mechanisms for vulnerable populations.

How can we effectively make policies around anonymous reporting that is effective?

Speaker

Oluwaseun Adepoju

Explanation

This addresses the critical need for vulnerable populations to report incidents without fear of retaliation, which is a major barrier to addressing digital violence and hate speech

How can we introduce policies that take lessons from practical issues to make anonymous reporting very easy and effective?

Speaker

Oluwaseun Adepoju

Explanation

This builds on the need for evidence-based policy development that addresses real-world challenges faced by displaced communities

How can we introduce accountability for people in charge of addressing these issues in government and in law enforcement?

Speaker

Oluwaseun Adepoju

Explanation

This addresses the problem of re-victimization and subjective handling of cases by authorities who should be protecting vulnerable populations

How do we ensure that digital resilience initiatives for refugees and IDPs in Africa do not overshadow their urgent needs, like access to food, water, and shelter?

Speaker

Beric Serbisa (online participant)

Explanation

This raises the important question of prioritization and resource allocation when addressing both basic needs and digital protection for displaced populations

How can we address the issue of true but negative information about refugees that spreads faster due to algorithms and cognitive bias?

Speaker

Audience member (former big tech employee)

Explanation

This identifies a gap in current approaches that focus on misinformation/disinformation but don’t address how factual negative content can be amplified to damage perceptions of vulnerable groups

What does the future look like for xenophobia monitoring and intervention, especially heading into local government elections in South Africa?

Speaker

Pumzele (audience member)

Explanation

This addresses the urgent need for sustained monitoring and intervention as political cycles can amplify xenophobic narratives that lead to offline violence

How does UNHCR respond when harmful narratives are either generated or tolerated by state actors?

Speaker

Olivia (London-based participant)

Explanation

This highlights the complex challenge of addressing misinformation when it comes from or is supported by government entities, particularly in contexts where UNHCR has limited mandate

What specific steps can be taken to target disinformation online by state and non-state actors in contexts like India where the state hasn’t ratified refugee conventions?

Speaker

Olivia (London-based participant)

Explanation

This addresses the operational challenges of protecting refugees in non-signatory countries where legal frameworks and government cooperation may be limited

How can we build more platforms outside of social media that encourage people to speak about offline situations of violence and discrimination?

Speaker

Oluwaseun Adepoju

Explanation

This recognizes that much violence against displaced persons happens offline and current reporting mechanisms are inadequate for addressing these situations

How can we create a global conversation as a global community about protecting the rights of refugees rather than leaving it to individual host countries?

Speaker

Likho Bottoman

Explanation

This suggests the need for international coordination and shared responsibility in addressing refugee protection challenges that transcend national boundaries