Uncategorized

Summary

This discussion focused on Saudi Arabia’s digital inclusiveness initiative launched by the Digital Government Authority to enable accessibility for people with disabilities and elderly citizens. Fawaz Alanazi presented how Saudi Arabia has achieved high rankings in global digital government indexes, including third place in the World Bank’s Government Tech Maturity Index and sixth in the UN E-Government Development Index, as part of the Vision 2030 digital transformation goals. The Digital Government Authority, established in 2021, operates an innovation hub that provides digital advisory services, training programs like Kudratik which has trained over 400 government employees, and various specialized labs including design studios and usability labs.

The digital inclusiveness program addresses a significant need, as Saudi Arabia has 1.6 million elderly citizens (4.8% of the population) and 1.4 million people with disabilities (4.2% of the population) who face various impairments including cognitive, mobility, visual, and hearing challenges. The program aims to ensure independence and ease of use in digital services for everyone by aligning with WCAG accessibility standards and humanizing the service experience. During the Q&A session, an attendee from the Norwegian Digitalization Agency asked about regulatory compliance, WCAG requirements implementation, and why private sector entities aren’t included in the legislation. Alanazi explained that Saudi Arabia uses an e-participation platform for citizen feedback and collaborates with private sectors through the SADF initiative for public-private partnerships. The discussion highlighted Saudi Arabia’s comprehensive approach to digital transformation while emphasizing the importance of leaving no one behind in accessing government digital services.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Saudi Arabia’s Digital Government Achievements**: The country has achieved high rankings in global digital government indexes, including 1st regionally in ESCOA, 3rd globally in Government Tech Maturity Index, and 6th in E-Government Development Index, supported by the Digital Government Authority established in 2021.

– **Digital Inclusiveness Program Launch**: A new initiative targeting 1.6 million elderly citizens (4.8% of population) and 1.4 million people with disabilities (4.2% of population) to ensure government digital services are accessible and usable for everyone, emphasizing independence and ease of use.

– **Innovation Hub Infrastructure**: The Digital Government Authority operates comprehensive facilities including design studios, usability labs, learning experience labs, and emerging technology labs, along with programs like Kudratik training (400+ employees trained) and digital advisory services.

– **WCAG Standards and Regulatory Framework**: Discussion of following Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) standards for government services, with questions raised about compliance requirements, regulatory oversight, and why private sector inclusion is limited compared to other countries.

– **Collaborative Testing and Implementation Process**: Government entities can reserve and utilize the inclusiveness labs to test their services and products, receiving detailed reports on current accessibility status and improvement recommendations for end users.

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion aimed to present Saudi Arabia’s digital inclusiveness initiative as part of Vision 2030, showcasing how the Digital Government Authority is working to make government digital services accessible to elderly citizens and people with disabilities through specialized labs, testing facilities, and adherence to international accessibility standards.

**Overall Tone:**

The discussion maintained a formal, informative, and promotional tone throughout. It began as a structured presentation highlighting achievements and initiatives, then shifted to a more interactive Q&A format where the presenter addressed technical questions about regulations, standards, and implementation. The tone remained consistently professional and collaborative, with the presenter expressing appreciation for questions and emphasizing partnership approaches to digital transformation.

Speakers

– **Fawaz Alanazi**: Works with the Digital Government Authority in Saudi Arabia, presenting on digital inclusiveness initiatives and digital transformation programs

– **Audience**: Multiple audience members asking questions during the session, including:

– Adil Hussain from Norwegian Digitalization Agency and the Norwegian Authority for Universal Design of ICT

– An Arabic-speaking questioner (name appears to be Qusay based on the response)

**Additional speakers:**

– **Ms. Bayan Alghuraybi**: Mentioned at the beginning as a co-presenter but no actual speaking content is provided in the transcript

– **Dr. Areej Alfaraj**: Mentioned multiple times in the transcript but no actual speaking content is provided

# Discussion Report: Saudi Arabia’s Digital Inclusiveness Initiative

## Executive Summary

This session featured a presentation by Fawaz Alanazi from Saudi Arabia’s Digital Government Authority on the country’s digital inclusiveness initiative. The presentation covered Saudi Arabia’s digital government achievements, infrastructure for supporting accessibility, and programmes targeting elderly citizens and people with disabilities. The session included a Q&A portion with questions from Adil Hussain of the Norwegian Digitalisation Agency and Norwegian Authority for Universal Design of ICT, as well as an Arabic-speaking participant named Qusay.

*Note: The transcript contains technical issues with repetitive text and incomplete sections, particularly regarding contributions from co-presenters Ms. Bayan Alghuraybi and Dr. Areej Alfaraj, which affects the completeness of this summary.*

## Key Participants

– **Fawaz Alanazi** – Digital Government Authority, Saudi Arabia (primary presenter)

– **Adil Hussain** – Norwegian Digitalisation Agency and Norwegian Authority for Universal Design of ICT

– **Qusay** – Arabic-speaking participant

– **Ms. Bayan Alghuraybi and Dr. Areej Alfaraj** – Listed as co-presenters but their contributions are not captured in the available transcript

## Saudi Arabia’s Digital Government Achievements

Alanazi presented Saudi Arabia’s international rankings in digital government:

– First place regionally in ESCOA

– Third place globally in the World Bank’s Government Tech Maturity Index

– Sixth place in the UN E-Government Development Index

These achievements support Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 initiative. The Digital Government Authority, established in 2021, serves as the central coordinating body for the country’s digital transformation efforts.

## Digital Inclusiveness Programme Context

The programme addresses the needs of specific demographic groups in Saudi Arabia:

– 1.6 million elderly citizens (4.8% of the 35 million population)

– 1.4 million people with disabilities (4.2% of the population)

– Expected increase in elderly population to 11% in 2023

Alanazi explained the programme’s philosophy: “what we mean by inclusiveness is to ensure the independency and ease of use of digital services for everyone, while inclusiveness aims not to digitise the services, but rather to ensure they are designed to include everyone.”

The programme follows three main objectives:

1. Increasing user independence

2. Aligning with international accessibility standards (WCAG)

3. Humanising the service experience

## Innovation Hub Infrastructure

The Digital Government Authority operates an innovation hub providing multiple services:

– Digital advisory services

– Training programmes (including the “Kudratik” programme that has trained over 400 government employees)

– Awards recognition

– Emerging technology initiatives

The hub includes specialised laboratories:

– Design studios

– Usability labs for user experience testing

– Learning experience labs

– Emerging technology labs

## Laboratory Operations

The digital inclusiveness laboratories operate on a reservation-based system where government entities can book sessions to test their services and products against accessibility standards. Following each testing session, the laboratories provide comprehensive reports with assessments and recommendations for improvements.

## Questions and Responses

### Norwegian Participant Questions

Adil Hussain posed four specific technical questions:

1. **Regulatory authority for business compliance**: Asked about mechanisms for ensuring business compliance with accessibility requirements.

2. **WCAG requirements**: Inquired how many of the 78 WCAG success criteria public sector bodies must follow.

3. **Private sector inclusion**: Questioned why private sector entities are not included in the digital accessibility legislation, particularly given Saudi Arabia’s high e-government ranking.

4. **Scope of digital services**: Asked what types of digital services the legislation covers.

### Saudi Response

Alanazi’s responses mentioned:

– Use of an e-participation platform for citizen feedback

– The SADF (Saudi Development Fund) initiative for public-private partnerships in digital service development

– Collaborative approaches with private entities rather than mandatory compliance

– Following WCAG standards “precisely”

However, the responses did not provide detailed answers to all the specific technical questions raised.

### Arabic Language Question

Qusay asked about the laboratory experience and procedures. Alanazi responded by explaining the reservation system for accessing the labs and mentioned that final reports are provided after testing sessions.

## Programme Implementation

The digital inclusiveness programme addresses various types of impairments including cognitive, mobility, visual, and hearing challenges. The approach emphasises designing services to be inherently accessible rather than retrofitting existing services.

The programme aligns with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) standards to ensure Saudi Arabia’s digital services meet internationally recognised accessibility criteria.

## Conclusion

The session provided an overview of Saudi Arabia’s systematic approach to digital inclusiveness, highlighting the country’s infrastructure investment and commitment to international standards. The Q&A session revealed interest from international participants in understanding the technical and regulatory details of implementation, though some specific questions about compliance mechanisms and private sector involvement were not fully addressed in the available transcript.

Fawaz Alanazi: and Ms. Bayan Alghuraybi. Hi, everyone, and welcome to this session where we talk about one of the latest initiatives that have been recently launched by the Digital Government Authority in Saudi Arabia, which is the digital inclusiveness in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to enable people with disability and elderly. Today we’ll talk about the overall of the digital transformation and innovation in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Then we’ll talk about the digital inclusiveness program with its usability lab, and we’ll end up with some success stories from digital inclusiveness initiatives. If you have any question, you may ask at the end of this session. To start with, actually, the digital government or the Vision 2030 prioritized digital transformation and innovation to ensure the successful achievement of the national goals of vibrant society, thriving economy, as well as ambitious nation. And because of that, as you can see, Saudi Arabia is ranked top in the government global indexes. For example, it’s ranked first regionally in the ESCOA, which is the Government Electronic and Mobile Service Index. It’s ranked number third globally in the Government Tech Maturity Index by the World Bank, and it’s ranked number six globally in the E-Government Development Index, as well as number eighth in the Waseda Index as digital government most progressing country. The Digital Government Authority, who was established in 2021, to play a main role of organizing the digital landscape in Saudi Arabia in collaboration with the government entities. The Digital Government Authority, as a result, have established an innovation hub for the sake of fostering innovation, as well as enable government entities to design and test their creative solution. What we have or provide inside the innovation hub? First of all, there are some programs and initiatives falls under the innovation hub. Firstly, we provide digital advisory and study where we consult a government entity in terms of digital transformation agenda, as well as enriching the digital content with the latest digital study. At the same time, one of the success story is the training program, which is called Kudratik. We have trained more than 400 employees among whether they are professional or executive employees in different government entities. At the same time, we are providing awards and digital competitiveness program to incentivize government entity to reshape their digital solutions and products to their end user. At the same time, we provide innovation and experience design, and lastly, emerging technology program to make some proof of concept of the latest technology and examine that in collaboration with the government entities to see to what extent the technology can bring digital solution for different government entities. Secondly, we provide some labs and spaces. These labs include design studio, usability lab, learning experience lab, emerging technology lab, as well as experiment or ex-reality lab. For example, in the learning experience, we are observing the current tools and techniques being provided as learning techniques, and we reshape those techniques inside the observation room, as well as in the emerging technology lab, we are examining to what extent some emerging technologies, for example, digital twin can play a vital role when it comes to the digital transformation and innovation. Now let’s talk about our initiative that have been recently launched by digital government authority, which is digital inclusivity program. As you can see, before we start, there is a need for such initiative. More than 1.6 million elder population, which equals to 4.8 of the total population, is of 35 million, and this number is expected to increase by 11% in 2023. At the same time, 1.4 million people with disability in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which is equal to 4.2% of the total population of 35 millions. Some examples of those disability include cognitive impairments, mobility impairments, visual impairments, and other physical difficulties and hearing impairments. So because of that, the digital government authority have launched the digital inclusivity program to advance the government excellence in the digital inclusivity and accessibility of government services. It provides essential tools and enablers to support digital integration and foster innovation in the delivery of government services. And there are a couple of things I would like to highlight here. Firstly, what we mean by inclusiveness is to ensure the independency and ease of use of digital services for everyone, while inclusiveness aims not to digitize the services, but rather to ensure they are designed to include everyone. The objective of digital inclusivity program includes increasing the independence rate of users in accessing government services by designing services that are accessible and easy to use for all groups, including elderly and persons with disability. And secondly, aligning with the accessibility standard means making sure that the digital services and platform follow recognized guidelines like WCAG to ensure they are usable for everyone, including people with disability. Thirdly, humanizing the service experience for the sake of providing accessible services to everyone. and Ms. Bayan Alghuraybi, Dr. Areej Alfaraj, Ms. Bayan Alghuraybi, Dr. Areej Alfaraj, Ms. Bayan Alghuraybi, Dr. Areej Alfaraj, Ms. Bayan Alghuraybi, Dr. Areej Alfaraj, Ms. Bayan Alghuraybi, Dr. Areej Alfaraj, Ms. Bayan Alghuraybi, Dr. Areej Alfaraj, Ms. Bayan Alghuraybi, Dr. Areej Alfaraj, Ms. Bayan Alghuraybi, Dr. Areej Alfaraj, Ms. Bayan Alghuraybi, Dr. Areej Alfaraj, Ms. Bayan Alghuraybi, Mr. Fawaz Alanazi and Ms. Bayan Alghuraybi, 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. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, this is Adil Hussain from Norwegian Digitalization Agency and the Norwegian Authority for Universal

Audience: Design of ICT in other part of the world. So, the term used is digital accessibility and digital inclusiveness. But in Norway, we use the term universal design and that’s why we have authority for universal design of ICT Norway. So, my question is about, do you have, I have actually three questions. Then question one is regulatory authority that regulate the businesses if they compliance with the national legislation. And my second question is about, you mentioned you are following WCAG standards and WCAG have like 78 requirements, 78 success criteria. So, how many of these requirements businesses are obliged to follow? My third question is like you mentioned, the legislation only applies to public sector bodies. So, in Saudi Arabia, I see it’s a sixth rank in the UN e-government index. So, my third question is why not private sectors are included? And maybe I have one more question. It’s about, you mentioned digital services. So, what kind of digital services the legislation applies to? Is it only websites or mobile applications or self-service machines, maybe digital documents like PDF, EPUBs or other documents? Thanks.

Fawaz Alanazi: Thank you. Let’s answer the first question about the regulations. Actually, there is what we call it a platform. It’s called e-participation where people can send their feedback about the current services and products being provided by government entities. So, the end user with our citizens, visitors can reshape the future of the government in Saudi Arabia. So, in terms of regulations, the government, digital government authority works hand-in-hand with other government entities to ensure the latest legislation when it comes to digital transformation and innovation. The second question, I believe, or it was about the ranking of Saudi Arabia as the sixth in the UN. It’s a success story that we brought here to ensure collaboration. It’s all about collaboration. Digital government authority have worked with all government entities to ensure there is no one left behind when it comes to providing a digital service or delivery of digital services to the end user. I think the third question was about the naming

Audience: of whether it’s called accessibility or… My third question was actually the number of requirements businesses, public sector bodies have to follow. In WCAG, you mentioned WCAG. So, WCAG actually has 78 success criteria. So, how many requirements public sector bodies in Saudi have to follow? And fourth question was why the legislation not applies to private sector bodies because, as you mentioned, Saudi Arabia ranks sixth in the UN e-government ranking. So, because I know that private sector… private sector, they also develop services that government supply again to their citizens. So, that’s why I’m asking question why it don’t apply to private sector. Two

Fawaz Alanazi: questions, basically. I got it. For the private sectors, actually, we have an initiative called SADF, a digital government authority, which includes the PP or three PP, where there is a collaboration between government entities and private sectors to design a digital service for the government entity or on behalf of government entities by the private sectors. So, there is an initiative. We have it. It’s called SADF for such goal. For the requirements, as far as I know, we are following precisely the WCAG standards for the time being. Thank you. The question is, how do you see the experience of digital exclusiveness lab? And how do the procedures start to reach the final product as an initiative? And then, in this context, is it considered one of the accelerators of the application of technology in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? Thank you. May God bless you, my brother Qusay. Thank you for your question. The experience, we may have exhibited the labs provided by the digital government authority to the government entities as a space to test the services and current products. We may even have exhibited the visionary lab. The visionary lab is where the observation, care and services and products are carried out for all government services. So, the request starts from the government side. They make the reservation to visit the center and test the current services available to them and examine the observation, testing environment inside these labs. In light of this, the final report will be shared on the current situation of the offerings of services and products and how they will be improved for the end users later on. I hope I answered your question. I think we don’t have another question. Thank you again for attending such session. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Importance of comprehensive digital inclusivity infrastructure and testing procedures

Speakers

– Fawaz Alanazi
– Audience

Arguments

Multiple specialized labs are available including design studio, usability lab, learning experience lab, and emerging technology lab for testing and development

Labs serve as testing spaces for government entities, with reservation-based visits and comprehensive reporting on service improvements

Questions about lab experience procedures and role as technology accelerator in Saudi Arabia

Summary

Both the presenter and audience members recognize the value and importance of having dedicated laboratory facilities for testing and improving digital inclusivity. The audience’s detailed questions about lab operations demonstrate engagement with and validation of the infrastructure approach.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

Need for regulatory framework and standards compliance in digital accessibility

Speakers

– Fawaz Alanazi
– Audience

Arguments

The digital inclusivity program aims to ensure independence and ease of use of digital services for everyone, following WCAG accessibility standards

The program focuses on increasing user independence, aligning with accessibility standards, and humanizing service experiences

Questions raised about regulatory authority for business compliance, specific WCAG requirements implementation, and why private sector isn’t included in legislation

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge the importance of following established accessibility standards like WCAG and having proper regulatory frameworks. The audience’s technical questions about implementation details show agreement with the need for standards-based approaches.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Similar viewpoints

Both recognize the importance of involving multiple stakeholders (citizens, private sector, government) in digital service delivery and the need for comprehensive regulatory approaches that extend beyond just public sector entities.

Speakers

– Fawaz Alanazi
– Audience

Arguments

Response indicates collaboration through e-participation platform for citizen feedback and SADF initiative for public-private partnerships in digital services

Questions raised about regulatory authority for business compliance, specific WCAG requirements implementation, and why private sector isn’t included in legislation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both acknowledge that digital inclusivity initiatives serve broader strategic purposes beyond just compliance, acting as drivers for overall technological advancement and social development.

Speakers

– Fawaz Alanazi
– Audience

Arguments

Digital Inclusity Program for Elderly and People with Disabilities – Saudi Arabia has 1.6 million elderly (4.8% of population) and 1.4 million people with disabilities (4.2% of population) who need accessible digital services

Questions about experience of digital exclusiveness lab, procedures from start to final product, and whether it’s considered a technology accelerator in Saudi Arabia

Topics

Human rights | Development

Unexpected consensus

International benchmarking and comparison of digital accessibility approaches

Speakers

– Fawaz Alanazi
– Audience

Arguments

Saudi Arabia’s Digital Transformation and Government Rankings – Saudi Arabia ranks highly in global digital government indexes, including first regionally in ESCOA and third globally in Government Tech Maturity Index

Questions raised about regulatory authority for business compliance, specific WCAG requirements implementation, and why private sector isn’t included in legislation

Explanation

The unexpected consensus emerged around the value of international comparison and learning from global best practices. The Norwegian audience member’s detailed technical questions and the presenter’s positive reception of international ranking achievements show mutual appreciation for cross-border knowledge sharing in digital accessibility approaches.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed strong consensus around the fundamental importance of digital inclusivity infrastructure, standards-based approaches to accessibility, and multi-stakeholder collaboration. Both the presenter and audience members demonstrated shared understanding of the technical and regulatory complexities involved in implementing comprehensive digital accessibility programs.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with constructive engagement. The audience’s detailed technical questions indicated validation of the approach rather than disagreement, and the presenter’s responses showed openness to international comparison and learning. This consensus suggests strong potential for international collaboration and knowledge sharing in digital accessibility initiatives, with implications for broader adoption of similar comprehensive approaches globally.

Different viewpoints

Terminology and regulatory approach for digital accessibility

Speakers

– Fawaz Alanazi
– Audience

Arguments

The program focuses on increasing user independence, aligning with accessibility standards, and humanizing service experiences

Questions raised about regulatory authority for business compliance, specific WCAG requirements implementation, and why private sector isn’t included in legislation

Summary

The audience member from Norway highlighted differences in terminology (digital accessibility vs universal design) and questioned the regulatory framework’s scope and enforcement mechanisms, while the Saudi presenter focused on their current approach without addressing these regulatory gaps

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Scope of digital inclusivity legislation coverage

Speakers

– Fawaz Alanazi
– Audience

Arguments

Response indicates collaboration through e-participation platform for citizen feedback and SADF initiative for public-private partnerships in digital services

Questions raised about regulatory authority for business compliance, specific WCAG requirements implementation, and why private sector isn’t included in legislation

Summary

The audience questioned why private sector is excluded from digital accessibility legislation despite Saudi Arabia’s high e-government ranking, while the Saudi response focused on voluntary partnerships rather than mandatory compliance for private entities

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Unexpected differences

International terminology and approach differences

Speakers

– Fawaz Alanazi
– Audience

Arguments

The digital inclusivity program aims to ensure independence and ease of use of digital services for everyone, following WCAG accessibility standards

Questions raised about regulatory authority for business compliance, specific WCAG requirements implementation, and why private sector isn’t included in legislation

Explanation

The Norwegian audience member’s emphasis on ‘universal design’ terminology versus Saudi Arabia’s ‘digital inclusivity’ approach revealed unexpected international differences in conceptual frameworks for the same goals, suggesting varying national approaches to accessibility policy

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The main disagreements centered around regulatory framework comprehensiveness, private sector inclusion, and specific implementation details of accessibility standards

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement level with significant implications – the questions raised by the international audience member highlighted potential gaps in Saudi Arabia’s regulatory approach, particularly regarding private sector compliance and specific technical requirements, which could affect the overall effectiveness of digital inclusivity initiatives

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both recognize the importance of involving multiple stakeholders (citizens, private sector, government) in digital service delivery and the need for comprehensive regulatory approaches that extend beyond just public sector entities.

Speakers

– Fawaz Alanazi
– Audience

Arguments

Response indicates collaboration through e-participation platform for citizen feedback and SADF initiative for public-private partnerships in digital services

Questions raised about regulatory authority for business compliance, specific WCAG requirements implementation, and why private sector isn’t included in legislation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both acknowledge that digital inclusivity initiatives serve broader strategic purposes beyond just compliance, acting as drivers for overall technological advancement and social development.

Speakers

– Fawaz Alanazi
– Audience

Arguments

Digital Inclusity Program for Elderly and People with Disabilities – Saudi Arabia has 1.6 million elderly (4.8% of population) and 1.4 million people with disabilities (4.2% of population) who need accessible digital services

Questions about experience of digital exclusiveness lab, procedures from start to final product, and whether it’s considered a technology accelerator in Saudi Arabia

Topics

Human rights | Development

Key takeaways

Saudi Arabia has achieved significant digital government rankings globally, including 1st regionally in ESCOA and 3rd globally in Government Tech Maturity Index, supporting Vision 2030 goals

The Digital Government Authority established in 2021 operates an innovation hub with multiple specialized labs and programs, including the successful Kudratik training program that has trained 400+ government employees

Digital inclusivity is a critical need in Saudi Arabia with 1.6 million elderly (4.8% of population) and 1.4 million people with disabilities (4.2% of population) requiring accessible digital services

The digital inclusivity program focuses on ensuring independence and ease of use for all users, following WCAG accessibility standards and humanizing service experiences

Government entities can reserve and utilize the digital inclusiveness labs for testing services and products, receiving comprehensive reports on improvements needed for end users

Collaboration between government and private sector exists through initiatives like SADF and public-private partnerships for digital service development

Resolutions and action items

Government entities can make reservations to visit and test their services in the digital inclusiveness labs

Final reports will be shared with government entities on current service status and improvement recommendations

Continued collaboration through e-participation platform for citizen feedback on government services

Unresolved issues

Specific number of WCAG requirements (out of 78 success criteria) that Saudi public sector bodies must follow was not clearly answered

Why private sector legislation compliance is not mandated despite Saudi Arabia’s high e-government ranking remains unclear

Scope of digital services covered by legislation (websites, mobile apps, self-service machines, digital documents) was not specified

Details about regulatory authority mechanisms for ensuring business compliance were not fully explained

Suggested compromises

None identified

So, the term used is digital accessibility and digital inclusiveness. But in Norway, we use the term universal design and that’s why we have authority for universal design of ICT Norway.

Speaker

Adil Hussain (Norwegian Digitalization Agency)

Reason

This comment is insightful because it introduces a comparative international perspective and highlights how different countries conceptualize the same fundamental challenge. The distinction between ‘digital accessibility/inclusiveness’ versus ‘universal design’ represents different philosophical approaches – one focusing on accommodation and the other on inherent design principles that work for everyone from the start.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from a purely Saudi-focused presentation to a more comparative, international dialogue. It established a framework for cross-cultural learning and prompted deeper questions about implementation approaches, regulatory frameworks, and scope of coverage.

WCAG have like 78 requirements, 78 success criteria. So, how many of these requirements businesses are obliged to follow?… why not private sectors are included?

Speaker

Adil Hussain

Reason

This series of questions is particularly thought-provoking because it challenges the scope and depth of Saudi Arabia’s digital inclusivity initiative. By asking about specific compliance requirements and private sector inclusion, it exposes potential gaps in coverage and implementation that could limit the program’s overall effectiveness.

Impact

These questions forced the presenter to address practical implementation challenges and revealed some limitations in the current approach. The questions about private sector inclusion particularly highlighted a significant gap, as private companies often develop services used by government entities, creating potential accessibility bottlenecks.

what we mean by inclusiveness is to ensure the independency and ease of use of digital services for everyone, while inclusiveness aims not to digitize the services, but rather to ensure they are designed to include everyone.

Speaker

Fawaz Alanazi

Reason

This distinction is philosophically important as it clarifies that digital inclusivity isn’t just about making services digital, but about ensuring digital services are inherently accessible. This represents a mature understanding that technology alone doesn’t solve accessibility challenges – intentional inclusive design does.

Impact

This comment established the conceptual foundation for the entire discussion and helped frame the Saudi approach as being focused on design principles rather than just technological implementation. It set the stage for more nuanced questions about how this philosophy translates into practice.

Overall assessment

The key comments fundamentally transformed what began as a straightforward presentation into a more complex, internationally-informed dialogue about digital inclusivity approaches. Adil Hussain’s interventions were particularly impactful, introducing comparative perspectives that challenged the presenters to think beyond their national context and address practical implementation gaps. His questions about private sector inclusion, specific compliance requirements, and terminology differences elevated the discussion from descriptive to analytical, forcing deeper examination of policy choices and their implications. The presenter’s philosophical distinction about inclusiveness provided important conceptual grounding, but the international perspective revealed areas where the Saudi approach might be strengthened, particularly regarding private sector engagement and comprehensive regulatory frameworks.

What is the regulatory framework for enforcing digital accessibility compliance in businesses and public sector bodies in Saudi Arabia?

Speaker

Adil Hussain (Norwegian Digitalization Agency)

Explanation

Understanding the enforcement mechanisms is crucial for ensuring actual implementation of accessibility standards rather than just guidelines

How many of the 78 WCAG success criteria are public sector bodies in Saudi Arabia obligated to follow?

Speaker

Adil Hussain (Norwegian Digitalization Agency)

Explanation

This clarifies the specific scope and depth of accessibility requirements that organizations must meet

Why doesn’t the digital accessibility legislation apply to private sector organizations in Saudi Arabia?

Speaker

Adil Hussain (Norwegian Digitalization Agency)

Explanation

Given that private sectors often develop services for government use and Saudi Arabia’s high e-government ranking, understanding this gap is important for comprehensive digital inclusion

What specific types of digital services does the accessibility legislation cover (websites, mobile apps, self-service machines, digital documents like PDFs, EPUBs)?

Speaker

Adil Hussain (Norwegian Digitalization Agency)

Explanation

Defining the scope of covered digital services is essential for organizations to understand their compliance obligations

How can the digital inclusiveness lab experience be leveraged as an accelerator for technology application in Saudi Arabia?

Speaker

Qusay (implied from Arabic question)

Explanation

Understanding the broader impact and scalability of the lab’s work could help maximize its contribution to national digital transformation goals

Summary

This discussion focused on sovereignty and interoperable digital identity in developing countries, particularly within Africa, as part of a workshop at the Internet Governance Forum in Lisbon. The session brought together representatives from various organizations including the OpenID Foundation, CityHub, AFICTA (Africa ICT Alliance), and government officials from Nigeria and Benin, along with experts from Norway and Japan.

The speakers emphasized that digital identity is critical for closing the digital divide and enabling economic development across Africa. Dr. Jimson Olufuye from AFICTA highlighted how digital identity connects to the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) goals and the Global Digital Compact, stressing that “if you cannot identify anybody, it means the person does not really exist” in terms of digital inclusion. Representatives from Benin and Nigeria shared concrete examples of their national digital identity implementations, with Nigeria’s NIMSI system integrating national identity numbers across banking, telecommunications, education, and government services, while Benin’s platform enables free movement within ECOWAS countries.

Technical experts from CityHub and the OpenID Foundation discussed the complexity of transitioning from physical to digital identity documents while maintaining security and privacy properties. They emphasized the need for collaboration between public and private sectors, standardization efforts, and respect for national sovereignty in policy frameworks. The Norwegian representative shared experiences from Nordic-Baltic cooperation, highlighting challenges in cross-border identity recognition even among similar countries.

Key themes included the importance of meeting countries at their level of digital readiness, establishing trust frameworks for cross-border interoperability, addressing data sovereignty concerns, and bridging the digital divide through affordable technology and digital literacy programs. The discussion concluded with calls for concrete pilot projects and continued intersessional work to advance regional digital identity integration, particularly supporting the African Continental Free Trade Area objectives.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital Identity Infrastructure and Interoperability**: The workshop focused extensively on building sustainable, interoperable digital identity systems that can work across borders while maintaining security and privacy. Speakers discussed the technical challenges of transitioning from physical documents to digital credentials while preserving their essential properties and trust mechanisms.

– **Regional Cooperation and Cross-Border Implementation**: Significant attention was given to regional initiatives, particularly in Africa through ECOWAS and the African Union framework, as well as Nordic-Baltic cooperation. The discussion emphasized meeting countries “where they are” in terms of digital readiness and creating pilot programs between neighboring countries to test cross-border interoperability.

– **Sovereignty and Data Protection**: A central theme was balancing digital identity interoperability with national sovereignty and data protection. Speakers emphasized the importance of keeping data within national or regional boundaries, respecting local laws and regulations, and ensuring that cross-border systems don’t compromise national control over citizen data.

– **Practical Use Cases and Implementation**: The workshop highlighted concrete applications of digital identity systems, including education credentials, banking services, healthcare access, and travel documents. Examples from Nigeria’s NIN system, Benin’s “It’s Me” card, Japan’s student railway discount system, and Norway’s cross-border services demonstrated real-world implementations.

– **Bridging the Digital Divide and Ensuring Inclusion**: Discussion addressed challenges of digital literacy, internet access, affordable devices, and energy infrastructure, particularly in rural African populations. Speakers emphasized the need for digital identity systems to be inclusive and not leave behind populations lacking digital access or literacy.

## Overall Purpose:

The workshop aimed to explore how to achieve sovereignty-respecting, interoperable digital identity systems, particularly for developing countries. The goal was to share best practices, identify practical next steps for intersessional work, and demonstrate how organizations like AFICTA and CityHub could collaborate to advance digital identity infrastructure that supports economic development, regional integration, and citizen services while maintaining national sovereignty.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, characterized by mutual respect and shared learning among international participants. Speakers were enthusiastic about sharing their experiences and genuinely interested in learning from others’ implementations. The tone was professional yet accessible, with technical experts making complex concepts understandable. There was a strong sense of urgency and optimism about the potential for digital identity to transform citizen services and regional cooperation, balanced with realistic acknowledgment of the significant technical, policy, and infrastructure challenges that remain to be addressed.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Naohiro Fujie** – Chair of the OpenID Foundation Japan, working group co-chair of OpenID Foundation Global focusing on identity verification, supports Japanese government and educational institutes in digitalizing certificates and IDs

– **Kossi Amessinou** – From Ministry of Economy and Finance in Benin, works on private sector monitoring and support, former Director of ACT in Benin Development Ministry

– **Tor Alvik** – Subject Director in the Agency for Public Management and e-Government for Norway, works for the Norwegian Digitalization Agency

– **Audience** – Online participant/questioner

– **Jimson Olufuye** – CEO of Contemporary Consulting (ICT firm based in Abuja, Nigeria), Chair of the Advisory Council of the Africa ICT Alliance (AFICTA), Founder and Foundation Chair

– **Debora Comparin** – Technical Director of the Secure Identity Alliance, co-founder of CityHub, works on standardization and technical specifications for digital identity interoperability

– **Abisoye Coker Adusote** – Director General of the National Identity Management Commission (NIMSI), Nigeria, Engineer

– **Moderator** – Gail Hodges, Executive Director of the OpenID Foundation, co-organizer of CityHub

**Additional speakers:**

– **Stéphanie de Labriole** – Executive Director and Senior Program Manager at Alfecta, served as moderator for online participants

# Workshop Report: Sovereignty and Interoperable Digital Identity in Developing Countries

## Executive Summary

This workshop, held as part of the Internet Governance Forum in Lisbon, was co-organized by CityHub and the Africa ICT Alliance (AFICTA) in partnership. The session brought together international experts to examine digital identity, sovereignty, and interoperability challenges, with particular focus on developing countries in Africa.

The discussion featured representatives from Nigeria’s National Identity Management Commission (NIMC), Benin’s Ministry of Economy and Finance, Norway’s Digitisation Agency, Japan’s OpenID Foundation, and various organizations working on digital identity standards. The workshop included interactive audience participation through Mentimeter polls and online Q&A, with Stephanie de Labriole serving as online moderator.

Key outcomes included commitments to establish working groups for policy mapping, implement pilot programs between neighboring countries, and continue intersessional work on technical standards and use cases.

## Key Presentations and Discussions

### Opening Framework: Digital Identity and Inclusion

Dr. Jimson Olufuye, CEO of Contemporary Consulting and Chair of AFICTA, established the session’s foundation by emphasizing that “identity is critical to closing the digital divide, because if you cannot identify anybody, it means the person does not really exist.” He connected digital identity directly to WSIS goals and the Global Digital Compact, framing it as fundamental to preventing people from being left behind in digital transformation.

Gail Hodges from the OpenID Foundation, serving as moderator, explained CityHub’s role in working with over 45 countries on digital identity interoperability through three main working groups focusing on use cases (education, refugees, bank accounts), policy frameworks, and technology standards.

### National Implementation Examples

**Nigeria’s Comprehensive System**

Abisoye Coker Adusote, Director General of Nigeria’s NIMC, presented the country’s integrated approach where National Identity Numbers (NIN) are used across banking, telecommunications, education, and government services. The system supports practical applications including school feeding programs, student loan distribution, and census operations.

Nigeria’s approach addresses inclusion through government intervention programs and digital literacy initiatives. During enrollment drives, the system opens digital wallets for unbanked populations, ensuring financial inclusion alongside identity verification. Adusote emphasized the importance of biometric authentication and secure applications that enable individuals to protect their own data.

**Benin’s Regional Integration Model**

Dr. Kossi Amessinou from Benin’s Ministry of Economy and Finance presented the “It’s Me” card system enabling visa-free travel within ECOWAS. He also described the WURI project supported by the World Bank, which aims to facilitate regional integration through digital identity.

Amessinou strongly advocated for data sovereignty, stating that “data centres should be located within Africa to maintain data sovereignty,” reflecting concerns about maintaining control over citizen data and ensuring digital identity infrastructure serves African interests.

### Technical Challenges and International Perspectives

**Nordic Experience**

Tor Alvik from Norway’s Digitisation Agency shared experiences from Nordic-Baltic ICT cooperation that began in 2017. He highlighted that “the linkage of the identity you are coming from one country to the identity you have in the country providing the service is one of the main challenges we actually focus,” demonstrating that even technologically advanced countries with similar legal frameworks face fundamental interoperability challenges.

**Japan’s Digital Wallet Implementation**

Naohiro Fujie, Chair of the OpenID Foundation Japan, announced that Japan had “just yesterday” started providing national ID cards in Apple Wallet. He highlighted unique challenges in transitioning from physical to digital credentials, noting that “unlike physical documents, digital credentials have no difference between copy and original,” requiring new management policies for digital versions.

Fujie advocated for “starting with local standards whilst keeping global standards in mind,” emphasizing bottom-up development that respects local requirements while maintaining international interoperability potential.

### Privacy and Architecture Considerations

Debora Comparin, co-founder of CityHub and contributor to standardization work, raised important privacy considerations by comparing physical and digital documents. She noted that physical documents provide certain privacy properties – they cannot track users’ actions – and argued for maintaining these properties in digital systems.

The discussion addressed surveillance concerns from both government and private sectors. Interactive audience participation through Mentimeter polls explored questions about federated versus centralized systems and surveillance monitoring, with online participants contributing questions about balancing user privacy with fraud prevention.

## Infrastructure and Implementation Challenges

The workshop acknowledged significant practical challenges in achieving digital identity interoperability across Africa. Participants noted that some countries lack basic digital infrastructure, including reliable internet connectivity, sufficient energy infrastructure, and widespread digital literacy.

Adusote provided crucial insight: “There are countries that do not have the simple digital infrastructure. There is no data connectivity, and they have no energy or very little energy. There’s very little or no digital literacy awareness created.” This observation emphasized the need for graduated, flexible solutions that meet countries where they are in terms of digital readiness.

## Proposed Next Steps and Commitments

### Working Group Establishment

Participants committed to establishing working groups to identify gaps across sub-regions and regions, mapping trust frameworks and interoperability criteria. This would provide systematic assessment of readiness levels and identify champions across different African countries.

### Policy Mapping Initiative

Speakers committed to completing comprehensive policy mapping of regulations and legislation across countries before the next Internet Governance Forum, aiming to provide actionable frameworks for cross-border trust establishment.

### Pilot Program Implementation

The discussion identified specific pilot program opportunities between neighboring countries, including Nigeria-Cameroon, Nigeria-Niger, and Uganda-Kenya pairings. These pilots would test both technical interoperability and policy frameworks in real-world conditions.

### Intersessional Work Program

Participants emphasized maintaining momentum between IGF sessions through continued technical working groups, with broader community participation and regular progress reporting on use cases, policy frameworks, and technology standards.

## Key Consensus Areas

The workshop demonstrated strong agreement on several fundamental principles:

– Digital identity is essential for closing the digital divide and ensuring inclusion in digital transformation

– Data sovereignty and maintaining control over citizen data through appropriate legal frameworks and infrastructure placement is crucial

– Multi-stakeholder collaboration between government, private sector, technical community, and civil society is necessary

– Practical implementation through pilot programs and real-world use cases is needed rather than purely theoretical discussions

– Regional integration should leverage existing frameworks like ECOWAS and African Union initiatives

## Conclusion

The workshop established a foundation for continued international cooperation on digital identity interoperability, with concrete commitments for working groups, policy mapping, and pilot programs. The discussion balanced technical possibilities with practical constraints, emphasizing the need for solutions that respect sovereignty while enabling beneficial cross-border functionality.

The consensus on fundamental principles, combined with recognition of implementation challenges, provides a realistic framework for advancing digital identity interoperability in developing countries through graduated, collaborative approaches that prioritize inclusion and sovereignty.

Moderator: Substyptional, in знаешь du. … Great. So a warm welcome to Sovereignty and Interoperable Digital Identity in DLDC’s workshop here in the UNIGF in Lisbon, Norway. I am Gail Hodges, the Executive Director of the OpenID Foundation, a global open standards body that serves billions of users and millions of developers with identity standards. I’m also the co-organizer of CityHub, one of the co-hosts of the workshops today. It’s a personal delight to be here representing the OpenID Foundation, CityHub, and working in partnership with Alfecta. It’s quite serendipity that the IGF MAG has brought us together for this joint session just a few months before we started convening. We found that we have quite a lot in common with our Alfecta partners, and it’s a real pleasure to co-present with them today. I’m joined here by a very impressive group of speakers, including Dabar Kamparan, Technical Director of the Secure Identity Alliance and co-founder of the CityHub, Nahira Fujisan, Chair of the OpenID Foundation of Japan, Tor Alvik, the Subject Director in the Agency for Public Management and e-Government for Norway, as well as on my other side, Dr. Jimson Lafoyer, the CEO of Contemporary Consulting, Founder, Foundation Chair, and Chair of the Advisory Council of Alfecta, Dr. Kosi Amesinu, Private Sector Monitoring and Support, Ministry of the Economy and Finances in Benin, Director General and CEO of the National Identity Management Commission, NIMSI, Nigeria, Abisoy, Coker, Adesote. I will also have joining me a moderator for our online participants, Stéphanie de Labriole, Executive Director of the… Alfecta Senior Program Manager. I will invite all of our speakers to introduce themselves before they make their first comments. We have three objectives for our workshop session today. Our first is to surface different viewpoints on sovereignty and interoperable digital identity and DLDCs, why it’s important, where we are seeing successes today, and how to bring that success to all countries. We will also discuss the importance of the digital identity and DLDCs, and how to make them more inclusive and inclusive for all. We will also discuss the importance of the digital identity and DLDCs, and how to make them more inclusive for all. We will also discuss the importance of the digital identity and DLDCs, and how to bring that success to all countries. We will also explore how policymakers can leverage examples and shared experiences of successful interoperable digital identity implementations, and to inform and support of identity interoperability in Africa, ultimately enhancing economic activity and promoting regional integration. We also will get into what practical steps we can take as a community during our intersessional work before the next IGF. And we will look at how to make those steps more inclusive for all. And we will look at how the tools of CitiHub, the sustainable and interoperable digital identity project, how those tools can help in the context of the African free trade area proposal, and ensuring that those tools are safeguarding national sovereignty. We welcome audience participation in our workshop, and please do have your mobile phones to hand, because shortly we will bring up a QR code for you to participate in our first question. Actually, with that, I’m going to turn it over to Dr. Ngozi Okafor, who will be our moderator for this session. Thank you. Thank you so much, and thank you so much for having me here today. So, I’m going to go ahead and bring up a QR code for you to participate in our first question. Actually, with that, may I ask our technicians to please bring up the slide. You’re invited to scan the QR code and answer our first question, and all of these answers are wholly anonymous, which is our first question, and you can freeform type in your response, why is sovereignty and interoperable digital technology and digital transformation important to our society? And we will be taking you into this session today. I can see those in the room already picking up their phones and scanning the QR code. So as soon as we see those first answers coming in, we should see them pop up on the screen from both our online participants and those that are joining us in the room. We will use the same Mentimeter tool later on in this session, so this is a good way to make sure we’ve got it starting to work in advance. There you go. I see the first answer is coming through on national security. Identity, fundamental right, give it another moment, and then we’ll transition into our first set of speakers. Protection of critical and classified data, recognizing individuals in the digital world, protection, a lot of common themes, a lot of shared interests here, personal digital sovereignty. Okay so people can continue to answer the survey questions as they’re typing them in and we’ll take note of these responses as part of our rapporteur and our summary. So I think we can transition back to the holding slide and I’ll introduce our first speaker. Thank you very much. I’d like to introduce Dr. Jimson, the CEO of Contemporary Consulting, Founder and Foundation Chair, Chair to the Advisory Council of Alfecta. Dr. Jimson, can you kindly introduce yourself and elaborate on what Alfecta does and its roles in WSIS, the IGF, the Enhanced Corporation, and the Global Digital Compact?

Jimson Olufuye: Thank you, Gail. Good morning, everyone. both on site and online. It’s a pleasure to have you all here. My name again is Jimson Olufuye. I have the privilege of being the CEO of Contemporary Consulting, an ICT firm based in Abuja, Nigeria, to data centers, security, integration, and research. I’m also the Chair of the Advisory Council of the Africa ICT Alliance, AFICTA. AFICTA is a concerned private sector-led ICT alliance of ICT associations, companies, and individual professional stakeholders across Africa. We started off in 2012 with six countries in Africa, and today we’re in 43 African countries. Our vision is to fulfill the promise of the digital age for everyone in Africa. As a matter of fact, AFICTA is one of the outcomes of the WSIS. We’re fully engaged with our governments across Africa, engaged with UNECA, with AU, that’s African Union, and we’re also engaged at the CSTD, that is Commission for Science and Technology for Development, that oversee WSIS. So WSIS is about people-centered information society, wherein everyone will benefit from the great infrastructure we have in ICT. And we know that today ICT rules everything, internet basically. And so we are fully committed to ensuring that Africa takes its rightful place in terms of sovereignty, in terms of protection of its Assets. Assets in terms of identity. And these lines of WSIS Action Line 8, talking about cultural identity, other WSIS Action Lines about cyber security, about cooperation, collaboration, and about common purpose for development, especially the sustainable development goal. As we know, this is IGF, another outcome of the WSIS, and we also know about the Global Digital Compact. The Global Digital Compact is also an outcome of WSIS, because when the enhanced cooperation failed, in January 2018, by July, the Secretary General launched the high-level panel on digital interdependence, a digital cooperation led by Belinda Gates and Jack Ma. And that led eventually to the Summit of the Future last year. And that’s September 22nd. The world leaders, they met together and agreed to the Summit of the Future, the Pact of the Future, which has GDC, Global Digital Compact, as one of the outcomes. And it has five objectives. The first objective is about closing the digital divide. And we know identity is critical to closing the digital divide, because if you cannot identify anybody, it means the person does not really exist. And we’re talking about inclusivity. We’re talking about multi-stakeholder. We’re talking about nobody being left behind. So Objective 1 talks about bridging all the divides so that we can achieve the Sustainable Development Goal. And of course, Objective 2 is also there, about ensuring everybody benefits from the digital economy. Also human rights, Objective 3. Objective 4, talking about data governance, interoperable data governance. and also AI. The AI, data is king. So our data matters a lot and identity matters a lot. So we are really proud to be associated with CIDE, CIDE and the alliance collaboration. We are grateful to Mark that brought us together. I trust it’s going to be an enriching relationship and also we can see we have in this panel the government of Benin represented by Dr. Kofi and government of Nigeria in terms of data identity represented by Dr. Abisoye Coker. So this is kind of collaboration and we are proud of it and we want to continue to enrich it going forward. Now when we talk about sovereignties, about laws, appropriate laws that guide data, data of your citizens, protection of your data, this is very important. As someone that is in data ecosystem, in fact in Nigeria we are one of the data controllers so we know the importance of data. They need to protect it and so we believe strongly that sovereignty matters a lot. We need to ensure that our people trust us, that is trust the leadership, the government and also they can have liberty to conduct businesses, enjoy government services in terms of health, in terms of commerce, in terms of travels, immigration, identity generally. And so we are fully invested that is AFICTA and our members AFICTA in collaborating with all our government ages across Africa so that we can all fulfill the vision of WSIS, the expectation of GDC and the hope for every African.

Moderator: Thank you very much. Thank you so much Dr. Jimson. Just to kind of quote you back to say that identity is critical to closing the digital divide is clearly a key theme for what brings us together today in which I think has brought many of our audience members to this particular conversation. We certainly don’t wish to see anyone be left behind, so thank you very much for those comments. I’ll turn now to Dr. Kosi Emesenu from Benin. Dr. Kosi, please do introduce yourself as well, and please elaborate on what you see from Benin’s perspective on best practices in policy and the direction you hope to see emerge in Benin and across Africa.

Kossi Amessinou: Okay, it’s okay. Thank you. I’m Kosi Emesenu. I come from Benin. I’m from Ministry of Economy and Finance in Benin. I was Director of ACT in Benin Development Ministry before, at the Ministry of Economy. Today, I’m working to support and monitor private sector process in Ministry of Economy in Benin. We are talking about identity today. When we are talking about identity, interoperability of digital identity is a challenge for us. This challenge is shared by all the community ecosystems today, all over the world. Biometric documents, for example, particularly digital identity can confer the win-to-win benefit to countries such as good governance, balancing spatial planification, financing inclusion, to provide to people. Women employment, we can take care of this very well. Better social protection can be done when we take care of identity very well. We’ve provided in Benin one platform called East Road when we put our interoperability process inside. In this platform, we have one key called FID for each people in Benin. With that key, we can have two kinds of cards. You have one card called It’s Me. Every people can have it for free. We can have also biometric card provided with ECOWAS to do all thing of activities and also travel anywhere in ECOWAS space. Do your business without visa process. When we talk about digital, we know that it’s important to talk also about the challenge of security. Security because identity have impact to our global digital economy and environment locally. It’s important for us that digital identification can reflect the legal identity of people. If we don’t have legal identity of people, it will be very difficult for us to know who is outside the information we have online. In Benin, World Bank help us with project one called WURI project. WURI project come and consolidate the achievement of the process start by government alone, provide the secure personal identification for each person in Benin. With WURI project today, government facilitate e-commerce, work on securing digital ecosystem. Anywhere in Benin today, people can have one space where they can receive their card. We also decide any African can enter Benin without visa today. For that, we need to have person who are coming for us receive some ID when we enter the country. When we enter, we can identify you by your visa process for free. Visa is for free, you can enter, you can identify you from that. But also, this card semoir received by people can help them to pay SIM card, can help them to go to hospital and identify the SIM and have all the service inside. This card semoir, my colleague use it for example to go to Ghana, this card semoir. You can check it, you can control the QR code on it and know all your identification. We are looking for this kind of process for all Africa. If it is possible for African Union for example, I work to let all the African people have their ID across Africa before the end of 2026, for example. We will have possibility for each African to enter Benin without visa process. This will be something very good and we are looking for that. That is also the African we want. It is important for us today to work on the challenge of security, this identification call. This challenge, for this challenge we put in the process now in Benin, one agency will work on digital space monitoring. Every day we monitor digital space to see what level of security challenge you have today. Thank you very much.

Moderator: Wonderful. Thank you so much, Dr. Kosi. Just to kind of play back a little bit of what I heard there at the end, the same walk card really bringing to life, you know, for individuals within Benin, how to access their SIM card, how to access their healthcare services, how to allow that movement of people across jurisdictions like in Ghana, and that serving as a model for what could happen more broadly within Africa. And obviously then by extension, the rest of the world, you know, part of our conversation between Afekta and CitiHub. Really important for that financial inclusion. And also bringing to life the importance of that foundational civil registry capability that countries have to empower their residents and empower the movement of people. So thank you for those thoughtful comments. I’d now like to move on to Director General Abisoy Odusote from the Nigerian government and the lead for NIMSI. May I ask you, DG Abisoye, to kindly introduce yourself and your role with NIMSI and to elaborate on what Nigeria is doing on both identity, civil registry, digital identity, your work within Africa, and your thoughts about global interoperability of digital identity.

Abisoye Coker Adusote: Good morning, everyone. I am Engineer Abisoye Coker-Adusote, the Director General of the National Identity Management Commission. Thank you, Gil, for your questions. Just to quickly give you a summary update on what Nigeria has been able to achieve so far, the NIMSI can shed more light on the tangible progress which has been made in establishing foundational identity which not only supports national development but is increasingly interoperable across the sectors and borders. So, the system that we have designed powers key priorities around social protection, tax reform, financial inclusion, and digital public services. We have successfully integrated the national identity number with the bank verification number which means that every single person that is classified as banked in the population has an account number tied to their NIN. We’ve also been able to achieve the same with the same NIN linkage. We’ve also been able to achieve that linkage with the National Population Commission which means that at birth, every citizen is now able to get issued a NIN from birth. Initially, it used to be from the age of 16, but now it’s from birth. So, we’re able to do that collaboration successfully with UNICEF and the National Population Commission. What we are also doing at the moment is the first of its kind in Nigeria which is the biometric enabled census. So, where we sort of ensure that we don’t have duplicates. in terms of collecting information. They can rely on the NIN to be able to verify the identity of voters or the voting population in Nigeria. We’ve also been able to ensure that the children that are enrolling in the school can definitely get their school feeding through biometric authentication via the NIN. So there are a lot of government programs we’re working on. One is the Credit Cop, which means providing credit access to Nigerians and ensuring that they are biometrically verified via the NIN. We’ve also done another partnership with SMEDAN, which deals with the small-medium enterprises in Nigeria, where we’re able to ensure that MSMEs who have been granted loans or given grants are able to verify their identity through the NIN. For the Joint Admissions and Magic Relation Board, which is the examination that you have to sit to be able to go into a higher institution to pursue your further education, your NIN is required at that instance. So we have a lot of use cases across different ministries, departments and agencies where your NIN is required for you to be able to do what you need to do to be able to access any loans or to be able to further your education or to be able to pay your taxes. And the list is endless. Also, we have partnered with the NEL Fund, which gives student loans to youths that want to be in higher education also. So first of all, it’s kindly Nigerian Student Loan Service, so we’re very proud of Mr. President for being able to bring this vision to life. And you need your NIN so that we can avoid duplication of identity, prevent identity fraud. And I mean, that’s what the beauty of the NIN does. So it’s not just a number that just sits there, but it’s a number that enables you to access different services across government and also the private sector. So regarding the private sector, we also have health insurance. We have banks, we have telcos, we have fintechs, we have manufacturing companies, we have so many use cases around the use of the NIN. Another thing that we’ve been able to do successfully is to ensure continued integration and harmonization of all the sectoral IDs across the ministries, departments and agencies. One thing that Nigeria is very lucky about is that the government has the political will, so we have a president who understands the importance of identity, and so that puts us at an advantage of getting all of these things done. Regarding cross-border interoperability, I want to speak on something. So we had the first West African Economic Summit, which was held a week ago. The focus of that summit was about digital trade across the West African region, and we had quite a few of the presidents from ECOWAS turn up for the event. And one thing was key, that you definitely need digital identity, which is a catalyst for driving digital trade, because with the discussions around the free movement of people across borders, free movement of people and goods and services across borders, and it’s extremely important for us to note how major digital identity is in advancing the cause of digital trade. And we had a lot of conversations, and something stood out to me. It was very obvious that we need to meet each country state at their level of readiness. So there are countries that do not have the simple digital infrastructure. There is no data connectivity, and they have no energy or very little energy. There’s very little or no digital literacy awareness created. So the list is endless, and for us to be able to then obviously then identify. what the barriers are in each of these countries and then we’re able to address the real issues. If you look at the institutional frameworks that we have and if you’re also looking at the legal frameworks, data protection, for example, in Nigeria, our act went live in 2023, May of 2023. However, it does restrict cross-border interoperability, so which means within your state, your country state, you’re able to carry out, you know, your transactions, but then when it comes to cross-border, there’s nothing that points to that there. So I believe that we need to sort of have like a regional agreement based on data sovereignty and, you know, and trust that would sort of allow, you know, data protection acts across each region, allow the modification of their acts to be able to reflect cross-border interoperability. I think it’s very, very, very key because everyone’s obviously worried about data, you know, protecting, you know, the citizens’ data and also ensuring safety of their data and there are also issues around cyber security threat. So I’m sure that I think this happened like a week and a half or two weeks ago where we all witnessed 16 billion passports data breached globally. I mean, we had people like Apple, Google all affected, so I think that’s a real concern for everyone. It’s a huge problem, so we need to ensure that we reflect on this, but at the same time, we’ve got AFTA working, we’ve also got the African Union Digital Interoperability Framework that they’ve put together, so that needs to be adopted. I believe that also regarding cross-border interoperability, you must incorporate digital identity in payment design. It’s extremely important and Nigeria has been able to achieve that of recent. We have the Nigerian interbank settlement system called NIBS, where they have just successfully launched the national payment stack, which is part of the digital public infrastructure. um approach that we have in Nigeria and so that’s been integrated into our national identity management system and and that’s um that allows for cross-border interoperability. We also have the FinTechs have developed some applications too that also allows cross-border interoperability so we need to definitely focus on the digital identity part of things and meet states at the point of readiness for them. I also personally feel that with states that have already made a lot of progress like Nigeria we can definitely have a peering mechanism where we run out a pilot for you know a test pilot for the digital identity cross-border interoperability where we say we pick two member states and then say okay let’s let’s let’s run out this this pilot so we may do Uganda and Kenya or we may do you know Nigeria and Cameroon or Nigeria and Niger and any of the border countries around us I think that would help a great deal but trust frameworks are very key for interoperable IDs across borders, ethical standards for cross-border data sharing, safeguarding sobriety by ensuring ID protocols respect national laws because we all have different laws also political is very very important I can’t stress that enough because there are governments in Africa that have a lot of setbacks there’s political instability and conflicts in their areas so there needs to be a lot that needs to be done across but if I’m to speak to what I mean regarding you know sustainable interoperable digital identity tools and after I think that if we leverage the after phase three and digital trade protocol I think it would help us a great deal to be able to integrate digital identity standards into the e-commerce and digital trade protocol I think I’m going to stop there for now thank you.

Moderator: DG Abisoye, thank you so much for those comments. Just to kind of recap a few key messages that I heard come up is meeting states where they are, recognizing that many jurisdictions have gaps, the importance of the regional agreements that are already emerging, both within ECOWAS as well as broadly across the African Union, the many use cases that Nigeria, for example, has already brought to life for your residents and the potential for that to continue to expand within Nigeria, but within those regional structures like ECOWAS, but also more broadly for Africans to benefit, and that pivotal role that digital identity plays in that transition. So thank you for that offer. Maybe we’ll hold you to it of reaching out the hand to your border countries and setting up those implementations that bring to life the cross-border experiences for your residents. So wonderful examples and great work happening there. I’d now like to transition to our next panel of speakers on the City Hub side, and I think we have some slides from Debora Comparin, so we can get those ready for her comments. Debora, could you kindly introduce yourself and some of the roles that you’re playing in progressing digital identity?

Debora Comparin: And elaborate on City Hub, what it’s seeking to accomplish, and how it’s going about delivering on its goals. Good morning, everyone. It’s, first of all, it’s really a pleasure to be here with you all today and speaking about definitely my favorite topic, that is digital identity. It’s really a passion of mine. I’ve been working on this for the past five years, and what I can say about myself when to introduce me is that I contribute to standardization work. So essentially, it means collaborating with the ecosystem and developing together technical standards, so technical specifications. that can help interoperability. But how hard can it be? So we have heard a lot this morning about the benefits and the social impact that digital identity infrastructure has. And when I, I was thinking to my younger self when, when five years ago I decided to enter into this space of digital identity completely unknown to me before, and I was wondering how hard can it be, right, to just build such digital identity infrastructure? And the answer is very. So I’m still here and there’s still a lot, a lot of work that needs to be done. So let me put that into perspective for a minute before I talk about CDIHUB. Here I like to refer back to physical documents, so digital. Shall I get closer to the mic? Can you hear me okay? Yeah, okay. I’m Italian, I like to move a lot, so bear with me. So I think that when we are talking about building a digital identity infrastructure, it would be very nice to go back, to go back to the physical documents and reflect on the properties of these physical documents that we want to digitalize. And it would be fantastic to maintain some of those properties. So this also is the complexity of the exercise. First of all, when, when you all arrive here, you probably show some, some form of document. So the first step is to digitalize this, this piece of paper or plastic. The second step that we ignore, because we do it every day, is when I prove my identity, I just hand it over to someone. So we need to be able to build these rails to hand this digital version of document. Abisoye Coker-Adusote I was here at IGF this morning and I gave my passport, my ID card. They cannot track my actions and my whereabouts, and I think this is also a very important property that we should keep in mind and maintain in the digital domain. You can also see that this is my document, so I’m the rightful owner of this document. I can’t just pass it over to Gail and she just easily uses it. So that’s the same thing, all these properties should be maintained. And it’s very hard. So there’s a lot of intelligent cryptography definitely behind this to make it happen and a lot of technical work. We are not there yet. There’s also trust that needs to happen. It’s not just about technology, it’s really about collaboration. Because these documents, the digital form, they have to cross borders. So it’s not just valid in my country, it should be valid everywhere I go, it should be understood and trusted, etc. And this is exactly why we created CityHub, because we understood the difficulty of doing this and we absolutely wanted to maintain these properties that I’ve been through with you, because it is about safeguards as well. So it is about preserving privacy and maintaining the security of citizens and individuals in the digital realm. Collectively at CityHub, we thought that it is about collaboration. There’s not a single organization or individual or bright mind in the world that can do it on their own. And so we pulled together an ecosystem of private sector, public sector, so government, research institutes, standard bodies, to collaborate and make this reality, make this vision a reality. This is what CityHub is about. And as you can see, I’m also very proud of this. It’s a new initiative. We started one year and a half ago, but a lot of work has been done. And so I will share with you a couple of slides so that you get a sense of what we have achieved together and what still remains to be done. And you’re most welcome to join us and to contribute. First of all, I heard about DG Abisoye when she said, meet countries where they are. That’s absolutely right. And this is absolutely the approach of CityHub. We don’t have the arrogance of thinking that we’re just going to sit somewhere and define what’s going to happen, how all this digital identity infrastructure should be built, and just go off and share our vision with the world. It’s really about hearing people, hearing about what are the difficulties locally in the different countries. And that’s what we’ve done. And so this is why it’s very important for CityHub that the very first year we spent our time traveling extensively, all of us, and hearing about the different perspectives from countries and the difficulties. And so these are what you see here in the slide, some of the summits in different continents that we’ve done in 18 months. And we’ve collected all the the feedback and the different perspectives and in reports that you can go to the City Hub website and you can download and I’m not here to I don’t have the time unfortunately to get into all the details but indeed there is a confirm a very different level of maturity in different regions but also different needs right. So collectively in all these different summits and in conference participations we have heard inputs, we have been engaging with over 45 countries so this is absolutely massive work and this is what informs the roadmap and the development of City Hub moving forward. I’m going to spend a few minutes to go through some of them what I think are the most important working groups so concrete deliverables that we are carrying forward right as we speak right now this all this work is live, it’s ongoing. First of all use cases, so when we talk about such a complex digital identity infrastructure we need to go back to the user story so what is this for and so we have studied different use cases and because it’s important again to listen to what is important we have prioritized so out of all the discussions we have selected what for the different countries and the different research institutes and multi-stakeholders engagement that we had was the most relevant and so this is what you see in the screen essentially are the top three that were selected by the community so it’s education, refugees and bank account so basically we studied how digital identity is relevant in each of these usages. Then policy, Again, it’s not just about technology, rails and digitalization and cryptography and all the tools that you can come up with. It’s really down to sovereignty of the country and the local rules and regulations that determine how digital identity should be used. So these countries have different perspectives. And so we have started a study of different legal, different regulations and policy at country level. So we’re studying over 10 countries. And we are compiling all these regulations and deriving from it how can we achieve interoperability while respecting the local decisions. This is very important. Again, we’re not here to impose anything. We’re here to listen, to understand and to build rails and to make sure that this digital identity gets done while respecting local regulation. And finally, there’s my favorite, the technology work stream. And this is really about all the tools that I’ve mentioned earlier, how to get this done. It’s very much technical work. So I will not dig into the details now. But this is what I wanted to share with you today. And most of all, if there’s one thing that you can retain by my speech is that you’re most welcome to contribute. It’s really important that we all work together. This infrastructure is for the benefits of all of us individually first as citizens of a country. So I think this is a very important message to take home. So your involvement, whether you are a cryptographer or an engineer or a policymaker or a researcher, it’s very important.

Moderator: Thank you. Thank you so much, Debra. I think your message is to just explain in clear language the transition from physical documents into digital versions of those documents and the importance of maintaining the properties of what you’re doing. residents and what people expect from their digital identity credentials without sacrificing the trust or giving away more information than they need to and doing so in a way that can be secure and trusted and using some fancy cryptography behind the scenes but at the end of the day it’s around those simple user experiences like those champion use cases you gave around education, opening a bank account, and managing the experiences for displaced people that those are really important but the safeguards that we put around that is going to take a lot of engagement and your key message to make sure that the community felt welcome to participate in the City Hub work because it’s going to take a very broad community of subject matter experts and those willing to put the time in to solve for making this cross-border interoperability a reality. So thank you so much. I’m now going to turn to Nahiro Fujie-san, the Chair of the Open ID Foundation Japan, who’s also been very actively involved in hosting the City Hub in Tokyo and works very closely with the Japanese government on this transition from physical identity credentials to digital identity credentials. So please, Fujie-san, could you elaborate on your role, introduce yourself, and share some of the experience in Japan. Okay, good morning everyone.

Naohiro Fujie: I’m Nahiro Fujie from the Open ID Foundation Japan as a chair and also I’m a working group co-chair of Open ID Foundation Global and especially focusing on identity verification which is working groups called Ikebashi and Identity Assurance and also always I support the Japanese government and the educational institute in Japan to digitize their certificates or IDs. So that’s my role in Japan. So, today I express my opinion from the perspective of how to digitalize this identity and have interoperability within a country as well as internationally and globally. So, as you know, Japan is an island nation and there is no border with any other countries, but we have over 120 million population in Japan. We have our own economic sphere in our country, so everyone does not understand what’s the importance of interoperability with other countries so far. But I think that the idea of starting from small to achieve big and huge is very important in this context of interoperability. So, I mean that the most important thing for each country is to define its own standards in accordance with their own law or regulations while keeping global standards in mind. And then to using standard technology like bridging to other countries using standard technology and it brings us global interoperability. So, today I’d like to talk about the situation in Japan in three aspects. First one is education. And the second one is national ideas as Gail mentioned earlier. And the third one is cross-border initiatives including city hub or some kinds of scenarios. So, as I mentioned earlier, To start from small is quite important for us, especially in Japan, I guess. So, we started to define the architecture framework for digital credential with Keio University, one of the biggest universities in Japan. So, to digitalize their identity or certificate Why I say digitalized? Currently, especially educational certificates in Japan are almost all paper-based. So, we have to digitalize, but we have to consider about how to manage the credential itself in a digital manner. So, we started to define the management rule of each type of credentials in education world with Keio University. Sorry, this paper is already published on the internet, but it’s written in Japanese only. So, we are trying to translate into English right now, but so far we provide this in Japanese. For example, we are targeting, we currently have several type of credentials like passport or mobile driver’s license or enrollment certificate in paper manner. And also, in several scenarios, we can use a copy of credential to prove or to verify my identity by some relying parties. But in digital way, there’s no difference between copy and original. So, we have to consider what the copy means in digital manner, and also we have to consider about the deliverable of credential in the digital manner. It doesn’t exist in the physical world, but in the digital world, we have to consider that. So, we classify three types of credentials. First one is original, and the second one is duplicate, which means a copy of the digital. And the third one is delivered credential, I mentioned earlier. So, we need to define the management policy aligned to each type of credential that is required to manage them. Also, we started to, in this scenario, especially for education area, we started to work with National Institute of Informatics, we call NIAI, which is settled under the Ministry of Education in Japan. It’s an educational institute in collaboration with many universities right now. And currently, NIAI operates an academic federation called Gakumin in Japan, and it has interoperability with other countries’ universities, like in the EU or African countries and the United States as well. But they are using, right now, SAMO protocol right now. So, we have to move on to the next level of technology, like how to use a wallet, like that. So, we started to define the framework structure of academic credential using a wallet model. This is the second activity in Japan, to define local standards first in Japan. And the third one is, I’d like to explain about the government-led initiative and the POC project in Japan. This is a quite interesting project. Before moving into this scenario, I think the most important thing for Japan right now is to achieve a situation where digital credentials are being used domestically. Because, as I mentioned, we do not use digital credentials right now. Because we have only paper-based credentials right now. So, as Debora said, it’s important to use digital-based credentials for students. So, the challenge in this project is to utilize national ID cards as well as enrollment certificates which universities issue to the students. And get them to the station, and the students get a discount ticket to ride a train. This is a demonstration use case. From your left side, when students consider to plan a trip to somewhere, the students get a ticket for students. And to buy the ticket from the railway company, the students have to present that they are actually students. Using a digital credential which universities issue to the students, as well as the students have to be verified by the national, like Japan, the government. So, after that, the students have to present the national ID card in a digital manner. After that, they can get a discount ticket and go anywhere. It’s a quite interesting scenario in Japan because they do not have digital identity right now. It’s a good way to give some experience to students to utilize the digital-based credentials. Also, this is quite big news for especially Japanese people. Just yesterday, the Japanese government started to provide a national ID card in the Apple Wallet. Because over 60% of Japanese nationals use iPhone, so it’s a very big progress for digitalized national IDs. Also, we have some initiatives between other countries like between EU and European Union. We have the EU-Japan Digital Partnership Council focusing on how to utilize or how to make interoperable digital identity between two countries or two continents. Also, we have other initiatives with Asian Pacific regions like Asian countries. I mentioned about our initiatives in Japan. How we consider to proceed to the next step from small steps to achieve the big steps.

Moderator: Thank you very much. Thank you so much, Fujie-san. I think starting with the joke of an island nation not having direct borders, but in practice for residents of Japan to conduct their business in their daily lives, they’re very much living across borders and have cross-border transactions. And it’s wonderful to see the leadership role that Japan is taking on the standards as well as on some of those complex interoperability conversations and work with the EU and with other Asian countries, which echoes what we heard earlier from our colleagues here in their African jurisdictions and regions, which are seeking to do the same thing. And that example of something that seems simple, like a discount for a railway ticket for a student, but which actually requires complex digital use cases transforming national ID credential to a digital format, a university credential to a digital format, and then bringing that to a national railway in order to realize something like that discount. Many of us have been fortunate to be poor students at one point or another, and so we know that that will motivate the students, but bringing it to life is very complex. So thank you for your work in driving innovation and the transformation with the Japanese government and other partners. So I’d now like to ask Tor Alvik, working with the Norwegian government as a subdirector on this digital transformation in a Norwegian context, can you kindly introduce yourself and share some of the work that Norway has been doing with the Baltic states for regional development as well as your work with Europe and more broadly?

Tor Alvik: Thank you and good morning. Yes, as you said, my name is Tor Alvik, and I work for the Norwegian Digitalization Agency. This is an entity that tries to build common components, bridging both cross-border interoperability, but also for how we deal with providing services to the public and private sector in Norway. So I will try and move to the next slide. We are one of a group of Nordic-Baltic countries. We are quite similar in both legislation, in population, and in the way people live, very similar countries. So when you came to the airport in Norway maybe yesterday or the day before, if you pay close attention you will often hear the tourists say, oh it’s so nice in Sweden, but it’s the wrong country, this is actually Norway. So how can interoperability with digital ID across borders in a region like this be hard? Well what we found out is, it is very hard. But if you look at some other figures you can see that we have a high level of mobility in the region. A lot of people are moving, settling in different countries, working in another country than they live. We have a great mobility of students and our workforce. This of course makes it very important to also have digital services that function cross-border. In our region we have a very well-developed system for digital identity. It covers for most of the countries more than 90 percent of the population on high security level and almost all services are already digitalized so you can carry out almost every aspect of your life in a digital way. So then when we started looking on how can we make this work cross-border this was a work that was started in relation to the cooperation between the different governments in the region. We have a long-standing cooperation between the administrations in the Nordic countries dating back to the 1950s but If you look at that, it was not until 2017 that we actually broadened that cooperation to also deal with ICT and digital services and cross-border issues. Very early in that work, it was identified that getting digital ID to work interoperably cross-border was one of the main issues that needed to be solved to provide cross-border services to people. What has been important for us in our work is the link between us as technicians and working on the solution and having this close link to the politician side and the decision makers that has made it able for us to address central problems and also foster the uptake of this solution cross-border. We established a project, a working project, where we work together with the different agencies in the different countries. We are working together there since 2018. Some of the main focuses in our cooperation is making sure that each country actually has an EID system that we recognize cross-border. Since we all are members of the EU or closely linked to it, as in Norway’s and Ireland’s case, we build on the ADAS regulation. But just to motivate our politicians and get the understanding that you need to adopt these EID systems so they actually can be recognized, even though we have the legal foundation in place. took time and has been quite challenging. We are also working, and I will come back to that, with some fundamental challenges in how to recognize our citizens cross-border. We build and work with service provision, working with service providers, exploring different user stories and how they function cross-border. We find that many of these services are quite a hindrance to people and need to be addressed at the service level. It is not enough to actually build a digital ID, you have to design the whole user story so that it actually fits a cross-border context. And we also, together with all our other member states in the EU, we also are preparing on the upcoming changes in EIDAS, which would be of course digital wallets and the use of credentials and new models for data sharing. When we have looked at identity in our countries, one of our main observations is that it’s not enough to have a functioning digital identity. You need a system where this functions just as well in the physical world as in the digital world. There is a very close link to our core identity, which is in our countries, or of course in our population registers, but can of course be in other systems. The documents that both are the basis for the digital identity, how you use these documents when issuing a digital identity, making sure that we don’t have duplicates, having biometric verifications of people immigrating and coming to our country. And then you have the issuing process and the use of both digital identity and how. So you need this kind of same level of security both in the physical and digital world. This is not that easy to achieve and also especially challenging when it comes to cross-border identity. So here’s an example from one of my colleagues, Nils Inge is in the audience, so if you want to talk to him afterwards he can give you much more insight in our cross-border cooperation. But this is what happens if you try and use digital identity and try and access a service in our different countries. We have built a digital identity layer so you can come and you can log in and say hi, how are you? And then it gets a lot more quiet because then we have to link you to our national identity systems. Like all of us we have a long life, some of our rights and services may date back 20-30 years for instance. You can have pension rights in another country which you need to access much later. So this linkage of the identity you are coming from one country to the identity you have in the country providing the service is one of the main challenges we actually focus. We can get a digital identity to function and understand. But trying to address this is something we are now trying to work on and I think this is also maybe something that can be taken away from our work to focus on those aspects very early, not just the digital identity. This is a simplification of the user journey. for doing this kind of identity matching steps. As you can see it’s rather complex and when you delve into the details it gets even worse and then you have all the registrations where you lack data and so on, so this can be quite a challenge. So I’m looking forward to the discussion afterwards and hear your insights on what we have done and what can be taken away from that. Thank you very much. Thank you so much, Tor Alvik. It is wonderful to have

Moderator: your personal leadership of the work in Norway, which many in the rest of the world have observed the work in Norway and in the Baltics, you know, to achieve your EID goals and to elaborate the work with EIDIS and the EU Digital Identity Wallet Program, which you’re adjacent to, but which your residents are obviously moving across borders with, not only your Baltic stakes but European partners as well. So thank you for your leadership role in that work and bringing to life those use cases for your residents and other Europeans. I think many learnings for the rest of the world and I too look forward to the next stage of our discussion here to get some of the feedback from our online participants and those in the audience. So we’re going to bring back up the Mentimeter poll where we’ll progress to the next slide, if I can get the clicker back. Very good. If you have not already grabbed the QR code to answer the first question, please do take a picture of that QR code so you can participate in the live survey that we’re going to conduct. We’re going to go through a series of questions and the first couple are policy related. So I’ll put Dr. Jimson and Debra on guard that they’ll speak to the first one while our audience is going to participate in the next conversation. So we wanted to discuss, you know, what practical steps can be taken during the intersessional period between this IGF and the next one. around how to use things like the City Hub tools that we heard, you know, Debora elaborating on both the technical tools for interoperability, the trust framework mapping, the work on champion use cases in order to achieve the goals of the African free trade around lifting up the broader population and making sure that sovereignty is respected. So this is an ambitious goal and one that I know, DG Abisoye, you took part in when we were in Addis Ababa a few weeks ago discussing how these tools could be used. But it’s an important question, right? How could we actually progress this work together? Then our audience will be chiming in. So some of them are already saying, you know, champion use cases. But let me turn first to Dr. Jimson to see if you have any thoughts on next steps that we could take, concrete work we could do together.

Jimson Olufuye: Thank you very much, Gail. Well, we do know that if you cannot measure a process, you cannot really manage it. So there is need to constitute maybe a working group so that we could actually identify the gaps that we have across our sub-regions and regions, identify the champions with regard to parameters like a trust framework, with regard to whether the system is open source, to determine the interoperability criteria, and to ensure that, for example, the NetMundia plus 10 statement is really incorporated in what’s being done. Talking about NetMundia plus 10, it’s about bringing all the stakeholders, the private sector, along with the government, the technical community, civil society, and even the youth around the table to discuss

Moderator: the benefits and the use cases. Abisoye Coker-Adusote Dr. Jimson Olufuye, Debora Comparin, Tor Alvik, Dr. Melissa Sassi, Engr. Yes, two comments on my end. The first one, I think, talking about policy,

Debora Comparin: it’s very relevant to map the different regulation, legislation that underpin digital identity in the different countries. So when we talk about cross-border, it’s a work that we have started, we’re conducting with the collaboration of universities as well in CityHub. I think, just to give you an example why that is important, a country is sovereign on deciding how the national identity, the rules applying to how the national identity ecosystem in a certain country for citizens and residents. So when an identity cross-border digitally, how do you know you can trust that digital form of identity? So that’s trust, it’s jargon, it’s level of assurance, but it’s basically a very complicated word to say that, how do you know that that identity was properly given to the right person in the other country, and that actually that identity belongs to the rightful owner, so there’s not been mismatch passing on to somebody else. So it’s really about how are the rules set up to make sure that that identity was digitalized, and these rules, believe it or not, are different in different countries, and if you don’t trust whatever you receive in the digital form, then there’s no value, right? You can have it digitalized, but then there’s absolutely no usage for it. So I think it’s very important that we do this work, and it’s not just a research work of mapping the differences in rules, it’s really about turning this into something actionable. So how can we transform these values and try and encode it in laws into something that can be used together with the digital identity that is passed? So how can I describe the process to obtain this digital identity so that the other country can decide if to trust it or not? So this is all tools that underpin the work of cross-border interoperability. So I think that that’s a very important piece of work that needs to continue, and I would say more should be completed before the next IGF, so to show actually some concrete results. And together with this, POC, proof of concept. I absolutely agree with some of the comments. I think we need to start getting things done. So it shouldn’t just be research and thinking and technology, but it should actually be implemented and tested in the field. So now Eros said something that I totally agree with. We can start small. We don’t need to have a big bank. So we can actually… take baby steps and have two or three countries get together and CDIV would be most, I think, most helpful in this concept of setting up a proof of concept and testing the technologies and the tools that we are developing to make sure that this could work or maybe to know what to improve and from there scale globally this infrastructure. Thank you, Debora. I think that

Moderator: bias to action characterizes everyone on the panel, you know, to do concrete work that is actionable and to do so, I think, you know, in this intersessional period where we’re seeing the early work in Nigeria, we’re seeing the work with Alfikta and Benin, we’re seeing the work in Norway and in Japan, right? There is this hands-on work that’s already happening within jurisdictions and within regions but continuing to progress that through these forums of like Alfikta and CityHub is critical. So we’ve got some good notes on the page which I think people have had a chance to look at. So I’d like to jump to the second policy question and then turn to a couple of the questions that Stephanie’s captured from the online audience. So for our next interactive topic, and I’m going to put on guard DG Abisoye as well as Dr. Kosi and Dr. Alvik, on this next policy question. So how can policymakers leverage shared experiences of successful interoperable digital identity for African regional benefit? So there are these emerging use cases, there are these emerging policies and best practices, how can we put that to work for the African region? So I’ll come first to Dr. Kosi to see if you have any additional

Kossi Amessinou: comments to make on this point. Thank you, moderator. ID is very important but security of the data is very, very important like in an ID. We need to work very well in security issue. The second one is data center. Where will we put our data? Where do you have it? Is it in Africa? Is it outside Africa? It’s important for us to have our data inside Africa. That is very important.

Moderator: Thank you, Dr. Kosi.

Abisoye Coker Adusote: Gigi Abisoye, anything to add to the importance of data security and preserving data within Africa? I think it’s important to note that we need to ensure that there is regional cooperation. Regarding cross-border interoperability, we need to ensure that the frameworks are developed and taken into consideration, like Rebecca had mentioned earlier, about the underlying identity laws in the country and just developing one that’s acceptable to all for everyone to be able to start off. And I think that she also mentioned about the actionable steps. I think that’s very important. So looking at countries that have sort of matured on the identity level from Ghana, Rwanda, Nigeria, we need to ensure that we take those countries and then run a pilot for cross-border interoperability whilst we’re looking at meeting the other country states at their level of readiness to see how we can help them to scale up. And they can also learn from Nigeria also to see how we’ve been able to achieve this. And they can also learn from India with others to see how they can scale up. So what we’ve also done in Nigeria, outside of the EID card, which you’re all aware of, is that we had recently launched the NIN authentication application, which allows for safeguarding of your digital identity and also has the wallet component to it where you’re able to… Abisoye Coker-Adusote Abisoye Coker-Adusote Abisoye Coker-Adusote Abisoye Coker-Adusote Abisoye Coker-Adusote the adoption of the AFTA framework, the African Union framework, and a lot more continue to go in. So it’s a continuous work in progress. Thank you.

Moderator: Thank you so much, DG Abisoye. So there’s a lot of ground cover between you and Dr. Cosey. So let me see if we have additional comments from Tor Alvik.

Tor Alvik: Thank you very much. It’s very exciting to hear all the experience that comes from Africa. Also, for the last years, I’ve been involved in working with large-scale pilots leading up to the new ADAS regulation. I see this as quite a helpful tool when trying to explore both the governance side and also technical sides of different user stories. For instance, we have been working on digital driver’s license payments, education, and so on. And this combination of practical work and also policymaking and governance analysis in regard of those user stories has been very helpful when we have been trying to understand the legislative side of the new regulations. So maybe that is something that also could be looked into if that could be used also as a tool in other places. So user stories absolutely brings to life the technology, right, to make sure it’s applicable. It is the only way that you can make these things understandable. Talking about standards and cryptography, decision makers often have a

Moderator: very blank face after two minutes. Right. Absolutely. So, Naohiro Fujie, if you have any comments to add, please, in one moment, I’m just going to recap what I see on the screen. A few of the messages from the online audience around the data strategy for development, leveraging these shared experiences, and fostering collaboration, and digital literacy, also important themes. So any additional comments on your side, Fuji-san?

Naohiro Fujie: It’s quite exciting to hear about the African and Norway experience for me. As I mentioned earlier, it’s very important not only focusing on technology, but focusing on the governance or trust framework. Because in many cases, every country has their own regulation or rules, but in some cases, those rules or regulations have to be changed to have interoperability with other countries. So it’s important for us to collaborate with every country’s government to achieve that. In fact, CDIB has a partnership with every country’s government. So every of us have to have some good relationship with every government.

Moderator: These are my additional comments for me. Yeah, so it’s a lot to do, right? So what’s already in place is not yet fit for purpose to achieve interoperability. So changes within existing rules and policies will be necessary to truly achieve the interoperability, whether that’s regional in Africa or whether that’s global context, I would assume. Very good. So a couple of questions coming from online. Stephanie, would you like to direct them to the audience?

Audience: Yes, I will. I think from those questions, because I know we don’t have much time, there’s actually two themes. One is actually linked to what we’ve just discussed, a question like is it federated, is it centralized? And then the word of the way you digitalize, is it leading to some kind of surveillance? So I think there’s a technical… There’s a question for the technical people here to explain, you know, that this is not the case as Citi is not prescribing any model, as we said. And the second one is, it is very important because it’s, I think there was comments made before, there’s a question on how do we ensure that the digital divide is bridged when currently Africa has deep rural population and then escalating cost of internet and energy, you know, while we are all looking

Moderator: into energy transition as well. So I would say there’s two themes in the three questions. Okay. So I think in the context of federated versus centralized ecosystems, I might start on that one myself. Because as you said, as Citi Hub, we are not opinionated on the appropriate architecture for any individual country. And so each jurisdiction is going to apply their own values, their own rules, their own policies to whether they, you know, what architecture they prefer. And some might lean towards centralized, some might lean towards federated, some might have centralized today and then, you know, evolve towards something that’s more decentralized. So I think it’s an evolving approach. But I see Dr. Jimson has a comment to make on that point. Yes, thank you, Gail. These are very good questions. Technically, I think federated

Jimson Olufuye: database is ideal. And that’s what we use in Nigeria. And through API, you can connect other databases. So even across borders, countries can keep their data locally. And then through API, you can share the specific data categories that have been agreed upon based on policy framework. Somebody also asked a question about affordability. Yes, we need to encourage the operators to be concerned about this. Government also need to give incentives. And also, we need to increase the purchasing power of the people. so that everybody can be incorporated in the digital age. Thank you very much.

Moderator: Thank you so much, Dr. Jimson. Any additional comments on federated versus centralized models? Okay, not hearing any. I do think that there may be comments on surveillance and the desire in, I think, many jurisdictions to avert surveillance of citizens using digital identity infrastructure. Would any of you like to comment on the risks of surveillance and how you might reflect on that challenge? Tor? It is a very interesting topic, one we are now facing when we are trying to work with digital wallets, which are coming next.

Tor Alvik: Those are, by design, very user-centric, so you share all your credentials directly between the user and the service provider where you want to use it. For us, that raises questions. That protects the citizens very well, but on the other side, you also need to tackle misuse and fraud, and how you can then build a model that takes both of these things into consideration is a topic I think needs quite a lot of discussion.

Debora Comparin: Please, Debra. One point on surveillance, because I saw some previous comments. Surveillance can come from both government and private sector, so both need to be addressed and monitored. Especially in this digital identity field, where we have both private and public sector involved, then it makes room for reflection. I think it’s, again, like I mentioned earlier, it’s one property we want to maintain of the physical document.

Moderator: Thank you so much. I’d like to hit that last question on the digital divide and perhaps some of our effective representatives might speak to that because obviously one would need to have a mobile device, one would need to have Wi-Fi access, one would need broadband infrastructure to take advantage of digital identity interoperability. So there’s a lot of foundation capabilities that would be important. Any comments on bridging the digital divide and what can and will be an ongoing challenge? Did you have a swing? Thank you for that question. So regarding the digital divide, I think that that can

Abisoye Coker Adusote: be easily breached if you try and create a lot of awareness on digital literacy because even as it stands, those that have mobile phones still are not 100% digitally trained and they don’t understand the implications of the digital identity. So I would say that digital identity is a brilliant concept. It does make life easier, but at the same time you need to obviously safeguard the individual’s rights, the citizens’ rights. So we need to make sure that the laws enacted definitely safeguards all their rights. What we’ve done in Nigeria is to do a few things. The federal government is considering flooding the market with very affordable, basic mobile phones so that it’s extremely affordable and the average Nigerian that’s unbacked is able to use this phone. Another thing we’re doing with the enrollment drive this year is that we are opening accounts. and wallets for all the people that don’t, that are unbanked. So as we go out to enroll people, we are ensuring that we open wallets for them so that they can be, they’re able to participate in government intervention programs and not be excluded at all. So that would help the government a great deal to ensure financial inclusion and also to help to bridge the digital divide. So we’re doing a lot of media awareness on digital literacy. And with the NIN authentication application, we want to ensure that people understand the value of having the digital wallet so you’re able to use this application. This is how you can protect your data yourself. So for you to log in, it is biometric enabled. So you have to obviously use your biometrics to, you know, to log into the application. Great. Thank you. So thank you so much to the panel

Moderator: for the rich discussion today. I know we’re very much at time. So thank you for the thoughtful contributions. And we will be sharing the report from this event with the IGF staff. And there will be, I believe, a recording of this session as well to share with your colleagues. Thank you again. Thank you. Dr. Jimson Olufuye, Debora Comparin, Tor Alvik, Dr. Jimson Olufuye, Dr. Melissa Sassi, Engr.

Agreement points

Digital identity is fundamental to closing the digital divide and ensuring inclusion

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Moderator

Arguments

Identity is critical to closing the digital divide because without identification, people cannot access services

Digital identity is fundamental to preventing people from being left behind in digital transformation

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that proper identification systems are essential for digital inclusion, as people without verified identities cannot access government services, financial services, or participate in the digital economy.

Topics

Development | Digital identities | Digital access

Data sovereignty and keeping data within national/regional boundaries is crucial

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Kossi Amessinou

Arguments

Countries need appropriate laws to protect citizen data and ensure sovereignty over their digital assets

Data centers should be located within Africa to maintain data sovereignty

Summary

Both speakers stress the importance of maintaining control over citizen data through appropriate legal frameworks and infrastructure placement, emphasizing national and regional sovereignty over digital assets.

Topics

Data governance | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for digital identity success

Speakers

– Debora Comparin
– Moderator
– Naohiro Fujie

Arguments

Collaboration between private sector, government, research institutes, and standards bodies is essential for building interoperable systems

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for developing sustainable digital identity solutions

Starting with local standards while keeping global standards in mind is essential for achieving international interoperability

Summary

All three speakers agree that no single entity can solve digital identity challenges alone, requiring cooperation between diverse stakeholders including government, private sector, technical community, and civil society.

Topics

Digital standards | Infrastructure | Digital identities

Practical implementation through pilot programs and proof-of-concepts is necessary

Speakers

– Abisoye Coker Adusote
– Debora Comparin
– Tor Alvik
– Moderator

Arguments

Pilot programs between neighboring countries could demonstrate cross-border interoperability before broader implementation

Education, refugee management, and bank account opening are priority use cases identified by the international community

User stories and practical proof-of-concepts are necessary to make complex technical concepts understandable to decision makers

Practical proof-of-concepts and pilot programs are necessary to move from theory to implementation

Summary

All speakers emphasize the need for concrete, actionable implementations rather than theoretical discussions, advocating for pilot programs and real-world use cases to demonstrate feasibility and build confidence.

Topics

Digital identities | Development | Digital standards

Meeting countries at their level of readiness is essential for successful implementation

Speakers

– Abisoye Coker Adusote
– Debora Comparin

Arguments

Cross-border interoperability requires meeting each country at their level of readiness due to varying infrastructure capabilities

Collaboration between private sector, government, research institutes, and standards bodies is essential for building interoperable systems

Summary

Both speakers recognize that countries have different levels of digital infrastructure development and that successful regional integration must account for these disparities while providing appropriate support.

Topics

Development | Digital access | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both Nigerian and Benin representatives demonstrate successful national digital identity implementations that integrate across multiple sectors and enable regional mobility, serving as models for broader African integration.

Speakers

– Abisoye Coker Adusote
– Kossi Amessinou

Arguments

Nigeria has successfully integrated national identity numbers with banking and telecommunications systems

Benin’s “It’s Me” card enables visa-free travel within ECOWAS and could serve as a model for broader African integration

Topics

Digital identities | Infrastructure | Development

Both speakers acknowledge the complex balance between privacy protection and security concerns in digital identity systems, recognizing that surveillance risks exist from multiple sources and that user-centric approaches create new challenges.

Speakers

– Debora Comparin
– Tor Alvik

Arguments

Surveillance risks come from both government and private sector and need to be addressed in digital identity systems

Digital wallet models that are user-centric protect citizens but create challenges for preventing fraud and misuse

Topics

Privacy and data protection | Cybersecurity | Digital identities

Both speakers from Nigeria emphasize the need for government intervention and market incentives to address affordability and accessibility challenges in digital identity adoption.

Speakers

– Abisoye Coker Adusote
– Jimson Olufuye

Arguments

Government intervention through affordable mobile phones and digital literacy programs can help bridge the digital divide

Operators need incentives to make services more affordable and increase purchasing power of citizens

Topics

Development | Digital access | Economic

Unexpected consensus

Technical complexity of digital identity interoperability even among similar countries

Speakers

– Tor Alvik
– Debora Comparin

Arguments

Nordic-Baltic countries demonstrate that even similar nations face significant challenges in achieving cross-border digital identity interoperability

Digital identity infrastructure requires maintaining the same security properties as physical documents in the digital realm

Explanation

Despite representing very different regions (Nordic-Baltic vs. global perspective), both speakers acknowledge the inherent technical complexity of digital identity interoperability, with Alvik showing that even highly developed, similar countries struggle with implementation, while Comparin explains the cryptographic and technical challenges involved.

Topics

Digital identities | Infrastructure | Digital standards

Need for regulatory harmonization while respecting national sovereignty

Speakers

– Abisoye Coker Adusote
– Debora Comparin
– Naohiro Fujie

Arguments

Regional agreements based on data sovereignty and trust frameworks are needed to enable cross-border data sharing

Policy mapping of different regulations across countries is crucial for establishing trust frameworks

Starting with local standards while keeping global standards in mind is essential for achieving international interoperability

Explanation

Representatives from Nigeria, the global CityHub initiative, and Japan all independently arrived at the same conclusion that successful interoperability requires careful mapping and harmonization of different national regulations while respecting local sovereignty – an unexpected convergence across very different contexts.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Data governance | Digital standards

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated remarkable consensus across multiple key areas: the fundamental importance of digital identity for inclusion, the need for data sovereignty, the requirement for multi-stakeholder collaboration, and the necessity of practical implementation approaches. There was also strong agreement on meeting countries at their readiness levels and the importance of pilot programs.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for global digital identity development. The agreement spans technical, policy, and implementation aspects, suggesting a mature understanding of the challenges and a convergent approach to solutions. This consensus provides a strong foundation for international cooperation and suggests that despite different regional contexts, there are universal principles and approaches that can guide digital identity interoperability efforts globally.

Different viewpoints

Data storage location and sovereignty approach

Speakers

– Kossi Amessinou
– Jimson Olufuye

Arguments

Data centers should be located within Africa to maintain data sovereignty

Federated database architecture with API connections allows countries to keep data locally while enabling cross-border sharing

Summary

Amessinou advocates for keeping all African data within Africa as a sovereignty requirement, while Olufuye proposes a more flexible federated approach where countries maintain local data but can share specific categories through APIs based on policy frameworks

Topics

Infrastructure | Data governance | Legal and regulatory

Centralized vs federated architecture preferences

Speakers

– Jimson Olufuye
– Moderator

Arguments

Federated database architecture with API connections allows countries to keep data locally while enabling cross-border sharing

Digital identity is fundamental to preventing people from being left behind in digital transformation

Summary

Olufuye specifically advocates for federated database systems, while the Moderator emphasizes that CityHub is not opinionated on architecture, allowing countries to choose centralized, federated, or evolving approaches based on their values and policies

Topics

Infrastructure | Digital standards | Data governance

Unexpected differences

Scope of data sovereignty requirements

Speakers

– Kossi Amessinou
– Other speakers

Arguments

Data centers should be located within Africa to maintain data sovereignty

Various arguments about federated systems and cross-border sharing

Explanation

Amessinou’s strict position on keeping all African data within Africa contrasts with other speakers’ more flexible approaches to data sovereignty. This is unexpected given the general consensus on sovereignty importance, but reveals different interpretations of what sovereignty means in practice

Topics

Data governance | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus on fundamental goals (digital identity importance, sovereignty respect, cross-border interoperability needs) with disagreements primarily focused on implementation approaches and technical architectures. Main areas of disagreement centered on data storage requirements, system architecture preferences, and specific methods for achieving interoperability while maintaining sovereignty.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers demonstrated strong alignment on core principles and objectives, with differences mainly in technical implementation strategies and sovereignty interpretation. This suggests a mature discussion where fundamental concepts are accepted, but practical implementation details require further negotiation and compromise. The disagreements are constructive and focused on ‘how’ rather than ‘whether’ to proceed, which is positive for advancing the digital identity interoperability agenda.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both Nigerian and Benin representatives demonstrate successful national digital identity implementations that integrate across multiple sectors and enable regional mobility, serving as models for broader African integration.

Speakers

– Abisoye Coker Adusote
– Kossi Amessinou

Arguments

Nigeria has successfully integrated national identity numbers with banking and telecommunications systems

Benin’s “It’s Me” card enables visa-free travel within ECOWAS and could serve as a model for broader African integration

Topics

Digital identities | Infrastructure | Development

Both speakers acknowledge the complex balance between privacy protection and security concerns in digital identity systems, recognizing that surveillance risks exist from multiple sources and that user-centric approaches create new challenges.

Speakers

– Debora Comparin
– Tor Alvik

Arguments

Surveillance risks come from both government and private sector and need to be addressed in digital identity systems

Digital wallet models that are user-centric protect citizens but create challenges for preventing fraud and misuse

Topics

Privacy and data protection | Cybersecurity | Digital identities

Both speakers from Nigeria emphasize the need for government intervention and market incentives to address affordability and accessibility challenges in digital identity adoption.

Speakers

– Abisoye Coker Adusote
– Jimson Olufuye

Arguments

Government intervention through affordable mobile phones and digital literacy programs can help bridge the digital divide

Operators need incentives to make services more affordable and increase purchasing power of citizens

Topics

Development | Digital access | Economic

Key takeaways

Identity is fundamental to closing the digital divide and enabling inclusive digital transformation, as people without digital identity cannot access essential services

Cross-border digital identity interoperability requires meeting countries at their current level of technological readiness and infrastructure development

Successful implementation requires collaboration between multiple stakeholders including governments, private sector, research institutions, and standards bodies

Data sovereignty is critical – countries need appropriate laws to protect citizen data and maintain control over their digital assets, with preference for keeping data within regional boundaries

Technical architecture should be federated rather than centralized, allowing countries to maintain local data control while enabling cross-border sharing through APIs

User-centric design focusing on practical use cases (education, banking, healthcare, travel) is essential for successful adoption and public trust

Regional integration frameworks like ECOWAS and African Union digital interoperability initiatives provide pathways for scaling successful national implementations

Digital literacy and affordability remain significant barriers that require government intervention and private sector incentives to address

Resolutions and action items

Constitute a working group to identify gaps across sub-regions and regions, mapping trust frameworks and interoperability criteria

Complete policy mapping of different regulations and legislation across countries before the next IGF to show concrete results

Implement proof-of-concept pilots between neighboring countries (suggested pairings: Nigeria-Cameroon, Nigeria-Niger, Uganda-Kenya) to test cross-border interoperability

Develop actionable tools that encode legal and regulatory differences into digital identity systems to enable trust decisions

Continue CityHub’s technical working groups on use cases, policy frameworks, and technology standards with broader community participation

Leverage existing regional frameworks like AfCFTA and AU Digital Interoperability Framework for implementation

Establish intersessional work between IGF sessions to maintain momentum on practical implementation steps

Unresolved issues

How to effectively address the digital divide in rural areas with limited internet access and high connectivity costs

Balancing user privacy protection with the need to prevent fraud and misuse in digital identity systems

Resolving identity matching challenges when linking citizens across different national identity systems

Determining optimal governance models for cross-border data sharing while maintaining national sovereignty

Addressing surveillance concerns from both government and private sector actors in digital identity ecosystems

Scaling successful pilot programs to full regional or continental implementation

Harmonizing different legal frameworks and data protection regulations across countries to enable seamless interoperability

Suggested compromises

Federated database architecture that allows countries to maintain local data sovereignty while enabling cross-border sharing through agreed-upon APIs and data categories

Phased implementation approach starting with pilot programs between ready countries while supporting capacity building in less developed nations

User-centric digital wallet models that protect citizen privacy while incorporating necessary fraud prevention mechanisms

Regional agreements that respect national sovereignty while establishing minimum trust framework standards for cross-border recognition

Hybrid approach combining government-led infrastructure development with private sector innovation and affordability initiatives

Flexible technical standards that accommodate different levels of technological maturity while maintaining interoperability goals

Identity is critical to closing the digital divide, because if you cannot identify anybody, it means the person does not really exist. And we’re talking about inclusivity. We’re talking about multi-stakeholder. We’re talking about nobody being left behind.

Speaker

Dr. Jimson Olufuye

Reason

This comment reframes digital identity from a technical infrastructure issue to a fundamental human rights and inclusion issue. It establishes the philosophical foundation that digital existence requires digital identity, making it essential for participation in modern society.

Impact

This comment set the tone for the entire discussion by establishing digital identity as not just a convenience but as a prerequisite for digital citizenship. It influenced subsequent speakers to consistently return to themes of inclusion and ensuring no one is left behind in their technical implementations.

Meet each country state at their level of readiness. So there are countries that do not have the simple digital infrastructure. There is no data connectivity, and they have no energy or very little energy. There’s very little or no digital literacy awareness created.

Speaker

Abisoye Coker Adusote (DG Nigeria)

Reason

This comment introduced crucial pragmatic realism to the discussion, acknowledging that technical solutions must account for vastly different infrastructure capabilities across African nations. It shifted focus from idealized interoperability to practical implementation challenges.

Impact

This observation fundamentally changed the discussion’s approach from assuming uniform readiness to acknowledging the need for graduated, flexible solutions. It led other speakers to emphasize starting small, pilot programs, and building foundational capabilities before attempting complex interoperability.

It would be fantastic to maintain some of those properties [of physical documents]. First of all, when you all arrive here, you probably show some form of document… They cannot track my actions and my whereabouts, and I think this is also a very important property that we should keep in mind and maintain in the digital domain.

Speaker

Debora Comparin

Reason

This comment brilliantly used the familiar experience of physical documents to explain complex digital identity challenges. It introduced the critical concept that digitization shouldn’t sacrifice privacy properties that people expect from physical credentials.

Impact

This analogy made technical concepts accessible to policymakers and addressed surveillance concerns raised by online participants. It shifted the conversation from purely technical implementation to user experience and privacy preservation, influencing later discussions about federated vs. centralized systems.

We need to ensure that our data inside Africa. That is very important… Where will we put our data? Where do you have it? Is it in Africa? Is it outside Africa?

Speaker

Dr. Kossi Amessinou (Benin)

Reason

This comment introduced the critical dimension of data sovereignty and geographic data residency, connecting technical architecture decisions to national sovereignty concerns. It highlighted that interoperability cannot come at the cost of losing control over citizen data.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion from technical interoperability to geopolitical considerations, influencing the conversation about federated architectures and API-based data sharing that keeps data locally while enabling cross-border functionality.

The linkage of the identity you are coming from one country to the identity you have in the country providing the service is one of the main challenges we actually focus. We can get a digital identity to function and understand. But trying to address this is something we are now trying to work on.

Speaker

Tor Alvik (Norway)

Reason

This comment revealed a sophisticated technical challenge that goes beyond basic authentication – the problem of identity continuity across jurisdictions. It showed that even technically advanced regions struggle with fundamental interoperability issues.

Impact

This insight from an advanced digital identity region provided sobering realism about the complexity of true interoperability. It influenced the discussion toward recognizing that technical standards alone are insufficient – policy frameworks and identity matching protocols are equally critical.

Surveillance can come from both government and private sector, so both need to be addressed and monitored. Especially in this digital identity field, where we have both private and public sector involved, then it makes room for reflection.

Speaker

Debora Comparin

Reason

This comment expanded the surveillance discussion beyond the typical government surveillance concerns to include private sector surveillance, recognizing the multi-stakeholder nature of digital identity ecosystems and the need for comprehensive privacy protections.

Impact

This observation broadened the policy discussion to consider comprehensive privacy frameworks that address all potential surveillance vectors, not just government overreach. It influenced the conversation about the need for balanced approaches that prevent fraud while protecting privacy.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing it as a multi-dimensional challenge requiring technical, policy, and social solutions. Dr. Jimson’s opening comment about identity being critical to digital inclusion set an inclusive, human-rights-focused tone that permeated the entire conversation. DG Abisoye’s pragmatic observation about meeting countries where they are shifted the discussion from theoretical interoperability to practical implementation strategies. Debora’s physical document analogy made complex technical concepts accessible while emphasizing privacy preservation, while Dr. Kossi’s data sovereignty concerns elevated the conversation to geopolitical considerations. Tor’s insights about identity linkage challenges provided sobering realism about implementation complexity even in advanced regions. Together, these comments transformed what could have been a purely technical discussion into a nuanced exploration of digital identity as a socio-technical system requiring careful balance of inclusion, sovereignty, privacy, and practical implementation considerations.

How to achieve cross-border interoperability while respecting different national data protection laws that currently restrict such interoperability?

Speaker

Abisoye Coker Adusote

Explanation

Nigeria’s data protection act restricts cross-border interoperability, and there’s a need for regional agreements based on data sovereignty and trust to modify acts across regions to allow cross-border functionality

How to address the challenge of identity matching and linking citizens across different national identity systems for cross-border services?

Speaker

Tor Alvik

Explanation

This was identified as one of the main technical challenges in the Nordic-Baltic cooperation, where linking identity from one country to services in another country remains complex

What constitutes ‘copy’ and ‘deliverable’ credentials in the digital realm, and how should they be managed differently from original credentials?

Speaker

Naohiro Fujie

Explanation

Unlike physical documents, digital credentials have no difference between copy and original, requiring new frameworks to define and manage different types of digital credentials

How to map and harmonize different legal frameworks and regulations across countries to enable trusted cross-border digital identity?

Speaker

Debora Comparin

Explanation

Different countries have varying rules for identity verification and trust levels, requiring comprehensive mapping and actionable frameworks to enable cross-border trust

How to bridge the digital divide in rural Africa with escalating costs of internet and energy while pursuing digital identity initiatives?

Speaker

Online participant (via Stephanie)

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental infrastructure challenges that could prevent widespread adoption of digital identity systems in underserved areas

How to balance fraud prevention and surveillance concerns in user-centric digital wallet systems?

Speaker

Tor Alvik

Explanation

Digital wallets protect citizens by design but raise questions about how to tackle misuse and fraud while maintaining privacy protections

Where should African countries store their digital identity data – within Africa or outside – and what are the sovereignty implications?

Speaker

Kossi Amessinou

Explanation

Data sovereignty is crucial for African nations, requiring decisions about data center locations and control over citizen data

How to establish pilot programs for cross-border digital identity interoperability between specific country pairs?

Speaker

Abisoye Coker Adusote

Explanation

Suggested creating test pilots between border countries like Nigeria-Cameroon or Uganda-Kenya to demonstrate cross-border functionality before scaling

How to ensure digital identity systems prevent surveillance by both government and private sector entities?

Speaker

Debora Comparin

Explanation

Surveillance risks come from multiple sources and need to be addressed in system design to maintain citizen privacy rights

What working group structure and measurement criteria should be established to identify gaps and champions across African sub-regions?

Speaker

Jimson Olufuye

Explanation

Need for systematic approach to assess readiness levels, trust frameworks, and interoperability criteria across different African countries and regions

Summary

This discussion focused on facial recognition technology (FRT) used by police forces and its impact on civil liberties, presented by the International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations (INCLO). The speakers outlined how FRT works by comparing facial templates from images against reference databases, emphasizing that it is a probabilistic technology prone to errors and biases. INCLO developed 18 principles to govern police use of FRT after observing widespread problems across their 17 member organizations in different countries.

The presentation highlighted several concerning real-world cases demonstrating FRT’s dangers. Robert Williams from Detroit was wrongfully arrested after being misidentified as the ninth most likely match by an algorithm, despite two other algorithms failing to identify him. The speakers noted that documented cases of misidentification disproportionately affect Black individuals, and retail chain Rite Aid was banned from using FRT after thousands of wrongful accusations between 2012 and 2020.

Three detailed case studies illustrated the principles’ importance. In Argentina, CELS successfully challenged Buenos Aires’ FRT system in court, revealing that police had illegally accessed biometric data of over seven million people while claiming to search only for 30,000 fugitives. The court found the system unconstitutional due to lack of oversight, impact assessments, and public consultation. Hungary’s recent case demonstrated FRT’s weaponization against civil liberties, where the government banned Pride parades and threatened to use FRT to identify participants, creating a chilling effect on freedom of assembly.

The discussion concluded that these cases validate INCLO’s principles, which call for legal frameworks, impact assessments, public consultation, judicial authorization, and independent oversight to protect fundamental rights while acknowledging that some organizations advocate for complete bans on police FRT use.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **INCLO’s 18 Principles for Police Use of Facial Recognition Technology**: The International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations developed comprehensive principles to mitigate harms from police FRT use, including requirements for legal basis, impact assessments, public consultation, independent oversight, and prohibition of live FRT systems.

– **Technical Limitations and Discriminatory Impacts of FRT**: Discussion of how facial recognition is a probabilistic technology prone to false positives/negatives, with documented cases of wrongful arrests disproportionately affecting Black individuals, and the arbitrary nature of algorithmic matching systems.

– **Argentina Case Study – Systematic Abuse of FRT Systems**: Detailed examination of Buenos Aires’ facial recognition system that was supposed to target only fugitives but illegally accessed biometric data of over 7 million people, leading to a court ruling the system unconstitutional due to lack of oversight and legal compliance.

– **Hungary’s Weaponization of FRT Against LGBTQ+ Rights**: Analysis of how the Hungarian government banned Pride events and expanded FRT use to identify participants in “banned” assemblies, demonstrating how facial recognition can be deliberately used to suppress freedom of assembly and peaceful protest.

– **Community Engagement and Advocacy Strategies**: Discussion of the need for creative grassroots education and awareness campaigns to inform the public about FRT risks, since many people are unaware these systems exist or understand their implications.

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion aimed to present INCLO’s newly developed principles for regulating police use of facial recognition technology, using real-world case studies from Argentina and Hungary to demonstrate both the urgent need for such safeguards and the severe consequences when proper oversight and legal frameworks are absent.

**Overall Tone:**

The tone was serious and urgent throughout, with speakers presenting factual, evidence-based concerns about facial recognition technology’s impact on human rights. The tone became particularly grave when discussing the Hungary case, highlighting the immediate threat to LGBTQ+ rights and freedom of assembly. While maintaining an academic and professional demeanor, there was an underlying sense of alarm about the rapid deployment of these technologies without adequate safeguards.

Speakers

– **Olga Cronin**: Senior policy officer at the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, member of INCLO (International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations)

– **Tomas Ignacio Griffa**: Lawyer at Centro de Estudios Legales Sociales (CELS) in Argentina, also an INCLO member

– **Adam Remport**: Lawyer at the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, also a member of INCLO

– **Audience**: Multiple audience members including Pietra from Brazil who is part of a project doing community activations about facial recognition in police use

– **June Beck**: Representative from Youth for Privacy

– **MODERATOR**: Workshop moderator (role/title not specified)

**Additional speakers:**

– **Victor Saavedra**: INCLO’s technologist (mentioned as joining online but no direct quotes in transcript)

– **Timalay N’Ojo**: Program manager of INCLO Surveillance and Digital Rights Pillar of Work, based at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in Toronto (mentioned as joining online but no direct quotes in transcript)

# INCLO Workshop on Facial Recognition Technology and Civil Liberties

## Executive Summary

This workshop at the Internet Governance Forum, presented by the International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations (INCLO), examined the threats that facial recognition technology (FRT) poses to fundamental human rights. The discussion featured presentations from civil liberties lawyers across three jurisdictions—Ireland, Argentina, and Hungary—who demonstrated how FRT systems are being abused by law enforcement agencies worldwide. The speakers presented INCLO’s newly developed 18 principles for governing police use of FRT, supported by case studies from Argentina and Hungary that illustrated both the urgent need for such safeguards and the consequences when proper oversight is absent.

## INCLO Network and Participants

Olga Cronin, Senior Policy Officer at the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, opened by introducing INCLO’s global network of 17 member organizations, including the ACLU in the United States, Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights, Contras in Indonesia, CELS in Argentina, and the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union. The workshop included both in-person and online participants, with Victor Saavedra and Timalay N’Ojo joining virtually.

## Technical Foundation and Problems of Facial Recognition Technology

### How Facial Recognition Operates

Cronin explained that facial recognition is a biometric technology using artificial intelligence to identify individuals through facial features. The system creates mathematical representations from images, which are compared against reference databases. Crucially, FRT is fundamentally probabilistic rather than definitive, relying on threshold values that create trade-offs between false positive and false negative rates.

### The Robert Williams Case

The arbitrary nature of FRT was illustrated through the Detroit case of Robert Williams, who was wrongfully arrested after an algorithm identified him as the ninth most likely match for a shoplifting incident. However, there were two other algorithms run that produced different results—one returning 243 candidates that didn’t include Williams, and another returning no results. Despite these contradictory outputs, Williams was still arrested, demonstrating what Cronin called “the arbitrariness of this and it’s not this silver bullet solution that it’s often presented to be.”

### Documented Bias and the Rite Aid Case

The workshop highlighted that documented misidentification cases disproportionately affect Black individuals. Cronin referenced Rite Aid, a retail chain banned from using facial recognition after making thousands of wrongful accusations between 2012 and 2020, demonstrating the systemic nature of these problems.

## INCLO’s 18 Principles Framework

### Development and Core Requirements

INCLO developed 18 principles based on experiences across member organizations in different countries. The principles establish fundamental requirements including: sufficient legal basis through proper legislative processes, prohibition on using FRT to identify protesters or collect information on peaceful assemblies, and mandatory fundamental rights impact assessments prior to implementation.

A critical component is the clear prohibition on live FRT systems, which Cronin described as “a dangerous red line.” Live FRT involves real-time identification in public spaces, creating unprecedented mass surveillance capability.

### Oversight and Accountability

The principles mandate independent oversight bodies with robust monitoring powers and mandatory annual reporting. They also require comprehensive documentation of FRT use, including detailed records of deployments, database searches, and results obtained.

Cronin acknowledged jurisdictional differences, noting that while many INCLO members would prefer complete bans on police FRT use, “we know that that fight has been lost in certain jurisdictions,” necessitating strong safeguards where prohibition isn’t achievable.

## Argentina Case Study: Systematic Abuse

### Background and Scope Creep

Tomas Ignacio Griffa from Centro de Estudios Legales Sociales (CELS) presented Buenos Aires’ facial recognition system implemented in 2019. Initially claimed to target only 30,000 fugitives from justice, court proceedings revealed the system had actually conducted consultations about more than seven million people, with over nine million total consultations recorded.

This massive discrepancy demonstrated that “the Buenos Aires police and perhaps other offices were accessing this biometric data for other purposes, entirely different from searching for fugitives.” The system accessed databases including CONARC and RENAPER without proper authorization.

### Legal Violations and Constitutional Ruling

The system operated without proper legal authorization, lacked oversight mechanisms, and had no procedures for documenting or controlling access. Information was manually deleted, preventing audit trails. The Argentine court ultimately ruled the system unconstitutional, finding violations of fundamental rights and legal requirements.

An ongoing issue involves the government’s refusal to disclose technical details, claiming trade secrets, which prevents proper assessment of bias and discrimination in the system.

## Hungary Case Study: Targeting LGBTQ+ Communities

### Political Context and Deliberate Weaponization

Adam Remport from the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union described how Hungary’s FRT system, existing since 2016, was weaponized against LGBTQ+ communities. After passing legislation banning “LGBTQ+ propaganda,” the government banned Budapest’s Pride parade and expanded FRT use to cover all petty offences.

The government actively communicated that participants in banned assemblies would be identified through facial recognition and fined, creating a deliberate chilling effect. As Remport explained, FRT was “actively used to discourage people from attending demonstrations.”

### Lack of Transparency as a Weapon

Remport identified how “the lack of transparency, the lack of knowledge that people have of what is going to actually happen to them is also as discouraging as the outright threats of using FRT.” This strategic opacity creates self-censorship and suppresses democratic participation.

He noted that public awareness was minimal because “people never really cared about FRT, because they didn’t actually know that it existed, precisely because of the lack of communication on the government side.” By the time awareness emerged, “the system already exists, with the rules that we have now, and which can be abused by the police and the government.”

## Human Rights Implications

### Multiple Rights Affected

Speakers emphasized that FRT affects multiple human rights simultaneously: human dignity, privacy, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, equality, and due process. Cronin described how the technology turns people into “walking licence plates,” creating unprecedented tracking capabilities.

### Targeting Marginalised Communities

A recurring theme was FRT’s systematic use against marginalised communities. Cronin noted the technology is being used against Palestinians, Uyghur Muslims, and protesters worldwide, while case studies demonstrated targeting of Black individuals and LGBTQ+ communities.

## Community Engagement and Advocacy

### Public Awareness Challenges

Speakers identified lack of public awareness as a significant challenge. The strategic use of opacity prevents communities from understanding surveillance systems affecting them.

### Creative Approaches

In response to Pietra from Brazil’s question about community activation regarding facial recognition in police use, Cronin emphasized the importance of creative grassroots approaches through local artists and community organizations for building public awareness and resistance.

### Jurisdictional Variations

Speakers acknowledged different jurisdictions require different advocacy strategies. Some organizations advocate for complete bans, others focus on strong regulatory frameworks where prohibition isn’t politically feasible.

## Audience Questions and Emerging Issues

June Beck from Youth for Privacy raised concerns about laws banning face masks in public spaces as responses to citizens protecting themselves from FRT surveillance, highlighting the “arms race” between surveillance technology and privacy protection measures.

Questions about effective community education strategies revealed ongoing uncertainty about building public awareness and resistance to FRT deployment.

## International Precedents

Cronin mentioned the Bridges case in the UK, where Liberty successfully challenged South Wales Police’s use of automatic facial recognition, demonstrating that legal challenges can succeed when proper procedures aren’t followed.

## Conclusions

The workshop demonstrated that FRT poses serious threats to fundamental human rights across diverse jurisdictions. The case studies from Argentina and Hungary validated INCLO’s 18 principles by showing real-world consequences when safeguards are absent. Success in Argentina and ongoing resistance in Hungary provide models for advocacy strategies, while INCLO’s principles offer frameworks for ensuring any FRT deployment respects basic human rights and democratic values.

The speakers conveyed urgency about addressing FRT deployment before systems become further entrenched, emphasizing that coordinated civil society action can achieve meaningful victories in protecting democratic freedoms.

Olga Cronin: Texas Methodist Church SPD United Methodist Foundation Examples of Methodists Center Bethesda, Texas Text on Screen Hi everyone and thanks a million for joining us here today and INCLO is very happy to be here and very grateful to the organizers of IGF. INCLO stands for the International Network of Civil Liberties Organizations and it’s a network of 17 national civil liberties and human rights organizations worldwide and with member organizations across the global north and south that work together to promote fundamental rights and freedoms. I won’t mention all 17 members and to save time but they include ACLU in the US, the Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights in Egypt, Contras in Indonesia, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and Liberty in the UK and we welcome two new members just this year, ALHAC based in the West Bank and Connect Us in Brazil. We also have member organizations in Ireland, Hungary and Argentina which is why we are here and today. My name is Olga Cronin, I’m a senior policy officer at the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and which is a member of INCLO and Adam Remport there, my far right there is a lawyer at the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, also a member of INCLO and on my right is Manuel Tufro, a lawyer at the, excuse my Spanish, Centro de Estudios Legales Sociales in Argentina, otherwise known as CELS, also an INCLO member and we are also joined online by INCLO’s technologist Victor Saavedra and Timalay N’Ojo, the program manager of INCLO Surveillance and Digital Rights Pillar of Work who is based at the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in Toronto. Most people in this room probably already know what FRT is but just very, very briefly. Facial recognition is a biometric technology and it uses artificial intelligence to try and identify individuals through their facial features. Generally speaking, FRT works by comparing a face print or biometric template of a person’s face taken from an image that could be sourced from CCTV or social media or body-worn cameras and compares that template of a person unknown against a database of stored face prints or biometric templates of people whose identity is known. The image of the person unknown would generally be called a probe image and the database of stored biometric templates of known people would be generally called a reference database and if you’re wondering what kind of reference databases of stored biometric facial templates are used by police, you can think of passport databases or driver’s license databases or police mugshot databases. So these systems are built on the processing of people’s unique biometric facial data so the unique measurements of your face you can compare it to DNA or iris scans or your fingerprints biometric data. Very quickly, there’s three points I’d like to make about FRT in terms of the live and retrospective use of FRT but also the threshold values that are fixed for probable matches and the fact that it’s a probabilistic technology. So real-time or live facial recognition involves comparing a live camera feed of faces against a predetermined watch list to find a possible match that would generate an alert for police to act upon. Retrospective basically means comparing still images of faces of unknown people against a reference database to try and identify that person. Now the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union have views live and real-time use of FRT is more invasive than retrospective but it should be said that tracking a person’s movements over significant length of time can be as invasive if not more invasive than one instance of real-time identification. For an FRT system to work there’s a threshold value fixed to determine when the software will indicate that a match or a possible match has occurred. Should this be fixed too low or too high? Respectively it can create a high false positive rate or high false negative rate. There is no single threshold that eliminates all errors. So when you think about what a police officer will get in their hand afterwards, if they use FRT, they will essentially get a list of potential candidates. Person A with a percentage score next to them, a similarity score. Person B with another similarity score. How long this list could be anyone’s guess because it largely depends on the reference database and a number of other factors. Just very quickly I’ve just concluded this picture of a man called Robert Williams from Detroit. This is what’s called an investigative lead report from the Michigan State Police in respect to Robert Williams, a father of two who was wrongfully arrested and detained after he was misidentified as a shoplifter by FRT in January 2020. We could do a whole session on Robert’s case but I just thought it was interesting to show the probe image that was used in his case. You can see it there, it’s a CCTV still and the picture on the right is of Robert’s driver’s license picture. You’ll also see, forgive the slide, it’s just popped over different fonts, apologies, but basically it’s important to note that Robert was arrested after an algorithm identified him as the ninth most likely match for the probe image but there were two other algorithms run. One returned 243 candidates, Robert wasn’t on that list, and another returned no results at all and yet he was still arrested and detained. So really the point of this is just to show the arbitrariness of this and it’s not this silver bullet solution that it’s often presented to be. And there are increasing number of people who have been wrongly accused due to FRT and you’ll notice that all the people in these images are people who are black. They are all from the States, Sean Thompson and Sarah, not her real name, is from the UK and there are increasing numbers of these misidentifications happening all the time. In 2023 the US Federal Trade Commission banned the retail pharmacy agency, retail chain rather, Rite Aid from using FRT in shops because it was creating, between 2012 and 2020, there was thousands of people wrongfully basically accused of being shoplifters and told to leave stores, predominantly people who were black and this was all misidentifications. So with FRT there’s an immediate danger of misidentifications, it’s unreliable, it has this bias and discriminatory aspect but also there’s the larger and more long-term concerns, longer-term consequences and that is this mass surveillance concern. FRT allows police, it gives them a seismic shift in this kind of surveillance power, it does turn us into walking license plates and it tilts that power dynamic into the hands, further into the hands of police. So, you know, we know and we’ve heard of the use of FRT against Palestinians, we know and have heard of the use of FRT against Uyghur Muslims and protesters in Russia but the most, I suppose, most recent situation regarding the use of FRT, that’s been in the news at least, is the use of FRT this weekend at Pride in Hungary, which Adam will talk to in a bit. This is just a brief slide just to outline the different human rights that are affected by FRT at a minimum. The right to dignity, privacy, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, equality and non-discrimination, rights of people with disabilities, the presumption of innocence and the right to effective remedy and the right to fair trial and due process. In CLO, as I said, we are members in 17 jurisdictions and we, over the last number of years, since we brought out a report about the emerging issues with FRT in 2021, we could see that this is becoming a significant issue. We knew about the biometric database of Palestinians, we could see our member organization Uyghur in Russia brought a complaint to the European Court of Human Rights, brought a case to the European Court of Human Rights over Russia’s use of FRT against protesters. There have been wrongful arrests in Argentina, which my friend Tomas will talk about. There was the famous Bridges case in the UK, the Clearview AI scandal in Canada, all of these various aspects and essentially what we decided, we stood back and we thought, in many of these jurisdictions there’s no legislation to underpin this use of FRT. In different jurisdictions they have different, you know, data protection rights or privacy rights or perhaps none at all and it was essentially, we could see how patchwork it was. Different organisations within our members were calling for different things, some were calling for bans, some were calling for moratoriums, some were calling for legislation and so what we decided to do was to come up with, create a set of principles for police use of FRT in the hope that it could mitigate some of these harms. I won’t stay too long on it but basically our methodology was we just created a steering group within the network, we met obviously throughout, we agreed what information we needed, we surveyed our members to find out what actually information there is available in their jurisdictions, we agreed on the harms and risks and we looked at the cases that were coming through, we looked at, you know, obviously media stories as well, not everything you know ends up in court and then we agreed upon a set of questions that we felt, we feel should always be asked when it comes to police use of FRT and essentially the principles are an answer, our attempt at answering those questions and we did have some expert, great expert feedback with a number of experts, academics and otherwise and we did that virtually and in person and essentially these are the principles, I don’t want to keep, take up all the time but essentially there are 18 principles and the first principle is about a legal basis and essentially what we’re saying here is that any interference with the right and FRT interferes with many rights as I mentioned earlier must have a legal basis and that legal basis must be of sufficient quality to protect against arbitrary interferences. We say that they cannot, we say that police cannot use FRT unless there is a legal basis. We also say that it should never be used in certain circumstances and that includes it should not be used to identify protesters or collect information on people attending peaceful assemblies which is very pertinent to what Adam is going to talk about. The second principle concerns mandatory fundamental rights impact assessment, so here we’re saying that the police need to carry out a series of impact assessments with respect to all fundamental rights prior to any new use of FRT and we’re saying that these assessments must include an assessment of the strict necessity and proportionality of the FRT use. We have copies of the principles here if anyone would wish to go through them in more detail, they are quite detailed, so I won’t go into detail of each of them, but obviously those assessments we’re saying they must explicitly outline the specific parameters of use, who will use it, who it will be used against, where it will be used, why it will be used and how it will be used, the rights impacted, the nature and extent of the risks, how those risks will be mitigated and a demonstrated justification for how and why the benefits of the deployment will outweigh the rights impacts and the remedy available to someone who is either misidentified or whose biometric data was processed when it should not have been, which will speak to Tomas’s point in a minute. Principle three is about the fundamental rights impact assessments that I just mentioned, having to be independent of the vendor assessment. It’s not enough for a vendor to say that this is X and this is Y and everything is OK and I’d like to mention here that Bridges case, the Court of Appeal case in the UK, which our colleagues Liberty took, because in that case the Court of Appeal held that the public sector equality duty under the Equality Act there requires public authorities to give regard to whether a policy could have a discriminatory impact and essentially in that case it was held that the South Wales Police had not taken reasonable steps to make inquiries as to whether or not the FRT algorithm the police was using risked bias or racial or sex grounds. And the court actually heard from a witness who was employed by a company specialising in FRT and he said that these kinds of details are commercially sensitive and cannot be released and we hear this a lot. But it was held in the end, the court held that while that was understandable, it wasn’t good enough and it determined the police never sought to satisfy themselves either directly or by way of independent verification that the software didn’t have an unacceptable bias. Principle four is no acquisition or deployment of any new FRT without a guarantee of future independence from the vendor. So this is about vendor lock-in, this risk that a customer would be at risk of not being able to transition to another vendor. Principle five is saying that all versions of all assessments must be made public before the deployment. Principle six is about the obligation of public consultation and here we’re saying that before any policing authority deploys FRT it must hold meaningful public consultation. Principle seven, authorities must inform the public how probe images are used in FRT operation. Principle eight is about the technical specifications of any FRT system and how they must be made public before any deployment. Principle nine is that live FRT should be prohibited. We do believe that live FRT is just too dangerous and should be banned, it is a red line. But as I said before, retrospective FRT can be just as dangerous. Principle ten is about mandatory prior judicial authorisation. Eleven is about record of use and here we’re saying that the police must document each and every FRT research performed and provide this documentation to the oversight body. I haven’t mentioned it yet but principle sixteen provides for an independent oversight body. Principle twelve ensures that an FRT result alone would not be sufficient basis for questioning. And then obligation to disclose, there should be mandatory disclosure of the details of the FRT operation applied against individuals. Principle fourteen, any FRT misidentification of a person must be reported and there should be mandatory annual reporting by authorities of those misidentifications in principle fifteen. Principle sixteen is the independent oversight body that I mentioned before. Under principle seventeen, that oversight body must publish annual reports. Principle eighteen is that the impact assessment must be made available to the oversight body before the system is employed. I need to move on very quickly to hand this over to Tomas but basically we hope that these principles, the aim of the principles is to both help reduce FRT harms but also empower civil society and the general population to kind of step forward and ask the right questions and push back and advocate for safeguards with a clear understanding of these technologies. We hope that the information can be used to voice our opposition but also as an advocacy tool when debating and discussing FRT with law and policy makers. So for now I will pass it over to Tomas who can speak to a situation in Argentina and how they met with the principles.

Tomas Ignacio Griffa: Thank you very much Olga, hello everyone. So I’m going to be talking a little bit about our experience in Argentina at CELS regarding the FRT. We’ve been working since 2019 in a litigation against the implementation of facial recognition technology in the city of Buenos Aires. I think this case provides a very interesting example regarding the importance of the ideas behind the principles that Olga was explaining just a moment ago. So very briefly I’m going to talk about how the facial recognition system in the city of Buenos Aires works and what its legal framework looks like. I’m going to talk about what the process in which we question the constitutionality of the system was like. I’m going to explain the principles that were set forth in the ruling by the local judges and finally I’m going to talk a little bit about how all this highlights the relevance of the principles that we were talking about. So first regarding the system, the fugitive facial recognition system in the city of Buenos Aires, or Sistema de Reconocimiento Facial de Prófugos in Spanish, was implemented in the city of Buenos Aires by a ministerial resolution on April 2019. According to the resolution the system was to be employed exclusively to look for fugitives, that is to say people with pending arrest warrants, and exceptionally for other tasks specifically mandated by judges in individual cases. The system worked with the National Fugitive Database, the CONARC in Spanish, which provided the identities of the people that had to be searched for, that is to say the fugitives. and with the National Identity Database, the Registro Nacional de las Personas or RENAPER in Spanish, which was supposed to provide the biometric data regarding the people that had to be searched for, the pictures of these people, the fugitives. The system was operated by the local police and in 2020 the local legislative branch sanctioned a statute that provided a legal basis for the system. So, regarding the case, it was a constitutional protection procedure or AMPARO in Spanish. It was started by the Argentinian Observatory of Informatic Rights, another Argentine NGO, and CELS also took part in the case. The case started with focus on that which research on facial recognition technology around the world has repeatedly shown, that is to say, the risk of mistakes and wrongful identifications, racial and gender biases and impacts on the right to privacy and so on. However, as the judge started gathering information about the system, it became quite clear that there was another big problem, which was its practical implementation. So, as I said, the facial recognition system was intended to work crossing data between a national database of fugitives and wanted people, which consists of maybe 30 to 30,000 names, and the biometric data gathered by the National Identity Database. So, the National Identity Database was supposed to provide the biometric data on those 30 to 30,000 people. However, when the judge asked the National Identity Database how many individual consultations the government of the city of Buenos Aires had made, it turned out that the government had made consultations about more than seven million people, more than nine million consultations in total regarding more than seven million people. So, clearly the Buenos Aires police and perhaps other offices were accessing this biometric data for other purposes, entirely different from searching for fugitives, and to this day we do not know exactly how and why this data was accessed. During the process, during the trial, a group of experts performed an audit of the system. They found that thousands of people had been searched by the facial recognition system without any legal basis, that is to say people who are not fugitives. They also found that information regarding the use of the system had been manually deleted in such a way that it was impossible to recover it, and they found also that it was impossible to trace which specific public officers had operated the system. So, with all this, the local judge ruled that the facial recognition system employed by the city of Buenos Aires was unconstitutional. She found that the system had been implemented without complying with the legal provisions for the protections of the constitutional rights of the citizens. She also, in the ruling, she details that the legislative commission that was supposed to oversee how the system worked had never been created, that the other local organism, the Defensoría del Pueblo in Spanish, which was supposed to audit the system as well, was not provided with the information it needed to perform this task, that there were no previous studies to ascertain the impact of the system on the human rights, and that there were no instances for public participation prior to the introduction of the system. The ruling also explained that, as the court appointed experts explained, it was proven that the system was illegally employed to search for people who did not have pending arrest warrants, and as I said before, local statutes provide that this was the only possibility, the only way the system could be employed. The ruling also held that local authorities had illegally accessed the biometric data of millions of people under the guise of employing this system. And finally, very briefly, the local chamber of appeals affirmed this decision and also added that the implementation of the system had to be preceded by a test performed by experts to ascertain if the software has a differential impact on people based on their race or gender. And finally, very briefly, I’m going to talk about the latest developments in the case. This order to perform the test to ascertain whether the system has a differential impact on people based on race or gender is still being carried out to this day. The government wanted to do a sort of black box test by selecting a number of people and testing the system on them. Our position here is that it is not enough to do a test of this kind and that it’s necessary for the government to disclose the technical details of the software and the datasets with which the software was trained. The government’s position is that this information is a trade secret belonging to the company that provides the software, so this is a debate that is still ongoing. And finally, going back to the principles, the case was prior to the principles, started in 2019 as I said, but I think it’s a very good example of the relevance of the ideas behind the principles and the possible consequences of ignoring them. I mean, the serious irregularities that the judge found on the implementation of the facial recognition system are, we could say, the exact opposite of what the principles stand for. So, very briefly, to give the floor to Adam, thousands of people were looked for employing the system without any legal basis, directly against the ideas set forth in principle number one. The system was implemented without any prior assessment of its impact on fundamental rights. This brings our attention to principle number two. There were supposed to be two oversight bodies according to the legislation, to the framework of the facial recognition system. This looked great in theory, however, as I said, in practice, one of them wasn’t even created and the other one was not provided with information it required to perform its function. This regards obviously to principle 16. No public consultation took place before introducing and employing the facial recognition system. This, of course, goes against principle number six. The use of the system wasn’t properly documented, information was manually deleted, it could not be recovered and it was not possible to tell which public officers had performed each operation. This, of course, regards to principle 11 and the latest developments that I was talking about regarding how this test ordered by the Chamber of Appeals will be carried out. I believe it highlights the importance of being able to access technical information regarding the system, such as the source code, the data that is employed to train the algorithm and so on, and this regards to principles 8 and 13. Thank you very much.

Olga Cronin: Thank you. I might just introduce, maybe just to say, thanks a million, thanks a million, Thomas. I think it’s safe to say that what you just described is exactly that. The principles, had they been seen to or complied with or known about beforehand, it could have been a different scenario and how things can go very wrong. Speaking about how things can go wrong, we’re now going to turn to Hungary and Adam’s going to talk about the recent legislative change there that effectively has banned Pride this weekend and also allows for the police to use FRT to identify people who have defied that ban. So over to you, Adam. Thank you very much for

Adam Remport: having me. I would like to present to you a case which may be good to demonstrate the practical problems with facial recognition, the ones that are formulated often quite abstractly but which have absolute real-life consequences, the case of the Hungarian government essentially banning the Pride parade. So the background of the case is that the Pride is not a new event, it has been held since 1995, but in February of this year the Prime Minister said that it would be banned because that was, in the government’s views, necessary for child protection. So new laws were enacted. They essentially banned any assembly quote-unquote displaying or promoting homosexuality and another law made it possible for facial recognition technology to be deployed for all petty offenses. Now I will tell you more about what petty offenses are in this context. So the legal background of the case is that Hungary has had a facial recognition technology act since 2016. It established a facial recognition database which consists of pictures of IDs, passports and other documents with facial images on them. There are specific authorities that can request facial analysis in certain specified procedures. The Hungarian Institute of Forensic Sciences, which is responsible for operating the facial recognition system. A novelty of Hungarian FRT use was that in 2024, FRT was made available for use in infraction procedures or so-called infraction procedures by the police, and in 2025, this included all infraction procedures. The reason why this is important is that participating in a banned event, an event that had been previously banned by the police, is an infraction. So if demonstrators gather at the Pride event after it had been banned by the police, it would mean that they would collectively commit infractions, probably in the tens of thousands. So let’s find out how the FRT system actually works in this scenario. The police are known to record demonstrations, and they can use CCTV and other available sources to gather photographs or images of certain demonstrations. If they find that there is an infraction happening, what they can do is that they initiate an infraction procedure, and in the course of that infraction procedure, send the facial images to the central FRT system, which then runs an algorithm and identifies the closest five matches, which are then returned to the police, and it’s the police officer operating this system who has to decide whether there is a match or not. I have to point out that this system has never been used en masse, so it has never been used against tens of thousands of people, and it is not known how this system itself will technically or the capacities of the judiciary and the police will operatively handle this kind of situation. So what we can tell about the case is that in the FRT principles, well, it’s the first principle that it must be ensured that FRT is not used to identify protesters or collect information on people attending peaceful assemblies. This is the first principle, and it is immediately violated by this kind of FRT use against peaceful demonstrators. Another principle is that there are certain uses which are banned according to the principles, such as that no FRT system will be used on live or recorded moving images or video data. We can see why it is a problem that the police record entire demonstrations. They don’t even necessarily have to follow a demonstration with live facial recognition. It is enough for the chilling effect to take place, to record everyone who is taking part in the demonstration, to then later systematically find everyone in the police’s recordings and then send fines to them, which is actually probably how this will play out in Hungary or at least how the government plans it to play out. It is an interesting case study of the lack of transparency around facial recognition. One of my conclusions will be that FRT in this present case is used actively to discourage people from attending demonstrations, but the lack of transparency, the lack of knowledge that people have of what is going to actually happen to them is also as discouraging as the outright threats of using FRT. In the case of the Hungarian system, we can tell that there was no public consultation whatsoever before the introduction of the entire system in 2016. The introduction of facial recognition as such was done in Hungary without any public consultation or without it being communicated to the public, which means that there is no public awareness or there hasn’t been up until now, when the situation has gotten worse, public awareness of even the existence of the FRT system. There was no consultation with the public, no data protection impact assessment, no consultation with the data protection authority before the present broadening of the scope of FRT, which would, of course, include this massive breakdown on the freedom to assembly. This also violates one of the articles of the protocols. It can also be said that there are no records of use, no statistics available that would tell you how the system works, how effective it is, when it is deployed against which kinds of infractions whatsoever, and persons prosecuted can almost never find out whether the FRT has been used against them or not. There are no impact assessments before the individual uses of the system, which means that the police can’t simply just initiate these searches without assessing the possible effects that it would have on someone. This is also against the principles. There is no vendor lock-in assessment either, which is also important because the Hungarian Institute of Forensic Sciences, which operates the system, explicitly said that they were only clients using this facial recognition algorithm, which raises the question of whether the data are being transferred to third countries or not. And of course, since there are no risk assessments, they haven’t been publicized either, which also goes against the protocols. So a lack of sufficient oversight is also what I would like to mention. There is no prior judicial authorization. This is important because, as I have told you, it is necessary to start an infraction procedure before FRT can even be deployed. It is not known because the law is not clear about against how many people at the same time can one infraction procedure be initiated. So this has never even really been used against more than three or four people, which makes sense, but it has never been used on a scale of tens of thousands of people. A prior judicial authorization could act as a check on this kind of massive surveillance if a judge could see whether it was necessary to surveil tens of thousands of people at the same time, but it’s not possible. There is no independent oversight body either, and of course there are no annual reports, no notification of the impact assessments to the oversight body, since the oversight body does not exist. So these all go against the provisions, I think in a very concrete manner, so that you can see that these provisions are not just abstract rules, but when they are not met with, that means actual harms in real life. My conclusion would be that what we can see is a weaponization of facial recognition technology, that instead of mitigating the risks, there is a deliberate abuse of FRT’s most invasive properties. Essentially, the government actively communicated that facial recognition would be used against people that they cannot hide because they will be found with facial recognition, and they will be found. It is inevitable. This of course has a massive chilling effect on the freedom of assembly, and we could also say that even the lack of transparency is… This is a kind of weaponized, because if there is a lack of information on the system, it is impossible for people to calculate the risks. This will have a chilling effect on them, because they won’t know whether it is true that they will actually all be found and fined. So, I would like to conclude here. Some possible next steps are legal avenues that can be taken, like the law enforcement directive in the EU or the AI Act. And enclosed principles can, I think, also be used in advocacy at international fora. Thank you.

Olga Cronin: Thanks, Adam. If you don’t mind, I might just ask a follow-up question. Given the situation that’s happening in Hungary, and given it’s so imminent this weekend, and it has got such international attention, how have the people in Hungary, how are they feeling? What’s the public opinion about the use of FRT? Has it changed? Did people care before, or how is it now?

Adam Remport: Well, people, I think, never really cared about FRT, because they didn’t actually know that it existed, precisely because of the lack of communication on the government side. So, the situation had to become this bad and severe for the people to start to even care about the problem. But now, the system already exists, with the rules that we have now, and which can be abused by the police and the government. So, many are concerned now, but proactive communication should have been necessary on the government’s part.

Olga Cronin: I just wonder if we have any questions.

Audience: Hi. Can you hear me?

Olga Cronin: Yes.

Audience: I’m from Brazil. My name is Pietra. The situation in Brazil with facial recognition is growing really fast. I think it’s very similar to what is happening in Argentina. But I was really shocked with the Hungarian case. And I’m part of a project that is trying to do some community activations about facial recognition in use in police. So, I wanted to hear from you if you’ve ever done something with community activation. And also, I wanted to ask if you believe that there is a way to use facial recognition, or if you think that it should be banned. Because in Brazil, we are discussing a lot about banning all systems that use facial recognition. So, I wanted to listen from you guys, what you think about it. Thank you.

Olga Cronin: Thank you. I can have a go at answering some of those questions. I think the idea of getting into communities and doing that education awareness piece, which is I think what you’re talking about, and maybe activating them or stirring them into taking action, is really, really important. Mainly because of the same issue that Adam just mentioned. You know, people don’t really understand it, don’t really know about it. And then when people are talking about it, people in position of authority speak of it as a silver bullet solution. With this, you know, there’s no problems. It’s like control and F, there’s no issues. And just can absolutely downplay the risks. So, I think you have to get creative. I think you have to get creative with maybe local artists. ICCL created a mural with a local artist in Dublin to highlight the dangers of FRT. But it’s also kind of getting, looping in with other civil society organizations who might not work in this space. And getting down to that kind of grassroots level. I think you just have to kind of get imaginative. You’re trying to get the word out there. And I think, you know, use all the tools available to you that you would use in general for communications. I think when it comes to a ban, ICCL, or sorry, INCLO rather, like I said, we have 17 members in 17 different jurisdictions. There are already 17 different sets of kind of safeguards and protections there in place. Some people are calling for a ban. Some people are calling for a moratorium. And other people are calling for, or other groups are calling for legislation. It really is specific to the jurisdiction and what’s happening there. But what we do know is that the risks and the harms are present. They’re pressing. That mass surveillance risk and how this can be quickly deployed against us is clear and obvious. So from many of our perspectives in INCLO, we would call for a ban. We don’t wish the police to use it. But we know that that fight has been lost in certain jurisdictions. So this is an attempt to try and make it better, at least. I hope that helps.

June Beck: Hello, my name is June Beck from Youth for Privacy. I was wondering, since we’re talking about facial recognition technologies, there’s also been a lot of movement to penalize wearing masks in public as an attempt to protect yourself against facial recognition technology. So I was wondering if INCLO or any organization have thoughts or processes or any kind of discussions on how the ban of facial masks, for example, is also in conversation with FRT. I don’t wish to take over the conversation. You might have something to say. Not really pertaining to this. Maybe a little, but if you have to. We’re out of time. We’re out of time. I would say that that’s happening. More and more laws are being passed to ban face masks at protests. It’s on the cards in Ireland as well. It’s happening in England. It’s changing to be more restrictive in England. It is happening, and it’s impossible to see how that’s not a response to the use by police of FRT. And then the response of the public to cover their faces. So it’s not something that we’ve worked on specifically yet, but it’s absolutely something that we are working on individually, if you like. Thank you.

Olga Cronin: Thanks a million. Sorry, we’ve gone over time. We’re very happy that you joined us. We hope that you enjoyed it and that you found it insightful. Thanks very much. And we have copies of the principles and hard copies if you wish. Thank you. Thank you very much. Goodbye. Thank you. Goodbye.

MODERATOR: Workshop two. Workshop two. Workshop two. Workshop two. Workshop two. Workshop two. Workshop two. Workshop two. Workshop two. Workshop two. Workshop two. Workshop two. Workshop two. Workshop two. Workshop two. Workshop two. Workshop two. Workshop two. Workshop two. Workshop two. Workshop two. Workshop two. Workshop two.

Agreement points

FRT systems are inherently unreliable and prone to errors with serious consequences

Speakers

– Olga Cronin
– Tomas Ignacio Griffa
– Adam Remport

Arguments

FRT systems are probabilistic and prone to errors, with threshold values creating false positive or negative rates

The technology demonstrates arbitrariness, as shown by Robert Williams case where different algorithms produced different results

Buenos Aires implemented FRT system in 2019 supposedly only for fugitives but accessed biometric data of over 7 million people illegally

Thousands were searched without legal basis, information was manually deleted, and it was impossible to trace which officers operated the system

Summary

All speakers agree that FRT technology is fundamentally unreliable, with Cronin demonstrating this through the Robert Williams case, Griffa showing massive overreach in Buenos Aires, and Remport highlighting lack of transparency in Hungary’s system

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

FRT violates multiple fundamental human rights and requires comprehensive legal safeguards

Speakers

– Olga Cronin
– Tomas Ignacio Griffa
– Adam Remport

Arguments

FRT affects multiple human rights including dignity, privacy, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, equality, and due process

Any FRT use must have sufficient legal basis and should never be used to identify protesters or collect information on peaceful assemblies

The system was ruled unconstitutional due to lack of legal compliance, missing oversight bodies, and no human rights impact studies

The system violates multiple INCLO principles by targeting peaceful protesters and lacking transparency, consultation, or oversight

Summary

All speakers agree that FRT has broad human rights implications and requires strong legal frameworks with proper oversight, impact assessments, and safeguards to prevent abuse

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Lack of transparency and public consultation enables FRT abuse

Speakers

– Olga Cronin
– Tomas Ignacio Griffa
– Adam Remport

Arguments

Mandatory fundamental rights impact assessments must be conducted prior to any new FRT use

Government claims technical details are trade secrets, preventing proper assessment of bias and discrimination

Lack of public awareness about FRT existence due to no consultation or communication from government

Summary

All speakers emphasize that governments are implementing FRT systems without proper public consultation, transparency, or impact assessments, which enables systematic abuse and prevents accountability

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

FRT is being weaponized against marginalized communities and protesters

Speakers

– Olga Cronin
– Adam Remport

Arguments

FRT is being weaponized against marginalized groups including Palestinians, Uyghur Muslims, and protesters

The technology enables mass surveillance and gives police seismic shift in surveillance power, turning people into ‘walking license plates’

Hungarian government banned Pride parade and expanded FRT use to all petty offenses, enabling mass surveillance of demonstrators

FRT is being deliberately weaponized with government actively communicating that participants will be found and fined

Summary

Both speakers agree that FRT is not a neutral technology but is being actively used as a tool of oppression against vulnerable communities, particularly LGBTQ+ individuals and political protesters

Topics

Human rights

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of independent oversight mechanisms for FRT systems, with Cronin advocating for this in INCLO principles and Griffa showing the consequences when such oversight is absent in Argentina

Speakers

– Olga Cronin
– Tomas Ignacio Griffa

Arguments

Independent oversight bodies must be established with mandatory annual reporting requirements

The system was ruled unconstitutional due to lack of legal compliance, missing oversight bodies, and no human rights impact studies

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers strongly oppose the use of FRT against peaceful protesters and demonstrators, viewing this as a fundamental violation of democratic rights and freedoms

Speakers

– Olga Cronin
– Adam Remport

Arguments

Any FRT use must have sufficient legal basis and should never be used to identify protesters or collect information on peaceful assemblies

The system violates multiple INCLO principles by targeting peaceful protesters and lacking transparency, consultation, or oversight

Topics

Human rights

Both acknowledge the ongoing debate about whether FRT should be completely banned or regulated, recognizing that different jurisdictions may require different approaches based on their specific circumstances

Speakers

– Olga Cronin
– Audience

Arguments

Different jurisdictions require different approaches – some calling for bans, others for moratoriums or legislation

Need for community activation and discussion about whether FRT should be completely banned or regulated

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Trade secrets cannot justify lack of transparency in bias assessment

Speakers

– Olga Cronin
– Tomas Ignacio Griffa

Arguments

Mandatory fundamental rights impact assessments must be conducted prior to any new FRT use

Government claims technical details are trade secrets, preventing proper assessment of bias and discrimination

Explanation

Both speakers, drawing from different legal contexts (UK Bridges case and Argentina case), reach the same conclusion that commercial trade secret claims cannot override the need for transparency in assessing discriminatory impacts of FRT systems

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Creative community engagement is essential for FRT awareness

Speakers

– Olga Cronin
– Audience

Arguments

Creative community activation through local artists and grassroots organizations is essential for public awareness

Need for community activation and discussion about whether FRT should be completely banned or regulated

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus on the need for creative, grassroots approaches to public education about FRT, moving beyond traditional advocacy to include artistic and community-based methods

Topics

Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

There is strong consensus among all speakers that FRT poses serious threats to human rights, is being systematically abused by governments, and requires comprehensive legal safeguards. All speakers agree on the technology’s unreliability, its disproportionate impact on marginalized communities, and the need for transparency and oversight.

Consensus level

Very high level of consensus with no fundamental disagreements. The speakers complement each other’s arguments with concrete examples from different jurisdictions (Ireland/UK, Argentina, Hungary) that all support the same conclusions about FRT dangers. This strong consensus strengthens the case for international coordination on FRT regulation and suggests broad civil society agreement on the need for restrictive approaches to FRT deployment.

Different viewpoints

Regulatory approach – ban versus regulation with safeguards

Speakers

– Olga Cronin
– Audience

Arguments

Different jurisdictions require different approaches – some calling for bans, others for moratoriums or legislation

Need for community activation and discussion about whether FRT should be completely banned or regulated

Summary

While Cronin acknowledges that INCLO members have varying approaches (some calling for complete bans, others for regulation), and mentions that ‘from many of our perspectives in INCLO, we would call for a ban,’ she also recognizes that ‘we know that that fight has been lost in certain jurisdictions’ requiring a pragmatic approach with safeguards. The Brazilian audience member specifically asks whether FRT should be banned completely, highlighting this strategic disagreement within the civil liberties community.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers show remarkable alignment on the fundamental problems with FRT and the need for strong protections, with only minor strategic disagreements about regulatory approaches

Disagreement level

Very low level of disagreement. The speakers are essentially presenting a unified front against current FRT practices, with their different case studies (international principles, Argentina’s legal victory, Hungary’s weaponization) all supporting the same core argument that FRT poses serious threats to human rights and requires either prohibition or very strict regulation. The only meaningful disagreement is strategic – whether to pursue complete bans or work within existing systems to implement strong safeguards. This low level of disagreement actually strengthens their collective message but may indicate a need for more diverse perspectives in the discussion to fully explore the complexities of FRT regulation.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the critical importance of independent oversight mechanisms for FRT systems, with Cronin advocating for this in INCLO principles and Griffa showing the consequences when such oversight is absent in Argentina

Speakers

– Olga Cronin
– Tomas Ignacio Griffa

Arguments

Independent oversight bodies must be established with mandatory annual reporting requirements

The system was ruled unconstitutional due to lack of legal compliance, missing oversight bodies, and no human rights impact studies

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both speakers strongly oppose the use of FRT against peaceful protesters and demonstrators, viewing this as a fundamental violation of democratic rights and freedoms

Speakers

– Olga Cronin
– Adam Remport

Arguments

Any FRT use must have sufficient legal basis and should never be used to identify protesters or collect information on peaceful assemblies

The system violates multiple INCLO principles by targeting peaceful protesters and lacking transparency, consultation, or oversight

Topics

Human rights

Both acknowledge the ongoing debate about whether FRT should be completely banned or regulated, recognizing that different jurisdictions may require different approaches based on their specific circumstances

Speakers

– Olga Cronin
– Audience

Arguments

Different jurisdictions require different approaches – some calling for bans, others for moratoriums or legislation

Need for community activation and discussion about whether FRT should be completely banned or regulated

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Facial Recognition Technology (FRT) poses significant risks to human rights including privacy, freedom of assembly, and equality, with documented bias against Black individuals and potential for mass surveillance

INCLO developed 18 principles for police use of FRT to mitigate harms, including requirements for legal basis, impact assessments, independent oversight, and prohibition of live FRT

Real-world case studies from Argentina and Hungary demonstrate how FRT can be misused when proper safeguards are absent – Argentina’s system illegally accessed 7+ million people’s data while Hungary weaponized FRT against LGBTQ+ Pride participants

FRT systems are inherently unreliable and probabilistic, prone to false positives/negatives, with different algorithms producing contradictory results as shown in the Robert Williams case

Public awareness and community engagement are crucial since many people are unaware FRT systems exist or how they operate in their jurisdictions

The technology enables governments to weaponize surveillance against marginalized groups and peaceful protesters, creating chilling effects on freedom of assembly

Resolutions and action items

INCLO created and published 18 principles for police use of FRT as an advocacy tool for civil society organizations

Legal challenges can be pursued through EU Law Enforcement Directive and AI Act provisions

Community activation through creative means like local artists and grassroots organizations should be implemented to raise public awareness

Hard copies of INCLO principles were made available to workshop participants for further distribution and use

Unresolved issues

Whether FRT should be completely banned versus regulated varies by jurisdiction – no consensus reached on universal approach

Technical details of FRT systems remain hidden behind trade secret claims, preventing proper bias assessment

How to effectively handle mass deployment of FRT against large groups (tens of thousands) remains technically and operationally unclear

The relationship between laws banning face masks at protests and FRT deployment needs further examination

Ongoing legal battle in Argentina over government’s refusal to disclose technical specifications claiming trade secrets

Long-term effectiveness of community engagement strategies for FRT awareness remains to be determined

Suggested compromises

INCLO’s 18 principles represent a compromise approach – recognizing that complete bans may not be achievable in all jurisdictions while establishing minimum safeguards

Allowing retrospective FRT use while prohibiting live FRT as a middle-ground approach, though noting retrospective can be equally invasive

Requiring independent technical assessments rather than relying solely on vendor claims about bias and accuracy

Robert was arrested after an algorithm identified him as the ninth most likely match for the probe image but there were two other algorithms run. One returned 243 candidates, Robert wasn’t on that list, and another returned no results at all and yet he was still arrested and detained. So really the point of this is just to show the arbitrariness of this and it’s not this silver bullet solution that it’s often presented to be.

Speaker

Olga Cronin

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it exposes the fundamental unreliability and arbitrariness of FRT through a concrete example. It demonstrates how the same person can be identified differently by different algorithms, yet law enforcement still acted on inconclusive results. This challenges the common perception of FRT as infallible technology.

Impact

This comment established the foundation for the entire discussion by immediately dismantling the myth of FRT reliability. It shifted the conversation from theoretical concerns to concrete evidence of systemic failures, setting up the framework for all subsequent case studies and principles discussed.

However, when the judge asked the National Identity Database how many individual consultations the government of the city of Buenos Aires had made, it turned out that the government had made consultations about more than seven million people, more than nine million consultations in total regarding more than seven million people. So, clearly the Buenos Aires police and perhaps other offices were accessing this biometric data for other purposes, entirely different from searching for fugitives.

Speaker

Tomas Ignacio Griffa

Reason

This revelation is particularly thought-provoking because it exposes the massive scope creep from the stated purpose (30,000 fugitives) to actual implementation (7+ million people). It demonstrates how FRT systems can be systematically abused beyond their intended scope without proper oversight.

Impact

This comment fundamentally shifted the discussion from technical accuracy issues to systemic abuse and mission creep. It provided concrete evidence for why the INCLO principles around oversight, documentation, and legal frameworks are essential, making the abstract principles tangible through real-world consequences.

It is an interesting case study of the lack of transparency around facial recognition. One of my conclusions will be that FRT in this present case is used actively to discourage people from attending demonstrations, but the lack of transparency, the lack of knowledge that people have of what is going to actually happen to them is also as discouraging as the outright threats of using FRT.

Speaker

Adam Remport

Reason

This insight is particularly profound because it identifies how uncertainty itself becomes a weapon. The comment reveals that the chilling effect doesn’t require actual deployment – the mere possibility, combined with lack of transparency, creates self-censorship and suppresses fundamental rights.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion to examine the psychological and societal impacts of FRT beyond direct misidentification. It introduced the concept of ‘weaponized uncertainty’ and connected technical surveillance capabilities to broader democratic freedoms, deepening the conversation about systemic effects on civil liberties.

Well, people, I think, never really cared about FRT, because they didn’t actually know that it existed, precisely because of the lack of communication on the government side. So, the situation had to become this bad and severe for the people to start to even care about the problem. But now, the system already exists, with the rules that we have now, and which can be abused by the police and the government.

Speaker

Adam Remport

Reason

This comment is insightful because it highlights a critical democratic deficit – how surveillance systems can be implemented without public awareness or consent, and by the time people become aware, the infrastructure for abuse is already in place. It reveals the strategic nature of opacity in surveillance deployment.

Impact

This response crystallized the importance of proactive transparency and public engagement principles discussed earlier. It connected the technical principles to democratic governance, showing how the lack of early intervention creates fait accompli situations where rights are harder to protect retroactively.

I was wondering, since we’re talking about facial recognition technologies, there’s also been a lot of movement to penalize wearing masks in public as an attempt to protect yourself against facial recognition technology. So I was wondering if INCLO or any organization have thoughts or processes or any kind of discussions on how the ban of facial masks, for example, is also in conversation with FRT.

Speaker

June Beck

Reason

This question is thought-provoking because it identifies the emerging ‘arms race’ between surveillance technology and privacy protection measures. It reveals how FRT deployment creates secondary policy responses that further erode privacy rights, creating a compounding effect on civil liberties.

Impact

This question expanded the scope of the discussion beyond FRT itself to examine the broader ecosystem of surveillance and counter-surveillance measures. It highlighted how FRT creates cascading policy effects that multiply its impact on civil liberties, adding another layer of complexity to the regulatory challenges discussed.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it through distinct phases: from establishing the technical unreliability of FRT, to demonstrating systematic abuse in practice, to revealing the strategic use of opacity as a tool of social control, and finally to examining the broader ecosystem of surveillance and counter-surveillance measures. The comments created a progression from individual harms to systemic abuse to democratic deficits, making the abstract principles concrete through real-world consequences. The discussion evolved from a technical presentation to a nuanced examination of how surveillance technology intersects with democratic governance, civil liberties, and social control. Each comment built upon previous insights, creating a comprehensive picture of how FRT threatens not just individual privacy but the broader fabric of democratic society.

How to effectively conduct community activation and education about facial recognition technology risks

Speaker

Pietra (audience member from Brazil)

Explanation

This is important because many people are unaware that FRT systems exist or understand their risks, making community education crucial for building awareness and resistance to harmful implementations

Whether facial recognition technology should be completely banned or if there are acceptable use cases

Speaker

Pietra (audience member from Brazil)

Explanation

This represents a fundamental policy question that different jurisdictions are grappling with, as some advocate for total bans while others seek regulatory frameworks

How laws banning face masks in public relate to and interact with facial recognition technology deployment

Speaker

June Beck (Youth for Privacy)

Explanation

This highlights an emerging area where governments may be restricting protective measures against surveillance, creating a concerning dynamic between FRT use and citizens’ ability to protect their privacy

How the Hungarian FRT system will technically and operationally handle mass surveillance of tens of thousands of people simultaneously

Speaker

Adam Remport

Explanation

This is critical because the system has never been tested at this scale, and the capacity limitations could affect both the effectiveness and the human rights impacts of such mass deployment

What specific purposes the Buenos Aires police used to access over 7 million people’s biometric data beyond searching for fugitives

Speaker

Tomas Ignacio Griffa

Explanation

This represents a significant violation of the system’s stated purpose and legal framework, and understanding these unauthorized uses is crucial for accountability and preventing similar abuses

Whether technical details of FRT software and training datasets should be disclosed for bias testing versus protecting trade secrets

Speaker

Tomas Ignacio Griffa

Explanation

This ongoing legal debate in Argentina highlights the tension between transparency needed for accountability and vendors’ claims of proprietary information, which affects the ability to properly audit these systems for bias

Whether data from the Hungarian FRT system is being transferred to third countries given the vendor relationship

Speaker

Adam Remport

Explanation

This raises important questions about data sovereignty and international data transfers that could have significant privacy and security implications for Hungarian citizens

Summary

This discussion focused on evaluating the impact of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on the Information Society over its 20-year history and exploring its future role in digital governance. The session was moderated by Avri Doria and featured distinguished panelists from various sectors including government, technical organizations, civil society, and academia, along with contributions from both in-person and online participants.

The panelists consistently emphasized that the IGF has been transformative in establishing multi-stakeholder governance as the norm for internet policy-making globally. Ambassador Betanga Ndemo from Kenya highlighted how the IGF’s consultative approach, though initially challenging for policymakers, ultimately made policy implementation much easier and more effective. Several speakers noted that the IGF has served as a crucial platform for capacity building, knowledge exchange, and fostering understanding between different stakeholder groups who might not otherwise interact.

The discussion revealed that the IGF’s impact extends far beyond the annual meetings, encompassing a living ecosystem of national and regional IGFs, dynamic coalitions, best practice forums, and policy networks. Participants shared concrete examples of the IGF’s influence, including the development of internet exchange points in Africa, the successful IANA transition, and the creation of progressive internet legislation in countries like Brazil. The forum has been particularly valuable for Global South participants, providing access to global policy discussions and enabling local issues to reach international attention.

Looking toward the future, there was strong consensus on the need for a permanent mandate for the IGF to ensure its continued stability and effectiveness. Speakers emphasized the importance of better integration with other UN processes, particularly the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) framework and the Global Digital Compact (GDC). The discussion concluded with recognition that the IGF remains essential for maintaining people-centered, inclusive digital governance in an increasingly complex and fragmented digital landscape.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Personal and Professional Impact of IGF**: Participants shared how the Internet Governance Forum has personally transformed their understanding of multi-stakeholder processes, enabled cross-sector dialogue, and created lasting professional relationships. Many emphasized how IGF taught them to listen to different stakeholder perspectives rather than just defending their own positions.

– **IGF’s Role in Developing Multi-stakeholder Governance Culture**: The discussion highlighted how IGF pioneered and normalized multi-stakeholder approaches to internet governance globally, with this model being adopted at national and regional levels. Speakers noted how this collaborative approach has become “the norm” for policy-making in many countries.

– **Concrete Achievements and Infrastructure Development**: Participants cited specific successes including the development of Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) in Africa, submarine cable infrastructure projects, the successful IANA transition, and policy frameworks like Brazil’s Internet Civil Rights Framework. The forum was credited with facilitating knowledge transfer between regions, particularly benefiting Global South countries.

– **Need for Permanent Mandate and Better Integration**: A recurring theme was the urgent need to secure a permanent mandate for IGF rather than operating on temporary renewals. Speakers also emphasized better integration with other UN processes, particularly the WSIS framework and the Global Digital Compact (GDC), to avoid fragmentation of digital governance discussions.

– **Future Challenges and Inclusivity**: The discussion addressed emerging issues like AI governance, cybersecurity, and digital divides, while emphasizing the need to maintain IGF’s people-centered approach. Participants stressed the importance of including more voices from the Global South, youth perspectives, and ensuring the forum remains accessible to newcomers while celebrating its successes more effectively.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to assess the 20-year impact of the Internet Governance Forum on digital governance and the information society, while exploring how IGF should evolve to contribute to future digital cooperation frameworks, particularly the WSIS goals and Global Digital Compact implementation.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was overwhelmingly positive and celebratory, with participants expressing genuine affection for and commitment to the IGF process. The discussion was notably personal and emotional, with many speakers sharing transformative experiences. While acknowledging challenges and areas for improvement, the tone remained constructive and forward-looking. There was a sense of urgency around securing IGF’s future through a permanent mandate, but this was expressed with determination rather than anxiety. The atmosphere was collegial and inclusive, reflecting the multi-stakeholder values being discussed.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Avri Doria** – Moderator of the session, has been involved with IGF since its conception and birth

– **Bitange Ndemo** – Professor Ambassador of Kenya to Belgium and the European Union, former policymaker in Kenya

– **Hans Petter Holen** – Leader of RIPE NCC (one of the regional internet registries), involved in critical internet infrastructure

– **Renata Mielli** – Chair of CGI.br (Brazilian Internet Steering Committee)

– **Funke Opeke** – Founder of Main1 in Nigeria, entrepreneur in digital infrastructure, retiring from the company

– **Qusai Al Shatti** – Representative of the Arab IGF

– **Chat Garcia Ramilo** – Associated with APC (Association for Progressive Communications), civil society advocate

– **Luca Belli** – Professor at FGV Law School in Rio de Janeiro, academic and dynamic coalition convener

– **Isabelle Lois** – Vice Chair of the CSTD (Commission on Science and Technology for Development), representative of Swiss government

– **Anriette Esterhuysen** – Former APC member, former MAG Chair, civil society advocate

– **Online moderator** – Jim Sunilufe, remote moderator managing online participants

– **Online participant 1** – Dr. Robinson Sibbe, CEO and Lead Forensic Examiner of Digital Footprints Nigeria, cybersecurity expert

– **Online participant 2** – Emily Taylor, researcher from the UK who conducted impact studies on IGF

**Additional speakers:**

– **Rolf Meijer** – CEO of SIDN, registry for the .nl country code top-level domain

– **Juan Fernandez** – Ministry of Communication of Cuba representative

– **Stephanie Perrin** – From Canada, former Canadian government telecom sector worker

– **Auka Aukpals** – IGF attendee for past ten years

– **Markus Kummer** – Long-time IGF participant, former IGF secretariat member, involved since inception

– **Jasmine Maffei** – Youth participant from Hong Kong

– **Piu** – Young participant from Myanmar

– **Raul Echeverria** – From Uruguay, MAG member

– **Bertrand Lachapelle** – Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network

– **Nathan Latte** – From IGF Côte d’Ivoire (online participant)

– **Mark Gave** – From the UK (online participant)

# Comprehensive Report: Evaluating the Internet Governance Forum’s 20-Year Impact on Digital Governance

## Executive Summary

This extensive discussion, moderated by Avri Doria, brought together distinguished representatives from government, technical organisations, civil society, and academia to assess the Internet Governance Forum’s (IGF) transformative impact over two decades. The session was structured around three key questions: how the IGF has changed participants personally and professionally, what concrete impacts it has achieved, and what challenges it faces moving forward.

The overarching consensus emerged that the IGF has fundamentally transformed internet governance by establishing multi-stakeholder consultation as the global norm, creating lasting infrastructure and policy impacts particularly in the Global South, and fostering a unique ecosystem of collaboration. However, participants also identified critical challenges requiring immediate attention, particularly the urgent need for a permanent mandate and better integration with emerging digital governance frameworks.

## Personal and Professional Transformations

### Converting Sceptics to Advocates

The discussion revealed profound personal transformations across all stakeholder groups. Juan Fernandez from Cuba’s Ministry of Communication offered a remarkably candid admission: “When this began, and I went to the first one, I was very sceptical. I think, well, this is just, we’re giving some breadcrumbs to the civil society because they were shunned out of the process… But I was proven wrong.” His conversion from sceptic to advocate demonstrates the IGF’s capacity to change minds even among initially resistant government officials.

Ambassador Bitange Ndemo of Kenya, Ambassador to Belgium and the European Union, provided crucial historical perspective, explaining how the IGF introduced a revolutionary approach to policy-making at a time when “there was no Google” and “we didn’t know what exactly internet will do.” He emphasised that whilst multi-stakeholder consultation was initially “painful” for policymakers accustomed to traditional top-down approaches, it ultimately made policy implementation “much, much easier” because stakeholders had been genuinely consulted.

### Building Multi-Stakeholder Mindsets

Anriette Esterhuysen, former APC member and MAG Chair, described how the IGF created “impatience for non-multi-stakeholder forums” and fundamentally changed how she approached policy work by connecting policymakers with implementers. Luca Belli from FGV Law School, attending his 15th IGF, emphasised how the forum enabled understanding of different stakeholder perspectives and built trust through relationships rather than mere transactional interactions.

The youth perspective was particularly compelling, with participants from Hong Kong and Myanmar emphasising the IGF’s unique bottom-up approach where young people can easily communicate with senior leaders. Piu from Myanmar raised the important question of how to “officially recognise youth voices as part of the multi-stakeholder model.”

Avri Doria, as moderator, provided personal context as someone who was “here at its conception” and “birth” and has attended most IGF meetings, offering a unique longitudinal perspective on the forum’s evolution.

## Establishing Multi-Stakeholder Governance as the Global Norm

### Systemic Change in Policy-Making

Perhaps the most significant achievement identified was the IGF’s role in normalising multi-stakeholder governance globally. Qusai Al Shatti, representing the Arab IGF, noted that “multi-stakeholder process became the norm in policy making and regulation” following the IGF’s introduction. This transformation extended beyond internet governance to influence broader policy-making approaches.

Marcus Kummer provided important historical context by referencing the WGIC definition of Internet Governance and the four original themes that structured early discussions. This foundation helped establish the framework that would influence global approaches to digital governance.

### The IGF Ecosystem

Multiple speakers emphasised that the IGF’s impact extends far beyond annual meetings to encompass a comprehensive ecosystem. This includes national and regional IGFs, dynamic coalitions, best practice forums, policy networks, and intersessional work that creates year-round engagement. Renata Mielli, Chair of CGI.br, highlighted how this ecosystem inspired Brazilian internet governance community development and directly influenced policy creation, including the São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines launched the day before this session.

Hans Petter Holen from RIPE NCC provided analytical clarity by distinguishing three interconnected layers: internet coordination (keeping systems running through stable, interoperable infrastructure), internet governance (shaping usage through shared norms and policies), and digital governance (guiding social transformations). He positioned the IGF as “a rare and essential arena where technical realities meet policy aspirations.”

## Concrete Infrastructure and Policy Achievements

### Infrastructure Development Impact

The discussion revealed substantial concrete impacts, particularly in infrastructure development. Ambassador Ndemo provided striking context about Africa’s transformation, noting that when IGF discussions began, “Africa had only one gig capacity for the entire continent.” The forum’s role in facilitating knowledge transfer and best practice sharing contributed to dramatic improvements in connectivity.

Funke Opeke, founder of Main1 in Nigeria, emphasised how the IGF enabled pioneers in the Global South to learn best practices for building digital ecosystems. She noted that in her company’s service area, internet penetration grew from “close to 10%” to “close to 50%,” demonstrating the practical impact of knowledge sharing facilitated through IGF networks.

Emily Taylor, participating online from the UK, referenced research demonstrating the IGF’s contribution to the emergence of Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) in Africa, which reduced latency and costs whilst improving service quality.

### Policy Development and Legislative Impact

The IGF’s influence on policy development was demonstrated through multiple concrete examples. Renata Mielli detailed how IGF discussions directly influenced the creation of Brazil’s Internet Civil Rights Framework and Data Protection Law. These achievements demonstrate the forum’s capacity to translate dialogue into actionable policy outcomes.

Luca Belli highlighted how dynamic coalitions’ work influenced various regulatory frameworks, though he noted frustration that these successes were not well-publicised on the IGF website. Chat Garcia Ramilo from APC emphasised the IGF’s role in establishing human rights principles online and addressing gender-based violence through initiatives like the Digital Justice Now Coalition.

The successful IANA transition was repeatedly cited as a major achievement facilitated by IGF discussions, representing a critical moment in internet governance where multi-stakeholder processes proved their effectiveness.

## Global South Participation and Capacity Building

### Amplifying Marginalised Voices

A recurring theme was the IGF’s crucial role in amplifying voices from the Global South that are often marginalised in digital governance conversations. Chat Garcia Ramilo emphasised how the forum provided platforms for perspectives that might otherwise be excluded from international policy discussions.

Funke Opeke described the IGF as enabling Global South stakeholders to “have a seat at the table in a polarised world,” providing access to policy discussions and best practices that would otherwise be unavailable. The forum’s open access approach allowed grassroots initiatives and young people to participate globally.

Dr. Robinson Sibbe, participating online from Nigeria, highlighted the IGF’s role in contextualising cybersecurity challenges and demonstrating the value of inclusive governance for problem-solving, though he noted ongoing challenges in translating global discussions into local action.

### Knowledge Transfer and Learning

Isabelle Lois, Vice Chair of the CSTD representing the Swiss government, emphasised the IGF’s role as a capacity building platform with “tremendous learning opportunities.” This educational function was seen as essential for developing the expertise needed for effective digital governance at national and regional levels.

The capacity building dimension was particularly emphasised by Global South participants, with the IGF serving as a platform where regions could learn from each other’s experiences and adapt successful practices to local contexts.

## Contemporary Challenges and Critical Needs

### The Urgent Need for Permanent Mandate

Perhaps the strongest consensus emerged around the urgent need for a permanent mandate for the IGF. Hans Petter Holen articulated this clearly: “IGF needs permanent mandate to focus on matters rather than securing future meeting place.” The current system of temporary renewals was seen as creating unnecessary uncertainty and diverting energy from substantive work.

Multiple speakers emphasised that permanent mandate would provide the stability needed for long-term planning and more robust funding mechanisms. This institutional security was seen as essential for the IGF to fulfil its potential role in implementing emerging frameworks like the Global Digital Compact.

### Integration with Emerging Digital Governance Frameworks

A critical challenge identified was the need for better integration with other UN processes and emerging digital governance frameworks. Renata Mielli emphasised that the IGF should be empowered as the main focal point for Global Digital Compact implementation.

Anriette Esterhuysen provided a crucial distinction, noting that whilst many new forums like the Global Digital Compact and Artificial Intelligence Dialogue “put the emphasis on the technology, not on the society, and not on the people,” the IGF maintains its people-centred approach.

### Addressing Implementation Gaps

Ambassador Ndemo introduced a critical perspective on the IGF’s methodology, arguing for a shift from siloed discussions to system-wide thinking. He advocated for approaches that could help people benefit from emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, suggesting that the IGF needed to evolve beyond its traditional sectoral approach.

Dr. Robinson Sibbe supported this view, suggesting the IGF should move closer to implementation with localised action and technical working groups. This reflected a broader tension between the IGF’s traditional role as a dialogue forum and growing expectations for more actionable outcomes.

## Accessibility and Participation Challenges

### Barriers to Inclusive Participation

Luca Belli highlighted significant barriers to Global South participation, noting the high financial costs of attending IGF meetings in expensive locations. This accessibility challenge was seen as undermining the multi-stakeholder model by limiting diverse participation to those with sufficient resources.

Raul Echeverria from Uruguay raised concerns about the IGF’s complexity, suggesting the need to “simplify IGF to make it easier for newcomers to become meaningfully involved.” This accessibility challenge was seen as potentially limiting the forum’s ability to attract new participants and maintain its vitality.

### Visibility and Recognition Issues

A significant theme was the IGF’s poor track record in publicising its achievements. Luca Belli expressed frustration that IGF success stories were not well-publicised, limiting the forum’s ability to demonstrate its value to sceptics and secure continued support.

Chat Garcia Ramilo emphasised the need for “better celebration of successes and making achievements more visible,” suggesting that the IGF’s modest culture, whilst admirable, was hindering recognition of its substantial contributions.

## Structural Evolution Proposals

### Working Group for Institutional Reform

Bertrand Lachapelle from the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network provided concrete proposals for institutional evolution. He suggested establishing a working group similar to the WGIG from 2004-05 to address two critical areas: the evolution of the IGF’s mandate and focus, and the institutionalisation of its structure.

This proposal gained support from multiple speakers who recognised that whilst the IGF had proven its value, it needed structural evolution to remain relevant and effective. The working group approach was seen as a way to conduct this evolution through the same multi-stakeholder processes that had made the IGF successful.

### Measurement and Evaluation Challenges

Stephanie Perrin from Canada raised the fundamental question of “how do we measure the impacts of the IGF?” noting the difficulty in quantifying the success of multi-stakeholder innovation. This measurement challenge was seen as both a practical problem for securing continued support and a conceptual challenge in understanding the IGF’s diverse impacts.

The discussion revealed tension between the IGF’s non-decision-making nature and expectations for measurable outcomes, with speakers recognising that the forum’s value often lay in relationship building, agenda setting, and cultural change—impacts that are real but difficult to quantify.

## Regional and National IGF Development

The discussion highlighted the remarkable growth of national and regional IGFs as perhaps the most concrete demonstration of the IGF’s impact. Nathan Latte from IGF Côte d’Ivoire and other regional representatives emphasised how national IGFs had adapted the global model to local contexts whilst maintaining core principles.

This organic expansion was seen as evidence that the multi-stakeholder model was meeting real needs at various levels of governance, creating a multi-level governance system that could address challenges at appropriate scales.

## Conclusion: Securing the IGF’s Future

The discussion revealed an IGF at a critical juncture in its development. After twenty years of remarkable success in establishing multi-stakeholder governance as the global norm and creating concrete impacts in infrastructure development and policy creation, the forum faces both unprecedented opportunities and significant challenges.

The overwhelming consensus on the IGF’s value and the urgent need for permanent mandate provides a strong foundation for institutional reform. The testimonies shared demonstrate the IGF’s transformative impact on individuals, institutions, and global governance practices, while highlighting three critical areas requiring immediate attention:

1. **Institutional Strengthening**: Achieving permanent mandate and stable funding to provide the security needed for long-term planning and effectiveness.

2. **Enhanced Integration**: Better positioning within the evolving digital governance landscape, particularly as the focal point for Global Digital Compact implementation while maintaining the IGF’s distinctive people-centred approach.

3. **Improved Accessibility**: Addressing financial barriers, simplifying processes for newcomers, and ensuring continued inclusive participation from all stakeholder groups and regions.

The path forward requires balancing celebration of past achievements with critical analysis of areas needing improvement. As the digital governance landscape continues to evolve rapidly, the IGF’s role as a stable platform for multi-stakeholder dialogue and collaboration becomes increasingly valuable, making the case for permanent mandate and institutional strengthening more urgent than ever.

Avri Doria: So welcome and thank you for coming. And let me get out my little speech here. This is a very interesting setup. It was far more formal than I expected. But anyway, welcome to this session of the IGF on the impact of the IGF on the Information Society. My name’s Avri Doria. That’s nice. They already said it. And I’m the moderator of the session. In this session, I’m going to ask the distinguished panelists who will be joining us soon and you all, the participants, for personal and professional viewpoints on the question. To start in my speaking, let me talk about who I am and my personal perspective on this. The IGF is very important to me. And I expect it is to many of you. I hope it is. But then again, there’s not all that many of you here. Sometimes I’m in love with it. Truly in love with it. And sometimes, well, not so much. So it’s been a long relationship with many different feelings and such. I was here at its conception. I was here at its birth. I’ve been here through many of its ups and downs. Managed to make it to most all of the meetings and have a very strong sort of personal relationship to it. I also have felt that it has helped me understand sort of the various viewpoints of the various populations to information, information society, the needs and such. So for me, it has been a critical information source, a critical ability to meet people, talk to people, understand people who have a different view than I do and such. So that for me has been very strong and has sort of entered every bit of my work as I’ve gotten involved in other parts of the community. Going to ask all the panelists for their view. We’re going to have a set of three questions that I’ll go through in a bit. And then I’m going to go to you, the participants. And I’m very glad to see that you’re lit and not sitting in the dark watching a show. But I really want this to be something where after everybody on stage, all the participants on stage, the speakers have had their chance to speak to the questions that all of you do. So when I ask the questions, I’m going to be asking them not only of the panelists, but of those of you who are here and those online as well. The IGF has been important. I think it’s been important to your businesses, to your research, your learning, your teaching, to those of you that are involved in a political life. Over the 20 years, that importance has shown up in many places at many times in many ways. It’s part of what I’m hoping that we can capture. It has provided a home for an evolving set of objectives over the years. You know, there’s been many efforts. It’s sort of developed the national and regional initiatives, you know, in developing internet governance policy. The best practice efforts, the policy networks, the aptly named dynamic coalitions that work all year round that have basically looked into a number of different issues, exciting issues and important issues. Just as internet governance has evolved with the new issues, the IGF now stands at a milestone period of its evolving role in the coordination of digital governance spaces. To improve the dialogue and the links among people, the links among governments, the links among institutions, ways of looking at the internet and data, you know, how does it evolve? How do they all interact? How do we all interact when this is happening? It is a place for many issues that we haven’t even discovered yet, those that are emerging issues and those that will emerge, hopefully, over the next couple of years. So this main session basically has two objectives. The first objective is to share the experiences of you, the stakeholders, that demonstrate the IGF’s usefulness and to illustrate its concrete and meaningful impact on the evolution of the digital ecosystem in different national and regional contexts and in different sectors of the economy of society. The second purpose is to discuss how the IGF should continue to contribute to the achievement of a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented information society, of how it should play its central role in the ongoing WSIS and in the beginnings of the GDC processes. These are the questions that I will ask each of the participants, and these are the questions that I will ask you to consider when we open up microphones, and I’m told that there will be two microphones at the edge of the hallway, but that’s, I guess, when we get to that part of the discussion. So first I will ask them of the panelists, and then I will ask them of all of you. Also there will be a Mentimeter poll on the first question as that goes through, and I guess at some point that will get displayed with the QR code that you all need to go to if you’re going to use the Mentimeter and give your opinions, and I hope you do. So the first question that I will ask is what has the IGF meant to you, and what do you want it to mean to you in the future? So it’s looking both at retrospective and also forward, and how is that connected? What does it mean? What should it mean? What can it mean? How has the IGF multi-stakeholder model, one among many, and its realizations, whether it’s in the IGF meetings, the NRIs, the dynamic coalitions, the policy networks, the best practice forums, how has that worked? Is some part of that really been resonant with you and what was important and such? How has it made an impact on your organization, your internet issues, your country, your region? However it’s made an impact, it’s important for us to hear. How can the IGF play a more impactful role to contribute to the implementation of WSIS goals in the GDC? So the third question then comes down to how can it be better? How can it become more impactful? How can it achieve its results better? As I said, first I’ll ask the panelists, and then I plan to come to all of you. So think about your answers to the questions. Think about whether you want to answer just one, just two, or all three of them. Everybody will get sort of the same three minutes that each of the panelists can get. We have a very fine set of panelists, of speakers. And so I’m going to ask you to welcome them all. And we have Hans-Petter Hollen of RIPE NCC. We have Professor Ambassador Betanga Ndemo, who’s Ambassador of Kenya to Belgium and the European Union. We have Renata Mielli, Chair of CGI.br, the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. We have Funke Opeke, Founder of Main1 in Nigeria. We have Qusai Al Shatti of the Arab IGF. We have Garcia Murmillo of the Association for Progressive Communications, APC. We have Luca Belli, a professor at FGV Law School in Rio de Janeiro. And we have Isabel Lois, Vice Chair of the CSTD. At this point, I ask you to welcome them all as they come in and find their seats. Thank you. Thank you. Please. Please welcome. Okay. The first thing I’m going to do, and I’ve given sort of the questions to all you. have been reading the questions for days now, and I’m going to ask each of them, basically, to go through their set of answers in sort of the view they have of the three questions. And first I’d like to start, sorry, I’m stumbling over my words, I apologize. So first I’d like to ask you, Bitange and Demo, to please give us your view of the three questions and their answers.

Bitange Ndemo: Thank you for the opportunity, and it’s a wonderful thing to discuss IGF over the past several years. The first encounter I had with IGF, I had just become a policymaker in my country, Kenya. And policymakers then would make policy and you make sure it’s implemented. And this new method of consultations with the stakeholders was very new and very painful. But once you’ve gone through the whole process with the stakeholders, implementation became much, much easier. For those who are younger, at the time, there was no Google. I think there was Netscape, AltaVista, that’s what was there. We didn’t know what exactly internet will do. But thank God it went the IGF way, otherwise it would have been a private sector company selling its services to the people. There was no infrastructure. In Kenya, for example, not just Kenya, but the whole of Africa, Africa had only one gig of capacity for the whole continent through Intelsat. And the moment we started talking about building the infrastructure, even those who are funding would ask questions like, who is going to use the capacities that you want to bring through the undersea? I remember once in a World Bank meeting, I said, you must watch the movie Field of Dreams, that if you build it, they will come. And they said, is that the answer that you are giving us? I said, yes, this is what we think that is going to change or liberalize these new technologies that are coming. To cut the story short, the infrastructure came, then building the regulatory mechanisms and building the way we are now using the internet. But that came through the several consultations or early meetings of IGF, where we came to learn precisely what we needed to do to make this technology work for the people. I think I would stop there.

Avri Doria: Thank you. It’s a very good start. It’s a very good perspective to start with. Now Hans Petter, I’d like to go to you. And from your perspective, as the leader of one part of the critical resources that we rest this internet on, could you please give us your view of the three?

Hans Petter Holen: Yes, thank you very much for that, Avri. I mean, this is not about me. This is about the RIPE NCC, the institution I’m in charge of, which is then supporting its community, the RIPE community, which is a part of the larger technical community. And the IGF has been a rare and essential arena where technical realities meet policy aspirations. And as digital governance agendas accelerate globally, the IGF must remain the venue that promotes clarity, ensure that we don’t jeopardize the internet’s core infrastructure while trying to regulate the services built atop it where necessary. So this means we need to protect the internet coordination, which keeps it running through stable interoperable systems. And we need to strengthen internet governance, which shapes how we use it through shared norms and policies. And we need to guide digital governance, which shapes what it becomes in terms of social transformations. And I think it’s important to be aware that the IGF, as we see it here, is not the only thing. It’s not just a single event. It’s a living ecosystem that includes national and regional IGFs, dynamic coalitions, best practice forums, policy networks. So it’s not only about the once a year IGF. It’s about this whole ecosystem around it. And our engagement starts in the rooted belief that we should start at the local level and scale it upwards. We support IGFs and network operators groups, both financially and with speakers, to help the communities organize and identify emerging issues and understand stakeholder needs so we can bring them to the regional and global level. And as one of the five regional internet registries, the RIPE NCC is tasked with ensuring long-term scalability, resilience, and security of the internet. So scalability we do to allocation of and registration of IP addresses, number of resources, the ones that you don’t see but your computers need in order to communicate. IPv6 is an important thing here. That’s what we need for scalability for the future. We also need to strengthen routing security by implementing something called resource public key infrastructure, where the providers can sign their routing announcements so we know that packets flow where they should. And resilience is also important where we assign or register ASN numbers which enables multi-homing and peering and creation of robust interconnection. All of this is needed for the new and fancy applications we need on top of the network to work. And how can we do this in the future? We need to continue to deepen the collaboration with governments and between governments. We need to empower the national and regional IGFs and they’re crucial for localizing the global discussions and fostering bottom-up approaches.

Funke Opeke: And we need to enhance inclusivity and accessibility and we need to translate this dialogue here into tangible process. Important here is that we need to secure now a permanent mandate for the IGF so that we can have the focus on the matters at hand, not securing the future as a meeting place. I think that’s important. And I think one of the things we need to bear in mind here is that the internet is a public good and that must serve humanity, to quote the minister from earlier this week. And yeah, I think I’ll leave it there and then pass it on.

Avri Doria: Thank you. And I want to give one piece of advice that I often get. When you get too short a time, please be sure to speak slowly. It makes it harder for people to listen and it makes it harder for those to translate. But thank you very much. So I apologize for the short time zones, but please. So Renata, coming from a multi-stakeholder, an early multi-stakeholder instantiation at a national level, I wonder if you could give your view on the three questions.

Renata Mielli: Thank you, Avri. Thank you, everybody, for being here with us this morning. I’m going to speak as a chair of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. Although the multi-stakeholder model of the Brazil Internet, the CGI.br, predates the IGF, the IGF model as a space for multi-stakeholder dialogue and for bringing new relevant issues to the attention of the society has been very influential in inspiring the creation of the Brazilian IGF in 2011. The Brazilian IGF, in turn, has been essential also in the creation of a very robust Brazilian multi-stakeholder Internet governance community, because we are not talking about an event, we are not also talking about a body, but we are talking about an ecosystem. And this regional IGFs and the IGF, they put this ecosystem in moving, which is very, very important. And we have been very creative, both our IGF, we call it FIBI, because it’s Foro da Internet no Brasil, speaking in Portuguese, and it’s very important for us. In particular, because this space has been an essential part in the development of Internet policies in Brazil, inspired by the multi-stakeholder nature of the IGF, being extremely influential in the public debates that lead to the Brasil Marcos Civil da Internet, the Brazilian Internet Civil Rights Framework, in 2014, that was signed on the NET Mundial, and the Brazilian General Data Protection Law in 2018. But regarding the third question, about how strengthening the IGF, how interlinking IGF with the other process like GDC, I also believe that São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines that we launched yesterday, and it was developed during the NET Mundial plus 10 last year. So, I invite everybody to go to the CGI stand there and pick up your book, but bringing some aspects, the first step is to give the IJF a permanent mandate. I think this is very we are listening to this a lot here, which requires the IJF to have a more stable and robust funding, and second, we need to amplify the role of the IJF in the WSIS framework and better integration with the WSIS forum. The WSIS forum is the platform for following up the action lines, but it’s a space that’s more restricted to governments and facilitators representing the various U.S. and European countries. The WSIS forum is the platform for following up the action lines, but it’s a space that’s more restricted to governments and facilitators representing the various U.N. agencies responsible for each action lines. So, I think rethinking this governance structure is, in my view, one of the main challenges we have to face. We need also better integration with the WSIS forum, and particularly regarding GDC, I think the IJF has to be in power as a main focal point for the follow-up of the global digital compact implementation, and integrate it with the WSIS forum, as I said, according to modalities to be defined, and that the U.N. avoids any discrepancy in that regard, because, when we have a lot of spaces, different photos, it’s become very difficult to civil society, academia, and even governments from the global south to attain governments from the global south to attain all these different spaces, and this is a very important stakeholder model. Well, I think I’m going to stop here. Thank you, Avri, for the opportunity. Thank you.

Avri Doria: Thank you. And next I come to you, Funke, and I guess as an entrepreneur, as a founder in Nigeria in the development area, I wonder what your perspective, what your company’s perspective would be on these questions.

Funke Opeke: Thank you, Avri, and good morning, everyone. Really great to have this opportunity to speak and reflect as I’m coming to the end of one phase of my career, which is retiring from a company that I founded in West Africa, main one, to build digital infrastructure and close the digital divide. When we launched the submarine cable from Lagos to Portugal in 2010, internet penetration in our region was close to 10%. And as pioneers, we’ve had to lean on platforms like the IGF to learn best practices to really help build the ecosystem that’s been critical in growing that base to close to 50% across West Africa today. The cable does extend into five countries directly. We’re serving, providing data access to 10 countries across West Africa. And what, when I get to reflect at this stage of my career, what the IGF has meant, first, as pioneers in the global south, and I heard Bitange talk about access, Google didn’t exist, access to information, be it policy information or stakeholder in terms of civil society and the populations, how you really bridge that gap with regulators and government policies, partners, and working with the content providers, we realized early on that just building the infrastructure was not sufficient to close the gap. And so a lot of work had to be done, and hence the role of platforms like the IGF in enabling us to do that really understand the role of the ecosystem and all the players and the stakeholders, how we work with them, how we leverage those resources to build skill and capacity in our markets to build out IXPs and Internet connection point to address issues of data governance as that has become a more critical issue, as we got more access, cyber security. So it’s really given us a platform, and not just from a global south or large platform, global north, global south dialogue, but by having other global south partners, I know very early on in the journey I met Bitange when he was regulator in Kenya, Kenya was a couple of years ahead in terms of what they were doing, and we were able to learn from them and bring some of those practices to our markets. So that’s been the role. Sitting here at this point and looking at the issue of permanence, I agree, and I think with the polarized world that we have today, contemplating not having this kind of platform, multi-stakeholder platform, recognizing it’s not decision-making for the Internet, is actually a very chilling thought. What would it be if we did not have the global south, did not have a seat at the table? Now, there’s still a lot of work to be done, because I said just 50% penetration across large parts of Africa. So there’s still work to be done on digital inclusion, on building up access, addressing issues of skill and digital literacy and affordability to really get to the very last person so no one gets left behind. The challenge is the global north has a different set of issues with the acceleration of AI and the pace of digital transformation, and I look today, I’m not sure the divide is closer than it was when I started 15 years ago on this journey. So I think for the IGF, as you say, permanent status, engagement under the VISTAs agenda, more deeper engagement with decision-makers on a global scale to really drive that objective for 2030 so that no one is left behind. That’s what I look out for in the future.

Avri Doria: Thank you very much. Now I’d like to move on to Qusai, who has been part of this IGF scheme for as long as I remember and instrumental in Arab IGF. So from your perspective, from that perspective, how do you see the answers to the three questions?

Qusai Al Shatti: Thank you, Everly, and thank you. I’m so honored to be with you on this panel and with the distinguished panelists. I will look at this. I will say in 2005 there was 500 million users, internet users. Today we have above 4.5 billion users. Internet-related organizations today are more open, more inclusive, more bottom-up in its structure and its operation across the world. Diversity, multilingualism, wider audience, and tools and mechanism that is widely available for us is widely available to be used and take the benefit of. Broadband is widely available. Choice of access is widely available with lower costs compared to, let’s say, 20 years ago. Multi-stakeholder process became the norm of things, became a culture, became the fact that we used when we are engaged in policy dialogue or regulation or others. Digital economy, the enabling environment for innovation, and the greater role it’s playing in the GDPs of countries, that’s today a fact. Reflecting this, it became also the norm for us on regional and national level where we took the conduct and the practice of governance to our regions and countries. What that says to me? Governance works. 20 years after the inception of the IGF, the IGF or our IG works and is successful. And maybe it’s the most successful outcome of the WSIS. And it worked because who was behind it? The people who had the will and passion from all segments of stakeholders who wanted governance to work because they believed this is the best for the Internet. So being part of them, such a wonderful experience. Learning from them, exchanging knowledge, exchanging expertise, resolving our differences on point of views. yet united on agreeing that governance is the way to go. And that’s passion by itself. And this passion needs to continue. So moving forward, the IGF should continue because there is more work to do. And it is an ongoing work. And the best to do it is to couple it with digital cooperation where issues today like AI governance, cross-border data, and data governance as an example, not as all, need to be addressed within a platform like the IGF. And I’ll stop here.

Avri Doria: Thank you. Coming next to you, Chat, who with APC probably was my first introduction into the whole civil society part of this whole issue, having come out of the tech areas when I first got involved. So from that perspective, and you’ve also been there since the beginning, could you tackle the three questions, please?

Chat Garcia Ramilo: Thank you, Abby. And good morning, everyone. APC is part of the IGF tribe in the last 20 plus years. So it’s an honor to be here. And I want to start by recognizing that, yes, APC has been deeply engaged with IGF since its inception, from the early days of WSIS to the working group that helped actually form the IGF, which you were a part of. And I think many of probably people sitting here were part of. And we’ve worked alongside our fellow civil society stakeholders to shape its structure and content. For over 20 years, our contributions, we believe, have been integral to the IGF’s evolution. And in turn, this space has played a pivotal role in sharing our advocacy and our work. This is how we’ve learned, connected, and really engaged, because we’ve also changed how we think because of the connections that this space has offered us. It has been an invaluable platform, a place to listen deeply, to speak, and more importantly, to act. And it has amplified voices from the global south, which is something that we are really passionate about. This is what we bring to this space. Often, those who are marginalized in digital governance conversations. And this is really important because otherwise those perspectives cannot be heard. It’s also shifted the focus of these conversations to center in human rights. Inclusion, you referred to this, digital inclusion, and I think increasingly justice, values that are essential in shaping the digital future that we will all share. Through initiatives like, and I just want to share with you, I mean, to remind you, we have done quite a few things in relation to looking at, really, what has IGF achieved? And we’ve contributed in looking at our Global Information Society Watch, really trying to, again, bring voices from the global south, local voices, to see how that really plays out locally because we have many members in different countries. We’ve also contributed in relation to really looking at the school of African, African School on Internet Governance, where it’s not only civil society that we’ve engaged in, we’ve helped build capacity of governments, regulators, civil society, grassroots, to engage more meaningfully because really, it’s really, what makes IGF is the people behind it, and I do think it’s important to really build that capacity. For us at APC, the IGF, as everyone has said here, is not just an annual event. It’s like a, I think people refer to it as an ecosystem, a living ecosystem. It’s a network of regional initiatives, intersessional work, and relationships that lead to tangible, real-world change. This platform, the IGF, has allowed us to advocate for policies that prioritize, for example, community-centered connectivity and challenge market models that leave entire communities without access, and I think that’s what you referred to in terms of the challenge, more than 50%. We’ve also, I remember, and part of that, in Kenya, for example, we have worked with the regulators to have a license for community-centered connectivity. I think it’s this kind of connections that really add value to the work that we all do. The IGF has also been crucial in helping us address issues that are critical, for example, like gender-based violence and defending sexual and reproductive rights in digital spaces, issues that you wouldn’t think should be part of the discussion of infrastructure. I think other people referred to it. And more than a decade ago, many of us here have been involved in this. We helped put forward a key principle that human rights must apply online as they do offline. 2012 was when this really important declaration at the Human Rights Council, and I’m sure many of us have been involved in that. What were once considered fringe issues has now been globally recognized and acted upon. And I want to just end to refer to, okay, what is it that we need to do more of? And that last question of yours, Avri, that, so last year, one of the big issues now is crisis and wars. And when I say crisis and wars, it’s the wars, but it’s also crisis, environmental crisis, et cetera. And I think I heard this also at the opening and also at other sessions, that it’s really important for us to look at the more difficult issues, the one that challenges us. And here, for last year, we helped organize a main session on securing access to the internet during times of war and crisis. And we will have, because of that, there will be a main session on where we will be discussing the norms and responsibilities of this multi-stakeholder internet community, particularly in relation to shutdown. So we’re speaking about critical resources that was alluded to by Hans. Part of it is really that there’s destruction of communication infrastructure, and we need to look at that. What are the kinds of communication, what are the norms that can help us really defend that and protect the infrastructure? It’s not only about access, it’s also about, in fact, the discretion because of this in countries like Ukraine, Palestine, Sudan, and Myanmar. As we stand here today, 20 years after WSIS, the vision of the people-centered, inclusive, digital future feels more urgent than ever. That’s how we feel. And to some extent, more under siege because of corporate power, state control that are driving the issues that we’ve been looking at. So one of the things we’re doing as part of our engagement with WSIS is being part of the Digital Justice Now Coalition, and we’ve launched a campaign here in IGF. It’s a global society movement to reclaim digital power for the people. We call on this multi-stakeholder international community to take bold action, which we need at this time, so that we can continue to shape a democratic digital future for all of us.

Avri Doria: Thank you. Come to you, Luca. Since you’ve come here, you’ve been among the most prolific of the volunteers, the people working with the book that just came out on community networks and such. So please, I’d like to turn to you from your hard-working perspective on all of this and where it goes. Please.

Luca Belli: Thank you very much, Avri, for the kind introduction. Thank you very much to all the friends that have organized this, particularly Olga and all other friends that have invited me. I want to start by explaining what has been the impact on me and then how this has been a real engine for change also in policymaking and how this is an untold story to some extent. So this is my 15th IGF. The first one, I was a young PhD student analyzing how multi-stakeholder processes can build better quality of regulation. And then I met a young Marcus Kummer that in his last month of tenure as a secretary of the IGF brought me in as an intern and allowed me to interact and meet a lot of the stakeholders that we know that became mentors and then colleagues and most of all friends. And I think that this allowed to construct and I think that is also an excellent output of the IGF, constructing trust amongst stakeholders. This is not something that you can artificially construct. You can build it only with relations. And this allowed me to be a very hyperactive convener of dynamic coalitions over the past years. And I think, again, these have been extremely powerful engines of cooperation and meaningful impact. I had the pleasure to start and help organizing four, one on net neutrality, one on platform responsibility, one on community connectivity that has been extremely successful and the last one on data and AI governance. And as I am an academic myself, We have always tried to include this academic approach, doing research to help people explain what we are doing, and try to propose new policy solutions. And this is what we have been doing for the past 15 years. And many organizations have used this. The Council of Europe used both the report and recommendation on net neutrality and platform responsibility for their own recommendations. Multiple regulators in the Americas, in Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, or even in Africa and Kenya used the work that we did with the Canadian Commission on Community Connectivity to explain what are community networks and regulate them in a better way. And then there is also a little bit of frustration in my 15 years of experience, because all of this is not very visible. And as Marcus always tells very well, the IGF is not very good at making its success visible. Anyone can also think that some stakeholders want the IGF to be irrelevant, I’ll let you understand what is your answer to this question. But I think that we may easily do a lot more to make the IGF, to prove that the IGF is relevant, not only talking about things, but as the very same IGF mandate in paragraphs and 27G of the Tunisia Agenda states, to make issues relevant to the public and to all stakeholders, visible and relevant, and to make all the reports and recommendations that we have elaborated over the past 20 years visible on the IGF website would be a very good first step, I believe. Thank you very much.

Avri Doria: Thank you. It’s a refrain that I’ve heard a couple of times over the course of the last couple of days, is we need to become. Coming to you, Isabelle, you occupy kind of a critical position in this whole process that we’re going now, in your role at the CSTD. So I’m wondering how do you look at this, both from the perspective of what is the case and what could be the case?

Isabelle Lois: Thank you so much, Avri, for the question and for having me on this panel. It’s an honor to be able to speak on behalf of the CSTD, as Vice-Chair of the CSTD, but also as a representative of the Swiss government. I’ve not been in this space as long as most of my co-panelists here, but I have seen the value and the tremendous work that has been done throughout the years at the IGF. And I can only highlight whatever all of you said before on the successes and the many, many examples of what we’ve been able to do, take out of these discussions. I think the IGF is the primary space where we have discussions on digital governance or on digital issues. It is the agenda-setting, the issue-spotting place, and that is essential to be able to feed into the rest of the system. If we want to regulate something or create a policy, we need to first identify what are the key issues, what are the different actors and stakeholders thinking, what are they concerned about, and this is the place where we can do it. So that role is truly essential and something we absolutely must preserve, highlight, and strengthen. So I think that’s maybe my first point I want to raise, and it echoes what all of you have been saying right before as well. I think the other important point to see a bit, what can we do next, what would the IGF look like after this year? And I think there are many different ideas. If we keep this focus of having the issue-spotting place at the IGF, and we see all the examples of how this has been able to be used, I think we need to connect it more throughout the entire WSIS system. I mean, the IGF has its own ecosystem with the different parts, the policy networks, the dynamic coalitions, and all of that great work, so that interconnectness is one part, and then connecting to the rest of the system. And by that I mean bringing the messages, the outcomes of each IGF session, of the policy network, of all of the NRIs, all of the work that is being done, to UNGIS, bringing it to the CSTD, and this is where my role maybe comes in as one of the points, bringing the main issues that we see the community, all of the stakeholders are concerned about, and then making sure that we’re feeding that into the rest of the UN system. And I think this is where we could definitely do better. There is potential, there is space, now with the WSIS Plus 20 review we have the opportunity to look at that, to make sure that the entire system and architecture is well connected. And I think this is something at the CSTD we’re trying to do, there’s a few ideas in this in the CSTD resolution from this year, but also the Swiss government is pushing as one of the main points. So I think that’s my main answer for you.

Avri Doria: Thank you. And thank you all. So you’ve given us all a good sampling of both the values, the personal gain, the personal importance and such, and some of what we can go further. Now going to this next stage, and I’ll be coming back to you all later, probably just go in the reverse order, so you’ll get to be last this time, but basically at this point I’d really like to go to the participants that are sitting in the chair, but we also need to have the Mentimeter put up. We have a Mentimeter that is going, I was told that they would put the URL, oh there it is. So people should join it and basically go through, it’s focusing on the answer to the first question, but go through. I’d also like to first of all go to the remote moderator, Jim Sunilufe, to see whether there is any commentary online from those that are joining us on Zoom, et cetera, to come up with. Jim Sunilufe, is there anything yet?

Online moderator: Yes, Avery, thank you very much. We have a lot of comments on the remote platform, and first and foremost, Dr. Robinson Sibbe will be providing his own virtual intervention, and after that I will read out the comments and the questions. Dr. Sibbe, can you go ahead for your two to three minutes?

Online participant 1: Yeah, thank you very much, Jameson. I am Dr. Robinson Sibbe, Cybersecurity and Digital Forensic Expert, the CEO and Lead Forensic Examiner of Digital Footprints Nigeria. Thanks for the opportunity. So I will be making my intervention from a perspective as a private sector player in cybersecurity ecosystem in Nigeria. In practical terms, IGF has helped contextualize the challenges we face in Nigeria and in Africa, and there are quite a lot of them, challenges like the rising caseloads of cybercrime and the complexities of investigating, and when I mean complexities, that would include global and jurisdictional complexities which we face, building trust in digital platforms or navigating the challenges of information governance and data protection in an environment where many are still digitally excluded. Now, as a cybersecurity and digital forensics company, our work quite often sits at the intersection of policy, support for law enforcement and technology, and the IGF model has been instrumental in showing us the value of inclusive and collaborative governance, not just as an ideal, but as a practical tool for problem solving. Now, over the years, these interactions by the IGF have deepened our understanding of the global dimensions of Internet policy, whether it be data protection and trust frameworks to digital inclusion and resilience. More importantly, it has humanized these issues by showing how policies crafted in one part of the world would potentially affect both lives and systems in others, including that of Africa, where infrastructure gaps and policy disconnects quite often amplify these vulnerabilities. These lessons have been crucial in our practice, both from a proactive defense point of view to an investigative point of view, that’s from a forensic point of view. Now, looking ahead, I want the IGF to move even closer to implementation. I would love to see more localized action, for instance, where IGF outcomes are being translated into toolkits for cybercapacity building in African countries or technical working groups formed to address specific regional challenges like Internet shutdowns or ransomware targeting public institutions or public-centric processes like elections. I believe the IGF should continue to be a bridge between regions, between policy and practice and between aspirations and actions. For people like me on the front lines in Nigeria, this kind of impact is not just valuable. It’s absolutely necessary. Thank you very much.

Avri Doria: Thank you very much. I’m very happy to have a voice from the online participants. So thank you. I’m going to reread the questions because I don’t see anybody jumping up wanting to make a comment on such. Oh, I do have one in the back there. But first, let me reread the questions for you all, just so everyone remembers. The first question was, what has the IGF meant to you and what do you want it to mean to you in the future? Two. How has the IGF multi-stakeholder model and its realizations, for example, the IGF meeting, NRIs, DCs, BPFs, policy networks, et cetera, how have they made an impact in your organization or Internet issues in your country or region? And three, how can the IGF play a more impactful, expanded role to contribute to the implementation of the WSIS goals and the GDC? I see the spotlight shining on the first one, and please make sure, Henriette, that you introduce yourself.

Anriette Esterhuysen: Thanks, Avri. I’m Anriette Esterhuysen, was with APC, still work with APC, Association for Progressive Communications, and a MAG Chair in the past. I mean, very briefly, I think what it has meant for me personally is it’s created an impatience for me in all other forums that are not linked to the WSIS, and I think that is because the IGF is so uniquely connects working with policymakers and implementers. I now find civil society-only spaces, for example, deeply frustrating, because I feel I’m surrounded by colleagues, but I’m not sure how I’m going to have impact. I think what this space gives is both the ability to be with like-minded actors, but also with those that are different, might have different perspectives, but together you can bring about change. But what I want to say for the future, I really want to echo what Isabel said. I think the IGF, and its links to the WSIS, creates a link to people-centered development and to people. I think we live with so much fragmentation in how we talk about digital, and I think so many of the new fora, Global Digital Compact, for example, Artificial Intelligence Dialogue, puts the emphasis on the technology, not on the society, and not on the people, and I think that’s the power of the WSIS, that’s what the WSIS has given the IGF, and that’s what the IGF gives to dialogue about digital governance and cooperation. So just to reinforce what Isabel said, a future IGF must retain this link to people-centered development and to society. Information society is not used much as a term anymore, but please let’s not lose that, because that’s ultimately what we want to change. We want more equal, more inclusive society. Thank you.

Avri Doria: And I don’t see anyone else at the mic. At first I thought I had seen several other people there. Hopefully I know you have another online one, good. Hopefully I know many of you, and I know most of you aren’t shy and have opinions. So please take advantage of this opportunity to express those opinions on those three questions. But in the meantime, I’ll go back to you, Jimson, for an online contribution.

Online moderator: Okay. Thank you, Avri. We have this question from Nathan Latte from IGF Côte d’Ivoire, saying what is the concrete impact of the IGF on Internet governance in developing countries? And we have a number of interesting comments. Someone said, for me, the IGF has been a very impactful platform for learning, connection, advocacy. Going forward, I hope it becomes a place and space where more actionable policy outcomes are shaped through inclusive multistakeholder dialogue, as it is being envisioned in Africa, in Africa. Mark Gave, yes, from the UK, also has a very interesting expression, says he agrees that the multistakeholder approach has become the norm in many countries since the WSIS. In the UK government, after the first IGF in Athens, we decided, one, to work with the UK CCTLD registry in setting up a national IGF, the UK IGF, to prepare for the next global IGF. And also, two, to establish a multistakeholder advisory group in our ministry, government ministry, that we will meet with at a regular interval. So maybe I’ll stop here for now.

Avri Doria: Thank you. I heard a couple questions in there, but I had trouble really parsing some of them. I want to go to the microphone, but then I want to come back to you, and if you could just sort of pick out the questions that were there, and then I’ll look to someone up here to give an answer. But please, at the microphone, introduce yourself and give us your comment. This microphone that is lit at the moment.

Audience: Thank you, Avri, and thank you for being persistent. My name is Rolf Meijer. I’m the CEO of SIDN, the registry for the .nl country contact level domain. I don’t go to IGFs for myself, so I find the first question a bit confusing. But I think, in my opinion, the most important things that the IGF has brought us, and I’ve been to roughly 15 IGF meetings, is a platform where we can, in a kind of a global context, discuss topics that are important for the Internet, but what it really brings is it makes the multistakeholder model function, because it helps us explaining our stakes or interests, and listening to the explanation of the other stakeholders explaining their interests. And I think that that was lacking in the period before the IGF, that we were all, as organisations and even sometimes as individuals, defending our own stakes, and we were not listening well to the other stakeholders explaining theirs. And I think the only way that the multistakeholder model can function is if we understand and respect the stakes of the other stakeholders. And I think that’s one of the big outcomes of this whole process. If I compare it with the first one in 2006 and the last ones I’ve followed over the recent years, there’s much more understanding in all participants of the stakes of the other stakeholders. On the last question, what should change or what should improve to make it function even better than it does, in the Netherlands IGF, so our national IGF, a couple of years ago we produced a document, a one-page document on that, and I’ll make sure that you get it after this session.

Avri Doria: Thank you, thank you. Before I go back to Jimson for the questions, I see we also have one at the thing, please introduce yourself and make your comment.

Audience: Well, my name is Juan Fernandez, I’m from the Ministry of Communication of Cuba, but I want to tell here what it means personally for me has meant the IGF. I think that for me it had some very special impact, because it proved that no matter how old you are, no matter how learned you are, you always have to keep an open mind, because you could be wrong and you could be proved wrong very easily. You know that I participate, and many people here know me from, I participated on the negotiation of both WSIS outcome documents, I was part of the WGIC, and we discussed the creation of a forum such as this. So I can tell you that when this began, and I went to the first one, I was very sceptical. I think, well, this is just, we’re giving some breadcrumbs to the civil society because they were shunned out of the process, so this is just for that, you know. But I was proven wrong. Over the years, I’ve been, in a way, learning the value and feeling the value of having this conversation, as the previous speaker said, that I think it’s not only important also as Andrea said, in terms of the personal capacity or the institutional capacity that each of us has here, but also the personal enrichment, at least for me, I as a person has been enriched by having a personal relationship and dialogue with persons from other points of view, from other realities, and that’s, for me, I think I have been enriched by the IGF. That’s what I want to tell you, Avri. Thank you.

Avri Doria: Thank you. And definitely been enriched by knowing you. I’ll go to this one, which is, Stephanie, please, and introduce yourself.

Audience: Hi, my name is Stephanie Perrin. I’m from Canada. I’m a sporadic attendee at the IGF. I was, however, at the initial WSIS, and I echo the previous speaker’s remarks. I was a little, I was working for the Canadian government in the telecom sector at the time. I was a little cynical about the potential outputs from the IGF. But I think I was wrong. I agree with Henriette that the impact is on the people and we have to come back to that. Now, one of our colleagues is even more cynical than I was. Milton Mueller has issued his, more or less, call for remarks on his IGP blog saying the time has come, you know, it’s over, time to move on to something new. So this has prompted me all week to say, well, hang on, how would we measure? How do we measure the impacts? And because it has been such a success as a multi-stakeholder innovator and enricher and stimulant and, you know, basically it comes up with the dialogue that we want. It’s a parliament of a multi-stakeholder effort. How do you measure that? I’ve been thinking about metrics all week and I think it’s quite hard but something we should focus on because the difference in the impact between the Nigerian cybercrime industry, I don’t mean the bad guys, I mean the good guys fighting it, to local initiatives, to bringing broadband to underserved areas. All those are different things to measure but it would be worth it to do it. So that’s a comment. Thank you.

Avri Doria: And I’ll go to, first of all, Jimson, did you have the questions that I kind of, I sometimes have trouble hearing what’s going, being said there, so please, if there were a specific question. Okay.

Online moderator: We have Emily Taylor. Emily Taylor is going to intervene maybe for two minutes, then I will read some comments later. Emily.

Online participant 2: Thank you so much, Jimson, for giving me the floor and for this very interesting discussion. I just wanted to highlight a study, an evidence-based study that we did for the UK government. It was published last year and I’ve put the link in the chat. It was an evidence-based exploration of the impact of the IGF and really looking from the perspective of the global south, if I can put it in that way. And we found after 48 expert interviews and also a large-scale text analysis enriched by AI and ML, we looked at thematic dynamism of the IGF over a long period and came out with a series of both direct and indirect impacts for those communities. The direct impacts are the spontaneous emergence of national and regional IGFs and the youth movement. These were never anticipated in the Tunis agenda, and yet they happened. And they’ve both, they’ve brought young people in particular to the IGF and had an onboarding ramp for new policy makers who then go back to their home countries and bring and receive messages of that link between the local and the international. And another aspect sort of on the direct impact is the emergence of internet exchange points in Africa. There’s a very clear line from the IGF to the people who built out that network, and that has a really concrete impact in reducing latency, reducing costs, and improving speed of connectivity within Africa. Indirect impacts, this is a forum where discussions happen first on emerging issues, and you can really see that in the thematic dynamism. You can really see that prior to 2017, no one was talking about disinformation and fake news. Prior to 2018, there was not very much on artificial intelligence, and then it really exploded in the 2023 arena, and you really see that from the thematic analysis. And one perhaps controversial point is, and I think it goes back to what Roulof was saying in his intervention, is that many of our interviewees attributed the IANA, the successful IANA transition to dialogue in the IGF, where the IGF had been a forum which really reduced the temperature of a very polarizing issue prior to that, laid the groundwork, allowed stakeholders to understand what was at stake for others, not just themselves, and laid the groundwork, in their opinion, for a successful IANA transition. Much more to say, but I’ll leave it there. Thank you for giving me the floor, Avri.

Avri Doria: Thank you very much, and very good to see you. Okay. At the moment, I think we’ve got like five people in the lines, so that’s probably where I’ll try to cut the line. So after encouraging you all to get in line, I do have a deadline, and I am going to want to give at least a minute or so to each of our panelists who are sitting here to be able to respond. I guess I go next to go to this line. Please introduce yourself and give us your comment. Very clever. Yes. Please give us your comment.

Audience: Thank you very much. Yes, my name is Auka Aukpals, and I’ve been attending for the past ten years the IGF, and what has brought with me is that I’ve had so many interesting discussions with all of you, mainly in sessions, but mostly in the corridor chats, which are even more valuable than the main sessions happening here in the workshop rooms. So the network and the way we can interact on this forum is really valuable for me and also for the work that we are doing. My wish for the future is that we can engage in workshops more of a discussion because currently my observation is still in the past ten years that it’s mostly one way and not that many discussions taking place, and that’s something that really needs to be improved to make this even more valuable for me but also for the others. Thank you.

Avri Doria: Thank you. Go to Markus on this line. Please introduce yourself.

Audience: I’m Markus Kummer, and I’ve been around for a while. My name has been mentioned by Luca, yes, I was here since the inception like you, Avri, and I will not answer your questions. I’d rather go back to the inception of the IGF and back to the working group on Internet Governance when we actually came up with the idea and we conceived the IGF as a platform for dialogue. As we all know, the WGIC also came up with a definition on Internet Governance, and there are still a lot of misunderstandings around. We did have a highly academic definition, working definition, which not everybody understands, but we also came up with a practical description of what Internet Governance means, and that was it relates to the physical infrastructure, that is the cables, nuts and bolts, the logical infrastructure, that is the domain name system, the Internet addresses, but it also relates to the use and abuse of the Internet. So the IGF, right from the beginning, relied on this groundwork from the WGIC and dealt with issues mainly related to the use and abuse of the Internet, and I do recall the four themes we set for the very first meeting, openness, inclusion, diversity, access, and inclusion, I think, yes, but they were in essence a mixture between technical and societal issues, and that’s what the IGF has been dealing with all along, and the notion that the IGF is more of a technical issue as it is described within the GDC is blatantly wrong. It creates an artificial dichotomy between digital cooperation and Internet Governance. The IGF is the prime organisation dealing with Internet Governance, but then there are much broader issues, and the IGF has always dealt with these much broader issues, such as has been mentioned, artificial intelligence, and, and, and, and, and as to the impact, Emily said it very nicely, I think also the various IXPs have been set up as a direct consequence are a tremendous success stories of the IGF, and I also agree with Emily that the IANA transition would not have been possible without the IGF, because the IGF taught people to talk with each other, and that has been mentioned by many of the speakers, not just talk, but also to listen to each other, and that actually showed that there is merit in having this mixture between multi-stakeholders that people meet who would not otherwise meet under the same roof, and they talk to each other and learn from each other, and I hope that this will continue, and as far as the impact is concerned, yes, the IGF was as a platform for dialogue, not as a decision-making body but as a body that can shape decisions that are taken elsewhere. And then we do actually produce outcomes. I mean, Luca mentioned his dynamic coalition, there are other dynamic coalitions and they really produce tangible outcomes but they are not so-called official IGF outcomes but they can be used and they have been used, taken up. There is also other dynamic coalitions, there is one on rights and principles that produced a very good paper on rights and principles that has been taken up in other organizations. So there is clearly something to build on and I think, as Luca already said, we are not good actually at celebrating success and promoting our success and I think making this okay, just look at what we are doing and be open and proud about it and show the world that we actually are more than just a talking shop. That’s all I have to say. Thank you.

Avri Doria: Thank you very much. Very good to hear from you in line. Please to the next microphone and please make them relatively brief, I’m sorry to do that to you.

Audience: My name is Jasmine Maffei. So this is Jasmine. I actually didn’t expect this will be very personal and emotional for myself and I actually come, you know, struggle to come to speak because in front, before me there were a lot of amazing great senior leader in an industry so I feel like a nobody at the beginning still. As a youth and as someone who grew up in capital incentive and hierarchy society, I truly value this platform IGF as, you know, bottom up and a place that you could easily talk to people from even with senior role and with many years of experience, I truly appreciate that that I could also have a chance to speak much of my feeling because in Hong Kong where I’m from it’s totally challenging to even just communicate and reach out to senior people and leaders like you guys. But another thing that I really value is something that we could bring an issue from local, bring it to the table here at global level, we can exchange good practice. At the same time, any issue that’s brought by the other local community can also bring back to my local community for good references. So I, myself is, I really put effort to talk about what IGF is to my local community, it is challenging because no one know what is it and no one understand it. I feel like there are still many misunderstanding but I think that what you all have been sharing the success and also quantitative cases are very good reference for me to also create my own local good practice. How does the IGF make positive impact to our local community and how do we create value that speak to our local stakeholder that makes sense of and really make it relevant and thank you very much.

Avri Doria: Thank you. And I must say how happy I am to see younger people speaking because if it was just us old ones, wouldn’t be that much hope. Please.

Audience: Hello everyone, this is Piu from Myanmar. I think that IGF mean a lot to us because according to its principles and its model, we could, you know, input some what way after delivering the summary of the UN initiative at the global level in some what way. Frankly speaking, it’s not very easy to, you know, share our input at the global level organization like the UN, especially from the grassroot initiative like young people, you know, have a lot of challenge in terms of the eastern effect, political effect, economic effect but so far, like initiative like the UN IGF, you know, could approach to the young people to try as align with the approach like a very open way to collect their input while respecting their vices and then bridging their vices at the global level. I think that was very effective approach that we could do at the IGF and even the Vannevar community vices needed to have in not only at the IGF but also at the other aspects of the global level policy making but so far, IGF itself open for all people. Everyone can attend the conference, you know, you don’t need to be worried about like you are expected to be invited to attend the conference. I think this approach is very meaningful to us to participate as a young person and import our vices at the IGF. So, the future we would like to see as a young person is that please include us in the future of the IGF and please officially recognize our vices as a part of the multi-stakeholder to be meaningfully engaged and participate at the IGF. Thank you.

Avri Doria: Thank you very much. And okay, I’ve got two left, two of the original great ones and please they’ll be very brief because I want to give at least everybody up here on stage the chance to sort of perhaps give us your biggest takeaway from the discussion that we’ve heard in terms of what’s ahead of us. So, no. I think it’s… Are you guys doing the old gentleman thing, you go first, no, you go first. Let’s save time. Yes.

Audience: Here I go. My name is Raul Echeverria, I’m from Uruguay, MAG member, I have been around for many years and I think that IGF is the most innovative experience I have seen in my life in international governance, not only related to internet but in general. It has inspired me in the way that we work, I think we have developed a culture of dialogue and deal in a civilized manner with our differences. I have seen sessions in this IGF like in others where people that have positions that oppose to each other discuss in a very positive or constructive manner, so when we work on the ground we realize that not everybody work in the same manner, so I think it’s very important what we are doing here and the impact that it can have in the rest of the world. It’s my wish to the future, I would like to see a more simplified IGF where it is more simple to become involved and we should facilitate newcomers to become involved meaningfully. I would like also to see an IGF that is better connected with other existing processes and mechanisms. I think that the most important is an IGF that connects better with policy making at the global and regional level, that is at the end of the day where things really happen. So thank you very much.

Avri Doria: Thank you. Bertrand, last word from the microphones.

Audience: Thank you, Avery. My name is Bertrand Lachapelle, I’m the Executive Director of the Internet and Jurisdiction Policy Network. Two quick comments, one for me the thing that I’m most happy about in the last few exercises of the IGF is this recognition of distinction between the issue framing, agenda setting and decision shaping versus the decision making. This is the core function of the IGF and it is particularly important because in all international multilateral processes, putting something on the agenda takes usually many years because there’s always a lack of unanimity and somebody objects to the issue being on the agenda. The goal of the IGF should be increasingly to be early on and facilitate the common picture of the key topics. The second thing quickly, in the discussion on the WSIS Plus 20 review, we should not focus only on the renewal of the mandate of the IGF, whatever the duration. We need to reach a new step and we need to do what we did with the WGIG in 2004-05, i.e. having a group that discusses, one, the evolution of the mandate and the focus and scope of the IGF along the lines that I just mentioned and, second, the institutionalization of the structure. We have all the components at the moment but it’s like a car that is limited in its speed. although it has all the capacities to do much, much more. So I hope that in 2026, a group of sorts will be set up in a multi-stakeholder fashion to address those two issues. Thank you.

Avri Doria: Thank you very much. And so now I’m gonna start with you, Isabel, and then basically just move across the line, give us a quick, if you can, and certainly what you would take away from what we’ve heard, from what all was said.

Isabelle Lois: Thank you, thank you, Avri, and there has been a lot of good points and comments said, so it’s difficult to be quick, but I will try to be. I think one of the main points I would like to highlight was the taking the time to listen. I think that’s an important point. We have a lot of good information, a lot of knowledge that is shared throughout the sessions at the IGF. So taking the time to listen, taking the time to write down what has been written, read the reports, even if there is no consensus, use the information that has been given here. We can use it as capacity building. I’ve learned tremendously throughout the years attending the IGF and participating in the intersessional work. So I think this is really something that we have to take advantage of. And it goes in line with what I said earlier in using the IGF and the information that we get here throughout the space, connecting it with the rest of the WSIS structure. It also goes with the listening to all stakeholders and listening to all positions. So I think I’ll keep it at that.

Avri Doria: Thank you, Isabel. Luca, please.

Luca Belli: Yeah, I think that after 20 years, it’s clear that the IGF is an excellent forum. It’s like a forge of ideas. And the stakeholders are convened here every year to speak up their mind. There is a relatively low barrier of entry. It is high for global South countries that have to pay to come to Norway or other exotic places. And this could be solved with a little bit more of help. But it’s working very well in terms of allowing people to speak their mind freely. And also, it’s a very good engine for multi-stakeholder cooperation because you find here potential partners to implement your initiatives, not only in terms of policy. Again, the example of community networks is very good. People here have found friends and partners to create the internet, to create new community network and give access to people. So I think that there are a lot of things that may be idealistic, like having a very well-funded IGF, but a lot of things that could be very pragmatic and simple, like giving more space between an IGF and the other so that people can organize themselves, or try not to limit that much the number of sessions because if this is a very open forum that gives people the possibility to speak, then if you cut down the number of session, less people will have an incentive to come here and speak. So I think that those are very few little pragmatic things that we could do to help people exploit better the potential of the IGF.

Avri Doria: Fantastic, thank you, Luca. Chat, please.

Chat Garcia Ramilo: What I’ve heard here is that there’s really nothing else we can say about the, everything has been said about the importance of IGF. I think that is a, that’s not, to me, it’s not a debate. It’s sort of like, it is a reality here. I think the celebration for me is something that we could do more of. In the feminist circles, we do say that we need to have joy, in what we do, and I think this is part of what we need. It’s not a, it’s a very difficult time for everyone, and I think that part of celebration and saying and recognizing that we need that for ourselves and also for our community is so, so important. But having said that, I think the second thing I wanna say is that to be able to make it more robust, as you say, Luca, is that the entry, is that who we bring into the, in here, because, yes, there’s much more that we can bring. More people, more perspectives, I think that is something that we can continue to do, because it will provide that energy, it will provide that connectivity for this community.

Avri Doria: Thank you, Chat.

Qusai Al Shatti: I will join my colleagues in that. Do you still have that microphone? I will join my colleagues in the fact that there is, I have nothing to add to what was said on the floor, but from the perspective of developing countries, internet governance, one of the most important aspects of it is introducing the multi-stakeholder process in our part of the world, where policy making or regulation is fully engaged in a multi-stakeholder process, where the decision maker or the policy maker believes now in a fixed mind shift that if you want to introduce effective regulation or policy making, he needs to engage in the multi-stakeholder so that’s one of the most important aspects for us when it comes to IGF in our part of the world, and I’ll stop here.

Avri Doria: Thank you. Funke, please.

Funke Opeke: I think a lot has been said. For me personally, what resonates is the multi-stakeholder participation from the global south with other global stakeholders in shaping the future governance of the internet.

Avri Doria: Renata, please.

Renata Mielli: Everything has been said, but just to close my participation saying that anybody said that IGF is not about technology or digital or internet issues. IGF is about its impact on people and society and it’s about building connections. IGF is about dialogue, and is about multiplying worldwide the conviction and the inspiration that multi-stakeholder process can build better policies and can contribute to develop a less unequal future for everybody. So I think that’s the thing that I want to say, and I hope we can continue to this conversation for permanent years in this sense, to point that IGF has to be a mandate, a permanent mandate. Thank you very much.

Avri Doria: Thank you so much. Hans-Peter, please.

Hans Petter Holen: Yeah, thank you. So as being one of the techies here, I remember being one of the young guys in the room and I realized I’m not anymore, this was 30 years ago. And I think one of the things I picked up from the floor here was that this national engagement and regional engagement was not envisioned when this was started. I think this is really important to recruit the next generation and train the next generation. We’ve talked about regional or national IGFs, but I also want to do a shout out for the schools that have been developed into the governance schools, summer schools, that actually trains professionals that have a subject that may be interesting to take to the global governance scene. And I think if we want to achieve what Norway’s Prime Minister, Jonas Gjertstedt, has said in his opening speech, the internet should not be governed by the few, but by the world, we really need to continue this path of IGF. Thank you.

Avri Doria: Thank you. Betanga, please.

Bitange Ndemo: Thank you. My only regret I have is that all the years we have taught in silos. We deal with the infrastructure, we deal with violence, we deal with… Now, looking forward, I would want to see discussions in IGF focusing in what I call we think system-wide. This technology has come. How can it be used to solve the problems? AI has come, most consequential technology ever. We need now to not just talk about how the people get it, how do they benefit from this technology, and what is it needed to make sure that the people benefit. For example, if we took it to the farmers, educate them on how to use AI on agriculture, the productivity would improve. So if we bring in the systems approach to everything, from now on, 30 years from now, we will talk about a different world. Thank you.

Avri Doria: Thank you so much. Thank you all, panelists. Thank you all, stakeholders, participants sitting in the house there, online, offline. I just want to say that I really do love the multi-stakeholder model and all its variants, and really do hope that the IGF continues and that we continue to talk together. I think it took a long time to get us talking, and now it’s over, but thank you all. Thank you.

Agreement points

IGF needs permanent mandate for stability and effectiveness

Speakers

– Hans Petter Holen
– Renata Mielli
– Funke Opeke

Arguments

IGF needs permanent mandate to focus on matters rather than securing future meeting place

IGF should be empowered as main focal point for Global Digital Compact implementation

IGF requires better integration with WSIS forum and more stable funding

Summary

Multiple speakers emphasized that the IGF requires a permanent mandate to provide stability, enable focus on substantive issues rather than survival, and ensure robust funding for effective operation

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Multi-stakeholder model became the norm through IGF influence

Speakers

– Bitange Ndemo
– Qusai Al Shatti
– Online moderator
– Audience

Arguments

IGF introduced multi-stakeholder consultation model that made policy implementation easier despite initial resistance

Multi-stakeholder process became the norm in policy making and regulation after IGF introduction

IGF helped establish UK national IGF and multi-stakeholder advisory groups in government ministries

IGF makes multi-stakeholder model function by helping stakeholders understand each other’s interests

Summary

Speakers consistently agreed that the IGF successfully transformed multi-stakeholder consultation from an experimental approach to standard practice in policy-making and governance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

IGF is an ecosystem beyond annual meetings

Speakers

– Hans Petter Holen
– Renata Mielli
– Chat Garcia Ramilo

Arguments

IGF ecosystem includes national/regional IGFs, dynamic coalitions, and intersessional work beyond annual meetings

Multi-stakeholder approach inspired Brazilian Internet governance community and policy development

IGF amplified voices from global south often marginalized in digital governance conversations

Summary

Speakers agreed that the IGF functions as a comprehensive ecosystem including national/regional IGFs, dynamic coalitions, and year-round activities, not just an annual event

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

IGF enabled Global South participation and capacity building

Speakers

– Funke Opeke
– Chat Garcia Ramilo
– Online participant 1
– Audience

Arguments

IGF enabled pioneers in global south to learn best practices for building digital ecosystem

IGF amplified voices from global south often marginalized in digital governance conversations

IGF provides open access for grassroots initiatives and young people to participate globally

IGF allows bringing local issues to global table and exchanging good practices

Summary

Multiple speakers emphasized how the IGF provided crucial platforms for Global South voices, capacity building, and knowledge exchange that would otherwise be marginalized

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

IGF needs better visibility and recognition of its achievements

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Chat Garcia Ramilo
– Audience

Arguments

IGF success stories like IANA transition and infrastructure development are not well-publicized

IGF needs better celebration of successes and making achievements more visible

IGF produces tangible outcomes through dynamic coalitions that have been adopted by other organizations

Summary

Speakers agreed that despite significant achievements, the IGF is poor at publicizing its successes and needs better mechanisms to celebrate and showcase its impact

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers emphasized the critical role of IGF in bridging technical infrastructure development with policy needs, particularly in developing regions

Speakers

– Bitange Ndemo
– Hans Petter Holen
– Funke Opeke

Arguments

IGF discussions helped build internet infrastructure when Africa had only one gig capacity for entire continent

IGF serves as arena where technical realities meet policy aspirations for internet coordination

IGF enabled pioneers in global south to learn best practices for building digital ecosystem

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

These speakers shared the view that IGF serves as a crucial policy development platform that has directly influenced national legislation and international human rights frameworks

Speakers

– Renata Mielli
– Isabelle Lois
– Chat Garcia Ramilo

Arguments

IGF influenced creation of Brazilian Internet Civil Rights Framework and Data Protection Law

IGF serves as issue-spotting and agenda-setting place essential for policy development

IGF helped establish human rights principles online and addressed gender-based violence in digital spaces

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

These speakers emphasized the personal transformation and relationship-building aspects of IGF, highlighting how it changed their approach to governance and policy work

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Audience

Arguments

IGF enabled understanding of different stakeholder perspectives and built trust through relationships

IGF created impatience for non-multi-stakeholder forums and connects policymakers with implementers

IGF proved skeptics wrong and provided personal enrichment through dialogue with diverse viewpoints

Topics

Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Former skeptics becoming strong advocates

Speakers

– Audience (Juan Fernandez)
– Audience (Stephanie Perrin)

Arguments

IGF proved skeptics wrong and provided personal enrichment through dialogue with diverse viewpoints

IGF represents most innovative experience in international governance with culture of civilized dialogue

Explanation

It was unexpected that speakers who were initially cynical or skeptical about the IGF’s potential became some of its strongest advocates, demonstrating the forum’s ability to convert doubters through direct experience

Topics

Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Technical community and policy makers agreeing on governance approach

Speakers

– Hans Petter Holen
– Bitange Ndemo
– Qusai Al Shatti

Arguments

IGF serves as arena where technical realities meet policy aspirations for internet coordination

IGF introduced multi-stakeholder consultation model that made policy implementation easier despite initial resistance

Multi-stakeholder process became the norm in policy making and regulation after IGF introduction

Explanation

The consensus between technical infrastructure providers and policy makers on the value of multi-stakeholder governance was unexpected, given traditional tensions between technical and policy communities

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Agreement on need for system-wide thinking across different sectors

Speakers

– Bitange Ndemo
– Online participant 1
– Chat Garcia Ramilo

Arguments

IGF needs to focus on system-wide thinking to help people benefit from technologies like AI

IGF should move closer to implementation with localized action and technical working groups

IGF addressed critical issues like internet shutdowns, wars, and crisis communication infrastructure

Explanation

Unexpected consensus emerged around moving beyond siloed discussions to address complex, interconnected challenges requiring coordinated responses across different domains

Topics

Development | Cybersecurity

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed remarkably strong consensus across diverse stakeholders on the IGF’s fundamental value, its role in establishing multi-stakeholder governance as the norm, its function as a comprehensive ecosystem beyond annual meetings, and its critical importance for Global South participation. There was also broad agreement on the need for permanent mandate, better visibility of achievements, and evolution toward more implementation-focused outcomes.

Consensus level

Very high level of consensus with no fundamental disagreements identified. The implications are significant as this unified support from technical, policy, civil society, and government stakeholders provides strong foundation for IGF’s continuation and evolution. The consensus suggests the IGF has successfully proven its value across different communities and regions, creating a solid base for securing permanent mandate and expanding its role in global digital governance.

Different viewpoints

Approach to IGF discussions – systems thinking vs. specialized focus

Speakers

– Bitange Ndemo
– Other speakers

Arguments

IGF needs to focus on system-wide thinking to help people benefit from technologies like AI

Various speakers focusing on specialized aspects like infrastructure, policy, human rights

Summary

Ndemo advocates for moving away from siloed discussions toward integrated systems thinking, while other speakers continue to address specific domains and specialized issues

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

No significant unexpected disagreements identified

Speakers

Arguments

Explanation

The session was remarkably consensual, with speakers largely reinforcing each other’s points about IGF’s value and importance. Even potential areas of disagreement were presented as complementary perspectives rather than conflicting views

Topics

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed minimal disagreement, with speakers largely reinforcing each other’s positive assessments of IGF’s impact. The few differences were more about emphasis and approach rather than fundamental disagreements about goals or values

Disagreement level

Very low level of disagreement. This appears to be a consensus-building session where speakers were celebrating IGF’s achievements and advocating for its continuation. The lack of significant disagreement may reflect either genuine consensus among IGF supporters or the session’s design as a celebratory rather than critical examination. This high level of agreement strengthens the case for IGF’s permanent mandate but may also indicate limited critical reflection on areas needing improvement

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

All three speakers emphasized the critical role of IGF in bridging technical infrastructure development with policy needs, particularly in developing regions

Speakers

– Bitange Ndemo
– Hans Petter Holen
– Funke Opeke

Arguments

IGF discussions helped build internet infrastructure when Africa had only one gig capacity for entire continent

IGF serves as arena where technical realities meet policy aspirations for internet coordination

IGF enabled pioneers in global south to learn best practices for building digital ecosystem

Topics

Infrastructure | Development

These speakers shared the view that IGF serves as a crucial policy development platform that has directly influenced national legislation and international human rights frameworks

Speakers

– Renata Mielli
– Isabelle Lois
– Chat Garcia Ramilo

Arguments

IGF influenced creation of Brazilian Internet Civil Rights Framework and Data Protection Law

IGF serves as issue-spotting and agenda-setting place essential for policy development

IGF helped establish human rights principles online and addressed gender-based violence in digital spaces

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

These speakers emphasized the personal transformation and relationship-building aspects of IGF, highlighting how it changed their approach to governance and policy work

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Anriette Esterhuysen
– Audience

Arguments

IGF enabled understanding of different stakeholder perspectives and built trust through relationships

IGF created impatience for non-multi-stakeholder forums and connects policymakers with implementers

IGF proved skeptics wrong and provided personal enrichment through dialogue with diverse viewpoints

Topics

Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

The IGF has successfully established multi-stakeholder governance as the norm in internet policy-making globally, transforming how governments, civil society, private sector, and technical community collaborate

The IGF ecosystem extends far beyond annual meetings to include national/regional IGFs, dynamic coalitions, policy networks, and capacity-building initiatives that create year-round engagement

The IGF has had concrete infrastructure impacts, particularly in the Global South, including the development of Internet Exchange Points in Africa and submarine cable infrastructure that increased internet penetration from 10% to 50% in West Africa

The IGF serves as a critical ‘issue-spotting’ and agenda-setting platform where emerging digital governance challenges are first identified and discussed before entering formal policy processes

The forum has successfully created trust and understanding between different stakeholder groups by providing a space for listening to and respecting different perspectives and interests

The IGF has directly influenced major policy developments including the Brazilian Internet Civil Rights Framework, data protection laws, and Council of Europe recommendations

The platform has been particularly valuable for Global South participation, providing access to policy discussions and best practices that would otherwise be unavailable

The IGF maintains focus on people-centered development and societal impact rather than purely technical or commercial considerations

Resolutions and action items

Secure a permanent mandate for the IGF to provide stability and enable focus on substantive issues rather than institutional survival

Establish more stable and robust funding mechanisms for the IGF

Better integrate the IGF with the WSIS forum and empower it as the main focal point for Global Digital Compact implementation

Improve visibility and documentation of IGF successes and outcomes on the IGF website

Enhance support for Global South participation through increased financial assistance and capacity building

Simplify IGF processes to facilitate meaningful participation by newcomers

Strengthen connections between IGF outcomes and policy-making processes at global and regional levels

Establish a working group similar to the 2004-05 WGIG to address IGF mandate evolution and institutional structure by 2026

Develop more interactive workshop formats to encourage discussion rather than one-way presentations

Create toolkits and technical working groups to address specific regional challenges like internet shutdowns and cybersecurity

Unresolved issues

How to effectively measure and quantify the IGF’s diverse impacts across different sectors and regions

The challenge of maintaining relevance as the digital divide persists despite infrastructure improvements, with Global North and South facing increasingly different sets of challenges

How to balance the open, inclusive nature of the IGF with the need for more actionable policy outcomes

The fragmentation of digital governance discussions across multiple forums (GDC, AI dialogues, etc.) and how to maintain coherence

How to address the growing polarization in global politics while maintaining the IGF’s multi-stakeholder character

The sustainability of volunteer-driven initiatives and dynamic coalitions within the IGF ecosystem

How to transition from system-wide thinking to practical implementation of emerging technologies like AI for societal benefit

The challenge of maintaining the IGF’s people-centered focus as technology-centric approaches dominate other forums

Suggested compromises

Recognize the distinction between the IGF’s role in issue-framing, agenda-setting, and decision-shaping versus actual decision-making, allowing it to maintain its dialogue function while feeding into formal policy processes

Balance the need for permanent mandate with flexibility to evolve the IGF’s scope and focus based on emerging challenges

Integrate IGF more closely with WSIS structures while maintaining its unique multi-stakeholder character and bottom-up approach

Address the tension between simplifying participation and maintaining the rich ecosystem of intersessional work and specialized initiatives

Find ways to celebrate successes and increase visibility without compromising the IGF’s non-decision-making nature

Balance global coordination with local relevance through stronger national and regional IGF networks

Maintain the IGF’s broad scope while developing more focused technical working groups for specific challenges

But once you’ve gone through the whole process with the stakeholders, implementation became much, much easier. For those who are younger, at the time, there was no Google. I think there was Netscape, AltaVista, that’s what was there. We didn’t know what exactly internet will do. But thank God it went the IGF way, otherwise it would have been a private sector company selling its services to the people.

Speaker

Bitange Ndemo

Reason

This comment provides crucial historical context and frames the IGF’s role in preventing internet commercialization. It highlights how the multi-stakeholder approach was initially ‘painful’ but ultimately more effective than traditional top-down policy making.

Impact

This opening comment set the tone for the entire discussion by establishing the IGF’s foundational importance and its role in shaping internet governance away from pure commercialization. It provided a historical anchor that other speakers referenced throughout.

The IGF has been a rare and essential arena where technical realities meet policy aspirations… we need to protect the internet coordination, which keeps it running through stable interoperable systems. And we need to strengthen internet governance, which shapes how we use it through shared norms and policies. And we need to guide digital governance, which shapes what it becomes in terms of social transformations.

Speaker

Hans Petter Holen

Reason

This comment introduces a sophisticated three-layer framework distinguishing internet coordination, internet governance, and digital governance. It challenges the common conflation of these concepts and provides analytical clarity.

Impact

This framework helped structure subsequent discussions by providing clear conceptual boundaries. It influenced how other speakers approached the technical versus policy aspects of internet governance.

I think the IGF, and its links to the WSIS, creates a link to people-centered development and to people. I think we live with so much fragmentation in how we talk about digital, and I think so many of the new fora, Global Digital Compact, for example, Artificial Intelligence Dialogue, puts the emphasis on the technology, not on the society, and not on the people.

Speaker

Anriette Esterhuysen

Reason

This comment identifies a critical distinction between technology-centered and people-centered approaches to digital governance, challenging the direction of newer international forums.

Impact

This observation shifted the discussion toward examining the IGF’s unique value proposition compared to other digital governance forums, emphasizing its focus on societal impact rather than just technological advancement.

So I can tell you that when this began, and I went to the first one, I was very sceptical. I think, well, this is just, we’re giving some breadcrumbs to the civil society because they were shunned out of the process, so this is just for that, you know. But I was proven wrong.

Speaker

Juan Fernandez (Cuba Ministry of Communication)

Reason

This honest admission of initial skepticism followed by genuine conversion provides powerful testimony to the IGF’s effectiveness. Coming from a government representative, it carries particular weight.

Impact

This personal transformation narrative added emotional depth to the discussion and demonstrated the IGF’s ability to change minds even among initially skeptical government officials, lending credibility to claims about its impact.

I think the IGF is the most innovative experience I have seen in my life in international governance, not only related to internet but in general. It has inspired me in the way that we work, I think we have developed a culture of dialogue and deal in a civilized manner with our differences.

Speaker

Raul Echeverria

Reason

This comment positions the IGF as a broader innovation in international governance beyond just internet issues, suggesting it has created new models for global cooperation.

Impact

This elevated the discussion from focusing solely on internet governance to considering the IGF as a template for international cooperation more broadly, expanding the scope of its perceived significance.

The goal of the IGF should be increasingly to be early on and facilitate the common picture of the key topics… We need to reach a new step and we need to do what we did with the WGIG in 2004-05, i.e. having a group that discusses, one, the evolution of the mandate and the focus and scope of the IGF… and, second, the institutionalization of the structure.

Speaker

Bertrand Lachapelle

Reason

This comment provides a concrete roadmap for IGF evolution, distinguishing between agenda-setting and decision-making functions while proposing specific institutional reforms.

Impact

This intervention shifted the discussion from celebrating past achievements to concrete future planning, introducing specific proposals for structural evolution that other speakers could build upon.

My only regret I have is that all the years we have taught in silos. We deal with the infrastructure, we deal with violence, we deal with… Now, looking forward, I would want to see discussions in IGF focusing in what I call we think system-wide.

Speaker

Bitange Ndemo

Reason

This critique of siloed thinking challenges the IGF’s current approach and calls for more integrated, systems-thinking approaches to address complex technological challenges like AI.

Impact

This closing comment introduced a critical perspective on the IGF’s methodology, suggesting that despite its successes, it needs to evolve toward more holistic approaches to remain relevant for emerging technologies.

Overall assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by creating a narrative arc from historical validation to future evolution. The conversation moved through several phases: establishing historical legitimacy (Ndemo, Fernandez), defining conceptual frameworks (Holen, Esterhuysen), demonstrating personal transformation (Fernandez, Echeverria), and proposing concrete reforms (Lachapelle, Ndemo’s closing). The most impactful comments challenged assumptions – whether about initial skepticism, the uniqueness of the IGF model, or the need for systemic thinking. Together, they created a rich dialogue that balanced celebration of achievements with critical analysis of future needs, ultimately reinforcing the IGF’s value while acknowledging areas for improvement.

What is the concrete impact of the IGF on Internet governance in developing countries?

Speaker

Nathan Latte from IGF Côte d’Ivoire

Explanation

This question seeks specific, measurable outcomes of IGF’s influence on policy and governance structures in developing nations, which is important for demonstrating the forum’s effectiveness and value.

How do we measure the impacts of the IGF?

Speaker

Stephanie Perrin

Explanation

She noted the difficulty in measuring IGF’s success as a multi-stakeholder innovator and suggested developing metrics to quantify different types of impacts, from local initiatives to global policy influence.

How can we make IGF outcomes and reports more visible on the IGF website?

Speaker

Luca Belli

Explanation

He expressed frustration that the IGF’s successes and policy recommendations from dynamic coalitions and other work are not well-documented or easily accessible, limiting their impact and visibility.

How can we better connect the IGF with policy making at global and regional levels?

Speaker

Raul Echeverria

Explanation

This addresses the need to strengthen the link between IGF discussions and actual policy implementation, which is where real-world change occurs.

How can we establish a working group to discuss the evolution of IGF’s mandate and institutionalization of its structure?

Speaker

Bertrand Lachapelle

Explanation

He suggested creating a group similar to the WGIG from 2004-05 to address IGF’s evolving role and structural improvements, which is crucial for the forum’s future development.

How can we reduce barriers to entry for Global South participation in IGF?

Speaker

Luca Belli

Explanation

He noted the high financial barriers for Global South countries to attend IGF meetings in expensive locations, which limits diverse participation and undermines the multi-stakeholder model.

How can we adopt a systems-wide approach to technology discussions in IGF?

Speaker

Bitange Ndemo

Explanation

He advocated for moving beyond siloed discussions to examine how technologies like AI can be systematically applied to solve real-world problems, such as improving agricultural productivity.

How can we officially recognize youth voices as part of the multi-stakeholder model?

Speaker

Piu from Myanmar

Explanation

This addresses the need for formal recognition and meaningful engagement of young people in IGF processes, ensuring intergenerational participation in internet governance.

How can we simplify IGF to make it easier for newcomers to become meaningfully involved?

Speaker

Raul Echeverria

Explanation

This focuses on improving accessibility and reducing complexity for new participants, which is essential for maintaining the forum’s relevance and expanding its community.

Summary

This discussion focused on finalizing an output document from the parliamentary track at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which addressed information integrity, combating online harms, and protecting freedom of expression. Andy Richardson from the Inter-Parliamentary Union explained that the document captures key themes around three main areas: parliaments’ law-making roles, platforms’ responsibilities, and questions of power distribution between these entities. The central conclusion emphasized the fundamental importance of cooperation and dialogue between parliaments, public authorities, and various stakeholders including technical companies.

Participants provided feedback on the draft document, with suggestions to include references to environmental impacts of AI technologies, digital inclusion for marginalized groups, and balancing security with freedom of expression. Some proposed deletions regarding IGF participation and civil society references were rejected as they didn’t reflect the majority consensus. Several speakers raised concerns about moving beyond discussion to concrete action, with Anne McCormick questioning how to ensure the statement has credibility and weight through monitoring and follow-up mechanisms.

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean expressed three main reservations: respect for national sovereignty in digital regulation, need for balance between security and freedom of expression, and equitable inclusion of Southern and Mediterranean countries. Other participants emphasized the urgency of developing specific instruments and frameworks, with suggestions for creating a digital governance radar similar to climate policy tracking systems. The session concluded with commitments to continue parliamentary exchanges, track AI policy developments, and organize future collaborative events, including a major parliamentary event on responsible AI to be hosted by Malaysia’s Parliament.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Output Document Development and Consensus Building**: The discussion centered around finalizing an output document that captures the parliamentary track discussions, with participants providing feedback on additions (environmental impact of AI, digital inclusion, balancing security with freedom of expression) while some proposed deletions (references to IGF and civil society) were rejected due to lack of consensus.

– **Moving from Talk to Action**: Multiple participants emphasized the urgent need to transition from discussions to concrete implementation, with calls for monitoring mechanisms, progress tracking tables, and specific instruments like treaties or binding conventions to address digital governance challenges.

– **Three P’s Framework – Parliaments, Platforms, and Power**: The core thematic framework focused on the law-making role of parliaments (ensuring human rights compliance), platform responsibilities for information integrity, and the dynamic power relationships between these entities, with cooperation and dialogue identified as fundamental solutions.

– **National Sovereignty vs. Global Cooperation**: Tensions emerged between respecting national sovereignty in digital regulation (allowing countries to regulate according to their own frameworks) and the need for international cooperation, particularly regarding support for Global South and Mediterranean countries in capacity building.

– **Resource Sharing and Knowledge Exchange**: Participants discussed creating systematic ways to share legislative experiences, including proposals for a “digital governance radar” similar to climate policy platforms, and ongoing parliamentary exchanges on AI regulation and digital policy development.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to finalize an output document from the parliamentary track of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), capture key insights from parliamentary discussions on digital governance and AI regulation, and establish concrete next steps for international parliamentary cooperation on technology policy issues.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and constructive tone throughout, characterized by diplomatic language and mutual respect. While there were some tensions around specific content (particularly regarding national sovereignty concerns raised by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean), the overall atmosphere remained cooperative. The tone became increasingly urgent and action-oriented as participants emphasized the need to move beyond discussions to concrete implementation, but this urgency was expressed constructively rather than critically. The closing remarks reinforced the positive, forward-looking nature of the collaboration.

Speakers

– **Andy Richardson**: Inter-Parliamentary Union collaborator, involved in creating output documents for parliamentary tracks at IGF

– **Mahabd Al-Nasir**: From Egypt, attending his third international IGF

– **Audience**: Multiple unidentified speakers including a colleague from Algeria representing the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean, and other participants

– **Celine Bal**: Organizer/coordinator of the parliamentary track, works with IGF initiatives

– **Amira Saber**: From Egypt, has experience developing draft bills on climate policy

– **Anne McCormick**: From EY (Ernst & Young)

Additional speakers:

– No additional speakers were identified beyond those in the provided speakers names list. All speakers in the transcript were either named individuals from the list or identified as “Audience” members.

# Parliamentary Track Discussion: Finalising Output Document on Digital Governance and Information Integrity

## Executive Summary

This discussion focused on finalising an output document from the parliamentary track at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), addressing information integrity, online harms, and freedom of expression. The session brought together parliamentarians and stakeholders to review policy recommendations and discuss implementation challenges in digital governance.

## Key Participants and Context

The discussion was facilitated by Andy Richardson from the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Participants included Mahabd Al-Nasir from Egypt (attending his third international IGF), Amira Saber from Egypt with experience in climate policy development, Anne McCormick from EY, and Celine Bal from the parliamentary track. Additional contributions came from audience members, including a representative from Algeria speaking on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean. Celine Bal noted that there are 176 national and regional IGF initiatives globally.

## Core Framework: The Three P’s Approach

Richardson outlined the document’s central framework organised around three areas: Parliaments, Platforms, and Power. This structure addresses parliaments’ law-making roles in ensuring human rights compliance, platforms’ responsibilities for maintaining information integrity, and the power relationships between these entities. The framework emphasises that cooperation and dialogue between parliaments, public authorities, and stakeholders represents the fundamental solution to digital governance challenges.

## Document Development and Feedback Integration

The session focused on refining the output document based on participant feedback. Richardson detailed proposed additions, including references to the environmental impact of AI technologies, digital inclusion provisions for marginalised groups such as women, children, and people with disabilities, and the balance between security measures and freedom of expression.

Some participants had proposed deletions, particularly regarding references to IGF participation and civil society engagement. Richardson indicated these proposals might be set aside unless someone wished to pursue them further, as they did not reflect the majority consensus from the discussions.

## Implementation and Accountability Challenges

Anne McCormick raised questions about document credibility and implementation, asking about speed, concreteness and credibility. She challenged participants to consider committing to monitoring progress or reviewing achievements within six months, asking “How do we make this more than talk?”

Mahabd Al-Nasir echoed these concerns, expressing his desire for a year-over-year tracking system that would document actual achievements rather than simply producing documents without knowing their impact in parliaments, governments, or countries. He suggested creating progress tracking tables.

## Calls for Binding Instruments

An audience member highlighted the urgency expressed by parliamentarians present, calling for moving beyond strategies and frameworks towards “treaties or universally binding conventions.” This intervention elevated the discussion to questions about governance structures and the adequacy of current approaches.

## National Sovereignty and Regional Perspectives

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean, represented by the Algerian delegate, outlined three main reservations presented as constructive and cooperative feedback: the importance of respecting national sovereignty and allowing parliaments to regulate digital space according to their own legal, cultural, and social frameworks; the need for balance between digital security and freedom of expression with clearer definitions of harmful content and disinformation; and the requirement for equitable inclusion of Global South and Mediterranean countries with strengthened capacity-building support. They also asked when the final document version would be available.

## Environmental Considerations

Multiple participants emphasised the need for attention to the environmental impact of AI technologies. An audience member called for greater emphasis on environmental impact, noting that AI technologies are particularly energy-intensive. This concern was integrated into the document revisions.

## Knowledge Sharing Proposals

Amira Saber proposed creating a “digital governance radar” platform similar to existing climate policy radar systems. This platform would be developed in collaboration with the Inter-Parliamentary Union and IGF secretariat to provide parliamentarians with comprehensive access to global legislative experiences and digital governance policies.

## Concrete Commitments and Next Steps

Several specific commitments emerged from the discussion:

– The IPU committed to integrating feedback into the output document and tracking parliamentary actions on AI policy across jurisdictions, with an invitation for parliaments to share their AI policy work

– The Parliament of Malaysia committed to hosting a parliamentary event on responsible AI development at the end of November in partnership with the IPU, UNDP, and Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

– Upcoming collaborative sessions were announced, including AI regulation discussions (2:45 to 3:45 in the afternoon in Studio N) and sessions on youth policy visions and indigenous language technology barriers (on the 26th in Vestfold)

– The final output document will become part of the formal IGF record and be distributed to all national parliaments

– Organisers pledged to circulate the final output document and session summaries to all participants

## Conclusion

The discussion addressed practical implementation challenges in digital governance while reviewing policy recommendations. Key themes included the need for concrete accountability mechanisms, environmental considerations in AI policy, knowledge sharing platforms, and balancing international cooperation with national sovereignty. The session produced specific commitments for future collaboration, including the Malaysian parliamentary event and ongoing tracking of AI policy developments across jurisdictions.

Celine Bal: very much. And before I actually give the floor also to Andy, our close collaborator from the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I also wanted to mention that we do have over 176 national and regional IGF initiatives and we also very much encourage members of parliaments not only to take part in our global parliamentary track but also the ones that exist at regional, sub-regional or even national levels. So I would like to give the floor now to Andy so that we discuss a little bit more the next steps for the output document that is resulting from that track.

Andy Richardson: Thank you, Celine, and to everybody who is still with us today. At the end of each parliamentary track at IGF there is an output document which tries to capture and summarize your discussions and then becomes part of the formal record of the parliamentary track, part of the record of this IGF and is also distributed to all national parliaments. And so between Celine, myself and with the help of many others we’ve tried to capture the different points that have come up in your discussions. A draft was circulated this morning and we received a lot of very positive feedback indicating a strong degree of consensus. Also some suggestions for modifications. I’ll say a couple of words about the document and then open the floor if anyone would like to make further observations. So firstly on the output document itself, what does it say? Our discussions here have been largely focused on questions of information integrity, of combating online harms while protecting freedom of expression. And the main ideas can be maybe captured in three P’s. Parliaments, platforms and power. Noting that parliaments of course have a fundamental law-making role that all legislation should be in line with and compliant with international human rights principles and really inviting parliaments to draw upon the best available expertise within the technical community and amongst the whole IGF multi-stakeholder community. There’s also been a lot of discussion of the role of platforms and the particular responsibilities that platforms bear when it comes to information integrity and combating online harms. And from this intersection between parliaments and platforms there are really questions of power, relational power, where that sits. And you’ve heard the discussions yourselves. It’s a very dynamic relationship with different perspectives but it’s very much a live issue of where does the power lie. And out of your discussions the main conclusion that we really heard from you was about the fundamental importance of cooperation and dialogue. Cooperation between parliaments to share experiences but also cooperation between parliaments and public authorities and the whole range of stakeholders including the technical sector, including the very powerful technical companies. These questions can only be resolved through ongoing dialogue. And so the output document attempts to capture these points. The feedback on the draft made some really interesting and useful suggestions for additions which with your approval we propose to take on board. So points around noting the environmental impact of technologies, particularly AI data centers, reinforcing the notion of digital inclusion, inclusion for women, children but also other groups which risk exclusion such as people with disabilities. And reinforcing some of the points around trying to balance security with freedom of expression and combating hate speech. So there are a lot of really useful comments which will be integrated into the output document. There were a couple of proposals for deletions which didn’t obviously meet with the consensus of the discussions. I’ll reference them. There were proposals to delete references to the IGF and participation in international processes, to delete references to civil society. But really it didn’t feel that these were in line with the majority of views during the discussion. So unless someone wishes to pursue and explain the points we may set them aside. So with that this is the very main ideas around the output document as a reflection of your discussions. We have a little bit of time, a couple of minutes, if there are any further observations on the draft which you received earlier today and following these comments. Would anyone like to make any further comments? Please raise your hand.

Anne McCormick: Bonjour, it’s Anne McCormick from EY again. We provided some written comments but I had a question which is given the importance of speed, concreteness and credibility in these types of statements, from your experience and that of the people in this room, how do we make sure that this statement has weight and credibility? Do we state that we will monitor this or that we will come back and review progress on each of the points and sub points in six months? How do we make this more than talk? Talk matters but talk itself loses the power of its content if it’s not followed by action.

Mahabd Al-Nasir: Thank you. A comment from the side. My name is Mahabd Al-Nasir, I’m from Egypt. Actually this is the third international IGF I’m attending. I can say that we always say very great things, so capitalizing on what my colleague was just saying. I would love to have for the next IGF something like, I don’t know, a table saying that we need to take down what is already done or what we could achieve year over year. So we don’t just get out with the very good documents but we don’t know what they are going to do with it in our parliaments or in our governments or countries or whatever. Thank you.

Celine Bal: Thank you. A colleague from Algeria.

Audience: Thank you, Andy. I switch to French, please. So, in relation to the project of declaration of the parliamentary course, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean wishes to formulate, in a constructive and cooperative spirit, three main reservations. Firstly, the respect for national sovereignty. Indeed, the PM underlines the importance of allowing each parliament to regulate the digital space according to its own legal, cultural and social frameworks. This requirement is particularly crucial in terms of the proposed legislative approaches on online content and platform regulation. I have given you references to the corresponding paragraphs. Secondly, there is a need for a balance between digital security and freedom of expression. While reaffirming the commitment of the PM against disinformation and harmful content and severe threats, the PM calls for guarantees to ensure that fundamental freedoms are not compromised. A greater clarity is also desired when defining terms such as harmful content, disinformation or intimidation. And thirdly, the equitable inclusion of the countries of the South and the Mediterranean. The APM insists on the need for strengthened support and on the development of the capacities of the South and the East Parliaments of the Mediterranean in order to guarantee a balanced and inclusive implementation of the commitments made. By thanking you for the collaboration and the spirit of openness and mutual respect, I just wanted to know when we will have the final version of the document. Thank you. One of the things that I think needs to be captured out of IGF 2025 is the urgency with which every Member of Parliament who has spoken here is asking for us to define the mission. We have been coming to IGF and generally speaking about technology and then in the last few years now we are hearing about AI. The conversations are general, they are talking about what parameters we should put but now there is an urgency in terms of what instruments, specific instruments are going to be developed so that we can draw the riverbanks for this work that we are doing. Each and every person I have listened to, including at the plenary when Joseph Gordon was presenting, each of them has a struggle. The developers have a struggle. I heard him speak about the struggle that the creatives have. We definitely have a struggle about data representation and people are asking what is that common ground that defines this struggle for all of us so that it is not a developer versus government front or a civil society versus government or even people versus big tech. We are asking what is that common ground and how can it be put in an instrument that we are able to pursue and to my mind I am thinking about working towards strategies, working towards frameworks and with the need to come to treaties or universally binding conventions and the urgency is real. Everybody is saying to us we have spoken too much, let’s put the ink to paper. I thank you.

Andy Richardson: Thank you very much. From Egypt. Thank you so much.

Amira Saber: I will be very quick about my suggestion. In my experience to develop the draft bill on climate in Egypt, I used a climate policy radar which is a very good platform where every legislation that is related to climate anywhere in the world is put on the map and is accessible for every parliamentarian. This gives the wealth of knowledge on the legislation. I suggest the same thing which could be easily done in collaboration with the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the IGF secretariat to have a digital inclusion or digital governance radar. Or what has been released from the parliamentarians across the world when it comes to digital governance. That would be extremely beneficial to any parliamentarian. Thank you.

Andy Richardson: Thank you very much. And perhaps a final comment at the back of the room, please.

Audience: Thank you so much, dear honorable colleagues and experts. First of all, I want to thank you for the enlightenment and discussions and inputs we got the last two days. It’s amazing. And we tackled a lot of issues that are very, very important. Especially, we discussed risks of digitalization of AI. We explored threats to human rights, to democracy, to truth itself through deepfake and algorithmic manipulation. One thing that we tackled, not enough, that I also sent to you is the need to have a clear vision of the future. One thing that we tackled, not enough, that I also sent to you is the issue of environmental impact of the technologies we use. Especially AI is very intense in energy. And I just wanted to stress out the point that we also have to think about that probably all the time because it’s an issue that tackles us on the whole world. And I think we have to, we didn’t, the only part where we did that was yesterday in the parliament. There was a discussion about that and I wanted to enforce that we get that too. Thank you.

Andy Richardson: Thank you very much to everybody for these very useful inputs. We take good note of all of these points. I think the first speakers raised the core action referring to the urgency, to the need to move. Now I think that this is a shared responsibility amongst every person in the room whether they’re a member of parliament or a different type of participant. There are different ways and at different levels that each of us can be taking action. Firstly, the parliamentarians here are truly and genuinely the central figures in this. And so it’s within your national parliaments. What questions are being raised? What hearings are being carried out? And are you able to move the political agenda in your own countries? We’ve heard a lot about the different resources available within the IGF community and really an invitation to draw upon the expertise of the technical community of civil society in the private sector. Parliaments can engage in their national IGF communities. These communities exist very broadly. They can engage at the regional level as well where there are many guidance documents and fora that exist. And at our level, at the IPU level, we are committed to continuing the exchange between parliaments providing fora for ongoing exchange of experience. I talked a little bit earlier about we have a specific focus around AI at the moment because it’s so new and emerging. So many parliaments are asking themselves questions. Tomorrow, in partnership with UNDP, there will be a session on AI regulation where we will hear examples from different jurisdictions, from the European Parliament, from Egypt and from Uruguay, but also all other parliaments that want to come and share what they have done or what they are doing. We are currently tracking parliamentary actions on AI policy. There are also other sources of what legislation exists. And there are links to all of the committees that are acting, to all of the draft legislation. If your parliament is taking action on AI policy, we want to hear about that so that that can be shared. And as the colleague from UNDP referred to earlier, we are about to publicly announce that at the end of November, the Parliament of Malaysia will host, along with the IPU, UNDP and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, a major parliamentary event on the role of parliaments in developing responsible AI. We see very much our role is trying to connect the members of parliament who are trying to take action in this area so that they can exchange notes on their progress, on their challenges, their obstacles and how to try to work together and build the coalitions that you have been describing today. So at all of these different levels, we believe there is space for progress and frankly I think we are heartened as well. by the very high level of participation in this parliamentary track and it’s the sign that there is action taking place in your parliaments. We will clean up the output document, we will circulate it and we hope that this will be helpful to you as you try to advance your agendas in your parliaments. Céline, maybe a closing word?

Celine Bal: Thank you very much, Andy, also for this very good summary. Perhaps just for advanced information, we will also, in addition to this output document, have some summary of discussions from each of the sessions and we will of course also track the different references that have been done, different documents that have been mentioned, especially from the session that happened just before with all the various stakeholder groups that came together and really wanted to show some concrete collaboration opportunities with you members of Parliament. And last but not least, before closing the parliamentary track, I mentioned already that there are other sessions taking place for the rest of the week from different stakeholder groups organized and there are specific ones that are really inviting members of parliaments also to join. So one of them will be starting tomorrow at 9 here in Studio N, a collaborative sessions on foundations of AI and cloud policy. There is also one that has been mentioned by the European Parliament, including youth and their policy visions, happening later on in Vestfold, also in the morning. And we have also the session that has been mentioned by Andy, co-organized by UNDP as well, with the Interparliamentary Union in the afternoon from 2.45 to 3.45 on the AI regulation. And last but not least, there’s also a session on the 26th organized by the Sámi Parliament, together with the Norwegian government and also UNESCO, on addressing the barriers to indigenous language technology and AI uptake. So again, explore the program and also, last but not least, let us know about any feedback that you may have. We’re going to integrate it also for future sessions. Thank you so much.

Andy Richardson: Thank you, Celine. And with that… Thank you. And with those final words, I thank the Parliament of Norway for hosting this parliamentary track to all of the participants and particularly to Celine for all of her efforts in putting this together. Thank you. Enjoy the rest of the IGF.

Agreement points

Need for concrete action and implementation mechanisms beyond producing documents

Speakers

– Anne McCormick
– Mahabd Al-Nasir
– Audience

Arguments

Importance of speed, concreteness, and credibility in statements, with need for monitoring and progress review mechanisms

Need for year-over-year tracking of achievements rather than just producing good documents without follow-up action

Urgency for developing specific instruments and frameworks, moving from general discussions to binding conventions and treaties

Summary

Multiple speakers emphasized the critical need to move beyond discussions and document production to concrete implementation, monitoring, and accountability mechanisms. They shared concerns about the gap between policy statements and actual action.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Environmental impact of AI technologies requires greater attention

Speakers

– Andy Richardson
– Audience

Arguments

Suggestions for additions include environmental impact of AI, digital inclusion for marginalized groups, and balancing security with freedom of expression

Need for clear vision of future and greater emphasis on environmental impact of AI technologies which are energy-intensive

Summary

Both speakers recognized that the environmental impact of AI technologies, particularly their energy-intensive nature, needs more emphasis and consideration in policy discussions.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Importance of knowledge sharing platforms and collaborative mechanisms

Speakers

– Andy Richardson
– Amira Saber
– Celine Bal

Arguments

Commitment to continuing parliamentary exchanges and providing forums for experience sharing, particularly on AI regulation

Proposal to create a digital governance radar platform similar to climate policy radar to share legislative knowledge globally

Encouragement for parliamentarians to engage with national and regional IGF initiatives beyond the global parliamentary track

Summary

Speakers agreed on the value of creating and maintaining platforms for knowledge sharing, whether through parliamentary exchanges, digital governance radars, or multi-level IGF initiatives to facilitate collaboration and learning.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers expressed frustration with the cycle of producing good policy documents without adequate follow-up mechanisms to ensure implementation and track progress over time.

Speakers

– Anne McCormick
– Mahabd Al-Nasir

Arguments

Importance of speed, concreteness, and credibility in statements, with need for monitoring and progress review mechanisms

Need for year-over-year tracking of achievements rather than just producing good documents without follow-up action

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both organizational representatives emphasized the importance of ongoing parliamentary engagement through multiple channels and levels, from global to national initiatives.

Speakers

– Andy Richardson
– Celine Bal

Arguments

Commitment to continuing parliamentary exchanges and providing forums for experience sharing, particularly on AI regulation

Upcoming collaborative sessions and events including AI policy discussions and indigenous language technology barriers

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Unexpected consensus

Environmental impact of AI should be integrated into digital governance discussions

Speakers

– Andy Richardson
– Audience

Arguments

Suggestions for additions include environmental impact of AI, digital inclusion for marginalized groups, and balancing security with freedom of expression

Need for clear vision of future and greater emphasis on environmental impact of AI technologies which are energy-intensive

Explanation

It was unexpected to see environmental concerns emerge as a consensus point in what was primarily a discussion about parliamentary governance and digital policy. This suggests a growing recognition that environmental sustainability must be integrated into all technology policy discussions.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory

Strong agreement on need for practical implementation despite diverse national contexts

Speakers

– Anne McCormick
– Mahabd Al-Nasir
– Audience

Arguments

Importance of speed, concreteness, and credibility in statements, with need for monitoring and progress review mechanisms

Need for year-over-year tracking of achievements rather than just producing good documents without follow-up action

Urgency for developing specific instruments and frameworks, moving from general discussions to binding conventions and treaties

Explanation

Despite representing different regions and contexts, speakers showed remarkable consensus on the need for concrete action and accountability mechanisms, suggesting universal frustration with the gap between policy discussions and implementation.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus around three main areas: the urgent need for concrete implementation mechanisms beyond document production, the importance of knowledge-sharing platforms and collaborative frameworks, and the recognition that environmental impacts of AI technologies must be integrated into digital governance discussions.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with constructive engagement. While there were some specific reservations raised (particularly around national sovereignty and cultural considerations), the overall tone was collaborative with speakers building on each other’s ideas rather than opposing them. This suggests a mature policy discussion environment where participants are focused on practical solutions rather than ideological differences. The implications are positive for future parliamentary cooperation on digital governance issues, as the shared recognition of implementation gaps and the value of collaboration provides a strong foundation for concrete action.

Different viewpoints

Inclusion of references to IGF and civil society in output document

Speakers

– Andy Richardson
– Audience

Arguments

Document captures discussions on information integrity, combating online harms, and protecting freedom of expression through three key areas: parliaments, platforms, and power

There were proposals to delete references to the IGF and participation in international processes, to delete references to civil society

Summary

Some participants proposed removing references to IGF and civil society from the output document, but Andy Richardson indicated these deletions didn’t meet consensus and weren’t in line with majority views during discussions

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Unexpected differences

National sovereignty versus international cooperation framework

Speakers

– Audience
– Andy Richardson

Arguments

Importance of respecting national sovereignty and allowing parliaments to regulate digital space according to their own legal, cultural, and social frameworks

Document captures discussions on information integrity, combating online harms, and protecting freedom of expression through three key areas: parliaments, platforms, and power

Explanation

The Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean raised significant concerns about national sovereignty and the need for parliaments to regulate according to their own frameworks, which was unexpected given the collaborative nature of the IGF process and suggests tension between international coordination and national autonomy

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The main disagreements centered on document content (IGF/civil society references), implementation mechanisms (monitoring vs tracking vs treaties), emphasis on environmental issues, and national sovereignty concerns. Most disagreements were procedural rather than substantive.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. While there were some tensions around national sovereignty and document content, most participants shared common goals of moving from discussion to action. The disagreements were primarily about methods and emphasis rather than fundamental objectives, suggesting good potential for resolution through continued dialogue.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers expressed frustration with the cycle of producing good policy documents without adequate follow-up mechanisms to ensure implementation and track progress over time.

Speakers

– Anne McCormick
– Mahabd Al-Nasir

Arguments

Importance of speed, concreteness, and credibility in statements, with need for monitoring and progress review mechanisms

Need for year-over-year tracking of achievements rather than just producing good documents without follow-up action

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both organizational representatives emphasized the importance of ongoing parliamentary engagement through multiple channels and levels, from global to national initiatives.

Speakers

– Andy Richardson
– Celine Bal

Arguments

Commitment to continuing parliamentary exchanges and providing forums for experience sharing, particularly on AI regulation

Upcoming collaborative sessions and events including AI policy discussions and indigenous language technology barriers

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Infrastructure

Key takeaways

Parliamentary discussions should focus on three key areas: parliaments (law-making role compliant with human rights), platforms (responsibilities for information integrity), and power (dynamic relationships between stakeholders)

Cooperation and dialogue are fundamental – between parliaments to share experiences and between parliaments and all stakeholders including technical sector and companies

There is urgent need to move from general discussions to concrete action and specific instruments, with parliamentarians expressing frustration about too much talk without implementation

Environmental impact of AI technologies, particularly energy-intensive data centers, needs greater emphasis in policy discussions

Digital inclusion must encompass women, children, people with disabilities, and other marginalized groups

National sovereignty must be respected, allowing parliaments to regulate digital space according to their own legal, cultural, and social frameworks

Resolutions and action items

Integrate feedback into output document including environmental impact of AI, digital inclusion provisions, and security-freedom of expression balance

IPU committed to continuing parliamentary exchanges and providing forums for ongoing experience sharing

Track parliamentary actions on AI policy and share information about legislation and committees across jurisdictions

Create opportunities for parliamentarians to engage with national and regional IGF initiatives

Organize upcoming collaborative sessions including AI regulation discussions and indigenous language technology barriers

Parliament of Malaysia to host major parliamentary event on responsible AI development in partnership with IPU, UNDP, and Commonwealth Parliamentary Association

Circulate final output document and session summaries to all participants

Unresolved issues

How to ensure document credibility and implementation beyond just producing statements – no concrete monitoring mechanism established

Lack of year-over-year tracking system to measure actual achievements versus commitments

Need for clearer definitions of terms like ‘harmful content,’ ‘disinformation,’ and ‘intimidation’

Timeline for final document version not clearly specified

No specific binding instruments or treaties developed despite expressed urgency

Proposal for digital governance radar platform mentioned but not formally adopted or resourced

Suggested compromises

Balance between digital security and freedom of expression while protecting against disinformation and harmful content

Respect national sovereignty while maintaining international cooperation and human rights compliance

Include references to IGF participation and civil society engagement despite some proposals for deletion

Strengthen support for Global South and Mediterranean countries while maintaining universal applicability of commitments

Move toward specific instruments and frameworks while continuing dialogue and cooperation approaches

Given the importance of speed, concreteness and credibility in these types of statements, from your experience and that of the people in this room, how do we make sure that this statement has weight and credibility? Do we state that we will monitor this or that we will come back and review progress on each of the points and sub points in six months? How do we make this more than talk?

Speaker

Anne McCormick

Reason

This comment cuts to the heart of a fundamental problem with international policy discussions – the gap between rhetoric and action. McCormick challenges the entire premise of creating output documents without accountability mechanisms, forcing participants to confront whether their efforts will have real-world impact.

Impact

This comment created a pivotal shift in the discussion from focusing on document content to questioning the entire framework of how policy recommendations are implemented. It sparked immediate agreement from other participants and led to concrete suggestions for tracking mechanisms and follow-up processes.

I would love to have for the next IGF something like, I don’t know, a table saying that we need to take down what is already done or what we could achieve year over year. So we don’t just get out with the very good documents but we don’t know what they are going to do with it in our parliaments or in our governments or countries or whatever.

Speaker

Mahabd Al-Nasir

Reason

This builds on McCormick’s challenge by proposing a concrete solution – creating accountability through year-over-year progress tracking. It demonstrates the frustration of repeat participants who see the same patterns of discussion without measurable outcomes.

Impact

This comment reinforced the accountability theme and provided a practical framework that other participants could envision implementing. It helped transform abstract concerns about effectiveness into actionable proposals.

One of the things that I think needs to be captured out of IGF 2025 is the urgency with which every Member of Parliament who has spoken here is asking for us to define the mission… We are asking what is that common ground and how can it be put in an instrument that we are able to pursue and to my mind I am thinking about working towards strategies, working towards frameworks and with the need to come to treaties or universally binding conventions and the urgency is real.

Speaker

Unidentified participant

Reason

This comment synthesizes the frustration expressed throughout the discussion and elevates it to a strategic level, calling for binding international instruments rather than voluntary guidelines. It reframes the discussion from technical cooperation to fundamental governance structures.

Impact

This intervention shifted the conversation toward more ambitious policy solutions and highlighted the inadequacy of current soft-law approaches. It introduced the concept of binding treaties, raising the stakes of the discussion significantly.

I suggest the same thing which could be easily done in collaboration with the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the IGF secretariat to have a digital inclusion or digital governance radar… That would be extremely beneficial to any parliamentarian.

Speaker

Amira Saber

Reason

This comment provides a concrete, actionable solution that addresses the knowledge-sharing challenges parliamentarians face. By referencing her successful experience with climate policy radar, she offers a proven model that could be adapted for digital governance.

Impact

This practical suggestion provided a tangible next step that organizers could implement, moving the discussion from abstract concerns to specific solutions. It demonstrated how cross-sector learning could address parliamentarians’ information needs.

The PM underlines the importance of allowing each parliament to regulate the digital space according to its own legal, cultural and social frameworks… calls for guarantees to ensure that fundamental freedoms are not compromised… insists on the need for strengthened support and on the development of the capacities of the South and the East Parliaments of the Mediterranean

Speaker

Audience member from Algeria (Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean)

Reason

This comment introduces crucial tensions between international cooperation and national sovereignty, highlighting how global digital governance frameworks may conflict with regional values and capabilities. It challenges the assumption that one-size-fits-all approaches are appropriate.

Impact

This intervention added complexity to the discussion by highlighting potential conflicts between global standards and local contexts. It forced organizers to acknowledge that consensus might not be as strong as initially assumed and that implementation would need to account for diverse national circumstances.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally transformed the discussion from a routine policy document review into a critical examination of international governance effectiveness. The progression from McCormick’s accountability challenge through Al-Nasir’s tracking proposal to the call for binding treaties created a crescendo of frustration with existing approaches. Saber’s practical radar suggestion and the Algerian representative’s sovereignty concerns added both solutions and complexity. Together, these interventions elevated the conversation from technical cooperation to fundamental questions about how international digital governance should work, creating pressure for more ambitious and accountable approaches while acknowledging the challenges of diverse national contexts.

How do we make sure that this statement has weight and credibility? Do we state that we will monitor this or that we will come back and review progress on each of the points and sub points in six months? How do we make this more than talk?

Speaker

Anne McCormick

Explanation

This addresses the critical need for accountability and follow-through on parliamentary commitments, moving beyond discussion to concrete action and measurable outcomes.

Need for a tracking system to monitor what has been achieved year over year from IGF outcomes

Speaker

Mahabd Al-Nasir

Explanation

This suggests creating a systematic approach to track progress on IGF commitments and outcomes across different parliaments and countries to ensure accountability.

When will we have the final version of the document?

Speaker

Audience member from Algeria

Explanation

This is a practical question about timeline and delivery of the output document that needs clarification for participants.

What is that common ground that defines the struggle for all stakeholders so that it is not a developer versus government front or a civil society versus government or even people versus big tech?

Speaker

Unidentified speaker

Explanation

This addresses the need to identify shared challenges and interests across different stakeholder groups to foster collaboration rather than adversarial relationships.

How can common ground be put in an instrument that we are able to pursue – working towards strategies, frameworks, treaties or universally binding conventions?

Speaker

Unidentified speaker

Explanation

This explores the need for concrete legal and policy instruments to address digital governance challenges at national and international levels.

Development of a digital inclusion or digital governance radar platform in collaboration with IPU and IGF secretariat

Speaker

Amira Saber

Explanation

This proposes creating a comprehensive database of digital governance legislation worldwide, similar to climate policy radar, to help parliamentarians access and learn from global legislative experiences.

How to better address and integrate environmental impact of technologies, especially AI’s energy intensity, into digital governance discussions

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This highlights the need for more comprehensive consideration of environmental sustainability in digital policy discussions, particularly regarding AI and data centers.

Summary

This IGF workshop focused on ethical networking, sustainability, and accountability in computer science and mathematics, bringing together academics, researchers, and activists from various backgrounds. The discussion centered on how to ensure that mathematics and computer networking practices align with ethical principles including privacy, transparency, and accountability. Participants emphasized that ethical considerations cannot be treated as optional add-ons but must be fundamentally embedded throughout the development process from the beginning.

A key theme emerged around the importance of interdisciplinary collaboration and diverse perspectives. Speakers stressed that engineers and mathematicians working in isolation cannot foresee all implications of their work, making it essential to include social scientists, ethicists, and affected communities in the development process. The discussion highlighted how narratives around hyperperformance and optimization in computer networks often go unquestioned, potentially misaligning with ethical principles that require time for thoughtful consideration.

Participants addressed the challenges of emerging technologies like AI and IoT, emphasizing that positive impacts are subjective and vary across cultures and regions. Alexander Isavnin provided insights from Russia, illustrating how technologies claimed to be ethical can actually serve surveillance purposes. The conversation revealed tensions between technological advancement and genuine ethical implementation, particularly in less democratic contexts.

The role of the IGF was discussed as a crucial convening platform that breaks down silos between technical and non-technical experts, enabling essential dialogue across diverse stakeholders. However, participants noted that assembling the right people is only half the challenge – translating awareness into action remains difficult. The workshop concluded with emphasis on continuous oversight and the need for humans to actively participate in ensuring technology serves positive purposes rather than assuming technology alone can solve ethical challenges.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Embedding Ethics in Technology Development**: The need to integrate ethical considerations from the ground up rather than as an afterthought, with emphasis on moving beyond traditional narratives of optimization and performance to include responsibility, sustainability, and human impact in computer networking and mathematics.

– **Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Perspective**: The critical importance of breaking down silos between technical and non-technical experts, bringing together diverse stakeholders including computer scientists, mathematicians, social scientists, and affected communities to ensure comprehensive understanding of technological impacts.

– **Cultural and Regional Differences in Ethics**: Recognition that ethical standards and definitions of “positive impact” vary significantly across different cultures, regions, and political systems, with particular attention to how authoritarian governments can abuse technology for surveillance and control.

– **Role of IGF as a Convening Platform**: Discussion of how the Internet Governance Forum serves as a crucial space for connecting diverse global stakeholders, facilitating dialogue between different perspectives, and translating awareness into actionable governance frameworks.

– **Human-Centered Network Evaluation**: The challenge of assessing networks as socio-technical systems where human and technical components interact, emphasizing the need for continuous oversight, citizen participation, and understanding of failure modes at human-machine interfaces.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how ethical principles can be integrated into computer networking, mathematics, and emerging technologies, while examining the role of international governance forums in promoting sustainable and responsible internet development. The workshop sought to bridge technical expertise with ethical considerations and cultural perspectives from different regions.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and academic tone throughout, characterized by thoughtful analysis and mutual respect among participants. While the conversation remained constructive, there was an underlying sense of urgency about the need for ethical oversight of rapidly advancing technologies. The tone became slightly more pointed when discussing regional differences, particularly regarding authoritarian uses of technology, but returned to a collegial atmosphere focused on finding practical solutions through international cooperation and interdisciplinary dialogue.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Alexander Isavnin** – Member of the Council of the Russian Pirate Party, mathematician by education

– **Sara Hjalmarsson** – Vice chair of the European Pirate Party, workshop moderator

– **Audience** – Online participant reading questions from chat

– **Dennis Mueller** – Research associate at the University of Cambridge and University of Cologne, co-founder of the Ethics and Mathematics Project, works on mathematics education for sustainable development and extreme technological risks related to AI and the Internet

– **Marc Bruyere** – Researcher at Airbus (10 years), has Ph.D., works on ethical implications of research and innovation

– **Keith Goldstein** – Chair of Pirate Parties International, involved in drafting research project on computer networking ethics

– **MODERATOR** – Technical moderator handling audio/video issues

– **Maurice Chiodo** – Research associate at the Center for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge, principal investigator and co-founder of the Ethics and Mathematics Project, research mathematician specializing in computability theory and abstract algebra, ethics and safety consultant in AI and blockchain technologies

– **Daphne Tuncer** – Academic researcher in computer science and computer networks, affiliated with Institut Polytechnique de Paris in France, works on responsibility in digital development

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# IGF Workshop Report: Ethical Networking, Sustainability, and Accountability in Computer Science and Mathematics

## Executive Summary

This Internet Governance Forum (IGF) workshop examined the intersection of ethics, sustainability, and accountability in computer networking and mathematics. Co-moderated by Sara Hjalmarsson (Vice Chair of the European Pirate Party) and Keith Goldstein (Chair of Pirate Parties International), the session brought together academics, researchers, and activists to address three key questions: how mathematics and computer networking can align with ethical principles, how emerging technologies can be ethically developed, and what role IGF can play in promoting responsible internet governance.

The discussion featured Maurice Chiodo and Dennis Mueller (co-founders of the Ethics and Mathematics Project at Cambridge University), Daphne Tuncer (Institut Polytechnique de Paris), Marc Bruyere (industry researcher), and Alexander Isavnin (Russian Pirate Party, mathematician). Participants emphasized that ethical considerations must be embedded throughout technology development rather than added as afterthoughts, and highlighted the critical need for interdisciplinary collaboration across technical and social domains.

## Workshop Structure and Key Questions

The workshop was organized around three main questions that structured the discussion:

1. **How can mathematics and computer networking align with ethical principles?**

2. **How can emerging technologies be ethically developed?**

3. **What role can IGF play in promoting responsible internet governance?**

The format included both on-site and remote participants, with audience questions addressed at the end of the session.

## Question 1: Aligning Mathematics and Networking with Ethical Principles

### Historical Context and Current Challenges

Alexander Isavnin provided crucial historical perspective, noting that “at the beginning of the internet, there was no privacy considerations or security considerations because scientists have created internet for their own needs. They thought that only such good guys with scientific approaches will exist on the internet. But actually, a lot happens since that. A lot of people came here, evil people, bad people, governments, corporations, and so on.”

This observation established why current ethical challenges exist and influenced the discussion about moving from reactive to proactive ethical frameworks.

### Technical Decisions with Ethical Implications

Marc Bruyere offered a concrete example of how technical design choices have real-world consequences. He explained how IPv4’s design, placing source addresses before destination addresses, forces routers to wait for the destination field, resulting in significant energy consumption over time. IPv6 corrected this by putting destination first, demonstrating how seemingly minor technical decisions can have massive environmental implications.

### Embedding Ethics from the Start

Dennis Mueller argued that “ethics is not an optional extra or a bolt-on. It’s something that we must fundamentally embed within everything we do… principles like safety and sustainability cannot be bolted on at the end of a project, especially with decentralised technologies such as the internet, where retrospective fixes can be very difficult or even impossible.”

## Question 2: Ethical Development of Emerging Technologies

### The Imperative of Interdisciplinary Collaboration

Maurice Chiodo emphasized that “from an engineer’s viewpoint, there are three key aspects to ethical development here. Perspective, perspective, and perspective… We work deep within technical systems, but technologies like AI, in the internet of things, are fundamentally human endeavours.”

He outlined a framework focusing on three areas requiring scrutiny: ethical vision, tool integrity, and process robustness. This emphasis on multiple perspectives became a central theme throughout the discussion.

### Challenging Performance-Oriented Paradigms

Daphne Tuncer contributed a critical perspective on narratives driving technology development, particularly questioning assumptions around hyperperformance and optimization. She challenged the notion that “fast is good,” arguing that ethical principles require time for thoughtful consideration and may conflict with speed-oriented development paradigms.

Tuncer also emphasized the importance of working with social scientists and learning survey and consultation methods to better understand diverse perspectives and impacts.

### Cultural and Regional Considerations

The discussion revealed tensions around implementing ethical frameworks across different political contexts. Alexander Isavnin illustrated how technologies claimed to be ethical can serve surveillance purposes under authoritarian governments, emphasizing that “you are your own insurance” and stressing individual responsibility for oversight.

Daphne Tuncer challenged assumptions about universal ethical standards by questioning “positive for who and relative to what?… what one might consider as being positive might be well perceived as negative by another.” This insight highlighted that ethical frameworks must account for diverse cultural perspectives rather than imposing universal standards.

## Question 3: IGF’s Role in Promoting Responsible Internet Governance

### Platform for Diverse Stakeholder Engagement

All speakers recognized IGF’s unique role as a convener bringing together diverse global perspectives. Maurice Chiodo noted that IGF “serves as convener breaking down silos between technical and non-technical experts,” while Daphne Tuncer emphasized it “provides platform for worldwide audience to confront diverse perspectives.”

Keith Goldstein, drawing from his experience with Pirate Parties International, highlighted how IGF enables dialogue across different regional approaches to digital rights and internet governance.

### Bridging Technical and Governance Communities

Marc Bruyere noted IGF’s potential role in bridging gaps between internet governance discussions and traditional standards organizations like IETF and W3C, though he acknowledged this relationship requires strengthening.

Dennis Mueller emphasized that “IGF stakeholders must act as ambassadors spreading integrated perspective to their fields,” suggesting the forum’s impact depends on participants carrying insights back to their respective communities.

### Expanding Engagement Beyond IGF

Alexander Isavnin advocated for broader interaction with UN and intergovernmental organizations beyond just IGF, arguing for more comprehensive engagement with global governance structures.

## Collaborative Research and Future Directions

The workshop revealed ongoing collaboration between several participants. Keith Goldstein, Marc Bruyere, and Daphne Tuncer have been working together on a research project, including developing a questionnaire to study how humans learn new networking methods. This collaborative approach exemplifies the interdisciplinary cooperation the workshop advocated.

Maurice Chiodo and Dennis Mueller, as co-founders of the Ethics and Mathematics Project, brought complementary perspectives on integrating ethical considerations into mathematical and technical education.

## Areas of Agreement and Different Emphases

### Broad Agreement

Participants generally agreed on the necessity of interdisciplinary collaboration and the need to embed ethical considerations throughout technology development. There was broad acknowledgment of IGF’s valuable role as a platform for diverse stakeholder engagement.

### Different Emphases

While agreeing on core principles, speakers emphasized different approaches to implementation. Alexander Isavnin focused on individual responsibility and oversight, particularly in contexts where institutional safeguards may be compromised. Maurice Chiodo and Dennis Mueller emphasized developers’ and engineers’ responsibility to integrate diverse perspectives and build safety into systems from the start.

Speakers also brought different perspectives on technology’s role in addressing societal inequalities, with varying emphasis on the potential for technological solutions versus the need for constant oversight to prevent abuse.

## Human-Centered Network Evaluation

The discussion addressed challenges in evaluating networks as socio-technical systems. Maurice Chiodo argued that “humans and technical components cannot be assessed in isolation, their value and risks emerge from their interaction.”

This systems thinking approach moved beyond simple human versus technical distinctions to understanding complex interactions. Marc Bruyere contributed insights about fundamental differences between quantitative and qualitative evaluation spaces, while Dennis Mueller emphasized that human components have different motivations and characteristics than technical components.

## Unresolved Challenges

Several critical challenges require further attention:

– Practically democratizing ethical networking to ensure meaningful citizen oversight

– Bridging global north and south dynamics in ethical technology development

– Translating IGF insights into concrete action beyond the forum

– Balancing different cultural definitions of positive technological impacts

– Developing practical evaluation tools for human components in network systems

– Ensuring adequate time and resources for ethical considerations in fast-paced development environments

## Conclusions and Next Steps

The workshop demonstrated broad agreement on the need for ethical approaches to networking and technology development, while revealing significant implementation challenges. Participants committed to continuing collaboration through future research and publications, with plans to make interdisciplinary discussions routine practice.

The conversation reinforced that technology development is fundamentally a human endeavor requiring diverse perspectives, cultural sensitivity, and continuous ethical oversight. As Dennis Mueller noted, the goal is not to slow technological progress but to ensure it serves positive purposes through thoughtful, inclusive, and ethically-grounded approaches.

The workshop concluded with recognition that while IGF provides a crucial platform for these discussions, the real challenge lies in translating awareness into concrete changes within technical communities and organizations. Participants emphasized both individual responsibility and institutional change as necessary components of ethical technology development.

MODERATOR: ♪♪ ♪♪

Keith Goldstein: Okay, thank you everybody for coming. It’s a pleasure to see you all. This is the IGF workshop on ethical networking, sustainability and accountability. Rather than introduce everyone, I’ll turn over to my colleague Sara over here to ask our first question.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Thanks, Keith. First of all, my name’s Sara. I’m the vice chair of the European Pirate Party. We have a booth here if you’re on site, so if you like what we’re talking about, please feel free to stop by. I’d like to start by letting our speakers introduce themselves first before we start with question one. So I’d like to hand over to Daphne. Do we have Daphne with us? Welcome, Daphne. Please introduce yourself and tell us a bit about what you do. Tell me something about yourself, your project, and how it relates to ethical networking.

Daphne Tuncer: Hello?

Sara Hjalmarsson: Yeah, now we can hear you.

MODERATOR: Sorry, sorry. I couldn’t turn on my mic. Sorry about that.

Sara Hjalmarsson: That’s okay. It happens sometimes. Go for it.

Daphne Tuncer: Yeah. Hi, hi, everyone. Sorry, let me turn on the video as well. It should be working now. Yeah, great. So hi, everyone. Thanks a lot for joining this session. So my name is Daphne Tuncher. I’m academic. My research is in the domain of computer science, more specifically computer networks. I’m affiliated with Institut Polytechnique de Paris in France. So over the years, I’ve been trying to work on putting together kind of actionable resources, both for research and education on what I call responsibility in our digital development. So thank you.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Okay, wow. That’s a big responsibility. All right. Thank you, Daphne. Daphne. Next. Next, we have Marc Brouillere. Marc, are you with us?

Marc Bruyere: Yes. Can you hear me and see me? Yes. Yes. Loud and clear. Loud and clear. Okay, quickly. Actually, I did a Ph.D. when I was 40, like 10 years ago, coming from a long path from an industry and so on. And when you’re actually starting to do research and you know what implication it is in research, you are actually influencing things and innovating stuff and so on. And it always questioned me how to do this without hurting society with an ethical way. Then that’s what we, I was definitely had a very first conversation about it. And I’m actually working for a large company back for 10 years in research for Airbus, was everything do count in the choice you do. And it’s very valuable that we are actually all thinking

Sara Hjalmarsson: of the impact of the choices we do. And I really appreciate we are this time together. Oh, wow. So you’ve had a lot of insight to share there. Looking forward to it. Next, we have Keith. Sorry. Next, we have Maurice. Maurice, are you with us? Yes. Thank you. Can you hear me? Yep. Loud and clear. Loud and clear.

Maurice Chiodo: Excellent. Thank you. It’s a pleasure to be able to speak here today. So my name is Maurice Kioda, and I’m a research associate at the Center for the Study of Existential Risk at the University of Cambridge. I’m also the principal investigator and co-founder of the Ethics and Mathematics Project. So a research mathematician by training, I specialized in computability theory and abstract algebra. My work now looks at the ethical challenges and risks posed by mathematics, mathematicians, and mathematically-powered technologies. I’ve been working on this for over nine years and have insights and industry experience as an ethics and safety consultant in AI and blockchain technologies.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Oh, wow. You’ve done a bit of everything. Thank you, Maurice. Thank you, Maurice. Dennis. Dennis Mullow. Dennis, are you with us?

Dennis Mueller: Yep, I’m here. Thank you very much. It’s an honor to be here. I’m also a co-founder of the Ethics and Mathematics Project. I’m currently a research associate at the University of Cologne, where I work on mathematics education for sustainable development. And I work with Maurice at the Center for the Study of Existential Risk, where I study extreme technological risks related to AI and the Internet. Overall, my work sort of connects to ethics, education, mathematics, and I’m particularly interested in studying how mathematics and mathematically-powered technologies are shaping our world.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Okay, wow. All right, very good. Great to have you with us. Next, we have Alexander Isavnin. Alexander, are you with us?

Alexander Isavnin: Yeah, for sure. Hello, I’m Alexander Isavnin. I’m a member of the Council of the Russian Pirate Party, where we live in very difficult countries, and our party and citizens of our country constantly need to face ethical and sustainability challenges. I’m also a mathematician by education, but have no relations to ethics and mathematics projects.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Thanks. Okay, welcome. Next, we have Keith.

Keith Goldstein: And I’ll just introduce myself. I’m Keith Goldstein, chair of Pirate Parties International. I also have been involved with Daphne and Mark here on drafting a research project on computer networking ethics and looking at how humans are able to learn new systems. Okay, thanks. So why don’t we move on to the next question?

Sara Hjalmarsson: So let’s start with the first question there. We’re sharing a little bit. So how can we ensure that mathematics and computer networking practices align with ethical principles, including privacy, transparency, and accountability?

Keith Goldstein: So Daphne, would you like to start?

Daphne Tuncer: Yeah, sure, I’m happy to start. So as I said earlier, I’m a computer scientist. But in the recent year, I started working a lot with people from social science. And through this collaboration, I got to learn a lot about the role of narratives in how this contributes to how we approach and develop new technologies. And if you take computer network research as an example, so a lot of the narratives that we have today have to do with hyperperformance, optimization, measurements. So of course, there’s nothing wrong with that. But my point is that very often, these things are just taken for granted. We never really question these narratives. And so it does subconsciously, us, like researchers in computer networks, influence the way we think. So to me, spending time on talking about these narratives to make them explicit and also having a space to confront them is an essential part and also ingredient to get an alignment between our practices, for example, in computer networks and ethical principles. So I think what is really important is to reserve time for that. So today, and I think this has been driven a lot by all these developments in the computing technologies, we tend to value high speed as something good. So it’s fast, it’s good. But to some extent, I believe this is not really aligned with ethical principle where we require time to think. So I think time is very key here.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Thank you. Next, Maurice. What are your thoughts on this?

Maurice Chiodo: Sorry, thank you. Let me just pull that up. So the question was… Yeah, yeah, no, that’s a fair thing. Right, so ensuring that analytical practices align with core ethical principles, it requires us to address three distinct but ultimately interconnected challenges of the alignment problem. So from the perspective of ethics and mathematics, we must first define what we want to achieve. Second, we must determine how to achieve these outcomes by developing the right mathematical tools, technologies, and practices. This involves examination of the methods we use. For instance, the commitment to privacy requires not just policy, but the implementation of privacy-preserving mathematics from the ground up. The third, and most crucially, sticks. This is the long-term challenge. To get this right, we must scrutinize three areas simultaneously. As I said, the ethical vision of our outcomes, the integrity of our tools, and the robustness of our processes. Any one of these can undermine the others. For example, an ethical process can still lead to a harmful outcome if the underlying technology is flawed. Therefore, we must move beyond just analyzing intent and design aims. We have to rigorously investigate the technologies and the technologists’ ability to do good or cause harm. We must understand not only what they want to do, but also… Oh, we have a bit of a lag there. We missed the last thing you said, Maurice. Oh, sorry. So I was saying that, therefore, we must move beyond just analyzing intent and design aims. We have to rigorously investigate the technologies and the technologists’ ability to do good or cause harm. And we must understand not only what they want to do, but also what they can do. Okay.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Yeah, that’s a big point. Let’s see. We have Alexander. You have a slightly different cultural environment. What’s your perspective?

Alexander Isavnin: Let me give perspective, not just from my cultural environment, but from my experience. We all know that technology and instrumentation and tools are being developed much faster than regulations or even spelling norms of what’s going on. At the beginning of the internet, there was no privacy considerations or security considerations because scientists have created internet for their own needs. They thought that only such good guys with scientific approaches will exist on the internet. But actually, a lot happens since that. A lot of people came here, evil people, bad people, governments, corporations, and so on. So I think that our idea of sustainability and ethical networking should be the most important. It should go towards understanding of what people need, first of all, and only then such formulated needs need to shape technology developments. Back to my cultural background, in Russia, it’s happening always. The state and the state-controlled corporations are developing technologies. They are announcing that technologies are for the good of the people, but lately it appears that even network applications are developed for surveillance or control of people’s activities. Thanks.

Sara Hjalmarsson: All right, very good. We’ll actually get into that topic in a moment. In the meantime, we have, sorry, Dennis. What’s your perspective?

Dennis Mueller: I think to truly align our practices with ethical principles, we must understand that ethics is not an optional extra or a bolt-on. It’s something that we must fundamentally embed within everything we do. And so principles like safety and sustainability cannot be bolted on at the end of a project, especially with decentralized technologies such as the internet, where retrospective fixes can be very difficult or even impossible. And I think that achieving this requires a fundamental systemic shift in how we work. We need to communicate, hire, and train with ethics as a core competency. Technical success must sort of be balanced with success from an ethical and sustainability perspective. And this can be quite challenging from my experience and from working with other engineers. And it requires sort of like an adjustment because engineers can be accustomed to viewing their work as sort of like a technological optimization problems. And this perspective demands that technical and non-technical experts and the affected communities of those technologies must find a common language and build a shared understanding of the goals and risk involved. And so ultimately technical expertise and ethical expertise are sort of like two sides of the same coin. And only by fostering a community that sort of like equally values forward-thinking responsibility and backward-looking accountability, we can ensure that this happens.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Okay, very good. Thank you, Dennis. And finally, we have Marc.

Marc Bruyere: I think multi-decisionary groups and thinking is always a benefit. And then that’s something in the discipline of engineering, design, and so on, or does imply choices as well with no ethical thing, ideas and thoughts are actually have placed sometime in industry, even in research and so on. That’s very important. We have also feedback and time to give proper response and ideas, review from other people with other field of research or activities and so on. For a simple story to illustrate this, and I just verify using IPv4 to communicate through Zoom. Think of a teeny details who has very profound impact today. Then the design on that IPv4, they actually place the source address before the destination address. What do you do when you are actually checking where the packet need to go? You expecting the destination, not the source to be first. And this teeny details is actually using a lot of power and electricity every time for very long time, big impact on the consummation of electricity and so on. Because all the routers have to wait, have to wait to the destination field before having the source. Kind of a teeny mistakes, but big impact. Then obviously reviewing and so everyone and all disciplinary things for such things is very difficult. We don’t know, they didn’t know that actually that design they did will remain for that long. And in IPv6, destination come first.

Sara Hjalmarsson: All right, thank you very much. And I think that’s actually a wonderful segue into our next question. So we’ve already… Mark, sorry. Mark has mentioned the technology that we’ve had for quite a while now and how we’ve learned from that and made things more efficient. But we’re also seeing emerging technologies. How can these emerging technologies such as automated language models, an artificial intelligence, the internet of things and so on be ethically developed and deployed to ensure they have positive social, cultural, political, academic, and environmental impacts? Take 10 minutes for that one. So let’s go back to Mark for that one. Well, everyone will have a chance to answer, but we’ll just do it in kind of the opposite order this time. Go ahead, Mark.

Marc Bruyere: It’s a hard practice to have all the view and impact of what we do. But what I actually, when we started to open up ideas and thoughts with Daphne, we did find people are working hard on those questions from the root practice of what we call computer science today, which is the digital world. mathematicians, or both of you, Maurice and Dennis. They put together a lot of questions, a lot of way of asking yourself, it is a good project, and so on so on. That practice needs to be every time for everything, mostly. It was very hard to have the time for this, but it’s necessary. Giving time for this kind of practice is essential, and it does, it has to cover a minimum of different payouts that’s been introduced by their works, and I think we rely on actually kind of future project on their approaches, and it’s very valuable, and that’s why, yes, I let all the people already spend a lot of time thinking of

Sara Hjalmarsson: it. Okay, very good. Thank you, Marc. Do you want, Alexander, you have

Alexander Isavnin: something specific, go ahead. Yeah, you ask a really broad question about impact to very, very difficult fields of human society, but I would like to point two issues. First of all, for technologies, development of technology is something funny, so that’s more than young people who are rushing into technology, into education, into testing something. They don’t think about impact of their activities at all, so that’s why we have script kiddies, we have young hackers, and so on. That’s, I think, the lack of education, overall general education, not technology education. That’s an issue, and I remember myself when I was young, the Internet was a university, and so on. I definitely can confess I did some unethical things which I would not do now, having understanding all this impact. So, first of all, we need to educate young. The second approach, and this is actually a kind of experience from local, from Russia, because officials, corrupted officials, or corporations which have ties to the government, stating nearly the same things, that technology needs to be ethical, technology needs to provide sustainability and be available for everyone. But, in contrary, technology does not develop. For example, in Russia, we do not have 5G cellular networks, because all their frequencies are stockpiled by few companies or militaries under the name of protecting common resource, and so on. So, the development of 5G networks is not possible, not because of sanctions, not because of some retrospective things, but just because somebody tries to keep us sustainable. So, I think that’s two points I would like to bring to the table and maybe discuss later. Thanks.

Sara Hjalmarsson: All right. Thank you very much, Alex. That’s an interesting point. And, of course, we also invite questions from our online participants. Next, we have Maurice. Go ahead, Maurice.

Maurice Chiodo: Thank you very much. So, I’m going to sort of try and give this from an engineer’s viewpoint. So, from an engineer’s viewpoint, there are three key aspects to ethical development here. Perspective, perspective, and perspective. Even the most conscientious engineers cannot ensure positive impacts on their own. We work deep within technical systems, but technologies like AI, in the internet of things, are fundamentally human endeavors. They connect people and the object people use. Therefore, human insights and a range of perspectives must be central throughout the entire development and deployment process, not just as an afterthought. This requires a shift in resources. Ethical development isn’t free. It takes dedicated time and effort to consult with domain experts, conduct impact assessments, and engage with impacted communities. This work must be budgeted for as a core project requirement, not an optional extra. Furthermore, our motivation must be scrutinized. We should focus on applying our skills to solve recognized societal problems, rather than inventing new problems to fit a fancy technological tool. With every step forward, we have to ask a critical question. Who wins and who loses? True ethical networking requires us to see and account for everyone.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Absolutely. So, very good. Thank you, Maurice. And Daphne, what are your thoughts?

Daphne Tuncer: So, I think, kind of, the key word here in this question is positive impacts, because positive for who and relative to what? I mean, everything is subjective and that relates to, I mean, what Alexander, you were saying about the situation in Russia, because what one might consider as being positive might be well perceived as negative by another. And by mean by one can be, of course, a person, but it can be a community, a group of interest, can be a government, etc., etc. So, as the question shows, impact is multidimensional. So, we can’t expect there will be one group of people that will decide what positive impacts are. So, maybe here, I will answer as a researcher, because that’s my community, but I think as a researcher, the very important thing for us now is ready to engage in a practice that goes beyond this kind of mode of organization and silos that we’ve seen for research. So, you are a computer scientist, you are a mathematician, you are a biologist, you are a sociologist, but at the end, what really matters is that we really work together, so that we agree or at least we get some shared value on what positive impacts we are aiming at, but also how we assess these impacts.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Okay, thank you, Daphne. And Dennis, of course, go ahead.

Dennis Mueller: The development of technologies like large language models or the Internet of Things hinges critically on understanding the interconnected nature. So, from an engineer’s perspective or from a management perspective, that means that we cannot compartmentalize ethics within single sub teams, because things will just get overlooked. Nor can we sort of like overlook that sort of like the social, cultural, political and environmental aspects are deeply intertwined. So, we cannot usually address one without affecting the other. And so, that means for developers, there’s sort of a dual responsibility here, building safety into the technical architecture or into the technical system, and also earning the public’s trust. One does not necessarily imply the other in an interconnected world. And we cannot assume that engineers or mathematicians or computer scientists by default understand how to navigate this complexity or how to raise the right questions. They need to be taught this and given the space to think beyond immediate, localized, often monetary incentives. And they need to be taught how to do this in a way that earns trust from society. And once again, this sort of like requires balancing technical expertise and technical incentives with non-technical knowledge and non-technical incentives. In this sense, I can only reiterate what Maurice said. Perspective is really what matters here from my perspective.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Okay, thank you very much. I think we have quite a few overlaps there. I think a common thread is education. Education and integration with our interdisciplinary teams and interdisciplinary working environments. And in that sense, we kind of have this big interdisciplinary environment with the IGF. And that leads us to the next question. What role can the IGF and its stakeholders play in promoting sustainable and responsible internet governance? So let’s start with Daphne this time. Go ahead, Daphne.

Daphne Tuncer: Thanks. Well, I think that raising the IGF is a platform to connect and get the visibility on what’s going on. So as I said earlier, I really think that understanding for who and relative to what technology, a model, a development demonstrates certain qualities is not simple. So to me, the IGF really has the ability to reach out to a very worldwide audience. So it must capitalize on that to provide, I think, a medium through which we can confront our perspective, especially coming from different parts of the world. Because this raises perspectives that we need to embed into sustainable and responsible Internet governance. I don’t think we should get a top-down approach where a small group of people will decide on the definition of these qualities for governance. So I really believe that the IGF has a key role to play in supporting the diversity of background, cultural heritage, point of views that are really necessary to design and build this governance framework.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Okay, thank you, Daphne. Maurice, what’s your perspective? What do you think?

Maurice Chiodo: Thank you. So in my view, the IGF’s most powerful role here is that of a convener. It provides the room and sets the tables for the essential multilevel ethical engagement that sustainable Internet governance requires. This is the space where dialogue is not just possible, but it’s the primary purpose. By its very nature, the IGF assembles a diverse array of stakeholders needed to generate genuine perspective from governments and corporations to academics and activists. As we’ve discussed, perspective is the single most critical ingredient for the ethical development of emerging technologies. An engineer in a lab cannot foresee and understand all the implications of their work, just as a policymaker cannot grasp all the technical nuances. The IGF is a place where these worlds connect. It breaks down the silos between the technical and non-technical experts that often exist in industry and governments, which is crucial for finding and nurturing a common language. In this way, the IGF already acts as the essential first step. It gathers the necessary people and perspectives, creating the foundation upon which responsible governance of a decentralized mathematical technology like the Internet can be built. Okay, thank you.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Thank you, Maurice. Next, Alexander. Go ahead.

Alexander Isavnin: Yes, for sure. But first, I would like to point out that ethics and sustainability might be really different in different parts of the world. So I think these locations where the IGF was conducted have completely different approaches to what is ethical and what is not ethical. And events like Internet Governance Forum allows, first of all, to understand each other. Not to synchronize, but to understand each other’s approaches. So that still Internet Governance Forum not just connects different stakeholders from the same group, but understanding of what’s going on in different regions, different countries, different regions. Overall, IGF allows to connect all positively thinking people who are looking forward for development of the Internet for good. I think not just IGF, maybe some other platforms like World Summit for Information Society, which actually spinned off IGF 20 years ago, still have forums which are more populated by governmental people. So I think we should continue not just in IGF, in our local IGF, in our local communities, but also have broader interaction within United Nations and intergovernmental organizations.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Okay, thank you, Alexander. Dennis, what about you?

Dennis Mueller: This is sort of a follow-up from Maurice’s answer. I think that assembling the right people is only half of the process. The IGF’s next crucial role is to ensure that the insights also radiate outwards. And the IGF is already highly effective at collectively identifying emergent issues. I think what can be done next is sort of like, how do we translate that awareness into action? Because our research on ethics and mathematics has demonstrated that many technical practitioners like mathematicians, computer scientists, network engineers, quite often view their work as separate from ethics, sustainability, and also from policy. So while sort of like many people who are in this room understand that technology and ethics or technology and sustainability are inseparable, the understanding is not very widespread from our experience. And so the primary role that we see here is sort of like for IGF stakeholders to act as ambassadors, championing this integrated perspective and spreading awareness within their respective fields, within their respective companies, and bringing it where are people who are not yet convinced that this is important. Very important point. Thank you.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Thank you, Dennis. And finally, Mark, go ahead.

Marc Bruyere: When we look into the story of IGF and why it is. And so when we talk about internet, that’s not something we initially come up from the ITU. ITU has been, I mean, the very beginning of ITU was it weren’t before United Nations. But in 47, that was the very first chapter out of the Second World War to be United Nations, before UNESCO and so on and so on. ITU is still there and so for standardization, for telecommunication. But come up in the meantime that we all know, internet, very different way of to be governed and coming origin. And so the way to decide the standards are very, very different. And then it is actually winning compared to ITU standards. What we call about RSC, ETF, ERTF, the different things that’s coming up from this community. Very different. Then United Nations created IGF because they realized that something is missing. It went out of ITU. Then IGF is the good place actually to get many, many people in a very different aspect to take over what we call internet today. But it’s not only in the tubes. It’s in the way the protocol has been designed and also the content that’s stored, all different aspects. And the thing that is very, very open and we have this occasion today is very important. It could be, and then the missing part of it is how we can influence a little bit more. And participating a little bit more from the IGF community, interacting with ETF, the design and the department of technological standardizations as it is. There is gateway. People coming a little bit more in IGF from ETF and vice versa. But I think it’s very important as well. And then W3C and all different aspects and so. Then I haven’t been participating much on understanding the relationship between standards and organization like this. But that’s very important. That could be for the future. So having those platforms in place gives us more leverage. Okay. Thank you very much, everyone.

Sara Hjalmarsson: Thank you, Marc and everyone. For the last, we’re doing okay time-wise. So we have time for one more question.

Keith Goldstein: Yeah, we have time for one more question. I’ll take that over as in sort of a question for myself as well. And then we’ll try and get some questions from the audience. So we have just about nine minutes left. And the last question is, how can we evaluate the human component of networks? We’ve talked a lot about the fact that these aren’t just systems. There’s people behind them. What can we do to learn more about how we learn new networks? What practical tools can we use to evaluate computer networking practices? So go back in reverse order maybe with Marc first.

Marc Bruyere: The human part of it is a good question. And we have I have some way of trying to understand this, but it’s social work and so on. The only things I’ve learned recently, and I mean it’s a fact, the quantitative space has nothing to see with the qualitative space. And trying to understand these two different spaces for deciding what quality we want to give some evaluation we do as an engineer to get a better optimization process or performance of whatever system and so on. Finding the right gap to be able to get the quantitative design we want as a good quality as a beginning. We need people or guiders for pushing to the questions and finding the right way of making finite choices.

Keith Goldstein: Really quick, so maybe go off to Daphne next.

Daphne Tuncer: I don’t know if I have much to add to this question. So I think that’s really kind of a typical question, that we need collaboration across disciplines. For us, people working on computer networks, that’s quite important, we understand the human perspective. But we don’t necessarily know or we don’t necessarily have the tools that we can use to actually access to human perception, human feedback on this. So I think that’s where we need to collaborate, for example, with social scientists. We started working with you on that purpose, to learn how we can run surveys, how we can do consultation, how do we analyze the feedback we get through this method.

Keith Goldstein: Okay. Since we’re short on time, Maurice, Denis, Alexander, would any of you like to chime in?

Maurice Chiodo: I’d be happy to at this stage. So I think the more pertinent question really to consider here is how to evaluate the network as a socio-technical system. So humans and technical components cannot be assessed in isolation, their value and risks emerge from their interaction. This becomes evident by looking at socio-technical systems’ potential points of failure. So they must assess the potential for a failure of the technical or AI component, or a failure of the human component, or a failure of the process or workflow they’re meant to follow. Crucially, we must also evaluate the human machine interface itself, as this is the primary site of miscommunication and error. And finally, we must account for failures caused by exogenous circumstances, acknowledging that no system operates in a vacuum. This method ensures a comprehensive socio-technical evaluation. And as you can clearly see, three-fifths of the problems listed above are neither purely human nor purely technical, instead stemming from their interaction.

Keith Goldstein: Great. Denis or Alex?

Alexander Isavnin: I just would like to add shortly that our main task is just not to lose our focus and continue observing developments. So in case we shortly stop paying attention to latest developments, to technological advances, they could and I think will go the wrong way. So just keep an eye and follow and communicate with each other. That’s important. Last thoughts, Denis? So I think the really big first step is to not view human components of a network similar to technical or mathematical components. Our experience of working with mathematicians, engineers, but also with users, is that their actions, their awareness and their motivation are almost equally important when it comes to eventual outcomes. And the failure modes that Maurice outlined are deeply connected to who a human is. So from that perspective, we really need to think about this question, how do we understand who the humans are involved in these networks?

Keith Goldstein: Thanks. And just to chime in myself, that this workshop itself really began as a questionnaire that Mark, Daphne and I self-developed to try and learn about how humans are learning difficult new methods for operating computer networks. And just for our last four or five minutes, I ask Bailey, who’s with us online, to collect some questions from the audience, and maybe she can read them out to us.

Audience: Hello, everybody. So we do have a couple of questions in the chat here. I’ll start with the first question from Henan Zahir. I apologize if I mispronounce anybody’s name. But her question is, how can ethical networking be democratized to ensure meaningful citizen oversight over data-driven public systems?

Keith Goldstein: Would any of you like to quickly, quickly, three minutes and 30 seconds, half that time answer it? No? Alex, did you want to? Go ahead, Dennis.

Dennis Mueller: I think it goes back to what Alex says. We need to sort of like respect the different cultures and different regions of this world have different perspectives on this very question. So in this sense, the IGF should probably try to be even more international. And to really sort of like bring in these different cultures and perspectives. But it’s a hard question.

Alexander Isavnin: And I would like to reply to this question by noting that technology could not ensure you in something. You are your own insurance. You have to communicate. You have to oversight. You have to think about what’s going on with your data and how it’s being driven. So IGF is a good starting venue for discussions like this. But your participation is also really important.

Keith Goldstein: And Bailey, one more question, two minutes. Question and answer.

Audience: Yep. So there’s one more question here from Anna Gretel Ichazu, and she’s asking, I would like to know how do you think of global north and global south dynamics across the issues you are arising?

Alexander Isavnin: Yeah, let me answer this question, because I am from a country which for a long time pretended to be global north, but now it’s pretending to be global south. So Internet and these technologies actually could shorten the gap between what we called West world and the others, or north and south. But you also have to oversight really clearly, because in not very democratic developed countries, especially in countries of so-called global south, technology can easily be abused by the government, which will make gap to the north, economical gap, civilizational, well, not civilizational, societal gaps, democratic gaps much bigger than it exists. So I will repeat my answer to previous questions. Technology could not close gaps. You have to oversight really, really accurately and constantly and not releasing it.

Keith Goldstein: Thanks. Last 40 seconds. Any other ideas? Okay, well, then I will close off this session and thank everybody for coming. It was really interesting. I hope we can make a routine of this and produce some studies that also look into these very difficult questions. And hopefully we’ll have a publication or some other outputs for you all to read soon. So thank you, everybody, for coming. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you all in the audience. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Interdisciplinary collaboration is essential for ethical technology development

Speakers

– Daphne Tuncer
– Maurice Chiodo
– Dennis Mueller
– Marc Bruyere

Arguments

Positive impacts are subjective and require interdisciplinary collaboration beyond silos

Human insights and diverse perspectives must be central throughout development, not afterthoughts

Ethics must be embedded as core competency, not optional extra, requiring systemic shift

Multi-disciplinary groups and feedback processes are essential for ethical decision-making

Summary

All speakers agree that ethical technology development cannot be achieved in isolation and requires breaking down traditional disciplinary silos to incorporate diverse perspectives from technical and non-technical experts throughout the development process.

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Legal and regulatory

Time and resources must be dedicated to ethical considerations

Speakers

– Daphne Tuncer
– Maurice Chiodo
– Marc Bruyere

Arguments

Narratives in computer network research influence development and need explicit examination

Human insights and diverse perspectives must be central throughout development, not afterthoughts

Actionable frameworks and time allocation for ethical considerations are necessary

Summary

Speakers consistently emphasize that ethical considerations require dedicated time and resources, cannot be treated as afterthoughts, and must be budgeted as core project requirements rather than optional extras.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

IGF serves as crucial platform for connecting diverse stakeholders

Speakers

– Daphne Tuncer
– Maurice Chiodo
– Alexander Isavnin
– Dennis Mueller
– Marc Bruyere

Arguments

IGF provides platform for worldwide audience to confront diverse perspectives

IGF serves as convener breaking down silos between technical and non-technical experts

IGF enables understanding of different regional approaches to ethics and sustainability

IGF stakeholders must act as ambassadors spreading integrated perspective to their fields

IGF bridges gap between internet governance and traditional standards organizations

Summary

All speakers recognize the IGF’s unique role as a convener that brings together diverse global perspectives and stakeholders, serving as a bridge between different communities and enabling cross-cultural understanding of ethical approaches.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural | Development

Human components cannot be evaluated separately from technical systems

Speakers

– Maurice Chiodo
– Dennis Mueller
– Daphne Tuncer

Arguments

Networks must be evaluated as socio-technical systems considering human-machine interactions

Human components cannot be viewed like technical components due to different motivations

Collaboration with social scientists needed to access human perception and feedback

Summary

Speakers agree that humans and technology form integrated socio-technical systems where the interaction between components is as important as the individual parts, requiring specialized approaches to understand human factors.

Topics

Infrastructure | Sociocultural | Development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that current educational and systemic approaches are inadequate for addressing ethical technology challenges, requiring fundamental changes in how people are trained and how systems operate.

Speakers

– Alexander Isavnin
– Dennis Mueller

Arguments

Education gaps and government control create barriers to ethical technology development

Ethics must be embedded as core competency, not optional extra, requiring systemic shift

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Both speakers, coming from mathematics and engineering backgrounds, stress that technical expertise alone is insufficient and must be combined with broader human and social considerations from the beginning of development processes.

Speakers

– Maurice Chiodo
– Dennis Mueller

Arguments

Human insights and diverse perspectives must be central throughout development, not afterthoughts

Safety must be built into technical architecture while earning public trust

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Human rights

Both speakers recognize that technology development often outpaces social and regulatory frameworks, requiring more deliberate approaches that prioritize human needs and diverse perspectives in shaping technological directions.

Speakers

– Alexander Isavnin
– Daphne Tuncer

Arguments

Technology develops faster than regulations, requiring people-first approach to shape development

Positive impacts are subjective and require interdisciplinary collaboration beyond silos

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

Critique of current technology development paradigms

Speakers

– Alexander Isavnin
– Daphne Tuncer
– Marc Bruyere

Arguments

Technology develops faster than regulations, requiring people-first approach to shape development

Narratives in computer network research influence development and need explicit examination

Multi-disciplinary groups and feedback processes are essential for ethical decision-making

Explanation

Despite coming from different cultural and professional backgrounds (Russian activist, French academic, industry researcher), these speakers converge on fundamental critiques of how technology is currently developed, all calling for more reflective and human-centered approaches.

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Individual responsibility in technology oversight

Speakers

– Alexander Isavnin
– Dennis Mueller

Arguments

Individual participation and oversight are crucial for data protection

Different cultures require respect for varying perspectives on ethical networking

Explanation

Unexpectedly, both the activist from an authoritarian context and the academic researcher emphasize individual agency and responsibility, suggesting that despite systemic challenges, personal engagement remains crucial across different political contexts.

Topics

Human rights | Development | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate remarkable consensus on core principles: the need for interdisciplinary collaboration, the importance of dedicating time and resources to ethical considerations, the IGF’s role as a crucial convening platform, and the necessity of treating technology as socio-technical systems rather than purely technical ones.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with strong implications for the field. The agreement spans across different professional backgrounds (academics, industry, activists) and cultural contexts (European, Russian, French), suggesting these principles represent fundamental requirements for ethical networking rather than culturally specific preferences. This consensus provides a solid foundation for developing actionable frameworks and policies, though implementation challenges remain significant given the systemic changes required.

Different viewpoints

Role of technology in addressing societal gaps and inequalities

Speakers

– Alexander Isavnin
– Dennis Mueller

Arguments

Technology can either bridge or widen gaps between global north and south

Different cultures require respect for varying perspectives on ethical networking

Summary

Alexander emphasizes that technology alone cannot close gaps and requires constant oversight to prevent abuse, particularly citing government misuse in less democratic countries. Dennis focuses more on respecting cultural differences and making IGF more international, without the same emphasis on technology’s potential for abuse.

Topics

Development | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Primary responsibility for ensuring ethical technology development

Speakers

– Alexander Isavnin
– Maurice Chiodo
– Dennis Mueller

Arguments

Individual participation and oversight are crucial for data protection

Human insights and diverse perspectives must be central throughout development, not afterthoughts

Safety must be built into technical architecture while earning public trust

Summary

Alexander places primary responsibility on individuals (‘You are your own insurance’), while Maurice and Dennis emphasize the responsibility of developers and engineers to integrate diverse perspectives and build safety into systems from the start.

Topics

Human rights | Development | Infrastructure

Approach to evaluating human components in networks

Speakers

– Maurice Chiodo
– Marc Bruyere
– Dennis Mueller

Arguments

Networks must be evaluated as socio-technical systems considering human-machine interactions

Quantitative and qualitative spaces require different approaches for system evaluation

Human components cannot be viewed like technical components due to different motivations

Summary

Maurice advocates for comprehensive socio-technical system evaluation with specific failure mode analysis, Marc emphasizes the fundamental difference between quantitative and qualitative evaluation spaces, while Dennis focuses on understanding human identity and characteristics as distinct from technical components.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected differences

Speed and efficiency versus ethical consideration in technology development

Speakers

– Daphne Tuncer
– Marc Bruyere

Arguments

Narratives in computer network research influence development and need explicit examination

Multi-disciplinary groups and feedback processes are essential for ethical decision-making

Explanation

While both speakers advocate for more thoughtful technology development, Daphne specifically challenges the narrative that ‘fast is good’ and argues that ethical principles require time for consideration, while Marc focuses on the practical need for feedback processes without questioning the underlying speed-focused paradigm. This represents an unexpected philosophical divide about whether current performance-oriented narratives should be fundamentally questioned.

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center around the balance of responsibility between individuals versus institutions for ethical technology development, different approaches to evaluating human-technical system interactions, and varying perspectives on how technology impacts global inequalities.

Disagreement level

The level of disagreement is moderate but significant. While speakers share common goals of ethical technology development and inclusive governance, they have fundamentally different views on implementation strategies and responsibility allocation. These disagreements have important implications as they reflect broader tensions in internet governance between individual agency versus institutional responsibility, technical versus social approaches to evaluation, and optimistic versus cautious views of technology’s role in addressing global inequalities. The disagreements suggest that achieving consensus on practical implementation of ethical networking principles will require substantial dialogue and compromise among different philosophical approaches.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that current educational and systemic approaches are inadequate for addressing ethical technology challenges, requiring fundamental changes in how people are trained and how systems operate.

Speakers

– Alexander Isavnin
– Dennis Mueller

Arguments

Education gaps and government control create barriers to ethical technology development

Ethics must be embedded as core competency, not optional extra, requiring systemic shift

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Both speakers, coming from mathematics and engineering backgrounds, stress that technical expertise alone is insufficient and must be combined with broader human and social considerations from the beginning of development processes.

Speakers

– Maurice Chiodo
– Dennis Mueller

Arguments

Human insights and diverse perspectives must be central throughout development, not afterthoughts

Safety must be built into technical architecture while earning public trust

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Human rights

Both speakers recognize that technology development often outpaces social and regulatory frameworks, requiring more deliberate approaches that prioritize human needs and diverse perspectives in shaping technological directions.

Speakers

– Alexander Isavnin
– Daphne Tuncer

Arguments

Technology develops faster than regulations, requiring people-first approach to shape development

Positive impacts are subjective and require interdisciplinary collaboration beyond silos

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

Ethics must be embedded as a core competency in technology development from the beginning, not added as an afterthought

Interdisciplinary collaboration across computer science, mathematics, social sciences, and affected communities is essential for ethical networking

Technology development outpaces regulation, requiring proactive people-first approaches to shape development

Networks must be evaluated as socio-technical systems considering human-machine interactions, not just technical components

The IGF serves as a crucial convener breaking down silos between technical and non-technical experts globally

Perspective diversity is the most critical ingredient for ethical development of emerging technologies

Different cultures and regions have varying approaches to ethics and sustainability that must be respected and understood

Individual participation and continuous oversight are essential for meaningful citizen control over data-driven systems

Narratives in computer network research (like hyperperformance optimization) subconsciously influence development and need explicit examination

Time allocation for ethical considerations and reflection is necessary but often undervalued in fast-paced technology development

Resolutions and action items

Workshop participants plan to produce studies and publications examining the difficult questions raised during the discussion

IGF stakeholders should act as ambassadors spreading integrated ethics-technology perspectives within their respective fields and companies

Researchers should engage in practices that go beyond organizational silos to work collaboratively across disciplines

The IGF should continue facilitating connections between internet governance and traditional standards organizations like IETF and W3C

Participants committed to making this type of workshop a routine practice for ongoing dialogue

Unresolved issues

How to practically democratize ethical networking to ensure meaningful citizen oversight over data-driven public systems

How to bridge the gap between global north and global south dynamics in ethical technology development

How to effectively translate IGF insights and awareness into concrete action beyond the forum

How to balance different cultural definitions of what constitutes ‘positive impacts’ in technology development

How to create practical evaluation tools for assessing human components in network systems

How to ensure adequate time and resources are allocated for ethical considerations in fast-paced development environments

How to prevent technology from widening gaps between different regions while promoting democratic oversight

Suggested compromises

Balancing technical expertise with ethical expertise as ‘two sides of the same coin’ rather than competing priorities

Using the IGF as a platform for confronting diverse perspectives rather than imposing top-down definitions of ethical governance

Focusing on understanding different regional approaches to ethics rather than trying to synchronize them globally

Integrating both quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods to bridge engineering and social science approaches

Combining technical safety architecture with public trust-building as dual responsibilities for developers

At the beginning of the internet, there was no privacy considerations or security considerations because scientists have created internet for their own needs. They thought that only such good guys with scientific approaches will exist on the internet. But actually, a lot happens since that. A lot of people came here, evil people, bad people, governments, corporations, and so on.

Speaker

Alexander Isavnin

Reason

This comment provides a crucial historical perspective that reframes the entire discussion about ethical networking. It highlights the fundamental disconnect between original design assumptions and current reality, showing how technological development often outpaces ethical considerations and regulatory frameworks.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from theoretical ethical principles to concrete historical lessons, establishing a foundation for understanding why current ethical challenges exist. It influenced subsequent speakers to consider the gap between technological development and governance, and reinforced the theme that emerged throughout the discussion about the need for proactive rather than reactive ethical frameworks.

Think of a teeny details who has very profound impact today. Then the design on that IPv4, they actually place the source address before the destination address… this teeny details is actually using a lot of power and electricity every time for very long time, big impact on the consummation of electricity… Because all the routers have to wait, have to wait to the destination field before having the source.

Speaker

Marc Bruyere

Reason

This technical example brilliantly illustrates how seemingly minor design decisions can have massive, unforeseen consequences at scale. It demonstrates the interconnection between technical choices and environmental sustainability in a concrete, understandable way.

Impact

This comment provided a perfect segue into the next question about emerging technologies and became a touchstone for the discussion. It grounded abstract ethical principles in tangible consequences, showing other participants how technical decisions have real-world impacts. Sara even noted it was ‘a wonderful segue,’ indicating how it shaped the conversation’s flow.

From an engineer’s viewpoint, there are three key aspects to ethical development here. Perspective, perspective, and perspective… We work deep within technical systems, but technologies like AI, in the internet of things, are fundamentally human endeavors.

Speaker

Maurice Chiodo

Reason

This comment cuts through complexity to identify the single most critical element for ethical technology development. The repetition of ‘perspective’ emphasizes its paramount importance, while the insight that technologies are ‘fundamentally human endeavors’ reframes technical work as inherently social.

Impact

This became a recurring theme that other speakers referenced and built upon. Dennis explicitly reiterated ‘Perspective is really what matters here from my perspective,’ showing how Maurice’s framing influenced the discussion. It shifted focus from technical solutions to human-centered approaches and established perspective-taking as a core competency for ethical development.

So, I think, kind of, the key word here in this question is positive impacts, because positive for who and relative to what?… what one might consider as being positive might be well perceived as negative by another.

Speaker

Daphne Tuncer

Reason

This comment challenges the fundamental assumption underlying the question about ‘positive impacts’ by exposing the subjectivity inherent in value judgments. It forces recognition that ethical frameworks cannot be universal and must account for diverse perspectives and contexts.

Impact

This observation deepened the analytical level of the discussion by questioning basic assumptions. It reinforced Alexander’s earlier points about cultural differences and influenced the later discussion about the IGF’s role in bringing together diverse global perspectives. It moved the conversation from seeking universal solutions to acknowledging the need for inclusive, multi-perspective approaches.

Ethics is not an optional extra or a bolt-on. It’s something that we must fundamentally embed within everything we do… principles like safety and sustainability cannot be bolted on at the end of a project, especially with decentralized technologies such as the internet, where retrospective fixes can be very difficult or even impossible.

Speaker

Dennis Mueller

Reason

This comment challenges the common industry practice of treating ethics as an afterthought and provides a compelling technical argument for why this approach fails with decentralized systems. It reframes ethics from a compliance issue to a fundamental design requirement.

Impact

This insight influenced the discussion about systemic change and the need for new approaches to technical education and development. It supported the emerging consensus about the need for interdisciplinary collaboration and helped establish the argument for why current approaches to technology development are insufficient for addressing ethical challenges.

The more pertinent question really to consider here is how to evaluate the network as a socio-technical system. So humans and technical components cannot be assessed in isolation, their value and risks emerge from their interaction.

Speaker

Maurice Chiodo

Reason

This comment reframes the final question by rejecting the premise that human and technical components can be evaluated separately. It introduces the concept of emergent properties from human-technology interaction, which is a sophisticated systems thinking approach.

Impact

This reframing elevated the final discussion by moving beyond simple human vs. technical distinctions to a more nuanced understanding of complex systems. It provided a framework that other speakers could build upon and demonstrated how the conversation had evolved from basic ethical principles to sophisticated systems analysis.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing historical context, concrete examples, and sophisticated frameworks that moved the conversation from abstract principles to practical understanding. Alexander’s historical perspective established why ethical challenges exist, while Marc’s IPv4 example grounded abstract concepts in tangible consequences. Maurice’s emphasis on perspective became a central theme that influenced multiple speakers, while Daphne’s questioning of ‘positive impacts’ challenged basic assumptions and deepened analytical thinking. Dennis’s ‘not a bolt-on’ insight reinforced the need for systemic change, and Maurice’s socio-technical systems framing provided sophisticated closure. Together, these comments created a progression from problem identification through concrete examples to sophisticated solutions, while consistently emphasizing the human-centered, culturally-aware, and interdisciplinary nature of ethical technology development. The discussion evolved from individual ethical considerations to systemic understanding of technology as fundamentally social and requiring diverse perspectives for responsible governance.

How can we better integrate interdisciplinary collaboration between computer scientists, mathematicians, social scientists, and other fields to address ethical networking challenges?

Speaker

Daphne Tuncer

Explanation

Daphne emphasized the need to move beyond silos in research and work together across disciplines to agree on shared values and assess impacts, but the specific mechanisms for achieving this integration need further exploration

How can we develop practical tools and methodologies for researchers to conduct surveys, consultations, and analyze human feedback on networking systems?

Speaker

Daphne Tuncer

Explanation

Daphne mentioned that computer network researchers don’t necessarily have the tools to access human perception and feedback, indicating a need for practical methodologies to bridge this gap

How can we better educate young people about the ethical implications of technology development to prevent unethical behavior?

Speaker

Alexander Isavnin

Explanation

Alexander highlighted the lack of general education about technology impact among young developers and hackers, suggesting this as an area requiring further research and development

How can we strengthen the relationship and interaction between IGF and technical standards organizations like IETF, W3C, and others?

Speaker

Marc Bruyere

Explanation

Marc noted that while there are some gateways between IGF and technical standards organizations, this relationship needs to be strengthened to have more influence on technological standardization

How can we translate IGF insights and awareness into concrete action within technical communities and organizations?

Speaker

Dennis Mueller

Explanation

Dennis pointed out that while IGF is effective at identifying issues, the challenge is how to spread this awareness to technical practitioners who often view their work as separate from ethics and sustainability

How can we develop comprehensive evaluation methods for socio-technical systems that account for human-machine interface failures and exogenous circumstances?

Speaker

Maurice Chiodo

Explanation

Maurice outlined the need for evaluation methods that go beyond purely technical or human components to assess the interaction between humans and technical systems, but specific methodologies need development

How can we ensure meaningful citizen oversight over data-driven public systems through democratized ethical networking?

Speaker

Henan Zahir (audience member)

Explanation

This question from the audience addresses the broader challenge of public participation in overseeing technological systems that affect citizens

How do global north and global south dynamics affect the implementation of ethical networking principles?

Speaker

Anna Gretel Ichazu (audience member)

Explanation

This audience question highlights the need to understand how different regional contexts and power dynamics influence the application of ethical networking principles

How can we continue the research project on computer networking ethics and human learning of new systems mentioned by Keith Goldstein?

Speaker

Keith Goldstein

Explanation

Keith mentioned an ongoing research project with Daphne and Marc on computer networking ethics and how humans learn new systems, suggesting this work needs continuation and development

Summary

This open forum discussion focused on “The Ecosystem of Digital Cooperation in Development,” examining how various stakeholders can collaborate to bridge the digital divide and build inclusive digital public infrastructure. The session was organized by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, University of Oslo, and BASIC Internet Foundation, bringing together representatives from government agencies, NGOs, academia, and youth organizations.

The discussion highlighted that 2.6 billion people remain offline globally, creating significant barriers to accessing essential services and deepening inequalities. Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) representative Tale Jordbakke emphasized Norway’s commitment to digital public goods as open, non-commercial solutions that prevent vendor lock-in and promote democratic principles. Franz von Weizäcker from the German Agency for International Cooperation discussed their work with the African Union on harmonizing digital policies across 55 member states, emphasizing digital sovereignty and avoiding technological dependencies.

Catherine Kimambo from the African Child Project in Tanzania stressed the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches and investing in grassroots innovations, particularly highlighting their School Connectivity Project that provides internet access, devices, skills, and content to rural schools. Youth representative Thomas Aarheim shared personal experiences of digital transformation in education, emphasizing how proper digital infrastructure fundamentally shifts learning possibilities.

University of Oslo President Svein Stolen outlined their Global University Academy initiative, which aims to provide education to one million refugees by 2038 through digital and hybrid solutions. Ethiopian representative Meklit Mintesinot described their E-SHE project, which has successfully implemented digital learning policies, infrastructure, and capacity building across 50 public universities, training over 250,000 students and 20,000 instructors.

Key themes throughout the discussion included the need to break down silos, ensure interoperability of systems, support open-source solutions, and move from dialogue to concrete action. Panelists emphasized that digital public infrastructure should be built with inclusion by design rather than as an afterthought, and stressed the importance of local ownership and sustainability of digital solutions. The discussion concluded with calls for bold visions, continued collaboration, and the recognition that digital transformation represents both an opportunity for leapfrogging development challenges and a tool for achieving greater equity and inclusion globally.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Digital divide and infrastructure challenges**: The discussion highlighted that 2.6 billion people remain offline globally, with this digital exclusion limiting access to essential services and deepening inequalities. Panelists emphasized the need for digital public infrastructure (DPI) as a foundation for public services across health, education, and community access.

– **Digital Public Goods and open-source solutions**: Multiple panelists stressed the importance of open, non-commercial digital solutions that prevent vendor lock-in and promote collaboration. Norway’s role in the Digital Public Goods Alliance and support for solutions like MOSIP and OpenCRVS were highlighted as examples of this approach.

– **Multi-stakeholder partnerships and ecosystem thinking**: The conversation emphasized breaking down silos between government, NGOs, academia, private sector, and civil society. Panelists discussed the need for coordinated efforts rather than isolated initiatives, with examples from Tanzania’s school connectivity projects and Ethiopia’s e-learning system.

– **Youth engagement and capacity building**: The discussion featured strong youth perspectives on digital inclusion, emphasizing the importance of involving young people not just as beneficiaries but as active contributors to solutions. The conversation highlighted how digital access fundamentally changes educational possibilities and opportunities.

– **From dialogue to action**: A recurring theme was the need to move beyond policy discussions to concrete implementation. Panelists called for better data collection, funding for grassroots innovations, and accountability for turning resolutions into real-world results.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to demonstrate how different actors (government agencies, NGOs, academia, and youth organizations) can contribute to building an inclusive digital ecosystem for development. The goal was to highlight practical examples of digital public infrastructure implementation and identify concrete actions for closing the digital divide, particularly focusing on education and community access.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently collaborative and solution-oriented tone throughout. It began with formal introductions but quickly evolved into an engaged, practical conversation focused on real-world examples and actionable solutions. The tone was optimistic yet realistic about challenges, with panelists showing genuine enthusiasm for partnership opportunities. The youth representatives brought particular energy and urgency to the conversation, especially when calling for moving “from dialogue to action,” which added a constructive sense of accountability to the overall discussion.

Speakers

– **Marianne Knarud**: Project leader for the Global University Academy, a consortia of universities and other stakeholders working together to increase access to higher education for refugees, displaced learners and their communities through digital and hybrid solutions. Session moderator.

– **Tale Jordbakke**: Head of section for partnership at the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD)

– **Franz von Weizacker**: Digital policy expert at the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), heading the economic and digital portfolio of the GIZ Office of the African Union, based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

– **Catherine Kimambo**: Founder and executive director of the youth-led NGO African Child Project in Tanzania, focusing on digital public infrastructure in education and inclusion

– **Thomas Aarheim**: Representative of Youth Coalition on Internet Governance

– **Svein Stolen**: President of the University of Oslo

– **Meklit Mintesinot**: Head of the E-SHE (E-Learning for Strengthening Higher Education) project at the Ministry of Education in Ethiopia, joining online

– **Audience**: Multiple audience members asking questions, including Pons Light from the Gambia NRI Focal Point and board member of the Association for Progressive Communication, and Mohamed Abdi Ali, executive director from Somali civil society platform Kole Tsonsa based in Somalia

**Additional speakers:**

– **Josef Noll**: From the University of Oslo, mentioned as co-moderator keeping track of online activities, though not directly quoted in the transcript

# The Ecosystem of Digital Cooperation in Development: A Forum Report

## Introduction and Context

This open forum discussion, organised by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, University of Oslo, and BASIC Internet Foundation, brought together stakeholders to examine “The Ecosystem of Digital Cooperation in Development.” The session was moderated by Marianne Knarud, Project Leader for the Global University Academy, with Josef Noll co-moderating and tracking online participation. Representatives from government agencies, NGOs, academia, and youth organisations explored how various actors can collaborate to bridge the digital divide and build inclusive digital public infrastructure.

The discussion opened with the stark reality that 2.6 billion people remain offline globally, creating significant barriers to accessing essential services and deepening inequalities. The forum aimed to move beyond theoretical discussions towards practical solutions for addressing these challenges through collaborative approaches.

## Key Stakeholder Perspectives

### Government and Development Agency Approaches

**Norwegian Development Cooperation**

Tale Jordbakke, Head of Section for Partnership at the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD), outlined Norway’s approach to digital development cooperation. She explained that Norway’s strategy centres on digital public goods as open, non-commercial solutions that prevent vendor lock-in and promote democratic principles. This is operationalised through Norway’s participation in the Digital Public Goods Alliance, where they champion solutions like MOSIP (Modular Open Source Identity Platform) and OpenCRVS (Open Civil Registration and Vital Statistics).

Jordbakke noted that digital transformation offers opportunities to achieve more with fewer resources, particularly important given reduced development funding. She emphasised that the focus should be on normative work, capacity building, and institutional strengthening rather than merely deploying technology, with NORAD positioning itself as a facilitator of multi-stakeholder partnerships.

**German International Cooperation**

Frans Weissecker, Digital Policy Expert at the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), described their work with the African Union on harmonising digital policies across 55 member states. His presentation highlighted the complexity of coordinating digital development across diverse national contexts whilst emphasising digital sovereignty as a core principle.

Weissecker’s approach focuses on helping governments remain independent and avoid technological dependencies through strategic policy development and capacity building at the continental level whilst respecting national sovereignty.

### Civil Society and Youth Perspectives

**Youth-Led NGO Approach**

Catherine Kimambo, Founder and Executive Director of the African Child Project in Tanzania, brought a practical implementation perspective to the discussion. Her organisation focuses on digital public infrastructure in education and inclusion, including their School Connectivity Project that provides internet access to rural schools.

Kimambo highlighted a critical gap in Tanzania and across Africa: “we have good policies on paper, but when it comes to implementation, there’s equally to very few that is implemented from the policies.” She emphasised the need to move from dialogue to action, stating “There’s a lot of dialogue that is happening globally but I’d move more into action. How are we moving from dialogue to action?” She also referenced the Dar es Salaam declaration and advocated for better data collection to verify the impact of digital inclusion initiatives.

**Youth Coalition Perspective**

Thomas Aarheim, representing the Youth Coalition on Internet Governance, provided personal testimony about the transformative potential of digital infrastructure. He shared a vivid memory of showing his grandfather an end-of-year paper that incorporated digital resources: “I very distinctly remember showing my now late grandfather one of my end-of-year papers… he almost didn’t believe it because he was in high school in the 1950s” and had to rely on library research.

This generational perspective illustrated how digital tools fundamentally shift educational possibilities by providing access to real-time information and multimedia resources. Aarheim emphasised the importance of local ownership in technology development and highlighted media literacy as crucial for safe online navigation.

### Academic and Higher Education Contributions

**University Leadership**

Svein Stolen, President of the University of Oslo, outlined their Global University Academy initiative, which aims to contribute to reaching one million refugees before 2038 through digital and hybrid solutions, supporting the UNHCR’s 15 by 30 goal.

Stolen advocated for bold action over perfect planning, suggesting a “cut the crap, just do it” approach and being “less afraid of failure.” He emphasised that universities need to work across sectors to transform knowledge into action and maintain international cooperation despite geopolitical challenges.

**Ethiopian Implementation Experience**

Meklit Mintesinot, Head of the E-SHE (E-Learning for Strengthening Higher Education) project at the Ministry of Education in Ethiopia, provided concrete examples of large-scale implementation. Her project has successfully implemented digital learning across 50 public universities, training over 250,000 students and close to 20,000 instructors.

Due to visa delays, Mintesinot participated virtually and described the evolution of their approach: “Initially, we started this project as a vertical approach when it comes to digital public infrastructure. But currently, we’re evolving horizontally. We’re working with different sectors, with the health sector, with the employment sector.” She highlighted how universities can serve as gateways with better infrastructure to connect schools and communities.

## Areas of Consensus

### Digital Public Goods and Open Source Solutions

Speakers showed strong agreement on the importance of open source solutions and digital public goods as foundations for inclusive digital development. Both Jordbakke and Weissecker advocated for these approaches as ways to prevent vendor lock-in, promote democratic principles, and maintain digital sovereignty.

### Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships

All speakers emphasised the importance of collaboration between government, private sector, civil society, and academia. There was consensus that no single actor can address digital development challenges alone, though speakers emphasised different mechanisms for achieving this collaboration.

### Implementation Focus

Both Kimambo and Stolen emphasised the gap between policy creation and implementation, advocating for practical action and understanding root causes of failures rather than continuously developing new policies without implementation.

### Capacity Building

Speakers agreed that providing technology alone is insufficient and that comprehensive capacity building, skills development, and institutional strengthening are essential for sustainable digital transformation.

## Audience Engagement and Questions

The forum included audience participation, with questions addressing how people internalize information differently and concerns about cybersecurity and digital warfare’s impact on future digital cooperation. These questions highlighted emerging challenges that require ongoing attention in digital development work.

## Concrete Commitments and Initiatives

The discussion identified several specific commitments and ongoing initiatives:

– The Global University Academy’s goal of contributing to reaching one million refugees before 2038

– Ethiopia’s E-SHE project expansion across sectors beyond higher education

– Continued championing of open, inclusive digital public goods

– Investment in grassroots youth-led initiatives alongside institutional capacity building

## Key Challenges Identified

### The Implementation Gap

The persistent gap between policy creation and practical implementation emerged as a central challenge, with Kimambo’s observation about good policies on paper but poor implementation resonating throughout the discussion.

### Data and Accountability

The need for better data collection and verification mechanisms to measure progress in digital inclusion initiatives was highlighted as an ongoing challenge.

### Funding Sustainability

Securing sustainable long-term funding for digital public infrastructure remains challenging, particularly in an environment of reduced development aid.

## Conclusion

This forum demonstrated broad consensus on fundamental principles for digital cooperation in development, including the importance of open source solutions, multi-stakeholder partnerships, and practical implementation over policy creation. The discussion highlighted successful examples like Ethiopia’s E-SHE project and Norway’s digital public goods approach, while also identifying persistent challenges around implementation, funding, and data collection.

The forum’s emphasis on moving from dialogue to action, as advocated by Kimambo, combined with concrete commitments like the Global University Academy’s refugee education goal, suggests potential pathways for meaningful progress in addressing the digital divide affecting 2.6 billion people worldwide. The challenge now lies in translating these discussions and commitments into concrete actions that reach those who remain digitally excluded.

Marianne Knarud: Ladies and gentlemen, it’s my great pleasure to welcome you to this open forum titled The Ecosystem of Digital Cooperation in Development. And also a big welcome to viewers who are joining us online. My name is Marianne Knarud. I am the project leader for the Global University Academy, a consortia of universities and other stakeholders working together to increase access to higher education for refugees, displaced learners and their communities through digital and hybrid solutions. And I am very excited to moderate this session, which is organized by the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the University of Oslo and BASIC Internet Foundation. And with me on stage I have a stellar panel representing various actors of the digital ecosystem that we want to highlight here today from government agencies, NGOs and academia. And also as my co-moderator is Josef Noll from the University of Oslo, who will be keeping track of everything that’s going on online. And we have Tale Jordbakke, head of section for partnership at the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation. We have Frans Weissecker, digital policy expert at the German Agency for International Cooperation. Catherine Kimambo, founder and executive director of the youth-led NGO African Child Project in Tanzania, focusing on digital public infrastructure in education and inclusion. And Tomas Årheim, representing Youth Coalition on Internet Governance. And we have the president of the University of Oslo, Svein Sturlund. And… And last but not least, we have Meklit Mitesinu, head of the E-Shi project at the Ministry of Education in Ethiopia, joining us online. And before I give the word to our panelists, I will shortly introduce the context for and the goal of this session. Because today, 2.6 billion people remain offline without access to internet, and this digital exclusion really translates into lack of access to essential services. That limits opportunities and deepens inequalities. So the purpose of the session is really to highlight how the different actors can contribute to building an inclusive digital ecosystem for development, and to demonstrate how digital public infrastructure can serve as a cross-cutting foundation for public services, from health information in schools to digital access for communities. And also, what I hope that we will accomplish throughout the session is to also think about how we can go from words to concrete action as we move forward. And each panelist will now have three minutes to highlight their role in the digital ecosystem, and how their institution or organization can contribute to closing the digital divide. And I will give you a little wave once you are approaching your three minutes. So, I want to start with you, Tale. The Norwegian government has been quite active, I would say, in this space, and now also the host of this conference. How do you see NORAD’s role in the ecosystem? Tale?

Tale Jordbakke: First of all, thank you for having NORAD in this panel. In NORAD, we believe that achieving the SDGs can only be done by unlocking opportunities through digital transformation. Digital solutions are key to improve people’s lives at scale. And it’s even more important in these times where the funding for the development sector is cutting. And to answer the panel’s question, how to increase access to digital public infrastructure, we believe the answer lies in digital public goods. These are inclusion, collaboration, scalability, and they will prevent vendor lock-in. By breaking down silos, reducing fragmentation and promoting collaboration and transparency, we can achieve more and ensure that no one is left behind. Norway has been involved from the start as a founding member of the Digital Public Goods Alliance and through investments in open sustainability solutions across sectors, such as health, education, and public administration. DPI now also connects long-term development, humanitarian efforts, democracy, and human rights. That’s why it’s crucial to base DPI on open, non-commercial solutions that counter tech monopolies and promote democratic principles. I believe that Norway here have an advantage. We do have high credibility because we contribute with funding and do not have our own commercial interests. NORAD and Norway support solutions like MOSIP and OpenCRVS and fund initiatives like the World Bank’s ID4D. We collaborate with partners such as Codevelop to allocate financing mechanisms and ensure DPG’s sustainability. To meet these challenges, we need to be working closely with governments and private sector to share responsibility for maintaining and developing this infrastructure. At the same time, it’s important to be honest that there are many challenges that we face. Our capacity is limited. Therefore, we must use our resources wisely, support cross-sectorial solutions, and focus on normative work, capacity building, and institutional strengthening, not just technology. We must also continue to be a bold and visionary donor, willing to take risks where others cannot, and use our position to mobilize more partners and create collaborative funding mechanisms. In conclusion, Norway and NORAD will continue to champion open, inclusive digital public goods as a foundation for DPI, ensuring access, information, services, and opportunities for all across sectors and borders. Together, we can build an ecosystem where DPI serves as a tool for equity and inclusion.

Marianne Knarud: Thank you. Thank you, Tale, for this. And Franz, what about you? How does this look from your perspective?

Franz von Weizacker: Yes, thank you very much. So my name is Franz Weizäcker, and I’m heading our economic and digital portfolio of the GIZ Office of the African Union. And this is based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. And in GIZ, we are a company that works, is owned by the German government and works on behalf of mostly German and European governments for the sustainable development goals in our partner countries. And Africa is probably the biggest focus because there’s also the fastest growth of internet penetration that we have. And in my role, I work together with the African Union Department for Infrastructure and Energy and working on harmonizing the digital policies in Africa on the continent with the 55 member states of the African Union. GIZ is also endorsing these principles that you just mentioned on open infrastructures, accessible infrastructures, where it can be open source when it comes to software development or open access when it comes to internet offerings and these principles that we endorse are also, we have this partnership with NORAD on the Digital Public Good Alliance, which I very much support and when it comes to the increasingly important topic of digital sovereignty, of how governments can remain sovereign in a digital age and then avoid too many political dependencies that are derived from technological dependencies. In that sense, we in Europe can play a big role in creating this independence by providing and sharing elements for a sovereign government. As we in GIZ, we typically work with our governmental partners together to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, but of course also we are supporting quite a few of grassroots organizations that are providing very concrete, tangible solutions like in Cameroon, we have also community network projects that are providing internet access for communities. Thank you. Thank you very much, Frans. Catherine, you have

Marianne Knarud: previously highlighted the importance of skills and not just technical solutions in your work. Can you tell us a little bit about the African Child Project and what your take on this is?

Catherine Kimambo: So, there’s a lot that the African Child Project is doing in regards to skills and access. We have like two flagship projects in Tanzania and our first flagship project is the School Connectivity Project where we connect schools in rural Tanzania to internet, making sure that we are not only providing access but also put into perspective things like devices, also skills and content. Because at the end of the day, when we are speaking about digital public infrastructure, I think there’s a notion that we and the other panelists. We will be having a discussion on the policies of the ICTs outside the school premises. So, for us, we’ve had, I think, a lot of success in terms of having multi-stakeholder approach in everything that we do in regards to our project. But also, the policies in Tanzania, I think, it’s, the way we’re seeing harmonization of policies. How are we making sure that we have effective policies on the ground? And also, how can we better have discussions in policies, and how can we better have effective policies on the ground? But also, I think our government is now seeing the importance of not only having policies on paper, but also implementing the resolutions that are written in the policy. I think now that we are coming from the African IGF, where we are discussing a lot about the ICTs multi-stakeholder approach, I think we have to be very clear about that, because those are the very questions. and Jelena Kikwete. We are also working in local talents but also pioneering local solutions across Tanzania. So there’s a lot that is happening and we are happy that we are able to see now there’s a shift of perspective in terms of multi-stakeholder initiative and involvement of civil society in such platforms. But also recognising that big ideas also come from grassroots. So we are seeing that recognition and also involvement of the young people. So we are not only seeing young people working independently, but we are seeing all of us coming together in terms of bridging the divide as a collective.

Marianne Knarud: Thank you very much. Thomas, you’re representing youth today. So it seems, yeah. Well, also with Catherine, I would say. So what is your perspective, taking this from the youth side?

Thomas Aarheim: Well, thank you very much. Well, I can start off by saying I’m a part of a, well, what I’m representing is a youth coalition on internet governance. And this is one of the IGF, like, dynamic groups that the IGF kind of facilitates for. And what we try and do is that we engage, or we try to connect, engage youth from all over the world. And the only way we can do that is obviously through the internet, through an open internet platform. So the way we work is that we have, on the board, we have one representative from each region, the UN-recognized region of the world. Meaning that you will basically get perspectives from any type of culture, any type of background, all walks of life. And that is the idea. Because what we really want to, you know, focus on is to make sure that, you know, digital public infrastructure is inclusive by all means. And that’s what we’re trying to do. That’s what we’re trying to do by design. And not just by afterthought. And what I mean by that is that in And that means that other countries that want to increase or develop their public infrastructure can learn from the failures of previous initiatives, but also, perhaps more importantly, learn from the successes, and maybe allow that to leapfrog into a more interconnected and more access to open internet. And since, yes, like you said, I’m here to provide some sort of youth perspective on digitalization, I thought I’d like to start this off by relating it to my own experience as a digital native, perhaps, I daresay, well, maybe not the only digital native here, but one of the only digital natives here, and I have this vivid memory from how this infrastructure or this development in infrastructure has impacted my education growing up, because if you go back a few years to when I was in high school, I started in 2015, which is a full decade ago now, to be fair, but my year group was the pilot project year group for introducing iPads in the school instead of using textbooks, you know, as an initiative to start digitalizing the classroom. And of course, there was plenty of pushbacks and skepticism, you know, parents were worried about screen time, teachers were worried about losing the crucial battle in the classroom for attention, and of course, these issues had to be taken seriously, and I mean, yeah, I’ll be the first one to admit that there were maybe some, you know, late hours in the Monday afternoon where my attention drifted to apps and then games on the iPad that probably weren’t that educational, but overall, I would say that this project for us and the way we experienced it turned out to be a huge success because it really did change the way we were being taught in the classroom. We were more interconnected, we had more interactiveness and we were more productive throughout our working week. And we also found that it opened up a whole new world of learning. We had access to real-time information, multimedia resources and all the knowledge that the World Wide Web possesses at our fingertips in the classroom. Just to put this into maybe a generational perspective, I very distinctly remember showing my now late grandfather one of my end-of-year papers, topical research papers, and he almost didn’t believe it because he was in high school in the 1950s. What he said is that if he were to put together a piece of paper like this, he’d have to not only comb through dozens and dozens of books, but he had to spend hours and hours in the physical library to get all the sources and get all the material. And this is a moment that’s really stuck with me, not just because it shows how much has changed in a relatively short amount of time, but because it reminded me that access to the right type of tools, digital tools, with them having the infrastructure backing them up, fundamentally shifts what’s possible, especially in education. And that is what DPI really should be. And then, like you said, there are still billions of people who don’t have access to internet. And when you see these micro-examples of how it can look in the field, it really puts into perspective how important it is to really develop this and make sure that everyone has this, that it’s inclusive, so that everyone has access to this gift that we have, which is the internet.

Marianne Knarud: and I’ll leave it at that for now if that’s okay. Thank you very much Thomas and I think it’s safe to say that the future is in pretty safe hands. And going towards the universities, your intervention Thomas really you know it highlights you know the inequalities that lack of access creates and remembering also from the pandemic how how soon Norwegian schools, European schools managed to kind of pivot and just you know be online within two days and then the example that we saw when visiting rural areas in Uganda, you know schools were completely shut down for two years with no learning really happening at all and the consequences of that you can just only imagine right. So being on the topic of education, Svein, you’ve taken the initiative to establish actually the Global University Academy a little over a year ago but the University of Oslo has a long a proud history I would say of initiatives connected to this topic that we are exploring today. Could you say a little bit about how this looks from the University of Oslo’s side? I should first of all say that I’m representing Lesjang here of course.

Svein Stolen: I’m not native digital but I lived through the whole thing using punching cards initially to program different things. So university has been deeply involved really in the creation of the digital world that we see today and you can see that on the outside of the hall here because Josef and his people have something about the history of digitalization in Norway and at university. I think that shows the power of research because you need to be at the forefront of development that’s at the heart of a university but then of course you need to take the knowledge into use as well and then education is really what we need to do. ICT is obviously enlarged at the University of Oslo and I think it’s a big challenge even in Norway to secure. We have to make sure that the digital divide is not opening up too large. If you go to Europe, the challenge is even huger. And then, of course, if you go beyond Europe, it’s really a huge challenge. So for that reason, we have tried to go into an initiative where we try to collaborate on giving education to refugees where the refugees are. So we have an aim to contribute to the 15 by 30 goal of the UNHCR and a modest goal of contributing to one million refugees before 2038. ICT is obviously important in that respect. It’s about giving people Internet access, of course, as we say here today, but also about capacity building. So what we try to do is to say that no one can do everything, but everyone can contribute to some extent. We try to partner up with different universities. We are about 20 universities from four continents. We partner up with UNHCR, UNICEF, and so on, and we try to build on lifelong learning platforms to give micro-credentials that can be stacked and then can be scalable. So we try to lower the threshold for universities to take part, to contribute with programs that give employability, and then to have an ecosystem kind of thinking. Breakdown silos, I hear that from several panelists here today. We are starting in Jordan, close to the border to Syria, in Asraq and Zaatari. Educational offers in ICT by Al-Husayn Technical University. And then we hope that what we do in one space, which is a global, how to say, way of thinking on the educational offer, can be transferred to other places. Like in Uganda, where we are in Adjomani, but of course then the challenge is quite different. In Jordan, UNHCR is in charge of CAMP. Save the Children Jordan is implementing partners, giving us the classrooms and the internet. Adjomani is a much bigger challenge. And we can talk more about that later, I guess. Do you want to highlight some other examples from the University of Oslo? Do you want to highlight some other examples from the University of Oslo? I think that that was talking about global goods. The health information system program is extremely important. I mean, it’s an impressive offer that’s been developed for many years. And I think it’s also an inspiration for what we try to do in here today. And also Josef has a great initiative also on contributing to giving access.

Marianne Knarud: Thank you. And turning to our online panelist, Meklit, you are project manager for the E-SHE. And it’s an Ethiopian initiative that uses e-learning to strengthen higher education across all universities. Could you tell us a little bit about the initiative and how this is helpful for students and learners?

Meklit Mintesinot: OK, thank you, Marianne. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. Actually, I’m honored to be part of this panel discussion. Actually, my initial plan was to join you in person, but I couldn’t make it due to my due to the delay in my visa. Anyways, thanks to technology, I’m able to join from to join you from the comfort of my home. So a brief introduction about myself. My name is Meklit Muntasnot, I’m from Ethiopia. And today I’m speaking on behalf of the E-Learning for Strengthening Higher Education project under the Ministry of Education. So before discussing how our work is contributing to the digital public infrastructure development, just I would like to give you a highlight of the project, what we have been doing, what are our objectives and what we want to achieve through this project. So actually, the E-SHE project, we call it E-SHE, it’s the E-Learning for Strengthening Higher Education project. It is a national initiative. It’s designed to improve the Quality, Accessibility, Inclusion and Resilience of Higher Education, mainly by leveraging digital education. And for the past three, four years, we’ve been implementing it in partnership with the ECOPEAD Ministry of Education, Arizona State University, a local implementing partner called Shia Ashoni and the MasterCard Foundation. They are our financial partners. Actually, they’re the ones who supported the project. So for the past three years, we have been working on policy, on digital education policy, infrastructure system and capacity building. And I would say we have achieved a great success. So actually, the first thing or the first problem that we have been tackling is the policy and the framework issue. So in Ethiopia, actually before this project, we didn’t have a policy that governed digital education or that governed online education. So to tackle that problem, we have managed to develop actually a national e-learning policy, institutional guidelines, directives. And even we have managed to, we have managed to establish e-learning at a direct rates level in every university. Ethiopia has 50 public universities, so currently all these 50 public universities have a direct rates that leads digital education or the digital education initiative. That’s what we have been doing when it comes to policy. Additionally, the other problem that we have been observing was lack of a learning management system and student information systems. So in partnership with Arizona State University, we have customized and rolled out a learning management system for the public, for the 50 public universities. So currently, all the. The public universities have their own learning management system and as well student information system. So that’s the other success we mentioned in this project. And the third intervention area was infrastructure. Actually, we’ve been establishing resource centers, online resource centers, where instructors produce their contents, where students access the contents. So we established the seven multimedia studio online resource centers in seven public universities. And the last one is related with capacity development. Actually, after having the system, after having the policy, after having the infrastructure, the students and the instructors need to know how to operate the system and how to benefit from the system. So in this regard, we have money to provide digital skill training for over 250,000 students from all the 50 public universities. And close to 20,000 instructors were trained on how to design digital content, on how to facilitate online classes. So that’s what we have been doing. Actually, initially, we started this project or we started the SHIP project as a vertical approach when it comes to this digital public infrastructure. But currently, we’re evolving horizontally. We’re working with different sectors, with the health sector, with the employment sector, and with other sectors, so that the youth, especially the youngsters, can benefit from the project. So recently, we’re partnering with the prime minister’s office to cascade. We are facilitating the 50 million coders program, so currently we are facilitating that program and actually it is training 5 million young people so that they can be able to design and code. So we are also facilitating that and we are also working with high schools and regional education bureaus to connect the universities with high schools so that students from remote areas can access the content or can access digital services. So this is what we have been doing for the past 3-4 years. Thank you. Thank you very much for this very inspiring intervention and also highlighting how you can in practice go from the vertical to the horizontal approach. I know for sure that I want to hear more about all of the things that you said after the session and hopefully you all will too.

Marianne Knarud: So Tale and Franz, you are both representing government agencies here in this panel and reflecting on the introductions that we just heard and understanding also the importance of partnership working across but also really involving the whole of society to make sure that we have a truly inclusive system. How can your agencies or government programs be better at really making those connections and also give space for civil society actors? Tale, do you want to go first?

Tale Jordbakke: Sure. I do think that we as a government agency can play a role. Firstly, by being clear on that the policies and principles we support are open source. exclusively open, and that it is the digital public goods for DPI, like the DHS2 that was mentioned here, that NORTH has been supporting for years. When we ensure that the digital development that we support are open source, it can be used by many and be adaptable. So secondly, we can also contribute to mobilize and contribute funding. We need to work on these challenges together, and as an agency, Norwegian government agency, we have been taking early risk by providing catalytic funding for digital public goods, and by ensuring pool resourcing, working through mechanisms like Digital Public Goods Alliance 50 and 5, working with co-develop, we can make sure that we avoid duplication and maximize impact. Thirdly, I think we can support capacity building and knowledge sharing by investing in local expertise and strengthening institutional frameworks. We enable countries to implement, adapt, and sustain digital solutions over time. And lastly, I think that we can act as a bridge builder between sectors and a convener by bridging together stakeholders from government, civil society, private sector, and international partners. We talked about a lot of ideas just before, back on stage here today. We help to ensure that solutions are not developed in silos, but are interoperable and meet real needs across sectors, like health, education, and financial inclusion, as we heard about here today. So, all in all, I think better coordination, creation of the DPI’s ecosystem means committing to openness, partnerships, and long-term sustainability, so that digital transformation truly delivers for everyone, everywhere. Thanks. And Franz, do you have anything to add to that, I’m sure?

Franz von Weizacker: Yeah, so you asked about how we involve civil society in these questions. And of course, as a governmental agency, when we cooperate with other countries, we start talking with the government. That’s in most cases the starting point and also a basis of justification to be there. But then at the same time, depending on the context, we set up different types of multi-stakeholder partnerships. So in the case of digital policy development, it is actually, I mean, it’s not just about developing a policy, but it should be an inclusive policy. So therefore, we do consult with private sector, with civil society, and depending on the context, with researchers, academia, for the policy consulting. And then also in the implementation, if you look at, it depends very much on the context. We always design it according to form follows function, of course. If it’s a municipal level interaction or a national level, depending on that, we set up different types of multi-stakeholder partnerships. And then what we also have in some cases is a direct funding mechanism for civil society. So with the African Union, we set up the African Union Civic Tech Fund, where we currently have 30 grantees from across the continent, from 26 different countries, that are developing a solution, that have developed solutions that are working, that promote civic engagement and participation, and we’re providing funding and expertise to grow and scale these initiatives by the civil society. So there are various mechanisms, and I think we really need to see, in the context, is it education, is it health, and so on, what is the most suitable form of engagement with civil society.

Marianne Knarud: Great, thank you. and Catherine, I wanted to ask you, hearing all of these interventions and discussions that we’ve had, if you were Minister of Digitalization or Minister of International Development, what would be the first thing that you did?

Catherine Kimambo: So for me, if I were Minister of Digitalization, first I’d want to understand why. Maybe why certain things aren’t working, because I think there’s a tendency to always come up with a new standard, come up with a new policy. I think in Tanzania we have this saying that we have good policies on paper, but when it comes to implementation, there’s equally to very few that is implemented from the policies. So I really want to understand why certain things aren’t working. But also when it comes to investing in grassroots ideas, I think there’s a lot that is happening on ground. There’s a lot of great ideas that youth have, but we don’t have resources, I think, to implement such ideas. So maybe trying to really dig deep and understand what are the great ideas. I think we have a good success with school connectivity, because it was a grassroots initiative, but also we are experimenting with affordable solutions, solutions that are scalable, solutions that are fit for purpose. So I think having that understanding of what could be scalable on ground and not having these parachuting ideas where you come up with solutions that are high-end or of high cost that are not sustainable in the long run. I think I could also see what works on ground, but also overseeing implementation or harmonizing the policies, because currently we are having a lot of policies that are coming up, but also they are not harmonized. I want to see how we can have like a common understanding in terms of involving different stakeholders. and others in the field to understand the policies but also how are we coming in together in regard to bringing all the policies to life. But also something else that I’d invest in is in terms of funding. I think funding is a challenge when it comes to youth and how they are operating. So I think I invest more in youth because when it comes to us as youth there’s a lot of capacity building I feel that we are getting but we are not getting a chance to do meaningful work. So maybe less on the capacity building and really funding our ideas in terms of how we can accelerate connectivity and digital inclusion in Tanzania. But also just I think in terms of data I’d really want to understand when we are saying we’ve reached maybe this age group. Is there data for it? Because I think there’s a lot of data that is missing so I’d invest much in having data that really speaks to the results that we are seeing because there’s a lot of we are seeing a lot of stories like this that is happening we’ve reached this amount of people but when for us we are working on ground we are not seeing the shift that is there on the global stages. But also we have been dialoguing a lot. There’s a lot of discussions that are happening but I’d move more into action. How are we moving from dialogue to action? How are we being more action oriented? Because I think there’s a lot of dialogue that is happening globally but even here after dialogues and all this what’s happened? What’s next when you go back to our regional countries? Are we implementing ideas? Are we coming up with results? Or are we only maybe coming up with different resolutions and then when we are meeting again next year we are having another resolution. So I think if I was a Minister of Digitalization I’d move from dialogue to action and really spotlighting the different innovations that are there on ground to bring them to the global presence and maybe that could also bring a change in the digital inclusion and divide.

Marianne Knarud: Hear, hear. Thomas.

Thomas Aarheim: Yeah, no, hear, hear. If I was minister for a day, well, let’s say since I don’t represent any political party and I haven’t yet gotten any vested economic interests or I can just go from a blank slate, I would say that I think it is really important, and that’s why I say this, I think it’s really important to focus that this type of new technology and development in the countries where it happens also stays in the countries where it happens, where they also don’t just become users of technology from foreign aid and foreign companies that do direct investments, but that they also then own this themselves so that they can share that knowledge and that they can start using that as a part of their industry, that it becomes integrated into their local systems and that this creates a form of long-term growth for them. So, in a sense, which probably would make me a really bad minister, I would do it without any strings attached, but we’ll see if that passes in Congress. Yeah, and like we talked about before, out of these billions of people who are without access, a majority, like in these regions and places we’re talking about, the majority of the youth or young population in the world is located here. So, it’s really an investment in the future as well because these regions, these are skills that will last for decades for them. And that’s why it’s really important to get them connected now, get them connected so that they can use this for the next five, six decades and pass this on.

Marianne Knarud: Thank you. And Svein, you can also give us your take on if you were a minister for a day.

Svein Stolen: I have power, so I would like to say that I try to be a cut the crap, just do it director. And I think that what we really need is to be less afraid of failure. We need to try to utilize the power of an institution, and then I think all have to take the same take. How can we do better? For a university, I believe that to utilize the power to take the knowledge into use, because we’re quite good at research, we’re quite good at education, but we have to be a little bit out of the comfort zone in order to transform that knowledge and competence into action. For that reason, I believe in this ecosystem type of thinking, because often when universities work, they work alone, or they work together with other universities, but I don’t think that is going to solve many challenges. We need to work across sectors. That challenges universities, but it also challenges other actors. So to break down the silos. So for that reason, in the Global University Academy, we recently launched a policy paper where we said that, okay, universities are not really flexible, to be honest. So there’s a lot of challenges that are on itself, but I think it’s also a lot of challenges on the other part. Especially, I would like to see that ministries and the politicians, they understand that universities could be used more efficiently in some of these global collaborations. But then they have also to, how to say, give them that task. When we talk with universities in other parts of the world, they say that this is not really within our mandate. I think it should be within the mandate. And for me, that’s also about educating students in our own countries. Because in the Global University, we hope to use the students as part of the classroom. and so on. And if we are going to educate students with a global mind, that’s the way to do it. So I believe in this ecosystem and we should push that and break down silos in my opinion. I think that’s a major takeaway from this session, to break down the silos and figure out how to work more efficiently together. I want to open up for some questions from the Zoom. There is one from Francis Thompson to Thomas and Svein. Does the ease of information access to children and students make them less likely to internalize the information, as in there is less need to digest fully the information and context or even remember it for recall because it is so accessible and easy to find again online? That was a bit unclear. Can you repeat the first part? I got the last part. Yeah, okay, I’ll try again. Does the ease of information access to children and students make them less likely to internalize the information?

Thomas Aarheim: Maybe, probably. We talk about now maybe with this, again like I was talking about earlier in the classroom, this attention span. There are concerns now that with youth and younger people these days getting more and more exposed to really fast-paced flickering images and then very short-pitched information that the concern for maybe more in academia is that you’re not capable of reading a full dissertation anymore, you’re not capable of reading a full book. I don’t think that’s necessarily true. I’m going to sound all the alarms right now and what we’re really talking about is for people to get to the, you know, that might be a late stage problem for a very small part of the world population, if you look at it that way. But I think easier access to information as a whole is a good, that’s a force for good and definitely something we should strive towards. Again, this will maybe later be a really good way for us to use this type of hindsight, like I was saying in the beginning, that you can maybe leapfrog and you can avoid some pitfalls. So I think it’s really important to then, you know, we’ll keep an eye on this, we’ll make sure we keep reading our books, despite being on TikTok or other platforms. But also then take the lessons and really try and learn from them and not just observe them. I don’t know if that answers your question, Svein, what do you think?

Svein Stolen: I think you answered that very well. I think that the attention span is a worry, but the access to information is not really a worry. I’m not very good at remembering anything, I’ve never been, but I manage anyway. And I think that what we need to be able to, I mean, how much more I can do today than I could do when I was a PhD student in 1988? It’s amazing. And I think we are going in the same direction. We have to harness the tools, we have to harness the technology and use it. And strictly, I believe that most of our students understand they can’t fool themselves, because if they use the new equipment in the wrong way, they’re not learning, they understand that. I mean, the students are bright. So I think that we shouldn’t overestimate the challenges. Some part of the student population probably could be tempted, but still, in general, I’m quite optimistic about the student and about technology. Great. And also, if there are questions in the audience, there is a microphone.

Marianne Knarud: We have a microphone on the side, and feel free to take the microphone. While waiting for participants to maybe take the mic, I want to ask a question to Meklit, that’s coming from the Zoom chat. How do you see the pathway from universities to schools and communities? Meklit, you can answer that, and after we will open the mic here in the room. Meklit? Sure, Marine, thank you.

Meklit Mintesinot: That’s an important question. As I mentioned earlier, currently we are working with universities. Actually, in Ethiopia, relatively, the universities have a better infrastructure, internet services, and they also have well-trained personnel. We believe that universities are the gateway. Once working or once capacitating the universities, we can connect them with the highest schools and with the communities. For example, the universities have trained personnel or trained instructors. They have the infrastructure. They also have the resources. They can mobilize resources or they can mobilize financial resources. We’re planning to connect them with the highest schools and to the communities. For example, you can take rural schools that are located in a rural area. In that case, the universities are better positioned to support them. They can support them in connectivity. They can support them in human resources. They can also support them in developing systems and infrastructures. The universities are the gateways, and through that, we can connect the schools, and we can also serve the communities. Thank you very much. And now we have two questions from the audience.

Marianne Knarud: Please state your name before your question and whom it is addressed to. And also please be brief. Thanks.

Audience: Thank you very much. I’m Pons Light from the Gambia NRI Focal Point and also a board member of the Association for Progressive Communication My question goes to Franz and the lady from NORAD and is also connected with SEV. It’s in regards to digital cooperation, which is a major part of the Global Digital Compact that is being implemented. I would like to know how both your agencies, GIZ and NORAD, work with academics in the global north to implement programs in the global south that also incorporates African universities, especially in terms of if you have to set up programs in rural areas that bring about connectivity.

Marianne Knarud: Thank you very much. Thank you very much. And we’ll take the other question as well and then the panel will answer.

Audience: Yeah. My name is Mohamed Abdi Ali. I’m executive director from Somali civil society platform Kole Tsonsa based in Somalia. My question is to the all panelists. I’m thinking positively digital is okay, but negativity. Now digital war started, cyber conflict started. So how in the future influence that barriers the ecosystem of digital cooperation and development? Thank you very much. Thank you very much. So first questions to Tala and Frans, which one want to go first? I can start. Thank you so much for the question.

Marianne Knarud: I believe that… NORAD, for example, supports, like Abhi mentioned, digital public goods, open source solutions. So, the University of Oslo works together with our partners in India, the MOSIP digital ID platforms, and NORAD supports those and have been from the beginning. So we connect universities and academia with the digital public good, the DHS2, which is a help platform. We try to connect our partners, IITB, in Bangalore, in India, with the University of Oslo to go together and learn. And on request of partners and countries in the global south and countries south of Zawahar in Africa, they have requested these kind of systems, and we connect the partners. We can support with the funding, but together we bring partners with knowledge and experience of rolling out and implementing these kind of systems that are open source, that can be built on something built elsewhere, but it can be adopted. It must be modified to the country itself, but it’s a lot cheaper to start with a system that you don’t have to develop. So that is one example how NORAD and Norway work with different countries in global south and connect universities, which are so important to the knowledge that we share and the experience that are often built local and has to be built local. Thank you. And Frans?

Franz von Weizacker: All right. Yeah, thank you, Ponsillet, for your question on also the cooperation with universities to work between universities from the north and the south to implement projects on connectivities. Actually, that’s a topic very close to my heart. Coming from Berlin University of Technology, while I was a student, I was setting up back in 2003 in Kabul, Afghanistan, the computing center at Kabul University. So very hands-on work we did as a student there. also writes that we could be doing much more in this university cooperation, if you compare for example how this used to be done maybe in the United States, they have quite a few faculties from the United States that are implementing hands-on development projects in the global south, and I think it’s a good and successful mode, and in the German system there is typically most university corporations work through the DART, the German Academic Exchange Service, and that was also the one that was funding the cooperation in Kabul that I mentioned earlier, but indeed where we can and where it makes sense, we should be involving universities. Maybe one more example from the European level, as part of the Global Gateway Project, we have the Medusa cable, and that’s basically a cable connecting northern African universities to fiber optics internet infrastructure, and that is part of the agenda that is now being developed in Brussels on infrastructure and connectivity under the Global Gateway Initiative.

Marianne Knarud: Thank you very much. And then there was a question about how to make sure that we are still digitally connected and working together in a time where the world is increasingly in turmoil, I would say. Svein, do you have any reflections on…

Svein Stolen: I understand the question, I mean I became rector eight years ago, everyone talked about the Sustainable Development Goals and the three Os, open science, open innovation, open to the world, and now we are talking about national interest, research security, and geopolitical issues. So to push forward and continue cooperation, so at the University of Oslo, we try to keep all doors open. I got a lot of criticism to work with China, we do, we try to work also on this. this Global University Academy at the present time, because it’s more important than ever. It’s more difficult, of course, but I don’t have any other answer than that. But we really, really need to to work different parts of sector and push towards collaboration. Tale, you wanted to come in there? Yeah, just to build on that. I think also in these times we have to work together

Marianne Knarud: and collaborate to do more with less because there will be less funding. And actually, in terms of digital transformation, this might be an opportunity because these are the leapfrog possibilities that can actually be done through technology. And if we build not silos, that has been said, but open source and shareable and digital public goods, then then we can actually make more out of less. And I think that’s more important than ever. Yeah. Thomas, this is also something that you see when you discuss with your fellow youth representatives. Yeah, and I definitely agree with what was just said. And in a world where, you know, things are getting more, like you say, in turmoil and then it’s that’s the focus.

Thomas Aarheim: I don’t think I think it’s important to keep in mind that it’s not like we want the Internet to disappear, but we really want to be able to navigate the Internet safely. And that means that, yeah, for a lot of youth in today’s reality, we’re going to have to develop, you know, new skills and new tools to be able to, you know, surf online safely. And that’s why you have it’s really important to drive, you know, initiatives that, you know, increase media literacy or, you know, Internet information literacy. You need to be able to know how to spot fake news and that’s going to be key moving forward for anyone who is surfing online.

Marianne Knarud: Thank you very much. We are running out of time, so we’re going to close up this session. So from for all of you, you have, you know, if you could sum up, but then. also think about what is it that we need to do when we leave this room, not just nice words but what are some things that we can all just go out and do to make a difference? Catherine.

Catherine Kimambo: So for me, I still go back to the Dar es Salaam declaration that we had with the African IGF where they were speaking about a unified voice or African voice in global processes. So I think still as Africa, we still need that unified voice in global processes because I still believe we still have the largest number of unconnected people in the Global South. So having a unified voice, what are the plans that we have as a continent? And I think for me going back home, I understand that the work that we do as African Child Projects contribute very much in the key aspect of digital divide, the things like digital skills, connectivity, so we plan to do more of that and I know with the different partners that we have and the desire that they have shown in terms of accelerating digitalization in Tanzania, so there’s more that we are going to do. And hopefully when we meet in the next year of IGF, we will have a lot of concrete and live examples on the ground of what we’ve done and how we’ve succeeded.

Marianne Knarud: Thank you. I want to turn online. Meklit, what would be your final short remarks?

Meklit Mintesinot: Thank you, Maureen. So actually for me, digital public infrastructure, digital service is not just about technology, it’s all about equity, inclusion and access and there are millions of people remaining disconnected and those who couldn’t access the services due to the existing situation, due to lack of infrastructure, due to lack of skill and due to lack of support, so we need to come. We are advocating for public-private development partnerships, so bringing the public sector which is the government, the development sector and even the private sector in availing services or in availing digital services for their use, especially their use actually. As I mentioned earlier, the majority of the population is used in Ethiopia and in Africa and they need to be served and they need to be included and they need to benefit from this initiative. So my call to action is let’s work together, especially we need to include the development and the private sector in enhancing digital services across Africa. So on our side, both the ministry and the project is open to collaborate with interested partners and to make digital services accessible to everyone. That’s what I can say. Thank you.

Marianne Knarud: Thank you very much. And Svein, some short final remarks.

Svein Stolen: I think we need bold visions. We need to continue to work hard and not look for the perfect system that solves everything, but go on the way and try to construct the airplane while flying, so to say. We need to push forward. Vivid picture. Tale?

Tale Jordbakke: I think collaboration. I think connectivity is important, but also the solution that we build has to be open and interoperability. We have to be able to build on each other. We cannot build in every country a different solution every time. It’s too expensive. It’s not smart. We need to be able to share open between each other.

Marianne Knarud: Thank you. Frans?

Franz von Weizacker: Absolutely. Those principles of openness, the principles for digital development are actually amazing. So you need to understand the existing ecosystem. Thank you very much, and that’s it from us. Thank you all for coming, and thank you to this wonderful panel, and also to the very energetic Josef Noll at the University of Oslo for really making this event a reality today.

Marianne Knarud: I think it’s safe to say that without you, this panel would not have been here. So let’s give the panel a big applause, and thank you very much for coming. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. and Fabiana Slok together caught us off guard when they launched their condos in the world after a tropical storm Marts Dam.