Uncategorized

Summary

This workshop focused on platform governance and duty of care approaches to regulating online spaces, examining how different jurisdictions are moving beyond traditional self-regulation models to address digital harms like disinformation, hate speech, and coordinated harassment. The discussion brought together perspectives from Europe, Southeast Asia, Brazil, and the Philippines to explore what implementing duty of care frameworks actually means in practice.

Amelie Heldt presented the European approach, highlighting how Germany’s Digital Services Act incorporates trusted flaggers—certified organizations that can flag illegal content for expedited platform review. This creates a hybrid governance model involving state actors, platforms, and civil society organizations, though it raises complex questions about the legal status of private actors performing quasi-governmental functions. Janjira Sombatpoonsiri discussed Southeast Asian contexts, where survey data shows over 65% of experts distrust government regulatory frameworks due to concerns about autocratization and misuse of laws to suppress opposition voices. She advocated for a “pluralist approach” emphasizing participatory fact-checking, community moderation, and multi-stakeholder initiatives to build democratic legitimacy.

Bia Barbosa outlined Brazil’s current situation, where the Supreme Court is reinterpreting intermediary liability while civil society advocates for parliamentary regulation focused on systemic risks rather than individual content removal. The Brazilian Internet Steering Committee has proposed a typology distinguishing between different types of application providers based on their level of interference with content circulation. Yvonne Chua described the Philippines’ shift from punishing users through libel laws toward holding platforms accountable, noting a recent congressional report that explicitly recognizes platforms’ duty of care while warning against franchise requirements that could enable political retaliation.

The discussion revealed common challenges across jurisdictions, including legislative delays, definitional ambiguities around systemic risks, and the need for safeguards against government overreach while maintaining democratic legitimacy in content moderation approaches.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Diverse Regulatory Approaches to Platform Governance**: The discussion explored different models of duty of care implementation across jurisdictions, from the EU’s Digital Services Act with trusted flaggers, to Brazil’s Supreme Court reinterpretation of intermediary liability, to Southeast Asia’s preference for multi-stakeholder and pluralist approaches due to distrust in government frameworks.

– **Balancing Safety and Freedom of Expression**: A central tension emerged around how to create safer online environments while protecting free speech, with speakers highlighting concerns about over-censorship, government overreach, and the weaponization of content moderation laws against marginalized voices and political opposition.

– **Multi-stakeholder Governance Models**: Several speakers emphasized the importance of involving civil society, fact-checkers, journalists, and other stakeholders in platform governance rather than relying solely on government regulation or platform self-regulation, with examples from Malaysia’s Media Council and collaborative flagging initiatives.

– **Systemic Risk vs. Individual Content Liability**: The discussion revealed different interpretations of duty of care – some focusing on individual content removal and liability (as seen in Brazil’s Supreme Court case), while others emphasized addressing systemic risks through algorithmic transparency, process regulation, and platform design changes.

– **Implementation Challenges and Due Process Safeguards**: Speakers addressed practical concerns about defining systemic risks, ensuring adequate due process protections, preventing abuse by governments, and the need for clear legal frameworks that distinguish between different types of platforms and intermediaries.

## Overall Purpose:

The workshop aimed to examine how the concept of “duty of care” for platforms is being interpreted and implemented across different jurisdictions, sharing real-world experiences from Europe, Southeast Asia, Brazil, and the Philippines to understand what this regulatory approach means in practice and how it can build trust in online spaces while addressing harms like disinformation and hate speech.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a serious, academic tone throughout, characterized by cautious optimism tempered with significant concerns. While speakers acknowledged the potential benefits of duty of care approaches, the tone was notably apprehensive about implementation challenges, government overreach, and unintended consequences. The conversation was collaborative and constructive, with speakers building on each other’s insights, but there was an underlying urgency about getting the regulatory balance right to avoid both continued online harms and excessive censorship.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Beatriz Kira** – Assistant Professor in Law at the University of Sussex, on-site moderator, coordinates research project on platform governance funded by the British Academy

– **Amelie Heldt** – Works at the German Federal Chancery (speaking in personal capacity), affiliated researcher with the Leibniz Institute for Media Research in Hamburg

– **Janjira Sombatpoonsiri** – Political scientist at Chulalongkorn University in Thailand and the German Institute for Global and Area Studies in Hamburg, researches legal tools for tackling disinformation in South and Southeast Asia

– **Bia Barbosa** – Journalist, represents Communication Rights and Democracy organization, civil society representative of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee

– **Yvonne Chua** – Journalism professor at the University of the Philippines

– **Ivar Hartmann** – Colleague of Beatriz Kira, co-coordinates research project on platform governance

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

**Additional speakers:**

– **Phoebe Lee** – Professor at the University of Sussex, online moderator (mentioned but did not speak in transcript)

– **Ramon Costa** – Rapporteur for the workshop (mentioned but did not speak in transcript)

– **David Sullivan** – From the Digital Trust and Safety Partnership (audience member who asked questions)

– **Baron Soka** – Runs Tech Freedom think tank based in the U.S. (audience member who asked questions)

– **Brianna** – (audience member who asked questions, full title/organization not clearly stated)

– **Yuzhe** – Former legal counsel at a social media platform (audience member who asked questions)

– **Andrew Camping** – Trustee with the Internet Watch Foundation (audience member who asked questions)

# Platform Governance and Duty of Care: A Cross-Jurisdictional Workshop Report

## Introduction and Context

This workshop examined the evolving landscape of platform governance through the lens of duty of care approaches, bringing together perspectives from Europe, Southeast Asia, Brazil, and the Philippines. The event was moderated by Beatriz Kira, Assistant Professor in Law at the University of Sussex, and co-coordinated with Ivar Hartmann as part of an ongoing research project on platform governance. The workshop built on a previous workshop held in Brazil and a published report, with Phoebe Lee serving as online moderator and Ramon Costa as rapporteur.

The discussion explored how different jurisdictions are moving beyond traditional self-regulation models to address digital harms including disinformation, hate speech, and coordinated harassment. As Kira noted in her opening remarks, the goal was to examine what implementing duty of care frameworks actually means in practice, with particular attention to building trust in online spaces that have become central to democratic participation and social interaction.

## European Approach: The Digital Services Act and Trusted Flaggers

Amelie Heldt, speaking in her personal capacity while affiliated with the German Federal Chancery and the Leibniz Institute for Media Research in Hamburg, presented the European Union’s approach through the Digital Services Act (DSA). The EU model includes a trusted flaggers system under Article 22 of the DSA, where certified organisations can flag illegal content for expedited platform review.

Heldt explained that this approach creates complex legal relationships between state actors, platforms, and civil society organisations, raising questions about the legal status of private actors performing quasi-governmental functions. She posed the critical question: “If private entities become trusted flaggers, are they state authorities now?” This uncertainty extends to whether organisations serving as trusted flaggers should be bound by freedom of expression requirements typically applied to state actors.

Heldt also referenced Germany’s Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) and acknowledged that while the DSA addresses systemic risks, significant gaps remain. She noted that “there is actually no rule that really goes at the core of the business model of social media platforms,” highlighting a fundamental limitation in addressing the underlying economic incentives that drive harmful platform behaviours.

## Southeast Asian Context: Trust Deficits and Alternative Approaches

Janjira Sombatpoonsiri, a political scientist at Chulalongkorn University in Thailand and the German Institute for Global and Area Studies in Hamburg, presented findings from her research on legal tools for tackling disinformation across Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines.

Her survey data revealed that over 65% of experts in Southeast Asia expressed distrust in government regulatory frameworks, primarily due to concerns about autocratisation trends and the potential misuse of laws to suppress opposition voices. This led Sombatpoonsiri to advocate for what she termed a “pluralist approach” to platform governance, emphasising community-driven initiatives including participatory fact-checking, pre-bunking efforts, and collaborative flagging systems.

Sombatpoonsiri highlighted Malaysia’s Media Council as a successful example, bringing together journalists, civil society organisations, and fact-checkers in collaborative content evaluation processes. She argued that such initiatives create greater democratic legitimacy than top-down regulatory approaches, particularly where “enforcement often becomes partisan with laws weaponised against opposition voices under the guise of combating disinformation.”

## Brazilian Developments: Supreme Court Intervention and Multi-Stakeholder Response

Bia Barbosa, representing the Communication Rights and Democracy organisation and serving on the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, outlined Brazil’s complex regulatory landscape. She explained that the Supreme Court has begun reinterpreting the country’s intermediary liability regime through individual case decisions, with 8 out of 11 justices having voted and the 11th expected to vote that day.

This judicial intervention has created what Barbosa described as an “unclear duty of care framework,” raising concerns about potential strict liability regimes that could lead to increased private censorship. She explained concerns that the proposed duty of care could “result in practice in a change of the civil liability regime of platforms presupposing a duty of immediately removing such content in an automated manner.”

In response, the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee has developed a comprehensive approach distinguishing between different types of application providers based on their level of content interference. They have also launched a public consultation focusing on freedom of expression protection, information integrity, and harm prevention, while preparing technical notes for the Supreme Court that focus on systemic risks rather than individual content decisions.

Barbosa referenced Brazil’s Marco Civil da Internet and Article 19, emphasising the importance of multi-stakeholder regulatory bodies as safeguards against government abuse, arguing that such mechanisms are essential “to prevent abuse and protect freedom of expression regardless of government in power.”

## Philippines Experience: From User Punishment to Platform Accountability

Yvonne Chua, a journalism professor at the University of the Philippines, described her country’s shift from punishing users through cybercrime and libel laws towards holding platforms accountable. She provided stark statistics: over 3,800 cyber libel cases have been filed since 2012, whilst platforms have remained “virtually untouched” by regulatory oversight.

A significant development has been the Congressional Tri-Committee report, which Chua described as a “turning point by explicitly recognising platforms have duty of care that can be regulated.” The report includes 11 recommendations addressing platform regulation, governance oversight, and literacy enforcement.

However, Chua highlighted significant risks with certain regulatory approaches, particularly franchising requirements for platforms. She provided a historical example of regulatory abuse with ABS-CBN, the country’s largest radio and television network, which lost its congressional franchise due to political retaliation rather than media standards concerns. This example illustrates the risk of “turning speech regulation into partisan weapon.”

Despite these concerns, Chua noted that platforms have demonstrated capacity to respond effectively when regulatory expectations are clear, particularly during elections and emergency situations.

## Key Themes and Challenges

### Multi-Stakeholder Governance Approaches

All speakers emphasised the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches, though their implementations varied based on local contexts and trust levels in government institutions. The EU’s trusted flaggers system operates within a formal regulatory framework, while Southeast Asian approaches emphasise community-driven initiatives independent of government frameworks. Brazil and the Philippines both highlighted multi-stakeholder bodies as safeguards against government abuse.

### Trust Deficits and Political Weaponisation

A significant finding was the identification of trust deficits in government-led regulation across different political systems. Speakers from multiple jurisdictions raised concerns about the potential for platform regulation to be weaponised for political purposes, suggesting that regulatory approaches must include explicit safeguards against abuse.

### Systemic Risk versus Individual Content Approaches

The discussion revealed tension between systemic risk management approaches (focusing on platform processes and design features) versus individual content liability models (focusing on specific harmful content and removal obligations). The EU’s DSA and Brazilian Internet Steering Committee proposals represent systemic approaches, while court-led interventions tend toward individual content liability.

## Audience Engagement and Critical Questions

The workshop’s question-and-answer session raised several important issues. David Sullivan from the Digital Trust and Safety Partnership questioned how different legal frameworks define systemic risks and identify harms while avoiding restrictions on legitimate speech. Baron Soka from Tech Freedom asked about due process protections and their effectiveness “in the face of increasingly lawless governments.”

Yuzhe, a former legal counsel at a social media platform, questioned whether current regulations adequately address “core business model issues like attention-grabbing features like endless scrolling that exploit dopamine systems and cause addiction.” Andrew Camping from the Internet Watch Foundation explored whether duty of care frameworks could provide adaptable approaches to emerging technologies.

In response to questions about the DSA’s implementation, Heldt mentioned both the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act, noting ongoing developments including the Digital Fairness Act being considered by the European Parliament.

## Conclusions

The workshop revealed that duty of care approaches to platform governance represent a significant evolution from traditional self-regulation models, but face substantial implementation challenges related to political context, institutional trust, and definitional clarity. While speakers from different jurisdictions converged on the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches, their specific implementations varied significantly based on local contexts and trust levels in government institutions.

The identification of trust deficits in government-led regulation across different political systems suggests that building legitimate platform governance frameworks requires careful attention to democratic participation and safeguards against abuse. The discussion also highlighted limitations in current regulatory approaches for addressing fundamental business model issues that drive harmful platform behaviours.

As Kira noted in closing, the workshop demonstrated both the complexity of implementing duty of care frameworks and the importance of continued cross-jurisdictional learning and cooperation in developing effective approaches to platform governance that balance safety concerns with freedom of expression protections.

Beatriz Kira: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to our workshop, Platform Governance and Duty of Care, which is co-organised by INSPA, a higher education institution in Brazil, and the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom. My name is Beatriz Quira. I am an Assistant Professor in Law at the University of Sussex and I’m going to be your on-site moderator today. And I’d also like to thank our online moderator, my colleague Phoebe Lee, Professor at the University of Sussex, and our rapporteur, Ramon Costa, who is here today. The central challenge that we are going to gather here to address today is one that defines our digital era in 2025. How to build and maintain trust in the online spaces that have become so central in our lives. The threats that we face are neither abstract nor distant. They include, for example, disinformation campaigns that consume elections, hate speech that spills from screens into the streets and real-world harms, and co-ordinated harassment that could silence marginalised voices. For a long time, the debate on how to tackle these issues have often revolved around inadequate solutions. But with time, the conversation has matured and we have now decisively moved away from relying solely on self-regulation by platforms into a more regulatory model. Around the world, the ground is shifting and we see, for example, the European Union’s Digital Services Act, which addresses systemic risks. We see in the United Kingdom, where I’m based, the Online Safety Act, which pioneers the idea of a duty of care. And we also see in countries in the global south, like Brazil, where the Supreme Court is currently reinterpreting intermediary liability within the Marco Civil da Internati. And what we are seeing emerge here is not only kind of a new approach to regulation, but kind of different approaches altogether, different strategies. And duty of care, which is the topic of our workshop today, is one of them. It represents a departure from traditional intermediary liability models, and rather than solely focusing on what platforms should keep up or take down, it asks what can platforms do to create and to promote a safer environment online. With this shift, there are new opportunities for new spaces for more stakeholders. And, for example, oversight institutions, fact-check organizations, civil society, and users have the opportunity to play new roles. And these are the things that we want to discuss with you today. But I think the crucial question motivating us in this debate is precisely what does adopting a duty of care approach to platform governance actually mean? This question sits at the center of a research project that I coordinate with my colleague Ivar Hartmann, which is funded by the British Academy, and it compares experiences in the UK and in Brazil. Last year, we hosted a multi-stakeholder workshop in Brazil to explore this question, and insights that were discussed led to a publication of a report early this year where you can find the main findings that we published. It is freely available, and I really encourage you to read and to download. And building on that discussion and building on the findings from this report, one of the key issues that we learned is the importance of learning from different jurisdictions, not only Brazil and the UK. and other actors also considering in terms of duty-of-care approaches to platform governance. And this led us to organize this workshop here today and we are very thankful to IGF for hosting us. Today we have five speakers that bring to the discussion something very valuable, which are real experiences from different continents, different countries, different regulatory environments to tell us a little bit more about what it means for a duty-of-care approach to be embedded in platform governance, in platform regulation. So we have representatives with more public sector experience, internet governance bodies, journalism and academia. So just rounding up this introduction and housekeeping for the session, we are going to start with a round-the-table session with each of the speakers, making their initial remarks for around seven minutes. They are going to introduce themselves and make their initial remarks in about seven minutes. And then I’m going to open the floor for discussion, for debate. I really hope that you can engage with us, make this a really engaging conversation and not only me talking to you or them talking at you. So thank you again for being here. Let’s begin. We have the first speaker today, Amelie. Amelie is online with us, joining from Germany, I believe. But Amelie, I’m going to give you the floor. You can introduce yourself and tell us a little bit more about the kind of European perspective to this issue. Thank you.

Amelie Heldt: Thank you. Thank you for having me. Do you hear me well? Yes. Okay, good. Yes, I’m joining from Germany online today, unfortunately. My name is Amelie Helz. I work at the German Federal Chancery, but I’m here today in my personal capacity and as an affiliated researcher with the Leibniz Institute for Media Research in Hamburg. And I’m happy to talk a little bit about the situation in Germany and in Europe just briefly, and then we can go into details later on. So the German situation is that we already have a general duty of care between contractual partners. That’s something that is in the BGB, our civil code here in Germany. And it’s something that has been used in the past to actually test terms and conditions of online platforms specifically also to see to what extent platforms can be bound by freedom of expression. So in the framework of a horizontal effect of freedom of expression. So that’s like the starting point that we had. Then as you’re probably or maybe aware, there was the ECOMOS directive here in Europe. That’s the predecessor law of the DSA. And Germany then adopted in 2017 a law called the Network Enforcement Act, the NetzDG, which obliged platforms to implement a system of notification for users so they could actually flag content as being illegal. Later on or now that we have the DSA, this obviously replaced the NetzDG. And in the DSA, we have much more duties, quite specific duties for platforms to act against illegal content. One thing that I would like to highlight today, what I think would be interesting for the discussion is the role of trusted flaggers under the DSA. Trusted flaggers are in Article 22 DSA. It’s, as you may be aware of, an instrument that has been used by platforms in the past. So we could assume it’s sort of a best practice of online platforms that has then been integrated into the Digital Services Act. And the Digital Services Act contains rules, meaning that the regime of trusted flaggers is the following. They can notify or they can flag content, but only illegal content. So they have to—or it’s under the provision of Article 16 DSA. And how do you become a trusted flagger? You will be—there will be a process of certification with the Digital Services Coordinator, and that’s the main public authority in charge of the Digital Services Act in the respective member state. The flaggers—well, they flag the content, and then there will be a speedy check by the platforms, which then decide whether they want to remove it or not, whether they think it’s illegal or not. So it’s kind of, you could say, a multi-stakeholder instrument. And as I mentioned, it was already in use before the DSA. USA. And the discussion that has been going on around this is the question how to evaluate actually the role of private actors in this sector that are the organizations that will be trusted flaggers under Article 22. In a way, or some people say they act on behalf of the state, so they can be considered state actors, which will change their legal status in a way that they would be bound by other rules and will be closer to state action. And that’s relevant for anything that goes against freedom of expression or against user content. There’s also the question how to deal with organizations that are mainly focused on a private interest, such as intellectual property, that’s often in a context that’s commercially used. So this is the big discussion. Obviously, it helps when it comes to hate speech because the removal will be more speedy. And that’s something that has been advocated for a long time. So I’m happy to dive a bit deeper into this use case later on. But what I wanted to highlight here is, to sum it up, is sort of the hybrid governance that we have here between a law like the Digital Services Act, that’s not only about platforms being compliant and the state in charge of reviewing their compliance, but also private actors, such as NGOs, also that can be funded by the state, taking an active role in the implementation of the DSA. And it makes the whole context more difficult, and it needs to be assessed carefully how to jungle with these new instruments. And it’s quite complicated to untangle the legal relationships between all these actors. So that’s quite specific. I’m happy to also talk about the DSA more generally, but I thought that could be interesting for our discussion.

Beatriz Kira: Thank you so much, Amelie. And it was a really good opening in terms of highlighting not only kind of what’s the model or the kind of the groundings of a bit of care domestically, but also kind of the supranational model of the DSA. And I think we are going to continue in some form of this kind of national and supranational perspective, but now bringing the perspective from South and Southeast Asia. So we have Janjira, who’s going to tell us a little bit more about that. So yes, the floor is yours.

Janjira Sombatpoonsiri: You hear me, yeah? Okay. Thanks so much for having me. And so my name is Janjira. I’m a political scientist working at the University in Thailand, Chulalongkorn University, and the German Institute for Global and Area Studies, based in Hamburg. And so over the past years, I’ve been doing research, collecting data on legal tools used to tackle these information problems in South and Southeast Asia. And at the same time in Thailand, we also survey experts’ views on the impact of disinformation on electoral integrity, social cohesion, and information integrity. And so before we jump right into the conversation about platforms’ duty of care, I just want to begin by sharing some preliminary findings from our survey from the project in Thailand. So the survey actually explores experts’ views, as I said, and we launched the surveys in four Southeast Asian countries, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and the Philippines. And what is so interesting is that the majority of respondents, around over 65 percent, expressed distrust in government regulatory frameworks. And I’m not really surprised, to be honest. Low trust in government’s genuine commitment to protecting citizens from online harms underpins public skepticism towards state-led regulation of platforms. And I think that’s why we kind of want to move forward to multi-stakeholder approach. And so I find the results quite telling, underscoring how political context shapes platform governance and, you know, the debate on platform governance. And I think when we discuss this issue, we have to look at various forms of threats that online users and citizens face. So it’s not only disinformation in Southeast Asia, but we also have trends in autocratization. And so the issue in the region isn’t whether governments can legislate, but whether they can enforce these laws in ways that uphold the rule of law and due process, right? And so public mistrust is further reinforced by the increasing misuse of such laws. And there are plenty of laws in the region to suppress freedom of expression, as seen in a host number of countries, including Thailand, where I’m from, Cambodia, and especially the Philippines under the Duterte administration. So online critics face harsh penalties, while platforms are pressured to remove politically sensitive content under the guise of combating disinformation. And so my point is, in practice, enforcement often becomes partisan, at least in Southeast Asia. And in the context where today’s opposition might be tomorrow’s government, these laws can be quite conveniently weaponized. My point is, while legal and regulatory tools are important, they are not a silver bullet. And I don’t know if this point would be considered contradictory to a lot of folks at the IGF, but my research shows that public preference leans toward not only a multi-stakeholder approach, but also greater synchronization across initiatives to improve the integrity of online information. And I like to call this approach a pluralist approach, which is slightly divergent from a multi-stakeholder approach, not completely new. So the approach includes not only regulatory frameworks grounded in platforms’ duty of care, but it also moves beyond the legal sphere to encourage participatory fact-checking, structured pre-banking efforts, and community moderation initiatives. So I’m just going to spend the last two and a half minutes giving you some illustrative examples of how this approach has been trialed in the region. I just remind you that each of the cases that we study doesn’t have the comprehensive package of this approach, right? And one example… The sample comes from each country, so it’s just quite fragmented still. Now, regarding the participatory fact-checking, in Malaysia, for example, after the repeal of the Anti-Fake News Act in 2018, journalists and civil society actors began advocating for the creation of the Malaysian Media Council, or the MMC, which is an independent self-regulatory body tasked with handling public complaints, countering disinformation, and engaging with tech companies. And in Myanmar, Thailand, and the Philippines, for example, civil society organizations have collaborated with platforms and parliamentary committees to flag accounts, I think actually an approach very similar to what the previous speakers suggested. So these CSOs have collaborated with platforms and parliamentary committees to flag accounts suspected of coordinating disinformation campaigns. So the idea is not only to flag and target false content, and I highlight content, but also to address a deeper political economic route of online influence operations, and to disrupt their financial incentives. Last but not least, the polarist approach helps ensure the regulatory frameworks are anchored in initiatives driven by broad-based segments of society. And this idea of a coalitional, a pluralist approach to platform governance is so important because at the end of the day, it’s about creating democratic legitimacy for such frameworks for society to adopt, accept, and pursue the goal of combating disinformation together. So I’ll stop here.

Beatriz Kira: Thank you so much, Njeri, and it was really interesting to hear how the relationship of trust between users and the government and users and platforms is now uniform across different settings, different jurisdictions, and how that informs also the governance arrangements, as you mentioned. So if we contrast with what Amelie was telling us about a more regulatory-driven effort, we heard from Njeri now a more civil society-driven, but similar in a way, trusted flagger participatory fact-checking initiative. Thank you so much. Wonderful. So we are going to move on to kind of a round-the-globe overview. We have now, to my right, Bia Barbosa from Brazil, who is going to introduce herself and talk a little bit about kind of the perspective from Brazil, and there’s a lot going on, so it is a challenging position to be in. In seven minutes. Yes. Thank you, Bia.

Bia Barbosa: Thank you so much, Beatriz, and Professor Rivar as well for the invitation for the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee to be here. I know that our member from the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee also helped to organize this activity, so thank you so much for everybody being here. I’m a journalist, and I’m speaking on behalf of a civil society where I belong to that’s called Communication Rights and Democracy, which is a member of a huge coalition, Rights in the Network coalition in Brazil that gathers more than 50 civil society organizations that struggles for different rights online, and a civil society representative of the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee. So I will begin, I’ll try to begin by summarizing a little bit the current state of discussions on due-to-health care in Brazil, focusing mainly on two different perspectives on the table, and then present the contributions that we have at the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, the CGI.br. The idea of due-to-health care began being discussed in Brazil based on the proposal by the government, inspired by the debates in the UK, which included this concept in the bill on transparency, freedom, and responsibility on the Internet. At that time, in 2023, the government’s proposal was to establish a due-to-health care for social media in relation to the circulation of illegal and harmful content that could promote hate speech, racism, violation of children’s rights, and attacks to the democratic rule of law. It’s important to remember that this happened shortly after an attempt of coup d’état that our country suffered after the far-right lost the elections at the end of 2002. As in the British Online Safety Act, social media would not be responsible for individual content, but rather for their responses to the general circulation of such content. At the same time, the bill spoke of the duty of companies to mitigate the systemic risks generated by their services. The presence of these two different concepts in different articles of the text, in my opinion, raised concerns that the proposed duty of care would result in practice in a change of the civil liability regime of platforms presupposing a duty of immediately removing such content in an automated manner. This position has been enforced by different government actors, including the contents of the trial currently taking place in the Brazilian Supreme Court. There are two cases under joint discussion. Today we should hear the opinion of the last justice on that, the 11th justice. The case is Analyze the Liability Regime for Intermediaries. This has been in place since 2014 under the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework, Marco Civil Internet in Brazil, which in its Article 19 states that application providers, all of them, and I will go a little bit further on that, can only be held liable for damage caused by third-party content if they disobey a court order to remove it. The Brazilian Supreme Court already has a majority of votes to change this regime, so eight votes for now out of 11 justices have been cast in this direction, and the content of duty of care has been cited many times, mentioned many times by the justices. What is still unclear by the votes is whether the court will… We are going to talk about how to completely change the liability regime and consider social media as publishers, equivalent to the media outlets, for example, responsible for everything that is published, or whether it would only apply to content, illegal, harmful, we don’t know, that must be proactively removed. As this is a case that deals precisely with civil liability, that is, liability for individual content and not just systemic risks, there is a reinforcement of this interpretation that the concept of duty of care is related to civil liability. And it is also unclear how the Supreme Court will ensure the implementation of its decision, considering that under Brazil law, civil liability must be determined by the courts, and also considering that Brazil does not have a regulatory authority or body to deal with this topic. That is why a significant part of civil society, including organizations that are part of the Rights on the Network coalition, which I belong to, has raised important concerns about the idea of duty of care, especially in light of abuses already committed by platforms that have unduly silenced the voices and struggles of minority groups in Brazil. In a context where they may become legally responsible for this content, there is no doubt that abuses will multiply, and if we are to have, as we hope, a slightly healthier environment in terms of the removal of illegal content, we will also have an environment in which critical voices, journalists and human rights activists and defenders will become even more victims of private censorship. That is why this part of civil society strongly advocates that Brazil move forward with regulation through the Parliament, which can prioritize the regulation of process, algorithms and content moderation mechanisms rather than individual content, in a perspective close to the concept of addressing the systemic risks of this service. We understand that Supreme Court ruling is important in a context where the Brazilian Parliament has been unable to make progress on this issue. The bill I mentioned before was blocked in 2023 by pressure from big tech companies in alliance with the far right that was anything but republican. However, depending on how the court concludes this trial, we may have a situation where this decision is not implemented or, even worse, a worrying impact on all application providers. This is why the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, which defends the constitutionality of the Article 19, precisely because it’s applicated to all providers, has prepared a technical note proposing a typology for application providers to assist the Supreme Court. This typology is based on the level of intervention of companies in distribution of third-party content and emphasizes the need to modulate the accountability of agents according to their functionalities, proposing appropriate and proportional liability. According to CGI’s technical note, the analysis of Article 19 should observe the following distinction. Application providers whose functionality does not interfere with the circulation of third-party content, those that operate in the Internet as a simple means of transport or storage, such as website hosting or email providers. A second typology would go for applications providers whose functionality has low interference with the circulation of third-party content, such as websites specializing in editing articles and entries. And application providers whose functionality has a high interference on the circulation of third-party content, potentially constituting a risky activity. This interference includes profiling, mass dissemination, algorithmic recommendation, micro-segmentation, strategies to continue engagement, paid content, targeted advertising, among others. So we believe that Supreme Court’s decision should apply to these providers, which are far from being neutral intermediaries. Finally, reinforcing the potential for multistakeholder construction of balanced and democratic regulatory proposals, I’d like to share that looking at the task assigned to the Brazilian Parliament, the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee has also launched a public consultation on principles for the regulation of social media. Three of these principles relate somehow to the idea of duty of care. The protection of freedom of expression, privacy and human rights online, the protection of information integrity, and prevention and harm in accountability. In this sense, and I’m finishing, I promise, in the sense CGI proposed for debate, the idea that social media should make their best effort to prevent and guard against potential harm arising from their activities, especially those arising from the circulation of content, understand that they are responsible for the harm arising from systemic risks inherent to the services provided, and should repair or mitigate them. Damage resulting from systemic risk is understood to be caused by network environment resulting from its policies of transparency, moderation, recommendation and content boosting. So thank you very much once again, and I’ll be happy to go further during the debate.

Beatriz Kira: Thank you so much, Bia. And I think it’s interesting to see how, in theory, the same concept of duty of care has been mobilized differently, not only across jurisdictions, but even within the same jurisdictions, by different kind of stakeholders. So the Supreme Court understanding and interpreting this from one perspective. perspective and more kind of linked to the idea of intermediary liability whereas the efforts that we see or have have saw in the power have seen in the past in terms of legislative efforts being more kind of the systemic approach in a way more similar to the UK and the EU and I think kind of in this in this tune and kind of how Parliament’s have been trying to kind of embed the idea of duty of care in legislation we are now joined online by Yvonne Chua who is going to bring us a perspective from the Philippines so Yvonne thank you so much for being with here with us here today I imagine it’s quite late for you so yes please go ahead and introduce yourself and you have the floor for your remarks thank you.

Yvonne Chua: Don’t worry it’s still evening early evening in the Philippines I’m Yvonne and I teach journalism at the University of the Philippines you know I’m really glad we’re having this conversation because in the Philippines we’ve been stuck for some time for years our lawmakers have been proposing to fight disinformation and online harm by focusing on punishing the users primarily tightening libel laws wrapping up cyber libel and proposing stiffer penalties but we’ve seen where the existing laws have led us citizens and journalists sued and even silenced and the platforms that enable virality amplification virtually untouched that’s why a report by a House or Congressional Tri-Committee released a few weeks ago feels like a turning point for the first time it explicitly recognizes that platforms have a duty of care and that duty can and should be regulated now just a bit of context the Cyber Crime Prevention Act in the Philippines combined with our colonial era libel law have put hundreds of citizens including journalists to libel libel is a crime in the Philippines and more than 3,800 cyber libel cases have been filed since 2012 when the law took effect this figure underscores the significant reliance on criminal libel as a tool against speech online and it doesn’t stop there we have the anti-terrorism law of 2020 for example widening the state’s surveillance powers and introducing dangerously vague speech restrictions so while we jail users no Philippine law holds platforms accountable that brings us to the House or Congressional Tri-Committee on public order information and communications technology and public information after months of hearing with government agencies academe the private sector fact checkers data scientists and and even influencers, the committee recently concluded, and let me quote, our putative toolkit is grossly inadequate and ill-equipped to counter well-funded disinformation ecosystems. The committee proposed something new, at least in the Philippines. Its 11 recommendations addressed three major themes, platform regulation and accountability, governance of oversight and ethics, and literacy and enforcement. In the interest of time, I’ll focus on those that are highly relevant to today’s conversation. First, the committee proposed a review and amendment of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 to explicitly define social media platforms, prescribe penalties for their participation in content-related offences and incorporate provisions on disclosure of data, parameters for auto-blocking of content and preservation and retention of data. In the case of access to platform data, this is really intended to address the problem when platforms keep refusing to accommodate requests for data by citing American laws, or US privacy laws in particular. Closely related to this is another committee recommendation to enact or pass a new law that would establish a comprehensive legal framework against false or harmful online content. It seeks to authorize government agencies to issue takedown, rectification and block access orders. Now, that’s the problem. While both recommendations emphasize intermediary obligations, the proposed provisions on content blocking or takedown could easily lead to overreach without clear limits. In the Philippines, a similar takedown clause in the Cybercrime Prevention Law was already struck down by our Supreme Court several years ago for bypassing judicial review. We don’t want to have Singapore’s POFMA in the Philippines. As worrisome is the franchise proposal. The Tri-Committee recommended that foreign platforms maintain an in-country office that can be held legally liable. No problem with that. and Yvonne Chua. And for that, it makes sense to clarify jurisdiction and ease enforcement. But the committee also recommended that platforms secure a congressional or legislative franchise, just like traditional broadcasters or certain public utilities, in order to operate in the country. This is deeply problematic. We’ve seen this before, when ABS-CBN, once our country’s largest radio and television network, lost its congressional franchise in 2020 because the allies of then-President Duterte refused to renew its franchise. It wasn’t about media standards. It was political retaliation. So franchising platforms risk turning speech regulation into a partisan weapon, and any accountability bill that includes a franchise requirement must guarantee ironclad due process and protection from political pressure, or better yet, just shelve the whole idea. I just want to point out that can platforms actually meet these obligations? The answer is, of course, yes. They’ve already shown us that they have the capacity. They’ve responded to crises, elections, and coordinated harm in the Philippines and elsewhere. When regulatory expectations are clear, just as they are in the EU, the UK, and several other countries, platforms adjust. They set up task forces, they take down harmful content, illegal content, and they would even tweak their algorithms. So where do we go from here in the Philippines? At noon of June 30, a new set of lawmakers will assume office. So the Tri-Committee’s work right now will be archived, but its findings certainly leave us a path. We can continue to criminalize users and chase trolls, or we can follow the path that it has pointed us to. And finally, hold platforms to account. Duty of care is not a silver bullet, but it shifts burden upstream where the harm begins. We’ve seen it work in other regions, in other countries. We’ve seen it can work here during elections and emergencies, but we need to build in safeguards. We need to make sure our laws protect free expression and human rights, even as we build a healthier, more trustworthy information space. Thank you.

Beatriz Kira: Thank you so much, Yvonne. I think it was heartening to hear from you in terms of how difficult the situation is not only in Brazil. So as you heard from Viva, kind of all the jurisdictions in the Philippines is a great example of kind of trying to kind of balance the very important goals of kind of promoting safety and trust while upholding freedom of expression and not really giving the government of the turn powers to kind of overstep and kind of interfere with this right. But also good to hear from you in terms of kind of, of course there are ways of doing that right, it’s a mix of kind of political will, collaboration, cooperation, compliance from the platforms but it’s not an easy task to put together the legislation or the regulation. Thank you very much for that and with this we’re moving to our final speaker for today, my colleague Ivar Hartmann who is going to bring a little bit more kind of the summary of the challenges that we heard today as we prepared the floor for questions. So just kind of let you know that after Ivar I’m going to open the floor for questions so you can start thinking about the questions you’re going to ask our speakers and you can pick up the different points and ask them to kind of unpack something, yes, so think of your questions while we hear Ivar’s presentation, Ivar the floor is yours.

Ivar Hartmann: Thank you Beatriz, thank you to our speakers who agreed to join us in this important yet complex discussion and thank you for everyone who is joining us in the conversation as well here on site and online. Different workshops and panels here at the IGF have different strategies to making sure that it’s actually a conversation, a debate and not just different people speaking in sort of an isolation, so our approach was that I’ll try to sum up obviously not 100% of all the important comments and contributions but connect, make an effort to connect the realities in all these four jurisdictions that were discussed here, trying to take a shot at interpreting the valuable information and lessons that we heard from all these. for jurisdictions. And I’ll do that by looking at this from two different perspectives. One is, what have been the challenges to creating and enforcing duty of care mechanisms and regulation in different jurisdictions? And what have been the concrete solutions that our speakers have shared with us, have been at least proposed, if not attempted, or have worked in these jurisdictions? One thing that I think unites, if not maybe, the European Union and the jurisdiction that Amélie so kindly talked to us about, but certainly unites Thailand, Philippines, and Brazil, is that there is a perception by civil society and many stakeholders that there is a delay by Congress to offer, to provide, to actually create a framework that will address these more pressing issues that maybe everyone knows about, how problematic this information is for at least 10 years. But the more current versions of this and how it operates, money trail, that sort of thing, that regulators in these countries have not been quick enough to adapt. That certainly has been the case in Brazil. As Beatriz has told us, basically, the main challenge is that because of the delay by Congress, as soon as the Brazilian Supreme Court steps up and strikes down the current rule for intermediary liability for platforms and offers in its place an unclear description of a duty of care supposed framework, that this will create a fear on platforms and therefore on its users that instead of the old regime, which was not strict liability, it was based on a trigger of there should be a court rule in order for a platform to be responsible for illegal content. In the first case, that court comes in, strikes down that rule, and then what’s left because of a void of Congress legislation, that what’s left is an unclear. framework, and that probably might lead in many cases to strict liability. The solution that is presented to this version of duty of care, which is obviously unwanted I think for everyone here, would be, as Beatriz has told us, a new bill that civil society is backing almost entirely, in its entirety, that would clearly separate types of providers and intermediaries based on their roles, so it should make clear, which is something that it seems the Supreme Court, creating its framework, will not do, separate cloud storage hosts from social media platforms to advertisers, a typology that would make predictable and safe for each company to understand what the law requires and then decide their course of action. Again, in the Philippines and in Thailand, it seems that civil society does not find the current frameworks as useful as they needed to be to ensure safe and protective online content moderation. It seems, as Janjira brought to our attention, a survey of four different Southeast Asian countries has shown that a majority of people distrust government regulatory frameworks, so merely creating a new law such as the DSA in the European Union is clearly not enough. She tells us of a pluralist approach, one that would ensure representation from all segments in society, creating roles, multi-stakeholder roles, embedded in this regulatory framework, because at the end of the day, it is about creating democratic legitimacy for content moderation, if I understood Janjira correctly. She tells us about citizen fact-checking. are working on a self-regulatory body tasked with engaging platforms and handling complaints. So there is an intermediary to the intermediaries and the government and the users. And to my understanding, it seems we have similar concerns also in the Philippines, as Yvonne has told us. It seems legislators have been stuck for many years. Overall, platforms are virtually untouched in either their failure to remove problematic content or when they over-censor. And she brings to us news of this important report by a congressional authority that is basically identifying one of the biggest problems with a version of duty of care framework or government framework, which is the excessive or, let’s say, undue use of government oversight in such a framework, whereby government, as in the past in the Philippines, she tells us has happened, would actually retaliate against digital platforms by forcing them to remove content that’s actually not illegal. So the solution then, the concrete solution, would be to guarantee in the law due process, to also guarantee access to platform data, to do a full review of cybercrime law, to avoid interpretations of libel laws that would mean legal content gets removed, even though it’s legal just under the guise of alleged defamation. And lastly, that would prevent against content blocking that is an overreach by platforms. So in summary, I think there are, of course, not identical challenges, but challenges in these platforms. These four jurisdictions that are very similar in their roots, because as we know, the problematic business model is a worldwide business model of algorithmic recommendation and advertising. And the solutions are not exactly the same. And so the DSA, to the challenge, as Amélie has brought to us, to the challenge of the question of if you have a duty of care framework and you hope that civil society does fact-checking as well and identifies hate speech as well, well then how do you figure out who becomes a flagger or a trusted flagger? How do you evaluate the role of private actors who take on this important task? Are they a state authority now or can they, for the purposes of the law, be considered a state representative? Because that would mean state action that restricts freedom of speech and so this has immense consequences. And so the solution there has been in the DSA and obviously we don’t have many, many years of enforcement yet, but we have some time of enforcement and just to finalize, and I think this is an important place to end because this is where it’s perhaps most advanced in terms of how far the implementation is going. Government certification for these flaggers such that there are rules on the DSA obviously, as Amélie has told us, that decide, that establish what needs to happen, what are the rules for someone or a private entity to become a trusted flagger so that we can avoid abuse whenever very specific commercial private interests are involved. Once again, lastly, just thank you to our four speakers and I apologize for any misinterpretation that I might have made here.

Beatriz Kira: Thank you so much, Ivar. I’m going to comment and continue the discussion, but I know that we have key members of the audience that want to ask questions. So I’m going to open the floor for questions on-site and online as well. So please, if you’re online and want to ask a question, use the chat function and then we’re going to be monitoring that. And for people in the room, there is a mic to my left-hand side. So we already have one question, two questions from the floor. Let’s take them in rounds, perhaps. Is that okay? Can you please start with your name and your organization? And let’s try to kind of make the most of this with kind of more quick questions with a question mark at the end. Thank you.

Audience: Thanks. I’m David Sullivan from the Digital Trust and Safety Partnership. We work with companies on best practices and standards for trust and safety. My question for all the speakers is how are the different legal frameworks that have been presented defining systemic risks? And how do you approach trying to identify risks that are not illegal content, but somehow would not wind up restricting access to information and freedom of expression? Thanks. Excellent question. Thank you. Yes, we have another one from the floor. I’m Baron Soka, Tech Freedom. I run a think tank based in the U.S. But I’m really here to thank you for focusing on the potential for abuse. I’m glad we’re talking about that. I would suggest that when it comes to franchising, there are no due process safeguards that could ever make franchising or licensing safe. We’ve seen how governments around the world use franchising and licensing to extort whatever they can get from the licensees. My question is when should we have confidence in due process protections? And what kinds of due process protections do we think will actually work in the face of increasingly lawless governments? The Trump administration clearly doesn’t care. They’ll run roughshod over whatever due process requirements are in place. I’ll give you two concrete examples to maybe frame your question. I have a couple of questions about my question. One, Article 73.2 in the Digital Services Act, I think, doesn’t get enough attention. It says that before the commission can issue a finding of liability, it has to explicitly say what the platform should have done or should now do. So I’d like to hear your thoughts about that as a due process safeguard. And then just to close, in the United States, we’ve had this debate over the Kids Online Safety Act. Republicans have been very clear that they think the bill will be weaponized against transgender content. The bill’s Democratic sponsors think that the safeguards they’ve put in place are adequate. I don’t think so. I want to know what kinds of safeguards, concretely, you think would be adequate to ensure that duties of care can’t be used against particular kinds of content.

Beatriz Kira: Thank you so much.

Audience: Yeah, hi, Brianna. I have a very similar question. Recently, we have done a huge study on the implementation or alignment with the DSA in the EU candidate countries. And it actually turned out, and something that is actually my question, maybe shifting the focus here a bit, but also, like, I understand completely the relevance of due care of platforms, but I also want to kind of shift the focus back to the duty of care of the states. And the previous colleague actually asked more about the safeguards. I’m really curious, because the DSA itself does not have these safeguards for the rule of law and due diligence. So I want to understand better whether your research in your respective countries and the legislative examples actually can provide us some more understanding of the due care of the states when implementing these laws to prevent any forms of abuse that will actually be detrimental not only to the citizens, but broadly, like, democratic setting, right? Leaving aside, for now, the platforms and how it will affect their business models.

Beatriz Kira: Thank you so much.

Audience: Hi, I’m Yuzhe. I worked at one of the social media platforms at legal council before. So what we see, there’s a lot of progress in regulation. I have a feeling that some issues with the platform governance that touched or caused by the core business model of these platforms, like the attention-grabbing platform, such as, for example, endless scrolling, for example, there’s some features that are really exploiting our dofamine system and cause excessive use and addiction, and I didn’t see their current regulation touch much on these kind of core issues, so I’m curious if there’s any thought from panelists, what’s the direction of resolving these issues or addressing these challenges?

Beatriz Kira: Thank you. I’m going to close the floor after the tall gentleman over there, so, yes, last two questions.

Audience: Hi, Andrew Camping, I’m a trustee with the Internet Watch Foundation, but I’m not speaking for them. Firstly, I think it’s really encouraging to hear this discussion, and that there’s at least an appetite for some action in this space when you consider the immense harm that approaches like Section 230 in the States are doing around the world, so this at least shows hope with appropriate guardrails, as the speakers have touched on. My question, though, is an aspect of it that you perhaps haven’t mentioned, which is, I believe that a general duty of care on platforms provides a lot of promise to cover new technological developments which otherwise have to be explicitly mentioned in legislation, and various sessions already this week have talked about how does legislation keep up with the pace of new developments. I think a general duty of care, in my view, is a way of doing that, putting the onus on the platforms to show appropriate risk assessment. Thank you very much for your time and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this as well. DSA enforcement has become very geopolitically contentious under the Trump administration and I was wondering that in developing regulation in other parts of the world, this is something that is playing a part as well. DSA enforcement has become very geopolitically contentious under the Trump administration and I was wondering that in developing regulation in other parts of the world, this is something that is playing a part as well. Whether you guys feel pressure to align your social media regulation a little bit with the US administration’s take on that, so thanks a lot.

Beatriz Kira: Thank you so much. We have a wide range of questions. Please don’t feel compelled to all of you to answer all of them. You’re very welcome to pick and choose. I’m going to give each panelist, each speaker, two minutes and please stick to two minutes so we can hear from everyone. I know it’s challenging. But again, pick your favourite one or your couple of favourites and let’s start in the same order that we had the panel. Maybe Amélie Heldt, you can start with your two minutes and make this kind of also the closing remarks. We can hear you.

Amelie Heldt: Yes, can you hear me? Okay, now. Yes, okay, good. Yes, so there are many questions regarding the systemic risk definition. It’s a tricky one. There is a legal definition in Article 34 DSA. However, I mean, this is only one side or one, of course, the definition of the legislature. There are whole PhDs being written on that matter now that I can’t sort of sum up here. I think it’s something we have to look at quite intensively. Also, in the context of the second question regarding safeguards, because anything that is not clearly defined can then also be misused. And there’s a very thin line here that can be crossed. I’d like to address the question of the business model, which I think is a very relevant one. The Digital Services Act actually contains a lot of rules regarding content moderation mainly. And then there is the Digital Markets Act that addresses the market power of big tech, basically. But there is actually no rule that really goes at the core of the business model of social media platforms. That’s why there’s a discussion at the European Parliament right now on a Digital Fairness Act or an act that would actually look closer at addictive design of online platforms or of apps. But that’s very much under discussion and it’s difficult. And that bridges or goes to the last question in the actual context where there’s a lot of legislation coming out of Europe and of the EU. And we are thriving to not only be the regulators but also to develop tech ourselves. And so a lot of people are asking for less regulation. So I’m not sure we’ll see much more regulation in that space over the next month. We have to start implementing what we have right now first.

Beatriz Kira: Thank you. Thank you so much, Amélie. And thank you for sticking to a couple of minutes. Ginger, the floor is yours.

Janjira Sombatpoonsiri: All right. So many great questions. I’ll just speak broadly because of the two-minute limit. Now, I think there are two issues here I want to address. One is risks, right? In Southeast Asia and specifically the ASEAN, I mean, the sort of collective efforts to curb disinformation is very limited, unlike the EU. So far, there are limited frameworks to govern platforms together. Individually, in each country, there are different definitions of what poses risk in online space, in platforms. And that can get tricky because these notions can be very vague. In nonpolitical issues like public health, child pornography, gambling, violent graphics, these can be clearly identified and agreed on across different countries. But when it comes to political issues, each country comes up with its own identification or definition of what constitutes risk. And this, again, varies across political contexts. In Thailand, and I think we would go to the Philippines as well, Cambodia, Vietnam, the notion of anti-state, the notion of defamation of political elites are part of risk in online system. And therefore, it leads to abuse by state actors. to impose laws supposed to curb disinformation. So I think the definition when it comes to a collective identification of what constitutes risk is still fragmented in the region and I think it leaves room for politicization. Now… Oh, that’s it. Okay.

Beatriz Kira: That’s it. I mean, hold a thought because we can kind of follow up during lunch maybe, if you want to join us. Yes. Via, please.

Bia Barbosa: Yeah, I’m not going further on the problem of the lack of definition because I think it’s everywhere and not only regarding duty of care, but regarding risk assessment, systemic risks and everything. So this is one of a pretty important step of regulation that has to be debated and has to consider each situation and the context of each country. Regarding the due process, the provision that we had regarding due process in the Brazilian Bill on Transparency and Responsibility of Internet had to do with the right to information about moderation of each one content and the right to appeal to that moderation. I think that it’s at least something that we have to guarantee in any regulation that deals with social media platforms. And there are risks, but clearly I think that the situation now is not working. We have pretty much evidence on the negative impact. It’s enormous. So, of course, each country needs to consider its own reality, including the strength or the weakness of its democratic institutions to propose, determine specific things. But one way that I think that could help regulators to not abuse their power is to make this a multi-stakeholder process. Brazil has models of deliberative councils that establish rules for the implementations of law or public policies. So that’s why we, as a civil society perspective in Brazil, not the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee in general, because we have not arrived at that point, we understand that any Brazilian authority that takes on this task must necessarily have a multi-stakeholder body to ensure the protection of freedom of expression and the quality of the implementation of the law, independently of the governments in power.

Beatriz Kira: Wonderful. Thank you so much. I think to close us, Yvonne, you have the floor to answer questions and final remarks in a couple of minutes. Thank you.

Yvonne Chua: Yeah, this is so difficult. I know, I’m sorry. We don’t really have a definition, we really don’t have a definition of systemic risk. And I wouldn’t be surprised if our lawmakers would be looking to the EU’s Digital Services Act for inspiration, but you know, they really have to because our lawmakers are really so bad at defining things, including fake news, which is broadly and crudely defined, and it was a revelation during the congressional hearings that, you know, academics, fact-checkers, and everyone had to take time out just to explain to them the difference between misinformation, disinformation, and mal-information. It took like hours just to get the terminology right. As far as due process is concerned, things get so messed up in the Philippines, especially with the implementation of laws, and that’s why we’re very grateful that we have a strong independent judiciary that we can, you know, rely on whenever things get rough. About the general duty of care for platforms, the provision, this is really something that the Tri-Committee is trying to work towards, because the recommendations cover not only existing problems, but also AI and emerging technologies. So perhaps a well-crafted legal framework would be able to address that.

Beatriz Kira: Thank you. Thank you so much, and thank you. I just wanted to see if Iva wants some comments in one minute. I have less than others, but yes, just take the moment to thank everyone for participating. I do want to take on the questions about general duty of care, specific duties from the gentleman from IWF, but we can do it offline. So for the time being, we can please join me in thanking our panellists, our speakers and members of the audience for your engagement. We do hope to continue this conversation around duty of care and platform governance. I mean, I’m speaking on my behalf, and perhaps Iva’s, as we continue to work in our research projects. But I think, and I’m pleased. Please correct me if I’m wrong, all the panellists are also going to be looking at issues around platform governance and regulation and duty of care, so reach out to us if you want to continue this conversation in your other spaces, and thank you IJF for having us. Have a really good afternoon and see you next time. Phoebe, Amélie, and can you stay for one minute so we can take a photo? Yeah, stay online, we can have a photo of the panel. Thank you. Good Morning, welcome to Ivar’s Gap Kitchen! Best bread Straßenburg will Taylor next! Bye!

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder governance approach is essential for legitimate platform regulation

Speakers

– Amelie Heldt
– Janjira Sombatpoonsiri
– Bia Barbosa

Arguments

Hybrid governance model combining DSA compliance with private actors like NGOs taking active roles in implementation creates complex legal relationships

Multi-stakeholder approach with greater synchronization across initiatives is preferred over purely regulatory solutions due to public distrust in government frameworks

Civil society advocates for multi-stakeholder regulatory bodies to prevent abuse and protect freedom of expression regardless of government in power

Summary

All three speakers emphasize that effective platform governance requires involvement of multiple stakeholders including civil society, NGOs, and private actors, rather than relying solely on government regulation or platform self-regulation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Sociocultural

Current regulatory frameworks are inadequate and need comprehensive reform

Speakers

– Janjira Sombatpoonsiri
– Bia Barbosa
– Yvonne Chua
– Ivar Hartmann

Arguments

Over 65% of experts in Southeast Asian survey expressed distrust in government regulatory frameworks due to autocratization trends

Supreme Court is changing intermediary liability regime with unclear duty of care framework, creating concerns about strict liability and private censorship

Existing cybercrime and libel laws have led to over 3,800 cases since 2012 while platforms remain virtually untouched

Delay by Congress in multiple jurisdictions has led to unclear frameworks and potential for abuse

Summary

Speakers agree that existing regulatory approaches have failed to adequately address platform governance challenges, with laws either being too weak to hold platforms accountable or too broad and leading to abuse of user rights

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Risk of government overreach and weaponization of platform regulation laws

Speakers

– Janjira Sombatpoonsiri
– Bia Barbosa
– Yvonne Chua

Arguments

Enforcement often becomes partisan with laws weaponized against opposition voices under guise of combating disinformation

Concerns about platforms becoming legally responsible leading to increased private censorship of minority groups and activists

Franchising platforms risks turning speech regulation into partisan weapon, as seen with ABS-CBN case under Duterte administration

Summary

All three speakers from developing countries share concerns about how platform regulation can be misused by governments to suppress opposition voices and silence minority groups, emphasizing the need for strong safeguards

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for differentiated approaches to platform regulation that distinguish between different types of providers and focus on platform accountability rather than user criminalization

Speakers

– Bia Barbosa
– Yvonne Chua

Arguments

Typology of application providers based on level of interference with content circulation is needed for proportional liability

Platform regulation should focus on disclosure requirements, data access, and comprehensive legal framework rather than just user punishment

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Both speakers support systems that involve civil society organizations in content moderation processes, though through different mechanisms – formal certification in the EU versus collaborative approaches in Southeast Asia

Speakers

– Amelie Heldt
– Janjira Sombatpoonsiri

Arguments

Trusted flaggers system under DSA Article 22 allows certified organizations to flag illegal content for speedy platform review

Pluralist approach including participatory fact-checking, pre-bunking efforts, and community moderation creates democratic legitimacy

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural | Human rights

Both recognize that platforms have the technical capacity to implement changes but current regulations fail to address fundamental business model problems that drive harmful behaviors

Speakers

– Yvonne Chua
– Audience

Arguments

Platforms have demonstrated capacity to respond to crises and adjust when regulatory expectations are clear

Current regulations don’t adequately address core business model issues like attention-grabbing features and addictive design

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

Trust deficit in government-led regulation across different political systems

Speakers

– Janjira Sombatpoonsiri
– Bia Barbosa
– Yvonne Chua

Arguments

Over 65% of experts in Southeast Asian survey expressed distrust in government regulatory frameworks due to autocratization trends

Civil society advocates for multi-stakeholder regulatory bodies to prevent abuse and protect freedom of expression regardless of government in power

Franchising platforms risks turning speech regulation into partisan weapon, as seen with ABS-CBN case under Duterte administration

Explanation

Despite representing different countries with varying political systems (Thailand, Brazil, Philippines), all three speakers independently identified similar patterns of government overreach and public distrust in state-led platform regulation, suggesting this is a global rather than region-specific challenge

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Need for systemic rather than content-focused approaches to platform governance

Speakers

– Amelie Heldt
– Bia Barbosa
– Yvonne Chua

Arguments

DSA addresses systemic risks but questions remain about evaluating private actors’ roles in content moderation

Brazilian Internet Steering Committee proposes principles focusing on systemic risks from network environment policies rather than individual content

Congressional Tri-Committee report represents turning point by explicitly recognizing platforms have duty of care that can be regulated

Explanation

Speakers from very different regulatory contexts (EU, Brazil, Philippines) converged on the importance of addressing systemic risks and platform design rather than focusing solely on individual content decisions, indicating a global shift in thinking about platform governance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around the need for multi-stakeholder governance approaches, the inadequacy of current regulatory frameworks, and concerns about government overreach. Speakers also agreed on the importance of addressing systemic risks rather than just individual content, and the need for differentiated approaches to different types of platforms.

Consensus level

High level of consensus on fundamental principles despite representing different jurisdictions and regulatory contexts. This suggests these challenges are global in nature and that there are emerging best practices that transcend regional differences. The implications are significant as it indicates potential for international cooperation and learning across jurisdictions in developing more effective platform governance frameworks.

Different viewpoints

Role of government vs. multi-stakeholder approach in platform regulation

Speakers

– Amelie Heldt
– Janjira Sombatpoonsiri
– Bia Barbosa

Arguments

Hybrid governance model combining DSA compliance with private actors like NGOs taking active roles in implementation creates complex legal relationships

Multi-stakeholder approach with greater synchronization across initiatives is preferred over purely regulatory solutions due to public distrust in government frameworks

Civil society advocates for multi-stakeholder regulatory bodies to prevent abuse and protect freedom of expression regardless of government in power

Summary

Amelie presents the EU’s hybrid model as a working solution with government certification of trusted flaggers, while Janjira argues for a pluralist approach due to distrust in government frameworks in Southeast Asia. Bia supports multi-stakeholder bodies but within a regulatory framework to prevent government abuse.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Sociocultural

Approach to intermediary liability and duty of care implementation

Speakers

– Bia Barbosa
– Yvonne Chua

Arguments

Supreme Court is changing intermediary liability regime with unclear duty of care framework, creating concerns about strict liability and private censorship

Congressional Tri-Committee report represents turning point by explicitly recognizing platforms have duty of care that can be regulated

Summary

Bia expresses strong concerns about Brazil’s Supreme Court creating unclear duty of care frameworks that could lead to over-censorship, while Yvonne views the Philippines’ Congressional recognition of platform duty of care as a positive turning point.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Unexpected differences

Effectiveness of regulatory vs. civil society approaches

Speakers

– Amelie Heldt
– Janjira Sombatpoonsiri

Arguments

Hybrid governance model combining DSA compliance with private actors like NGOs taking active roles in implementation creates complex legal relationships

Multi-stakeholder approach with greater synchronization across initiatives is preferred over purely regulatory solutions due to public distrust in government frameworks

Explanation

Unexpectedly, the EU representative (Amelie) presents a more government-integrated approach while the Southeast Asian representative (Janjira) advocates for approaches that bypass government frameworks entirely. This reverses typical expectations about regulatory approaches in developed vs. developing regions.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement center on the appropriate balance between government regulation and multi-stakeholder approaches, the implementation of duty of care frameworks, and the level of trust in government institutions to fairly enforce platform governance.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications. While speakers agree on the need for platform accountability, their different political and regulatory contexts lead to fundamentally different approaches. This suggests that duty of care implementation will likely vary significantly across jurisdictions based on local trust in institutions and democratic governance quality.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for differentiated approaches to platform regulation that distinguish between different types of providers and focus on platform accountability rather than user criminalization

Speakers

– Bia Barbosa
– Yvonne Chua

Arguments

Typology of application providers based on level of interference with content circulation is needed for proportional liability

Platform regulation should focus on disclosure requirements, data access, and comprehensive legal framework rather than just user punishment

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Both speakers support systems that involve civil society organizations in content moderation processes, though through different mechanisms – formal certification in the EU versus collaborative approaches in Southeast Asia

Speakers

– Amelie Heldt
– Janjira Sombatpoonsiri

Arguments

Trusted flaggers system under DSA Article 22 allows certified organizations to flag illegal content for speedy platform review

Pluralist approach including participatory fact-checking, pre-bunking efforts, and community moderation creates democratic legitimacy

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural | Human rights

Both recognize that platforms have the technical capacity to implement changes but current regulations fail to address fundamental business model problems that drive harmful behaviors

Speakers

– Yvonne Chua
– Audience

Arguments

Platforms have demonstrated capacity to respond to crises and adjust when regulatory expectations are clear

Current regulations don’t adequately address core business model issues like attention-grabbing features and addictive design

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

Duty of care approaches to platform governance are being implemented differently across jurisdictions, with some focusing on intermediary liability (Brazil’s Supreme Court) while others emphasize systemic risk management (EU DSA, UK approach)

Multi-stakeholder governance models are preferred over purely regulatory solutions due to widespread public distrust in government frameworks, particularly in Southeast Asia where over 65% of experts distrust government regulation

The shift from self-regulation to regulatory models represents a fundamental change in platform governance, moving from content-focused approaches to systemic risk and process-oriented regulation

Trusted flagger systems and participatory fact-checking initiatives show promise as hybrid governance mechanisms that involve civil society in content moderation processes

Legislative delays in multiple jurisdictions have created regulatory voids that courts are filling with unclear frameworks, potentially leading to unintended consequences like strict liability or private censorship

Platform capacity for compliance exists when regulatory expectations are clear, as demonstrated during elections and emergencies, but implementation requires careful balance between safety and freedom of expression

Resolutions and action items

Brazilian Internet Steering Committee launched public consultation on principles for social media regulation with three key areas: protection of freedom of expression, information integrity, and harm prevention

Brazilian Internet Steering Committee prepared technical note proposing typology for application providers to assist Supreme Court in modulating accountability based on functionality and level of content interference

Philippines Congressional Tri-Committee issued 11 recommendations addressing platform regulation, governance oversight, and literacy enforcement as comprehensive framework

Continued research collaboration between UK and Brazil through British Academy-funded project comparing duty of care experiences across jurisdictions

Unresolved issues

Lack of clear definitions for ‘systemic risk’ across jurisdictions creates uncertainty and potential for abuse in implementation

Uncertainty about legal status of private actors serving as trusted flaggers – whether they constitute state actors bound by freedom of expression requirements

How to prevent weaponization of duty of care frameworks by governments for political retaliation, particularly regarding franchising requirements for platforms

Inadequate regulatory frameworks to address core business model issues like addictive design features, endless scrolling, and attention-grabbing mechanisms

Geopolitical tensions around DSA enforcement under Trump administration and pressure to align regulations with US positions

How to maintain democratic legitimacy and due process protections in increasingly polarized political environments

Fragmented approaches to defining what constitutes ‘risk’ in online spaces, particularly for political content across different countries

Suggested compromises

Typology-based approach for platform regulation that differentiates between providers based on their level of interference with content circulation (simple transport/storage vs. algorithmic recommendation systems)

Multi-stakeholder regulatory bodies that include civil society representation to prevent government abuse while maintaining oversight capabilities

Hybrid governance models combining legal frameworks with private sector best practices, such as trusted flagger systems with government certification processes

Focus on procedural requirements (transparency, appeals processes, data access) rather than content-specific mandates to balance safety with freedom of expression

Pluralist approach combining regulatory frameworks with participatory fact-checking, community moderation, and civil society initiatives to create democratic legitimacy

Due process safeguards including explicit requirements for platforms to understand their obligations before liability findings, as seen in DSA Article 73.2

The majority of respondents, around over 65 percent, expressed distrust in government regulatory frameworks… Low trust in government’s genuine commitment to protecting citizens from online harms underpins public skepticism towards state-led regulation of platforms.

Speaker

Janjira Sombatpoonsiri

Reason

This comment introduced crucial empirical evidence that challenged the assumption that government regulation is universally welcomed as a solution to platform governance issues. It revealed a fundamental tension between the need for regulation and public trust in regulators, particularly in contexts with histories of authoritarian overreach.

Impact

This insight reframed the entire discussion by highlighting that the effectiveness of duty of care frameworks depends not just on their design, but on the political context and public trust. It led other speakers to address similar trust deficits in their jurisdictions and influenced the conversation toward multi-stakeholder approaches as alternatives to purely state-led regulation.

I like to call this approach a pluralist approach, which is slightly divergent from a multi-stakeholder approach… it’s about creating democratic legitimacy for such frameworks for society to adopt, accept, and pursue the goal of combating disinformation together.

Speaker

Janjira Sombatpoonsiri

Reason

This comment was intellectually provocative because it distinguished between multi-stakeholder approaches (which are widely discussed in internet governance) and a ‘pluralist approach,’ introducing a more nuanced framework that emphasizes democratic legitimacy and broad-based societal participation rather than just including different stakeholder categories.

Impact

This conceptual distinction elevated the theoretical sophistication of the discussion and influenced later speakers, particularly Bia Barbosa, to emphasize multi-stakeholder deliberative councils as essential safeguards against regulatory abuse. It shifted the conversation from technical implementation details to fundamental questions of democratic governance.

The presence of these two different concepts in different articles of the text… raised concerns that the proposed duty of care would result in practice in a change of the civil liability regime of platforms presupposing a duty of immediately removing such content in an automated manner.

Speaker

Bia Barbosa

Reason

This comment was insightful because it identified a critical gap between theoretical policy intentions and practical implementation outcomes. It highlighted how the same concept (duty of care) can be interpreted and implemented in fundamentally different ways within the same jurisdiction, leading to unintended consequences.

Impact

This observation introduced a crucial analytical framework that distinguished between systemic risk approaches and individual content liability approaches. It influenced the moderator’s summary comments about how ‘the same concept of duty of care has been mobilized differently, not only across jurisdictions, but even within the same jurisdictions, by different kind of stakeholders.’

We’ve seen this before, when ABS-CBN, once our country’s largest radio and television network, lost its congressional franchise in 2020 because the allies of then-President Duterte refused to renew its franchise. It wasn’t about media standards. It was political retaliation.

Speaker

Yvonne Chua

Reason

This concrete historical example was particularly powerful because it demonstrated how seemingly neutral regulatory mechanisms (franchising requirements) can become tools of political retaliation. It provided empirical evidence for abstract concerns about regulatory capture and abuse.

Impact

This example significantly influenced the Q&A session, with Baron Soka directly referencing it in his question about due process safeguards, stating ‘when it comes to franchising, there are no due process safeguards that could ever make franchising or licensing safe.’ It shifted the discussion toward concrete examples of regulatory abuse and the practical limitations of procedural safeguards.

There’s also the question how to deal with organizations that are mainly focused on a private interest, such as intellectual property, that’s often in a context that’s commercially used… it makes the whole context more difficult, and it needs to be assessed carefully how to jungle with these new instruments.

Speaker

Amelie Heldt

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it identified an underexplored tension within trusted flagger systems – the risk that commercial interests might capture supposedly neutral content moderation processes. It highlighted the complexity of hybrid governance arrangements where private actors take on quasi-governmental roles.

Impact

This observation influenced Ivar Hartmann’s synthesis, where he emphasized the challenge of determining ‘if private entities become trusted flaggers, are they state authorities now?’ It contributed to a more sophisticated understanding of the blurred boundaries between public and private authority in platform governance.

I have a feeling that some issues with the platform governance that touched or caused by the core business model of these platforms, like the attention-grabbing platform… I didn’t see their current regulation touch much on these kind of core issues.

Speaker

Yuzhe (audience member)

Reason

This question was particularly insightful because it challenged the entire premise of the discussion by suggesting that duty of care approaches might be addressing symptoms rather than root causes. It highlighted the potential inadequacy of content-focused regulation when the fundamental business model incentivizes harmful design.

Impact

This question prompted Amelie to acknowledge a significant limitation: ‘there is actually no rule that really goes at the core of the business model of social media platforms.’ It revealed a fundamental gap in current regulatory approaches and suggested that duty of care frameworks, while important, may be insufficient without addressing underlying economic incentives.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by introducing three critical analytical frameworks: (1) the importance of political context and trust in determining regulatory effectiveness, (2) the distinction between theoretical policy intentions and practical implementation outcomes, and (3) the tension between addressing symptoms versus root causes in platform governance. The comments collectively moved the conversation from a technical discussion of regulatory mechanisms to a more sophisticated analysis of power dynamics, democratic legitimacy, and systemic limitations. They revealed that duty of care approaches, while promising, face significant challenges related to political capture, definitional ambiguity, and the fundamental misalignment between platform business models and public interest goals. The discussion evolved from presenting different national approaches to identifying common underlying tensions that transcend jurisdictional boundaries.

How are the different legal frameworks defining systemic risks and how do you approach trying to identify risks that are not illegal content but somehow would not wind up restricting access to information and freedom of expression?

Speaker

David Sullivan from the Digital Trust and Safety Partnership

Explanation

This is crucial for understanding how different jurisdictions operationalize duty of care without overreaching into legitimate speech

When should we have confidence in due process protections and what kinds of due process protections will actually work in the face of increasingly lawless governments?

Speaker

Baron Soka from Tech Freedom

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental challenge of creating safeguards that can withstand political abuse and authoritarian tendencies

What are the thoughts on Article 73.2 in the Digital Services Act as a due process safeguard, which requires the commission to explicitly say what the platform should have done before issuing a finding of liability?

Speaker

Baron Soka from Tech Freedom

Explanation

This explores specific mechanisms within existing legislation that could serve as models for due process protection

What kinds of safeguards would be adequate to ensure that duties of care can’t be used against particular kinds of content, such as transgender content?

Speaker

Baron Soka from Tech Freedom

Explanation

This addresses the risk of duty of care being weaponized against marginalized communities and specific types of content

What understanding can research provide about the duty of care of states when implementing platform governance laws to prevent abuse that would be detrimental to citizens and democratic settings?

Speaker

Brianna (audience member)

Explanation

This shifts focus from platform obligations to state responsibilities and the need for safeguards in how governments implement and enforce these laws

What is the direction for resolving issues caused by core business models of platforms, such as attention-grabbing features like endless scrolling that exploit dopamine systems and cause addiction?

Speaker

Yuzhe (former platform legal counsel)

Explanation

This addresses whether current regulations adequately tackle the fundamental design features that create harm, beyond just content moderation

How does a general duty of care on platforms provide promise to cover new technological developments without having to explicitly mention them in legislation?

Speaker

Andrew Camping from Internet Watch Foundation

Explanation

This explores whether duty of care frameworks can be future-proof and adaptable to emerging technologies like AI

Whether jurisdictions feel pressure to align their social media regulation with the US administration’s approach, given that DSA enforcement has become geopolitically contentious under the Trump administration?

Speaker

Audience member (unnamed)

Explanation

This examines how geopolitical tensions and US policy changes might influence regulatory approaches in other countries

How to evaluate the role of private actors (trusted flaggers) and whether they should be considered state actors when they take on content moderation responsibilities?

Speaker

Amelie Heldt

Explanation

This addresses the complex legal relationships in hybrid governance models and the implications for freedom of expression

How to ensure regulatory frameworks have democratic legitimacy and broad societal acceptance through multi-stakeholder approaches?

Speaker

Janjira Sombatpoonsiri

Explanation

This explores how to build public trust and legitimacy in platform governance frameworks, especially in contexts where government trust is low

How will the Brazilian Supreme Court ensure implementation of its decision on intermediary liability, considering Brazil lacks a regulatory authority for this topic?

Speaker

Bia Barbosa

Explanation

This addresses the practical challenges of enforcement when judicial decisions create new obligations without corresponding regulatory infrastructure

How to create ironclad due process protections for platform franchising requirements, or whether franchising should be abandoned entirely?

Speaker

Yvonne Chua

Explanation

This examines whether legislative franchising of platforms can ever be made safe from political abuse, given historical examples of retaliation

Summary

This discussion focused on disability leadership in internet governance, examining how to move beyond tokenistic representation to meaningful participation of persons with disabilities in digital policy-making spaces. The roundtable workshop, moderated by Muhammad Shabbir at the Internet Governance Forum 2025, brought together practitioners, researchers, and advocates to analyze current achievements and identify future strategies for inclusive internet governance.

Vint Cerf opened the session by emphasizing that accessibility is a high priority and the internet should truly be for everyone, noting that universal design benefits all users, not just those with disabilities. Gunela Astbrink discussed how global frameworks like WSIS+20 and the Global Digital Compact are incorporating disability inclusion language, but stressed the need to move from policy to implementation, citing the Internet Society’s accessibility framework as a successful case study.

Sarah Armstrong from the Internet Society Foundation outlined their philanthropic efforts, including disability-focused grant programs, accessibility training courses, and website compliance with WCAG standards. She emphasized the importance of senior leadership commitment and suggested that philanthropic organizations should require accessibility features in funded events and support mentorship programs for disability leaders.

Professor Derek Cockburn presented research evidence showing that disability advocacy networks have been among the most effective and sustained voices in internet governance spaces since the IGF’s inception. He highlighted the importance of using data analytics and AI tools to monitor progress and build research capacity in the disability community.

Several barriers to meaningful participation were identified, including lack of awareness about internet governance forums, insufficient funding for attendance, limited exposure to broader policy discussions beyond accessibility topics, and inadequate continuity support for sustained engagement. Participants emphasized that true inclusion requires preparing spaces for persons with disabilities, not just inviting them to participate. The discussion concluded with calls for integrating accessibility across all internet governance discussions, investing in leadership development pipelines, and establishing accountability mechanisms to ensure genuine progress toward inclusive digital governance.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Moving Beyond Tokenistic Representation**: The central theme focused on transitioning from symbolic participation of persons with disabilities in internet governance to meaningful leadership roles and decision-making positions, addressing the gap between participation and actual influence in policy-making.

– **Barriers to Meaningful Participation**: Multiple structural barriers were identified including lack of awareness about IGF among disability advocates, insufficient funding and logistical support, limited exposure to broader internet governance issues beyond accessibility, and challenges with continuity of engagement after events.

– **Institutional Commitment and Implementation**: Discussion of how organizations like the Internet Society are implementing accessibility frameworks, developing training programs, and creating accountability measures, while emphasizing the need for senior leadership commitment and systematic approaches to inclusion.

– **Research, Data, and Evidence-Based Approaches**: The importance of using data analytics, text mining, and research to track progress on disability inclusion in internet governance, with emphasis on building research capacity and utilizing available datasets to guide policy decisions.

– **Global Policy Frameworks and Implementation**: Analysis of how major international frameworks (WSIS+20, Global Digital Compact, UN Disability Inclusion Strategy) address disability inclusion and the challenges of translating high-level commitments into practical implementation at national and organizational levels.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to evaluate the current state of disability leadership in internet governance spaces, identify systemic barriers preventing meaningful participation, and develop actionable strategies for moving beyond tokenistic representation toward genuine inclusion and leadership opportunities for persons with disabilities in digital policy-making.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a constructive and collaborative tone throughout, characterized by professional expertise and shared commitment to the cause. While speakers acknowledged significant challenges and gaps in current approaches, the tone remained optimistic and solution-oriented. There was a notable shift toward more critical examination when audience members raised concerns about low participation rates and the need for more concrete action plans, but this enhanced rather than diminished the productive nature of the dialogue. The conversation consistently emphasized practical solutions and collective responsibility for creating change.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Muhammad Shabbir** – Moderator for the roundtable workshop, described as having limited understanding but proposing the workshop on disability leadership in internet governance

– **Gunela Astbrink** – Has wide experience in promoting, educating and making systems and policies accessible for people with disabilities; Leader of accessibility standing group of the Internet Society; MAG member; Extensive experience in policy making

– **Sarah Armstrong** – Executive Director of the Internet Society Foundation; Has vast experience in philanthropy

– **Vinton Cerf** – Chairman of the leadership panel of the Internet Governance Forum; Known as “the father of the internet” (provided video message)

– **Cogburn Derrick** – Academic and researcher in disability studies; Professor in disability and internet governance; Professor in information technology and analytics and environment development and health at American University; Co-director of internet governance lab; Executive director of Institute on Disability and Public Policy

– **Nirmita Narasimhan** – Accessibility advocate; Policy expert on accessibility

– **Participant** – Role/expertise not specified (appears to be session facilitator/moderator assistant)

– **MODERATOR** – Role/expertise not specified

– **Audience** – Various audience members asking questions

**Additional speakers:**

– **Judith Hellestein** – Co-moderator and online moderator

– **Emmanuel Orok** – From Uganda, one of the online fellows (asked question via online)

– **Jacqueline Jijide** – From Malawi, African Youth Ambassador on Internet Governance; Digital inclusion practitioner from the African Digital Inclusion Alliance

– **Nigel Casimir** – From the Caribbean Telecommunications Union

– **Francis Akwa Amini** – From Ghana, Executive member of ISOC Ghana chapter for the past 10 years

# Comprehensive Report: Disability Leadership in Internet Governance – Moving Beyond Tokenistic Representation

## Executive Summary

This workshop (number 69) at the Internet Governance Forum 2024, moderated by Muhammad Shabbir, brought together leading practitioners, researchers, and advocates to examine the current state of disability leadership in internet governance and develop strategies for meaningful inclusion. The discussion centered on transitioning from symbolic participation of persons with disabilities to genuine leadership roles in digital policy-making spaces. Key participants included Gunela Astbrink (Internet Society accessibility leader), Sarah Armstrong (Internet Society Foundation Executive Director), Professor Derrick Cogburn (disability studies researcher), and Nirmita Narasimhan (accessibility advocate), alongside a video message from Vint Cerf and various international participants.

The session revealed both significant progress and persistent challenges in achieving meaningful disability inclusion in internet governance. While global policy frameworks increasingly incorporate disability inclusion language and organizations like the Internet Society have implemented comprehensive accessibility frameworks, substantial barriers remain to translating these commitments into widespread practice and genuine leadership opportunities for persons with disabilities.

## Opening Context and Purpose

Muhammad Shabbir opened by explaining the workshop’s significance in relation to the WSIS+20 review process and changes to the IGF mandate. He defined tokenism in the context of internet governance as “having persons with disabilities present in meetings or forums without giving them meaningful opportunities to influence decisions or policies.” The goal was to move beyond this tokenistic representation toward genuine leadership and decision-making roles.

Shabbir emphasized that digital accessibility means building internet infrastructure following universal design principles for all users, noting that devices designed for people with disabilities often prove useful for others in different contexts.

## Foundational Perspectives

### Vint Cerf’s Vision

In a video message, Vint Cerf emphasized that accessibility represents a high priority for internet governance, noting that the internet should truly be for everyone. He highlighted that universal design principles benefit all users, not just those with disabilities, citing examples of how hands-free interaction helps people while driving or multitasking. Cerf pointed to emerging opportunities with artificial intelligence and intelligent agents, suggesting these technologies may provide alternative interaction methods beyond traditional keyboards and mice, potentially making applications more usable through conversational negotiation rather than linear navigation.

## Global Policy Frameworks and Implementation

### International Framework Development

Gunela Astbrink provided comprehensive analysis of how major international frameworks are incorporating disability inclusion. She highlighted that WSIS+20 and the Global Digital Compact represent significant opportunities for embedding disability inclusion language in global policy instruments, with concrete consultation opportunities for stakeholders to influence global digital governance frameworks.

Astbrink emphasized that these high-level global policies must transition to national implementation through legislation and regulation at local levels. However, she identified this transition as one of the most significant challenges facing the disability inclusion movement, noting the gap between international commitments and practical implementation.

### Internet Society’s Systematic Approach

Astbrink explained how the Internet Society achieved board-level resolution on accessibility, creating a comprehensive framework that moves beyond ad-hoc accommodations to systematic inclusion. This approach demonstrates the importance of senior leadership commitment and institutional change rather than individual advocacy efforts.

Sarah Armstrong from the Internet Society Foundation outlined their philanthropic implementation strategy, which includes disability-focused grant programs, accessibility training courses, and operational frameworks based on the “nothing about us without us” principle. Armstrong detailed their five-week disability leadership training program in internet governance, which builds capacity while embedding accessibility considerations in broader policy discussions.

## Research Evidence and Advocacy Impact

Professor Derrick Cogburn presented compelling research evidence demonstrating the sustained impact of disability advocacy in internet governance spaces. Using text analytics of IGF transcripts, his research shows that DCAD (Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability) language on accessibility has been consistently present since the first IGF, demonstrating the effectiveness of sustained advocacy efforts.

Cogburn highlighted the availability of multiple data sources for monitoring progress, including CRPD state reports, Washington Group Short Set census data, and accessibility mapping initiatives. He emphasized that open data and open source tools like Python and R enable research capacity building, while generative AI tools may enhance participation for those without traditional programming backgrounds.

## Barriers to Meaningful Participation

Nirmita Narasimhan provided detailed analysis of the multiple barriers preventing meaningful participation by persons with disabilities in internet governance. She identified four primary categories of challenges:

**Awareness and Outreach**: Limited awareness about IGF among disability advocates in various countries creates the first barrier to participation. Many advocates working on relevant technology issues remain unaware of international internet governance forums and their relevance to disability rights.

**Logistical and Financial Barriers**: Funding for travel, need for personal assistants, language barriers, and technology access issues create significant obstacles. These challenges are particularly acute for advocates from underrepresented regions who may require additional support for meaningful participation.

**Limited Exposure to Broader Issues**: Persons with disabilities often lack exposure to broader IGF discussions beyond accessibility topics, limiting their ability to contribute to other important areas like artificial intelligence, digital literacy, and cybersecurity.

**Continuity and Ongoing Support**: Participants need sustained engagement and connections to continue working on issues after returning to their countries. Current approaches often provide one-time participation opportunities without follow-up support or ongoing networking opportunities.

### Integration Versus Segregation

Narasimhan argued that meaningful participation requires integration across all IGF sessions rather than confining disability discussions to dedicated accessibility sessions. She advocated for mainstreaming accessibility discussions across all internet governance topics, noting that this approach would both broaden the contributions of persons with disabilities and increase awareness among other stakeholders.

## Capacity Building and Success Stories

### Regional Training Programs

Astbrink detailed successful train-the-trainer workshops conducted in South Asia, which effectively built disability leaders in internet governance through experiential learning and peer interaction. These programs combine online prerequisite courses with face-to-face workshops, creating effective learning pathways for disability advocates.

### Specific Project Examples

In response to Emmanuel Orok’s question about success stories and how to join programs, Armstrong highlighted specific Internet Society Foundation chapter projects in Puerto Rico, Bosnia Herzegovina, Kyrgyzstan, and Indonesia that demonstrate successful disability inclusion initiatives.

## Critical Challenges and Direct Accountability

### Pointed Criticism of Current Practices

The discussion took a critical turn when Jacqueline Jijide, African Youth Ambassador on Internet Governance from Malawi, provided pointed criticism, noting that “we cannot advocate for inclusion while excluding the very voice we claim to empower.” She specifically challenged the session’s lack of sign language interpretation and assistive tools, emphasizing that representation must be standard and intentional rather than symbolic.

This critique exposed contradictions in the session itself – discussing disability leadership while having limited actual participation accommodations for people with disabilities. The organizers responded by explaining they had asked DCAD members about international sign language needs but received no responses.

### Employment and Systemic Change

Francis Akwa Amini from Ghana raised fundamental questions about the effectiveness of current approaches, arguing that without clear pathways to employment and leadership positions, current efforts risk perpetuating dependency rather than creating self-sufficiency. He specifically advocated for employment quotas, suggesting that organizations should implement policies requiring a percentage of positions (such as 5%) to be filled by persons with disabilities.

This intervention shifted the conversation from discussing participation to questioning whether current approaches actually lead to systemic change, demanding concrete employment outcomes and measurable goals rather than just participation in forums.

## Areas of Consensus and Disagreement

### Strong Agreement

All speakers demonstrated consensus on several key principles:

– Universal design and accessibility benefit everyone, not just persons with disabilities

– Meaningful accessibility progress requires commitment from senior organizational leadership

– Sustainable capacity building approaches combining training, networking, and ongoing support are essential

– The gap between high-level policy commitments and practical implementation represents a critical challenge

### Key Tensions

The primary disagreement centered on approaches to achieving meaningful participation. Audience members criticized current efforts as insufficient and demanded immediate structural changes, while panelists defended incremental approaches through capacity building and organizational development. This tension reflects broader debates about reform versus transformation in disability rights advocacy.

## The Moderator’s Vision

Shabbir concluded by articulating an “ideal world” where accessibility would be built-in by default and persons with disabilities would not need to request accommodations or have separate discussions about accessibility – it would simply be standard practice. This aspirational framework provides guidance for the transformative changes required to achieve genuine disability leadership in internet governance.

## Conclusion and Future Directions

This workshop revealed both progress made and significant challenges remaining in achieving meaningful disability leadership in internet governance. While policy frameworks and organizational commitments have advanced, the transition from policy to practice remains incomplete.

The critical interventions from audience members demonstrated the importance of accountability and the need for more ambitious approaches to inclusion. The tension between celebrating incremental progress and demanding transformative change reflects broader challenges in disability rights advocacy.

The combination of emerging technological opportunities, global policy windows, and growing awareness of inclusion challenges creates potential for significant progress. However, realizing this potential requires coordinated action across organizations, sustained funding for meaningful participation, and continued pressure for accountability and systemic change.

The workshop demonstrated that while significant work remains, there is growing consensus on fundamental principles and increasing sophistication in approaches to disability inclusion. The challenge now lies in translating this understanding into widespread practice and ensuring that the voices of persons with disabilities are not just heard, but genuinely influential in shaping the future of internet governance.

*The organizers acknowledged Google LLC’s support for participant attendance at this workshop.*

MODERATOR: 👋 👋 📱 👋 👋

Muhammad Shabbir: 📢Share this video with your friends on social media and leave a thoughtful COMMENT below. Thank you for watching! Hello and good afternoon ladies and gentlemen I am Mohammed Shabbir Your moderator for the roundtable workshop number 69 Beyond tokenism disability leadership in internet governance Thank you very much for joining us today in the IGF 2025 for this very important discussion as We move forward and look towards the future where WSIS 20 is being reviewed IGF is Mandate is getting a new direction It is very important that we discuss and analyze that how? Persons with disabilities have been participating in the IGF discussions What have we so far achieved and what should be done next in this context? In my limited understanding while we were proposing this workshop We thought that though persons with disabilities have been participating in internet governance spaces they come they participated discussed highlighted accessibility issues, but the Representation at the decision-making table or in the room where decisions were made with regards to internet governance Digital accessibility We had a very tokenistic representation of persons with disabilities there though some would arguably also say that even the tokenistic Nomenclature or expression can also be expanded to internet governance spaces to some extent as well to explore different dimensions and aspects of This question and this topic that what has happened so far and what can be done next I have a very excellent and eminent panelists on the stage here and online. I thank everyone for Sparing their time to join us on this panel But before we go to the panelists and ask some very critical questions We need to understand what digital accessibility means and who better to talk about what digital accessibility means is the father of the internet known as Vint Cerf so we have a video message from Vint Cerf talking about The digital accessibility and what it means for persons with disabilities May I request the support team to kindly play the video by Vint Cerf

Vinton Cerf: Hello, my name is Vint Cerf. I’m chairman of the leadership panel of the Internet Governance Forum Today, I’d like to talk a little bit about Accessibility of the internet and the World Wide Web and in general accessibility for a lot of digital applications This is not easy In order to understand how to make applications accessible to someone with a disability Is a non-trivial exercise you really have to have intuition and that’s hard to get unless you happen to have a particular Disability or you happen to make use of certain kinds of applications like screen readers So that you have an appreciation for how well or how poorly some of these ideas work one thing that I can assure you of is that if you’re Responsible for user interfaces or what’s called user experience? It will be very very helpful for you to see examples of successful Applications and also examples of not so successful ones and to try to understand what made them either succeed or fail It also occurs to me that in addition to these kinds of examples from which you can gain intuition That we may discover with artificial intelligence that our ability to interact with the services of the World Wide Web and the Internet Through alternative means than keyboards and mice might turn out to be important. I’m thinking of course of Intelligent agents we may be able to make an application a lot more usable if it’s a question of negotiating With a system as opposed to trying to work your way through a two-dimensional space in a linear way, which is what? Of course the screen readers will do for someone who has vision impairment So it may very well be that AI is our friend here in a number of different dimensions This is relatively unexplored territory Although we’re seeing a great deal more oral interaction hands-free kinds of interaction which is helpful for people who Don’t have a visual impairment or an auto audio impairment But who just don’t have the ability to use their hands at the moment There are often situations where hands-free is really very very important and valuable So the message here is that accessibility is a high priority The Internet should be for everyone and that’s inclusive of people with various disabilities and second It’s important to recognize that everyone who has one or more disabilities will have different combinations and flavors And so there’s no simple single solution for audio impairment or visual impairment We really have to design interfaces that are adaptable to people’s needs Once again a very very important topic to make sure that the Internet really is for everyone So I’m glad to see that the DCAD the DCAD the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility Is active in the Internet Governance Forum. I’m looking forward to Your conclusions and your discussion as you search for better ways of making the Internet an accessible place

Muhammad Shabbir: Thank you very much Vint Cerf we heard right from the top of the Internet Governance leadership that how Accessibility is important. I just want to add number one when Vint was speaking about Building Internet which is for everyone He meant that following the universal design which everyone can use And if it is made accessible the common misunderstanding is that it is made accessible for persons with disabilities, but everyone else can use that so a device which is used or Prepared to make it accessible for people who lack hands or physical disabilities It can also be used by other people who are driving or who want to do some other tasks while commanding to the machines now Before we move forward the discussion I want to go to the speaker on the stage Gunela Espring She has a very wide experience of promoting educating and Making systems and policies accessible for people with disabilities She has vast experience of policy making as well. So with her experience of being the accessibility Being the leader of accessibility standing group of the Internet Society being the MAG member I would want to ask her Gunela. What in your opinion? Do you think that? WIS WS is GDC and inclusion strategy mean for persons with disabilities and What policy make mechanisms can be? there or improved To make the environments digital environments, particularly accessible for people with disabilities Gunela over to you

Gunela Astbrink: Thank you very much. Dr. Shabir and That’s a big question But I will try to answer in terms of such frameworks as dr. Shabir mentioned WSIS 20 plus global digital compact and also the UN disability inclusion strategy. We are right in the middle of these discussions when it comes to WSIS plus 20 and the global digital compact. We will see results according to plan by the end of the year. And these are very complex negotiations. And we will have to find ways to be able to input into that. So the WSIS plus 20 has recently released an elements paper. And this is based on consultation with member states and other stakeholders. And there are a number of paragraphs in there. And I won’t go into great detail. But it does talk about digital divide. It talks about accessibility for persons with disability and also reinforcing existing frameworks for multi-stakeholder cooperation. So we need to read that. We need to make comments by the 15th of July into what’s called the zero draft. And we have the opportunity to input just like any other stakeholder does. I will also talk about the global digital compact. And this is another instrument that is being ‑‑ well, it has been drafted. But it’s now a matter of how that harmonizes or not with the WSIS plus 20. And I want to refer to digital literacy skills and competencies. And it says we, as in the GDC, commit by 2030 to provide accessible user interfaces. These are based on some of the sustainable development goals. And in that case, it’s number 4 and 10. And also to target and tailor capacity building for underrepresented groups, including persons with disability, to ensure meaningful engagement in design and implementation of programs. And that’s really important when we are talking about disability leadership. That here there is something stated about that meaningful engagement. So we have to ask ourselves, how is this going to be implemented? Because this is a high level global instrument. And obviously, it requires national legislation and regulation in many cases to do so. So I just wanted then to go into how do we move from policies to implementation? And there are a number of complexities with that. And I want to refer to basically a case study. And this is the Internet Society. It is important to have senior staff who are accessibility champions. It makes a huge, big difference. And the Internet Society has an accessibility standing group. And it has developed an accessibility framework. And we’re very fortunate that we do have a disability leader in Dr. Mohammad Shabir, who was on the board of trustees of the Internet Society for two years. And then during that time, a resolution was unanimously approved on an accessibility framework. So then how do we move to the implementation stage? And again, I want to emphasize the importance of senior staff being accessibility champions. And it’s been a long and winding road. But now we have a possibility to achieve that through the Internet Society, talking about building a culture of accessibility and minimizing barriers to participation. And through that, we feel that the Internet Society can benefit from having more people with disabilities being part of the organization in a number of different ways. So I think I’ll stop there. But that gives just a flavor. So thank you very much. Thank you very much, Gunela Espring,

Muhammad Shabbir: for your wonderful insights. Your discussion has a lot to unpack. And we may come to you during the discussion session to unpack some of the statements that you have made. Audience may have some questions. But you talked about Internet Society while presenting the case study. And we are fortunate to have the Executive Director of the Internet Society Foundation right on the stage. And this gives me a sort of more motivation to bring her in now and ask her, because Sarah Armstrong is the Executive Director of ISOC Foundation. And she has a very vast experience of philanthropy. So Sarah, I have a couple of questions for you for your intervention. First relates to your philanthropic experience. And that is that what role the philanthropic organizations can play in making the organizations and Internet governance accessible for people with disabilities. And focusing on the more narrow part, what Internet Society and Internet Society Foundations are doing in this context to train persons with disabilities in leadership. And what more as a philanthropic experienced person you would recommend that can be done. Sarah, the floor is yours.

Sarah Armstrong: Thank you so much, Dr. Shabir. Can everybody hear me okay? All right. Thanks. It’s a pleasure to be here, especially with such special people here on the panel. And I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the work of the Internet Society Foundation, as well as discussing the philanthropic environment. It is definitely an issue we all need to be focused on. And that is because we know that there’s a large percentage of the population who is in many cases permanently disabled. And they really need to have the opportunity to enjoy all of the things that the Internet brings into our life. We are committed as an organization to be sure that we have content, services, policies, and programs that are in fact accessibility oriented. And we want to make sure that accessibility is all about what we do because of the fact that digital inclusion means the Internet really is for everyone. And that is our vision statement. We have, as Dr. Shabir noted, we have been working with the standing group, the accessibility standing group. And I just want to go through a couple of the different things that the Internet Society Foundation is doing specifically. And then I’ll move on to what we believe the philanthropic arena can do as well. So we are accessibility champions, again, as Gunela mentioned. We have, for example, a very large portfolio of grant programs. And a number of our grant programs are in fact very much focused on targeting the audience of people with disabilities and being sure that they are funding or we are funding organizations and people who are very sensitive to the needs. So we have training programs with some of our grantees from skills, which is all about teaching digital literacy. We have other programs with our Beyond the Net chapter program. And then finally we have Connecting the Unconnected, which is about community networks, also focusing on people with disabilities. We also, as Gunela mentioned, have an operational framework. This was something that was approved by our board and in fact has become a really, really big focus for the organization. And that is a strategy that is based on the nothing about us without us. So it’s guiding what the Internet Society and the Internet Society Foundation is doing in this area. We also have been working on our website and making sure that all new content meets the WCAG 22.1 AA standard. And also we do an annual audit to make sure that that continues. And those are our most recent score was a 99 out of 100. in terms of our desktop. So that was good to see that we’re making such progress in those areas. In addition to the grant programs focused on persons with disability, we also have a training course. And this training course is entitled Distability Leadership Training in Internet Governance and Digital Rights. This program is a five-week program, about 15 to 20 hours long, and it’s developed specifically with the ISOC Accessibility Standing Group. It builds leadership and embeds accessibility in Internet governance discussions. It’s designed for persons with disabilities and advocates and trainers, and it covers accessibility policy and links to Internet governance. So this program here does, in fact, advance disability leadership. But the question is, is there more that can be done? Is there more that can be done by us? And then talking about the other possible philanthropic organizations who may be looking at the same important issue. It’s an ongoing journey. So there are some things that we’ve done. I’ve discussed those so far, but there are also other things that we can look at. Explore opportunities for funding for disability leadership is one concept. Encourage grantees to offer more training and support systems. Introduce possibly the tracking and the publishing of participation data. So these are things that we’re looking at as we go on this journey. So we’re gonna continue to move forward and stay committed. As I mentioned, we have, from the board level down, a real support for this direction. And so that’s the place right now where the foundation and the Internet Society are. And then in addition, the second question is, what role can philanthropic organizations play in enabling leadership by persons with disability in Internet governance? This is where I split it into three different areas of things that I believe the philanthropic community can do to make a better world. Encourage inclusiveness in funded events, such as IGFs or NRIs or SIGs. For example, what we’re doing on our webpage on the Internet Governance Forum webpage for our Internet Governance Forum program, we have that disclaimer, a line that we encourage people to strongly make sure that the dialogues that they’re having in these IGFs and these NRIs and in these schools of Internet governance, that they’re strongly encouraged to review and follow the accessibility guidelines that have been developed by the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability when planning any type of event. So we are keeping an eye on that and keeping in touch and seeing how that move is going forward. We also would recommend that philanthropic organizations require accessibility features, such as captioning and sign language, accessibility platforms and venues. And we definitely feel it’s important for people to reference and enforce the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability accessibility guidelines. Furthermore, for the ideas for philanthropic organizations, supporting mentorships, linking new leaders with experts, funding and facilitating disability-specific networks and coalitions, convening dialogues and embedding accessibility in IG agendas, and also back leadership of those who are facing intersecting challenges such as gender geography. And finally, some other key roles for philanthropic organizations to play, prioritize funding for underrepresented regions, invest in research on barriers and solutions, support impact measurement to refine the strategies and ensure accountability. So what I’ve described here are ideas for what we believe other philanthropic organizations can do. And that, of course, is built on the recommendations that have come to us that we have now followed through and implemented for our website, for our training program, for our grant program, et cetera. And we believe that very, very strongly that all of these different areas together have a unique opportunity to drive equity by investing in accessibility and leadership, ensuring the internet is, in fact, for everyone. So with that, I will thank you. And Dr. Shabir, I’ll turn it back to you.

Muhammad Shabbir: Thank you very much, Sarah, for this wonderful intervention and outlining some of the activities and also illustrating the plans that Internet Society, particularly the fellowships that Internet Society is doing and trying to advance the work on digital accessibility for people with disabilities. We have heard from practitioners. I think it is now high time that we talk about evidence and research-based evidence on the accessibility and digital accessibility for people with disabilities. And we are fortunate to have Dr. Derek Cockburn join us online, who is an academic and a researcher in disability studies. And he is a professor in disability and internet governance. Dr. Derek Cockburn, I have a couple of questions for you as well. And while you are making your intervention, we can deep dive while in the question and answer session. But I would want you to focus on the evidence that are there that how people with disabilities can access the leadership corridors of the internet governance. And how can research and data from your experience, would you like to enlighten us that it can guide us and internet governance spaces to make these spaces accessible for people with disabilities? Dr. Derek, floor is yours.

Cogburn Derrick: Thank you very much, Dr. Shabir. I appreciate that. I thank you for your leadership of the DICAD. And I wanna thank all of my fellow panelists and moderators as well. I wanna congratulate the DICAD on this panel and the 20th anniversary of IGF. I attended the initial IGF and it is wonderful to see this continued progress. And I also wanna acknowledge the 20th anniversary of Giganet as well, the Global Internet Governance Academic Network, which was founded at the beginning of IGF as a community of researchers to be able to focus on interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary aspects of internet governance. So it’s a nice partnership to have our discussion in this panel also linked with Giganet. I also apologize for not being there in person, as you can tell I’m a little under the weather, but there’s also a parallel conference going on here in Washington at the National Academy of Sciences. And it’s focused on what are called cyber hard problems. And I know that our fellow panelists, Vint Cerf is also involved in that event. And it shows that when we talk about being involved in internet governance and digital policy leadership, there are so many overlapping venues and spaces and locations where we need to continue to insert disability inclusive ideas. And this is helpful for me. As you know, I wear multiple hats at American University. I’m a professor in information technology and analytics and also environment development and health. And I also co-direct our internet governance lab and serve as executive director of our Institute on Disability and Public Policy. So that allows me to bring these multiple areas together as we think about how do we identify data, build datasets, conduct research projects that shed light on these questions. And one of the things that we found is that there has been a range of disability inclusive leadership in internet governance spaces and in some of the broader disability inclusive development strategies related to the SDGs, the digital compact and other areas. If you remember, some of you in my book published by Palgrave Macmillan in 2017, we examined transnational advocacy networks in the information society, partners or puns. And one of the things we focused on in that book was the way in which transnational advocacy networks can bring advocates together in a particular issue area to influence these global spaces. And a chapter in that book highlighted the dynamic coalition on accessibility and disability. This is one of many transnational advocacy networks for the disability community that are active in the SDGs, that are active in disaster risk reduction and a number of other spaces. there are about seven transnational advocacy networks focused on disability inclusive development in a variety of perspectives. You also may remember my book published by MIT Press on researching internet governance. And one of the things that we looked at there were all of the text, we analyzed the text coming from the captions from the IGF going back to the beginning of the IGF. So text analytics has been a very powerful way for us to think about how do we analyze what is actually happening in these spaces and who is participating and engaging and shaping ideas in these spaces. And a chapter in that book that looks at the internet governance transcripts showed that the DICAD language and the language of accessibility and disability is one of the earliest and seemingly most effective of the dynamic coalitions having from the first IGF and maintaining those ideas and concepts in IGF transcripts and in IGF language going forward. And I was quite surprised to see that level of sustained reference to accessibility language and it is a testament to the impact that the DICAD has had in this space. So these approaches for us are very important. So being able to use text mining and natural language processing and now using generative AI tools helps us to take advantage of the kind of data that is available to us. So this kind of large-scale text analytics really lets us understand what kind of impact our ideas are having in these global policy spaces. So two weeks ago, my team organized a side event in New York at the UN for the 18th Conference of States Parties. This side event was entitled Enhancing Community Engagement and Monitoring CRPD Implementation Through AI, Text Mining, Economic Data, and Accessibility Mapping. So one of the things that this side event showed is that when we use various ways of various forms of data, whether it be large-scale text data, so our project looked at analyzing all of the CRPD state reports to be able to understand how much progress is being made on implementing the CRPD around the world and by regions. But some of the other projects looked at data that comes from the Washington Group Short Set that has been able to influence various national census data so we can do traditional statistical analysis and we can also use data that’s called mapping data for accessibility. So there are a number of programs that are mapping accessibility in locations around the world. So for us, this approach gives us lots of opportunity and hope for being able to continue to monitor progress on disability inclusion around the world in different policy spaces. Now most of this data is open data, so all of the text data that I’m talking about can usually be downloaded from websites, all the transcripts from the IGF, for example, that we’ve downloaded, state reports, side reports, alternative reports, committee reports, all of that text data is available. And we have two really, really good sources of disability data. One is called the Disability Data Initiative, which is led by Fordham University, and the Disability Data Hub, led by the World Bank. Both of these data sets, as well as the text data, provides tremendous data for us to be able to analyze how persons with disabilities are faring in this current period, but also how do we understand who’s involved in each of these areas. Now this requires us to be able to focus on continuous capacity development in research capacity. So even though this data is free and open, and we have tremendous open source data analytics tools like Python and R, which are open source programming languages that let us analyze this kind of data, we still need to focus on capacity building in these areas and making sure people are trained to be able to use these tools. Now we believe that the generative AI tools will help to enhance multi-stakeholder participation by those that are not trained in programming. And we have a paper that is just coming out in Data and Policy, which compares our traditional NLP approach with the generative AI approach. But I think that focusing on capacity building for research is going to be an important area for us going forward.

Muhammad Shabbir: Yeah. Thank you very much, Dr. Derrick, for sharing with us the data and data sets that are available and how they are used to advance the cause of disability leadership in Internet governance and other spaces. Let’s hear about the disability and leadership and barriers from another online speaker, Nirmita Narasimhan. I’m sorry if I’m pronouncing your name wrong. And she is one of the accessibility advocates, policy experts on accessibility. And Dr. Nirmita, I would want you to focus on the barriers, if there are any, in the way of persons with disabilities and their leadership in the Internet governance spaces and how those barriers can be removed. What are your experiences? Dr. Nirmita, the floor is yours.

Nirmita Narasimhan: Sure. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Shabbir. So let me approach this from a perspective of somebody who would want to be, you know, so set to attend the IGF. So there are barriers at every level, right? And the first barrier is that people don’t know about it, about IGF, especially disability advocates working in different countries. There is not enough outreach to them about IGF and the issues which are discussed. And also that many of them are quite relevant to what the technologies that we use, the content that we access and the engagement and interaction that we have with the Internet. So the first barrier for me would be that there is probably a handful of people in a country with hundreds and hundreds of disability advocates who actually know about the IGF and what takes place there and the fact that they can contribute to it. Once you cross that barrier, how do you engage with the IGF, right? If you want to get there, where do you get the support to get there? There would be logistic issues maybe that, you know, people may need to take somebody along with them to help them navigate the system or to help them communicate. So where do you get the funding from? Who are the organizations you need to be in touch with? And also other issues, maybe language, maybe technology issues. But once you get there, I think one of the chief problems which I feel as a person having been in association with the IGF from 2008, I feel that people with disabilities do not have enough exposure to other issues which are getting discussed at the IGF. So right now it’s probably the only thing they know about is accessibility and disability and the topic they are covering or they’re talking about. But meaningful participation goes beyond just talking in your session about accessibility. You need to be able to engage with other forum. You need to be able to absorb other discussions which are going on and see how you can contribute. And it works both ways. You need to be able to participate in other discussions which are also very important. I mean, AI, for example, is a critical technology for persons with disabilities these days, right? And there’s so much which you would unearth if you, you know, talk to people with disabilities. There is so much that they can contribute to the way the Internet is shaping in terms of AI, in terms of literacy, in terms of safety. And that representation is not coming across. And it’s not coming across on both sides. So I think one needs to pay some more thought to how this people with disabilities and other people can work together for them to, you know, contribute to different discussions. So I think these are primarily the kind of structural barriers one encounters. And finally, after that, what? So remote participation has really helped persons with disabilities be part of the forum. But visibility is also important. And continuity is important. So what happens from one forum to the other? Once you go back, so what? Do you get support or motivation or do you have the connects to work on these issues when you go back to your country? Because at the end of the day, it’s not a one-time thing. It’s not a one-time thing, right? It’s something you need to continue, you need to work at to be able to participate meaningfully. So continuity is, again, an issue, both in terms of being able to work in your country and move beyond just the other kind of projects which you are working on, and the support internationally to continue to work with different members at the IGF. So these are some of the barriers which I see affect meaningful participation of persons with disabilities.

Muhammad Shabbir: Thank you very much, Nirmita, for highlighting these barriers and I think we can explore what are the strategies and how those barriers can be removed. Before I ask some more questions to the panelists, I want to see if there are any comments or questions from the audience in person or online.

Participant: Yes, thank you, Dr. Shabbir. We do have a comment from the online and it’s from Emmanuel Orok from Uganda who’s one of our online fellows. And his question is addressed to the ISOC Foundation and he asks, could you share success stories with practical examples of specific projects or initiatives for people, for persons with disabilities and how does one join them?

Sarah Armstrong: Okay, so I would definitely say that the work that the Internet Society and the Internet Society Foundation have been doing just to include more and to do more towards persons with disabilities is an opportunity for people to find ISOC and the Foundation more accessible. So the fact that we have the mandate and that we are following through on it means that more people can be involved in the types of things that the Internet Society and the Foundation are doing. In addition, I can give some examples of our chapters. Beyond the Net, the Puerto Rico chapter is organizing conferences with the University of Puerto Rico around technology for students with disabilities. So there’s an opportunity there. Bosnia and Herzegovina chapters have a project to train sightless journalists. The Kyrgyzstan chapter is working with women with disabilities and with a minister who is visually impaired and working on, again, on things that they can do in those different countries. We are working on incorporating screen readers in some of our programs for connecting the unconnected. And our skills program through Koda Kida, which is the name of our Indonesian grantee, they are equipping women businesses owners and disabilities in greater Solo with digital skills and economic opportunities. So these are just further examples of the types of things that are happening as a result of our commitment to expanding accessibility. And in terms of being able to access information specifically on the Foundation, because of what we’re doing with the website, we are making it easier for people with disabilities to be much more informed about the programs that we offer. So I hope that helps answer the question.

Participant: Yeah, thanks so much. I’m wondering, do we have any questions from the audience in person? You do, okay, yes. So please come to the mic and state your name and your organization you’re with.

Audience: Okay, so my name is Jacqueline Jijide, and I’m from Malawi. I am an African Youth Ambassador on Internet Governance, and I’m also a digital inclusion practitioner from the African Digital Inclusion Alliance. First of all, let me thank you for hosting this session, especially on disability inclusion leadership. However, as somebody who advocates for digital inclusion, I was a bit worried because when I was coming to participate into this conversation, I anticipated to have a high level of this target group participating for this particular event, but the participation is low, and that is also giving me some sort of like a concern, because we cannot advocate for inclusion while excluding the very voice we claim to empower. So representation must not be symbolic, but it must be standard and intentional. And I also want to extend that true inclusion must mean more than just inviting people into the room, but also preparing the room for them. With that being said, I was looking throughout the room to see people providing sign language interpretation. Also, I looked for the take assistive tools that helps the people with disability issues, but it’s not there. And also the environment where everybody can participate like the people that we are trying to empower these people. So my question is, what steps have we put as the organizers or partners to make sure that we have a high level of participation from the people that are living with disabilities and also to equip them and support them to be equal contributors, especially in high level forums like IGF in the future event. Thank you very much.

Participant: Thank you so much for your question. To touch on the sign language issue, we did ask our DCAD members who will be coming online if they wanted, if they need international sign, but we didn’t hear back from them. Currently the event here has human captioning and we also do have several of our disability fellows in the audience and here. The question is, we did promote the event, but there’s a lot of different competing events that are very, that are pulling people away. And oftentimes what people do here is since they can’t go to an event live, they watch the replay of it in their time because there’s so many events that they cannot go to and they cannot split themselves in many different people. So that is one of the reasons, but we do promote the event, the internet government promotes the event. It’s on the YouTube channels too, but it’s always a question of how do we get people here? And that’s the age old question for everyone.

Muhammad Shabbir: Yes, and in addition to what Judith has said, I totally acknowledge your point and that’s where the exact title of this session states beyond tokenism. We need to move beyond tokenism, be that the leadership or the IGF spaces. We all do much to make persons with disabilities a part of these discussions. Now, having said that there, as Nimita said, that bringing persons with disabilities to these spaces requires a lot of effort and finances and DCAD in its limited capacity tries to fulfill that gap. And I know that what we are doing is not enough. We need to do more. Your point is well acknowledged. We do have two persons with disabilities in person attending this IGF, supported by the DCAD and one online. So, and this is courtesy of our first speaker, Vint Cerf, and his organization, Google LLC, that we are doing so. More organization can come forward to contribute to this cause, but as Judith said, with regards to participation in these sessions by the other participants, we are competing with other sessions and priorities that the participating people would have. So it’s the priorities and the priorities of the people and their personal preferences that which sessions they want to attend. But thank you, your point is well taken. Any other points?

Participant: Any other, yes, we do have another question here. If you can come to the mic.

Audience: Thank you so much, Nigel. Hello, I’m Nigel Casimir from the Caribbean Telecommunications Union. And in our work around the Caribbean, when we do events, at least annually, we tend to have some workshops in ICT for persons with disabilities. Our focus, though, is more on the local community, and I guess helping persons with disabilities in the local community to understand the value or the power of ICTs maybe to make their life easier. We haven’t actually. We haven’t actually had, and this has not been our focus, we haven’t actually had persons, even advocates for the disabled community, expressing a level of interest in things like these international events or whatever. And I’m wondering how might one try to develop such an ambition, you know, in the persons with disabilities to look just beyond the local community and maybe see how you could make life better for maybe the wider society and make an influence in the world. I’m wondering if there’s any experience people have had or if it’s just up to the individual ambition of persons with disabilities to do something like that. Thanks.

Muhammad Shabbir: Yes, thank you very much. Does any of the panelists want to respond to this comment? Yeah, I could. Okay, Gunela, please do. Yes, and then Darragh goes, but he has to get upgraded again.

Gunela Astbrink: Yeah, thank you very much for that question. And I think as Nirmita also stated, that there is limited knowledge in some communities about internet governance and often there’s a struggle to even get people with disabilities online and build digital literacy. But we can work on that and I’m going to mention some work that we have done in South Asia to build disability leaders in internet governance. And that is through support of the Asia Pacific School of Internet Governance and local chapter in Bangladesh and other supporters to run train-the-trainer workshops in internet governance and digital leadership and digital rights. And that was bringing people from South Asian countries, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, Nepal to Bangladesh and they are experienced advocates, but not necessarily experienced in internet governance. But bringing those people together to learn by doing, by interacting about the internet governance discussions, the various internet groups and how they connect with disability and accessibility global instruments and so forth. So the idea then was for those advocates to go back to their own countries and run workshops and that has happened over the past three years. And we would like that to have possibilities in other regions of the world as well. It is very important that the people who participate in that can continue the work in their communities and that might be through advocacy to their governments, to the private sector, when it comes to policy implementation in IT. And it could also be working with committees, for example, the local chapter. And it could be working with DCAD, for example, helping in various ways, going on committees to assist in building workshops on this topic in a particular country or region. So there’s a lot of work to be done and we need to make it sustainable. And we are starting, but there’s a lot of work to be done. And I should also mention that we do have, through ISOC, an online course, which Sarah has mentioned, and that is a prerequisite for any of these type of face-to-face workshops. So we’re trying to align with, for example, DCAD in the fellowships that are provided each year where you have remote participants. We just heard a question from him, Emanuel Oruc, and also from our participants here in the room. And that is Sarah and Jalanta, so you might want to just put your hands up. Yeah.

Muhammad Shabbir: Okay, thank you very much, Ganella. But before we take another question, I think Professor Derek wants to contribute to the question. So, Professor Derek, the floor is yours, but if you can be brief, we can take more questions.

Cogburn Derrick: Yes. Yes. Thank you for reminding me to be brief. I think that’s a great question. And what I wanted to say in my answer is tying in something that Dr. Numita and our previous questioner also said. So participating effectively in these kinds of global spaces requires a sustained, engaged, committed set of activities. And it’s very difficult for an individual to do that unless that individual works for an organization that is able to fund their participation in multiple meetings that are overlapping and related meetings and so forth. And that’s why I have found that it’s these networks, these transnational advocacy networks that are so important. So they allow you in your local community to connect with a group of local advocates who are aware of these issues and ready to get involved, but they are participating in a larger network of like-minded activists around the world. So the Dynamic Coalition on Accessibility and Disability is one example where the advances in this kind of remote participation technology allows the DICAD to have regular meetings and to have people prepare for the IGF, to participate in the IGF, and then to follow up on the IGF, all using these tools and combining those people who will be remote with those people who will be in person. When we first started the IGF and WSIS, these kinds of remote participation processes were not existent and slowly came on board over the years, and we need to be able to take advantage of the fact that they are so robust now and allow people to participate effectively remotely. So to the original questioner, my recommendation is to find these networks like the DICAD and others that are focused on disability inclusion and start participating in those networks, trying to help raise money and encourage fellow participants to engage in those kinds of transnational advocacy networks.

Muhammad Shabbir: Thank you very much, Professor Derrick, for your insights, and Ganella as well. Gentlemen, you have been very patient. Thank you very much. So you can introduce and ask your question. Please.

Audience: All right. Thank you. My name is Francis Akwa Amini. Looks like I’m very tall. All right. Comfortable now. All right. So my name is Francis from Ghana. I’ve been an executive member of ISO Ghana chapter for the past 10 years, and we have a policy plan or a framework for them to take up leadership role or employment again, because at the end goal, we want them to see them at the top. We have a certain policy which is going to enforce that if probably the various positions in ICANN, Internet Society, ISOC Foundation, when we’re employing, we have a certain position that will say, okay, let me say 5% should be persons with disability if we’re employing, so that at least once we are empowering them to be able to be part of this conversation, we can also let them be sufficient, because until then, once we don’t have a clear plan to make themselves sufficient, they will still become dependent on people. At the end of the day, we’ll be bringing them to forums, trying to empower them, but if you don’t have a clear end goal, I don’t think it’s going to solve the problem. So my question is, is there a clear vision, a clear plan to end this? Thank you.

Muhammad Shabbir: Thank you very much, Francis. This is a very interesting question, and who of the speaker wants to respond to this?

Sarah Armstrong: Well, I can start by saying for the Internet Society, as I mentioned earlier, it’s a journey, but it is a commitment that we’ve made, that we backed up with a resolution from the Board of Trustees, that we will continue to find ways to include more people with disabilities. And it’s, you know, the work that we’re doing to try to make it so that work that we do is accessible, that’s a journey that we’re taking and that we’re making real progress on. As I mentioned, our website is considered really stellar for people to be able to access information. information and then in terms of you know bringing on more staff I think it’s a question that you were asking whether or not we can have that just something that we are again examining this is something again to which we’re committed and we’re looking ahead at the different ways that we can do that my co-moderator

Muhammad Shabbir: who is the online moderator as well wants to say something so Judith yes

Participant: thanks so much thanks so much yes that is an important question what don’t what we DCAT has been doing is we’ve been advocating for persons with disabilities and also our disability fellows then advocate in their own countries what they’ve been doing is they’ve been advocating for online form for forms to be accessible online we work with different other organizations to make sure that they are aware about week not only about WCAG but also they may be aware and make the websites accessible but they’re nationally not necessarily aware how to make accessible documents how to make infographics accessible how to make all that so it’s a work in progress and what we can do is work on advocacy and work to enable other governments we have governments that put in the WCAG guidelines in their legislation so we could do a lot in advocacy and trying to do all that it is up to the others to actually then to

Muhammad Shabbir: make the next step yes thank you very much Judith but if you ask me what’s the end goal as the organizer of this panel I would say in an ideal world we would not be having this discussion but persons with disabilities would not have to ask for certain facilities services to be made accessible websites to be made but they would already be given to them without asking but I know we don’t live in an ideal world so we are moving towards that goal I know that may be called idealistic not reachable or something some other connotations but I say that we if we don’t have that goal in the side we won’t be reaching anywhere as you said Internet Society what Sara has said it has started by making the organization itself accessible that’s the first step DICAD is trying to make persons with disabilities participate in these discussions and make these meetings accessible for people with disabilities that’s another step there is a whole internet governance ecosystem there needs to be other organizations who would work towards this end goal so I hope to some extent we were able to answer your question are there any other comments or

Nirmita Narasimhan: questions before I go to the mod to the speakers may I contribute to this discussion yes no matter okay so yes I’d say the end goal for us is not any different than other people see the way I see it making things accessible and getting people there in leadership positions is just what you need to do to have the end goal of being able to contribute to the discussion and shape the way the internet is emerging and the technologies are emerging so I don’t see it necessarily as a shift in goal and and we are trying to move beyond the policy and implement things so for me I would say the end goal is still what you can contribute to the discussions what was in there from your experience and being accessible being user-friendly being present these are all just things

Muhammad Shabbir: we need to do to get there Thank You Nimita thank you very much I would give 30 seconds to each of my speakers if they have any wrap-up thoughts to share those with us otherwise I’ll go towards the wrap-up and I’m sorry Sarah oh okay

Sarah Armstrong: wrap up again thank you very much for including me in this important discussion I mentioned when I made my remarks about the importance of the commitment and we really feel like we have an opportunity at the Internet Society and Internet Society Foundation to lead by example to drive equity by investing in accessibility and leadership because we again are very committed to our mission and our vision of the internet is for everyone and that needs to continue and that means to be inclusive so those are the things I would like to reinforce on the importance of that in the we are setting an example and we feel very strongly about the progress that we’re making

Muhammad Shabbir: thank you very much Sarah professor Derek and please remember 30 seconds yes

Cogburn Derrick: yes I would just say that in response to the last question for three years we led a program a master’s program for persons with disabilities in Southeast Asia and I think that kind of program is something that’s really helpful in making sure more advocates are trained in this space and I would just encourage everyone to think about using the data that’s available and joining and participating actively in some of these transnational networks thank you very

Nirmita Narasimhan: much professor Derek dr. Nimita I won’t take up more time I think I’ve given my thoughts and I hope I’m happy to take more questions or respond later what I would like to see going forward is not more sessions on accessibility but also accessibility covered across more sessions as part of other discussions and and let’s see how we can take it forward thank you thank you dr. Nimita

Muhammad Shabbir: now we are moving towards the wrap-up of this session and I would request the my co-organizer Ganella Espring to give us the key takeaways and actionable points that she has listed and also use her 30 seconds for her wrap-up thoughts

Gunela Astbrink: if there are any. Ganella over to you. Thank you very much dr. Shabir yes so there really are quite a lot of key takeaways and and I think the question about the end goals we just need to keep that in mind all the time and also we heard about transnational advocacy networks and how to link across those and we we just need to look at disability inclusive leadership that it’s central to equitable digital governance and we talked about that in a variety of ways global frameworks that we talked about must move from principles to practice and we will be looking at particular strategies to do that in these very pivotal times at the moment and we know about the lived experience that that strengthens policy outcomes when we as persons with disabilities can talk about our experiences and what difference that makes if we are able to live in that ideal accessible world so then we have calls to action shall I go on dr. Shabir okay so well just to follow up again that let’s try and join up with some transnational advocacy networks identify them and and work with them because the more we work together then the more we can achieve but it’s it’s integrating accessibility and disability inclusion in internet governance structures and that is coming together that’s that coming together in various ways we need to invest in leadership pipelines for persons with disabilities and that includes a range of stakeholders including donors and regulators because we are working in a multi-stakeholder mechanism and finally institutionalize accountability for inclusion and that can be through a lot of benchmarking metrics and we’ve heard a lot about the particular work that Derek Coburn’s team has been doing so I think that’s enough for me so thank you very much thank you very much Ganella

Muhammad Shabbir: and this brings me to thank everyone the speakers Ganella Espring, Sarah Armstrong, Nirmita, Dr. Derek, my co-moderator Judith Hellestein and also the captioners the participants and the wonderful sports staff here in this room for joining us today in this session we shall meet in some other session until then bye bye

Agreement points

Universal design and accessibility benefits everyone, not just persons with disabilities

Speakers

– Vinton Cerf
– Muhammad Shabbir

Arguments

Accessibility requires intuition and understanding of how applications work for people with disabilities – examples of successful and unsuccessful applications are crucial for learning

Universal design benefits everyone, not just persons with disabilities – accessible devices can be used by people driving or multitasking

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that accessibility and universal design principles create benefits for all users, not just those with disabilities. Cerf notes that hands-free interaction helps people in various situations, while Shabbir explains that devices designed for people with disabilities can be used by others in different contexts.

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Digital standards

Senior leadership commitment is essential for organizational accessibility

Speakers

– Gunela Astbrink
– Sarah Armstrong

Arguments

Senior staff accessibility champions are crucial for organizational change – Internet Society’s accessibility framework was achieved through board-level commitment

Internet Society Foundation implements accessibility through grant programs, training courses, and operational frameworks based on “nothing about us without us” principle

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that meaningful accessibility progress requires commitment from senior organizational leadership. They both reference the Internet Society’s board-level resolution and systematic approach to implementing accessibility across operations.

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Capacity development

Capacity building requires sustainable, multi-faceted approaches

Speakers

– Gunela Astbrink
– Sarah Armstrong
– Cogburn Derrick

Arguments

Train-the-trainer workshops in South Asia successfully built disability leaders in Internet governance through experiential learning and peer interaction

Five-week disability leadership training program in Internet governance builds capacity and embeds accessibility in policy discussions

Transnational advocacy networks are essential for sustained engagement in global policy spaces, allowing local advocates to connect internationally

Summary

All three speakers advocate for structured, sustainable capacity building approaches that combine training, networking, and ongoing support. They emphasize the importance of creating pathways for disability advocates to develop expertise and maintain engagement over time.

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Capacity development

Moving from policy frameworks to practical implementation is a major challenge

Speakers

– Gunela Astbrink
– Nirmita Narasimhan

Arguments

Moving from high-level global policies to national implementation requires legislation and regulation at local levels

Continuity and ongoing support are lacking – participants need sustained engagement and connections to work on issues after returning to their countries

Summary

Both speakers identify the gap between high-level policy commitments and practical implementation as a critical challenge. They emphasize the need for sustained support and local-level action to translate global frameworks into meaningful change.

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Legal and regulatory

Similar viewpoints

Both emphasize that meaningful inclusion requires systemic integration rather than tokenistic approaches. They argue for mainstreaming accessibility across all activities rather than confining it to specialized sessions or symbolic gestures.

Speakers

– Nirmita Narasimhan
– Audience

Arguments

Integration of accessibility across all IGF sessions is needed, rather than limiting disability discussions to dedicated accessibility sessions

True inclusion requires preparing spaces for people with disabilities, not just inviting them – including sign language interpretation and assistive technologies

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities

Both speakers advocate for network-based approaches to capacity building that connect local advocates with international movements while ensuring sustainable impact through train-the-trainer models and ongoing collaboration.

Speakers

– Cogburn Derrick
– Gunela Astbrink

Arguments

Transnational advocacy networks are essential for sustained engagement in global policy spaces, allowing local advocates to connect internationally

Regional capacity building requires sustainable models where trained advocates return to run workshops in their own countries

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Capacity development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of leveraging available resources and tools to democratize access to Internet governance participation, whether through philanthropic support or open source technologies.

Speakers

– Sarah Armstrong
– Cogburn Derrick

Arguments

Philanthropic organizations should require accessibility features, support mentorships, and prioritize funding for underrepresented regions

Open data and open source tools like Python and R enable research capacity, while generative AI tools may enhance participation for non-programmers

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Capacity development

Unexpected consensus

AI as a solution for accessibility challenges

Speakers

– Vinton Cerf

Arguments

AI and intelligent agents may provide alternative interaction methods beyond keyboards and mice, potentially making applications more usable through negotiation rather than linear navigation

Explanation

While the session focused primarily on traditional accessibility approaches, Cerf’s emphasis on AI as a potential game-changer for accessibility represents an unexpected technological optimism that wasn’t challenged by other speakers, suggesting implicit agreement about AI’s potential despite limited discussion of this topic.

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Digital standards

Need for concrete employment and leadership pathways

Speakers

– Audience
– MODERATOR

Arguments

Employment quotas and clear pathways to leadership positions are needed to ensure persons with disabilities become self-sufficient rather than dependent

The ideal end goal is a world where accessibility is built-in by default, eliminating the need for persons with disabilities to request accommodations

Explanation

The convergence between audience calls for concrete employment quotas and the moderator’s vision of built-in accessibility represents unexpected consensus on the need for systemic rather than charitable approaches to disability inclusion, moving beyond traditional advocacy to structural change.

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Future of work

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated strong consensus on fundamental principles including universal design benefits, the importance of senior leadership commitment, the need for sustainable capacity building, and the challenge of implementing policy frameworks. There was also broad agreement on moving beyond tokenistic approaches toward systemic integration of accessibility.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for the field. The agreement spans theoretical principles, practical implementation strategies, and long-term vision, suggesting a mature understanding of disability inclusion challenges. This consensus provides a strong foundation for coordinated action across organizations and regions, though speakers acknowledged significant work remains in translating shared principles into widespread practice.

Different viewpoints

Approach to achieving meaningful participation vs. addressing structural barriers

Speakers

– Audience
– Participant
– MODERATOR

Arguments

True inclusion requires preparing spaces for people with disabilities, not just inviting them – including sign language interpretation and assistive technologies

Remote participation has helped persons with disabilities participate in IGF, but competing sessions and personal priorities affect attendance at specific workshops

Moving beyond tokenism requires systemic change across the entire Internet governance ecosystem, with multiple organizations working toward accessibility

Summary

The audience member criticized the session itself for lacking proper accessibility features and low participation, while participants defended current efforts by citing remote participation improvements and competing priorities. The moderator acknowledged limitations while calling for broader systemic change.

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Digital access

Individual vs. organizational responsibility for sustained engagement

Speakers

– Cogburn Derrick
– Nirmita Narasimhan

Arguments

Transnational advocacy networks are essential for sustained engagement in global policy spaces, allowing local advocates to connect internationally

Continuity and ongoing support are lacking – participants need sustained engagement and connections to work on issues after returning to their countries

Summary

Cogburn emphasizes the importance of joining existing transnational networks as the solution, while Narasimhan focuses on the lack of individual support and continuity after participation, suggesting different perspectives on where responsibility lies.

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Capacity development

Unexpected differences

Effectiveness of current accessibility efforts within IGF itself

Speakers

– Audience
– Participant
– MODERATOR

Arguments

True inclusion requires preparing spaces for people with disabilities, not just inviting them – including sign language interpretation and assistive technologies

DCAD promotes events through multiple channels but faces ongoing challenges in maximizing participation

Moving beyond tokenism requires systemic change across the entire Internet governance ecosystem, with multiple organizations working toward accessibility

Explanation

Unexpected because this was a session specifically about disability leadership, yet participants disagreed about whether the session itself was adequately accessible. The audience member’s direct criticism of the session’s accessibility created tension with organizers who defended their efforts.

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Digital access

Overall assessment

Summary

The main areas of disagreement centered on implementation approaches rather than fundamental goals. Speakers agreed on the importance of disability inclusion but differed on whether to focus on capacity building, structural changes, or immediate accommodations.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most disagreements were about methods and priorities rather than fundamental principles. The consensus on core goals (accessibility, inclusion, moving beyond tokenism) was strong, but speakers emphasized different pathways to achieve these goals. This suggests a healthy debate about implementation strategies rather than fundamental ideological divisions, which could lead to complementary approaches if properly coordinated.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both emphasize that meaningful inclusion requires systemic integration rather than tokenistic approaches. They argue for mainstreaming accessibility across all activities rather than confining it to specialized sessions or symbolic gestures.

Speakers

– Nirmita Narasimhan
– Audience

Arguments

Integration of accessibility across all IGF sessions is needed, rather than limiting disability discussions to dedicated accessibility sessions

True inclusion requires preparing spaces for people with disabilities, not just inviting them – including sign language interpretation and assistive technologies

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities

Both speakers advocate for network-based approaches to capacity building that connect local advocates with international movements while ensuring sustainable impact through train-the-trainer models and ongoing collaboration.

Speakers

– Cogburn Derrick
– Gunela Astbrink

Arguments

Transnational advocacy networks are essential for sustained engagement in global policy spaces, allowing local advocates to connect internationally

Regional capacity building requires sustainable models where trained advocates return to run workshops in their own countries

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Capacity development

Both speakers emphasize the importance of leveraging available resources and tools to democratize access to Internet governance participation, whether through philanthropic support or open source technologies.

Speakers

– Sarah Armstrong
– Cogburn Derrick

Arguments

Philanthropic organizations should require accessibility features, support mentorships, and prioritize funding for underrepresented regions

Open data and open source tools like Python and R enable research capacity, while generative AI tools may enhance participation for non-programmers

Topics

Rights of persons with disabilities | Capacity development

Key takeaways

Digital accessibility requires moving beyond tokenism to meaningful leadership participation by persons with disabilities in internet governance

Universal design principles benefit everyone, not just persons with disabilities, and should be embedded in all digital infrastructure

AI and intelligent agents offer promising alternative interaction methods that could make applications more accessible through conversational interfaces rather than traditional navigation

Global policy frameworks like WSIS+20 and Global Digital Compact provide opportunities for disability inclusion, but implementation requires sustained advocacy and national-level legislation

Organizational commitment at senior levels is crucial – accessibility champions and board-level resolutions drive real change

Research and data analytics demonstrate that sustained advocacy works – DCAD’s language has been consistently present in IGF discussions since the beginning

Transnational advocacy networks are essential for connecting local disability advocates to global policy spaces and providing sustained engagement opportunities

Multiple barriers exist to meaningful participation including lack of awareness, funding challenges, limited exposure to broader internet governance topics, and insufficient continuity support

Capacity building through train-the-trainer models and regional workshops can effectively develop disability leadership in internet governance

True inclusion requires preparing spaces for people with disabilities, not just inviting them – including proper accessibility infrastructure and moving beyond symbolic representation

Resolutions and action items

Join and actively participate in transnational advocacy networks like DCAD to connect local advocacy with global policy spaces

Integrate accessibility and disability inclusion into internet governance structures rather than treating it as a separate topic

Invest in leadership pipelines for persons with disabilities through training programs, mentorships, and funding opportunities

Institutionalize accountability for inclusion through benchmarking, metrics, and regular auditing of accessibility progress

Expand train-the-trainer workshop models to other regions beyond South Asia to build global capacity

Philanthropic organizations should require accessibility features in funded events and support disability-specific networks

Move accessibility discussions beyond dedicated sessions to integration across all IGF topics and discussions

Provide input to WSIS+20 zero draft by July 15th deadline to influence global policy frameworks

Develop clear pathways and employment opportunities for persons with disabilities in internet governance organizations

Use available open data and research tools to monitor progress and demonstrate impact of disability inclusion efforts

Unresolved issues

How to significantly increase participation of persons with disabilities in IGF beyond the current limited representation

Sustainable funding mechanisms for supporting persons with disabilities to attend and meaningfully participate in international forums

Effective strategies for raising awareness about internet governance among disability advocates in various countries

How to ensure continuity of engagement and support for disability advocates after they return to their home countries

Balancing remote participation benefits with the need for in-person visibility and networking opportunities

Developing practical implementation mechanisms for translating high-level global policy commitments into national legislation and regulation

Creating effective cross-sector collaboration between disability advocates and other internet governance stakeholders

Addressing intersectional challenges faced by persons with disabilities from underrepresented regions or with multiple marginalized identities

Establishing clear metrics and accountability measures for meaningful inclusion beyond basic accessibility compliance

Suggested compromises

Use hybrid participation models that combine remote and in-person engagement to maximize accessibility while maintaining visibility

Start with organizational self-improvement (like Internet Society’s accessibility framework) while advocating for broader systemic change

Focus on capacity building and training as intermediate steps toward the ultimate goal of full inclusion and leadership representation

Leverage existing data and research tools while building toward more comprehensive monitoring and evaluation systems

Work within current multi-stakeholder frameworks while pushing for more inclusive decision-making processes

Balance dedicated disability-focused sessions with integration of accessibility topics across other IGF discussions

We cannot advocate for inclusion while excluding the very voice we claim to empower. So representation must not be symbolic, but it must be standard and intentional… true inclusion must mean more than just inviting people into the room, but also preparing the room for them.

Speaker

Jacqueline Jijide

Reason

This comment directly challenged the panel’s own practices and exposed a fundamental contradiction – discussing disability leadership while having limited actual participation from people with disabilities. It highlighted the difference between tokenistic representation and meaningful inclusion.

Impact

This comment created a pivotal moment that forced the moderator and panelists to acknowledge shortcomings in their own event organization. It shifted the discussion from theoretical policy recommendations to immediate, practical accountability, leading to defensive but important explanations about funding, outreach, and competing priorities.

At the end goal, we want them to see them at the top… until then, once we don’t have a clear plan to make themselves sufficient, they will still become dependent on people. At the end of the day, we’ll be bringing them to forums, trying to empower them, but if you don’t have a clear end goal, I don’t think it’s going to solve the problem.

Speaker

Francis Akwa Amini

Reason

This comment challenged the entire approach of the discussion by questioning whether current efforts actually lead to systemic change or merely perpetuate dependency. It demanded concrete employment quotas and measurable outcomes rather than just participation in forums.

Impact

This fundamentally shifted the conversation from discussing participation to questioning the effectiveness of current approaches. It forced speakers to articulate their long-term vision and led to the moderator’s idealistic but honest response about living in a world where accessibility wouldn’t need to be requested.

What I would like to see going forward is not more sessions on accessibility but also accessibility covered across more sessions as part of other discussions.

Speaker

Nirmita Narasimhan

Reason

This comment reframed the entire approach to disability inclusion in internet governance, suggesting that segregating accessibility discussions into dedicated sessions actually perpetuates marginalization rather than achieving true integration.

Impact

This insight challenged the fundamental structure of how disability issues are addressed in IGF, suggesting that the very existence of separate accessibility panels might be counterproductive. It introduced the concept of mainstreaming disability perspectives across all internet governance discussions.

Meaningful participation goes beyond just talking in your session about accessibility. You need to be able to engage with other forum… And it works both ways. You need to be able to participate in other discussions which are also very important… And that representation is not coming across.

Speaker

Nirmita Narasimhan

Reason

This comment identified a critical barrier – that people with disabilities are often siloed into accessibility-only discussions, missing opportunities to contribute their perspectives to broader internet governance issues like AI, safety, and literacy.

Impact

This observation deepened the discussion by revealing how current participation models actually limit the potential contributions of people with disabilities. It connected to later discussions about the need for cross-cutting integration rather than isolated participation.

In an ideal world we would not be having this discussion but persons with disabilities would not have to ask for certain facilities services to be made accessible… but they would already be given to them without asking.

Speaker

Muhammad Shabbir

Reason

This comment articulated the ultimate vision – a world where universal design principles are so embedded that accessibility is automatic rather than requested. It provided philosophical grounding for why the work matters beyond immediate policy goals.

Impact

This response helped synthesize the various critiques and challenges raised during the session, providing an aspirational framework that acknowledged both the idealistic nature of the goal and its necessity as a guiding principle for current efforts.

Overall assessment

The most impactful comments in this discussion were those that challenged the status quo and exposed contradictions between stated goals and actual practices. Jacqueline’s critique of the panel’s own lack of disability representation created a crucial moment of accountability that elevated the entire conversation. Francis’s demand for concrete employment outcomes and measurable goals forced speakers to move beyond theoretical discussions to practical implementation strategies. Nirmita’s insights about mainstreaming accessibility across all discussions rather than segregating it fundamentally reframed how disability inclusion should be approached in internet governance. These challenging comments transformed what could have been a routine policy discussion into a more honest examination of current limitations and a more ambitious vision for systemic change. The discussion evolved from celebrating existing efforts to critically examining their effectiveness and demanding more transformative approaches.

How can the WSIS+20 and Global Digital Compact frameworks be effectively implemented at national levels to ensure meaningful disability inclusion?

Speaker

Gunela Astbrink

Explanation

She mentioned these are high-level global instruments that require national legislation and regulation for implementation, but the specific mechanisms for this transition remain unclear

How can we increase outreach to disability advocates in different countries about IGF and internet governance issues?

Speaker

Nirmita Narasimhan

Explanation

She identified that many disability advocates don’t know about IGF despite working on relevant technology issues, representing a significant participation barrier

What funding mechanisms and support systems can be established to help persons with disabilities attend and meaningfully participate in IGF events?

Speaker

Nirmita Narasimhan

Explanation

She highlighted logistical and financial barriers that prevent persons with disabilities from attending IGF, including need for accompaniment and travel support

How can persons with disabilities be better integrated into non-disability-specific IGF sessions and discussions?

Speaker

Nirmita Narasimhan

Explanation

She emphasized that meaningful participation requires engagement beyond just accessibility sessions, particularly in areas like AI where persons with disabilities have valuable contributions

What continuity and follow-up support systems can be developed for disability advocates after they participate in IGF?

Speaker

Nirmita Narasimhan

Explanation

She noted that one-time participation isn’t sufficient and advocates need ongoing support and connections to continue working on these issues in their home countries

How can organizations implement specific employment quotas or targets for persons with disabilities in internet governance organizations?

Speaker

Francis Akwa Amini

Explanation

He suggested implementing policies requiring a percentage of positions (e.g., 5%) be filled by persons with disabilities to create self-sufficiency and reduce dependency

What strategies can be used to develop ambition and interest among persons with disabilities to participate in international internet governance beyond local community work?

Speaker

Nigel Casimir

Explanation

He observed that while local ICT training for persons with disabilities exists, there’s limited interest in international advocacy and policy work

How can the train-the-trainer model for disability leadership in internet governance be expanded to other regions beyond South Asia?

Speaker

Gunela Astbrink

Explanation

She described successful regional training programs but indicated need to scale this approach globally

What specific metrics and benchmarking systems can be developed to measure progress on disability inclusion in internet governance?

Speaker

Gunela Astbrink

Explanation

She mentioned the need to institutionalize accountability for inclusion through metrics, building on Derek Cockburn’s research work

How can generative AI tools be leveraged to enhance multi-stakeholder participation by those not trained in traditional programming and data analysis?

Speaker

Cogburn Derrick

Explanation

He mentioned upcoming research comparing traditional NLP approaches with generative AI approaches for analyzing policy participation

What are the practical examples and success stories of ISOC Foundation’s disability-focused projects, and how can others join these initiatives?

Speaker

Emmanuel Orok (online participant)

Explanation

He requested specific examples and pathways for participation in Internet Society Foundation programs for persons with disabilities

How can accessibility be integrated across all IGF sessions rather than being confined to disability-specific sessions?

Speaker

Nirmita Narasimhan

Explanation

She advocated for mainstreaming accessibility discussions across all internet governance topics rather than treating it as a separate issue

Summary

This UNICEF-hosted discussion focused on creating safe online environments for children and closing digital equity gaps, particularly for women and girls. The session was divided into two segments, with the first examining how different stakeholders can contribute to child online safety, and the second addressing gender divides in digital solutions.

In the first segment, speakers from China, South Africa, Norway, and the Netherlands shared diverse perspectives on protecting children online. Ms. Zhao from China outlined comprehensive legal frameworks including dedicated online protection laws and industry self-regulation initiatives. Advocate Lindhorst from South Africa described regulatory approaches combining platform accountability, digital literacy education, and enforcement mechanisms involving social workers and law enforcement. Caroline Eriksen from Norway’s sovereign wealth fund highlighted how investors can influence companies across sectors to respect children’s rights, noting that failure to do so creates material risks. Alex Galt from IKEA demonstrated how brands can take responsibility for child rights impacts throughout their digital marketing value chains, even when working with third-party platforms.

The second segment focused on addressing gender inequalities in digital access and design. Speakers noted that 31% of women globally are not in education, employment, or training, and that nearly half of documented AI bias targets women and girls. Lisa Sivertsen from NORAD and Silje Dahl from Sweden’s development agency discussed supporting digital public goods and innovative financing mechanisms to bridge these gaps. Tawhida Shiropa from Bangladesh shared how her mental health app was co-designed with girls to ensure emotional safety and privacy protection. Annina Wersun from OpenCRVS explained how open-source civil registration systems can challenge assumptions and promote inclusive design by default. The discussion concluded with calls for increased investment in women-led startups, sustainable funding models for digital public goods, and the recognition that digital infrastructure is as essential as roads or electricity for inclusive societies.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Multi-stakeholder approaches to child online safety**: The discussion explored how different stakeholders (governments, regulators, investors, brands, and civil society) can collaborate to create safer digital environments for children, with examples from China, South Africa, Norway, and the Netherlands showing various regulatory frameworks, industry self-discipline measures, and public-private partnerships.

– **Gender equity in digital innovation and access**: A significant focus on addressing the digital gender divide, highlighting that women and girls face systemic barriers in accessing and benefiting from digital technologies, with statistics showing that only 2-3% of investment goes to women-founded companies and female-focused health solutions.

– **Digital Public Goods and open source solutions as enablers of inclusion**: The conversation emphasized how open source technologies and digital public goods can promote transparency, accountability, trust, and accessibility, particularly for marginalized communities, with concrete examples from mental health apps in Bangladesh and civil registration systems.

– **Innovative financing mechanisms for inclusive technology**: Discussion of how traditional development funding can be leveraged to de-risk private investment, including guarantee schemes, blended finance approaches, and the need for donors to support digital public goods infrastructure as essential public infrastructure.

– **Design principles for women and girls’ safety and empowerment**: Emphasis on co-designing solutions with end users, ensuring emotional safety alongside technical security, implementing human rights standards, and moving beyond passive protection to active empowerment of women and girls in digital spaces.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore concrete strategies and partnerships for creating more inclusive, safe, and equitable digital environments, with particular focus on protecting children’s rights online and closing gender divides in digital access and innovation. The forum sought to move beyond identifying problems to sharing practical solutions and successful models from different sectors and regions.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently collaborative and solution-oriented tone throughout. Speakers demonstrated mutual respect and built upon each other’s insights, creating a constructive dialogue. The tone was professional yet passionate, with participants clearly committed to the causes they discussed. There was an underlying sense of urgency about addressing digital inequities, balanced with optimism about the potential for positive change through coordinated action. The atmosphere remained engaging and forward-looking, with speakers offering concrete examples and actionable recommendations rather than dwelling on problems.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Sunita Grote** – Lead of UNICEF Ventures team, exploring how openly built emerging technologies can accelerate results for children

– **Josianne Galea Baron** – Co-moderator from UNICEF’s Child Rights and Business function

– **Zhao Hu** – Associate Professor and Secretary General of China Federation of Internet Societies, PhD in political science and theory from School of Government at Peking University

– **Makhosazana Lindhorst** – Advocate, Executive responsible for research, regulatory development, registration, and licensing compliance and enforcement at South Africa’s Film and Publication Board

– **Caroline Eriksen** – Head of social media and active ownership at Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM)

– **Alexander Galt** – Digital ethics leader for Inter-IKEA Group with responsibility to develop digital ethics practices across the IKEA value chain

– **Lisa Sivertsen** – Director of Human Development at NORAD

– **Silje Dahl** – First Secretary for Development Corporation at the Embassy of Sweden in Pretoria

– **Tawhida Shiropa** – Founder and CEO of Monar Bandhu (Bangladesh), recipient of UNICEF Venture Fund

– **Annina Wersun** – Co-Founder and Chief Impact Officer of OpenCRVS

**Additional speakers:**

None identified – all speakers mentioned in the transcript were included in the provided speakers names list.

# UNICEF Forum on Child Online Safety and Digital Gender Equity

## Executive Summary

This UNICEF-hosted discussion brought together stakeholders from government agencies, international organizations, private sector companies, and civil society to examine child online safety and digital gender equity. The forum was structured in two segments, with speakers participating both in-person and online, addressing how different actors can contribute to protecting children in digital spaces and reducing barriers to women’s and girls’ participation in digital innovation.

## Opening Framework and Context

Josianne Galea Baron, co-moderator from UNICEF’s Child Rights and Business function, framed the discussion with a key insight: “So our task is to protect and empower children as active participants and pioneers of the digital world as opposed to protecting them from the digital world.” She noted that research shows “children who experience online sexual abuse or exploitation and online bullying have significantly higher levels of anxiety, more suicidal thoughts and behaviors, and are more likely to self-harm.”

Sunita Grote, Lead of UNICEF Ventures, explained their role in exploring “openly built emerging technologies” and provided context for gender equity challenges, highlighting that 31% of women globally are not in education, employment, or training, and that nearly half of documented AI bias targets women and girls. She noted that only 2-3% of investment goes to women-founded companies.

## Segment One: Child Online Safety

### Government and Regulatory Approaches

Zhao Hu, Associate Professor and Secretary General of China Federation of Internet Societies, outlined China’s comprehensive legal framework for child online protection. He noted that China has “the world’s largest population of child internet users” and emphasized that “industry self-discipline and collaboration between public-private sectors strengthens child protection efforts.” He announced plans for an international conference on child online protection in September.

Advocate Makhosazana Lindhorst from South Africa’s Film and Publication Board described their balanced regulatory approach combining platform accountability with digital literacy education and accessible harm reporting mechanisms. She highlighted the role of social workers and law enforcement in investigating online child abuse cases.

### Private Sector Responsibility

Caroline Eriksen, head of the social media and active ownership at Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), demonstrated how investors can leverage influence across portfolio companies. She noted that “companies beyond tech sector impact child rights through digital advertising and marketing practices” and that failure to respect children’s rights creates material risks for businesses.

Alexander Galt, Digital ethics leader for Inter-IKEA Group, explained how brands can take responsibility throughout their digital marketing value chain: “brands like IKEA are the companies that fund this digital marketing ecosystem. We buy the media space to engage with people who want to buy our products. And we think that comes with responsibilities and ability to influence.”

Eriksen announced the official launch of disclosure recommendations and guidance for companies on child rights impacts through a webinar on June 27th, demonstrating a QR code for registration.

## Segment Two: Digital Gender Divides

### Barriers to Women’s Digital Participation

Lisa Sivertsen, Director of Human Development at NORAD, explained how “gender-blind digital tools enhance existing gaps and structural discrimination against women and girls.” She emphasized that women face multiple barriers including lack of access to devices, internet connectivity, and financial services. She highlighted DHIS2 as an example of a Norwegian-supported digital public good now used by over 100 countries.

Silje Dahl, First Secretary for Development Corporation at the Embassy of Sweden in Pretoria, discussed addressing technology-facilitated gender-based violence through coordinated policy responses. She mentioned how anonymous and safe information access is vital for youth in regions where topics like sexual health are controversial, noting that one partner’s app has reached “9 million young people.”

### Inclusive Design Examples

Tawhida Shiropa, Founder and CEO of Monar Bandhu in Bangladesh and UNICEF Venture Fund recipient, shared insights from developing mental health solutions for girls. She explained their approach to ensuring both technical security and emotional safety, emphasizing co-design with target users and implementation in local languages. Her organization has served thousands of students and adolescents through their mental health services.

Annina Wersun, Co-Founder and Chief Impact Officer of OpenCRVS, explained how their birth registration system challenges traditional assumptions. She described how “OpenCRVS shows an alternative, and that is a birth registration form that does not mandate the father’s information,” demonstrating how design choices can address systemic inequalities. She mentioned their use of a fictitious default country called “Farajaland” to demonstrate inclusive configurations.

### Open Source and Digital Public Goods

Several speakers emphasized the value of open source approaches for promoting inclusion. Sivertsen explained how open source systems allow for external audits and adaptability to different user needs. She provided an example of how a solution designed for low-resource contexts proved valuable even for wealthy nations: “During the pandemic, it actually proved so easy to use and such a safe tool that it spread also and it was taken into use also by a lot of middle-income and high-income countries, including Norway.”

### Financing Challenges

Speakers identified significant financing gaps, noting that less than 1% of venture capital funding goes to Africa, and only 2-3% goes to women-founded businesses globally. Dahl described alternative financing mechanisms like guarantees and capital mobilization to reduce donor dependency while de-risking private investment, with SIDA planning to expand these models to health and sexual and reproductive health sectors.

Wersun explained that “digital public goods need upfront investment to become self-sustainable while maintaining their public benefit mission,” with OpenCRVS committed to achieving self-sustainability within five years. Shiropa suggested that “the VC mind should be slightly changed” to better understand open source business models.

## Key Themes

### Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration

Speakers across both segments emphasized the need for coordination between governments, regulators, investors, brands, civil society, and affected communities to address both child online safety and gender digital divides.

### User-Centered Design

Multiple speakers highlighted the importance of involving end users, particularly marginalized communities, in the design process. This was demonstrated through examples from Bangladesh’s mental health services to birth registration systems.

### Digital Infrastructure as Essential Infrastructure

Speakers treated digital infrastructure as comparable to roads or electricity, influencing discussions about financing, sustainability, and public investment in equitable access.

## Concrete Commitments

– UNICEF and BSR committed to launching disclosure recommendations through a June 27th webinar

– China Federation of Internet Societies committed to hosting an international conference on child online protection in September

– OpenCRVS committed to achieving self-sustainability within five years

– SIDA committed to expanding guarantee and capital mobilization models to health and SRHR sectors

## Ongoing Challenges

The discussion identified several areas requiring continued attention: changing investment patterns to value impact alongside innovation, scaling local solutions while maintaining cultural relevance, addressing technology-facilitated gender-based violence across jurisdictions, and ensuring meaningful participation of marginalized communities in digital system design.

The forum established frameworks for ongoing collaboration through international conferences, webinars, and collaborative initiatives, providing a foundation for continued progress on child online safety and digital gender equity.

Sunita Grote: Good morning, everyone. Welcome. It is my honor to welcome you to this session on behalf of UNICEF. My name is Sunita Grota. I lead the UNICEF Ventures team where we explore how openly built emerging technologies can accelerate results for children. I’m joined for this session by my co-moderator online, Josia and Galia Brown from our Child Rights and Business function at UNICEF. We have prepared for you today a two-segment open forum. The first one will look at and bring together a diverse perspective on the unique role that different stakeholders can play play in creating a safe online environment for children. In the second segment, we’ll be looking specifically at how to close equity divides that we still find in the online world and in the design and implementation of digital solutions. We’re going to be focusing particularly on the gender divide and looking at how to design and implement solutions for women and girls. For the first segment, I’m going to hand over to Josie, who will take us through that discussion Excuse us while we try and sort out the technology. There we go. That looks promising. Josie, can you- Hi. Can you hear me? Excellent. Okay. Fantastic. So over to you for the first segment, please.

Josianne Galea Baron: Thank you so much. Forgive the technical issues. It’s great to be live now. It’s great to see everybody in the room. Thank you, Sunita, for setting the scene. Let’s get started with the first part. of this open forum. As has already been introduced, the first part of our forum today will focus on one key question, which is how can different stakeholders from across sectors play their part in delivering a digital world that works for children, one that keeps them safe, respects their rights, and positively supports their well-being. This task represents one of the defining challenges of our times, as we know, with countries around the world grappling with some critical questions, like how will digital technologies, including generative AI, impact children’s lives positively, negatively now and in the future? Or what is the right age for children to participate in online platforms? Or what emerging risks and dangers await children as they explore new digital environments? These worries about what happens online speak to real-world harms and challenges experienced by children today that demand urgent action. Research published by UNICEF Innocenti earlier this month found that children who experience online sexual abuse or exploitation and online bullying have significantly higher levels of anxiety, more suicidal thoughts and behaviors, and are more likely to self-harm. So these are real-world challenges. Having said all that, meaningful access, as we’ll hear more about later, are oftentimes a critical lifeline to opportunities. So our task is to protect and empower children as active participants and pioneers of the digital world as opposed to protecting them from the digital world. So with that, I’m delighted today to be joined by four distinguished speakers to help us understand and explore these issues. Our panelists will take us on a tour around the world, from China to South Africa to Norway and the Netherlands, to see also different perspectives representing distinct stakeholder groups, from regulators to investors to brands and beyond, and explore. how these issues are being addressed in different contexts. We have limited time, so we’ll do our best to engage. We will ask you to put questions or comments in the Zoom chat only if you’d like to engage with us, and we’ll do our best to either address them at the end of this Part 1 or follow up with you later. So with that, let me turn to our first distinguished speaker, Ms. Zhao, Associate

Sunita Grote: Professor and Secretary General of China Federation of Internet Societies, which is a body that convenes the industry under the leadership of the government. Ms. Zhao graduated with a PhD degree of political science and theory from School of Government at Peking University, and she has many years of public management experience in the field of education and a great deal of international experience as well. Ms. Zhao, thank you for joining us today. With the world’s largest population of child internet users and a rapidly growing digital ecosystem, we’d love to hear from you. What measures is China putting in place to guide its internet industry to respect children’s rights

Zhao Hu: in the digital age? Over to you. Hello everyone. Good morning. It’s a great honor to address this forum. The China Federation of Social Societies started in May 2018. We are honored to hold special consecutive status with the UN ECOSOC. Currently, we have 528 members, including major internet corporations like Tencent, Baidu, and Alibaba. Our goal is to promote the development of the digital economy and informatics carry out China has the world’s largest population of child internet users. We have made sustained efforts in protecting minors online. First, strengthening legal safeguards. In 2020, Law of the People’s Republic of China on Protection of Minors introduced a dedicated online protection chapter. In 2021, the Personal Information Protection Law further specifies special protections for children’s personal data. In 2024, the regulations on the protection of minors in cyberspace addresses critical issues such as cyber bullying, data breaches, and internet addiction. Complementary regulations like the provisions on the cyber protection of children’s personal information and the interim measures for the management of generative artificial intelligence services have been enacted under the guidance of the Cyberspace Administration of China. Second, enhancing government oversight. The CAC conducts annual campaigns to regulate minors’ online environments, particularly during summer breaks, urging platforms to standardize use focus. Communities. Leading internet companies have improved minor mode functions, established rapid reporting mechanisms, adopted restrictive measures to against cyber bullying. Collaborative efforts among public security, market regulation and the culture and the tourism, target game accounting trading and anti-addiction system circumvention. Third, mobilizing social forces. The CFIS has established a professional community called Committee on Minors on Life Protection and launched the ad-spread public welfare initiative, protecting the rights and the interests of minors. The online security and digital literacy courses we produced have received over 10 million views. Compiled and published the Minors on Life Protection Annual Report 2024, promoted the preparation of national standards such as guidelines for the safety of AI technology involving minors. Enhancing the protection of children’s rights through industry self-discipline. Fourth, deepening international cooperation. China has learned from international best practices and shared with the world the results of its experience. CFIS partners with the UNICEF China in 2024 to launch the safety by design corporate case collection activity. The selected cases will introduce China’s progress to global internet companies. Distinguished guests, building an inclusive digital future that respects children’s rights is our shared responsibility. In September this year, we will hold the international conference on the child online protection in China. We sincerely invite all of you to come to China at that time to share and discuss practical experiences and the future prospects of China’s online protection with us. Let us collaborate to create a safe, empowering online environment. Thank you, thank you.

Josianne Galea Baron: Excellent, thank you so much Ms. Zhao for so clearly and succinctly outlining also the importance of crafting strategies across a range of different levers and building blocks. The role of building digital literacy skills, the role of lawmakers, and the importance of knowledge exchange and also cooperation really appreciate that intervention. Now let’s move from China to South Africa, turning to our second speaker to bring the perspective of a national regulator for online services. I’m very delighted to introduce advocate Lindhorst joining us online, who is an executive responsible for research, regulatory development, registration, and licensing compliance and enforcement at South Africa’s Film and Publication Board. She has more than 10 years experience in regulatory policy, legal, compliance, and enforcement. Welcome to you, Advocate Lindhorst. The South African Film and Publication Board has taken a proactive stance on child online safety through regulatory frameworks, public education and community outreach. In your efforts to protect children in digital spaces, how do you navigate the balance between driving systemic accountability among digital platforms, equipping users, especially children and caregivers with digital literacy and ensuring accessible mechanisms for address when harm occurs? So, very easy question for you. Thank you so much for joining us. Over to you. Good morning, and thank you very much for

Makhosazana Lindhorst: having us. So, as the Film and Publication Board, we are an online safety regulator that is really responsible for ensuring that South Africans are protected from online harms. So as a regulator, we have regulation frameworks that we have. So streamers of films, games and certain publications are required to register with us as the Film and Publication Board. So that gives us an opportunity to ensure that we are able to have the checks and balances, but through the law, we are able to ensure that the measures that they have ensures that there’s online safety for children. But more importantly, when it comes to social media platforms, as a regulator, we ensure that where there is a prohibited content, harmful content that is brought to their attention through issuing our takedown notice to ensure that prohibited content that might cause a psychological harm to children, it’s being removed. So when it comes to the issue of education and awareness, that is also an area that we focus on as a regulator, because giving digital skills, just like China, that is our priority to ensure that South Africans are given digital skills, especially parents. That becomes the most important part because children have a right to responsible parenting and they also have the right to privacy. Whilst outside the mandate of the FPB, but as a country, we also have privacy laws that ensures that children’s rights are also protected and platforms are required to ensure that they comply with those laws. But on a day-to-day basis, we have a team of dedicated advocacy officers who goes to schools and ensures that children are protected and educated in terms of how they’re supposed to conduct themselves online. We also have toolkits that empowers them, including the teachers and parents. So that is the work that we do as the Filament Publication Board. We work closely with law enforcement. agencies, especially on issues of child sexual abuse material, where we have a team of social workers who are also our investigators that works on the case close with the police to make sure that they compile the reports that we take to court and serves as evidence. We have a dedicated committee, so if one feels their right is being affected by online content, they can lodge a complaint with us and that can be taken to the enforcement committee, which is a quasi-judicial body. And what makes it important is that we are not competing with any other mentors through the court process. This is a dedicated quasi-judicial body that is focusing on issues of online safety and other compliance issues within our mandate.

Josianne Galea Baron: Wonderful. Thank you so much, Advocate Lindhorst, for giving us that very different perspective of a regulator. You’re using different keywords that tease out such an important groups of people and professionals that play an important role in this. Social workers, law enforcement, investigators, these are very important elements for us to think about. But with that, we’re going to take another shift of gears. When we think about children’s online experiences, it’s natural to think of regulators or the responsibility of social media companies or other players in the tech sector. We also have our two next speakers who will help to shed a light on the important roles and responsibilities of other players and influencers in the broader ecosystem that also have a very critical part to play in delivering positive change for children. They will also share about work being done with UNICEF. I’ll turn to Caroline Erickson, who joins you in the Karum, who is the head of the social media and active ownership at Norges Bank Investment Management, or MBIM. Caroline heads the social team within the active ownership area of MBIM. In this role, she leads the work on policy development and engagement with portfolio companies on social sustainability topics, including children’s rights. Welcome to the panel, Caroline. As an investor, MBIM interacts with a large number of companies all around the world. What is the role that investors can play in advancing responsible business conduct for child rights and safety online, and how is MBIM addressing the topic of child rights and responsible business in the digital space?

Caroline Eriksen: Over to you, Caroline. Thank you so much, Josie. I’m delighted to be here. Thanks to everyone following here in the room and online. MBIM is a global financial investor in almost 9,000 companies in 70 markets. So we own a small slice of most of the companies in the world. As a global investor, we depend on well-functioning markets and a long-term sustainable development in economic, environmental, and social sense. We want companies to operate responsibly and with a long-term horizon. And to ensure long-term returns, as a minority shareholder, we can use our leverage to influence companies and improve market practices. Child rights in the digital environment is an important topic for us. We are a fund for future generations, and about 30% of today’s population are children, and they spend an increasing amount of time online. Failure to respect children’s rights can be a material risk for companies. It can entail legal, financial, reputational risk, and they can affect their license to operate. And it goes beyond digital companies, right? As Josie mentioned, for example, think about retail. They may not consider themselves a tech company, but they may impact children’s rights through digital advertising, through other ways of their operation. So it’s a topic that’s relevant to companies across sectors and across markets. It’s also an area where we see an increasing amount of regulation. I can mention the EU Digital Services Act or other types of regulation in other markets. This is regulation that asks companies to be open about how they’re addressing and managing impacts on children’s rights online. This is why we have entered a partnership with UNICEF over the last few years addressing exactly this topic. Together, BSR and UNICEF have done research on companies’ reports and looked at more than 200 reports to see how they address child rights impacts online. They found that only a few of them actually meaningfully address how the companies impact children’s rights. We also experienced this in our bilateral dialogue with companies. They see it as a material topic, but how to address this in reporting is still an area of development. UNICEF and BSR, together with industry, academia and civil society, have developed a set of disclosure recommendations and a guidance that we will soon publish and share with everyone. In fact, I can give a little teaser today. We will launch this officially on Thursday, the 27th of June. I’m really excited about this. It will be a webinar and I’m going to actually show… So yes, here on the screen, you can scan this QR code and sign up to attend the launch webinar. Really excited about this, watch this space, and thank you so much. Hope to see you there. Thank you so much for that intervention, Caroline.

Josianne Galea Baron: I think it’s so important for us to expand our minds and think about the different roles that actors who might be more of the quote-unquote unusual suspects and the very important influence and role that they can play in advancing the goals that we’re talking about. And I hope to see all of you joining us in two days on Thursday for the launch of the disclosure recommendations, which will also include the research that Caroline described. So with that, I will move us on to our final speaker. But before I do, a quick reminder, if you are joining in person or on the Zoom, you are very welcome to make a comment or a question in the chat, and hopefully we will have time to address some of those at the end. So again, and this is something also that Caroline gestured towards, is that when thinking about the variety of industry players that are relevant for child rights and safety online, the deployers of digital technologies are also key stakeholders, not only those that develop digital technologies. Alex Gelt joins us online. He’s the digital ethics leader for Inter-IKEA Group with responsibility to develop digital ethics practices across the IKEA value chain. He has experience of initiating and embedding digital ethics in several public and private organizations through his work with the UK Civil Service and Deloitte. Alex, what does Inter-IKEA mean to you? inter-IKEA group have to do with child rights and safety online? This is a question that I’m sure you get asked in different places. And what actions are you taking? How can other brands play an active role in understanding and addressing their impacts on child rights and safety online? Over to you, Alex. I don’t think we can hear you, Alex, if we can test the mic. It looks like it’s working now.

Alexander Galt: Thanks, I see. And good morning to those of you in Norway and hey to everyone joining online. And thanks for having me here today, IGF, and great speakers that we’ve had so far. And thank you to the fellow panelists. And echoing a lot of what Caroline has just said in terms of being a responsible business. So, first of all, what does IKEA have to do with child rights? We’ve made the commitment to integrate child rights into everything we do across all of the IKEA organizations. And we take that responsibility to ensure that children come to no harm as a result of the direct contact that we have with children and the indirect contact that we have wherever we do business in the IKEA value chain. And whilst we think that coming to the stores is a key part of the IKEA experience, we know that contact with people happens increasingly in an online context. So, actually, most of our shopping journeys start online through the more established e-commerce websites and applications that we have, but also through platforms. search or social media, and other types of emerging platform engagement, whether that’s peer-to-peer reselling marketplaces or social gaming. And where we have direct contact, we put measures in place to protect child rights. So whether that’s our policy and processes on child safeguarding, the data protection mechanisms that we put in place when we engage with children when we’re developing our products, or for the technologies that we put in the home. So this is our IKEA smart product range, where we’ve taken an inclusive design approach with diverse families to hear the voice of the child in relation to design choices that we should make when we’re developing those products. And as mentioned there by Caroline a bit, marketing and digital marketing, I think, is a big area where we have contact with children. So when it comes to marketing, we have a strong point of view already for many years on how we portray children in marketing material. So these are the images and the media content that goes out into the world. And we make sure that we show and express children in a respectful way, in a way that brings them no harm and shows them in the positive light that they need to be. So this is largely what’s in our control and can be directly governed within the IKEA value chain. However, we also want to take a child rights perspective in the more indirect contact places that we have across the value chain. And that needs a more nuanced approach based mostly on the relationships that we have with partners. So again, on this marketing topic, we’re pretty clear or very clear on what we require when we are addressing children, that there is no direct targeting of children in our commercial messages. However, we don’t just stop there. And we know that a lot of child rights harms can also come from other types of practices other than and direct targeting. So whether that’s new monetization techniques like gamification or new models of engagement from influencer marketing or content creator marketing that represent a new form of child labor. And we know this happens on the platforms that we’re engaged with, and we want to take responsibility of how that conduct happens. And brands like IKEA are the companies that fund this digital marketing ecosystem. We buy the media space to engage with people who want to buy our products. And we think that comes with responsibilities and ability to influence. And we want to influence because we know that there is a growing knowledge that these interactions have the potential for harm. So in the partnership that we’ve had with UNICEF, we’ve wanted to research those harms and understand how to best counteract them, especially through the complexity of the different actors in the digital marketing ecosystem. It’s not just a binary of brands and platforms, there’s many actors within the space and many leverage points that we need to engage with. And this allows us to make informed decisions when we’re partnering with media agencies or ad tech companies and the partners that we choose to engage with. And we pass this through our value chain and how we then govern our brand and marketing operations. So this research has enabled the development of a toolkit to break down the due diligence actions and responsibilities that each actor in the value chain should take. So us and those that we are then giving our money to. Helps us to move from this kind of binary thinking of yes, no, or good or bad, should we be online or not, to have a more holistic picture of what, when, who, and how we should engage. So this toolkit will be openly available to all organizations who want to use it, but especially encourage brands who are at the start of this value chain to adopt it and work with the organizations that they outsource their actions to, in order for them to adopt their requirements and recommendations, and that we can uplift the child rights perspective. Thank you, Alex, and for rounding off the panel of different perspectives, right?

Josianne Galea Baron: I think that you tease out such an important element that we return to in so many different areas of business and human rights, which is to take a value chain approach to not only look at one particular actor, but also the bigger picture of the connections in the industry, the different leverage that different actors might have on other players, and the importance of human rights due diligence, which is certainly a very important red thread that goes through the different resources that we’ve discussed. And again, I hope to engage with many of you in the room and online around the digital marketing work that we will be issuing later this year as well. So definitely watch that space. We do have some moments for engagement, so please do engage with us on the chat. Thank you to one participant who’s sharing some research that they have. This is wonderful. And if you are in the room and would like to engage, then please also do it in the chat. I will give a moment or two to anybody who’d like to participate. And if no questions, I will very happily hand over to Sunita to guide us through part two of the forum. Fabulous. It was all very clear. No questions at all. I will hand over back to you, Sunita.

Sunita Grote: Thank you so much. Very much looking forward to the part two of this forum. Thank you. Thank you very much, Josiane. I’m going to ask you both to exit the stage, please, on that side, and we’ll move over to the second segment. of this forum. We are again going to be joined by two panelists online as well as two in the room, so I’ll ask Silje and Lisa please to join me on stage. So in this segment we’re going to be keeping our focus on the importance and concrete actions that various stakeholders can take, particularly to ensure that the digital world, the value and the impact that it has to offer is more accessible and available to those who could benefit the most. So for this panel today I am joined here on stage by Lisa Sivertsen, Director of Human Development at NORAD. I’m joined also by Silje Dahl, First Secretary for Development Corporation at the Embassy of Sweden in Pretoria. And online we’re joined by two speakers, Tawhida Shiropa, Founder and CEO of Monar Bandhu, she joins us from Bangladesh, and Annina Wersun, Co-Founder and Chief Impact Officer of OpenCRVS. So keeping in mind the reflections and recommendations we heard in the first segment, we’re going to focus our discussion further to an often still overlooked and excluded half of the world’s population, women and girls. What we know is that at present 31% of women worldwide are not in education, employment or training. 740 million women in developing economies remain unbanked. One in five adolescent girls are married before the age of 18. These are some of the wicked challenges, some of the big problems that many of us here in the room and definitely those of us on stage are working to tackle on a day-to-day basis. Digital technologies do in fact hold significant promise to help us address some of these challenges, but we are currently falling far short in realizing that potential. In fact we see that not only are we missing a lot of opportunities for women to be successful in the digital world, but we’re also missing a lot of opportunities for women to be successful in the digital world. are missing solutions to address those challenges, often completely in the market. When they do exist, we’re not able to access them. We’re not able to scale them because they are behind often closed or prohibitory intellectual property regimes. When they are accessible, when solutions are being designed for everybody, we often see that actually they fail to meet the needs of women and girls. For instance, we know that almost half of publicly documented bias in AI systems is bias against women and girls. We know that only about 2% of medical research funding goes towards pregnancy, childbirth and reproductive health. If we look at the private sector, only 3% of investment going into digital health is actually focused on solutions that are addressing female health challenges. Similarly, in private capital, only 2% of investment in 2023 went to companies that are co-founded or founded by women. We at the Venture Fund, UNICEF runs a venture fund that provides seed funding to entrepreneurs in developing countries, really had to learn that the hard way. We realized that when we did investing as usual, we just mirrored what we saw in the private capital industry. But at the same time, the investment opportunities in women’s health in particular are massive. The industry is projected to grow to $1.2 trillion by 2030. And so clearly for all stakeholders around the table, there are massive gains to be made if we start focusing our efforts more deliberately on meeting the needs of women and girls. So what can we do to close this gap? How can we make inclusive technology for everyone? How can we leverage this opportunity? So I’d like to start with you, Lisa, please. Thank you for joining us today. I think you had the shortest commute of all of us to get here. We have partnered for a number of years together, particularly around digital public goods, and we co-founded the Digital Public Goods Alliance. Would you be able to share with us your observations of some of the gaps that you’ve seen in your work, where efforts around digitalization, around innovation at country level have really failed to meet the needs of women and girls? Thank you, thank you Sunita, and thank you for inviting us. Yeah, I did have a short commute, but I was delayed because the trains were delayed, so sorry to everyone about

Lisa Sivertsen: that on behalf of Oslo. Thank you so much for inviting us to be here, and I think your introduction really highlighted so many of the gaps and the structural barriers that women and girls are facing, and I think gender-blind digital tools and infrastructures will really enhance those gaps and disparities, and also the structural discrimination. So, from NORAD and Norwegian side, we are very committed to do what we can from our side to build down those structural barriers, and I think even though the gaps really do still exist, and even though we also see some very worrying negative trends when it comes to gender and marginalization in terms of access to digital tools, but also the failure of designing gender diverse tools, and I think also there is a lot of research pointing to the lack of trust in those systems, which I think is a big issue for all societies in the world. What gives me hope is that there are also so many examples. of partners and also governments working together with the private sector, research institutions, civil society, women’s social movements to close those gaps. If I could highlight some of those examples, there are so many. I think from the Norwegian side and NORAD, we try to do what we can to support initiatives and new tools, but we also really try to focus on the system approach. What can we do to enhance and support global digital public goods, but also the infrastructure that every country in the world really needs to invest in to make sure that you have inclusive digitalization. We are so grateful about the opportunity to work with UNICEF and also with UNESCO. We work on engaging more women and girls to get education and work within the STEM sectors. I think that’s a really crucial investment that we need to do for the years and the future to come. We are also really excited about the digital education strategy of UNICEF. Norway has been supporting for more than 20 years this digital public good infrastructure that is being designed by the University of Oslo. It has a really complicated name, DHIS2, but it’s an excellent tool. It was designed to be a low-cost open source. infrastructure for dealing with health data for lower-income countries. During the pandemic, it actually proved so easy to use and such a safe tool that it spread also and it was taken into use also by a lot of middle-income and high-income countries, including Norway. We actually started using it ourselves. So that’s an excellent and important tool that we will continue. More than 100 countries are now using it. And then OpenCR-VS is also another system that we have invested in. So that’s an open source system for birth registration and a lot of other official tools as well to use, which I think provides, being open source, it also builds trust and it makes it possible to adjust to the needs of women and girls.

Sunita Grote: Yeah, fantastic. And you’ve set the scene really nicely for some of the discussion points we’ll dig into a little bit later. We’ve actually got Annina joining us from OpenCR-VS. I think she can probably speak to that specific example even more. And we’ll try and talk a little bit more about this crossover between safety and trust and open source as well in the second half with two of the product owners that are going to be joining us online. So thank you for that. Silja, I’d be interested to hear from your experience leading Sida’s engagement regionally, what successful approaches you’ve seen in your region around digital innovations that’s being designed with and for women and girls. Maybe specifically how that’s influenced your viewpoint, your engagement, your choices and approaches in the region.

Silje Dahl: Thank you, Sunita, and thank you for inviting me. I think it’s great that we have both Sida and Norad in the same room since we are, of course, allies and working closely with a lot of different thematics. At the Swedish Embassy in South Africa, we work specifically on integrating the Swedish government’s strategy for sexual reproductive health and rights in Africa. So we work with, of course, many different stakeholders, UN agencies, civil society, social businesses, entrepreneurs. And I think globally CIDA has about 140 partners working specifically on digitalization as well. So it is a priority for us and also, of course, for the Swedish government. But I think for CIDA it’s very important that we support programs and partners that actually are bridging that digital gap and the gender divide as well. And ensuring that women and girls actually can access digital tools that are useful for them as well. And that’s one of the reasons why we have recently joined into a partnership with UNICEF for this specific FEMTIC initiative. Because we also know that entrepreneurs are the ones who will develop the new models. They will come up with the new technologies, with the new ideas that can potentially enable economic growth, but also lift people out of poverty. Which is, of course, our end goal. However, as you very well said, Sunita, women are very underrepresented in this area. And we see that there is a lot of digital products being developed that are not at all addressing the actual needs of women and girls. And especially within SRHR, where we work a lot. And we also know that in many rural areas, in many countries, women and girls, they don’t have access to digital devices. They don’t have internet. So how do we reach them with information? So for us it’s important also to support initiatives that not only support women and girls, but also women and girls. not only cover this gap, but also work on providing correct data. They might work on domestic financing, for example, or trying to have inclusive policies and legislations in their specific countries. But most importantly, that the solutions that we are supporting are locally adapted and actually are for the groups that we are intended to work with and also for the groups that normally are left behind, like the LGBTQI community, for example. A few examples from our region of partners that we support, and I think that in the previous sessions it was touched upon as well, the backside of digitalization and the harm of children online. So we have one partner working specifically on ending gender-based violence and they have developed different tools on how to work with that. And they work specifically on addressing technology-facilitated GBV, which is a new word I just learned in the Southern Africa region. But it’s very interesting because they also see that GBV has increased online and is also posing a risk of normalizing violence. And so they work with both civil society organizations, but also governments in ensuring that technology-facilitated GBV is incorporated into national legislation and policies. So that’s one example of how we can work with that in regards to women and girls. We also have another partner working on improving access to SRHR information in Western Central Africa, which is a region in Africa that is very difficult to work with SRHR and it’s sometimes very controversial as well. So you need to find ways to share information in a way that is not super controversial. And we also know that youth are more vulnerable. for example, to HIV, to other sexually transmitted diseases, and also early and unwanted pregnancies. And with this app, they can gain access and information that is anonymous and also safe, and they can also get information on how to find health facilities where they can get support. And so far, this app has reached about 9 million young people in that region. So, just two examples on how we work on that.

Sunita Grote: Yeah, fantastic. Thank you. And you called out specifically, I think, the ingenuity of entrepreneurs in kind of putting forward and trying new approaches. So, I’d like to turn now to our online speakers. We have Tawhida joining us from Bangladesh. And she’s a recipient of the UNICEF Venture Fund as part of our health cohort that we launched last year. And her team provides holistic well-being services in person and online in Bangladesh for children and young adults. And they’ve developed an app where, with support of the UNICEF Venture Fund, they’re looking at building an open machine learning model to help them enhance detection and also recommendations to parents. So, Tawhida, I’d love to hear from you if we can kind of dig into a little more deeper into actual, a specific solution, a specific product. Kind of hear from you how this idea of really putting the needs and rights, like safety, like data privacy and others, of women and girls at the center of how you’ve developed your product. Over to you, please.

Tawhida Shiropa: Thank you. Thank you very much, Sunita. And a very good morning, very good afternoon from my side. And thank you for having me today. And, yeah, first of all, I wanted to really show my gratitude to the UNICEF Innovation Team, especially UNICEF Venture Fund. And because I’m here because of the journey. And now I’d like to talk more about the technology and the product. We will be talking more about the passion that we are building right now in Bangladesh. So, at Moner Buntu, it’s a woman-led start-up company, so we’re building and transforming the mental health and well-being for all, especially the women, girls, because it’s a woman-led company, so we’re always considering the women in our first priority. And where we develop the technological team and the other things, we always mention and prioritize that. So, Moner Buntu is transforming the mental health and well-being using AI and the machine learning model and human-centric approaches, including the counseling, the psychometric assessments, and well-being tips and techniques, and all this assessment as well. And when we talk about the girls’ and women’s safety, this is something we always think about. The first thing we have to make sure of, because when we start the conversation from the very scratch and building our technology, especially the Manushi app, which is for the child well-being, and we’re using the open source and very much aligned with the digital public goods. So, we’re keeping those in mind, and with this spirit, we make sure that it’s co-designed with the girls. It’s not like something we build, I mean, like considering our idea, our thoughts. But I think thousands of students, not only from the urban area, then the rural and the semi-urban, even the remote area girls who are taking our services every day. So we wanted to build this app with them. We sat with them. We talked like the, I think, hours after hours, what are their struggles, what are the things they have been going through. And they told us about their being afraid to report their abuse, especially in their abuse by their, sometimes their community. or something happened is the gender-based violence they face, even about hiding their anxiety, especially the anxiety in the exam, anxiety, another anxiety that sometimes they thought about the cell phone issues. So, and they shared like at the time when they are going through this kind of issue, there was no private space so they can share those things because they think like maybe it would be like, it would be public or they will be, I mean like again, they will be bullied from their peers or in the social media or that online platform. So, we built and considering their thoughts and when we sat with them, so and we always, you know, make sure those things like we build the anonymized assessment and of course we designed this quick checking space in our app and make sure we could choose a female counselor so anytime they can reach out to us through our platform. And another thing we always wanted to make sure like the safety, you know, the for girls safety is not about the encryption, you know, we said like our model or our app is end-to-end encrypted, but for girls what we have seen, we have experienced for girls safety is the emotional safety. So, when a girl fills out the, I think the check-in, well-being check-ins or fill out anything assessment, so we wanted to make sure from our side we prioritize their data protected security. Sometimes they are under arrest might be so that they don’t have the access on the mobile phones or smartphone. So, we take the variable concept from their parents, but sometimes parents are not that much educated and those times we also call them and, you know, discuss with them these other things. So, this would be helpful for your child well-being and then we get the concept from them. Of course, we wanted to make sure the data and security with that note and of course and with that sense we said. like our back-end system. And we have the rest flags, like the high-risk flag to responses in the real time. So whenever we can see any time kinds of the gender-based or trauma-centric anonymized data, we said. So immediately, our counselors or our female counselor, they respond to the client. And of course, we maintain all the sensitive escalation protocol. We always maintain those. And number three, I wanted to mention the privacy. When we developed our whole process, even the UX design, we always got the feedback from the customer and always input those feedback into our site and the app as well. And with that means, like what we want to say, like this, of course, is encrypted, distorted, the very rooted access controlled by our tech team. And we also maintain the global standards things. And it is true, I think Sunita mentioned the first part. And I think I heard all the conversation from our amazing panelists. So this is true, like the AI models can be biased to some point. And that includes also the large language model and the ML and the machine learning models. So we always wanted to make sure like, of course, this data have to be protected, have to have the guided and accurate, as much as accurate data. Then we can provide those things. And of course, I think that later on, maybe that we will discuss more on the open source. But what we have seen so far with when we’re deploying this, the 10, almost 10,000 students and adolescents, including the majority of the adolescence girls in the rural school and some schools in the urban area. So and what we have seen, like we got that, I think, huge response from their side. And that will help us to accurate more data processing system. And of course, with that note, we maintain this like that. We wanted to make sure like the whole protocols, the whole sensitive things would be the gender. We maintained the gender-sensitive framework, and of course this had to be very human-centric. And we wanted to really get all those advantages from AI and technology so it can be more accessible for everyone. And one thing I really wanted to make sure from my side, and this is our vision, is that the Manushio app is not just an app, it’s an upcoming technology. We wanted to make sure it’s a promise to all the young girls so they can feel safe, so they will be heard. And the most important thing, whatever they have gone through, they don’t need to be gone through at their site. So this is something we built from our side. And yes, here we are. And thank you to the UNICEF Venture Fund. They gave us lots of ideas and insights about the digital public good, and of course the open source. So we wanted to make sure it’s very cost-effective and low maintenance costs, and very transparent with what we’re building right now.

Sunita Grote: Thank you very much. Thanks so much, Tawhida. Really good points, I think, around – thank you, you’re getting some applause in the room in case you can’t hear it. Really good points around really emphasizing that product development and product design is a necessary part but in no way sufficient if we think of inclusivity of an entire program and making sure we reach women and girls and provide them that emotional safety that you spoke to. I’d like to dig a little bit deeper into an aspect that several speakers have already touched on, which is this idea of creating digital solutions that are digital public goods. If you haven’t already and you’re not familiar with the concept, there’s a great booth just outside by the Digital Public Goods Alliance where you can learn a little bit more about the concept and meet some of the partner organizations. There’s also a high-level panel this afternoon that’s going to bring together major players in the digital public goods space. My little plug. But here we share this commitment and we have panelists that are very active. chosen to develop in the open and to develop open source solutions. So I’d like to turn, Annina I’m gonna start with you because we haven’t heard from you yet, really and hear your perspective about what role does this approach and focus on open source actually play in improving inclusivity and safety of solutions? How does that approach enable us to build that trust and to actually

Annina Wersun: operationalize this commitment that we have? Yeah, absolutely. Thank you so much Sunita and good morning, good afternoon to all of you. It’s an honor to join the panel and I feel truly inspired as I so often do when listening to the work that other people are doing in this area. So thank you as well for all the work that you’re doing. So as Sunita mentioned I’m from OpenCRBS and we are a digital public good for civil registration and vital statistics. So that’s the registration of births, deaths, marriages, divorces, adoptions and the use of that data for vital statistics purposes. And when we talk about inclusivity by design it’s really not just a principle, it’s something that we can demonstrate in practice. And as a digital public good, OpenCRBS gives countries a chance to see what inclusive digital services can look like right out of the box. So when a country starts to use OpenCRBS they will see a pre-configured version of the system based on our default country. It’s a fictitious country that we’ve created called Farageland and it supports a number of different vital events. And so the forms that they see initially are designed specifically to spark important conversations. So these countries can then subsequently configure the forms, they can make them work exactly as they need, that’s the whole premise of OpenCRBS, that it’s configurable for a range of different country contexts. But they can see out of the box what is possible. So what’s an example of trying to spark these conversations? Take birth registration, for example. In many countries, the father’s details are either assumed or required. But OpenCRBS shows an alternative, and that is a birth registration form that does not mandate the father’s information. And that simple design choice opens the door to discussions, even at the highest levels, about how to create more inclusive services for single mothers, for survivors of gender-based violence, or for any situation that doesn’t fit a narrow norm. And we’ve seen in many countries, when this comes up and we do a demonstration of the system, we have the reaction, oh, well, you know, why are the father’s details not there? Of course, you know, a woman would always be married. And these conversations at the highest level really allow us to explore these assumptions and also inform and educate those who may just not have access to this information. We’ve had some really, really interesting, engaging discussions where people have come away with a different perspective. It’s a powerful example of how design can lead policy and how a digital public good can educate and influence across government just by showing what’s possible. We also use data to reinforce this idea. So OpenCRBS includes dashboards specifically configured to highlight insights into the experiences of women and girls, insights that too often go unseen. And as civil registration is the only continuous source of population data, it really is so rich if you just ask it the right questions. Imagine if a government could pinpoint where young mothers were giving birth, so they could direct maternity services to those areas, or whether they could understand where and how women are dying to target life-saving interventions. Just being able to visualise this, and Sarah Walsh. So, we have to visualise these options. So, out of the box, OpenCRBS comes with this option and countries can take it away if they don’t want it. But more often than not, they see this data and they accept the data. And in fact, they might bring in another ministry, for instance, Ministry of Women’s Affairs in many countries, that they can take away from this data. So, we have to think about how we can make it more inclusive and how we can make it more specific interventions. And this really for us is the power of inclusive design, backed by meaningful data. It’s not just about technology, and as Tawhida said, there’s so much more to an implementation of OpenCRBS than just this design. But it certainly allows us to begin shifting systems and showing governments what good and how we want to start things, in order to ensure what we want to accomplish and what we want to change. So, we have bought these already. They have actually been built by GodforSoce. And as you imagine, they are incredibly different. If you want to be heeders of them, you have to build them by yourself first.

Sunita Grote: Thank you. Thank you very much, Anita.

Tawhida Shiropa: Of course, this the first thing from our experience is wonderful. What we do is we have the thousands of millions of people, they are getting our service. We have to do a lot of things to ensure the inclusivity and the safety, especially when we are working with the vulnerable communities, young girls, adolescent girls, and marginalized communities, and the women, of course, definitely. So one thing we wanted to make sure for, and to, I think, using the open source, because when we’re starting working with the open source code, like this is very, I think, very transparent, right? What our code like is open. So of course, like the anonymous data, the encrypted data. So we don’t want to show anyone’s personalized information, but the whole coding system that can be open, and the communities, the stakeholders, including the government can see exactly how the systems are going, right? What a decision already made. Even the, I think, the safeguard policy, what we have taken so far. And one of the things, like the vital things we wanted to make sure within these things, like that dealing with the sensitive data, like the, you know, the mental health, and the well-being data is one of the very personalized and very sensitive data, what we are dealing at this moment. And that’s the open source, one of the things, like, we believe that open source align with the digital, a public course, make us very accountable to our customer, to the people, like to the young girls. Maybe they don’t understand open source, they don’t understand the data and security, but they understand their privacy, right? So I think open source and the digital public, that’s really aligned us to accountable to the girls who share their data with us, or their parents, or the mothers, right? And another thing is like the accountability, you know, builds the trust. So I think that’s the fundamental things when you, I think, providing the mental health services to everyone, there’s a trust, the confidentiality. So that’s the things of, I think, we, I think, align with that. And then another two things, like the, of course, the, you know, the localizations and the tools, like the market, the meaningful things, what we We are building. So as communities, sometimes we went to many communities when even deploying and developing the Manoshi app. So there is many communities, they don’t have the proper applications and some of the, I think, parents, they’re very low income and they don’t understand the data and everything. So we contextualize all those things in their language, sometimes in our language in Bangla, and sometimes in their language, more local things. So we make sure that they understand what we are taking from them, right? So that’s the, I think, open source and the whole digital public goods. When I read all the digital public goods alliance, there’s missions, there’s, I think, statements. So we feel like this is something that’s very good for us and I think proper things. One of the things when we act with the open system, like the local developers and organization customize those things, and that’s also very cost effective because they don’t need to start these things from the very scratch from their side. So they can, you know, anywhere around the world, I think, across the world, so they can just remodeling those things they develop from, I think, deploy in their local context. And of course, there is a flexibility. I think this is one of the things that’s what turns the digital public goods into a human solution. So that’s one of the things that’s very fascinating, what we found. And I think that number three, which I think the last things I wanted to mention, like the removing all those license fees, like, you know, when we start Moner Bandhu and we suffered and struggled with the license fees because sometimes we have the credit card, but we can’t pay from the rules and regulations from the Central Bank of Bangladesh. So we struggled a lot. So I think the upcoming people who are, I think, very… They are very much passionate in the tech industry and especially the females, the entrepreneurs. I really wanted to cheer for them and advocate for them so they can take all these leverages for this. I think the open source code what we are building. So this is something, this makes all those things more inclusive and of course the safety because I mentioned all this accountability makes sure the safety and the trust. So that’s why we are here. And of course it helps with the low resource institutions so they don’t need to spend lots of money on that. And of course they can add up, they can share, they can scale the tool. So there’s all those things that are there. So they just need to hold those things and make sure the accountability and the trust. And of course it’s not about the code, it’s the values, right? So the digital public goods have the values. The UNICEF Venture Fund, they taught us how can we leverage all those, I think, good values and good values incorporate to our impactful business. So I think that’s the things we are doing right now and we are really making sure there’s no one left behind. So we have to be accountable to everyone and I think open source and digital public goods are the two fundamental things that can make sure that. Yeah, we are ready to scale those things in our program and in our app to across the world. Thank you very much.

Sunita Grote: Thanks so much, Toheedan. I think you touched really nicely on all the different benefits we see from open source. So from a product design development, but also a business model perspective around having to tackle questions around fees and licensing and how really that model enables others to pick up your work, adapt it and scale it more easily. So thank you. The other piece that I appreciated is that often we associate digital public goods just with its open sourceness, but you spoke also very nicely and brought us to our attention how the digital public goods standard isn’t just about licensing. It’s also around safety. It’s also around protection. It’s about human rights being standards. And so that digital public goods standards really is something that many of us are trying to hold ourselves to in order to ensure we are respecting human rights in our digital efforts, as well as access and inclusivity. So thanks so much for highlighting those different elements. Lisa, I’d like to come to you on the same question, probably from a different perspective, though I don’t know whether you have built and coded open source products yourself, maybe. It’s just to reflect a little bit more with us on what value you’ve really seen in your focus on digital public goods and on open source, how that’s been kind of a conduit and a facilitator of your focus on safety and inclusivity.

Lisa Sivertsen: So yeah, thank you so much. It’s really interesting to hear from OpenCR, yes, but also entrepreneurs that are building these systems, and I think you mentioned it already, how these systems make it possible to build accountability and trust, because they are transparent, they are open for external audits, and they are also adaptable. And from our side, we’ve actually developed our own open source data policy that we are trying to use across the different areas we work, and there is a lot of resistance, you know, there is a lot of resistance from different companies that are, you know, selling systems that are not open sourced. So this is something that we are really trying to push across areas such as education and health, but also the work that we are doing on environment and climate. So it’s a bit challenging, but I think also it’s crucial. It’s the only way forward, I think, to build these accountable and open systems. It’s also a lot about costs, because open standards makes it possible for different systems to talk to each other and work together. I think we’ve all been frustrated trying to access different digital systems that are not working together. It has a lot of costs, it’s very challenging for everyone. I like the term that Anita was using about emotional safety, giving up your data and engaging with digital systems within national ID systems or health and education. It’s a lot of very sensitive data and you need to have that trust that it’s not going to be misused by someone at the other end. And then of course open source systems do have that potential for being more adapted to the different kinds of users, also marginalized parts of the population in any country. And we really need that to be able to continue to work against those gaps. I think particularly some of those privacy concerns are really relevant to those that tend to be more marginalized, tend to be traditionally more excluded.

Sunita Grote: That’s almost of even higher importance when we work with those sorts of communities. As we move towards the last piece of our discussion, I’m going to ask each of the panelists to reflect a little bit on the role of stakeholders that are not present on this panel and kind of what their calls might be or what their reflections might be. Before we do that, I wanted to specifically turn to Celia. And as part of our ongoing discussions around how we partner together on the Venture Fund, we also have started exploring how we can actually leverage private capital, different finance. modalities beyond traditional grant, beyond traditional development funding to actually move capital flows more towards inclusive technology. So I’d love to hear a little bit from you on Sida’s approach to engaging those different financing instruments. What have you seen happen in that space? Thank you, Sunita. And also, first of all, thank you to all the panelists.

Silje Dahl: Very interesting. And I think that this is what you touched upon now is so important. And I think we all have seen the changing in the donor landscape for the past year. And it’s been, of course, challenging, both as donors and as partners working on the other side to find financing for the work that they do. For the Swedish government, it’s a very high priority that the Swedish Development Corporation should focus on leverage funding from other kind of sources and also supporting our partners in doing that. I think we believe that the part of the additional financial flows to long-term solutions that will empower women and girls and youth needs to come from other, for example, private investments and also that our partners shouldn’t be so donor dependent, to be honest. And in doing that, I think we as donors have a very important responsibility as well. And we know that, for example, today there are very limited opportunities for private actors to do business in fragile contexts or in emerging markets. Local entrepreneurs, they have very limited risk observation capacity, for example. So how can we as donors support them? So at Sida, we have different financial models that have been quite successful, I would say. And one of them is, for example, a guarantee. And that’s where Sida will help reduce the risk to a lender. So for example if we have a new startup, an organization working on health for women and rights in a country in Africa and they want to expand their business, they want to enter new markets, they want to sell products in markets that they haven’t been in before, for example. The local bank might be hesitant saying it’s too big of a risk. Then Sida can cover that potential risk for the bank and enable the organizations to grow and start a business. So that’s something we’ve done a lot in other sectors such as energy and the transport sector, environment and this year we will start doing it in health and SRHR. So very excited about that, but I think it’s a very successful model for trying to find other kind of funding. Another model that we use is mobilizing of capital and that’s where I think Sida has a very important role in being catalytic in connecting different partners with each other. So we can help our partners meet other potential financial partners that can provide support to them and this has been something we’ve been working on for many, many years. But it’s also a way of creating sustainability for our partners and less dependency on us and also forcing them to leverage new money. So what we do is that we say if you can find X amount of money from other funders, we will match that. And I think that’s a model that works really well and especially now when we want to expand into Femtech and work more closely on that and work more on new kind of partnerships. I think it’s very important that we look at different financial models as well. to create more sustainability for our partners, which I think should be an end goal with aid. The government donors should be less, and then there will be other kinds of financing flows coming in.

Sunita Grote: Yeah, thanks so much Silje. I think there’s a really long way to go to close that financing gap, so I really appreciate those efforts. We know, for instance, that less than 1% of VCs, so venture capital funding, goes to Africa. It’s crazy once you think about how unequal that distribution is. And then I spoke earlier about the small proportion that goes to female-founded businesses. So if you put that on top of each other, you end up with a very skewed picture of where private capital is currently flowing. On the UNICEF Venture Fund side, we’ve seen similar experiences, and what we’ve been really excited about is seeing how the development funding, that you’ve mentioned as well, can be catalytic. It can de-risk, right? It can sort of showcase that those risks can be managed. How can they be addressed? What do those markets actually have to offer? How competitive those solutions actually are from an investment opportunity perspective? And so, you know, we’re really looking forward to having more of these conversations with private investors to see how that capital can support some of the aims we’ve discussed here today. I’ll turn my attention to our two speakers online first, and Lisa, I’ll come back to you at the end to just reflect a little bit more on the question as sort of a final call to action in a minute about who else should be at this table to move from kind of maybe what are still fairly niche approaches to shifting entire systems, and what role do you think that they need to play? Anina, I’ll start with you.

Annina Wersun: Yeah, thanks so much. And I think we could probably talk for a long time just on this topic. But I’m going to build, if I may, just on what Celia was talking about, and I am going to call also to the donors. I mean, we are incredibly lucky at OPA. from CRVS, we have the support of NORAD, who really as a donor are gold for us because they see the importance of funding the core product. And as a digital public good, that’s something really, really difficult to find, to find funding that’s very flexible, that understands that we need to manage and maintain a digital product that is ultimately supporting critical government infrastructure and not tying that to specific implementations, for instance. But I would call further to build also on Silje’s point, the challenge we have as digital public goods is to be able to invest in, well, in a few different things. One is absolutely to become sustainable. So we have to think about how we can generate revenue and at OpenCRVS, we’re spending a significant amount of time on this, looking at how we can in a market that really thinks and expects us to be free forever, how we can change that, how we can start charging for our services. And in fact, actually, you know, several countries and partners have seen the value that we can bring to the table, but we do have to start operating more like a business. And sometimes that can be very uncomfortable for partners working in our domain, which is totally understandable. But in the same way to become sustainable, we need to think about creative ways of generating revenue. And just like for-profit companies may, well, most of them invest in research and development, we also want to invest in research and development. And in fact, we would love to establish a research and development branch specifically for women and girls, because we truly believe that there’s so much potential to unlock, both in their experiences and from a protection perspective, but also in the economy. And we have to, you know, we have to recognize also the values, obviously, that women bring to the economy. And so, obviously, civil registration, touching on all these different Thank you so much for joining us today. As we think about life events, there are so many opportunities where we can protect women and girls and prevent them from experiencing a life that doesn’t allow them to become active members, for instance, in society and within the economy. But we do need donors to be able to also invest in that. In the donor landscape, as Silje mentioned, we ask that donors take a risk to support digital public goods upfront to invest. And our promise to donors now in the conversations that we’re having is that in five years’ time, we want to be self-sustainable. But in order to get there, we need upfront investment. We need to invest in R&D. We need to invest in our business development strategies. We need to invest in trying out different business services. And it’s really not traditional. It’s different. It’s not necessarily what our industry is used to. But we’re certainly excited about that future because we want to become self-sustaining. We believe that the value of OpenCRBS has been realized. We’re working with eight countries at the moment, and there’s many more who are kind of lined up to explore. And if we think about the potential of, for instance, preventing child marriage, you know, through understanding the age of children or having data to be able to actively take steps in order to do that, that’s something we want to explore more within our research and development capacity. Just think about the long-term effects that that could have on women and girls, on the economy, and for businesses around the world as well. So really a call to donors to, there are always immediate challenges and problems. The world we live in, unfortunately, is experiencing too many of them at this time. But we truly believe that with upfront investment, we can become self-sustainable. And we do think that digital public goods can do that, and they can bring about more and more positive outcomes for those around the world. Thank you very much.

Sunita Grote: Thanks so much, Nina. Tawhida Shiropa?

Tawhida Shiropa: Yeah, I think this is the question. I want to start with a change in the mindset. First, we need to change the mindset of the stakeholder and to some point the investor. Because I met many investors, sometimes they are not convinced about the open source models. What we are building, they wanted to see the revenue from day one. But throughout the process, we learned how we can generate the revenue. And right now we are generating revenue, we are in the cash positive side and we are profitable as a startup. But I think this journey was quite difficult because access to finance as an entrepreneur, I wanted to mention as a woman entrepreneur, is always very difficult. Especially in the banks and the banking system. I think I wanted to mention in Bangladesh, it’s really difficult to access the finance, especially in the banking system. And of course, we need the investors who really value the impact and who really value alongside with the innovation. And that’s one of the things I really wanted to mention. As Sunita mentioned in the whole conversation, less than 2% of the VC fund goes to women-led startups. So I think we really wanted to change the picture. And I think we have all the capacity and the capability. We have the resources, we just need to trust from the VC side. And because we have the scalability option, we have the safety security, we make sure the inclusivity. We wanted to make sure the proper service to our young girls, the future underserved people. So yes, this is something I really wanted to mention. I think the BC mind should be slightly changed so maybe that can make a bigger difference and of course the huge impact in this world and of course ensuring all this open source model and we are the proved example like it can be profitable, it can be generating revenue so you just need to trust a bit on us and thank you very much.

Lisa Sivertsen: Thanks Tawhida. Lisa. Thank you. I think we definitely need to continue to develop those public-private partnerships in order to mobilize funding, we need to engage emerging donors more, it’s great to have IKEA and others on board but we need to have more participation from the private sector but then also the tools and the systems will not be really meeting their goals unless they also engage the users and a diversity of users also finding ways of how to engage the marginalized communities and people to make sure that the systems actually work for everyone. I think also one last point from me, we need to recognize that digital public infrastructures and goods are essential infrastructures for any society just like roads or electricity, we need those systems to be able to build inclusive digital societies so I think that’s a recognition as well that we need to continue to champion across any geographical context.

Sunita Grote: Thank you. Thank you so much to all of the panelists. including in the first segment, for all of your openness and anecdotes and reflections today. I think it was a very rich discussion. And from my side, I hope that as we go about our business here at the Forum and back home, that this discussion maybe gave each of you one specific action point that you feel you can take home with you as you look at either designing or building products. And we heard very much around the need to be deliberate in design and research to ensure diversity, to be deliberate in how products are designed, what code we choose, what models we choose, what data sets we choose. And also how important it is to be able to look under the hood of a product, to be able to create actual safety, actual data privacy, but also that emotional safety, that empowerment. So that we don’t just have passive users, but we have empowered, informed users that can engage with the digital solutions we’re putting out there in the market and can question us. We heard from Tawhida Shiropa about accountability and how that raises the bar on accountability, which I thought was a really powerful framing. And maybe not surprisingly, I think as all of us are facing completely unprecedented challenges when it comes to the financial landscape, we heard so much about how and where each dollar, each kroner, each euro is put, can really shape not just what’s in the market, but who uses it, and to what extent those users are actually builders and owners of what’s put out there in the world. Today, in terms of digital landscape. So I encourage you to approach those panelists that are in the room for any further discussion that you might be interested in. Thank you very much for choosing us and for spending your precious time listening to this discussion. I, for one, really enjoyed the dialogue. And maybe at the next IGF, I’ll be facilitating a panel of four men talking about the importance of women’s health and looking at inclusive solutions. That’s my hope as I walk away from this panel today. So thank you all and enjoy the rest of your day.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for effective child online protection

Speakers

– Zhao Hu
– Makhosazana Lindhorst
– Caroline Eriksen
– Alexander Galt

Arguments

Industry self-discipline and collaboration between public-private sectors strengthens child protection efforts

Regulatory frameworks must balance platform accountability, digital literacy, and accessible harm reporting mechanisms

Investors can leverage their influence to promote responsible business conduct regarding child rights across portfolio companies

Brands must take responsibility for their entire digital marketing value chain and its impact on children

Summary

All speakers emphasized that protecting children online requires coordinated efforts across government, industry, civil society, and other stakeholders rather than siloed approaches

Topics

Children rights | Economic | Legal and regulatory

Open source and digital public goods enable transparency, accountability, and inclusivity

Speakers

– Lisa Sivertsen
– Tawhida Shiropa
– Annina Wersun

Arguments

Open source systems allow for external audits and adaptability to different user needs, especially marginalized populations

Open source approaches enable transparency, accountability, and trust-building with users and communities

Digital public goods need upfront investment to become self-sustainable while maintaining their public benefit mission

Summary

Speakers agreed that open source approaches provide transparency, enable customization for diverse needs, and build trust through accountability, particularly important for marginalized communities

Topics

Digital standards | Development | Human rights principles

User-centered design and co-creation are fundamental for inclusive technology

Speakers

– Tawhida Shiropa
– Annina Wersun
– Alexander Galt

Arguments

Co-design with target users, especially girls, is essential for creating safe and relevant digital solutions

Design choices can spark important policy conversations and challenge assumptions about inclusive services

Companies beyond tech sector impact child rights through digital advertising and marketing practices

Summary

Speakers emphasized the importance of involving end users, particularly marginalized groups, in the design process to ensure solutions meet actual needs and challenge existing assumptions

Topics

Gender rights online | Human rights principles | Sociocultural

Alternative financing mechanisms are needed to support inclusive technology development

Speakers

– Sunita Grote
– Silje Dahl
– Tawhida Shiropa
– Annina Wersun

Arguments

Massive investment gaps exist with only 2-3% of funding going to women-founded companies or female health solutions

Alternative financing mechanisms like guarantees and capital mobilization can reduce donor dependency

Investor mindsets need to change to value impact alongside innovation and understand open source business models

Digital public goods need upfront investment to become self-sustainable while maintaining their public benefit mission

Summary

All speakers acknowledged significant funding gaps for inclusive technology and the need for innovative financing approaches that value impact alongside financial returns

Topics

Economic | Development | Gender rights online

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the critical role of government regulation and law enforcement in child online protection, highlighting the need for comprehensive legal frameworks and specialized personnel

Speakers

– Zhao Hu
– Makhosazana Lindhorst

Arguments

Legal frameworks and government oversight are essential for protecting minors online

Law enforcement and social workers play critical roles in investigating and addressing online child abuse

Topics

Children rights | Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Both speakers highlighted how technology can amplify existing gender inequalities when not designed with deliberate attention to women’s and girls’ needs

Speakers

– Sunita Grote
– Lisa Sivertsen

Arguments

AI systems demonstrate significant bias against women and girls in almost half of documented cases

Gender-blind digital tools enhance existing gaps and structural discrimination against women and girls

Topics

Gender rights online | Human rights principles | Development

Both speakers emphasized the importance of creating safe spaces for vulnerable users, particularly young people, to access sensitive information and services

Speakers

– Silje Dahl
– Tawhida Shiropa

Arguments

Anonymous and safe information access is vital for youth in regions where topics like sexual health are controversial

Emotional safety and trust-building are as important as technical security measures for vulnerable users

Topics

Gender rights online | Children rights | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

Non-tech companies have significant responsibility for child rights online

Speakers

– Caroline Eriksen
– Alexander Galt

Arguments

Companies beyond tech sector impact child rights through digital advertising and marketing practices

Brands must take responsibility for their entire digital marketing value chain and its impact on children

Explanation

It was unexpected to see strong consensus that companies like IKEA and retail brands have substantial responsibility for child rights online, extending the conversation beyond traditional tech companies to the broader ecosystem of digital marketing and commerce

Topics

Children rights | Economic | Sociocultural

Emotional safety is as important as technical security

Speakers

– Tawhida Shiropa
– Lisa Sivertsen

Arguments

Emotional safety and trust-building are as important as technical security measures for vulnerable users

Open source systems allow for external audits and adaptability to different user needs, especially marginalized populations

Explanation

The consensus on emotional safety being equally important as technical security measures was unexpected, showing a sophisticated understanding that goes beyond traditional cybersecurity approaches to include psychological and social dimensions of safety

Topics

Privacy and data protection | Human rights principles | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus emerged around multi-stakeholder collaboration for child protection, the value of open source approaches for inclusivity, user-centered design principles, and the need for alternative financing mechanisms. Speakers also agreed on the importance of addressing gender digital divides and the role of non-tech companies in digital rights.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary rather than conflicting viewpoints. This suggests a mature understanding of the challenges and potential solutions in digital child rights and gender inclusion. The agreement across diverse stakeholder perspectives (government, private sector, civil society, entrepreneurs) indicates strong potential for coordinated action and policy development in these areas.

Different viewpoints

Role of government oversight vs. industry self-regulation in child protection

Speakers

– Zhao Hu
– Makhosazana Lindhorst

Arguments

Legal frameworks and government oversight are essential for protecting minors online

Regulatory frameworks must balance platform accountability, digital literacy, and accessible harm reporting mechanisms

Summary

Zhao Hu emphasizes strong government oversight through comprehensive legal frameworks and annual campaigns, while Lindhorst focuses more on balanced regulatory approaches that combine enforcement with education and community engagement

Topics

Children rights | Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Approach to financing sustainability for digital public goods

Speakers

– Annina Wersun
– Tawhida Shiropa

Arguments

Digital public goods need upfront investment to become self-sustainable while maintaining their public benefit mission

Investor mindsets need to change to value impact alongside innovation and understand open source business models

Summary

Annina advocates for traditional donor support with a transition to self-sustainability, while Tawhida emphasizes the need for investors to fundamentally change their mindset about open source business models and immediate revenue expectations

Topics

Economic | Development | Children rights

Unexpected differences

Emphasis on emotional safety vs. technical security

Speakers

– Tawhida Shiropa
– Makhosazana Lindhorst

Arguments

Emotional safety and trust-building are as important as technical security measures for vulnerable users

Law enforcement and social workers play critical roles in investigating and addressing online child abuse

Explanation

While both work on child protection, Tawhida emphasizes emotional safety and user empowerment while Lindhorst focuses on enforcement and investigation mechanisms. This represents different philosophical approaches to protection – empowerment vs. enforcement

Topics

Children rights | Privacy and data protection | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkable consensus on core principles (need for inclusive design, importance of child protection, value of open source) with disagreements primarily on implementation approaches and emphasis

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. Most differences were complementary rather than contradictory, representing different stakeholder perspectives (government, private sector, civil society, entrepreneurs) rather than fundamental philosophical divisions. The implications are positive – showing multiple viable pathways toward shared goals rather than irreconcilable conflicts

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized the critical role of government regulation and law enforcement in child online protection, highlighting the need for comprehensive legal frameworks and specialized personnel

Speakers

– Zhao Hu
– Makhosazana Lindhorst

Arguments

Legal frameworks and government oversight are essential for protecting minors online

Law enforcement and social workers play critical roles in investigating and addressing online child abuse

Topics

Children rights | Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Both speakers highlighted how technology can amplify existing gender inequalities when not designed with deliberate attention to women’s and girls’ needs

Speakers

– Sunita Grote
– Lisa Sivertsen

Arguments

AI systems demonstrate significant bias against women and girls in almost half of documented cases

Gender-blind digital tools enhance existing gaps and structural discrimination against women and girls

Topics

Gender rights online | Human rights principles | Development

Both speakers emphasized the importance of creating safe spaces for vulnerable users, particularly young people, to access sensitive information and services

Speakers

– Silje Dahl
– Tawhida Shiropa

Arguments

Anonymous and safe information access is vital for youth in regions where topics like sexual health are controversial

Emotional safety and trust-building are as important as technical security measures for vulnerable users

Topics

Gender rights online | Children rights | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for child online safety, requiring coordination between governments, regulators, investors, brands, and civil society

Legal frameworks and regulatory oversight must be complemented by industry self-discipline and digital literacy education to effectively protect children online

The gender digital divide represents a massive missed opportunity, with only 2-3% of investment going to women-founded companies or female health solutions despite projected $1.2 trillion market growth by 2030

Inclusive technology design requires deliberate co-design with target users, especially marginalized communities like women and girls, to ensure solutions meet actual needs rather than assumptions

Open source and digital public goods approaches enable transparency, accountability, and trust-building while reducing costs and barriers to access for vulnerable populations

Emotional safety and trust are as critical as technical security measures when serving vulnerable users, particularly in sensitive areas like mental health and reproductive health

Digital public infrastructure should be treated as essential infrastructure like roads or electricity, requiring sustained investment and maintenance

Alternative financing mechanisms including guarantees, blended finance, and public-private partnerships are needed to reduce donor dependency and achieve sustainability

Design choices in digital systems can influence policy conversations and challenge discriminatory assumptions, particularly around inclusive services for women and marginalized groups

Resolutions and action items

UNICEF and BSR will officially launch disclosure recommendations and guidance for companies on child rights impacts on Thursday, June 27th via webinar

China Federation of Internet Societies will host an international conference on child online protection in September, inviting global participation

OpenCRVS commits to becoming self-sustainable within five years through business development and revenue generation strategies

Digital public goods organizations need to invest in research and development, particularly focused on women and girls’ experiences and protection

Donors should develop open source data policies across education, health, environment and climate work areas

SIDA will expand guarantee and capital mobilization models to health and SRHR sectors to support women-led organizations

Industry players should adopt human rights due diligence approaches and value chain responsibility for child rights impacts

Unresolved issues

How to effectively change investor mindsets to value impact alongside innovation and understand open source business models

Addressing the massive financing gap where less than 1% of VC funding goes to Africa and only 2-3% to women-founded businesses globally

Overcoming resistance from companies selling proprietary systems when pushing for open source alternatives

Balancing the need for digital public goods to become financially sustainable while maintaining their public benefit mission

Scaling successful local solutions to address global challenges while maintaining cultural and contextual relevance

Ensuring meaningful participation of marginalized communities in digital system design beyond tokenistic consultation

Addressing technology-facilitated gender-based violence through coordinated policy and legislative responses across different jurisdictions

Suggested compromises

Digital public goods should explore creative revenue generation models while maintaining core open source principles and public benefit mission

Donors should provide flexible, upfront investment in digital public goods with the understanding that organizations will work toward self-sustainability within defined timeframes

Companies should adopt graduated approaches to child rights due diligence, starting with transparency in reporting and moving toward comprehensive value chain responsibility

Regulatory frameworks should balance platform accountability with user empowerment through digital literacy rather than purely restrictive approaches

Investment strategies should combine traditional development funding with innovative financing mechanisms like guarantees to de-risk private capital investment in inclusive technology

So our task is to protect and empower children as active participants and pioneers of the digital world as opposed to protecting them from the digital world.

Speaker

Josianne Galea Baron

Reason

This reframes the entire approach to child online safety from a restrictive paradigm to an empowerment paradigm. It challenges the traditional binary thinking of ‘protection vs. access’ and introduces a more nuanced view that children should be empowered digital citizens rather than passive recipients of protection.

Impact

This comment set the philosophical foundation for the entire first segment, influencing how subsequent speakers framed their approaches. It moved the discussion away from purely regulatory/restrictive measures toward more holistic strategies that include digital literacy, empowerment, and active participation.

For girls safety is not about the encryption… for girls safety is the emotional safety. So, when a girl fills out the, I think the check-in, well-being check-ins or fill out anything assessment, so we wanted to make sure from our side we prioritize their data protected security… but sometimes parents are not that much educated and those times we also call them and, you know, discuss with them these other things.

Speaker

Tawhida Shiropa

Reason

This insight distinguishes between technical safety measures and emotional/psychological safety, revealing that true safety for vulnerable populations requires understanding their lived experiences. It challenges the tech industry’s tendency to focus primarily on technical solutions while overlooking human-centered needs.

Impact

This comment deepened the conversation about what ‘safety’ actually means in practice, moving beyond technical specifications to human-centered design. It influenced subsequent discussions about trust, accountability, and the importance of understanding user contexts, particularly for marginalized communities.

Take birth registration, for example. In many countries, the father’s details are either assumed or required. But OpenCRVS shows an alternative, and that is a birth registration form that does not mandate the father’s information… these conversations at the highest level really allow us to explore these assumptions and also inform and educate those who may just not have access to this information.

Speaker

Annina Wersun

Reason

This demonstrates how seemingly small design choices can challenge systemic assumptions and create policy change. It shows how digital public goods can be vehicles for social change by making alternative approaches visible and sparking important conversations about inclusion.

Impact

This concrete example shifted the discussion from abstract concepts about inclusivity to tangible demonstrations of how design choices can challenge social norms. It reinforced the theme that technology design is inherently political and can either perpetuate or challenge existing inequalities.

We are so grateful about the opportunity to work with UNICEF and also with UNESCO. We work on engaging more women and girls to get education and work within the STEM sectors… During the pandemic, it actually proved so easy to use and such a safe tool that it spread also and it was taken into use also by a lot of middle-income and high-income countries, including Norway. We actually started using it ourselves.

Speaker

Lisa Sivertsen

Reason

This reverses the typical narrative of technology transfer from developed to developing countries, showing how solutions designed for low-resource contexts can prove superior even for wealthy nations. It challenges assumptions about where innovation comes from and demonstrates the value of inclusive design.

Impact

This comment introduced a powerful counter-narrative that influenced how participants thought about innovation and technology transfer. It reinforced the business case for inclusive design and challenged traditional hierarchies in global development.

And brands like IKEA are the companies that fund this digital marketing ecosystem. We buy the media space to engage with people who want to buy our products. And we think that comes with responsibilities and ability to influence… It’s not just a binary of brands and platforms, there’s many actors within the space and many leverage points that we need to engage with.

Speaker

Alexander Galt

Reason

This expands the conversation beyond the typical focus on tech platforms to include the entire ecosystem of actors who fund and enable digital spaces. It introduces the concept of shared responsibility across the value chain and challenges the binary thinking about who is responsible for child safety online.

Impact

This comment broadened the scope of stakeholder responsibility and influenced the discussion toward systems thinking. It helped establish the framework for understanding how different actors can use their leverage points to create change, which became a recurring theme throughout both segments.

I think the BC mind should be slightly changed so maybe that can make a bigger difference and of course the huge impact in this world and of course ensuring all this open source model and we are the proved example like it can be profitable, it can be generating revenue so you just need to trust a bit on us.

Speaker

Tawhida Shiropa

Reason

This directly challenges investor biases and demonstrates that open source, impact-focused models can be financially viable. It provides concrete evidence against the false dichotomy between profit and social impact, particularly for women-led ventures.

Impact

This comment provided a powerful counter-narrative to traditional investment thinking and reinforced the discussion about changing financial flows. It gave concrete evidence for the business case arguments that other speakers were making and highlighted the intersection of gender bias and investment bias.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by challenging binary thinking and introducing more nuanced, systems-based approaches to child rights and gender equity in digital spaces. The comments moved the conversation from traditional regulatory/technical solutions toward more holistic approaches that consider emotional safety, inclusive design, value chain responsibility, and alternative business models. They established recurring themes of empowerment over protection, the importance of understanding lived experiences, the power of design to challenge social norms, and the need for systemic change across multiple stakeholder groups. Most importantly, these insights demonstrated how seemingly technical decisions about digital products are inherently political and social, requiring deliberate choices to either perpetuate or challenge existing inequalities.

How will digital technologies, including generative AI, impact children’s lives positively and negatively now and in the future?

Speaker

Josianne Galea Baron

Explanation

This represents one of the defining challenges of our times that countries around the world are grappling with, requiring ongoing research to understand evolving impacts.

What is the right age for children to participate in online platforms?

Speaker

Josianne Galea Baron

Explanation

This is a critical policy question that requires further research and evidence-based approaches to determine appropriate age thresholds for different types of online participation.

What emerging risks and dangers await children as they explore new digital environments?

Speaker

Josianne Galea Baron

Explanation

As digital environments rapidly evolve, continuous research is needed to identify and understand new risks to children’s safety and wellbeing online.

How can different stakeholders from across sectors play their part in delivering a digital world that works for children?

Speaker

Josianne Galea Baron

Explanation

This was the central question of the first forum segment, requiring ongoing exploration of roles and responsibilities across various stakeholder groups.

How can we make inclusive technology for everyone and leverage opportunities in women’s health?

Speaker

Sunita Grote

Explanation

With the women’s health industry projected to grow to $1.2 trillion by 2030, research is needed on how to better design and scale inclusive solutions.

How can we close equity divides in the online world, particularly the gender divide?

Speaker

Sunita Grote

Explanation

This was the focus of the second forum segment, requiring research on specific approaches to address digital gender gaps and design solutions for women and girls.

How can digital public goods become self-sustainable while maintaining their open source nature?

Speaker

Annina Wersun

Explanation

This represents a critical challenge for digital public goods organizations that need to balance sustainability with accessibility and openness.

How can donors and investors change their mindset to better support open source models and women-led startups?

Speaker

Tawhida Shiropa

Explanation

Research is needed on effective approaches to shift investment patterns, given that less than 2% of VC funding goes to women-led startups.

How can we prevent child marriage through better use of civil registration data?

Speaker

Annina Wersun

Explanation

This represents a specific research and development opportunity to use data analytics for child protection that requires further exploration.

How can we better measure and address technology-facilitated gender-based violence?

Speaker

Silje Dahl

Explanation

This emerging form of violence requires research on prevalence, impacts, and effective intervention strategies.

Summary

This discussion focused on protecting the personal integrity of minors in digital environments, presented by Lea Peters from ECPAT Germany and Michael Terhorst from Germany’s Federal Office for the Enforcement of Children’s Rights and Digital Services (KIT). Peters defined personal integrity as the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles, emphasizing how digital environments significantly influence its development in children and youth. She presented alarming statistics showing that over 300 million children globally have been affected by online sexual exploitation and abuse in the past year, with one in eight children experiencing online solicitation or non-consensual sharing of sexual content.

The speakers highlighted that exposure to such content can desensitize children and negatively impact their personal integrity development. Rather than supporting social media bans for minors, they advocated for creating safer digital spaces that respect children’s right to participation. Terhorst explained Germany’s three-step enforcement approach under the Digital Services Act: analyzing platform functionalities, identifying associated risks, and checking existing precautionary measures. Their “dialogic regulation” method involves collaborating with platforms to implement solutions rather than immediately imposing penalties.

Key protective measures discussed included secure default settings, age assurance mechanisms, restricted contact functionalities, and improved moderation systems. The speakers emphasized that effective protection requires combining multiple measures tailored to specific age groups and platforms. They acknowledged challenges in age verification technology and the need for upcoming EU guidelines to strengthen enforcement. The discussion concluded with audience questions about platform cooperation, regulatory challenges in different countries, and ensuring that protective measures don’t inadvertently restrict access to legitimate educational content.

Keypoints

**Major Discussion Points:**

– **Definition and importance of personal integrity for minors online** – Lea Peters explained personal integrity as being honest and having strong moral principles, emphasizing how digital environments significantly impact its development in children and youth, with German legislators now including it as a protection goal in child and youth media law.

– **Scale and impact of online child sexual exploitation** – The speakers presented alarming statistics showing over 300 million children globally affected by online sexual abuse and exploitation in the last 12 months, with one in eight children experiencing online solicitation or non-consensual sharing of sexual content.

– **Regulatory enforcement approach through dialogic regulation** – Michael Terhorst described Germany’s three-step enforcement process under the Digital Services Act: analyzing platform functionalities, identifying associated risks, and checking existing precautionary measures, followed by collaborative dialogue with providers rather than immediate penalties.

– **Technical safeguarding measures and age assurance challenges** – Discussion of specific protective measures including secure default settings, contact restrictions, content moderation, and the complex challenge of implementing effective age verification systems that balance privacy, functionality, and user-friendliness.

– **Platform cooperation and global enforcement challenges** – The speakers addressed varying levels of cooperation from different platforms, with smaller platforms often more willing to comply, while noting significant challenges in enforcing regulations on platforms outside the EU and the revenue conflicts that arise when companies profit from harmful content.

**Overall Purpose:**

The discussion aimed to educate attendees about protecting minors’ personal integrity in digital environments, presenting both the scope of online risks facing children and the regulatory approaches being implemented in Germany to create safer online spaces through collaborative enforcement of the Digital Services Act.

**Overall Tone:**

The discussion maintained a professional, informative tone throughout, with speakers presenting serious statistics and challenges in a measured way. The tone remained collaborative and solution-focused, particularly when discussing the “dialogic regulation” approach. During the Q&A session, the tone became more conversational and supportive, with speakers offering practical advice and acknowledging the complexities faced by different stakeholders in various global contexts.

Speakers

– **Lea Peters**: Policy Specialist for Digital Child Protection at ECPAT Germany. ECPAT Germany is a children’s rights organization working for the protection of minors from sexualized violence, exploitation and human trafficking.

– **Michael Terhorst**: Head of the Federal Office for the Enforcement of Children’s Rights and Digital Services (KIT). Responsible in Germany for enforcing precautionary measures related to the Digital Services Act, especially Article 28.

– **Audience**: Multiple audience members who asked questions during the discussion. Specific roles/expertise not mentioned, though one identified as working for an NGO called SEED in Kurdistan, Iraq, leading a project on online child safety, and another identified as a digital native.

Additional speakers:

None – all speakers in the transcript were included in the provided speakers names list.

# Protecting Personal Integrity of Minors in Digital Environments: Discussion Report

## Introduction and Context

This discussion focused on protecting minors’ personal integrity in digital environments, featuring two German stakeholders in child protection policy. Lea Peters, Policy Specialist for Digital Child Protection at ECPAT Germany, provided the advocacy perspective, while Michael Terhorst, Head of the Federal Office for the Enforcement of Children’s Rights and Digital Services (KIT), discussed Germany’s regulatory enforcement approach under the Digital Services Act, particularly Article 28.

## Defining Personal Integrity in Digital Contexts

Peters opened by defining personal integrity as “the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles.” She emphasized that “Personal integrity though is nothing you are just born with or that’s being formed in a vacuum. It is influenced by our family, our social circle, the culture we grew up in and the experiences we make. Digital environments and technology have become an integral part of our lives. It is nowadays a huge factor in the development of personal integrity.”

Peters noted that German legislators have incorporated the personal integrity of children and youth as a protection goal in child and youth media law, reflecting a shift from merely preventing harm to actively fostering positive character development.

## The Scale of Online Child Sexual Exploitation

Peters presented concerning statistics: over 300 million children globally have been affected by online child sexual abuse and exploitation within the past 12 months, with one in eight children globally subjected to online solicitation and non-consensual sharing of sexual images during the same period. She noted that 84% of these incidents are outside the jurisdiction of the United States.

Peters observed that police statistics show the average age of offenders is becoming younger, and every case now has a digital component. This digital dimension creates challenges for personal integrity development, as exposure to sexualized violence online can desensitize children and negatively impact their moral development.

## Germany’s Dialogic Regulation Approach

Terhorst introduced “dialogic regulation,” a departure from traditional punitive enforcement models. Rather than immediately imposing penalties, KIT employs a three-step analytical process followed by collaborative engagement with providers.

“So our idea is we have something called dialogic regulation,” Terhorst explained. “So we don’t just, yeah, send a letter saying, okay, you have to, I don’t know, pay €5 million because your platform isn’t safe. We get in touch with the provider and say, okay, we found some deficits on your platform.”

The three-step analysis involves examining platform functionalities, identifying risks for minors, and checking existing precautionary measures. Terhorst noted that “The providers don’t have to take those specific ideas. We present them. They can do something on their own. As long as it works, we’re good.”

KIT has opened between 30 and 40 cases in Germany so far. Terhorst observed that smaller platforms often actively seek guidance, while larger platforms typically wait for official guidelines before implementing changes.

## Technical Safeguards and Age Assurance Challenges

Terhorst emphasized that effective protection requires multiple precautionary measures including secure default settings, age assurance mechanisms, restricted contact functionalities, and improved moderation systems.

Age assurance emerged as a particularly complex challenge. Terhorst illustrated this with an example: “when you have a name like Butterfly13, you don’t know if Butterfly13 is a 13-year-old girl or a 46-year-old man. So that just doesn’t make it easier.”

Current technology faces significant limitations. The EU’s planned digital identity wallet systems, including the “mini wallet” and “UDI wallet” planned for autumn 2026, will initially only verify users as 18 or older, lacking the granular age verification necessary for tailored safety measures for different minor age groups.

## Platform Cooperation and Transparency Challenges

Peters highlighted the need for greater transparency in algorithmic processes and meaningful participation from civil society organizations in developing safety measures. She mentioned that consultation feedback indicated “there wasn’t enough emphasis on transparency and including civil society organizations.”

Terhorst noted varying levels of engagement from different platforms, with smaller platforms showing more willingness to comply and seek guidance compared to larger platforms. He acknowledged that regulatory authorities face significant limitations when dealing with platforms operating outside the EU.

## Economic Dimensions and Implementation Challenges

During the audience discussion, Michael, an NGO worker from Kurdistan, Iraq, raised concerns about economic incentives that perpetuate harmful content online. He noted that tech companies derive substantial revenue from harmful sites, citing Ethiopia as an example where such sites generate 6% of tech company revenues. “These tech companies, they get their revenue, most of their revenues from these sites,” he explained. “So it also affects the government because these tech companies are paying taxes to the government, right?”

Peters responded by suggesting that economic arguments could be reframed for advocacy purposes, recommending studies that demonstrate the negative economic impact of sexualized violence on national economies, noting that “people who suffer from, for example, PTSD, they often have difficulties in participating 100% later on in their professional life.”

## Balancing Protection with Rights and Access

An audience member identifying as a digital native raised concerns about potential overreach in safety measures, particularly regarding access to sex education and support for LGBTQI+ communities. Peters acknowledged these concerns while emphasizing that Germany’s legal foundations help prevent discriminatory implementation of protective measures.

## Planned Actions and Follow-Up

The EU Commission guidelines for Article 28 of the Digital Services Act are expected to be published within weeks. KIT will continue its three-step analysis process for ongoing platform cases. A specific follow-up discussion was planned between the presenters and the Iraqi participant to share regulatory strategies for telecom companies.

## Conclusion

The discussion examined the complex challenges of protecting children in digital environments while respecting their rights. The concept of personal integrity as shaped by digital experiences provided a framework for understanding child protection that extends beyond preventing immediate harm. Germany’s dialogic regulation approach offers a collaborative enforcement model, though challenges remain in age assurance technology, cross-jurisdictional enforcement, and balancing economic incentives with child protection goals. The upcoming EU guidelines may provide clearer frameworks for implementation and enforcement.

Lea Peters: and the American Heart Association. The American Heart Association is a non-profit organization that supports people with disabilities. The American Heart Association is a non-profit organization that supports people with disabilities. Important among deaf people. Important among the deaf. Important knowledge. Good morning, thank you everyone for being here and taking part in our talk on personal integrity and Minors online. My name is Leah Peters, I work as Policy Specialist for Digital Child Protection at EGPT Germany. EGPT Germany is a children rights organization that is working for the protection of minors from sexualized violence, exploitation and human trafficking.

Michael Terhorst: Good morning also from my side, my name is Michael Terhorst, I’m head of the Federal Office for the Enforcement of Children’s Rights and Digital Services. A quite long name, KIT is the short form, so that might be easier to remember. Today we’re going to start with Leah, who’s going to present the idea and define the personal integrity and show some potential risks. After that I’m going to continue by showing some examples how we might battle those risks. So yeah, thanks for being here.

Lea Peters: Exactly, when you read the title you might have asked yourself, but what is personal integrity? Well according to the Cambridge Dictionary, personal integrity is the quality of an individual of being honest and having strong moral principles. So this means aligning behavior with values, even when faced with challenges or temptations. It includes truthfulness, being reliable and taking responsibility for your actions. Personal integrity though is nothing you are just born with or that’s being formed in a vacuum. It is influenced by our family, our social circle, the culture we grew up in and the experiences we make. Digital environments and technology have become an integral part of our lives. It is nowadays a huge factor in the development of personal integrity. However it also poses new risks and challenges that we are faced with, thus also posing risks and challenges to the development of personal integrity, especially of minors. Those new risks can bring negative impact on the development, especially to minors who are still at an earlier developmental stage. In response to those new risks, the German legislators have included personal integrity of children and youth as a protection goal of child and youth media law. Thus they are making the development and socialization of children and youth a key factor. So when looking at sexualized violence and exploitation online, we have to look at how this can also affect the development of personal integrity of minors. Prevalent studies show that online child sexual exploitation and abuse is prevalent in every country where it is measured. Globally more than 300 million children and youth have been affected by online child sexual abuse and exploitation in the last 12 months. One in eight children globally has been subjected to online solicitation in the last 12 months. This includes unwanted sexual talk like non-consensual texting, unwanted sexual questions or unwanted sexual requests by other adults or other youth. Also one in eight children have experienced the non-consensual taking, sharing and or exposure to sexual images and videos in the last 12 months. When looking at reports, we see that in 2024 the US National Center for Missing and Exploited Children analyzed more than 30 million incidents of sexualized violence and exploitation against children and youth. 84% of these incidents are outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Emphasizing that this problem is global and in every country but also in international cooperation we have to deal with and find solutions. When looking at the offender side, we see that police statistics show a demographic change over the past years of offenders in these crime areas with the average age of offenders becoming younger and younger. In general, every case of online child sexual violence and exploitation of children has a digital component. Being because the child has been contacted through social media or messaging apps before or because the abuse and exploitation is being filmed or photos are being taken of it. Being confronted with sexualized violence is not merely uncomfortable for children and youth. It is deeply disturbing and in many cases traumatic. And like we heard yesterday in the panel, in the high-level panel in the morning, the CEO of the Five Rights Foundation said without intention in less than 15 clicks you find images of sexual abuse and sexual violence against children online. Having seen this so many times online can desensitize children and youth and have negative impact on their personal integrity because it negatively impacts the values they see, positive behavior they are exposed to as well as respect in acting with each other. Due to this, it is important to create digital environments and technologies based on the rights and well-being of children and youth. It is our duty to do better and deliver on this and it is not optional. Safe digital environments have a positive impact on children and youth personal integrity since it creates more aware, knowledgeable and respectful societies that benefit from the positive sides of technology. Thus meaning it also creates safer digital experiences for everyone, not just for children and youth.

Michael Terhorst: Thank you. So, after what you just said, there is a huge and immense necessity to protect the personal integrity of minors. The variety of ideas how to do that is also quite great. So, when we look at some voices saying that there is already enough. We hear from some people that when we look at social media platforms for example that providers already do a lot to protect the personal integrity of minors. Those voices are from the providers themselves. So, maybe it is not really objective. Because when we look at the risks arising out of the different functionalities we see on those platforms there is the need to do something. So, what should we do? There are some ideas of a social media ban. We see that in Australia, we see those ideas in other countries also in the European Union and the idea to ban young persons from especially social media platforms. The Digital Services Act, the DSA, is taking into account the idea of the rights of the child, the right to participate, the right of participation. So, we now have to work together to make sure that we create safe online spaces for children and young persons to guarantee safe usage of those platforms which are important for them, which are part of their everyday life. So, how do we do that? It is not that easy. as you can imagine, because there is no one-size-fits-it-all. There are different platforms, different functionalities, and so different risks arising out of those different functionalities. So we have to find individual solutions for every platform. That’s a lot of work to do, but that’s something we have to do, because otherwise it just doesn’t work, and the status quo is not acceptable. So what we do at KIT, K-I-T-D, so we are responsible in Germany to enforce precautionary measures when it comes to the Digital Services Act, especially Article 28. What we do in Germany is that we have three steps. So first step is we do an analysis of those platforms. We look at the functionalities. We just try everything you can do there, from going live to comment sections and all that, to see what functionalities are given on those platforms. Step two is looking at the different risks which are connected to those functionalities. Step three is checking out if those risks are already being covered by precautionary measures, which might already be implemented. And if all those risks are already being covered, we are good. It’s fine. There’s nothing the providers have to do, but there has been no case where we came to the conclusion that nothing has to be done. So there’s always something to do, and there’s always a lot to do to create online, safe online spaces for children and young persons. So our idea is we have something called dialogic regulation. So we don’t just, yeah, send a letter saying, okay, you have to, I don’t know, pay €5 million because your platform isn’t safe. We get in touch with the provider and say, okay, we found some deficits on your platform because there are functionalities which lead to the exposure to different risks to children and young persons. So something has to be done. We don’t just say that. We already give some ideas, some solutions, some possible solutions to counter those risks. And the providers don’t have to take those specific ideas. We present them. They can do something on their own. As long as it works, we’re good. And we started this about a year ago on the legal basis of the DSA. You mentioned the German Youth Protection Act. We already had this idea in 2021, the Youth Protection Act. So we had already some connections to some providers which helped us in the past and still now. So we already see some slight improvements. But as you might know, Article 28 DSA needs guidelines because you just need guidelines to really have something when you talk to the providers to show what needs to be done, what level of security has to be guaranteed. So when we talk to the providers, we give them possible solutions. We give them some time. And if it works, it’s good. If they don’t comply, then okay, the next steps, a hard enforcement has to be started because otherwise it just wouldn’t work. The guidelines from the EU Commission will be published in the next couple of weeks. So we’re happy for this next step because that makes our enforcement much easier, as you can imagine. Okay, so I talked a lot about possible precautionary measures. And here are some examples. So you can see, for example, moderation or registration, age assurance, all that. That list is not exhaustive because it can’t be. There are new functionalities like every day. There are new platforms. There are new ideas of how to create spaces for young persons, how to connect people to the different platforms. So new functionalities lead to new risks. New risks lead to the necessity of the implementation of new precautionary measures to guarantee a safe usage for children and young persons. So we are working every day, not just at the status quo, but at possible new functionalities in the future and the risks arising out of those functionalities. So when we take a brief look, you see some examples here. There are other precautionary measures already mentioned in the draft of the guidelines to Article 28. But, yeah, let’s take a look at the secure default settings, for example, because they’re always like the heart or the basis of the whole system of precautionary measures. Because, as you can imagine, when you see all those measures, it’s not like one measure which leads to a safe space. It’s always a combination of different measures because otherwise it just wouldn’t work. So the secure default settings. Children or young persons should not be able to be found when you do a Google search. Their profile should not just be open or be public. It should be private by default. So you see some examples here. Restriction, especially regarding contact. So limitation of contact functionalities. You already mentioned all those risks for the sexual integrity, especially this cyber grooming, this sexual extortion. There are so many risks. And those risks have to be mitigated. And you can do that by limiting the possibilities of communication, for example, and to create safe spaces by, for example, usage of pseudonyms or, yeah, just to make sure that not like real names, addresses, locations, all that are being published. So it is really important for us and that’s like a key factor that young persons cannot be directly contacted by like adults because in very many cases you just have no idea how old someone is. And sometimes even the providers, in some cases they do know, but they just tell you that they have no idea. But actually they do know how old you are. But in many cases they just don’t. And when you have pseudonyms, on the one hand, it’s good to protect like the individual, but on the other hand when you have a name like Butterfly13, you don’t know if Butterfly13 is a 13-year-old girl or a 46-year-old man. So that just doesn’t make it easier. So what we need is age assurance because with age assurance you can make sure that, yeah, a specific, let’s call it age bracket is given. So, for example, if you have 18 plus or an age bracket between 13 and 15, when we look at the default settings, those can be tailored to the specific age groups. So, for example, limitations to communication between 13 and 16, but when you’re 17 or 16, 17, maybe there’s some default settings which don’t need to be as strict as when you’re younger. So it has to be tailored to the specific risk and to the specific age groups. And it is also very important, I already mentioned, like Butterfly13 being a 46-year-old man, that in those cases also age verification can be used not to exclude children, young persons from, for example, content, which might harm them, for example, pornography, but to include them to create safe spaces. So, as you can see, it’s also necessary for the precautionary measures, for the security default settings. But also when I go back to all those measures, when you look at, for example, moderation when you look at reporting mechanisms It is important that children young persons really understand what’s happening when they report something. It’s important that the language used By the providers when you try to report something can be understood by children young persons So they just need to know how you are. They don’t need to know The providers don’t need to know if your birthday is like 5th of December but they need to know if you’re like between 13 and 15 or 16 to 17 whatever and that makes it really Necessary to implement age assurance. There are different kinds. There are age verification systems. There’s age estimation. There are other things being used All of them have one thing in common It is always a balancing act between privacy on the one hand and on the other hand functionality It also has to be user friendly. There’s so many aspects when it comes to age assurance it’s a it’s a really big thing and everyone’s talking about it because it’s so complicated and Because it’s it’s like about it’s it’s Bella Bella saying like balancing 20 different Interests and it’s it’s it’s really hard to find something that really works. So the EU Commission Is now publishing the first step the so-called mini wallet and in about a year, I think it’s it’s planned for autumn 2026 the so-called UDI wallet comes to the mini wallet and also the UDI wallet the first at the beginning it will be only be possible to verify your age if you’re 18 plus but they’re already also some ideas and we are really trying to to force that as we can that all those apps or those Those programs like the UDI wallet will make it possible to identify if someone is let’s say between 13 and 15 to tailor the default settings and all those other precautionary measures and to create safe spaces because if Those age assurance mechanisms don’t work It just really gets Really dangerous because you trust them and if you trust those measures and if it doesn’t work Because when you think that you are like in a safe space and you let your kids and you sit in a so-called safe space But if those mechanisms doesn’t work, it’s just it can be really harmful and all those risks earlier described Yeah can can really happen and that’s something we really don’t want okay, so our basic idea is not to exclude children to include them and to have like a digital environment offering significantly more opportunities than risks and That’s not easy because what we are doing is just one small piece. We all have to work together also Like our media literacy and all that we have to like to follow in a holistic approach because otherwise it’s Impossible to create safe spaces. So let’s work together Let’s do together and if you have any questions or maybe online if you have any questions or want to do a statement will be open for everything and Thanks for your attention Are there any questions ideas statements

Audience: Yes Thank you for the presentation I’d love to know if you can share to the degree that you can and how it’s been interacting with the platforms and the sort of Co-regulatory model that you described like are they open to Speaking with you other I assume their difference between different platforms. I’d be really curious to experience.

Michael Terhorst: Yeah. Thank you for a question. It’s actually a pretty good question because sometimes it’s actually a bit surprising for us so we started this idea of dialogic regulation because it was in the and the Youth Protection Act in Germany and There are a lot of providers coming to us and Saying also providers. We were actually not on our list and they’re coming to us and saying, okay Hey, it’s us Maybe you can look at our platform because we just want to comply with with the law. We just Want our platform to be safe? But that’s a small part of the providers We have opened between 30 and 40 cases in Germany so far and we have also started We can we can we can act in Germany and outside the EU because in the other member states there are other authorities Responsible and when it comes to very large online platforms, so could be labs. The EU Commission is responsible for the regulation, but when we look at Those platforms in Germany or outside Germany. It’s interesting because in Germany most companies almost providers more or less willing to comply But And also interesting and chatting with us that really works. So the first like the first one or two meetings. It’s also it’s I Think the communication is kind of good Also with we loves the velops. They they come to us. We we talk to each other We keep each other updated talk about best practices on song. That’s good. That’s good That still needs a lot. There’s there’s still a lot to do but this actually works pretty well After that When we get like to the next steps when we say, okay, you have to change this or that then it’s like, okay Thank you But let’s wait for the guidelines because without the guidelines to article 28 that’s what I mentioned in the beginning a hard enforcement is almost impossible because They just say okay article 28 needs needs to be filled with more with more information to to Information to to to really like Yeah To to to show what it really means. So Yeah, I think to answer your question in two months I can say a lot more if it really if it really works that well because Smaller platforms that we actually we are happy that most of them are willing to comply But there are this like block and I mentioned the the platforms outside the EU It’s not that easy for us as you can imagine and Also, maybe it’s because the law enforcement outside the EU for us it’s also we have to be honest It’s not that easy When in like all around the globe when the when they are providers and we want to enforce Something when you want to enforce something in Germany, you send a letter and they say, okay, we have to pay because otherwise But when you send this letter to you, I don’t know any other state in the world. It’s not that easy. But Yeah I hope maybe maybe in a year on the next IGF. You asked the same question. I say we are good we now have a safe space for genuine persons or at least a little bit safer and

Lea Peters: Maybe a little additional comment from the civil society perspective So, I think what we also see missing is Transparency from platforms also to the wider open public, especially when it comes to algorithmic usage on platforms And things like that This is also also one thing We mentioned in the consultation in the guideline process for the DSA that there wasn’t enough emphasis on this transparency and including civil society organizations and Academic experts in this as well as having meaningful and child and survivor participation This was a this was something that we flagged because we see it is very important Also already in the developmental stages of new features of measures that are being implemented So there is a lot of room for improvement Thank you any of the Commons questions Oh

Audience: Thank you, all right Thank you. My name is Michael. I come from Iraq. I’m working for an NGO called SEED in Kurdistan, and I’m leading a project on online child safety by SafeOnline there, and we’re trying to build a government system there to be able to respond to AXIA and with the new name TFCSEA. One of the greatest learning here when I come to IGF is the importance of regulating the tech companies. I’ve done this before in Ethiopia, and we were able to ban pornographic websites there in collaboration with the telecom company there. But the greatest challenge is when we try to ban those websites, these tech companies, they get their revenue, most of their revenues from these sites. For example, in Ethiopia, like 6% of their revenues from these sites, harmful sites. So it’s one of the greatest challenges for us, and we’re trying to do that in Iraq. So it also affects the government because these tech companies are paying taxes to the government, right? So do you have any advice regarding this, how to regulate specifically these telecom companies in a kind of environment?

Michael Terhorst: So first of all, love your name, also Michael’s. But that’s a pretty good question. I mean, it’s, as I can imagine, a completely different kind of legal system. And so it’s actually kind of hard for me to give some advice because we have another legal basis we work from. Maybe, so we made a lot of positive experience when it comes to dialogue. So just communicating and telling them, okay, you don’t want to have, sometimes bad press isn’t that bad. But in those cases, there are a lot of providers who are interested in having like a good picture of themselves in the press, online, wherever. So our idea is we get on the dialogue, and if they comply, then we don’t advertise those pages. But we say, okay, we report about our experiences we made with those providers. And we made press statements and so on, where we say, okay, there have been some improvements on various platforms. So other platforms come to us and say, okay, actually, we want to also be mentioned like in a positive way by you. Is it possible that we get in touch, that we talk and so on? So maybe that could be an idea, but you mentioned pornographic platforms. Pornographic platforms, yeah, that’s like content, that’s content regulation. And most precautionary measures I talked about, that’s more risks resulting out of interaction. So it’s also sometimes content, but it’s very often risk resulting out of communication. When it comes to cyber grooming, for example, or when it comes to extremism, sometimes it’s a mixture of both, because when you have like extremist content, on the other hand, like this communication where they try to get especially young people in their hands. So I think I have to think about it more. Maybe we can chat later and share some ideas, and you can explain me a bit more about your situation, and we will see what we can do. Okay, thank you.

Lea Peters: Yeah, and I mean, also, if you have capacity to kind of push from both sides or push the private sector, but also the government, it’s always useful to also use studies that show the negative impact of risks like sexualized violence on the overall economy of the country or the region you live in. Since studies show that also online sexualized violence has the same traumatic outcome for survivors and victims, like offline sexualized violence, and for offline sexualized violence, there are studies how this negatively impacts a country’s economy. So this might also be a route you can go, and it might also be something that the companies or the private sector is interested in to see, because people who suffer from, for example, PTSD, they often have difficulties in participating 100% later on in their professional life and things like that. So this could also have negative impact on the future workforce they want to build. So this might also be an additional angle you could try to use.

Michael Terhorst: Thank you. Do we have time for one last question? A really short question, sorry. And a short answer. Yeah, I’m sorry.

Audience: First I just want to say, as a digital native, I truly understand how vital the work you’re doing is. But I’m curious, in terms of the work that’s been done so far, a lot of the times access to education for children has been barred because of different countries’ views on what education should be. And I’m curious, do you all have any measures in place to prevent that from happening when implementing these protective measures?

Lea Peters: Yeah, I mean, so we are both based in Germany, the kid and the expert Germany. So we work on that legal basis, and they’re already in the legal basis. They are kind of a strong basis that ensures that this is not going to happen. So for example, when you look at the development of your sexualization, then there are different laws when you’re a teen. So when you’re above 14, then when you are below 14. So we are working on those measures, and they are already kind of trying to counteract that this is happening, that it has negative impacts, for example, on sex education and things like that, which are quite important, as well as seeing that this is not limiting access for vulnerable groups like LGBTQI plus community and things like that, and other groups like that. So there are kind of strong students. We are always pushing to keep it that way, because there’s also push also from a political side to restrict this more again. But yeah, as a civil society organization, like the expert Germany, together with others, we are trying to see that this is not happening. We have it in our perspective and are pushing for that. Yeah. Thank you.

Michael Terhorst: That was a perfect answer. Nothing to add. So thank you. Thank you, Leah. Thank you, everyone.

Lea Peters: Thank you.

Agreement points

Need for collaborative rather than punitive regulatory approaches

Speakers

– Lea Peters
– Michael Terhorst

Arguments

Regulatory Approaches and Enforcement Mechanisms

Platform Cooperation and Transparency Challenges

Summary

Both speakers advocate for working together with platforms through dialogue and collaboration rather than simply imposing bans or punitive measures. They emphasize the importance of creating safe online spaces while respecting children’s rights to participation.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Platform transparency and stakeholder participation are insufficient

Speakers

– Lea Peters
– Michael Terhorst

Arguments

Platform Cooperation and Transparency Challenges

Platform Cooperation and Transparency Challenges

Summary

Both speakers agree that platforms lack sufficient transparency in their operations and that there is inadequate meaningful participation from civil society organizations, academic experts, and affected communities in developing safety measures.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Economic incentives can be effective for promoting child safety

Speakers

– Lea Peters
– Audience

Arguments

Implementation Challenges and Solutions

Implementation Challenges and Solutions

Summary

Both acknowledge that economic arguments and considerations of financial impact can be powerful tools for convincing companies and governments to prioritize child protection measures, though they also recognize the challenges this creates when harmful content generates revenue.

Topics

Economic | Human rights

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that protecting children online requires comprehensive, multi-faceted approaches that address the massive scale of online child sexual exploitation through technical safeguards, regulatory measures, and collaborative efforts.

Speakers

– Lea Peters
– Michael Terhorst

Arguments

Scale and Impact of Online Child Sexual Exploitation

Technical Safeguards and Precautionary Measures

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both acknowledge the significant challenges in enforcing child safety measures, particularly when dealing with platforms outside the EU and when economic interests conflict with safety objectives.

Speakers

– Michael Terhorst
– Audience

Arguments

Platform Cooperation and Transparency Challenges

Implementation Challenges and Solutions

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Unexpected consensus

Balancing child protection with educational access and rights

Speakers

– Lea Peters
– Audience

Arguments

Implementation Challenges and Solutions

Implementation Challenges and Solutions

Explanation

Despite coming from different perspectives (regulatory/advocacy vs. digital native), both speakers show unexpected consensus on the importance of ensuring that protective measures don’t inadvertently restrict legitimate educational access or harm vulnerable groups like the LGBTQI+ community. This demonstrates sophisticated understanding of the complexity of child protection.

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Recognition of economic barriers to effective regulation

Speakers

– Lea Peters
– Michael Terhorst
– Audience

Arguments

Implementation Challenges and Solutions

Platform Cooperation and Transparency Challenges

Implementation Challenges and Solutions

Explanation

All speakers, despite their different roles (civil society, government regulator, and practitioner), show unexpected consensus in acknowledging and discussing the economic realities that complicate child protection efforts, including revenue dependencies and tax implications.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on the need for collaborative, multi-stakeholder approaches to child protection online, the importance of transparency and meaningful participation, and the recognition that economic factors significantly impact regulatory effectiveness.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with sophisticated understanding of implementation challenges. The agreement spans across different stakeholder perspectives (government, civil society, practitioners) and suggests a mature, nuanced approach to child protection that balances safety with rights and acknowledges real-world constraints. This consensus provides a strong foundation for collaborative policy development and implementation.

Different viewpoints

Revenue conflicts in platform regulation

Speakers

– Audience
– Michael Terhorst

Arguments

Tech companies and governments face conflicts of interest when regulating harmful content because these companies derive significant revenue from such sites and pay taxes to governments

Rather than implementing social media bans, the focus should be on creating safe online spaces for children while respecting their right to participation

Summary

The audience member highlighted the fundamental economic conflict where tech companies derive significant revenue (up to 6%) from harmful sites and pay taxes to governments, making regulation challenging. Michael Terhorst acknowledged this difficulty but focused on collaborative dialogue and positive press coverage as incentives, without directly addressing the revenue conflict issue.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Approach to economic incentives in regulation

Speakers

– Audience
– Lea Peters

Arguments

Tech companies and governments face conflicts of interest when regulating harmful content because these companies derive significant revenue from such sites and pay taxes to governments

Economic arguments can be effective in convincing companies and governments to prioritize child safety, as online sexual violence has the same traumatic outcomes as offline violence

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both parties are concerned with child protection, yet they have fundamentally different views on how economic factors should be leveraged. The audience member sees economic interests as obstacles, while Lea Peters sees them as potential tools for advocacy. This represents a strategic disagreement on whether to view economic factors as barriers or opportunities.

Topics

Economic | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows relatively low levels of fundamental disagreement, with most participants aligned on the core goal of protecting children online. The main areas of disagreement center around economic incentives and enforcement strategies rather than the underlying principles.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The disagreements are primarily strategic and methodological rather than philosophical, focusing on how to achieve shared goals rather than questioning the goals themselves. This suggests good potential for collaborative solutions, though the economic conflict issue raised by the audience member represents a significant structural challenge that wasn’t fully resolved in the discussion.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that protecting children online requires comprehensive, multi-faceted approaches that address the massive scale of online child sexual exploitation through technical safeguards, regulatory measures, and collaborative efforts.

Speakers

– Lea Peters
– Michael Terhorst

Arguments

Scale and Impact of Online Child Sexual Exploitation

Technical Safeguards and Precautionary Measures

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Both acknowledge the significant challenges in enforcing child safety measures, particularly when dealing with platforms outside the EU and when economic interests conflict with safety objectives.

Speakers

– Michael Terhorst
– Audience

Arguments

Platform Cooperation and Transparency Challenges

Implementation Challenges and Solutions

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Key takeaways

Personal integrity development in minors is significantly impacted by digital environments, with over 300 million children globally affected by online sexual abuse and exploitation in the last 12 months

Creating safe online spaces through regulation and cooperation is more effective than blanket social media bans, requiring tailored solutions for different platforms and functionalities

Dialogic regulation (collaborative engagement with platforms) shows promise, with many smaller platforms actively seeking compliance guidance, though larger platforms often wait for official guidelines

Technical safeguards must work in combination – secure default settings, age assurance, content moderation, and reporting mechanisms are all necessary components of effective child protection

Age assurance technology is crucial but complex, requiring balance between privacy, functionality, and user-friendliness, with EU wallet systems planned but initially limited to 18+ verification

Economic arguments about the negative workforce impact of online violence can be effective tools for convincing both private sector and governments to prioritize child protection

Resolutions and action items

EU Commission guidelines for Article 28 DSA to be published in the coming weeks to facilitate easier enforcement

Continued advocacy for EU wallet systems to include younger age bracket verification beyond just 18+ users

KIT to continue three-step analysis process (functionality review, risk assessment, precautionary measure evaluation) for 30-40 ongoing platform cases

Follow-up discussion planned between presenters and audience member from Iraq to share specific regulatory strategies for telecom companies

Continued push from civil society organizations to maintain legal safeguards preventing discrimination against vulnerable groups while implementing protective measures

Unresolved issues

Enforcement challenges for platforms operating outside the EU remain difficult to address effectively

Revenue conflicts where tech companies and governments benefit financially from harmful content sites create ongoing regulatory obstacles

Lack of transparency from platforms regarding algorithmic usage and insufficient meaningful participation from civil society and survivors in development processes

Age assurance technology limitations – current systems cannot effectively distinguish between different minor age brackets (e.g., 13-15 vs 16-17)

Balancing protective measures with access to education and preventing discrimination against vulnerable groups like LGBTQI+ communities remains an ongoing challenge

The ‘Butterfly13’ problem – difficulty determining actual user ages when pseudonyms are used, creating safety risks

Suggested compromises

Dialogic regulation approach that engages platforms collaboratively rather than imposing immediate penalties, allowing providers to propose their own solutions as long as they effectively address identified risks

Graduated default settings based on age brackets rather than one-size-fits-all restrictions, with less strict measures for older teens

Using positive press coverage and public recognition to incentivize platform compliance rather than relying solely on punitive measures

Combining multiple precautionary measures in tailored combinations for different platforms rather than requiring identical solutions across all services

Holistic approach incorporating media literacy education alongside technical safeguards and regulatory measures

Personal integrity though is nothing you are just born with or that’s being formed in a vacuum. It is influenced by our family, our social circle, the culture we grew up in and the experiences we make. Digital environments and technology have become an integral part of our lives. It is nowadays a huge factor in the development of personal integrity.

Speaker

Lea Peters

Reason

This comment is insightful because it reframes personal integrity from a static moral concept to a dynamic, socially constructed quality that is actively shaped by digital experiences. It establishes the theoretical foundation for why digital child protection is not just about preventing harm, but about fostering positive character development in the digital age.

Impact

This comment set the conceptual framework for the entire discussion, shifting it from a purely regulatory perspective to one that considers the developmental psychology of children in digital spaces. It provided the philosophical justification for all subsequent policy recommendations.

So our idea is we have something called dialogic regulation. So we don’t just, yeah, send a letter saying, okay, you have to, I don’t know, pay €5 million because your platform isn’t safe. We get in touch with the provider and say, okay, we found some deficits on your platform… And the providers don’t have to take those specific ideas. We present them. They can do something on their own. As long as it works, we’re good.

Speaker

Michael Terhorst

Reason

This introduces a novel regulatory approach that challenges the traditional adversarial model of enforcement. It’s thought-provoking because it suggests that collaborative regulation might be more effective than punitive measures, representing a paradigm shift in how governments can work with tech companies.

Impact

This comment fundamentally changed the discussion from theoretical policy to practical implementation, demonstrating how regulatory innovation can bridge the gap between child protection goals and industry cooperation. It prompted audience questions about the effectiveness of this approach and became a central theme in the Q&A session.

when you have a name like Butterfly13, you don’t know if Butterfly13 is a 13-year-old girl or a 46-year-old man. So that just doesn’t make it easier… what we need is age assurance because with age assurance you can make sure that, yeah, a specific, let’s call it age bracket is given.

Speaker

Michael Terhorst

Reason

This comment brilliantly illustrates the fundamental paradox of online child protection – the very anonymity features designed to protect children can also enable predators. It’s insightful because it shows how traditional privacy protections can conflict with safety measures, requiring innovative solutions.

Impact

This vivid example shifted the discussion toward the technical complexities of age verification and the delicate balance between privacy and safety. It made abstract policy concepts concrete and relatable, helping the audience understand why simple solutions don’t work in digital child protection.

these tech companies, they get their revenue, most of their revenues from these sites. For example, in Ethiopia, like 6% of their revenues from these sites, harmful sites. So it’s one of the greatest challenges for us… So it also affects the government because these tech companies are paying taxes to the government, right?

Speaker

Audience member Michael from Iraq

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it exposes the economic incentive structures that perpetuate harmful content online. It reveals how financial dependencies create systemic barriers to child protection that go beyond technical or regulatory solutions, highlighting the intersection of economics, governance, and child safety.

Impact

This comment dramatically expanded the scope of the discussion from technical implementation to systemic economic challenges. It forced the speakers to acknowledge that their European regulatory model may not be universally applicable and prompted a more nuanced discussion about different approaches needed in different economic and political contexts.

if you have capacity to kind of push from both sides or push the private sector, but also the government, it’s always useful to also use studies that show the negative impact of risks like sexualized violence on the overall economy of the country… people who suffer from, for example, PTSD, they often have difficulties in participating 100% later on in their professional life

Speaker

Lea Peters

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it reframes child protection from a moral imperative to an economic argument, suggesting that protecting children online is not just ethically right but economically rational. It demonstrates strategic thinking about how to build coalitions for child protection across different stakeholder interests.

Impact

This response showed how advocates can adapt their arguments to different contexts and audiences. It shifted the conversation toward practical advocacy strategies and demonstrated how child protection arguments can be tailored to resonate with economic and political decision-makers who might not be moved by moral arguments alone.

Overall assessment

These key comments shaped the discussion by progressively expanding its scope and complexity. The conversation began with theoretical foundations (personal integrity as socially constructed), moved through innovative regulatory approaches (dialogic regulation), confronted technical paradoxes (anonymity vs. safety), and ultimately grappled with systemic economic and political challenges. The most impactful comments were those that revealed underlying tensions and complexities rather than offering simple solutions – such as the economic incentives that perpetuate harmful content and the privacy-safety paradox in online spaces. The discussion evolved from a presentation of best practices to a more nuanced exploration of how context, economics, and power structures shape the possibilities for child protection online. The audience questions, particularly from the Iraqi participant, were crucial in challenging the speakers to consider the limitations and cultural specificity of their European regulatory model.

How effective will the dialogic regulation approach be once EU Commission guidelines are published and implemented?

Speaker

Michael Terhorst

Explanation

Terhorst mentioned that in two months he could say a lot more about whether the approach really works well, indicating this needs follow-up assessment after guidelines implementation

How can telecom companies be regulated when they derive significant revenue from harmful sites, especially in developing countries?

Speaker

Audience member Michael from Iraq

Explanation

This represents a complex challenge where economic interests of telecom companies and government tax revenue conflict with child protection goals, requiring further research on regulatory approaches

What are effective strategies for regulating tech companies in different legal systems outside the EU?

Speaker

Audience member Michael from Iraq

Explanation

The speakers acknowledged this is challenging and suggested further discussion, indicating need for research on cross-jurisdictional regulatory approaches

How can age assurance mechanisms for specific age brackets (13-15, 16-17) be effectively implemented in the EU Digital Identity Wallet?

Speaker

Michael Terhorst

Explanation

Current systems only verify 18+ status, but tailored safety measures require more granular age verification, which is still under development

How can transparency from platforms regarding algorithmic usage be improved and civil society participation be meaningfully included?

Speaker

Lea Peters

Explanation

This was identified as a gap in current DSA guidelines that needs further development to ensure proper oversight and accountability

What economic impact studies exist showing how online sexualized violence affects national economies?

Speaker

Lea Peters

Explanation

Peters suggested this as a potential advocacy tool but implied more research is needed to quantify these economic impacts for policy arguments

How can protective measures be designed to prevent restricting access to legitimate education, particularly for vulnerable groups?

Speaker

Audience member (digital native)

Explanation

This highlights the need for ongoing research to balance child protection with educational access and rights of marginalized communities

Summary

This WIPO-hosted discussion explored the critical role of intellectual property in the esports ecosystem and methods for resolving related disputes. The session featured experts from WIPO, Video Games Europe, and legal practitioners who examined how IP rights function across the complex network of stakeholders in competitive gaming.

The panelists emphasized that video games themselves are multiverses of IP protection, encompassing everything from software code and character designs to music and storytelling elements. Unlike traditional sports where rules are collectively owned, esports rules are typically protected by IP rights held by game developers and publishers. This creates a unique dynamic where the “playing field” itself is an artistic creation subject to copyright protection.

Tournament organizers must navigate varying licensing requirements depending on the scale and commercial nature of their events. While grassroots community tournaments often operate under automatic licenses with basic restrictions, larger commercial tournaments require explicit licensing agreements with game publishers. The discussion highlighted how licensing policies vary significantly between companies, games, and territories, creating a complex landscape for organizers to navigate.

Players and teams have increasingly become IP powerhouses in their own right, protecting their brands, logos, and even catchphrases through trademark registrations. Notable examples include professional player Tyler “Ninja” Blevins, who holds approximately 25 trademark registrations. The integration of team brands and player likenesses directly into games through cosmetic items represents an evolving revenue stream that bridges player IP with game publisher IP.

The session also addressed dispute resolution challenges in this fast-moving, global, and predominantly digital industry. Traditional court litigation often proves inadequate due to jurisdictional complexities, lengthy proceedings, and high costs. WIPO introduced the International Games and Esports Tribunal (IGET), a specialized alternative dispute resolution framework designed specifically for the gaming industry, offering faster, more cost-effective, and industry-knowledgeable resolution processes.

The discussion concluded with emphasis on the importance of IP literacy and proactive dispute resolution planning, noting that WIPO is developing educational resources to help players and tournament organizers better understand and navigate IP requirements in the esports ecosystem.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **IP as the Foundation of Esports**: Video games are fundamentally built on intellectual property rights (copyright, trademarks, patents), and esports competitions require explicit or implicit licenses from game developers/publishers to use their IP for tournaments, broadcasting, and commercial activities.

– **Multi-Stakeholder IP Ecosystem**: The esports industry involves complex IP ownership across multiple parties – game developers/publishers own the core game IP, while tournament organizers, teams, and players are increasingly developing their own IP assets (brands, trademarks, content) that can be commercialized and integrated back into games.

– **Licensing Framework and Commercial Thresholds**: There’s a clear distinction between community/grassroots tournaments (often automatically licensed with basic conditions) and commercial tournaments (requiring explicit licensing agreements), with the level of commercialization determining the complexity of IP permissions needed.

– **Global Jurisdiction and Dispute Resolution Challenges**: Traditional court litigation is often inadequate for esports disputes due to the global, digital, and fast-moving nature of the industry, leading to the development of specialized alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like the International Games and Esports Tribunal (IGET).

– **Education and Awareness Gaps**: There’s a recognized need for better IP literacy among players, streamers, and tournament organizers to help them understand when they’re using protected content commercially versus for community purposes, and how to properly navigate licensing requirements.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to educate stakeholders about the critical role of intellectual property in the esports ecosystem, explain how different parties can protect and manage their IP rights, and introduce specialized dispute resolution tools designed specifically for the gaming and esports industry.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a professional, educational tone throughout, with speakers acting as industry experts sharing knowledge rather than debating contentious issues. The tone was collaborative and solution-oriented, with WIPO representatives and industry experts working together to provide practical guidance. The atmosphere remained consistently informative and supportive, particularly when addressing audience questions about common IP challenges faced by content creators and tournament organizers.

Speakers

– **Richard Frelick** – Moderator from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)

– **Alexia Gkoritsa** – Co-moderator from the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (AMC)

– **Sergi Mesonero** – Head of eSports at Video Games Europe, previously co-founder and public affairs vice president at LVP Liga de Video Jugos Profesional, and chairperson of international eSports chair at Universidad Católica de Murcia

– **Daniel Zohny** – IP lawyer with over 20 years of experience, former head of IP at FIFA (until end of 2023), partner and country manager at Albion’s Switzerland office, co-heading the company’s global brand protection business, currently co-chairing the 25th Presidential Task Force at INTA

– **Rafael Ferraz Vazquez** – Legal officer at WIPO’s Copyright Law Division, has worked on copyright and digital content issues at WIPO for over 10 years

– **Audience** – Identified as Kenneth, previously with a media and entertainment conglomerate focusing on public policy and government affairs

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond the speakers names list provided.

# Intellectual Property in Esports: Navigating Rights, Licensing, and Dispute Resolution

## Executive Summary

This comprehensive WIPO-hosted discussion examined the critical role of intellectual property in the esports ecosystem, bringing together experts from the World Intellectual Property Organization, Video Games Europe, and legal practitioners to explore how IP rights function across the complex network of stakeholders in competitive gaming. The session, moderated by Richard Frelick from WIPO and co-moderated by Alexia Gkoritsa from the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Centre, featured insights from industry leaders including Sergi Mesonero (Head of eSports at Video Games Europe), Daniel Zohny (IP lawyer and former head of IP at FIFA), and Rafael Ferraz Vazquez (Legal officer at WIPO’s Copyright Law Division).

Richard Frelick opened by explaining that WIPO is “the United Nations agency that serves the world’s innovators and creators,” establishing the international context for the discussion. The conversation revealed that intellectual property forms the foundational basis of the entire esports ecosystem, with video games representing complex multiverses of protected content encompassing software code, character designs, music, storytelling elements, and artistic creations. Unlike traditional sports where rules are collectively owned, esports operates within a framework where game rules, playing fields, and competitive parameters are protected by IP rights held by developers and publishers, creating unique dynamics for tournament organisation, broadcasting, and commercial exploitation.

## The Fundamental Role of IP in Esports

### Video Games as IP Multiverses

The panellists emphasised that video games themselves represent comprehensive collections of intellectual property protection. As Richard Frelick noted, these digital environments contain “a multiverse of IP from music and voice acting to code, character design, and storytelling.” This fundamental characteristic distinguishes esports from traditional sports in profound ways.

Sergi Mesonero provided a particularly insightful perspective on this distinction: “In contrast with sport, where the rules of sports are owned by no one, they are a collective creation… the rules of eSports for the most part are part of the intellectual property… The playing field. It’s an artistic creation the map where the players are competing… So you can imagine that through IP you also control the rules of the game, which is a very specific thing.”

This observation proved foundational to understanding why IP considerations permeate every aspect of esports operations, from grassroots community tournaments to major commercial competitions. The speakers agreed that this IP-centric structure enables creators to recoup the massive investments required to develop and maintain the sophisticated multiplayer games that serve as the foundation for competitive esports.

### Multi-Stakeholder IP Ownership

The discussion revealed a complex ecosystem where multiple parties have developed distinct IP assets. Daniel Zohny outlined how teams and players have evolved over time into “IP powerhouses,” protecting their brands, logos, and even catchphrases through extensive trademark portfolios. The example of professional player Tyler “Ninja” Blevins, who holds about 25 trademark registrations covering entertainment services, merchandise, and personal branding, illustrates the sophistication of modern player IP strategies.

Richard Frelick specifically mentioned WIPO’s Madrid system as a valuable tool for international trademark protection, noting its relevance for stakeholders operating across multiple jurisdictions.

**Developers and Publishers** maintain ownership of core game IP, including software, graphics, characters, and game mechanics. This foundational IP enables the entire esports ecosystem but also creates dependencies for other stakeholders.

**Tournament Organisers** have increasingly developed their own protected brands and competition formats through trademark registrations, creating valuable IP assets around their events and broadcast productions.

**Teams and Players** have developed sophisticated IP strategies that extend far beyond gameplay, encompassing personal branding, merchandise, and commercial partnerships.

## Licensing Framework and Commercial Thresholds

### Community Versus Commercial Activities

A significant portion of the discussion focused on the practical distinction between community and commercial activities within the esports ecosystem. The speakers achieved consensus that video game publishers generally adopt a permissive approach toward non-commercial activities whilst requiring explicit permissions for commercial exploitation.

Sergi Mesonero explained that “community tournaments often have automatic licenses with basic conditions, while commercial tournaments require negotiated contracts.” He provided specific examples of automatic license conditions, including prize limits and restrictions on TV commercialization. Importantly, he noted that for most regular players, IP issues are “transparent” and only become problematic when activities transition to commercial exploitation.

Daniel Zohny reinforced this perspective, noting that “most IP restrictions only apply to commercial exploitation, not casual gameplay sharing.” He emphasized that publishers want to “push” their games through fan engagement, recognizing that community activity drives long-term success.

### Licensing Complexity and Variation

The discussion highlighted significant challenges in navigating licensing requirements across the esports landscape. Sergi Mesonero noted that “licensing requirements vary by company, game, territory, and tournament size and scope,” creating a complex matrix that tournament organisers must navigate.

Rafael Ferraz Vazquez emphasised the importance of understanding these distinctions, particularly for players transitioning from casual to commercial activities: “The fact that they acquire a licence to play the video game as a consumer, as a user, does not mean that they can undertake a lot of different acts within the eSports activity… if they associate themselves and stream and have a sponsorship over their activities, that might trigger conditions that they are not allowed to undertake without the authorisation of the publisher.”

Rafael also highlighted specific IP elements commonly used in tournaments, including “trademarks, characters, images, art,” emphasizing that tournament organization and streaming activities are directly related to IP usage, contrary to some audience assumptions.

## Emerging IP Integration Trends

### Reverse IP Integration

One of the most fascinating developments discussed was the emerging trend of integrating player and team IP directly into video games themselves. Sergi Mesonero highlighted this phenomenon: “We are seeing lately even something that I find quite fascinating… how teams and players IP is even introduced inside the games… how can you buy Faker inside the video game as a skin. So this is something that I find that it’s very unique of the esports ecosystem.”

This reverse integration represents a unique circular relationship in IP usage that doesn’t exist in traditional sports. Professional players’ likenesses, team brands, and associated intellectual property are being incorporated back into the original games through cosmetic items, branded skins, and character representations.

### Diversification of Revenue Models

This IP integration trend contributes to diversifying the esports economy beyond traditional advertising and sponsorship models. Team brands integrated into games through cosmetic items provide direct monetisation opportunities for both teams and publishers, whilst creating new ways for fans to engage with their favourite organisations and players.

## Dispute Resolution Challenges and Solutions

### Inadequacy of Traditional Legal Systems

Alexia Gkoritsa provided compelling arguments for why traditional court litigation often proves inadequate for esports disputes. “Court proceedings take time… by the time a judgement is issued, the game or the competition in that case might already be in its next season or no longer relevant. Moreover, courts may not always have the specialised knowledge… judges in jurisdictions that do not fully understand the technical or commercial realities of the industry.”

### The International Games and Esports Tribunal (IGET)

To address these challenges, WIPO developed the International Games and Esports Tribunal (IGET), a specialised alternative dispute resolution framework designed specifically for the gaming industry. Alexia Gkoritsa explained that IGET offers faster, more cost-effective, and industry-knowledgeable resolution processes compared to traditional litigation.

While Alexia mentioned collaboration with organizations like ESIC, she emphasized that IGET provides access to neutrals with specific gaming and esports expertise, enabling more informed decision-making on technical and commercial issues unique to the industry.

## Education and Awareness Initiatives

### Current State of IP Literacy

The discussion revealed mixed perspectives on the current state of IP awareness within the esports community. Sergi Mesonero noted that “there’s increased IP literacy among top-tier players compared to 10-15 years ago,” suggesting improvement at the professional level.

However, audience questions revealed ongoing challenges, particularly among content creators and smaller tournament organisers who may not fully understand when their activities require explicit permissions versus operating under automatic licences.

### Collaborative Educational Efforts

Rafael Ferraz Vazquez announced that “WIPO and Video Games Europe are developing educational guides for players and tournament organisers,” specifically targeting those engaged in “non-commercial or community-based” activities and those “starting a business.” These resources aim to provide practical guidance on IP management, licensing requirements, and best practices for different types of esports activities.

The speakers agreed that education represents a more effective approach than restrictive enforcement for building IP awareness and compliance within the esports community.

## Addressing Community Concerns

### Audience Perspectives

The discussion included important audience input that highlighted ongoing community concerns. An audience member questioned whether EULA restrictions might be legally void due to players’ lack of understanding, while industry representatives maintained that these restrictions are legitimate and directly related to IP usage.

Rafael specifically clarified that EULA restrictions ARE related to IP, contrary to the audience member’s suggestion, emphasizing the importance of understanding IP consequences for sponsorship and brand relationships.

Kenneth, an audience member, raised a particularly thoughtful concern about young people developing negative attitudes toward copyright due to streamer complaints about copyright strikes and demonetization. Daniel Zohny acknowledged this “weird interaction” where people complain about IP restrictions while potentially benefiting from the same protections later in their careers.

### Balancing Protection and Access

The speakers demonstrated understanding of these concerns while maintaining that current approaches generally balance IP protection with community accessibility. Daniel emphasized that publishers recognize the value of fan engagement and generally adopt permissive policies for non-commercial activities.

## Practical Recommendations and Action Items

### For Tournament Organisers

The discussion emphasised that tournament organisers should develop proactive IP strategies and secure proper licensing before events. This includes understanding the distinction between community and commercial activities, researching specific licensing requirements for relevant games and territories, and establishing clear contractual relationships with all stakeholders.

### For Players and Content Creators

Players transitioning from casual to commercial activities need to understand how this transition affects their licensing requirements. The upcoming WIPO-Video Games Europe educational guide should provide practical guidance for navigating these transitions and understanding when explicit permissions are required.

### For the Industry

The speakers recommended continued collaboration on educational initiatives, development of clearer licensing frameworks, and adoption of specialised dispute resolution mechanisms like IGET. These efforts should focus on building understanding rather than restricting activities, particularly for community and non-commercial uses.

## Conclusion

This educational discussion revealed that intellectual property serves as the fundamental enabler of the esports ecosystem, creating both opportunities and challenges for stakeholders across the industry. The unique characteristics of esports—where the playing field itself is an artistic creation protected by IP rights—distinguish it fundamentally from traditional sports and require specialised approaches to licensing, dispute resolution, and stakeholder management.

The strong consensus among industry experts suggests a maturing ecosystem with shared understanding of best practices and common challenges. The development of specialised tools like IGET and collaborative educational initiatives demonstrates the industry’s commitment to addressing these challenges constructively.

The discussion maintained a collaborative, educational tone throughout, with speakers demonstrating remarkable alignment on fundamental issues. All agreed that IP forms the foundation of the esports ecosystem, that different licensing requirements exist for community versus commercial activities, and that better education and awareness are needed throughout the industry.

The emerging trend of reverse IP integration, where player and team brands are incorporated into games themselves, represents an exciting evolution that could further diversify revenue models and deepen stakeholder relationships. As Richard Frelick noted in closing the session before the coffee break, this type of collaborative dialogue between industry stakeholders and international organizations provides a strong foundation for addressing current challenges whilst enabling continued innovation and growth within this dynamic ecosystem.

Richard Frelick: A very good morning to a very good afternoon, a very good evening, depending on from where you are connecting. But a very good morning still here to all who have gathered here in all beautiful Oslo. Welcome sincerely to our event where we will explore IP and resolving disputes in esports. I’m Richard Frelick from the World Intellectual Property Organization, in short WIPO. And I will have the pleasure of being your moderator for the next 55 minutes or so. For those who don’t know, a quick plug in WIPO is the United Nations agency that serves the world’s innovators and creators, ensuring that their ideas travel safely to the market and improve lives everywhere. We all are also a forum for addressing cutting edge IP issues. And of course, our data and IP information guide decision makers and our projects and initiatives and our projects and technical assistance ensure that IP benefits everyone everywhere. This includes, of course, the video game developers and stakeholders involved in esports from players to to tournament organizers and everyone in between. I will have the pleasure to moderate this event with Alexia, who is joining us online. Alexia, for a moment, over to you.

Alexia Gkoritsa: Thank you very much, Richard. And good morning, everyone. It’s great to be with you from Geneva. to join you all in Norway and online. As Richard mentioned, I’m Alexia Goritsa from the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, or AMC for short, and it’s a real pleasure to join you all today. So I will say more about this later, but just in short here, the AMC is the WIPO Center for Resolving IP and Tech-Related Disputes, and this includes more and more cases in the esports space. I’m really happy to co-moderate this session with Richard today, and I look forward to sharing more shortly about how dispute resolution tools can support growth in the industry. So looking forward to a great discussion and back to you, Richard.

Richard Frelick: Thanks, Alexia. So a quick overview from my side of what you will hear today. So first, the session will be divided into three parts. First, we’ll have a discussion with Sergi and Daniel, who are joining us here on-site on the importance of IP and esports. Second, we’ll connect with Rafael to hear about managing IP and esports with an overview around that. And finally, we’ll hear back from Alexia, who will tell us about preparing and resolving disputes. You will have the chance to ask questions after our discussion with Sergi and Daniel here on-site, and then at the very end, you will also have the opportunity to ask your questions. Let me just start by underlining perhaps one thing, and I love doing it, that IP is at the heart of each video game, and every video game is basically a multiverse of IP. From the music and voice acting to branding and marketing, from the code of the software to the design of the characters, from storytelling and innovative gameplay that shapes the experience, all of it is protected and enabled by IP, ranging from copyright, trademarks, patents, and many, many more. I just mentioned video games themselves, and the topic of our today’s session focuses on and this opens another huge and very important dimension on intellectual property. We have with us two excellent panelists today, who could probably talk for hours and hours about these issues, but we don’t have that much time. Let me quickly introduce them. So first is Sergi, who is head of eSports at Video Games Europe, representing the video game industry. Previously, Sergi was co-founder and public affairs vice president and LVP Liga de Video Jugos Profesional. I am very sorry for my Spanish, which is not there.

Sergi Mesonero: It’s fine.

Richard Frelick: Which is the biggest eSports company in the Spanish-speaking market and the chairperson of international eSports chair at Universidad Católica de Murcia. Daniel, on the other hand, is an IP lawyer with over 20 years of experience and until end of 23, he served as the head of IP at FIFA, overseeing all IP matters, including global brand protection efforts to all FIFA World Cup tournaments. He’s also, of course, a leader in INTA, currently co-chairing the 25th Presidential Task Force, and he leads Albion’s Switzerland office as partner and country manager, also co-heading the company’s global brand protection business. All right. Great to have you here, Sergi and Daniel, for joining us. Thank you for joining us. And let me start with Sergi. Let’s kick this off with that endless question. How valuable is IP and the eSports ecosystem?

Sergi Mesonero: Well, I’m glad that you asked me that question. Well, you’ve basically mentioned it. eSports are based on the public use and communication of a work protected by intellectual property, so the video games themselves. That’s the base of eSports, the use of a video game. So you can imagine… that intellectual property is the way first to ensure that eSports happen because video games happen. The creators need the control over intellectual property to ensure that they can do a series of things first, recoup the investment that they make into those products, making video games and even more video games that are a service, such as these big multiplayer video games that are used in eSports competitions. It’s, as you can imagine, not only extremely expensive to produce, but also extremely expensive to keep on going, to maintain. So, through intellectual property rights, the creators are able to recoup the financial investment. But it goes further than that. Through IP rights, they also control the way their products are used in these eSports competitions. So, to ensure that the games are presented in a way that does not conflict with values, that does not conflict with other objectives, that the creation is respected. That is also a very important matter. But I will go even further, and this is something that is not super well understood of the sector, but in contrast with sport, where the rules of sports are owned by no one, they are a collective creation. So, there’s no intellectual property over the rules of any sport. The case is that that’s not true for eSports for the most part. the rules of eSports for the most part are part of the intellectual property and I will put a An example that that I hope it illustrates it in an easy way, you know In the case of I don’t know FIFA for example, no or the key in the case of football the national federations will follow international rules to establish the size and of Football field and what characteristics it will have no I’m not the biggest Football, okay, but The size or what marks should be the goalpost and so on. Okay in the case of eSports The playing field. It’s an artistic creation the map where where The players are competing. It’s not just it has a double a double reality as a first a Program a software that is protected by intellectual property and then as well and graphic creation That so The the video game developer of the publisher will decide how it how the size of it how it looks and that’s part of a Graphic design, okay So you can imagine that through IP you also control the rules of the game, which is a very Very specific thing so IP is very important for publishers developers for the video in companies But as well for the other stakeholders tournament organizers the team organizations the players Which of course on one hand they have to respect the IP of the creators but on the other hand they can also create their own IP their own brands their own content which That alignment with the intellectual property of the video game creators sometimes can bring a series of you know of tensions, but for the most part is what is bringing the eSports sector forward what is moving it forward IP

Richard Frelick: Thanks. And that’s a very good segue for me to still move to the next slide, which gives it a very good overview of a very simplified, although in many ways, because it’s much more complex, but it’s still a very good first overview of the whole ecosystem and how IP can play its part. So, Daniel, could you give us this overview of the different stakeholders that can own IP in esports?

Daniel Zohny: Sure. Thank you. And thanks for having me. And thanks, Sergi, for the very good introduction. And you already talked about the big and obvious one, that the software, the IP behind it, the graphics, etc., are typically owned by the developers and publishers of the video games. And those are the first ones that people often think about. But there’s a whole ecosystem built around it, that in esports drives the whole movement, but also the commercial aspects of it. So it being a sport, there has to be some kind of competition. And competitions are normally organized in tournaments, leagues, as in regular sports. They might look quite different as regular sports is used to, because often they take place online, etc. However, these competitions have brands, have setups that are protected by intellectual property rights when it comes to the brands, typically trademarks, that the organizers secure, protect, in order to be able to license them out, but also, as you said, to have control over their product, if you so want to call it. And there can be other aspects if you actually have on-site events where you might have intellectual property rights instead of the stages, etc., etc. So that’s to tournaments and leagues. They, of course, then also use broadcasting, streaming, which is a separate kind of intellectual property, right, that is commercialized to create income. And typically, in traditional sports, the biggest one, actually, how you make sure you can stage your events. Now, if you go to the other side, more on the participant side, there you have the teams and the players. And the teams and the players have, over time, really evolved into IP powerhouses because they realized, okay, we have an opportunity outside of just through the competition, through prize money, et cetera, to commercialize our brands and to actually support what we’re doing. And that typically also is done through the avenue of trademarks.

Richard Frelick: Thanks so much. Maybe back to you, Sergi. So as a tournament organizer, what do you need to take into account from an IP perspective, vis-à-vis especially, for example, of the developers?

Sergi Mesonero: Well, vis-à-vis the video game companies, you basically have to have the permission to organize and to communicate, to broadcast the tournament at the end of the day. From that ownership, the rest of the chain value is created. So you not only need the permission in the form usually of a license to play a video game. Most players would not be that aware. They are aware from a subconscious way that you have to tick, you know, like, yes. Nobody really reads, except for lawyers, nobody really reads the whole end user license agreement. But actually… You need to agree to a series of things that give you the permission to use that video game and that extends for the whole sector. You need a license or a permission, either tacit or explicit, to publicly communicate the game, which means to organize a tournament. You need it to broadcast it, you need it to create content around it, to exploit it in any way. So, there’s though quite a bit of a difference between what would be commercial, professional tournament organizers and what would be community, grassroots tournament organizers. And this is generally speaking because at the end of the day, every company may have a different policy and it goes worse than that. Every company may have a different policy for different games in different territories. So, this makes the landscape a bit tricky and complicated to navigate sometimes. But, generally speaking, for all that is community tournaments, grassroots tournaments, many companies have automatic licenses that allow you to use that video game and to broadcast that video game without any explicit permission. You just need to follow a series of very basic conditions. Like, for example, I don’t know, if you are giving prizes, you cannot give prizes higher than a specific quantity. Or you cannot commercialize that on television, for example. Okay, something very basic. That has a double objective. On one hand, you are creating your own community. building it, and on the other hand, it’s free marketing as well for your video game. For commercial tournament organizers, things tend to be quite different, okay? And also generally speaking, there are different types of licenses depending on the origin and the size of the tournament. So again, I’m generalizing because every case is different. But for tournaments that, for example, have a price that goes between one quantity and another and that are shown on free platforms on the internet that are not organizing any live event, but they are not having ticketing, for example, so automatic licenses may apply as well. But the bigger a tournament, and for example, the more international it gets, usually the more explicit that needs to be the license to the point that for the bigger ones, you need to actually negotiate a specific contract with the video game company. Again, this may vary from company to company, from game to game, and territory to territory, but this is generally speaking what tournament organizers have to have in mind, that they need to have some kind of permission to operate their tournaments.

Richard Frelick: Thanks. And by the way, another thing comes to my mind when I see some of the amazing shows which are being the tournaments themselves with the stages, with musicians, with the cups themselves being designed by famous companies. And all these things, by the way, are also going to be protected by intellectual property. So that amazing music we can hear during the tournament, the amazing design. whether virtual or real, can also be protected by various IP rights. And of course, then we move to the teams and the players themselves, which are an important part, of course, of the ecosystem. And they do own IP rights. And Daniel, can I turn to you about that?

Daniel Zohny: Sure. Yeah. And you’re right. I mean, the teams and the players, especially in recent years, have become much more professional in how they can go about using their brands that they’ve built over the years and making sure that they are self-sustained also, that they don’t rely that much on maybe the publishers and the developers, apart from, you know, what they’re playing, of course. But they’re brands of their own right. They use that, especially teams, or it started with the teams more. But in recent years, as in regular sport again, went shifted a lot to players also as they became more notorious and they realized, OK, we we should engage in protecting our IP, because it’s important in brand building and in commercialization that you can get sponsorships, you can have licensing deals that on the other side, your partners see, oh, you’re doing something about it and you have some kind of exclusivity. You’ve seen it a lot with some of the players and probably the most prominent one who who really went full throttle and realized what he can do with his brand. Tyler Bevins Ninja, who started very early on to protect his IP, mainly through trademark registrations. He has for one person, I think about 25 registrations, which is not bad. That range from. you know, what he does. Entertainment in the end, because largely his income comes from endorsement deals, from streaming on Twitch, etc., but also clothing, merchandise. He does not only have a trademark in his name, Ninja, or his game tag. He has a logo, has an additional logo for his company, but also in a claim time in that he uses a lot to exemplify how much time he puts into his craft. So he did protect all this, also to make sure, and it’s I think very important especially in eSports or in gaming overall, that most of it happens online. There’s a lot of other people that would like to benefit off of this, and you as the player can then at least control how your brand is used and act against imposters. You know, if somebody’s impersonating you, has their own social media accounts up, runs their own Twitch streams, and people might think it’s you, of course looking for followers, you can shut that down pretty quickly if you have the tools in place, which again are based on IP.

Sergi Mesonero: We are seeing lately even something that I find quite fascinating on the topic of teams and players, is that up until now, or since recently, the intellectual property of the games and the intellectual property of the players did not interact that much, except at the time of playing, or sorry, except at the time of broadcasting and so on. But now we are seeing how teams and players IP is even introduced inside the games. And for example we’ve seen how, this is mostly of course for the top tier of competitions, but how teams may have their brands applied to cosmetics inside games, so their fans can play the video game using a skin as a cosmetic for their character, for their tools, their weapons, that it’s branded with their favorite team brand. So this is a recent development, but even more, we are also seeing how the brands in the form of name tags and likenesses of video game players are also being put inside the video games. One probably the best example is in the case of League of Legends with Faker, which is traditionally considered the best ever League of Legends players in history, how his likenesses have been put in skins inside the video game, how can you buy Faker inside the video game as a skin. So this is something that I find that it’s very unique of the esports ecosystem. It has also been applied more generally in video gameplay with influencers, with streamers in games such as Fortnite and others, but in the case specific of professional esports players and teams, this is something that is pushing as well forward the economy of the whole ecosystem. Before, for the most part, and it still is, the economy of esports is very much based into advertising and sponsorship, but now it’s diversifying also in this way that is using the intellectual property of teams and players.

Richard Frelick: No, thanks. And just for me to do this a bit of a shameless plug as well, in a way. So by using some of many of WIPO services, the players, wherever they are in the world, they can really more easily and cost effectively, by the way, protect their brands. For example, the Madrid system, which is based on an international treaty agreed by many, many countries. So there’s there’s there’s a lot of tools out there that can be used to to protect your brands as a player, as a team. But of course, this goes way beyond. I promise a moment of seeing if there’s any questions from the audience. And that is the moment where I’m looking at all the participants here in Oslo. Sorry, not in Oslo, in Norway, but as well as looking online. And if there are no currently questions, I’m I’m gathering that everybody is thinking on all the things they want to ask until the very end. We’ll also have a moment for that. And in that case, let me still turn now to Alexia, who will moderate a part of the event down the road now. Alexia, over to you.

Alexia Gkoritsa: Thank you, Richard, and thank you, everyone, for the great discussion so far. So we will now turn to the second part of our session where we will hear a bit more about how IP is managed in the sports space. For that, I’m very happy to welcome my colleague, Rafael Ferraz Vazquez, the legal officer at WIPO’s Copyright Law Division. Rafael has worked on copyright and digital content issues at WIPO for over 10 years, and he’s joining us online today to talk about how copyright and IP rights are applied, licensed and sometimes even challenged in the world of esports. So over to you, Rafael. Thank you.

Rafael Ferraz Vazquez: Thank you very much, Alexia. and thanks to you and Richard for moderating the session. It’s a pleasure to share this panel with Sergio and Daniel. So as we already heard, the video games are at the center of the eSport activity. Even also now we have a number of growing IP from other stakeholders, right? Such as tournament organizer that might register the trademark, the players that might seek protection for IP for some of their content that it has a growing commercial value. So eSports, although again, the video game is a fundamental requirement and it has a number, a multitude of IP protecting this content from different elements of the video game in order to ensure that this multimillion investment, not only in creating, but curating and maintaining this video game to enable the eSports activity leads to a number of IP that those stakeholders might sometimes find themselves on asking themselves on how to harmonize the different ownership and the different IP in an eSports event. So the very basic thing is that everyone that is part of this eSports environment needs to have clear and specific understanding of the conditions on especially the commercial activities that they undertake in eSports, be it for example, a content creator, be a tournament organizer or even a sponsor and brands. So for players. It’s very important to understand that the fact that they acquire a license to play the video game as a consumer, as a user, does not mean that they can undertake a lot of different acts within the eSports activity. And they need to make sure that when they go beyond playing the video game in their private environment, that they understand the acts that they are doing from an IP perspective and even from a business perspective, right? So if they, for example, associate themselves and stream and have a sponsorship over their activities, that might trigger conditions that they are not allowed to undertake without the authorization of the publisher or the video game company. So this is very important as the number of content creators related to eSports and video games in general is growing significantly, especially around the world. And also the importance of the commercial significance of those activities are also growing as the fan base continues to expand. And of course, sponsors and brands also like to jump in the opportunity to communicate to this fan base that are highly involved in the eSports. So with the growth of eSports, a number of team organizations and tournament organizers are involved and also protecting the IP and managing the IP around eSports. Some of those activities are authorized by the video game publishers. And he said he mentioned that it varies according to the publisher, to the right owner, and also to the territory. to the video game and even to the type of activity. Some of those activities, especially if they have a community aspect and with lower commercial significance, they are actually allowed, and that is made clear in the website of the publisher, where they say the conditions where the organization of the tournament is already allowed with all the need to ask for further authorization. So those small tournaments are mostly allowed, and if someone is organizing a tournament, they need to seek and understand those conditions in order to apply in practice. In other conditions, there is a way to seek that authorization, and there are preconditions to facilitate the authorization from a publisher. So certainly, we see that a number of video game publishers and the right owners, of course, would like to foster the development of eSports around the world, and in some cases, it’s quite straightforward for stakeholders to actually obtain and ensure that they are following and respecting the IP rights of the video game publishers, with the conditions being very clear in terms of participation, in price, in broadcasting, streaming, and in the type of sponsorship that the tournament organizer might have. So this is also important for those stakeholders that engage into commercial relationship with sponsors or brands in order to avoid infringement that can actually bring a damage either to the team, the player, and the other tournament organizer in case there is a lack of… for example, for the cancellation of a tournament or for an IP infringement on the part of one of those stakeholders. Having said that, being protected by IP rights that are owned by those that created the video game, there’s a number of relationships between the different stakeholders of the eSports environment, from the publisher to the developer that created and maintained, for example, the servers of the video game, to the players, teams, tournament organizers, sponsors, brands. And they all have, of course, entered into contractual relationships in order to enable this exploitation of the different business models in the eSports. For example, in entering or fostering different business models such as sponsoring and advertising, and this could be a number of different sponsorships, from sponsorship to the tournaments, sponsorship to teams, private and personal sponsorships to players and so on. You also have, of course, the possibility of merchandising, the broadcasting and streaming, and cases where there is agreement related to data involved in the eSports. And as I mentioned, depending on the conditions of those agreements and the characteristics of the business models or how the video game is being used in that business model, either the IP of the video game is not used or used according to one of those licenses that are pre-approved by the publisher, or the right owner of that IP need of course to authorize the exploitation of their IP rights, some of the exploitation of their IP rights, establishing of course the conditions and here the typical conditions in IP contracts such as the territory, the time, another type of conditions such as remuneration and so on will need to remain clear for those involved in the exploitation and authorization of those IP rights. And again as esports become more and more relevant around the world, especially with different activities and tournaments being created and expanded, it’s important that everybody involved in the esports understands the consequences, the importance and also how to manage the IP in order to successfully exploit the esports activity and that’s why we’re at WIPO with a partnership with the Video Game Europe who are looking to make it clear for example for players and tournament organizers on how to manage that IP in a successful way to foster business models and to foster the continuation of the expansion of esports around the world. So in terms of players managing the IP, there are a number of key issues for example to understand the content ownership and licensing, the issues of monetization and revenue sharing for example, the cases of foreign art and game modifications and of course understanding when it is an authorized use of material protected by copyright from the video game and the cases of trademark infringement that is of course very much important for brands and sponsors. And from the perspective of tournament organizers A number of key elements that are important for them related to IP is, of course, to secure the license to use the video game in the way that they had foreseen in the tournament, to develop a proactive IP strategy, not to, of course, have last minute problems because they did not obtain the authorization for the type of uses they foreseen, to have contracts in place and, of course, by the time all those stakeholders beyond the video game publisher also protect the IP, become right owners of IP, of course they also start to have an interest in protecting the IP and enforcing to avoid that other stakeholders use the IP without the authorization. For example, a tournament organizer might have the interest to control the trademark of the name of the tournament to avoid that third parties, for example, associate themselves with the tournament without being true. So those two stakeholders, the teams and players and the tournament organizer will certainly benefit from the upcoming publication that we are finalizing between WIPO and Video Game Europe. I hope all of you have access to that in the near future and, of course, I’m available for any question you might have. Back to you, Alexia.

Alexia Gkoritsa: Thank you, Rafael. So I will take the next few minutes to talk about, as you may have seen in the schedule, how we can prepare for disputes in games and the sport sector in general and how we can resolve them better. I will continue along the same vein as Rafael and I will mention some tools also that WIPO makes available for stakeholders to use. But let me start with a quick observation. I mean, all the speakers have mentioned so far. along several lines that we’re talking here about an industry that moves fast, faster than most really, an industry that nowadays is almost 100% digital and it’s deeply collaborative. So let me add to that, that we’re also talking about an industry where conflicts are inevitable. Now, in many industries, when there is a dispute, the first instinct is to go to court. But in games and e-sports competitions in particular, this is not always the best option and often it is not a realistic option for reasons that have already been mentioned so far, let me add. So there are a few reasons for that. We have discussed quite extensively that this is a global industry. So studios, platforms, players and organizers often work across borders or even fully online as Daniel mentioned. So that creates confusion over which country’s courts will have jurisdiction or even on which law applies. We can have, let’s say, a developer in Tokyo, a publisher in LA, a player in Germany, a tournament which took place fully online. So the question arises, where would you even file a claim in the case that there is a dispute? Second, court proceedings take time. So in most jurisdictions, they can last for years. And by the time a judgment is issued, the game or the competition in that case might already be in its next season or no longer relevant. Moreover, courts may not always have the specialized knowledge. So we may encounter judges in jurisdictions that do not fully understand the technical or commercial realities of the industry. about which the previous speakers have already talked. And finally, litigation is often costly. So for indie studios, for example, or mid-sized tournament organizers, or even individual streamers or players, pursuing a claim in court may not be a viable option at all. So in short, litigation, it can be slow, sometimes too expensive, other times too complex, or too rigid even for what the sector needs. And this is where alternative dispute resolution or ADR may come in as a more realistic option. I mentioned already in the beginning that I work with arbitration and mediation center of WIPO. So here we have worked for quite a few years, for almost 30 years now, on resolving IP and tech related disputes through ADR. ADR may encompass a variety of methods. So we talk about mediation, arbitration, expert determination. I will not delve into the specifics of its procedure. Suffice to say here that we have also noticed with these years of experience that games and esports in particular bring unique challenges. And this is why we identified the need for tools that are even more specialized. And this is where a new tool comes in that is called the International Games and Esports Tribunal or IGET. So IGET is a relatively infant initiative by the joint initiative by WIPO and the Esports Integrity Commission or ESIC. It’s a sector-specific ADR framework that we created following also consultations with stakeholders from across the… industry. So contrary to what I mentioned a few minutes ago about court litigation and contrary to what applies on ADR in general, if I may say, there are some things that make IGIT different and perhaps a bit more suitable for disputes that may arise here. So first of all we have put together a specific rule set which draws inspiration to a great extent from the WIPO ADR rules that have been in place for a couple of years but adapted specifically for games and esports. So we have tried to reflect there the realities of digital content, licensing models, cross-borders activities and platform-based ecosystems in particular. Moreover the cases that are brought for resolution before IGIT are handled by neutrals with knowledge of the sector, so we have put together a list of arbitrators, of mediators and experts which have been selected not only by virtue of their legal skills but also based on their industry-specific expertise. The proceedings are also confidential to a great extent which may matter a lot as you understand in an industry where the reputational risks are quite high and they are also flexible in the sense that based on what the parties tell us we can have fast-tracked proceedings, proceedings that take place fully online and in general proceedings that are adapted a little bit too much the scale of the dispute and the subject matter at hand. Moreover we have tried to put together the proceedings in the way that are cost-effective and accessible, I mean I mentioned already that this is a not-for-profit initiative and the costs are usually scaled based on the nature of the dispute and the value of the subject matter that is brought for resolution. We try to encourage the conduct of the proceedings fully online especially when parties come from all over the world and that encompasses the filing of the case to the hearings to the resolution which is also another factor that can keep the barriers quite low and lastly and maybe most importantly if I may say the IGET offers a forum that is neutral and international and also avoids to some extent the risks and the uncertainties even of going to court in foreign jurisdictions. Now that in terms of the proceedings in terms of subject matter we have tried to design a forum that will be able to handle basically all types of disputes that may arise in the industry so we talk of course about IP related disputes such as the ones Raphael talked about and the previous speakers including copyright, licensing, trademarks, characters etc etc. Classical commercial issues such as revenue sharing, merchandising or sponsorships. Contractual disputes and here we see quite a few disputes which involve players and teams or players and tournament organizers. Platform related issues also such as issues pertaining to streaming or takedowns, content removal etc etc and what we characterize are strict sense of competitive or integrity related issues where we have leveraged quite a lot the experience that the Esports Integrity Commission brought to the table because we as the part of WIPO at the EMC, as you understand, brought the biggest chunk of expertise when it comes to IP and commercial issues. So to circle a bit back and to wrap up what I wanted to say, I mean you saw in the title of my presentation that we talked about preparing for the resolution of these features as well. So in all honesty, I mean you understand already by the multiplicity of stakeholders involved that this will happen and that is also part of doing business, not only in the esports field but in general. But if we are smart about preparation, we can make sure that they are handled quickly, fairly and with the right expertise. So my first advice is simple, that preparation is key. Stakeholders need not wait for a conflict to appear before thinking about the resolution. Being proactive, using clear contracts which include clear dispute resolution clauses and in particular clear ADR clauses is key. Dispute resolution clauses that will specify where the disputes will be resolved, under what rules, in what language. To that end, for example, we as WIPO-EMC but also IGET provide model clauses that the users can easily adapt. It’s also important for stakeholders to know their options. I mean I spoke quite a bit about ADR in general and IGET in particular, but it is important for stakeholders to be aware of these options and in that sense being able to choose the process that makes more sense. For example, when it comes to ADR, mediation can be great for preserving relationships and reaching a more… amicable resolution, while arbitration can be more akin to court litigation and provide the final or binding decision when needed. So all in all, planning early saves time, it can protect relationships and help projects move forward when there is a disagreement. And that was all on my side. So thank you very much. Looking forward for your questions later on, and I will give the floor back to Richard.

Richard Frelick: Thank you so much, Alexia, and thank you so much, of course, Rafael. This is the moment we promised to open the floor up also to questions from the audience, both the ones here, both here and with us, as well as those joining online. I’m first having a look at the room here. If there are any raised hands, there is someone coming up over to the mic.

Audience: Hi, my name is Kenneth, and I’ve previously was with a media and entertainment conglomerate focusing on public policy and government affairs. But I wanted to ask my question as someone who observed eSports tournament and catch streamers’ live stream. So one of the most common complaints that stands out to me most during their live stream is lamenting about how they couldn’t use their copyrighted music, they couldn’t use all those tools, et cetera, because their video will get demonetized when they upload to certain platforms or do the live stream. So my question is, how can the eSports ecosystem or the IP community help elevate each other so that the entire ecosystem are more aware about the value of the copyright or intellectual property, because IP is sort of interlinked. So I guess it’s also important for them to understand. how limiting one part of the intellectual property could eventually impact, let’s say, the income, and especially when, especially eSport players might not be there for creation. They just want to have fun or have some economic value. So this mindset going into sort of creation might be different from what we have been looking at for artists or authors. So I would love to have your take on how to increase their awareness, especially when they have such a global reach and their global reach to young audiences. And when the young people grow up, hear about all those complaints and lamenting about copyrights, I don’t think it’s a good development and prospect for the IP community. So I would love to have your take on that.

Sergi Mesonero: I don’t know if this question also connects a bit with the one that we had online. Don’t you think so?

Richard Frelick: Yes, and I can read the question which you also already received online. So EULAs and user license agreements are treated as licenses imposing restrictions on various aspects of the game. These restrictions might not always relate directly to the game’s underlining IP, but can include things like requiring permission to upload gameplay video, even if the footage is the player’s own, or to organize tournaments. Can these restrictions be considered void, given that EULAs are usually written in a way that an average player would love to have constructive knowledge of the restrictions imposed on them?

Sergi Mesonero: So I will start with this final one, which probably I cannot answer because I’m not an IP lawyer. Maybe I don’t know if Daniel will be brave enough, because it’s a very, very highly, highly technical. But from a practical point of view, actually, there’s not an issue. Because, as I’ve mentioned before, for the most part, And I would say it’s practically universal. Video game companies will allow the use of the game for broadcast reasons and for free online streaming reasons and for community tournaments for free and automatically. You will only face a problem, basically, if you are simplifying. But basically, if you are commercializing that, and if you are commercializing that, I’m sorry, but you are not just an individual player that is just having fun. You are planning to have like you’re basically acting as a business. And on the other hand, if you are doing something that is basically catastrophically bad, like, I don’t know, like using, for example, adult content together with the game, even in that case, it will not apply. It will not directly involve the video game company. It will involve mostly the streaming service. So the question is, I think, from a point of view of a theoretical, very interesting. But currently, it has very limited practical implications because the players are allowed to do all that, and they are not seeing any issue. And answering to the in-person question here, I think that the situation has changed a lot in the previous 10, 15 years. I think that there’s more literacy right now among players, and especially the top tier on the topic of intellectual property. As our colleague Rafael from WIPO has mentioned, together with us, with Video Games Europe, we are helping with the publication of a guide. for players and tournament organizers, which of course it’s aimed mostly to the either the non-commercial or the more community-based or to those that are, let’s say, starting a business more than to the elite and to the professional, to the professional tier. So, wrapping up, I think that what I would say is that the sector has adapted quite well to a situation where there’s a highly engaged community that just wants to share their passion for that, for those games, and that does not, and does not feel, I mean, all those licenses, all those issues are actually transparent for them. The issues come when you are trying to commerce, mostly when you are trying to make a business out of it.

Daniel Zohny: And maybe adding to that, and I fully agree, we also, in my practice, we don’t see a lot of issues when people come and ask, what can we do, right? And then you look into the restrictions that maybe publishers put on their games, it’s always about commercialization. It’s never, or ethics, right, or inappropriate behavior. Otherwise, the publishers are aware, you’re the customer, you’re the fan, right? They want to push that, and they also know that you’re disseminating their games, you know, you’re making them more popular. And driving their profit, or their community. However, I think there’s this weird interaction where a lot of people online will complain about, oh, my stream got shut down for one reason or another. Oh, I only used something that might be protected by IP, and suddenly it got taken offline. But people should also be aware, why are you doing it? A lot of them are trying to commercialize. So they have to be aware of IP and the restrictions, because on the flip side, they would use the same rules. reasoning once their business takes off. So there is an interaction between the two. And sometimes, but it can be unfortunate when really people are trying just to have fun that through automated processes, some, you know, IP protection kicks in and just shuts things down that happens. But, you know, there has to be found the right balance, I guess.

Rafael Ferraz Vazquez: I see that Rafael also raised his hand over to you for a moment. Thanks, Richard, just along the same lines of Sadi and Daniel mentioned. And I just wanted to to thank both questions. I think they’re very interesting regarding the question in the chat. I just when when he mentioned that the end user license agreements restrict some issues that are not really related to to IP. I think it’s quite the opposite. When we talk about organizing events and streaming, that is very much related to the IP in the game. So tournament organizers will, of course, want to associate themselves with the video game by using the trademark, by using the characters, by using all the images and art created for the video game, and that is protected by IP, either by trademark, either by copyright, either by other means. So you know, someone undertakes that they are using the IP in the in the video game. And same as broadcasting or streaming the gameplay of the video game, even if it is tolerated in many occasions, as Sadi and Daniel mentioned, is still the use of the IP on the video game. Right. In the same way that broadcasting a movie or broadcasting a TV show, it’s using the IP over that movie or that video show. So it’s very much related to the IP. And I think what is clear and what is mentioned in the licenses for user when you. purchase a license to play is that what you authorize does not include those activities, but it is very much linked to the IP. And related to the question from the gentleman in there, in the venue, I think it’s the same question we came up with, how can we make clear the role and how to better use IP in esports to avoid the pitfalls, for example, for a content creator to have the content demonetized, or for a player to not longer to be able to compete professionally because of an IP infringement, for a tournament organizer to avoid any problem in organizing the events or making agreements with sponsorships and brands. And we hope we’re gonna provide at least a partial answer, a partial solution, if not a full solution to that need to bring IP into discussion for the esports community.

Richard Frelick: Thanks, Rafael. Daniel, I’m sorry, I would love to give you the voice, but I’m very aware of that red clock going almost over time. So before finishing, just let me also underline that one important part always for us in WIPO is that we make sure that everyone everywhere is aware of how they can benefit from intellectual property. And that means also the small game developers from every corner of the world who are developing esports titles. This is the players from all corners of the world who are creating their brands and they all can and should be very much benefiting from the intellectual property system. So aside from the upcoming guide, we have also a lot of materials that are available from WIPO and we are trying to empower those small developers, the beginning players who don’t yet have the knowledge on how to protect their brands, how to protect their images. This is something, the materials there, you have the links as well. So I’m putting up that on the on the screen. And with that, we are past the time, it’s 00.00, I’m having the signs being shown. So just let me end by, first of all, thanking my panellists here who have joined us, and of course thanking also my colleagues from WIPO who have also joined us online. Let me just end by emphasising and underlining that in WIPO we really continue to provide initiatives that will help all the innovators, all the creators, all the entrepreneurs in eSports and beyond. And we look forward to working with all our partners from across the world, from across the industries, to make sure that also everyone, everywhere can benefit from IP. Thank you for your participation and looking forward to some coffees. Thanks. Thank you.

Agreement points

IP is fundamental to the esports ecosystem

Speakers

– Sergi Mesonero
– Richard Frelick
– Daniel Zohny
– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez

Arguments

Video games are fundamentally protected by IP and esports are based on public use of IP-protected works

Video games contain a multiverse of IP from music and voice acting to code, character design, and storytelling

Developers and publishers own the core IP including software, graphics, and game elements

Streaming and tournament organization involve using protected IP elements like trademarks and copyrighted content

Summary

All speakers agree that intellectual property forms the foundational basis of esports, with video games being complex IP-protected works that enable the entire ecosystem

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Different licensing requirements exist for community versus commercial activities

Speakers

– Sergi Mesonero
– Daniel Zohny
– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez

Arguments

Community tournaments often have automatic licenses with basic conditions, while commercial tournaments require negotiated contracts

Most IP restrictions only apply to commercial exploitation, not casual gameplay sharing

Players must understand that consumer licenses don’t automatically permit commercial esports activities

Summary

There is consensus that video game companies generally allow community and casual use while requiring explicit permissions for commercial exploitation

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Need for better IP education and awareness in esports

Speakers

– Sergi Mesonero
– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez
– Audience

Arguments

There’s increased IP literacy among top-tier players compared to 10-15 years ago

WIPO and Video Games Europe are developing educational guides for players and tournament organizers

The esports ecosystem should work together to increase IP awareness, especially given streamers’ global reach to young audiences

Summary

All parties recognize the importance of improving IP education and awareness within the esports community, with collaborative efforts underway to address this need

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that from a practical perspective, video game publishers are generally permissive of non-commercial use and community activities, with restrictions primarily targeting commercial exploitation

Speakers

– Sergi Mesonero
– Daniel Zohny

Arguments

Video game companies generally allow free streaming and community tournaments but restrict major commercial exploitation

Most IP restrictions only apply to commercial exploitation, not casual gameplay sharing

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Both speakers recognize that teams and players have become sophisticated IP owners who need proper contractual frameworks to manage their relationships with other stakeholders

Speakers

– Daniel Zohny
– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez

Arguments

Teams and players have evolved into IP powerhouses, protecting their brands through trademarks for commercialization

Clear contractual relationships are essential between publishers, developers, players, teams, and sponsors

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Both speakers emphasize the importance of proactive planning and preparation in managing IP and potential disputes, rather than reactive approaches

Speakers

– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez
– Alexia Gkoritsa

Arguments

Tournament organizers need proactive IP strategies and proper licensing to avoid last-minute problems

Proactive preparation with clear dispute resolution clauses in contracts is essential for stakeholders

Topics

Intellectual property rights | Alternative dispute resolution

Unexpected consensus

Practical permissiveness of video game publishers toward community use

Speakers

– Sergi Mesonero
– Daniel Zohny
– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez

Arguments

Video game companies generally allow free streaming and community tournaments but restrict major commercial exploitation

Most IP restrictions only apply to commercial exploitation, not casual gameplay sharing

Players must understand that consumer licenses don’t automatically permit commercial esports activities

Explanation

Despite the complex legal framework around IP rights, there is unexpected consensus that publishers are quite permissive in practice for non-commercial activities. This contradicts common perceptions about restrictive IP enforcement and shows industry pragmatism in balancing rights protection with community building

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Integration of player and team IP into video games themselves

Speakers

– Sergi Mesonero
– Daniel Zohny

Arguments

Team brands are being integrated into games through cosmetic items and branded skins for fans

Professional player likenesses are being incorporated into games, as seen with Faker in League of Legends

Teams and players have evolved into IP powerhouses, protecting their brands through trademarks for commercialization

Explanation

There is unexpected consensus on the emerging trend of reverse IP integration, where player and team brands are being incorporated back into the original games. This represents a unique circular relationship in IP usage that doesn’t exist in traditional sports

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on the fundamental role of IP in esports, the practical approach of publishers toward community versus commercial use, the evolution of players and teams as IP owners, and the need for better education and proactive management of IP rights

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary expertise. The agreement spans both theoretical understanding and practical implementation, suggesting a mature and collaborative approach to IP management in esports. This consensus indicates the industry has developed shared best practices and understanding, which bodes well for continued growth and professionalization of the esports ecosystem

Different viewpoints

Legal validity of EULA restrictions

Speakers

– Audience
– Sergi Mesonero
– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez

Arguments

EULAs may contain restrictions unrelated to underlying IP that could be considered void due to lack of constructive knowledge by average players

Video game companies generally allow free streaming and community tournaments but restrict major commercial exploitation

Streaming and tournament organization involve using protected IP elements like trademarks and copyrighted content

Summary

The audience member questioned whether EULA restrictions might be legally void due to players’ lack of understanding, while Sergi argued this has limited practical implications since companies allow most activities, and Rafael maintained that these restrictions are directly related to IP usage and are legitimate.

Topics

Intellectual property rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Practical impact of IP restrictions on content creators

Speakers

– Audience
– Sergi Mesonero
– Daniel Zohny

Arguments

Content creators and streamers face copyright restrictions that limit their ability to use music and other copyrighted materials, leading to demonetization

Video game companies generally allow free streaming and community tournaments but restrict major commercial exploitation

Most IP restrictions only apply to commercial exploitation, not casual gameplay sharing

Explanation

This disagreement was unexpected because it revealed a gap between the industry perspective (that IP restrictions are minimal and practical) and the content creator experience (frequent demonetization and restrictions). The industry representatives viewed current policies as accommodating, while the audience member highlighted ongoing practical problems that affect the community’s perception of IP rights.

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed minimal direct disagreements among the main speakers, who largely aligned on the importance of IP in esports and the need for education. The primary tensions emerged between audience concerns about practical IP restrictions affecting content creators and the industry representatives’ view that current policies are generally accommodating.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The main speakers (industry representatives and WIPO officials) showed strong consensus on core issues, while audience questions revealed some disconnect between industry policies and content creator experiences. This suggests the need for better communication and education rather than fundamental policy disagreements, though it highlights important practical challenges in IP implementation within the esports ecosystem.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that from a practical perspective, video game publishers are generally permissive of non-commercial use and community activities, with restrictions primarily targeting commercial exploitation

Speakers

– Sergi Mesonero
– Daniel Zohny

Arguments

Video game companies generally allow free streaming and community tournaments but restrict major commercial exploitation

Most IP restrictions only apply to commercial exploitation, not casual gameplay sharing

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Both speakers recognize that teams and players have become sophisticated IP owners who need proper contractual frameworks to manage their relationships with other stakeholders

Speakers

– Daniel Zohny
– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez

Arguments

Teams and players have evolved into IP powerhouses, protecting their brands through trademarks for commercialization

Clear contractual relationships are essential between publishers, developers, players, teams, and sponsors

Topics

Intellectual property rights

Both speakers emphasize the importance of proactive planning and preparation in managing IP and potential disputes, rather than reactive approaches

Speakers

– Rafael Ferraz Vazquez
– Alexia Gkoritsa

Arguments

Tournament organizers need proactive IP strategies and proper licensing to avoid last-minute problems

Proactive preparation with clear dispute resolution clauses in contracts is essential for stakeholders

Topics

Intellectual property rights | Alternative dispute resolution

Key takeaways

IP is fundamental to esports, with video games representing a multiverse of protected intellectual property that enables the entire ecosystem

The esports ecosystem involves multiple IP stakeholders including developers/publishers, tournament organizers, teams, and players, each with distinct IP ownership and licensing needs

Tournament organizers require explicit or tacit permission from game publishers, with licensing requirements varying by company, game, territory, and commercial scope

Traditional court litigation is often unsuitable for esports disputes due to the global, fast-moving, and specialized nature of the industry

Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like IGET (International Games and Esports Tribunal) provide more appropriate sector-specific solutions

Most IP restrictions only apply to commercial exploitation rather than casual gameplay sharing or community activities

There is growing integration of team and player IP directly into video games through cosmetic items and character likenesses

Proactive IP management and clear contractual relationships are essential for all stakeholders in the esports ecosystem

Resolutions and action items

WIPO and Video Games Europe are finalizing a publication/guide for players and tournament organizers on IP management

WIPO will continue providing educational materials and tools to help small developers and players understand IP protection

Stakeholders should use clear contracts with dispute resolution clauses and consider ADR options like IGET

Tournament organizers need to develop proactive IP strategies and secure proper licensing before events

Unresolved issues

The technical legal question about whether EULA restrictions unrelated to core IP can be considered void due to lack of constructive knowledge by average players

How to achieve the right balance between automated IP protection systems and allowing legitimate non-commercial use

Specific implementation details for the upcoming WIPO-Video Games Europe educational guide

Standardization challenges given that licensing requirements vary significantly by company, game, and territory

Suggested compromises

Video game companies generally allow automatic licenses for community tournaments and streaming with basic conditions while requiring explicit licensing for major commercial activities

Publishers balance IP protection with community building by being transparent about what uses are automatically permitted versus requiring authorization

The esports industry can address IP awareness issues through education rather than restrictive enforcement, focusing on commercial rather than casual use cases

In contrast with sport, where the rules of sports are owned by no one, they are a collective creation… the rules of eSports for the most part are part of the intellectual property… The playing field. It’s an artistic creation the map where the players are competing… So you can imagine that through IP you also control the rules of the game, which is a very specific thing

Speaker

Sergi Mesonero

Reason

This comment is deeply insightful because it identifies a fundamental structural difference between traditional sports and esports that has profound implications for the entire ecosystem. By highlighting that esports rules are IP-protected rather than collectively owned, Sergi reveals how this creates unique power dynamics and control mechanisms that don’t exist in traditional sports.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from viewing esports as simply ‘sports with video games’ to understanding it as a fundamentally different category with unique IP implications. It provided the conceptual foundation for understanding why licensing, permissions, and IP management are so critical in esports, influencing how subsequent speakers framed their discussions about licensing requirements and stakeholder relationships.

We are seeing lately even something that I find quite fascinating… how teams and players IP is even introduced inside the games… how can you buy Faker inside the video game as a skin. So this is something that I find that it’s very unique of the esports ecosystem.

Speaker

Sergi Mesonero

Reason

This observation is thought-provoking because it identifies an emerging trend that represents a new form of IP convergence – where player/team brands become integrated into the very games they compete in. This creates a recursive relationship between the game IP and player IP that doesn’t exist in traditional sports.

Impact

This comment introduced a new dimension to the discussion about IP ownership and monetization, showing how the esports ecosystem is evolving beyond traditional sponsorship models. It demonstrated the innovative ways IP can be leveraged and cross-pollinated within the ecosystem, adding complexity to the revenue models discussion.

Court proceedings take time… by the time a judgment is issued, the game or the competition in that case might already be in its next season or no longer relevant. Moreover, courts may not always have the specialized knowledge… judges in jurisdictions that do not fully understand the technical or commercial realities of the industry.

Speaker

Alexia Gkoritsa

Reason

This comment is insightful because it identifies the fundamental mismatch between traditional legal systems and the fast-paced, digital nature of esports. It highlights how the speed and technical complexity of the industry creates unique challenges that require specialized solutions.

Impact

This observation provided the logical foundation for introducing alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like IGET. It shifted the conversation from theoretical IP discussions to practical implementation challenges, leading directly to the presentation of sector-specific solutions and demonstrating why traditional legal approaches may be inadequate for this industry.

When we talk about organizing events and streaming, that is very much related to the IP in the game… even if it is tolerated in many occasions… is still the use of the IP on the video game. Right. In the same way that broadcasting a movie or broadcasting a TV show, it’s using the IP over that movie or that video show.

Speaker

Rafael Ferraz Vazquez

Reason

This comment is thought-provoking because it reframes streaming and tournament organization as fundamentally IP-based activities, challenging the common perception that these are separate from IP concerns. The analogy to movie broadcasting makes the IP implications clear and accessible.

Impact

This clarification directly addressed audience confusion about why EULAs restrict seemingly non-IP activities. It provided conceptual clarity that helped bridge the gap between technical IP law and practical esports activities, reinforcing the central theme that IP is at the heart of all esports activities, not just game development.

The fact that they acquire a license to play the video game as a consumer, as a user, does not mean that they can undertake a lot of different acts within the eSports activity… if they associate themselves and stream and have a sponsorship over their activities, that might trigger conditions that they are not allowed to undertake without the authorization of the publisher

Speaker

Rafael Ferraz Vazquez

Reason

This comment is insightful because it distinguishes between personal use and commercial exploitation, highlighting how the transition from casual player to content creator/professional involves crossing important legal boundaries that many participants may not recognize.

Impact

This observation helped explain the practical implications of IP licensing for individual players and content creators, providing context for audience questions about streaming restrictions and demonetization. It clarified why seemingly simple activities like streaming can become complex IP issues when commercialization is involved.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing esports as a unique IP ecosystem rather than simply traditional sports conducted digitally. Sergi’s insights about rule ownership and IP convergence provided the conceptual framework that distinguished esports from traditional sports, while Alexia’s observations about legal system inadequacies justified the need for specialized solutions. Rafael’s clarifications about the IP nature of streaming and the distinction between personal and commercial use provided practical grounding that connected abstract IP concepts to real-world esports activities. Together, these comments created a progression from theoretical understanding to practical application, culminating in the presentation of specialized tools like IGET. The discussion evolved from basic IP education to sophisticated analysis of emerging trends and practical solutions, largely driven by these pivotal observations that challenged conventional thinking and introduced new perspectives on the intersection of IP law and esports.

Can EULA restrictions that don’t directly relate to a game’s underlying IP (like requiring permission to upload gameplay videos) be considered void given that average players lack constructive knowledge of these restrictions?

Speaker

Online participant

Explanation

This raises important legal questions about the enforceability of complex licensing agreements and whether restrictions beyond core IP rights are valid when users cannot reasonably understand them

How can the esports ecosystem and IP community better educate stakeholders about the value of copyright and intellectual property to reduce complaints about content restrictions?

Speaker

Kenneth (audience member)

Explanation

This addresses a fundamental challenge in building IP literacy within the esports community, particularly among content creators who may not understand the business rationale behind IP protections

How can licensing policies be standardized across different companies, games, and territories to reduce complexity for tournament organizers?

Speaker

Implied from Sergi Mesonero’s discussion

Explanation

The current landscape where every company may have different policies for different games in different territories creates navigation challenges that could benefit from standardization efforts

What are the long-term implications of young audiences hearing constant complaints about copyright restrictions on their future relationship with IP rights?

Speaker

Kenneth (audience member)

Explanation

This touches on generational attitudes toward IP and whether current friction points might undermine respect for intellectual property rights among future creators and consumers

How can automated content protection systems be improved to better distinguish between commercial and non-commercial use?

Speaker

Implied from Daniel Zohny’s response

Explanation

Current automated systems sometimes inappropriately flag non-commercial content, suggesting a need for more sophisticated detection mechanisms that consider context and intent

Summary

This discussion centered on the official launch of the Global Internet Standards Testing Community (GISTC) at the Internet Governance Forum, aimed at promoting secure internet environments through collaborative testing and knowledge sharing. Wouter Van Den Bosch, Community Manager International of Internet.nl, explained that after the 2013 launch of their open-source testing tool, various organizations worldwide began using it independently, but lacked broader interaction and coordination. The new community seeks to address this gap by creating a cooperative body where organizations can share experiences, develop next steps together, and raise awareness about security-related internet standards deployment.

Walter Kobes demonstrated Internet.nl as a testing tool that allows users to easily assess website and email domain security, providing not only results but concrete improvement recommendations. The tool processes over 5 million scans annually in the Dutch version alone and has been adopted by countries including Brazil, Denmark, Germany, and France. Alena Murawska from RIPE NCC emphasized the critical importance of internet standards for global connectivity, highlighting how policy makers increasingly recognize their role in economic development and national security, particularly with regulations like NIS2 making certain standards mandatory.

International speakers shared their experiences: Gilberto Zorello described Brazil’s successful implementation called “STOP” with Portuguese interface and integration into their Safer Internet Program, while Daishi Kondo from University of Tokyo discussed email security research and the need for policy frameworks to drive adoption. The community welcomes all interested organizations, from government agencies to academic institutions, and plans to coordinate future development of testing standards including potential post-quantum cryptography support.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Launch of Global Internet Standards Testing Community (GISTC)**: The primary focus was officially launching an international community around Internet.nl, an open-source testing tool that helps organizations assess their compliance with internet security standards like IPv6, DNSSEC, and email security protocols.

– **Internet.nl Tool Capabilities and Global Adoption**: Detailed explanation of how the testing tool works, showing real-time examples of website security assessments, and highlighting its successful implementation in multiple countries including Brazil (called “STOP”), with emerging adoption in Germany, France, and research use in Portugal and by the European Commission.

– **Policy and Regulatory Drivers for Internet Standards**: Discussion of how government policies, particularly the EU’s NIS2 regulation, are making internet security standards increasingly mandatory, with examples of successful “comply or explain” approaches in the Netherlands and the European Commission’s multi-stakeholder forum on internet standards deployment.

– **International Experiences and Benefits of Collaboration**: Presentations from Brazil, Japan, and the Netherlands showcasing different approaches to internet standards testing, emphasizing how international cooperation can help bridge policy gaps, share best practices, and accelerate adoption of security measures across different cultural and regulatory contexts.

– **Community Building and Future Development**: Focus on creating an open community where governments, academia, and technical organizations can collaborate, share experiences, learn from each other’s challenges, and coordinate future developments including potential additions like post-quantum cryptography testing.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to officially launch the Global Internet Standards Testing Community, bringing together international stakeholders to promote the adoption of internet security standards through collaborative testing, knowledge sharing, and coordinated policy approaches.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was consistently professional, collaborative, and optimistic throughout the session. It maintained a welcoming and inclusive atmosphere, emphasizing partnership and mutual benefit rather than competition. The speakers demonstrated enthusiasm for international cooperation and showed genuine interest in expanding the community, ending on a celebratory note with the official launch and invitation for continued engagement.

Speakers

– **Wouter Van Den Bosch**: Community Manager International of Internet.nl, a testing tool for internet security standards

– **Walter Kobes**: Colleague at Internet.nl, technical expert who explains the Internet.nl testing tool functionality

– **Alena Muravska**: Representative of RIPE NCC (Regional Internet Registry), responsible for IP address allocation and registration, expert in internet standards and protocols

– **Gilberto Zorello**: Project Manager from Brazilian Network Information Center (NIC.br), implements decisions and projects for Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br)

– **Daishi Kondo**: University of Tokyo, researcher specializing in email security

– **Doreen Booghaart**: Online moderator for the event

– **Nico Caballero**: GAC Chair (Governmental Advisory Committee) within ICANN

**Additional speakers:**

– **Annemieke Toersen**: Platform Internet Standards in the Netherlands (mentioned as being present but did not speak in the transcript)

– **Flavio Anais**: Systems development manager at NIC.br (mentioned by Gilberto as being present)

– **Santosh Pandit**: Online participant who asked a question about post-quantum cryptography

– **Peter**: Reporter in the Netherlands (mentioned in closing remarks)

# Global Internet Standards Testing Community Launch: Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

The Internet Governance Forum witnessed the official launch of the Global Internet Standards Testing Community (GISTC), marking a significant milestone in international cooperation for internet security standards deployment. This session brought together representatives from the Netherlands, Brazil, Japan, and various international organisations to establish a collaborative framework for testing and promoting internet security standards globally.

The discussion centered on the evolution of Internet.nl from a Dutch national testing tool to an international open-source platform, with the new community structure designed to facilitate knowledge sharing and coordinate development efforts across different jurisdictions.

## Background and Community Formation

### Origins of the Initiative

Wouter Van Den Bosch, Community Manager International of Internet.nl, explained the genesis of the global community initiative. Following the 2013 launch of Internet.nl as a Dutch national tool, the platform became open source to enable international adoption. However, while various organisations worldwide began implementing their own versions independently, there was a lack of broader interaction and coordination between these implementations.

The catalyst for formalising this community came through a meeting in March, where representatives from different countries recognised the need to create a cooperative body. This gathering highlighted the potential benefits of sharing experiences, developing coordinated next steps, and raising awareness about security-related internet standards deployment through collaborative efforts.

Van Den Bosch emphasised that the active use of testing tools provides organisations with crucial insights into their country’s security status, enabling more informed policymaking responses.

### Community Structure and Objectives

The newly launched community operates on principles of openness and inclusivity, welcoming participation from governments, academic institutions, and technical organisations interested in standards testing. The primary objectives include facilitating knowledge sharing between international implementations, coordinating future development of testing standards, and creating mechanisms for addressing emerging security challenges such as post-quantum cryptography integration.

## Technical Capabilities and Global Adoption

### Internet.nl Tool Functionality

Walter demonstrated the testing tool’s capabilities during the session, despite some initial microphone difficulties. The platform serves as both an individual testing service and a comprehensive dashboard system, processing over 5 million scans annually in the Dutch version alone. The tool evaluates websites and email domains across multiple security standards, including IPv6 implementation, DNSSEC deployment, RPKI, DNS security, and email security protocols.

Crucially, Internet.nl goes beyond merely identifying security issues by providing concrete improvement recommendations. The tool’s interface presents results in an accessible format, enabling both technical specialists and policy makers to understand security postures and necessary improvements.

The technical architecture supports localisation and customisation, allowing different countries to adapt the interface and testing parameters to their specific needs while maintaining core functionality.

### International Implementation Experiences

The global adoption of Internet.nl has yielded diverse implementation approaches. Brazil’s implementation, branded as “STOP” (which stands for “Test Standards” in English), represents one of the most comprehensive adaptations. Gilberto Zorello, Project Manager from Brazilian Network Information Center (NIC.br), detailed how the Portuguese-language interface became integral to the Safer Internet Program.

Brazil is currently running version 1.7 and testing version 1.9 of the tool. The Brazilian approach extends beyond simple testing to include comprehensive support mechanisms: technical training programmes, ISP guidance meetings, and recognition awards for companies following security recommendations. NIC.br created an award for best operational practices and conducts ICT enterprise surveys every two years through CETIC.br.

Denmark, Germany, and France have also adopted the platform, while Portugal and the European Commission utilise it for research purposes. Walter noted that international users have been instrumental in identifying improvements and suggesting enhancements, creating a collaborative development cycle that benefits all implementations.

## Policy and Regulatory Context

### European Regulatory Framework

Alena Muravska, representing RIPE NCC, provided context on the evolving regulatory landscape, specifically mentioning the NIS2 regulation and its impact on internet standards deployment. She emphasised that while governments play an increasingly important role in promoting these standards, their efforts must complement rather than replace the open collaborative processes that have maintained internet innovation and accessibility.

### Successful Policy Integration Models

The Netherlands’ “comply or explain” approach was highlighted as a successful model for government-led standards promotion. This framework requires organisations to either implement recommended security standards or provide explanations for non-compliance, creating accountability without mandating specific technical solutions.

Van Den Bosch also suggested that economic buying power from customers demanding secure services could be a significant driver for standards deployment, positioning testing tools as enablers of informed customer choice.

## International Perspectives

### Japanese Experience

Daishi Kondo from the University of Tokyo provided comparative analysis based on email security research. His findings demonstrate that adoption of email security measures is significantly influenced by policy frameworks and security culture, with the Netherlands achieving high adoption rates through initiatives like the Comply or Explain List and Internet.nl.

In contrast, Japan lacks similar policy mechanisms or counterpart tools to Internet.nl, creating adoption challenges for email security measures. Kondo emphasised that international cooperation is essential to bridge policy and cultural gaps affecting security standards adoption.

### Brazilian Integration Success

Gilberto highlighted the importance of language localisation, noting that the Portuguese interface was crucial for adoption in Brazil where English proficiency is limited. The Brazilian approach demonstrates how testing tools can be successfully integrated into comprehensive national cybersecurity programmes.

## Future Development and Emerging Challenges

### Post-Quantum Cryptography Integration

Online participant Santosh Pandit asked about the community’s approach to post-quantum cryptography support. Walter confirmed that post-quantum cryptography capabilities will be added to the Internet.nl testing suite when relevant standards are established and widely accepted, ensuring quantum-proof ciphers for web and email servers.

### Community Coordination and Next Steps

The community will hold a prioritisation meeting in October in the Buskerud room in the hotel to establish priorities for the first year of operation. Nico Caballero, GAC Chair within ICANN, expressed interest in government cooperation mechanisms, particularly for countries interested in implementing DNSSEC, cryptography, and other standards.

Additionally, the Internet Standards Security Coalition report presentation was scheduled for Friday morning at 9 o’clock in Room 1.

## Participation and Engagement

The session included both in-person and online participants, with Doreen Booghaart serving as online moderator. Annemieke Toersen from platform Internet Standards Netherlands was introduced but did not speak during the session. The community encourages participation through various channels, including a QR code signup process mentioned during the presentation.

## Conclusion

The launch of the Global Internet Standards Testing Community represents a significant step towards coordinated international cooperation in internet security standards deployment. The strong foundation of successful national implementations, combined with diverse international experiences, provides a solid basis for community development.

The session concluded on a celebratory note with cake, marking the formal launch of this collaborative initiative. The community’s success will depend on its ability to balance technical excellence with policy effectiveness, local adaptation with global coordination, and current needs with future challenges in internet security standards deployment.

Wouter Van Den Bosch: Good morning. Welcome to this launch event with the name Empower the Global Internet Standards Testing Community. My name is Wouter Natus van den Borch and I’m the Community Manager International of Internet.nl, a testing tool that my colleague Wouter Kobes will tell you more about in a minute. Why an international community? After its launch in 2013, the community behind Internet.nl made the decision that the software behind it would be open source and available for anyone to use. Also, a testing environment was created that more and more people started to use. Some organizations decided to use the existing toolkit, other organizations built their own, but more or less with the same goal, testing how secure their and their country’s internet environments are. Contact remained between organizations one-on-one between the interested parties and Internet.nl itself. There was no broader interaction. And the people behind Internet.nl aspired to change this. After a few months in preparations, in March this year, representatives from different countries and organizations met for the first time. They decided that there’s merit in creating a cooperative body in which they can work together, share experiences, and agree on and or develop next steps. The next meeting is scheduled in somewhere in October and will be defined for prioritizing in the first year. As a global internet standards testing community is open to all with an interest to start working with this tool, we decided to do an official launch here at the Internet Governance Forum. As an internet standards deployment and the spreading of the knowledge why this is crucially important for a more secure and safer environment, it is important to work with governance. By working together, it becomes easier to raise awareness around and raise the deployment of security-related internet standards. And by creating a community, the profile of the work and its outcomes is raised considerably. Additionally, all involved can learn from each other’s experiences, from their outcomes and how they can be used, from challenges and how they were overcome, from the arguments used to convince superiors to partnerships making cooperation possible, et cetera, et cetera. And this may go for more experienced organizations as much as those with a first interest. Other forms of added value may lay in more enhanced cooperation in the future and perhaps coordination on future steps. Formulation of common ambitions or outreach programs all adhere to and perhaps even the creation of a more formal organization. But why should I join or you join this community, you might ask. For starters, because the active use of this tool provides you and your organization the insight how secure or insecure organizations in your country are and allows you for knowledge and insight for responses and policymaking. But let me as an introduction stop here and introduce the people around me. I’m here with Walter Kobus of Internet.nl. I’m with Elena Murawska of RIPE NCC. Online are Gilberto Zorelli of NIC.pr and Daishi Kondo of the University of Tokyo. Also with me is Annemieke Toersen of the platform Internet Standards in the Netherlands and Doreen Booghaartwho is our online moderator. So first I’m going to ask Walter to explain to you what Internet.nl is and what it does. So Walter, the floor is yours.

Walter Kobes: Yes, thank you very much, Wout. And let me go to the next slide. Yeah, so I will shortly explain to you the Internet.nl testing tool and what you can… Is my sound working? Yeah, it is. I think it’s your problem. So you can… I will shortly explain to you where Internet.nl can be used for and how it works. So basically it is a testing tool in which you can easily test either your website or email domain name. Showing right now is the results of the IGF 2025 website which, as you can see in our vision, there are still some improvements available and basically this reporting does not only tell you what is good and what is wrong but also gives you concrete steps how to improve them. And luckily if you look to other parts of the Norwegian government, you will see that they perform better. So for instance, this is the Norwegian digital gateway that actually has only very minor improvements still recommended by us. So this is the individual testing in which, well, basically everyone can test their own domain names right now if you go to Internet.nl. However, for organizations it’s mostly required to scan a lot of domain names and on a regular basis. For this we have also a dashboard available. This allows for creation of reports, scheduled scanning, trend monitoring over time and basically in total we have seen that just for the Dutch version of this code base we see over 5 million scans annually both on the individual test and the dashboard testing happening right now. As was mentioned by Wout, this source code is open source available and it has throughout the years already been picked up by other countries. So these are a few examples of the use of Internet.nl around the world in Brazil, Denmark and we see new instances starting in Germany, France, etc. And also the project is used in various measuring projects in Portugal, European Commission, in which they do not present the website themselves but they use it to generate reports for their research. And over the years many of these international people have worked with Internet.nl but also gave us feedback and helped us improve the product more and more which is of course also why we’re trying to create this community to make this code base even more widely known but also get something back from the community to make

Wouter Van Den Bosch: the product even better. So that’s in real short the introduction on Internet. Thank you very much Wouter and as you can see that if you go to Internet.nl you can type in the name of your own organization and immediately see how secure or insecure your organization is but also you get the advice on the steps that you could take to make yourself more secure. So it’s something you can do here or later at home and show to the people responsible for ICT what they can do. Let me go to the next speaker and Alena Murawska is going to tell you about how important Internet standards are and why we are having this discussion and why RIPE NCC supports the Internet.nl initiatives already for quite some years. Alena the floor is yours. Thank you Wouter. Good morning

Alena Muravska: colleagues here in the room but also colleagues online and I’m very grateful for this opportunity to be a part of this important launching event. It’s an important milestone for the global technical Internet standard testing community. So I’m Alena Murawska and I represent the RIPE NCC here. We are a regional Internet registry and in this function we are responsible for the allocation and registration of IP address and autonomous system numbers. Why I am mentioning this? So we have two core principles of the Internet and the registration is one of them and the registration ensures that the resources are globally unique and traceable. That makes the Internet global actually. But the second principle of the Internet is actually the protocol standardization. It’s a development and the adoption of open standards that define how devices communicate over the Internet. So and together registration and standardization have enabled the Internet to function as a global and permissionless platform for innovation. Internet standards are agreed upon technical specifications that underpin the infrastructure of the Internet. Many of you in the room are familiar with all of this so bear with me. Actually my explanation is more referred to the people who are less technical in the room. So the Internet open standards are the building blocks that enable interoperability, comparability and consistency across the thousands of networks. Open standards also enable Internet scalability, security and resilience. At the same time they support the innovation and grow because they allow people and organizations to create new services that make them available worldwide without needing permission. So open Internet standards are publicly available and deployed through the process that are transparent and open to broad participation and organizations as Internet Engineering Task Force, IETF, many of you are very familiar with it, plays a central role in this process. Other policy makers are placing a growing emphasis on Internet standards and they recognize their critical importance for the economic development and and National Security in this changing world. While the governments play a key role in promoting and supporting these standards, their efforts must complement, not replace, the open and collaborative process that have ensured that the Internet remains innovative and accessible for the past few decades. So we have seen various approaches when it comes to implementation of Internet standards because implementation is also a key to success. Successful examples include governments that have developed, for example, national IPv6 roadmaps in close cooperation with the technical community, ensuring that these roadmaps are grounded in the technical reality in their countries. On the other hand, more politically driven roadmaps without sufficient input from technical experts often failed to meet the expectations. So I would like to mention a good example of a successful governmental approach to RPKI. It’s a policy implemented by the Dutch Standardization Forum. They developed an apply or explain approach that made RPKI mandatory for governmental entities and public institutions. And in this case, monitoring RPKI metrics and close collaboration with technical community experts, they are the key factor to success. So we’ve also seen that your approach to Internet standards has gradually evolved over the years. And since 2019, so already six years ago, the European Commission has launched a series of initiatives to strengthen the role of the European Union in standardization processes and promote its vision for the Internet. And NIS2, as we all know, puts the deployment of key Internet standards in this spotlight even more. So the NIS2 implementing regulation adopted in 2024 requires operators to take appropriate technical and organizational measures, including the adoption of transition plans to modern network protocols, so think about IPv6 here, best practices for Internet routing security, such as RPKI, and measures for DNS and ML security. So these requirements are framed in technology-neutral and flexible manner, yet they reflect the growing governmental interest in driving the deployment of the standards. So the last activity that we’ve seen in this area is the European Commission’s established multi-stakeholder forum on the deployment of Internet standards, supported by NISA and national authorities. So this forum aims to identify the best practices, standards, and deployment techniques in the four areas which I already mentioned, so that’s network layer protocols, email security, DNS security, and routing security. So this initiative is welcome as long as leadership and decision-making stay anchored in the technical community. And why all this story? Because we believe that the testing community could play a key role in monitoring and deployment of adoption of the standards. Because of all the dimensions, testing ensures that standards are not only implemented, but also correctly and consistently deployed. So it helps prevent fragmentation, enforces interoperability, and raises the overall quality of the Internet infrastructure. So tools like Internet.nl are excellent examples in this process. So they help public and private institutions access their compliance, this established Internet standard, so Vaud already mentioned that as well. And on organizational level, testing contributes to more efficient processes and helps integrate security improvements into daily workflows. So on a broader scale, also testing fosters cooperation and collaborative learning, and it creates mechanisms for implementing standards and aligning the efforts of public administrators, service providers, and the technical community. Thank you.

Wouter Van Den Bosch: Thank you, Alena. I think that you showed from the technical community side how important it is to start deploying these standards, and also that it’s going to become more or less mandatory within the European Union within a year or two. The next speaker that is coming from Brazil is online, Gilberto Zorello. Please answer the question, how can you join and benefit from the global Internet standard testing community, as it’s now provisionally called? So what are your experiences in the past with running Internet.nl in the Brazilian way?

Gilberto Zorello: Good morning. We have a very good experience with Internet.nl here in Brazil. I’ll bring a short presentation about our experience. I would like to thank Internet.nl for the opportunity to participate in this event, this presentation about our experience with Internet.nl in Brazil. This is our agenda. I’m Gilberto Zorello, project manager from Brazilian Network Information Center, NIC.br, that implements the decisions and projects designed by Brazilian Internet Steering Committee, CGI.br, which is responsible for the coordination and integration of all Internet service initiatives in the country. Flavio Anais is here with me, too. He is the systems development manager at NIC.br. This presentation is about our experience with Internet.nl. We call the tool here in Brazil STOP. In English it’s Test Standards. STOP is part of a bigger program that we have, the Safer Internet Program, which aims to help Internet operators and service providers to reduce security incidents caused by vulnerabilities and configuration errors. We are interested in Internet.nl. Internet.nl is very important, because its recommendations are fully aligned with the objectives of the Safer Internet Program. STOP has a web interface in Portuguese, very important in Brazil, because people here don’t speak any English. We need a web interface in Portuguese. Its operation starts on December 21st. We are currently running the version 1.7 and testing 1.9. We intend to release the dashboard 2. The project is an initiative funded by NIC.br. The tool is disseminated in different cities across the country, through lectures at NIC.br technical events and ISP association fairs. NIC.br offers technical training on specific topics recommended. For instance, configuration of recursive and authoritative DNS service, RPKI and IPv6. The Safer Internet Program holds meetings with Internet service providers to provide guidance on how to implement the best security practice in the networks and how to use the top testing tool.

Wouter Van Den Bosch: We have new activities planned to promote the dissemination of good operational practice. NIC.br created the pickup best operation practice NIC.br award, which rewards institutions that implement continuous improvement in their networks. This year, the annual competition, this year’s competition, companies that configure their websites following top recommendations will be awarded. Gilberto, sorry, I can give you 30 seconds. Okay, finishing. The second activity, the Regional Center for Studies on Development of Information Society, CETIC.br, monitors the adoption of information and communication technologies, ICTs, in Brazil. The CETIC.br conducts ICT enterprise survey that measures the adoption of ICT small, medium, and large enterprises. The survey is conducted every two years. Next survey will check the readiness to meet the best security practices for websites of these companies used on top. Okay, that’s my presentation. I’m ready for questions if you need. Thank you very much, Gilberto, and it shows that it really works in Brazil, so thank you for showing that to us. We’re going to move to the totally other side of the world. We’re going to Japan, and we have a few questions for you. So, Gilberto, we have a few questions for you. We have Daishi Kondo with us, who is now with the University of Tokyo, and he is going to answer the following question. Daishi, what is your experience with the email security research so far, and how do you expect to benefit from international cooperation in the internet of the international community?

Daishi Kondo: Okay. Hello. Good morning, I should say. I’m Daishi Kondo from the University of Tokyo, and one of my research interests is email security. And these days, actually two weeks ago, I presented the email security work in Denmark in the conference, which is called TMA. And we stored several statistics about email security implementations. And from my experience in my email security research, I have realized that the adoption of email security measures is greatly influenced by the policy frameworks and the security culture. For example, the Netherlands has initiatives such as Comply or Explain List and Internet.nl, which have contributed to a high adoption rate of email security measures. On the other hand, Japan lacks similar policy mechanisms or counterpart to Internet.nl. In order to promote the better adoption, it is essential to bridge the needs, policy, and cultural gaps. I believe that the first step in international cooperation is to understand the nature of the differences through collaboration. Thank you very much.

Wouter Van Den Bosch: Thank you, Daishi. What it shows is that we already have a lot of people from around the world joining the community, and that we’re going to ask more people to join. First, I’m going to ask Doreen if there’s any comments made online that she would like to read out.

Doreen Booghaart: Yes, thank you. We have one comment online from Santosh Pandit. In case you were taking questions, he asked, will the community support a journey towards post-quantum cryptography and its use at Internet.nl?

Wouter Van Den Bosch: That is a very good question. What I can say is that we’re going to have a report, but that’s by the Internet Standards Security Coalition of the IGF. It will be presented on Friday morning at 9 o’clock in Room 1. Where this community is concerned, I can imagine, but I’m looking at Walter, that this is an issue that will come up in the near future as one of the potential testing points. But is it being considered already, or is it something that is future, Walter?

Walter Kobes: Yes, most definitely that will be added to the Internet.nl testing suite in due time. And of course, once that’s relevant, you want to be sure that the ciphers used by your web and email server are indeed quantum proof. But that’s something to be added in the future.

Wouter Van Den Bosch: I can imagine that it will, but what the time is, that is harder to set at this moment, because we need the standards to be in place and accepted in a broad way. I’ve got time for one question before we go to the official launch. Is there a question in the room? Then we have a microphone that will go around, so please put up your hand so we can have one question. Yes, the gentleman there. Does this microphone work? Please introduce yourself first.

Nico Caballero: Well, thank you. Can you hear me? Because I can’t hear myself, but anyways, this is weird. So I just wanted to know.

Wouter Van Den Bosch: Please introduce yourself.

Nico Caballero: My name is Nico Caballero. I’m the GAG Chair, Governmental Advisory Committee within ICANN. And I wanted to know if there’s any way to cooperate with governments, with at least certain governments who are very interested in implementing not only DNSSEC, but also symmetric and asymmetric cryptography. Sorry, too early in the morning. Need more coffee. And some other standards. My question is would there be any kind of, let’s say, task force or group or somebody we can contact, I mean specific governments who might be interested in implementing the standards and some way forward?

Wouter Van Den Bosch: I’ll take it first, and then I give it to Walter. I think that the idea behind the community that we are launching in the moment is that everybody with an interest in – I will start again because you didn’t have your phone on. The idea behind the community is that all organizations with an interest in testing the situational standards in their country can participate. So that could be from a governmental angle. It could be from a research angle, academia. It could be from a technical community who also advises members. So all different sort of parties can join and have already joined. So if you would like to promote this in the GAG, then we would be more than welcome to do so. There is a set of standards at this moment that is in the program, but the idea is to develop the program further in the future. And that is something that we hope to also be able to coordinate on between all the different parties so we can set the next steps together. So that’s the idea behind starting this international community. So let’s talk a little bit after the session and we can see how we can promote this further. And would you like to add, Walter?

Walter Kobes: I fully agree and I think the added value of the tool is not to show what standards are implemented and what not, but also to give you the means to implement these standards that are not yet supported. So that is the goal of the program and I think we should get in touch.

Wouter Van Den Bosch: So thank you very much for the question. And we only have half an hour, so I’m already seeing people waving there that we should stop in time. But I want to thank you very much for coming and showing your interest in the launch of this international community. You heard what Internet.nl is, what it does, and why deployment of Internet standards is crucial. And you have heard the experience of the people already working with the tool from the Netherlands, but also in Brazil and in Japan. We could have staged some others, but we have only 30 minutes. Now it’s time to officially launch the international community in which we are going to cooperate to make everyone understand why not deploying the new generation security-related Internet standards and ICT best practices for that matter should no longer be an option for anyone manufacturing devices or offering digital services, etc. Just like it should no longer be an option to not procure ICTs secure by design as an organization. I can’t think of a bigger driver towards deployment than economic buying power, personally. You have a legislation, but if your customer doesn’t want you anymore because you’re not delivering, then you’re out of business. To get there, all concerned need to become more aware of the current situation and feel the pressure shown by this testing tool. How can you join our community? In a moment, Wouter will show you a QR code and you can sign up on a form and you will receive information for the future meeting, probably in October. I’d say, Wouter, let’s launch the Global Internet Standards Testing Community, the GISTC, but not before I welcome you to a bilateral meeting that you can ask questions if you like. It’s on Thursday morning, 10.30 in the Buskerud room in the hotel. If you’d like to have questions and answers, please come to that meeting and we will be there answering your questions. Thank you for joining. Wouter, please launch our… I’m not seeing this slide anymore, but we have some cake to celebrate this launch. Here’s the slide, so let’s go. We’re launching. We’re launching. Thank you very much for joining. Thank you very much for joining. Thank you, presenters, Wouter, Alena, Gilberto, Daishi. Thank you, Doreen, for the online moderation. Peter for reporting, he’s in the Netherlands, and for the scribes and the technical people for really perfect preparation that we’ve had with you. So, thank you very much and I hope to meet you in the community room on Thursday. Thank you. Workshop 2 workshop 2. Workshop 2. Workshop 2. Workshop 2. Workshop 2. Workshop 2. Workshop 2.

Agreement points

Open source approach and international collaboration are essential for Internet standards testing

Speakers

– Wouter Van Den Bosch
– Walter Kobes
– Gilberto Zorello

Arguments

Internet.nl became open source after 2013 launch to enable global use, but lacked broader interaction between organizations until now

The open source code has been adopted by multiple countries including Brazil, Denmark, Germany, and France

Brazil successfully implemented Internet.nl as “STOP” with Portuguese interface as part of their Safer Internet Program

Summary

All speakers agree that making Internet.nl open source has enabled global adoption and that international collaboration through a community structure will enhance the tool’s effectiveness and reach

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Testing tools must provide actionable guidance beyond just identifying problems

Speakers

– Walter Kobes
– Alena Muravska

Arguments

Internet.nl is a testing tool that evaluates websites and email domains, providing concrete improvement steps beyond just identifying problems

Testing communities play a key role in monitoring standards deployment and ensuring correct implementation

Summary

Both speakers emphasize that effective testing tools must not only identify security issues but also provide concrete steps for improvement and ensure proper implementation

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Government and policy support are crucial for standards adoption

Speakers

– Alena Muravska
– Daishi Kondo
– Nico Caballero

Arguments

Governments are placing growing emphasis on internet standards for economic development and national security

Japan lacks policy mechanisms similar to Netherlands’ initiatives, creating adoption challenges for email security measures

Government cooperation through advisory committees like ICANN’s GAC could help promote standards implementation

Summary

All three speakers recognize that government policy frameworks and support mechanisms are essential drivers for successful internet standards adoption

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the value of creating a structured international community for knowledge sharing and collaborative improvement of Internet standards testing tools

Speakers

– Wouter Van Den Bosch
– Walter Kobes

Arguments

Representatives from different countries met in March to create a cooperative body for sharing experiences and developing next steps

International users have provided valuable feedback that has helped improve the product over time

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Both speakers advocate for comprehensive approaches that combine regulatory requirements with practical support mechanisms like training and incentives to drive standards adoption

Speakers

– Alena Muravska
– Gilberto Zorello

Arguments

NIS2 regulation requires operators to adopt modern network protocols, routing security practices, and DNS/email security measures

The Brazilian implementation includes technical training, ISP guidance meetings, and awards for companies following security recommendations

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Both speakers recognize that testing tools serve broader policy purposes beyond technical assessment, helping inform national security strategies and cross-cultural cooperation

Speakers

– Wouter Van Den Bosch
– Daishi Kondo

Arguments

Active use of testing tools provides organizations insight into their country’s security status for policymaking responses

International cooperation is essential to bridge policy and cultural gaps affecting security standards adoption

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Economic market pressure as a primary driver for security standards adoption

Speakers

– Wouter Van Den Bosch

Arguments

Economic buying power from customers demanding secure services could be a major driver for standards deployment

Explanation

While most speakers focused on technical and regulatory approaches, Van Den Bosch uniquely emphasized market-driven adoption through customer demand, suggesting economic incentives may be more powerful than regulatory compliance

Topics

Economic | Cybersecurity

Future technology integration planning

Speakers

– Walter Kobes
– Doreen Booghaart

Arguments

Post-quantum cryptography support will be added to Internet.nl testing suite when relevant standards are established

The community provides a platform for bilateral meetings and ongoing collaboration opportunities

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus on the need to plan for emerging technologies like post-quantum cryptography, showing forward-thinking approach beyond current standards

Topics

Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists on the value of international collaboration for Internet standards testing, the need for actionable testing tools, and the importance of government policy support. All speakers agreed on the open source approach and community-building efforts.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary perspectives rather than disagreements. The speakers represented different geographical regions and organizational types but shared common goals for improving Internet security through standards deployment. This consensus suggests strong potential for successful international cooperation and community development.

Different viewpoints

Role of government vs. technical community in standards implementation

Speakers

– Alena Muravska
– Nico Caballero

Arguments

While governments play a key role in promoting these standards, their efforts must complement rather than replace the open collaborative processes that have kept the internet innovative and accessible

Government cooperation through advisory committees like ICANN’s GAC could help promote standards implementation

Summary

Muravska emphasizes that government efforts must complement, not replace, open collaborative processes and warns against politically driven approaches without technical input. Caballero focuses on expanding government cooperation through advisory committees, representing a more government-centric approach to standards promotion.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Unexpected differences

Primary drivers for standards adoption

Speakers

– Wouter Van Den Bosch
– Alena Muravska

Arguments

Economic buying power from customers demanding secure services could be a major driver for standards deployment

NIS2 regulation requires operators to adopt modern network protocols, routing security practices, and DNS/email security measures

Explanation

This represents an unexpected philosophical difference in a collaborative launch event. Van Den Bosch emphasizes market-driven adoption through customer demand as potentially more effective than legislation, while Muravska focuses on the importance of regulatory frameworks like NIS2. This disagreement on whether market forces or regulatory compliance should be the primary driver for standards adoption was not anticipated in what appeared to be a unified community launch.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows minimal direct disagreement, with most tension arising from different emphasis on approaches rather than fundamental opposition. The main areas of subtle disagreement involve the balance between government/regulatory approaches versus market-driven and technical community-led approaches to standards implementation.

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with significant implications for community direction. While speakers generally align on the importance of internet standards and testing tools, their different emphases on regulatory compliance versus market forces, and government involvement versus technical community leadership, could influence how the community develops its strategies and priorities. These philosophical differences may become more pronounced as the community moves from launch to implementation phases.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize the value of creating a structured international community for knowledge sharing and collaborative improvement of Internet standards testing tools

Speakers

– Wouter Van Den Bosch
– Walter Kobes

Arguments

Representatives from different countries met in March to create a cooperative body for sharing experiences and developing next steps

International users have provided valuable feedback that has helped improve the product over time

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Both speakers advocate for comprehensive approaches that combine regulatory requirements with practical support mechanisms like training and incentives to drive standards adoption

Speakers

– Alena Muravska
– Gilberto Zorello

Arguments

NIS2 regulation requires operators to adopt modern network protocols, routing security practices, and DNS/email security measures

The Brazilian implementation includes technical training, ISP guidance meetings, and awards for companies following security recommendations

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity | Infrastructure

Both speakers recognize that testing tools serve broader policy purposes beyond technical assessment, helping inform national security strategies and cross-cultural cooperation

Speakers

– Wouter Van Den Bosch
– Daishi Kondo

Arguments

Active use of testing tools provides organizations insight into their country’s security status for policymaking responses

International cooperation is essential to bridge policy and cultural gaps affecting security standards adoption

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

The Global Internet Standards Testing Community (GISTC) was officially launched to facilitate international cooperation in testing and deploying security-related internet standards

Internet.nl has proven successful as an open-source testing tool with over 5 million annual scans and adoption across multiple countries including Brazil, Denmark, Germany, and France

Government policy frameworks and security culture significantly influence the adoption rates of internet security standards, with the Netherlands showing high success through ‘comply or explain’ approaches

NIS2 regulation will make deployment of modern network protocols, routing security, and DNS/email security measures mandatory for EU operators

Testing communities play a crucial role in ensuring standards are not only implemented but correctly and consistently deployed to prevent fragmentation

International collaboration is essential to bridge policy and cultural gaps that affect security standards adoption across different countries

Economic pressure from customers demanding secure services could be a major driver for standards deployment, potentially more effective than legislation alone

Resolutions and action items

Community members can join by signing up through a QR code form to receive information about future meetings

Next community meeting scheduled for October to prioritize activities for the first year

Bilateral meeting scheduled for Thursday morning at 10:30 in the Buskerud room for questions and answers

Post-quantum cryptography support will be added to Internet.nl testing suite when relevant standards are established

Follow-up discussion planned between organizers and ICANN GAC Chair to explore government cooperation opportunities

Continued promotion of the community through various channels including government advisory committees

Unresolved issues

Specific timeline for implementing post-quantum cryptography testing remains undefined, pending establishment of accepted standards

Formal organizational structure for the community has not been finalized – currently described as ‘provisionally called’ GISTC

Concrete mechanisms for government cooperation and task force formation need further development

How to effectively bridge policy and cultural gaps between countries with different security adoption rates

Specific coordination methods for future standards development and community input processes

Suggested compromises

Technology-neutral and flexible approach to NIS2 requirements while maintaining technical community leadership in decision-making

Multi-stakeholder forum approach that includes government, technical community, and private sector participation

Gradual expansion of testing standards based on community feedback and technical readiness rather than rigid timelines

Successful examples include governments that have developed, for example, national IPv6 roadmaps in close cooperation with the technical community, ensuring that these roadmaps are grounded in the technical reality in their countries. On the other hand, more politically driven roadmaps without sufficient input from technical experts often failed to meet the expectations.

Speaker

Alena Muravska

Reason

This comment provides a crucial insight into why some government initiatives succeed while others fail, highlighting the critical importance of technical community involvement versus purely political approaches. It introduces a nuanced understanding of governance effectiveness.

Impact

This comment shifted the discussion from simply promoting standards to examining the quality and approach of implementation. It established a framework for understanding successful versus unsuccessful deployment strategies, which influenced how subsequent speakers framed their national experiences.

STOP has a web interface in Portuguese, very important in Brazil, because people here don’t speak any English. We need a web interface in Portuguese.

Speaker

Gilberto Zorello

Reason

This seemingly simple observation reveals a profound barrier to global technology adoption – language accessibility. It challenges the often English-centric approach to technical tools and highlights how localization is not just helpful but essential for meaningful adoption.

Impact

This comment introduced the practical reality of global deployment challenges beyond technical considerations. It demonstrated that successful international expansion requires cultural and linguistic adaptation, not just technical replication, adding depth to the community’s understanding of what ‘global’ really means.

From my experience in my email security research, I have realized that the adoption of email security measures is greatly influenced by the policy frameworks and the security culture. For example, the Netherlands has initiatives such as Comply or Explain List and Internet.nl, which have contributed to a high adoption rate of email security measures. On the other hand, Japan lacks similar policy mechanisms or counterpart to Internet.nl.

Speaker

Daishi Kondo

Reason

This comment provides empirical evidence of how policy frameworks directly impact technical adoption rates, offering a comparative analysis between countries. It moves beyond theoretical discussion to concrete evidence of what works and what doesn’t.

Impact

This observation reinforced Alena’s earlier point about successful government approaches while providing specific comparative data. It helped establish the value proposition for the community by showing measurable differences in adoption rates based on policy support, strengthening the argument for coordinated international efforts.

I can’t think of a bigger driver towards deployment than economic buying power, personally. You have a legislation, but if your customer doesn’t want you anymore because you’re not delivering, then you’re out of business.

Speaker

Wouter Van Den Bosch

Reason

This comment introduces market forces as potentially more powerful than regulatory compliance in driving standards adoption. It challenges the assumption that legislation is the primary driver and suggests that consumer/customer demand might be more effective.

Impact

This insight reframed the entire discussion about deployment strategies, suggesting that creating market pressure through awareness and testing might be more effective than relying solely on regulatory mandates. It positioned the testing community as a market-enabling force rather than just a compliance tool.

Will the community support a journey towards post-quantum cryptography and its use at Internet.nl?

Speaker

Santosh Pandit (online participant)

Reason

This question demonstrates forward-thinking about emerging security challenges and tests the community’s adaptability to future standards. It shows engagement with cutting-edge security concerns and challenges the community to consider its evolution.

Impact

This question pushed the discussion beyond current standards to future challenges, demonstrating that the community needs to be adaptive and forward-looking. It showed that participants are thinking strategically about the community’s long-term relevance and technical evolution.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a simple product launch into a sophisticated discussion about the complex interplay between technology, policy, culture, and economics in global standards deployment. The comments collectively established that successful standards adoption requires: technical excellence, policy support, cultural adaptation, market incentives, and forward-thinking evolution. They shifted the conversation from ‘what we do’ to ‘how and why it works differently across contexts,’ creating a more nuanced understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the global internet standards testing community. The discussion evolved from promotional to analytical, with each insight building on previous ones to create a comprehensive framework for understanding global technology deployment challenges.

Will the community support a journey towards post-quantum cryptography and its use at Internet.nl?

Speaker

Santosh Pandit (online participant)

Explanation

This is important as organizations need to prepare for quantum-resistant security measures, and testing tools like Internet.nl will need to incorporate post-quantum cryptography standards once they are established and widely accepted.

How can governments cooperate with the community, particularly those interested in implementing DNSSEC, cryptography, and other standards? Is there a task force or contact point for governments?

Speaker

Nico Caballero (GAG Chair, ICANN)

Explanation

This addresses the need for structured government engagement in Internet standards deployment, which is crucial given the regulatory requirements like NIS2 and the role of policy frameworks in driving adoption.

How to bridge policy and cultural gaps between countries to promote better adoption of email security measures?

Speaker

Daishi Kondo (University of Tokyo)

Explanation

This is important because adoption rates vary significantly between countries due to different policy frameworks and security cultures, and understanding these differences is essential for effective international cooperation.

What will be the specific priorities and focus areas for the community’s first year of operation?

Speaker

Wouter Van Den Bosch

Explanation

This needs to be determined at the October meeting and is crucial for establishing the community’s direction and concrete objectives.

How can the community coordinate on future development of standards and testing capabilities beyond the current set?

Speaker

General discussion context

Explanation

This is important for ensuring the community remains relevant and can adapt to evolving Internet security standards and requirements.

Summary

This discussion focused on measuring internet use in the United States, featuring presentations from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the U.S. Census Bureau. The session began with a historical video from the 1990s showing early efforts to address the “digital divide” between Americans with and without access to information technology. NTIA officials presented their Internet Use Survey, which has been the longest-running federal data collection on computer and internet use since 1994, conducted as a supplement to the Current Population Survey with tens of thousands of households interviewed monthly.

The Census Bureau representatives discussed the American Community Survey (ACS), which measures computer and internet access among 3.5 million households annually and provides geographically granular data down to neighborhood levels. Both agencies acknowledged limitations in their current data collection methods, particularly the challenge of obtaining reliable estimates for smaller geographic areas and keeping pace with rapidly changing technology. To address these gaps, NTIA and the Census Bureau introduced Project LEIA (Local Estimates of Internet Adoption), which uses advanced statistical modeling techniques called small area estimation to produce more detailed local internet adoption data.

Project LEIA combines direct survey data with auxiliary information like income levels and broadband infrastructure availability to generate reliable single-year estimates for all U.S. counties, rather than just the quarter of counties with sufficient population for traditional survey methods. During the interactive discussion, international participants raised questions about sustainability measurements, data quality assessment, capacity building opportunities, and how collected data influences policy decisions. The session concluded with participants sharing experiences from different countries and expressing interest in continued collaboration on internet measurement methodologies.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Historical Evolution of Digital Divide Measurement**: The discussion began with historical context from the 1990s, showing how the “digital divide” between technology “haves and have-nots” became recognized as a critical economic and civil rights issue, leading to the establishment of long-running federal data collection efforts.

– **Two Primary Survey Methods for Internet Use Data**: Presenters detailed NTIA’s Internet Use Survey (running since 1994, supplementing the Current Population Survey) and the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey questions (added in 2013), explaining how these capture different aspects of internet adoption, device usage, and online activities.

– **Project LEIA – Advanced Local Estimation Techniques**: A significant focus on the new “Local Estimates of Internet Adoption” initiative using small area estimation and machine learning to provide more granular, single-year county-level internet adoption data, addressing gaps in geographic coverage of traditional surveys.

– **Data Limitations and Methodological Challenges**: Discussion of survey limitations including declining response rates, difficulty measuring rapidly changing technologies, inability to capture internet quality/infrastructure readiness, and challenges in providing estimates for smaller geographic areas.

– **International Collaboration and Capacity Building**: Questions from international participants about training opportunities, data sharing, and how measurement data translates into targeted policy interventions for digitally excluded populations.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to present current U.S. federal approaches to measuring internet use and adoption, introduce new statistical modeling techniques for more granular local estimates, and foster international dialogue about best practices, methodological improvements, and collaborative opportunities in internet measurement.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently professional, collaborative, and educational tone throughout. It began as a formal presentation but became increasingly interactive and engaging during the Q&A portion. The tone was optimistic about technological advances in data collection methods while acknowledging ongoing challenges. International participants brought a global perspective that enriched the conversation, and the overall atmosphere was one of knowledge-sharing and mutual learning rather than debate or criticism.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Video**: Historical testimony from the Honorable Larry Irving presenting findings from “Falling Through the Net, Defining the Digital Divide” study released by the Commerce Department in 1999

– **Jaisha Wray**: Associate Administrator for the Office of International Affairs and Acting Associate Administrator of the Office of Policy Analysis and Development at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)

– **Susan Chalmers**: Internet Governance Team Lead in the Office of International Affairs at NTIA

– **Luis Zambrano Ramos**: Senior Policy Advisor in NTIA’s Office of Policy Analysis and Development

– **Andrew Flavin**: Leads the Digital Policy Team in NTIA’s Office of International Affairs

– **Rafi Goldberg**: NTIA policy expert with 14 years of experience at the agency

– **Leslie Davis**: Census Bureau’s Subject Matter Expert on Computer and Internet Use as measured by their surveys

– **Heather Keene**: Works in the same division as Leslie at the Census Bureau, brings modeling expertise to internet and computer use measurement

– **Audience**: Multiple audience members asking questions during the open forum discussion

**Additional speakers:**

– **Michael Lewis**: Mentioned as someone who would discuss the NTIA Internet Use Survey and its history, but did not appear to speak in the transcript

– **Nenad Dorlich**: Audience member who asked questions about sustainability data collection and comparison with commercial service providers

– **Robert**: Online participant from Uganda working for Youth in Technology and Development Uganda, asked about capacity building training

– **Joshua**: Audience member from Uganda ISOC chapter who asked about disaggregation of internet measurement in schools and institutions

# Measuring Internet Use in the United States: Federal Data Collection Approaches and International Collaboration

## Executive Summary

This forum examined federal approaches to measuring internet use and adoption in the United States, featuring presentations from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the U.S. Census Bureau. The session began with historical context from the 1990s digital divide research, followed by detailed presentations on current survey methodologies and the innovative Project LEIA small area estimation initiative. The discussion included questions from international participants about capacity building, data comparability, and policy implementation.

## Historical Context: The Digital Divide Foundation

The session opened with a video clip from the 1990s featuring Larry Irving discussing the Commerce Department’s “Falling Through the Net, Defining the Digital Divide” study. This historical footage provided context for understanding how the digital divide between technology “haves and have-nots” was first identified as a critical policy issue affecting American access to technology.

## NTIA Internet Use Survey

Luis Zambrano Ramos, Senior Policy Advisor in NTIA’s Office of Policy Analysis and Development, presented the NTIA Internet Use Survey, which represents the longest-running federal data collection effort on computer and internet use, operating continuously since 1994. The survey operates as a supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS), interviewing tens of thousands of households monthly.

The survey captures comprehensive data on device usage, online activities, and internet access technologies, measuring not merely access but the sophistication and variety of internet usage patterns across demographic groups. The survey methodology undergoes continuous refinement through a public comment process that ensures stakeholder input in data collection design.

Zambrano Ramos highlighted the public availability of raw data through GitHub repositories and explorer tools designed for researchers and policymakers, demonstrating the agency’s commitment to data transparency and accessibility.

## American Community Survey (ACS)

Leslie Davis, the Census Bureau’s Subject Matter Expert on Computer and Internet Use, explained how computer and internet questions were added to the ACS in 2013 following Congressional directive through the Broadband Data Improvement Act. The ACS provides nationally representative data on internet adoption and computer ownership for 3.5 million households annually.

The ACS underwent significant methodology improvements in 2016 to address question clarity and response reliability issues. Davis emphasized that the ACS enables analysis of broadband adoption disparities at sub-state geographic levels, though with important limitations: one-year data is limited to counties and places with populations exceeding 65,000, while five-year data can reach census tract level but sacrifices timeliness for geographic coverage.

Davis detailed the interactive mapping tools and pre-tabulated products available through data.census.gov, making statistical information accessible to diverse user communities.

## Project LEIA: Local Estimates of Internet Adoption

### Technical Approach

Rafi Goldberg, NTIA policy expert, and Heather Keene, Census Bureau modelling expert, presented Project LEIA as an innovative solution addressing geographic limitations in traditional survey methods. Announced last fall, the project employs small area estimation techniques that combine direct survey data with auxiliary predictors such as income levels and broadband infrastructure availability.

The statistical approach blends direct ACS estimates with indirect regression estimates, weighted by relative precision for each county. This methodology enables production of reliable single-year estimates for all U.S. counties, rather than just the quarter of counties with sufficient population for traditional survey methods.

### Results and Applications

Project LEIA produces the first-ever experimental single-year estimates of household internet adoption for every U.S. county. This advancement in geographic granularity enables state broadband offices to utilize survey data for designing targeted programs. Goldberg provided specific examples, noting that while Los Angeles County has sufficient sample size for direct estimates, smaller counties in Texas do not, making the modeled estimates particularly valuable.

### Future Development

The research team outlined plans for expanding Project LEIA’s capabilities, including refining the county-level model to produce official data products, exploring census tract-level estimates, and applying machine learning techniques to bring detailed internet use data from NTIA surveys to ACS datasets. Keene mentioned plans to incorporate additional predictors including urban/rural measures and STEM occupation concentrations.

## International Engagement and Questions

The session included participation from international attendees, with Jaisha Wray, Associate Administrator for NTIA’s Office of International Affairs, and Susan Chalmers, Internet Governance Team Lead, facilitating discussion.

### Key Questions Raised

**Capacity Building**: Robert from Youth in Technology and Development Uganda requested training on internet measurement methodologies. Speakers suggested working through existing institutions like the U.S. Telecommunications Training Institute.

**Environmental Sustainability**: Nenad Dorlich asked whether agencies collect data on electricity consumption or CO2 emissions related to internet usage. Speakers acknowledged this data is not currently collected.

**Data Disaggregation**: Joshua from Uganda ISOC chapter asked about measuring internet access in schools and institutions beyond household-level data. Speakers noted that while other agencies collect some institutional data, comprehensive integration remains limited.

**Infrastructure Quality**: A RIPE NCC representative questioned measuring internet infrastructure readiness for next-generation applications like AI and AR, highlighting that access doesn’t necessarily indicate capability for advanced applications.

**Policy Implementation**: An international think tank representative asked how data collection translates into targeted initiatives for digitally excluded populations, emphasizing the gap between measurement and effective intervention.

## Technical Challenges

Speakers acknowledged several ongoing challenges:

– Declining survey response rates affecting data reliability

– Sample size constraints limiting geographic granularity

– The need to balance technological currency with time series comparability

– Integration challenges across multiple data collection efforts

## Data Accessibility and Tools

Both agencies emphasized their commitment to open data access. NTIA provides raw data through GitHub repositories and specialized explorer tools, while the Census Bureau offers interactive mapping tools and pre-tabulated products through data.census.gov. This approach enables independent analysis and supports evidence-based policy development across government levels.

## Conclusion

The forum demonstrated significant progress in federal internet measurement capabilities, from the foundational digital divide research of the 1990s to today’s sophisticated statistical modeling approaches like Project LEIA. While current methodologies provide valuable insights into internet adoption patterns, the discussion revealed ongoing challenges in areas such as environmental impact measurement, infrastructure quality assessment, and translating data into effective policy interventions.

The international interest in U.S. methodologies suggests opportunities for knowledge sharing and capacity building, while the technical innovations presented indicate continued evolution in measurement approaches to address the changing digital landscape.

Video: and so at this time we’d like to ask the Honorable Larry Irving to present testimony. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to thank you and the members of the subcommittee for this opportunity to testify today on the findings of Falling Through the Net, Defining the Digital Divide, the study released by the Commerce Department earlier this month. President Clinton and Secretary Daley released Falling Through the Net on July 8th, 1999 in Los Angeles during the President’s New Markets Tour. And during the tour, the President and Secretary Daley discussed the fact that even though information technology underlies much of our nation’s economic growth, far too many Americans are left out of the digital economy. And as a result, the digital divide, that is the divide between the haves and have-nots in information technology, has become a critical economics and civil rights issue. Access to new technologies such as the computer and the Internet will be keys to the future economic success of any American business, community, or individual. And increasingly, Americans use the net to find jobs, contact colleagues, locate public information, or take courses online. Electronic commerce is helping small companies compete and entrepreneurs in rural, remote, and traditionally underserved areas reach out to the rest of the world. Familiarity with new technologies will also prepare more Americans for the high-tech workplace of the 21st century. Because of the increasingly important role of these new technologies, Secretary Daley concluded that ensuring access to the fundamental tools of digital economy is one of the most significant investments our nation can make. And as we enter the 21st century, it will become even more essential to ensure that all Americans, rich or poor, urban or rural, black or white, Hispanic or Native American, can reap the benefits of these new technologies. Falling through the net provides a starting point in bridging the gap between the nation’s information rich and poor. This is our third report examining census data, looking at the digital divide. And we anticipate that it will serve as an important diagnostic tool to assist policymakers in the private sector in formulating methods to provide greater access for more Americans. And today I’d like to provide for the subcommittee several slides showing some of our key findings. These slides illustrate that overall Americans are far more connected than they have been in years past. On the other hand, we have also found that there are alarming disparities based chiefly on income, education, race, and geographic location in which group of Americans have computers, and who is online. Hmm, it’s gonna be interesting as I read my testimony. Equally disturbing, many of these disparities are growing. And let me turn to the first slide. This shows… And everyone will be in the dark if we don’t get online.

Jaisha Wray: Great, thank you all for joining us today. My name is Jaycia Ray and I am the Associate Administrator for the Office of International Affairs and the Acting Associate Administrator of the Office of Policy Analysis and Development in the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, or NTIA, in the United States. What you just saw is a video from NTIA in the 1990s discussing the early days of measuring Internet use in the United States. As you will hear, this issue continues to be of high importance and the work continues on to this day as well. Today we have a distinguished set of speakers from NTIA and the U.S. Census Bureau who will discuss the past, present, and future of measuring Internet use in the United States. Located within the U.S. Department of Commerce, NTIA is the executive branch agency principally responsible by law for advising the President on telecommunications and information policy issues. NTIA’s programs and policymaking focus largely on expanding broadband Internet access and adoption in America, expanding the use of spectrum by all users, and ensuring that the Internet remains an engine for innovation and economic growth. Also located within the Department of Commerce, the United States Census Bureau is the nation’s largest federal statistical agency with the mission to serve as the leading provider of quality data about the nation’s people and economy. The Census Bureau provides high quality, timely, and relevant data products that determine how legislative seats are distributed across the nation. It also supports evidence building in government and policymaking, planning decisions about community services, and the annual distribution of federal funds to local, state, and tribal governments. Together, subject matter experts from these agencies will share details about how they measure Internet use, highlighting promising new initiatives and issues that require further examination in this ongoing effort. Following their overview, we want to open the floor for robust interactive discussion with people both in the room and online. We want to hear how other countries are measuring Internet use and what we can learn from those experiences. In particular, what are the missing pieces in measuring Internet use, and how can the international community collaborate in this space? We hope that this open forum will serve as an opportunity to bring experts from around the world together to advance the state of knowledge for one of the most important aspects of digital connectivity, understanding how people use the Internet. So to kick things off, I will ask my colleagues to briefly introduce themselves.

Susan Chalmers: Good afternoon. My name is Susan Chalmers, and I am the Internet Governance Team Lead in the Office of International Affairs at NTIA.

Luis Zambrano Ramos: And I’m Luis Zambrano Ramos. I’m a Senior Policy Advisor in NTIA’s Office of Policy Analysis and Development.

Andrew Flavin: Hi, I’m Andrew Flavin. I lead the Digital Policy Team in NTIA’s

Luis Zambrano Ramos: Office of International Affairs. Rafi, are you online?

Rafi Goldberg: Good afternoon. My name is Rafi Goldberg, and I’ve been working on policy at NTIA for the past 14 years. And I will pass it on to our Census Bureau friends.

Leslie Davis: Great. Thank you, Rafi. My name is Leslie Davis, and I’m the Census Bureau’s Subject Matter Expert on Computer and Internet Use as measured by our surveys.

Heather Keene: Hi, good afternoon. I’m Heather Keene. It’s morning for us. I work in the same division with Leslie, and you’ll meet Mike after me. They’re the Subject Matter Experts on Internet and Computer Use, and I bring modeling expertise to the table. I’m going to pass it to you, Mike.

Jaisha Wray: All right. So in terms of our run of show today, first we will hand it over to Michael Lewis, who will discuss the NTIA Internet Use Survey and its history. Following that, Leslie will talk about the U.S. Census Bureau’s decades-long work in the American Community Survey. After Leslie, Rafi will highlight the latest project to produce local estimates of Internet adoption. Heather will then dive deeper into the technical details of this project. And following the presentation, Susan and our other Subject Matter Experts will help steward the open forum discussion. So with no further ado, we’ll get started, and over to Luis.

Luis Zambrano Ramos: Great. So thank you so much, Jaisha Wray. So I am going to focus on one of NTIA’s most important contributions to the field, the NTIA Internet Use Survey. This survey is a supplement to the current population survey, which is a survey that’s sponsored jointly by the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. It is a monthly survey, which is primarily known as the source of some of our official labor statistics. Agencies such as NTIA have the opportunity to sponsor supplemental questions during particular months. Tens of thousands of households are interviewed for the CPS every month, providing a large, nationally representative sample of American households. We have worked for over 30 years with our partners at the Census Bureau on this survey. In fact, the Internet Use Survey is the longest-running federal data collection on computer and Internet use in the United States. We have sponsored a grand total of 17 surveys in the field since 1994, and we’re planning to get our next survey out in November of this year. So here you can see a timeline of our collections. Over time, we have transitioned from print publications of our findings to a more web-centered approach to present the results. We have blog posts and other analyses of the data, and we also have a nifty, publicly available explorer tool that I will showcase in a bit. One very important component of the NTIA Internet Use Survey is the ability to obtain input from the public on the survey instrument itself. We include a draft version of the survey instrument and seek comment from the public before we issue the survey. This forum actually is particularly timely, given that last week, on June 17th, we published a notice and request for comment for our upcoming survey later this year in 2025. So with all this said, what can we learn from the survey? So in addition to learning just about Internet use generally, we can also learn things like devices and Internet access technologies, details about how people use the Internet, including locations and certain online activities. We also have other questions, such as questions about how people use the Internet. This is a slide that you can get using our explorer tool, which I will show in a bit. This slide breaks down device usage, perhaps not surprisingly for example, we have noticed that smartphone use has gone up since 2011, while desktop computer use has decreased. And here are a few online activities that we have measured and how they have trended over time, things like social media use, telework, and the like. So as I mentioned, we have a publicly available explorer tool that we call the NTIA Dead Explorer that allows us to play with this data. For example, if I am searching for device use, specifically laptop use, you can look at that information throughout the years. You can look at the total number in millions and percentages over the years. You can also get a table that gives you a result for each of the U.S. states and breaks them down along with numbers, percentages, and also things like confidence intervals. So again, here is just how the tool is being applied, and I’m sorry, I think we’re having some technical difficulties, but moving on to sort of the availability of this data, if you want to dive deeper, we make all the underlying raw data publicly available. We actually have a GitHub repository with sample code, and at the end of the presentation we’ll actually give a link to our website. And there you can see some of the publicly available data sets that we have. And before I pass it on to my Census colleagues, last year we actually celebrated the 30th anniversary of the Internet Use Survey, and we threw a little party. You just saw that slide, and we were able to put it on a cake, and unfortunately there’s no cake today, but I welcome you all to join in the celebration. And with that, I will pass it on to my colleague Leslie from Census.

Leslie Davis: Great. Thank you so much, Luis. In addition to the NTIA Internet Use Survey, the Census Bureau measures computer and Internet access on the American Community Survey, or the ACS, which is the Census’s flagship demographic survey. This is a nationally representative survey that serves as the premier source for timely, detailed population and housing information for the U.S., and it provides local and national leaders with information needed for programs, economic development, emergency management, and more. It is fielded annually to a sample of 3.5 million households nationwide, and also additional group quarters, and it asks questions on over 40 topics, including Internet access. Next slide, please. So in 2008, U.S. Congress directed federal agencies through the Broadband Data Improvement Act to improve their data collection on broadband use and subscription, and this act specifically called upon the Census Bureau to add questions to the ACS that measured, A, whether persons at households use or own computers at their address, and, B, whether persons at that address subscribe to dial-up or broadband Internet service at their address. The computer and Internet questions were added to the ACS in 2013. Next slide, please. So the initial set of questions that were asked on the ACS are shown on the left-hand side of this screen, and they were designed to capture computer ownership, Internet adoption, as we measure by a connection to the Internet, and Internet subscription type. As a result of us measuring adoption, the ACS data does not offer insights on the level of Internet use within a household or the extent of digital literacy skills of a particular respondent. Furthermore, if a respondent says that they don’t have a subscription, the ACS data does not tell us if there isn’t an Internet service provider thus not allowing for the subscription or if it’s due to another reason, such as the cost of the subscription. The ACS questions were revised in 2016, which you can see on the right-hand side of the screen, and their current versions remain as they were in 2016. These changes that we made were implemented after feedback received from survey methods experts and undergoing thorough content testing, and the changes were aimed to address potential confusion with question wording, response categories, and definitional clarity. The first question you’ll see on the screen is our changes to device ownership question, and given the focus of today’s talk, I’m going to switch to the next question, which asks about Internet access. Here we replaced the language regarding subscriptions to paying a provider or cell phone company, which helped to reframe what it means to subscribe or adopt to the Internet for our respondents. Next slide, please. As for our Internet types question, we altered the language of mobile broadband plan to cellular data plan for clarity, and this change alone improved our response reliability drastically. We also collapsed the high-speed categories of cable, fiber, and DSL to improve question clarity and also distinguish this category, which is fixed to a particular location, and compare it to the mobile broadband option. Again, here we removed language related to subscription and changed it to access to the Internet, which improved our response rates. As you can see on this question and the device type question before, we also offer the opportunity for respondents to write in a particular Internet service type or device type that they may not see on the questionnaire. Clerical coders at our headquarters can match these write-ins to our categories as best as possible and reassign those write-ins as needed. So, for example, if a respondent wrote in Comcast for their Internet service type, which is a provider of cable and fiber Internet in the United States, we can typically assign that respondent to high-speed broadband on the back end. Next slide, please. So, based on the ACS, the Census Bureau publishes one-year and five-year estimates, and the main difference between the two is the level of geographic granularity captured in the estimates. Our one-year data can go down to the county and place levels for the geographies that match our population threshold of 65,000 and over, which helps us ensure confidentiality of our respondents and ensure reliability. The five-year data, which brings together 60 months of data, can go down even smaller to the census tract and block group level, as you can see on the hierarchy on the screen. Next slide. The tables on the screen provide some context for how small these geographies are. So, for example, for the one-year data, our counties are the largest sub-state geography. They are highly variable in geographic area and population size. So, for example, Los Angeles County in California has about 10 million residents, whereas Armstrong County in Texas has about 2,000. Counties in the U.S. have some government oversight in many states. Places, on the other hand, represent a town or a settled concentration of people within a state and can often be identified by a name. They sometimes have governmental functions, and their median size is about 1,000 people. Our five-year data can go down to the tract level, which is generally represented to be neighborhoods. They have an optimum size of about 4,000 people, and even smaller than that is the block group. The block group is a group of comprised of blocks, which are statistical areas bounded by visible and non-visible boundaries, and they’re comprised of about 600 to 3,000 people. As I mentioned, the one-year data is less geographically granular, which helps us ensure the reliability of those estimates and our confidentiality of survey respondents. So, as a result, we were able to publish. 27% of counties and 2% of incorporated places in our nation for the one-year data set in 2023. Our five-year data in contrast has a greater sample size and better reliability for smaller geographies and as a result we were able to publish all estimates. Next slide please. Using the ACS computer and internet data that we collect, the Bureau publishes 14 tables on device ownership and internet adoption by select demographics and geographic breakdowns. The data is available on our data tool which is data.census.gov and data users on that tool can access pre-tabulated products and use tables to create custom maps as I did to create the map on the screen here which shows the percent of people age 65 and older with a broadband subscription and computer by state. In addition to the tables and maps, data users can use our public use microdata sample or our PUMS data to create custom tables. This PUMS data is a sample, a subsample of the ACS microdata and it goes through many disclosure processes to protect confidentiality. Next slide please. In addition to our pre-tabulated products, we also produce written reports based on the ACS data. This most recent report investigated computer and internet use trends between 2013 and 2021. It also explored disparities in broadband adoption at the county level and included a great section on the demographics of smartphone-only households in the United States. Next slide. We also author shorter blog-style publications called America Counts Stories and here I have two examples, one pertaining to tablet ownership among households with children and the other exploring broadband adoption disparities among tribal households. Next slide. So what are the strengths of the ACS data? As I mentioned, it has a large sample size which allows us to publish geographically granular data. So for example, if you were interested in studying broadband adoption at the sub-neighborhood level, our five-year data from the ACS could help you get there. Additionally, the ACS offers detailed demographic data available for sub-state geographies which helps academics, policy makers, community stakeholders, and more explore internet adoption disparities by different factors like income, education, and rurality. We also publish the data on a frequent basis on an annual basis and it undergoes rigorous verification and reliability checks prior to us publishing it and it also provides a helpful time series of data as it dates back to 2013.

Rafi Goldberg: Great. Thank you, Leslie. Hopefully, my first slide is up although I cannot see it at the moment. But the, you know, the NTIA Internet Use Survey and the ACS, thank you, have served as the basis for a ton of important research and analysis for many years now and they continue to be vital data sources for understanding internet use in the United States. But we’re also very much aware that these surveys alone are unable to answer every relevant question and recently we’ve been spending a lot of time thinking about how to address some of the gaps in our data and to ensure we’re fully equipped in the future to understand our progress and challenges. Next slide, please. We learn a ton from household surveys but they’re not without their limits. For example, it’s pretty common for a colleague or a member of the public to ask me what internet use is like in their particular area and unfortunately, our current ability to answer that question is limited. Even with a huge sample size of our surveys, those numbers start to get small very fast if you try to zoom in too far on the map. For less populous areas, as Leslie mentioned, we need to aggregate five consecutive years’ worth of ACS data. Now, you know, even if you can work with the three basic internet use questions that are on the ACS, five-year estimates, while, you know, very useful in a lot of cases, are not ideal when you’re trying to understand the impacts of relatively fast changes like the introduction of a new program. I’m excited to say that NCIA and the Census Bureau are working to fill this gap, which will be the focus of the rest of our presentation, but just want to note that we also have some other challenges in this field. For example, while our surveys have fairly high response rates, they have been falling over time, and there’s a lot of work going on to try to address that. Internet use is also very much a field where the technologies and even the words that we use to describe those technologies are changing all the time, so it’s always a balancing act between keeping up with those changes in our surveys and being careful not to break good time series comparisons. Finally, while we have data on online activities from the NCIA Internet Use Survey, we are limited in our ability to measure important workforce and other skills. Next slide, please. So, I want to focus now on the problem of getting more granular internet use estimates, and I’m excited to report that last fall NCIA and the Census Bureau announced a new initiative called Local Estimates of Internet Adoption, or Project LEIA for short. With Project LEIA, we’re working to develop more granular single-year estimates using statistical techniques that are so advanced you might just think that they came from a galaxy far, far away. Next slide, please. So, what exactly is Project LEIA? The Census Bureau team is using something called small area estimation to make it possible for us to learn about internet use at the local level. The first product of this effort was released back in September in the form of the first ever experimental single-year estimates of household internet adoption for every county in the United States. For comparison, only about a quarter of U.S. counties have a large enough population to get to internet adoption estimates using the single-year ACS product. And again, the five-year estimates are also able to do this, and they’re very useful, but they’re not ideal in a lot of situations. Next slide, please. The basic idea behind small area estimation is that you take what you already know from survey data and feed that into a model alongside other data points that are known to be linked with the outcome of interest. In this case, we know from previous studies that factors like income and the availability of broadband infrastructure are predictors of internet adoption rates, so we can work with those as auxiliary data sources. Heather will go into more detail about this in a moment, but by incorporating these outside data points alongside the direct survey estimates, you get estimates with smaller margins of error compared with the survey estimates alone, and you also reduce the risk that individual respondents in less populous areas could be re-identified by the publication of new estimates. That makes it feasible to publish reliable estimates for places with smaller populations, all without having to interview any more households or putting anyone’s privacy at risk. Next slide, please. For our first experiment with, you know, with this, the Census Bureau team was able to estimate the proportion of households in every U.S. county that had a wired internet subscription in 2022. We were really excited to be able to share these first results with the world last fall, and we put together an interactive map on NTIA’s website to show off these new estimates. As you can see, there’s quite a lot of variation in adoption rates among U.S. counties, and these estimates enable you to zoom in on a particular area of interest. Next slide, please. While this is a promising start, we think there’s a lot more that can be done with Project LEIA, and NTIA and the Census Bureau are working together on the next steps. At the same time that we released the feasibility study and experimental estimates, NTIA put out an RFC asking for feedback and ideas for future directions. We’ve got some great suggestions that we’ve incorporated into our work moving forward. Right now, we have three tasks that we’re working on as part of this. initiative. First, the Census Bureau team is looking at ways to refine the model for the current set of estimates to get to the point where we all feel ready to shed the experimental label. Second, they are exploring the feasibility of producing even more granular estimates at the census tract level. And as mentioned before, census tracts in the United States are basically neighborhoods in a lot of places, and they generally contain between 1,000 and 8,000 people. And finally, they are working to apply machine learning to bring some of the more detailed computer and internet use data from the NTIA Internet Use Survey to the ACS dataset, opening up new research opportunities and setting the stage for the potential for small area estimates of those more detailed variables in the future. We’re very excited about the potential for project layout to help improve our understanding of internet use in the United States. And I’m pleased to turn next to Heather, who will get into some more of the technical details of how the Census Bureau is making this all possible.

Heather Keene: Thanks, Rafi. I’m happy to continue our 30-year partnership with NTIA, with Project LEIA. And I’m going to reiterate a lot what Rafi said. So Project LEIA is filling in the gap to obtain one-year estimates of internet adoption for all counties, because we need to measure time more quickly than what the five-year ACS estimates can tell us. So the nearest alternative, we could publish the survey estimate from one year from the ACS. But as Rafi and Leslie talked about earlier, you would only get about a quarter of all counties. And so Project LEIA, using small area modeling techniques, allows us to blend that survey with other sources, like Rafi pointed out, to publish internet adoption rates for every single county in the United States. That’s 3,144, I think it was at last count. Okay, so next slide. And so the small area modeling technique that we use, this is a very high-level view of what that looks like. The layout model estimates are really the combination of two separate estimates of internet adoption. And so on the left-hand side of the slide, you see that one component is the AC estimate. This is just from the survey by itself, the proportion of county households that have adopted internet. And on the right-hand side is what we call the indirect estimate. And this is the mechanism that we use to bring in the other related data sources and other factors that are related to internet adoption. So this is a regression model where the outcome is internet adoption at the county level. And the predictors are median household income for the county, the proportion of the population with a bachelor’s degree or higher, and the proportion of county households that have access to broadband infrastructure, which is taken from an administrative source that measures broadband internet infrastructure from another agency. We can talk more about that if you’d like. And so taking these two separate estimates of internet adoption, we blend them together where the contribution of each is determined by the relative precision compared to one another. Next slide, please. So here’s another look at that same visual where we see what happens in larger counties like L.A. County where we have a population of around 10 million people. The ACS direct estimate on proportion of households with internet adoption would be pretty reliable because we would sample a lot of households from this county. Because it’s a very large county, we would send out a lot of questionnaires, and we would get very good data from this county because of its size. And so the final model data estimate, we would expect a higher contribution from this high-quality direct survey estimate where we ask the households directly, do you have access to an internet broadband subscription? And so the LAYA model would draw more information from the ACS compared to the regression model defined in the indirect estimate. Next slide. And so you can imagine for smaller counties like the one in Texas Leslie talked about earlier, we would expect more contribution from the indirect estimate because the ACS estimate for that county, we wouldn’t have a lot of cases to derive an estimate from. And so the resulting estimate of proportion of households would be rather noisy. This would be reflected in the weight that combines the two estimates, the direct estimate from the ACS and the indirect estimate that brings in the additional data. Here, the indirect estimate we would expect to contribute more to the final estimate for that particular county. Okay, so that’s in a nutshell how Project LAYA works. And so the next slide is, this is the same map that Rafi showed you. This is just a screenshot from our feasibility report. Exact same data, but if you want to interact with the data, you’ll go to the NTIA website to look at different views and zoom in and zoom out. So on the right is just kind of a reminder of what exactly are we modeling here. And this is from the actual questionnaire in ACS. So we’re modeling the proportion of all households in each county that subscribe to high speed broadband, internet service, that’s cable, fiber optic, or DSL, just as a reminder. And so this map is a gradient. So darker blue counties are going to be those that have higher proportions of households that have adopted internet with that particular technology type. Next slide. Okay, and so this is just kind of a typical QC that’s done in small area modeling. What we’re looking at here is a scatter plot that compares the proportion of county households that adopt internet compared to that derived from our modeled layer estimate. ACS proportion is on the x-axis or the horizontal, and the layer proportion is on the vertical or y-axis. And so each one of these circles represents the county. And so whenever the layer proportion is exactly the same as the ACS survey proportion, the county or the circle will fall exactly on that diagonal line. So we don’t expect all counties to fall exactly along this line, but generally we want them to follow the general trend. You see some outliers, some counties, some circles that are not very closely aligned to the line. This means that the ACS data doesn’t have a lot of impact here. The model is drawing more from the indirect estimate here. And these are probably going to be very small counties. So this kind of some handful of scatter of points away from a line is completely expected, but we see in general the two estimates agree, and this is as desired. Okay, so overall the layer model progression proportion agrees at a high level with ACS. Okay, next slide. So this is a kind of repeating what Rafi was talking about and what we’re looking to continue Project LEIA. We’re going to fine-tune this county model for all counties for internet adoption and look at some other useful predictors that we didn’t use before that we got from our request for comments from the public. And mainly we’re going to look at measures of urban versus rural. We tried some of those before, but they didn’t work out. So there are other ways that you can measure that. So we’re going to continue exploring that. We’re going to look at measures of economic growth and concentration of the type of jobs or occupations in the county, namely science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or STEM occupations. And so we want to finalize that model, remove the experimental data product label, and have an official data product that measures internet adoption. And what we also want to look at the feasibility of going even further granularity and look at below the county level census tracts Rafi and Leslie described. These are subdivision or neighborhoods of counties around 4,000 people, but these are statistical entities that the Census Bureau creates at the start.

Luis Zambrano Ramos: Thank you so much, Heather, and that concludes our presentation. I’ve put up our website as well as our contact information, and I’m going to pass it over to Susan and Andrew to help us further the discussion.

Susan Chalmers: Thank you so much, Luis. And thank you to everybody for joining us for our open forum today. During this session, we have learned from colleagues at NTIA as well as colleagues from the U.S. Census Bureau on two different surveys. I mean, first we had NTIA’s Internet Use Survey, and then second we heard from the Census Bureau on the American Community Survey. I’d just like to pause to see if anybody has any questions they would like to put forward to our colleagues in person and in Washington, D.C. Sir, please. I believe you may have to use a microphone. You’re welcome to…

Audience: Hi. Do you hear me? Yes. Great. My name is Nenad Dorlich, and I would like to ask, does Census Bureau or NTIA collect any data in regards to sustainability, Internet and sustainability, like electricity consumption from the end user to data centers or CO2 equivalent emissions and such? And the second, I have a second question too, is do you compare your statistic or use data from commercial service provider, FCC, or any other source that may have this information also? Do you use them or compare your findings with them? Thank you.

Susan Chalmers: I’ll just pause to see if colleagues were able to capture the question. Rafi?

Heather Keene: Yeah, I guess for the Census Bureau, yeah, we have lots of different sources that we could potentially use that are collected by other agencies, not specifically the consumption from data centers per se, but we have used in other modeled products data from the Department of Energy, which collects data on energy consumption and detailed. We use that for a project to estimate what proportion of households use air conditioning, which is not asked in the AC. So we brought in that particular data. So the Department of Energy would, we could probably have a look to see what kind of detailed sources about energy consumption are available. And, yes, we do have third-party sources, just depending on the subject matter. The other administrative data that I was talking about that’s used in the LEIA model is data collected from the Federal Communications Commission FCC that measures broadband Internet availability for each county down to the block group level based on speeds that are advertised and the type of technology. So we have a lot of sources that we could potentially draw from. And, yes, we have from other agencies and from commercial sources. Rafi, do you want to add anything to that? Rafi, were you aware of any energy consumption sources that specifically look at data center consumption?

Rafi Goldberg: I am not. I think we would love to get our hands on this data if they were available somewhere. Yeah, I was just going to speak a little bit to the second part of the question. Right. And, you know, and just to add that, you know, in this session we’ve been talking about Internet adoption and usage data, whereas the FCC, as Heather mentioned, is the entity that collects data on where broadband infrastructure is actually available. So we do have that, you know, a whole other data source. And as Heather mentioned, that is actually one of the inputs into the experimental model for Project LEIA.

Audience: Thank you so much. Thank you for the question and thank you for the responses, colleagues. We have a question from an online participant. We’ll go to him next and then, sir, we’ll take your question after the online participant. So, Robert, please, the floor is yours. Yeah, thank you, the presenters. My question is I’m based here in Uganda and I work for a small organization called Youth in Technology and Development Uganda. Yes, I’ve been listening and down here we have a challenge of measuring Internet. I was wondering, do you offer capacity building training now to measure Internet for a small organization like mine, if interested in such?

Jaisha Wray: So I will briefly chime in that that is a very excellent point that we can take back to our colleagues in Washington to consider. We do think that there are great benefits to capacity building on this topic, so more to come. But we work closely with the U.S. Telecommunications Training Institute, and so it’s something to consider for the future. I don’t know if my colleagues online have anything to add.

Susan Chalmers: No, and Robert, we also have provided email addresses on one of those slides, so please let us know if you do not have those email addresses and we can find a way to provide them to you. Thank you for the question. Sir, please.

Audience: Thank you. I’m from RIPE NCC, the regional Internet registry that also operates the largest network of Internet measurement devices, so-called RIPE Atlas props and RIPE Atlas itself. So the question is about, well, when do we talk about the access to the broadband infrastructure? Do we also consider measuring the quality of this infrastructure? Because the access to it is not always the readiness of this infrastructure for the next level of digital economy, for the AI, for all the segmented reality, for this metaverse, et cetera. Do you also measure how do users use this Internet? So is it used only for primary functions or is it used for the access to AI or metaverse applications and activities? Do you think that there should be some measurement done to ensure, and efforts based on that, that should ensure the readiness of Internet infrastructure for the next level of Internet development and digital development? Thank you.

Luis Zambrano Ramos: So I’ll take the first part of the question and then pass it on to my colleagues. So at least for us, the NTIA Internet Use Survey does measure some online activities like social network usage, telework, and the like. We don’t, I think, get to the whole wide range of activities that people can do online, but we’re always looking to improve and iterate upon the survey instrument so that we can actually focus on the way that people are using the Internet today. And, Rafi, I don’t know if you have anything else to add to that.

Rafi Goldberg: Yeah, no, that is exactly right. And, you know, I would just add that in terms of the sort of direct network measurement, you know, there have been efforts at the FCC as well as in the private sector with firms like Ookla and Microsoft. and others to measure actual speeds and latency and other metrics related to the quality of the internet connection the folks actually experience, which I agree is another very important piece of the puzzle. So it’s not one of our programs, but I think another important area for us, certainly.

Audience: Thank you. We’re ready to share our sources as well and our knowledge for that. Thank you.

Susan Chalmers: Wonderful. Let’s let’s exchange information and we can we can be in touch after the session. Are there any other questions? Oh, yes, sir, please.

Audience: Thank you. I am I audible? All right. This is Joshua from Uganda, ISOC chapter. I have a question on the disaggregation. Do you do any disaggregation to maybe like internet in schools? Because I think you seem to focus on households. What about maybe in schools and in other institutions? Is that something you also measure? And how, if you do so? Thank you.

Susan Chalmers: Thank you. Excellent question made turn to our our colleagues in Washington.

Rafi Goldberg: Sure, I can start. So these are household surveys, which is which is why, you know, I think you’ve been hearing a lot about households. We do in the NTIA Internet use survey ask a range of questions about different locations of Internet use. And one of those is Internet use at school. So we do capture some information about that through this survey. I understand that there are other agencies throughout the government that also direct surveys towards the schools themselves. And through that, right. If you’re interested in learning more about how the school itself is using the Internet, those those would probably be the, you know, places to go for that information. But we do ask about Internet use at school, as well as using the Internet for online courses or training is one of the many activities that we ask about as well.

Susan Chalmers: Excellent, thank you. Anything to add from us on the census side?

Leslie Davis: Yes, hi. So, yeah, Rafi is exactly right on the ACS side. I think we’re a little bit restricted in terms of how the questions are mandated. And as a result, the questions are at the highest household level. But there are other sources, I believe, within the census as well on other surveys that get more at the school level or how trainings are done at the school level.

Luis Zambrano Ramos: And actually, one thing I want to plug in is one of, I believe, Leslie or Heather’s slides, it’s data.census.gov for access to various census data products.

Susan Chalmers: Thank you, just checking if we have any questions.

Andrew Flavin: Nothing more online.

Susan Chalmers: OK, any any questions from the room? Please.

Audience: So a quick one from international think tank perspective. When we speak to member states, the trouble is not just data collection, but actually using it for targeted initiatives for those who are not yet included or using the Internet. So how does your data collection feed in to the decision-making process at county or state or central federal government level to really make initiatives that target those geographical segments and those household and user segments that are not yet got the access, got the skills, or not yet using the Internet for various functions, anything from, you know, participating in public discourse, using government services online, shopping online, banking online. How is your data collection feeding into that to really ensure that we get those who are excluded online and included? Thanks.

Susan Chalmers: Thank you for the question. May I turn to Rafi, would you be able to offer a response to the question?

Rafi Goldberg: Yeah, you know, I think, you know, I have heard from many state broadband offices in particular that, you know, they like to make use of our data when, you know, they’re designing programs to, you know, serve their their constituents. So certainly, you know, at the federal level, we don’t have a monopoly on how we use these data, you know, certainly state and local governments and nonprofits and the private sector make use of these data all the time for their own work. You know, and, you know, it is not uncommon for us here at NCIA and elsewhere in the government to cite some of our data, for example, in an FCC filing or you know, in another venue where, you know, we are, you know, analyzing various policy issues. So, you know, so that I think is, you know, part of how this is helpful. But, you know, we certainly don’t think that we have a monopoly on, you know, how to best make use of the data. One very important feature of these data sets is they’re all available for public use and researchers and advocates on the outside do a lot of great things using our data.

Susan Chalmers: Thank you so much, Rafi. We just have a few minutes left. I would just like to invite the audience to share any of their experiences on measuring Internet use. Please feel free. We did flag these questions towards the top of the session, but we still do have some time if anybody would like to contribute.

Audience: Well, I can share a bit about our experience not about sharing Internet or measuring Internet use, but with the initiative that is called Internet Measurement Day that we do together with ICANN and we do it in different countries going there and just trying to show the country how to use the Internet measurement instruments to see what is their counter position on routing security, what is their counter position on the interconnection with other countries, what is their counter condition about the peering inside the country? So I guess we should have similar activities so we can have more understanding how we can improve the situation to have these networks ready because we talk a lot about these digital services, but there should be also the understanding that to ensure these digital services, to ensure this next level to digital development, we should have an appropriate level of Internet development in the country, appropriate level of critical resilient infrastructures in the country, route servers, IXPs, all the stuff that is connected and that is equivalent to the needs of digital economy and society of the future. Of now, because now is the future.

Susan Chalmers: Thank you, thank you so much. We are wrapping up and our time is concluding, so I just want to thank everybody for their contributions to this discussion and Jayshia, may I turn it to you to conclude?

Jaisha Wray: Sure. Again, thank you for participating. We really appreciated the active discussion. It’s clear there is a lot of interest in this topic. Our goal today was to introduce it and then to continue the discussion. So please feel free to reach out to us. Our virtual doors are open and we look forward to hearing from all of you and continuing to exchange lessons learned in this area and moving forward and exploring areas for cooperation as well. So again, thank you and we’ll see you next time. Take care. Thank you.