Uncategorized

Summary

This session at the Internet Governance Forum focused on financing self-sustaining community connectivity solutions, organized by the Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity. The discussion centered around a comprehensive report examining how to bridge the financial divide that prevents community networks from accessing adequate funding. Professor Luca Belli introduced the session, emphasizing that the report presents evidence-based research rather than opinions, analyzing various funding models from blended finance to social return on investment calculations.

Chris Locke from the Internet Society Foundation highlighted the challenge of transitioning community networks from grant-dependent “grantrepreneurs” to sustainable businesses, announcing a $30 million commitment over four years to support early-stage community connectivity projects. Marie Lisa Dacanay presented groundbreaking research on social impact measurement, demonstrating that community networks function as social enterprises providing three types of services: transactional, social inclusion, and transformational services. Her study of four cases across Asia and Africa showed social return on investment ratios consistently above one, with increasing value over time.

Claude Dorion’s structural analysis of 85 community connectivity initiatives revealed that most face significant financial constraints, with only a minority covering all costs through operational revenues. He advocated for blended finance mechanisms combining grants, loans, and flexible refundable products to address different aspects of project financing. Brian Vo and Nathalia Foditsch presented an investability analysis of nine community networks, finding strong demand and technical capacity but identifying structural barriers, particularly lack of access to capital and business planning skills.

The discussion concluded with recognition that community networks require specialized financing approaches that acknowledge their dual nature as infrastructure projects and social enterprises, emphasizing the need for multi-stakeholder partnerships and innovative funding mechanisms.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Financing challenges and solutions for community networks**: The discussion extensively covered the “financial divide” within the digital divide, exploring how community-centered connectivity initiatives (CCIs) struggle to access appropriate funding and transition from grant-dependent organizations to financially sustainable enterprises.

– **Social impact measurement and return on investment**: Significant focus on demonstrating that community networks generate measurable social value beyond traditional connectivity services, with research showing Social Return on Investment (SROI) ratios above 1.0 and increasing over time across multiple case studies.

– **Investment readiness and blended finance models**: Analysis of community networks’ readiness for investment, revealing that while technical capacity and demand are strong, structural barriers exist around business planning, capital access, and the need for mixed financing approaches combining grants, loans, and flexible refundable products.

– **Multi-stakeholder partnerships and coordination**: Emphasis on the necessity of bringing together diverse actors including donors, development finance institutions, private investors, governments, and community organizations to create comprehensive financing ecosystems for community networks.

– **Infrastructure and operational sustainability**: Discussion of practical challenges including equipment costs (CAPEX), operational expenses (OPEX), energy access, spectrum licensing, and the relationship between connectivity and renewable energy solutions in underserved communities.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to present research findings and practical solutions for financing self-sustaining community connectivity initiatives, moving beyond traditional grant-based models toward sustainable investment approaches that recognize community networks as social enterprises with measurable impact and commercial viability.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was consistently professional, collaborative, and optimistic throughout. Speakers demonstrated deep expertise while maintaining accessibility, with frequent acknowledgment of colleagues’ contributions. The atmosphere was solution-oriented rather than problem-focused, with participants building on each other’s presentations to create a comprehensive picture of both challenges and opportunities. The tone remained constructive and forward-looking, emphasizing concrete evidence and practical next steps rather than theoretical discussions.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Luca Belli** – Professor at FGV Law School in Rio de Janeiro, Chair of the Dynamic Coalition Community Connectivity

– **Chris Locke** – Executive Vice President and Managing Director of the Internet Society Foundation

– **Carlos Rey Moreno** – From APC (Association for Progressive Communication), Remote moderator, Policy and program work in digital development

– **Marie Lisa Dacanay** – Founding President of the Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia

– **Claude Dorion** – Director of MCE Conseil

– **Nathalia Foditsch** – Director of International Programs at Connect Humanity

– **Brian Vo** – Chief Investment Officer at Connect Humanity, Investment and strategy expert with almost 20 years of experience

– **Carl Elmstam** – Policy and Program Manager on Digital Development at SIDA (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency)

– **Alessandra Lustrati** – Head of Digital Development at the UK Government Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO)

– **Audience** – Various audience members who asked questions and made statements

**Additional speakers:**

– **Senka Hajic** – Colleague and friend of Luca Belli, co-proposer of the meeting (mentioned as not present)

– **Gustav** – Representative from Common Room (mentioned and acknowledged in audience)

– **Risper** – Representative from Tandanet Community Network (mentioned as present)

– **Saul** – Former member of Zanzaleni (mentioned as online participant)

# Financing Self-Sustaining Community Connectivity Solutions: A Comprehensive Analysis

## Executive Summary

This session at the Internet Governance Forum, organised by the Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity, presented evidence-based research on bridging the financial divide that prevents community networks from accessing adequate funding. The discussion brought together academics, investors, development finance professionals, and practitioners to examine approaches for transitioning community connectivity initiatives from grant-dependent organisations to financially sustainable enterprises. The session revealed strong consensus on the need for blended finance mechanisms whilst highlighting the unique characteristics of community networks as social enterprises that generate measurable social returns alongside connectivity services.

## Introduction and Context

Professor Luca Belli from FGV Law School in Rio de Janeiro opened the session by emphasising that the Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity has been working on these issues for a decade, with all reports available at comconnectivity.org. He noted that the presented research represents evidence-based analysis backed by thoroughly researched papers examining various funding models from blended finance to social return on investment calculations. Carlos Rey Moreno from APC served as remote moderator for the session.

Belli explained that whilst his colleague Senka Hajic, co-proposer of the meeting, could not attend, the session would present comprehensive findings on how community-centred connectivity initiatives can achieve financial sustainability. He highlighted that community networks create positive externalities locally, decentralising connectivity whilst generating new wealth in economic and social terms, positioning these networks as examples of multi-stakeholder partnerships that build concrete solutions.

## The Challenge of Grant Dependency

Chris Locke, Executive Vice President and Managing Director of the Internet Society Foundation, introduced a critical perspective on current funding approaches. He observed that “often we create grantrepreneurs not entrepreneurs,” explaining that development organisations inadvertently train community networks to excel at securing grants rather than building sustainable businesses. This creates a fundamental challenge: the skills required for grant acquisition differ significantly from those needed for commercial viability.

Locke announced the Internet Society’s co-fund with Meta, totalling $30 million with Meta contributing 6.3 million, to support early-stage community connectivity projects. However, he emphasised that this funding must be coupled with proper training and capacity building to help organisations transition from grant dependency to sustainable business models.

## Community Networks as Social Enterprises

Marie Lisa Dacanay, Founding President of the Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia, presented research that redefines how community networks should be understood and evaluated. Her analysis of four case studies – Kasepuan Ciptagilar in Indonesia, Patardi in India, Tandanet in Kenya, and Senzeleni in South Africa – revealed that community-centred connectivity initiatives function as social enterprises providing three distinct types of services:

1. **Transactional services**: Basic connectivity and communication functions

2. **Social inclusion services**: Digital literacy, community engagement, and access facilitation

3. **Transformational services**: Economic empowerment, education enhancement, and social development

This categorisation explains why traditional ISP metrics and investment criteria prove inadequate for evaluating community networks. Dacanay’s study demonstrated social return on investment (SROI) ratios consistently above 1.0, with increasing value creation over time. The SROI methodology employed development indexing tools to quantify social impacts, providing concrete evidence that community networks generate measurable value beyond simple connectivity provision.

## Structural Analysis of Financing Constraints

Claude Dorion, Director of MCE Conseil, presented a comprehensive structural analysis of 85 community connectivity initiatives across three continents. His research revealed that most community networks face significant financial constraints, with only a minority able to cover all costs through operational revenues. The analysis identified access to financial solutions, fundraising capabilities, and equipment costs as the primary constraints.

Dorion’s findings demonstrated that community networks face particular difficulty in demonstrating performance and social impact to the financial sector, creating barriers to accessing appropriate funding. To address these challenges, he advocated for blended finance mechanisms that recognise the different financing needs of community networks, proposing a structure combining impact financing through grants, equipment through loans, and working capital through flexible refundable products.

## Investment Readiness and Market Analysis

Brian Vo, Chief Investment Officer at Connect Humanity, and Nathalia Foditsch, Director of International Programs, presented an investability analysis of community networks from an investor perspective. Brian noted his experience with a portfolio of projects totalling $7 billion. Their cross-sectional analysis of nine community-centred connectivity initiatives employed actual investment underwriting criteria, providing practical insights into investment readiness.

The analysis revealed encouraging findings regarding market fundamentals: demand for connectivity proved real with many networks achieving 30-50% take rates, and technical capacity demonstrated credibility. However, the research identified significant structural barriers that prevent community networks from accessing capital markets effectively.

Growth limitations stemmed primarily from lack of access to capital for CAPEX rather than operational expenses. The analysis found that whilst community networks possess strong technical capabilities, they require substantial support in developing business planning capabilities beyond their technical expertise. Brian recommended that the ecosystem requires a portfolio perspective rather than single-deal approaches to spread risk effectively, and suggested developing bespoke underwriting tools specifically designed for community networks.

## Development Finance Perspectives

Carl Elmstam, Policy and Program Manager on Digital Development at SIDA (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency), provided insights into development finance institution perspectives. He outlined a multi-layered investor structure with grants and guarantees providing the foundation, development finance institutions occupying the middle layer, and potentially private investors participating at the top with reduced risk exposure.

Elmstam acknowledged significant challenges in combining Official Development Assistance (ODA) funding with commercial investments, noting that ODA grants should not generate profits, creating complications when structuring blended finance mechanisms. He emphasised that portfolio approaches enable aggregation of community connectivity initiatives to spread risk and unlock capital at scale.

Alessandra Lustrati, Head of Digital Development at the UK Government Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), outlined her organisation’s support for last-mile connectivity through both policy and regulatory frameworks and community-level business model testing. She emphasised that development finance should focus on creating better business environments for social enterprises and community networks.

## Energy Infrastructure Challenges

A critical operational issue that emerged throughout the discussion was energy supply. When Carlos Rey Moreno relayed a question from the chat about energy availability, several speakers acknowledged this as fundamental to network sustainability. Community networks in underserved areas often lack access to grid electricity, making renewable energy solutions essential for sustainable operations.

Gustav from Common Room, who was recognised as being present in the audience, briefly mentioned their experience with micro-hydro power in Ciptagelar, highlighting practical approaches to addressing energy challenges in community network deployments.

## Practical Implementation Challenges

The discussion revealed significant practical challenges facing community networks in their daily operations. An audience member representing Tandanet Community Network (with Risper from Tandanet noted as being present) highlighted that most community networks rely heavily on volunteers and personal resources due to limited donor funding, typically under $15,000. This funding level proves insufficient for the network equipment required to expand and serve larger areas effectively.

The practitioner perspective challenged some assumptions about commercial viability, arguing that community networks should be treated as social goods requiring ongoing subsidy, similar to health and education funding. This intervention highlighted the tension between social mission and financial sustainability that characterises community network operations.

## Areas of Strong Consensus

The discussion revealed high consensus across diverse stakeholders on several key issues:

**Blended Finance Necessity**: All speakers agreed that community networks require blended finance approaches combining grants, loans, and flexible financing mechanisms. This consensus emerged from recognition that single funding sources cannot address the complex needs of community networks as both infrastructure projects and social enterprises.

**Portfolio Risk Management**: Participants consistently emphasised that portfolio approaches aggregating multiple community networks prove essential for effective risk management and scaling investment. Individual projects present challenges in terms of scale and risk profile, but portfolio aggregation enables risk distribution whilst achieving economies of scale.

**Evidence-Based Analysis**: Strong consensus developed around applying rigorous, quantitative research methodologies to community networks, representing a significant maturation of the field from advocacy-based approaches to evidence-based investment cases.

## Key Tensions and Disagreements

Despite overall consensus, the discussion revealed important tensions around sustainability models. The primary disagreement centred on whether community networks should transition toward commercial viability or remain grant-supported social goods. Chris Locke advocated for developing commercial sustainability through training and capacity building, whilst community practitioners argued for continued grant support recognising the social good nature of connectivity services.

This tension reflects deeper philosophical questions about the purpose and nature of community networks. Whilst technical approaches to blended finance showed broad agreement, fundamental questions about long-term sustainability models remain contested within the community.

## Unresolved Implementation Challenges

Several critical implementation challenges emerged that require further development:

**ODA Compliance**: How to effectively combine Official Development Assistance funding with commercial investments without violating restrictions on profit generation remains unresolved, creating structural barriers to implementing proposed blended finance mechanisms.

**Standardised Impact Measurement**: Whilst social return on investment methodologies show promise, developing standardised methods for community networks to demonstrate performance and social impact to the financial sector requires further work.

**Regulatory Harmonisation**: Creating appropriate legal and regulatory frameworks that support community network licensing and spectrum access across different jurisdictions presents ongoing challenges for scaling investment approaches.

## Future Directions

The session concluded with recognition of several key development needs: establishment of facilities and funds that can aggregate demand and provide portfolio-based financing rather than deal-by-deal approaches; development of technical assistance programs paired with investment capital; and continued coordination across diverse stakeholder groups to resolve remaining structural barriers around regulatory frameworks, impact measurement, and funding mechanism design.

## Conclusion

This comprehensive discussion demonstrated significant maturation in understanding community network financing challenges and opportunities. The convergence of evidence-based research, practical investment analysis, and development finance expertise has created a foundation for advancing beyond traditional grant-based approaches toward sophisticated blended finance mechanisms.

The recognition of community networks as legitimate infrastructure investments with measurable social returns, combined with concrete funding commitments from major organisations, suggests positive momentum for addressing the financial divide in digital inclusion. However, successful implementation will require continued coordination across diverse stakeholder groups and resolution of remaining structural barriers.

The session’s emphasis on evidence-based approaches and practical implementation, combined with strong consensus on key principles, provides a foundation for developing the multi-stakeholder partnerships and innovative funding mechanisms necessary to achieve sustainable community connectivity at scale.

Luca Belli: All right, good morning to everyone and welcome to this session on financing self-sustaining community connectivity solutions My name is Luca Belli. I’m professor at FGV Law School in Rio de Janeiro and I also chair the dynamic coalition community connectivity that has proposed this meeting together with my colleague and friend dr. Senka Hajic that unfortunately is not here today with us and This year also we have had the exceptional help of dr. Carlos Rey Moreno That is has been the driving force behind the this outstanding Output that we had this year not only because of the content but because we managed to have hard copies Printed and delivered three hours before I boarded the plane. So they are let’s say that also today We have a further incentive For participants to join us at the table here because there are copies here on the right and on the left Also a further benefit if you join us at the table is that the mic is open so you don’t have to queue to make questions and and make statements having said that let me start by Introducing our distinguished panelists today. We have from my right Chris Locke, Executive Vice President and Managing Director of the Intent Society Foundation Then we will have or we have here our already introduced and today playing the role of the remote moderator Carlos Rey Moreno from the APC Association for Progressive Communication that has also been really Instrumental in organizing this work this year and has been with us over the past 10 years of dynamic coalition. We have Alessandra Lustrati here who is Head of Digital Development at the UK Government Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office the FCDO Then on my left, we have Marie Lisa Dacanay Founding President of the Institute for Social Entrepreneurship in Asia and Here on site last but not least, of course We have Claude Dorion who is Director of MCE Conseil Now we have also we should have also online already our two remote participants, so remote speakers, sorry Natalia Fodic who I see her here. Good morning. Buongiorno Natalia Director of International Programs at Connect Humanity and then we will have Karl Elmström who is Policy and Program Manager on Digital Development at SIDA also has been another organization has been instrumental to the organization of this of this work Now before we start, let me just provide a couple of minutes of introductory remark to set the scene First for the participants here to understand what we have been doing over the past Decade and why we are here today and second to understand the theme of today The coalition has realized a very long series of reports and policy suggestions that is available on comconnectivity.org Everything is already available including the PDF freely downloadable of this book you can also try to Search and find it on the IGF website, but it is a very tough and frustrating experience So that is why we have a dedicated website, but it is also on the page of the coalition under the reports now we have been Discussing community networks pretty much all issues that can be analyzed on community networks over the past years and actually this has been useful because It has also allowed us to have retrospective Over the past ten years over the past decade on what could be done to improve the architectures the governance The funding indeed which is a very important point and is the main subject of today’s debate and of this book. So this volume of today and also the presentations of today try to contextualize which type of community networks exist, then what are the regulatory problems that do not facilitate the funding of community networks, and then what could be the solutions, starting from empirical evidence, and this is something I want to stress. The report here is not a collection of opinions, it’s a collection of facts, it’s a collection of very thoroughly researched papers that are backed with evidence and analyze what could be the possible models, spanning from blended finance to other community solutions to support the community network initiatives, until what could be the social return on investment of these initiatives, and that is something extremely novel in terms of research and extremely valuable also for investors, not only for people that want to build one. And then we conclude with some recommendations that could be used by policymakers, by funders, and by other organizations. Now let me stop speaking, which is the hardest part for an academic, and let me give immediately the floor to our introductory remark that will be performed by Chris.

Chris Locke: Thank you very much, thank you for having us here, and it’s great to be on such a fantastic panel. I would also like to make another pitch for the book. It is a great book, but also it has a fantastic foreword by my boss, so I’m contractually obliged to promote the book, but it is an astonishing piece of work. We at the Internet Society have been involved in community-centered connectivity programs for a very long time, for a significant chunk of our 30-year history. We’ve been driving this from a practical angle, we run training programs to support communities to learn the very basic skills of crimping wires and building and designing and deploying computer networks, all the way through to the policy angle where we’ve been instrumental in helping the ITU, African Union, and other regulators to look at regulation to support community networks and to make them available from a perspective of spectrum. So it’s something that’s very much a core part of the work that we do. When it comes to financing, what we see, and we are a grant-focused organization, so we’re very much, and I’ve been in meetings with pretty much everyone on this panel, if not today, then in the last few months, explaining the position that we play as a donor and as someone that can support community-centered connectivity at those early stages. What we do is take someone from effectively zero to a few thousand users. What we can do is put that grant capital and training and capacity building in the first place to help these new networks get off the ground, and what that allows us to do is also then start to train those community networks in what sustainability looks like, train them in exactly how they can move from being a grant-backed organization to one that has some legitimacy and some sustainability. And this is a very difficult jump to make. I was saying in a meeting earlier on that in a previous role talking to someone supporting social entrepreneurs in Kenya. He referred to the fact that often we create grantrepreneurs not entrepreneurs. We create organizations that are very good at moving from grant to grant and as donors and as organizations I think we train people to be good at getting grants from donors. It’s a very different skill to then transition into being a commercial business and being a sustainable business. So when we look at how we can drive self-sustaining community connectivity we have to understand how we put financing in place that can pick up after the grant stage that can move through blended finance solutions into the genuine economic sustainability of community networks. But we also have to make sure that we are very good at training people to be able to build organizations that can cross that divide and build into that space. We’re committing to this over the next four years of our five-year strategy at the Internet Society. We’re committing about 30 million in capital as part of our co-fund on community-centered connectivity that we launched at Mobile World Congress. We’re very fortunate to have Meta as a partner for that. They’ve put 6.3 million into that pot with us and we’re talking to other donors to come into this facility as well and we’re doing that because we believe that one of the best ways of making sure we build a very robust first stage of financing is through partnership, is through working with other donors and through working with a lot of people who are here today to make sure that there is a coordinated and sustainable way of getting that early grant financing in place and also so that we can then we all use our connective knowledge to see how we do prepare those community connectivity projects for the next stage of their growth and the next stage of their financing process. So we’re going to commit to do this over at least the next four years, bringing other donor money in place and what we want to be able to do is see some real success in the projects that we fund and some real success in the sector overall to make sure that we build community networks, whether they end up as cooperatives, whether they end up as social enterprises, that can exist past the grant stage and can grow and develop their capabilities and their businesses. Thank you.

Luca Belli: Thank you very much, Chris, for these remarks and also for stressing the role of the ISOC Foundation that has been also playing supporting community network initiatives over the past years. It’s also very good to know that that is an initial support and the final goal is to transform them into financially sustainable initiatives. Now let’s try to delve into the the contributions of our report today. We have the pleasure of having all the co-authors, at least if not all the authors. Lisa, you co-authored this piece towards measuring the social impact and cost effectiveness of community networks. It is an extremely interesting research, so please, the floor is yours.

Marie Lisa Dacanay: Thank you. So I’m going to be presenting the results of a research that we’ve had since last year on the social impact and cost effectiveness of community-centered connectivity initiatives. And to do this, I’ll be sharing with you the objectives of the study and the methodology that we used first. In terms of objectives, the study undertook social impact analysis of community-centered connectivity initiatives using two tools. One is development indexing and the other one is social return on investment. Development indexing assists in the quantification of social impacts on major stakeholder groups where simple proxy measures cannot be effectively used. So the final stage of development indexing is usually coming up with a scorecard of from 0 to 100, where we assign weights to specific key result areas where there has been significant impact and we are able to quantify the performance. But in this study, we didn’t have enough time to actually do the scorecard, but we were able to establish the significant social impacts of the community-centered connectivity initiatives that we studied. We also used social return on investment, which is a measure of cost-effectiveness, because it’s a ratio of financial and social outcomes to inputs and investments. So for a project or a community connectivity initiative to be sustainable or to be cost-effective, its SROI, or the social return on investment, needs to be greater than one. So we studied four cases, two in Asia and two in Africa. And the two cases in Asia are Kasepuan Ciptagilar Community-Centered Connectivity Initiative in West Java, Indonesia, which served the Sundanese indigenous villages there. And I’d like to just recognize the main actor in this initiative, Common Room. I think Gustav, could you stand so that they’ll know you? And then the second case was Patardi Community-Centered Connectivity Initiative in Maharashtra, Western India, where 99% of the population are part of the Warli tribe. So these are both indigenous communities. The third case from Africa is Tandanet Community Network. And I’d like to recognize our Tandanet stakeholders here. Risper is here with us. They operate in an urban slum in Kibera, Nairobi, Kenya. And the fourth case was Senzeleni. Community Centred Connectivity Initiative, working in Mankwosi and Situhele rural villages in Eastern Cape, South Africa. Now, I think one of the more important findings that we had from this research is that community centred connectivity initiatives are not just ordinary enterprises, but they are social enterprises, meaning to say they’re social mission driven. As social enterprises, they actually offer three types of services. The first type of service is what we call transactional services. These are connectivity services accessed through financial or other form of agreed transaction in exchange for the service. These are services that even commercial ISPs offer. But the two other kinds of services are services that are not offered by ordinary ISPs, which are what we call social inclusion services, which are oriented towards addressing digital exclusion and meaningful connectivity or other factors behind the usage gap. They enable connectivity to assist the poor and marginalized to have better access to basic needs, to social and economic services. For example, in some of the communities that we studied, the internet services were being provided in a way that was also building the capability of the marginalized stakeholders to use the internet in an effective way to improve their quality of life. The third type of services is what we call transformational services. They’re oriented at enabling the poor and excluded to have the capability to become actors in their own development, to enable their capability to own, govern, and manage digital resources to positively impact on their lives and their communities. These are actually services that are provided to the organizations and leaders who provide the connectivity service in the community so that they’ll have the capability to govern, maintain, and sustain the delivery of the services. What we found is that the significant social impacts of community-centered connectivity initiatives have been mainly facilitated not by transactional services, but by social inclusion and transformational services. On the screen, you would see some examples so that it’s clearer to you. A transactional service would be, for example, the provision of internet service through vouchers that Kasipuan Chip Tagilar does. But social inclusion services would include digital literacy training, online publishing of curricula and training materials for the villagers. It would include podcasts, workshops, or local content development, and the development of a village culture through digital storytelling. These are some of the services that Kasipuan Chip Tagilar, as a community-centered connectivity initiative, actually provides the village. The transformational services included training and capacity building of technicians and locals to undertake monitoring, maintenance, and repair of internet tools and devices. Also, capacity building and support to set up and manage SIGA Sakula, or the media lab, which is actually the lab that creates local content for use by the communities. And then also capacity building for locals to manage and extend internet services to adjacent villages. So it’s not just the immediate village, but other villages as well. What is also very clear in the study is that the four cases showed that social inclusion and transformational services facilitated impacts that clearly demonstrate the value proposition for investing in community-centered connectivity initiatives as they relate to at least six. six key result areas. And we proved in the research, of course, we did the four cases and they’re actually available. We will be making them available online, apart from the integrative report that’s available already here in the publication. The first is increased levels and capacities for inclusive human development, the improvement in the economic position and conditions of community stakeholders, more effective preservation of the cultural identity, heritage, and integrity of the community, because three of the cases were actually in indigenous communities, increased levels and capacities for climate action and natural resources management, the empowerment of the community to control, govern, and manage internet and digital resources, as well as the inclusion and empowerment of women as stakeholders in digital transformation. Just to show you more clearly what these key result areas mean, and because of the lack of time, let me just show you what improvement in the economic position and conditions of community stakeholders look like for the cases in Asia. For Kasipuan Chiptagilar Community Centered Connectivity Initiative, this was expressed in terms of increasing assets, not only in terms of household assets, but the increase in financial resources to support the increase in the consumption or avoidance of over-borrowing. A second element of this key result area of improving the economic position and conditions of community stakeholders was increase in business transactions and new business enterprises. There was an increase in the trade or transactions of existing micro-entrepreneurs, as well as an increase in employment generation. A third was a greater sustainability of the agricultural sector that was expressed in terms of improved capability to use new adaptive farming techniques to climate change, integrating traditional practices with new technologies. It was also expressed in terms of greater intergenerational sustainability because the involvement of young farmers was actually facilitated. In India, with the Pathardi Community Centered Connectivity Initiative, improvement in the economic position and conditions of the community stakeholders was expressed in terms of financial empowerment of the tribal women who started generating their income as the sellers of the vouchers, and tribal women also started to open their bank accounts. Third was an expansion of markets online, which was manifested by the increased customer base and improved earnings of those who actually were selling online. The other finding, I think, that was very significant with the use of the social return on investment methodology, we were able to show that over a period of three to four years that the social return on investment ratio was above one for all of the community-centered connectivity initiatives. If you’ll notice from year one to year two to year three to year four, it is an increasing trend. That means that the cost effectiveness is actually what is being shown, and there’s an increase in the social value created over time. In conclusion, may I just say that the study that we did proved that community-centered connectivity initiatives provide social inclusion services and transformational services that generate significant social impacts beyond what commercial ISPs can offer. Secondly, social inclusion and transformational services facilitated impacts that clearly demonstrated the value proposition for investing in community-centered connectivity initiatives as they relate to the KRAs, the key result areas that I already explained to you earlier, and that the social return on investment ratios being all above one and their consistent upward trend every year demonstrates that there is an increase in the social value created by community-centered connectivity initiatives over time so that CCCIs are actually cost-effective in bridging the digital divide. Thank you.

Luca Belli: Thank you very much, Maria-Liza, for this excellent presentation and also for sticking to the time. Actually, this provides very concrete evidence to what we have been arguing for some years about the positive externalities that community networks generate locally and how they not only decentralize connectivity but also create new wealth, not only in economic terms but also in other terms that are much more difficult to measure, which is the social impact. Excellent. Now, the next presentation will be by Claude Dorion, and he has an excellent chapter with co-authors, including also Carlos, on Breaking the Financial Divide of Digital Divide, which is a title I really like very much.

Claude Dorion: Yes, good afternoon to all. I’ve got a slide presentation that would support a 40-minute presentation. I’m going to try to be as succinct as possible. What we did was to make an analysis, a structural analysis of the financial needs of the community-oriented connectivity initiatives in relationship with the financing opportunities. And we did this through a survey where 85 different initiatives coming from three continents participated in our operation. So, it allowed us to have some crossover presentation of the different challenges that are encountered by the organization. On the first aspect, you have on this slide some quantitative demonstration of Lisa’s presentation where the connectivity initiatives themselves have the evaluation that they do have a clear social impact on their community. They allow people to increase their economic situation. They help to get access to social and health services. And they contribute as well to build a more integrated community where different services are available to all members. So, it’s like a macroeconomic demonstration of the single case studies that Lisa just presented. We believe that in some kind of way, the financial divide that we are observing in the access for financial solutions for connectivity initiatives are based in a fractious dialogue between external environment being the regulation, the territory where we have to develop the projects, the characteristic of the community, and the technology that has to be used efficiently to cover the services on one hand. On the other hand, you have the challenges coming from internal function and origin of the projects where we have, in most cases, a challenge of size and low density of the service which will bring average cost for user a little higher. And we always have, we encounter the constant hesitation between articulating the equilibrium between the social accessibility of the service and a sustainable pricing policy that will allow to offer the service on a long term basis. And there’s also a question of skills to be supported and enhanced being on the technical operation of the service and also on its marketing and management aspect. And the other element that represents a challenge for the initiatives is that they have some difficulty to demonstrate exactly their performance as an operator and their social impact as an actor of their community and that will bring constraints in their dialogue with the financial sector. With the financial sector, we see some relational gasp coming from the expectations as the return that we should expect from an investment on one side, but also on the documentation of the projects where we have to get a closer mutual understanding on how do we present a connectivity project to a financial actor and how the financial actor has to consider all kinds of impact in the way to assess the investment possibility. We also have the difficulty coming from the perception of the higher management cost of doing small financial operation and the perceived risk coming from the non-profit nature of those operations. We asked our sample of initiatives what were their main constraints in raising their project and developing their project and you see on this slide that they are multi-factored but there is a high density of participants that underline clearly that access to financial solution, fundraising, the cost of equipment, all financial related issues are among the main constraints that they are encountering. We also asked them for their different challenges and you see there again that the cost of the equipment is important, the cost of funding, difficulty to have access to some technical services as well are all issues that they have to overcome. Among the organization that we surveyed, we see all kinds of different financial situations on the level of covering the total cost coming from the operational revenues coming from the operations and you see here that there is just a minority of the initiatives surveyed that cover all the cost with their autonomous revenues and that this part of this rate of covering the cost is quite variable coming from zero up to a few minor minority cases where there is a full coverage of cost coming from the revenues and this will depend mostly on the social policy and the type of population that are covered by the service. Here, this is not a contemporary art try and failure, it’s a graphic demonstration of the very large diversity of solutions that are put forward by the initiatives as how do we split the revenues from private fees paid by the user, community financing, public grants, municipal or local government support and not only that there are different recipes but there is also a different mixture of those different sources that are used depending on the countries and the regions where the initiatives are active and this implies… I want to emphasize that with different size of operation and different level of autonomous revenues and different solution as blended source of revenues you will have to encounter different kind of financing in order to accompany those initiatives into keeping operating and developing their revenues. And one of the basic strategy for us is we really have to build on a mixture of financial products where impact will be mostly financed through grants. Equipment and assets will be mostly financed by loans and the working capital and the risk part of the operation should be at least partially financed by flexible refundable financial products. And that together those three kind of sources should be involved in each project because they are self-reinforcing. The strategy of sharing a project between debt equity and grant allows the grant part to reduce the risk perception by the refundable part of the financing and by consequence will help to reduce the interest rates that will be expected from the players. And the fact that bringing some debt part in the financing of the projects that are historically mainly depending on grants will allow the system to accompany more projects and to increase the volume of financing that may be available for each project. Right now as you see in this slide all the CCIs that we surveyed had more than one type of financing that was involved in their project. The red financing that you see are all refundable and the blue financing are all non-refundable and you see that international corporation being philanthropy or corporation development agencies are the main players that we most frequently see in those cases that we surveyed but they never are alone in financing a project. So in my last 40 seconds at least our main proposal and message is that there is a clear need and pertinence to bring a financial mechanism that will be blended finance in order to increase the volumes that are available for the connectivity. initiative that are led and made for communities and that that kind of project should allow to increase the size of the projects and even if it has to pay a certain part of interest on its financing it should allow to lower the cost per user with an economies of scale. So that was the main message with the importance of having a flexible answer that has to be adapted to each and every CCI that has to be supported.

Luca Belli: Thank you very much. Thank you very much Claude for highlighting, for providing us a good very good and detailed mapping and also starting to put forward what could be the solutions right which is the the direction towards we are starting to move especially with the next presentation by Nathalia Foditsch and Brian Vo. Sorry I forgot to mention that this will we will have also have Brian Vo in the picture so connected with us remotely. He is Chief Investment Officer of Connect Humanity and they are co-author of this excellent paper on building an impact investing market for community-centered connectivity. Please Nathalia the floor is yours. Hi everyone. I’m really happy to be here with you remotely. I wish I was there

Nathalia Foditsch: in person. So good to see many of you and this this study was commissioned by APC so I would like to thank APC and also all the community center and internet providers we have talked to. I know that some of them are I mean Lisa mentioned that Gustav is there in person and also our colleague from Tendernet. I see Saul online that used to be at Zanzaleni. So thank you everyone for providing valuable inputs and and helping us developing this study. So it’s a first cross-sectional analysis of community-centered internet providers in the global south through the lens of investability. So nine initiatives were assessed and and the initiatives were in South America, Africa and Asia. And as some colleagues have mentioned before this is more important than ever because well first of all I think I might be mistaken but I think it’s the first time we have a DT tree discussion at IGF focusing specifically on financing. So while this has been a need for a long time I’m glad to see that we are finally finally starting to add that to the agenda here too. And we have seen some major challenges over the past months right in regards to financing development. So I’m really glad we are talking about grand entrepreneurs as Chris has mentioned. And I would like to introduce my colleague Brian who is the Chief Investment Officer at Connect Humanity. And he, you know, is really an expert in this field. He has almost 20 years of investment and strategy experience. And he has a portfolio of projects he has been involved in of $7 billion. So he knows what he’s talking about, right? So he’s going to present the study. And we both will be here for questions later.

Brian Vo: Thanks, Nathalia. And thank you all for having us. I think it’s really been a joy to work with APC and also collaborate with Claude and MCE. And I think a lot of the aha moments that we had was really looking at it both from the supply side of the capital but also the demand side of the capital. And that was the part of the equation that we really focused on. So what did we do? As Nathalia mentioned, we analyzed nine different CCIs across the world. But why did we do that? What we wanted to add to the conversation was beyond some of the top-down evaluations of what does the market need, what do CCIs need. We wanted to look at it from a bottom-up nature to really start with the finish line of if we looked at these organizations as potential investments as an investor, how might we underwrite it? Would we do an investment as they are right now? If not, what might be some of the gaps that would be preventing us from doing an investment today? And so that really was the goal of it to say, let us purely look at this from an investment underwriting perspective. What might we be able to learn about the organizations and really the state of readiness? Because I know there’s a lot of conversation around investment readiness and investment ready. And so with that lens, with that mindset, we used our underwriting risk framework that we’ve used for all of our real investments, actual investments. And that’s centered around five major things. First is looking at the network technical design. How is the network designed? How is the organization thinking about construction, operation, engaging the community, getting subscribers, maintaining the network? staff build out, etc. Second one was around community engagement. How are they thinking about getting that right to play? How are they estimating actual demand? How are they thinking about pricing their products and services? That culminated in the third thing around business model. So these are all the parts of the equation, but how is the team then bringing it together to say, here really is our business plan, our projections, our expected financials, the gaps in the types of capital we might be needing. Fourth was then a portfolio impact. So we wanted to mimic it really from an investor perspective, where investors wouldn’t just look at an opportunity in isolation. I’m going to look at potentially investing in this organization and how the economics of that particular deal fit into my broader portfolio. Does it weight average my returns up or down? Does it weight average my collective risk up or down? And then the fifth one was around legal and compliance. Those were some of the more standard fare of like, do you have the right licenses, permits, audits, financial audits to date? So that’s what we did. Here is a snapshot of the organizations that we were able to engage. So as you can see, we were quite intentional in really trying to get that cross section from really representation across the global south. So what is it that we learned? The first one is demand is real. And I don’t think that’s going to be news to anybody online or in the room, but it was very, I think, inspiring to see how potent that demand really was and how the organizations, the CCIs were able to capture that, communicate that. With many of them, with a few years under operation, having take rates in the 30 to 50% range. So from an investment perspective, really great to see. I think here is also great to see a lot of innovation around the business model, how different CCIs might capture that demand in terms of some might have subscription types of products where others had vouchers. The second major thing that we learned was the technical capacity is very credible. The level of depth in how the CCIs spoke about the thoughtfulness of designing the network, different types of equipment that they were using, redundancy and resiliency to their network was really impressive. I think there was such a depth in the problem solving and the grasp of the technicalness of really connecting the unconnected. So really that technical expertise we saw really in spades. The third one then is growth is primarily blocked by structural barriers. And what are some of the structural barriers that we saw? First and foremost, is lack of access to capital. One of the primary things we’re talking about here, but it seemed to be more on the CAPEX side rather than the OPEX side. Most of the organizations we analyzed were financially sustainable in some way, at least on the operating side. And so it really was that CAPEX, that upfront infusion that they needed to either And this was definitely jurisdiction by jurisdiction, but anywhere from spectrum and licensing all the way through to eligibility for different subsidies. So, what now? The first one is we saw a huge opportunity to design better capital. Claude mentioned a few potential financing tools. I think when we look at broadband in particular and CCIs, it is just a different business model. It is a different type of business and organization that is not just infrastructure, but also not just community or civil society. So, the need to create a financing product that makes more sense for this type of business has been a big need. Part of that also is it seems like the ecosystem also needs to step away from just thinking about a single deal perspective and thinking about it as a portfolio perspective. While we looked at nine, some might be on the margins, invest or don’t invest, invest ready or not ready. But I would say the more that we are able to aggregate those underlying CCIs together, you are actually more able to spread the risk, the project risk, the connectivity risk, the financial risk across several CCIs. And that might be a better way to unlock capital at scale and deploy capital. Capital at Scale, Funding Technical Assistance. Now, earlier when I mentioned the technical understanding was really strong and deep. There was a variation, a pretty big variance in the understanding of business planning, business modeling, translating from, you know, grant-led organization to revenue and earned income led. So being able to pair that technical assistance with investment, either pre or post investment, we think is also important. Treat this as infrastructure investing and not charity. That was, I think, a critical thing, aha moment for us when we were engaging with some who, you know, started as brands and nonprofits, are trying to figure out what their pricing model is. But there’s this like jump that I could see folks trying to make, even within their organization and internal dialogues about, you know, how do we evolve the organization really into a sophisticated, financially sustainable operator, not just, you know, nonprofit. And then lastly, catalyzing the market. I think we can do this by aggregating a lot of the demand through things like facilities and funds, not just looking at it through deal-by-deal. I think a second one is really developing bespoke underwriting tools and benchmarks here. If you’re copying and pasting an underwriting algorithm from another industry, it’s just not going to work for broadband. Connectivity is just, particularly for CCIs, it’s the intersection of way too many things to fit into, you know, the box of all their underwriting. And then lastly, figuring out how to align philanthropy with investment capital, I would say, on that fund or portfolio basis. So those were our biggest learnings. Turn it over back to you.

Luca Belli: Thank you, Brian. This is really enlightening. I think, yeah, Natalia, you are right, this is the first time we have an analysis from investors that actually could be a guide for investors that want to chip into this, invest into these initiatives, or actually also a guide that community network leaders and associations can use to reverse engineer it and know what to pitch to investors, which is also quite useful. And then also, I think I speak on behalf of all the panelists here saying that, Brian, if you need to invest your seven billions, please contact us and we will give you a lot of tips. Now, to go on with our presentations, and I would like to ask the last presenters to stick to time so that we still have a good 10 minutes to discuss. Karl Elström from Sida, thank you very much for being with us online and for having also supported this work. Please, Karl, the floor is yours.

Carl Elmstam: Thank you very much. And thanks for having me. Sorry to not be there in person, especially since I’m in the neighboring country. But I had to stay in Stockholm, but very happy to be here. So it’s a little bit with a rising sense of worry that I’ve seen the other presentations because basically you’ve covered sort of all my main points. But I’ll try to mention some things anyways. I mean, I think this is super timely, considering how many donors are reducing or are getting reduced budgets. We even see, you know, major withdrawals from development in some cases. So timing is great for this. So my experience is mostly from Sida. I started working with APC, I think, back in 2018. But for the last few years, I’ve been at the European Commission, seconded from Sweden to the European Commission. And I think, Claude, you had a slide where you had sort of relational challenges or something like that, you know, working with private investors or even DFI investors. And sort of combining that with development cooperation or, you know, civil society culture kind of, I think that should not be underestimated, those challenges. It’s basically like we, it’s different languages, right? There is clearly a need for facilitation or even interpretation. So that’s sort of an important point from my perspective. And looking at sort of the more technical sides of the financing, I mean, I was, for the last year or so, I’ve been working on, I was working on setting up a fund. So this fund was more commercially driven. And I mean, let’s also, you know, remember and not forget the fact that the connectivity market in many places in Africa is going to grow a lot. So there should be room for different types of actors, different types of investments. So the fund that I was working on or sort of the fund idea and structure, it was similarly to this sort of based on, you know, looking at existing types of investments in connectivity, but really ranging from submarine cables to mobile networks or even data centers could be included in this work that I did. And there, I think Brian also mentioned something important because you have to have a portfolio perspective, for sure, to reduce risk, to spread risk. But there is also important to consider, you know, you have to spread it in the right way, because in the end, you’ll be sitting there with a group of people and a fund manager who are identifying the projects to invest in. And of course, they can’t be experts in all types of digital infrastructures across all continents, because, you know, that would require a huge team to do that in an efficient way. So I think striking the right balance and basically allowing more of those community networks. that are sort of likelier to have high revenues and somehow grade it in order to be able to finance the one with high risk, basically. And of course, it makes complete sense. I think, Claude, you put it very clearly in your presentation. I mean, it’s really about bringing together a multi-stakeholder group to do the investments. I mean, at the bottom, there should be grant funding, which is for technical assistance or, you know, the setting up costs of whatever financial function you’re building, right? And actors like SIDA, we can do guarantees. I mean, the European Commission can also do guarantees to lower the risk for other investors. And of course, these other investors could be, you know, organizations like the World Bank or the European Investment Bank, the national DFIs, which clearly, I mean, they would also be interested in the social return of investment, right? But I think it’s important to see them as different layers, because depending on how commercial or how commercially viable the projects end up being, or how big a portion you have of the more commercially viable projects, you might even have private investors on the top. And of course, in a layered investor structure, it’s probably, well, of course, the ones who are giving out the guarantees or the grants at the sort of bottom of the structure, they will always be the most likely to lose the money or to lose their investments in case of failures. And the risk goes lower and lower, the higher you get in this structure. And not very fairly, but I guess, logical in another way, when there are some return on the investments, the people on the top of this gets repaid first. So, that’s where you might be able to even attract private investors, with or without guarantees. So, I hope that might be helpful. I mean, I think that there are similar cases that could be used, or that could sort of guide this a bit. But yeah, basically, although, sorry, there was one other thing. I think there will also be sort of a relational issue when you try to combine ODA, Development Assistance Funding, the grants, with companies, just as simple as that, because then you’ll run into issues of the ODA grants should not be able to generate profits. I mean, revenues, okay, probably fine. But if it goes sort of into the profit area, it becomes much more difficult. So, there are quite some challenges around that. But other than that, I think relational challenges, spreading the risk, you know, allowing a bit more of commercial things to come in to sort of carry the less commercial ones. Those would be sort of my highlights. But thanks a lot, and super excited to see all of this work progressing so much. So, thank you.

Luca Belli: Fantastic. Thank you very much, Karl, particularly for respecting the time, and also for highlighting something that we have strived to emphasize over the past decade, that is the community network are really fantastic examples of multi-stakeholder partnerships. And we frequently speak about multi-stakeholder dialogues, but we also should analyze more how stakeholders can interact together to build things, right. All right. So, the last, but of course not least, word to Alessandra Lustrati from FCDO, that also has been instrumental for the organization of this work. Please, Alessandra, for yours.

Alessandra Lustrati: Thank you so much, Luca, and wonderful to be here. Thank you for having me. And I’m in even deeper trouble than Karl, because obviously all the great points have been made. So, I’ll try to maybe add a little bit from the perspective of FCDO, of course, and how fundamental we think that this piece of work is, and all this process, but also how it fits within our broader approach to supporting last-mile connectivity through community-based solutions, and in particular community networks. A shout-out to the presence of Common Room and Tuna Panda in the room, because I’ve been on the roof of Tuna Panda to actually see the TV space technology in 2019, I think, and all the… almost broke a leg. And I have seen the bamboo tower in Ciptagelar with Gustav. So I feel that everything that we’re discussing in this room today, that might sound a little bit theoretical, we talk about broad, you know, big concepts like SROI and how can we work on the underwriting, etc. It is actually something extremely concrete that has a direct impact on people’s lives. And I am extremely proud of the work that has been done by others. I mean, I have almost no merit in all of this, but I’m really glad that we are progressing in this field. Just to zoom out very quickly, the reason why I’m speaking here with you is because from FCDO we’ve been basically supporting Last Mile Connectivity for many years. We did this in various ways, but at some point we decided that really supporting the community networks and community-based solution to Last Mile Connectivity was like a foundational block of digital inclusion, which is a key pillar of our digital development strategy 2024-2030. But this is just a new strategy. Of course, we’ve been doing this for many years. And in particular, through the Digital Access Programme, we’ve been having now for over four years, I think, the collaboration with and the partnership with the APC. And of course, CIDA have been great supporters of that. So as you can see, multi-stakeholder approach, different type of institutional donors who actually maybe work in different ways, but complement each other. Obviously, the social enterprises, the community networks, the experts in finance, obviously great NGOs like APC and ISOC as a fundamental actor in all of this. And of course, you know, the sort of academic and also research expertise, all of this has to come together to progress. We’ve been working on supporting digital inclusion, in particular, Last Mile Connectivity models, always working at two parallel levels. One is the level of policy, regulatory frameworks, standards and spectrum management. And we are committed as the UK to continue working on that so that we can create a better business environment actually for social enterprises and community networks for Last Mile Connectivity. And the other level is more like actually in the community and in the market, basically testing those technology and business models that make sense at the local level, that have to be very diverse, as Claude was saying, and that can become sustainable if we work, obviously, on the appropriate forms of access to finance. And this is also a topic that is very close to my heart because I have a background in SME finance in the olden days and digital financial inclusion. So I feel that, you know, it’s all coming together. Maybe I will just mention, given that we want to have at least a few minutes for the questions, of course, I’ll just mention maybe the points that have struck me the most in all the presentation. So the fact that we’ve managed now to really embed in our narrative the concept of social enterprise and SROI, as Liz explained. The fact that we think now differently about community networks and their investibility, although recognizing that we need a blended finance approach where we can’t expect the community networks to suddenly become from one day to the next. to the other fully viable for, for instance, private commercial investors. So the importance of starting from the grant side, but blending it directly with different type of finance. It would be interesting to do more in the future to understand the interaction of debt and equity in this. And I know that there are different schools of thought on what would be viable. And we’ve talked about the underwriting and how to actually analyze, you know, what are the different features of the community networks, even in different contexts. So seeing that the demand is really is real, that there is very deep tech capability. And of course, the work of APC and others partners in doing like the School of Community Networks, building local leadership, local technical capability, being able to do operational maintenance of community networks means that you have a really robust sort of entity that you can invest in. But there are the barriers. And I think I think Brian, if I’m not wrong, explained that really well in terms of both access to finance, but also the business capability of even just at the very basic level, not designing just a budget for a grant, but actually designing a proper budget and a focus for your business and proper accounts. And, you know, so growing the business capability also of community networks. So it’s the kind of demand side rather than just the supply side of which type of sources of finance and investment we can think of. The importance of aggregating and using scale to sort of distribute and spread risk, but also reach that critical mass that can reduce also the administrative costs and make everything more attractive for investors. And then maybe I’ll just come to the last point, that is, as the UK, we want to continue to be committed to add value where we can, because in through the digital access programme, what we can do with the type of finance that we have in that programme and in our digital development portfolio. And Karl made a really important point there about the use of ODD and how you can commingle it or not with other type of funds. We can continue to support things like technical assistance, capacity building, the broad business environment and, of course, reducing some of the costs of maybe the underwriting for the individual investment.

Audience: with night and one of the items I would like to highlight is the structure of community networks by the nature of the licenses that they have. They are supposed to be very much integrated into communities including ownership such that when you have to seek funding from investors and they look at your business model they see a lot of risks because we are looking more at social return on investment as opposed to you know the profits themselves. If you look at the area where we work, where people find it very difficult to pay ten dollars in a month then you need very large numbers to be able to break even. Some of us have actually had to pump personal resources. community networks to have them work because when we we try to seek funding we virtually not have at any one donor even give in excess of 15,000 dollars. When you look at the network equipment that are required to expand the network to serve a large area you realize that you need a lot of you know um amount to be spent on equipment especially around the CAPEX and OPEX so most of these community networks are relying much more on volunteers and other initiatives and I think it’s a high time that governments and donors look at them as social good and continue to pump money you know just like they do in health and education in order to have many people you know enjoy the benefits of digital opportunities. Thank you.

Luca Belli: Thank you very much for this very important statement. Do we have so I think now Carlos has energy so we can

Carlos Rey Moreno: sorry sorry about that um there is a question or there was a question in the chat I don’t see the person who asked it anymore maybe he left but is what is the relationship between connectivity availability and energy availability and perhaps also other humanitarian uses for any available energy and I don’t know if maybe in the context of climate finance and some other things that we are talking about whether any of the panelists or the the the also the research from from Lisa on the on the KRA around green and environmental impact whether there is any reflection there that you would like to share and highlight. Thank you.

Luca Belli: I see that Chris already has a reply for our 1 billion dollar question so please Chris go ahead.

Chris Locke: Just very quickly from the community networks that we work with when we talk to them about the extra development and capacity training that they want power comes up as one of the most common things and not just from the perspective of wanting to move to greener solutions from power but also, and we know this was the case, and I visited it recently in Tandernet, where surges in power cause outages. So power management, moving to greener solutions and being able to secure power in a way that allows a network to grow is probably the most requested thing we have as a training topic after the basics of networking and managing it as a business.

Marie Lisa Dacanay: From the experience of community networks we’ve studied, I think because we’re working with underserved and far-flung communities, they usually need power in the form of renewable energy because they don’t have access to the grid. So I think investments in green energy is very important side by side with investments for community connectivity initiatives. But maybe some of the community networks that are working on this, like Gustaf, you might want to come into the discussion about the relationship between energy and demand for energy and also connectivity.

Luca Belli: If you want to do so, you have one minute and eight seconds.

Audience: Well, thank you for the opportunity. In terms of energy supply, most of our project sites that we are working with, they are almost non-energy or electric supply. So we have to, like in Ciptagelar, we use micro-hydro power supply and the community are already running the micro-hydro power plant for quite some time and they are very skillful for that. So there are strong connections between green energy supply with community-centered connectivity. Thank you.

Luca Belli: Fantastic. As we only have 31 seconds left, I think this is time to wrap up and I would like to thank everyone. Also, I would also like to remember that on our site, comconnectivity.org, there are also our previous reports and one of them was also dedicated to exploring some of the issues on sustainability, but from a more environmental perspective. Some years ago, we have done a lot of work. So if you are into this topic, please go there and download as much as you want, because it’s free. And I would like to thank very much all the participants and all the speakers and particularly our friend Carlos. And if she can hear us online, our friend Senka Azic. And thank you very much for the great discussions. See you next year. Thank you.

Agreement points

Community networks require blended finance approaches combining grants, loans, and flexible financing

Speakers

– Claude Dorion
– Carl Elmstam
– Brian Vo
– Alessandra Lustrati

Arguments

Impact should be financed through grants, equipment through loans, and working capital through flexible refundable products

Multi-layered investor structure with grants/guarantees at bottom, DFIs in middle, and potentially private investors at top

The ecosystem needs portfolio perspective rather than single deal approach to spread risk effectively

Development finance should focus on creating better business environment for social enterprises and community networks

Summary

All speakers agree that community networks cannot rely on single funding sources and require sophisticated blended finance structures that combine different types of capital (grants, debt, equity) with appropriate risk distribution across multiple layers of investors.

Topics

Development | Economic

Community networks demonstrate real demand and technical capability but face structural barriers to growth

Speakers

– Brian Vo
– Claude Dorion
– Chris Locke

Arguments

Demand for connectivity is real with many networks achieving 30-50% take rates, and technical capacity is credible

Access to financial solutions, fundraising, and equipment costs are among the main constraints encountered by community connectivity initiatives

There’s a need to move from creating “grantrepreneurs” to sustainable businesses through proper training and capacity building

Summary

Speakers consistently recognize that community networks have proven market demand and strong technical expertise, but are held back by structural barriers, particularly around financing and business development capabilities.

Topics

Development | Economic | Infrastructure

Portfolio approach is essential for risk management and scaling community network investments

Speakers

– Brian Vo
– Carl Elmstam
– Claude Dorion

Arguments

The ecosystem needs portfolio perspective rather than single deal approach to spread risk effectively

Portfolio approach enables aggregation of CCIs to spread risk and unlock capital at scale

Blended finance allows grant funding to reduce risk perception and lower interest rates for refundable financing

Summary

All speakers emphasize that individual community network investments are too risky and small-scale, requiring portfolio approaches that aggregate multiple projects to spread risk and achieve economies of scale.

Topics

Development | Economic

Energy infrastructure is critical for community network sustainability and operations

Speakers

– Chris Locke
– Marie Lisa Dacanay
– Audience

Arguments

Power management and renewable energy access are critical infrastructure needs alongside connectivity

Community networks in underserved areas often require renewable energy solutions due to lack of grid access

Energy supply challenges directly impact network reliability and growth potential

Summary

There is clear consensus that energy infrastructure, particularly renewable energy solutions, is fundamental to community network operations and sustainability, especially in underserved areas without grid access.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that community networks are fundamentally different from commercial ISPs because they create broader social value and positive externalities that extend far beyond simple connectivity provision.

Speakers

– Marie Lisa Dacanay
– Luca Belli

Arguments

Community networks provide three types of services: transactional, social inclusion, and transformational services that generate significant social impacts beyond commercial ISPs

Community networks create positive externalities locally, decentralizing connectivity while generating new wealth in economic and social terms

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers recognize that while community networks have strong technical capabilities, they need significant support in developing business and commercial skills to transition from grant-dependent organizations to sustainable enterprises.

Speakers

– Chris Locke
– Brian Vo

Arguments

There’s a need to move from creating “grantrepreneurs” to sustainable businesses through proper training and capacity building

Investment readiness requires developing business planning capabilities beyond technical expertise

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches that combine policy/regulatory work with practical implementation, viewing community networks as concrete examples of effective collaboration.

Speakers

– Alessandra Lustrati
– Luca Belli

Arguments

FCDO supports last-mile connectivity through policy/regulatory frameworks and community-level business model testing

Community networks serve as examples of multi-stakeholder partnerships that build concrete solutions

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Unexpected consensus

Evidence-based approach to community network research and investment analysis

Speakers

– Luca Belli
– Marie Lisa Dacanay
– Brian Vo
– Nathalia Foditsch

Arguments

The report provides evidence-based analysis rather than opinions, backed by thoroughly researched papers

Social return on investment ratios above one demonstrate cost-effectiveness and increasing social value creation over time

Demand for connectivity is real with many networks achieving 30-50% take rates, and technical capacity is credible

Cross-sectional analysis of nine CCIs provides first investability assessment from investor perspective

Explanation

Unexpectedly, there is strong consensus on applying rigorous, quantitative research methodologies typically used in commercial investment analysis to community networks. This represents a significant shift from purely advocacy-based approaches to evidence-based investment cases.

Topics

Development | Economic

Recognition of community networks as legitimate investment opportunities rather than just social projects

Speakers

– Brian Vo
– Claude Dorion
– Carl Elmstam
– Chris Locke

Arguments

Growth is primarily blocked by structural barriers including lack of access to capital, particularly CAPEX rather than OPEX

Most initiatives cannot cover all costs with autonomous revenues and require blended financing approaches

Multi-layered investor structure with grants/guarantees at bottom, DFIs in middle, and potentially private investors at top

Internet Society commits $30 million over four years with Meta partnership to support early-stage community connectivity

Explanation

There is unexpected consensus among both development finance professionals and investors that community networks should be treated as legitimate infrastructure investments requiring sophisticated financial instruments, rather than simple charitable projects.

Topics

Development | Economic | Infrastructure

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion reveals remarkably strong consensus across all speakers on key issues: the need for blended finance approaches, the importance of portfolio-based risk management, the critical role of energy infrastructure, and the recognition of community networks as legitimate investment opportunities with proven social and economic returns. There is also agreement on the structural barriers facing community networks and the need for evidence-based approaches to demonstrate their value proposition.

Consensus level

Very high level of consensus with no significant disagreements identified. This strong alignment suggests the field has matured significantly, moving from advocacy-based arguments to evidence-based investment cases. The implications are positive for advancing community network financing, as the unified perspective from diverse stakeholders (academics, investors, development finance institutions, implementers) provides a solid foundation for developing coordinated financing mechanisms and policy frameworks.

Different viewpoints

Approach to sustainability – grants vs commercial viability

Speakers

– Chris Locke
– Audience

Arguments

There’s a need to move from creating “grantrepreneurs” to sustainable businesses through proper training and capacity building

Community networks rely heavily on volunteers and personal resources due to limited donor funding (typically under $15,000)

Summary

Chris Locke advocates for transitioning community networks from grant dependency to commercial sustainability through training, while the audience member argues that the nature of community networks requires continued grant support as social goods, similar to health and education funding

Topics

Development | Economic

Unexpected differences

Role of grants in long-term sustainability

Speakers

– Chris Locke
– Audience

Arguments

There’s a need to move from creating “grantrepreneurs” to sustainable businesses through proper training and capacity building

Community networks rely heavily on volunteers and personal resources due to limited donor funding (typically under $15,000)

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers are advocates for community networks, yet they have fundamentally different views on whether these networks should transition away from grants or continue to be supported as social goods. This reflects a deeper philosophical divide about the nature and purpose of community networks

Topics

Development | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high consensus among speakers, with most disagreements being tactical rather than strategic. The main area of disagreement centered on the long-term sustainability model for community networks – whether they should transition to commercial viability or remain grant-supported social goods

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers largely agreed on fundamental issues like the need for blended finance, the importance of community networks, and the challenges they face. Disagreements were primarily about implementation approaches rather than core objectives, suggesting a mature field with established consensus on key principles but ongoing debate about optimal execution strategies

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that community networks are fundamentally different from commercial ISPs because they create broader social value and positive externalities that extend far beyond simple connectivity provision.

Speakers

– Marie Lisa Dacanay
– Luca Belli

Arguments

Community networks provide three types of services: transactional, social inclusion, and transformational services that generate significant social impacts beyond commercial ISPs

Community networks create positive externalities locally, decentralizing connectivity while generating new wealth in economic and social terms

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Both speakers recognize that while community networks have strong technical capabilities, they need significant support in developing business and commercial skills to transition from grant-dependent organizations to sustainable enterprises.

Speakers

– Chris Locke
– Brian Vo

Arguments

There’s a need to move from creating “grantrepreneurs” to sustainable businesses through proper training and capacity building

Investment readiness requires developing business planning capabilities beyond technical expertise

Topics

Development | Economic

Both speakers emphasize the importance of multi-stakeholder approaches that combine policy/regulatory work with practical implementation, viewing community networks as concrete examples of effective collaboration.

Speakers

– Alessandra Lustrati
– Luca Belli

Arguments

FCDO supports last-mile connectivity through policy/regulatory frameworks and community-level business model testing

Community networks serve as examples of multi-stakeholder partnerships that build concrete solutions

Topics

Development | Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Key takeaways

Community networks function as social enterprises providing three types of services (transactional, social inclusion, and transformational) that generate significant social impacts beyond what commercial ISPs offer

Social return on investment (SROI) ratios above 1.0 demonstrate that community networks are cost-effective and create increasing social value over time

Community networks face a ‘financial divide’ where access to capital, particularly CAPEX funding, is the primary barrier to growth rather than operational sustainability

Blended finance approaches are essential, combining grants for impact, loans for equipment, and flexible refundable products for working capital

Investment readiness requires developing business planning capabilities beyond technical expertise, with a need to transition from ‘grantrepreneurs’ to sustainable businesses

Portfolio approaches that aggregate multiple community networks can spread risk and unlock capital at scale more effectively than single-deal investments

Multi-stakeholder partnerships involving donors, DFIs, private investors, and community organizations are necessary for sustainable financing solutions

Power management and renewable energy access are critical infrastructure needs that must be addressed alongside connectivity solutions

Resolutions and action items

Internet Society commits $30 million over four years through their co-fund with Meta partnership to support early-stage community connectivity

FCDO will continue supporting last-mile connectivity through both policy/regulatory frameworks and community-level business model testing

Development of bespoke underwriting tools and benchmarks specifically designed for community networks rather than copying from other industries

Creation of technical assistance programs paired with investment to build business planning capabilities in community networks

Establishment of facilities and funds that can aggregate demand and provide portfolio-based financing rather than deal-by-deal approaches

Unresolved issues

How to effectively combine ODA (Official Development Assistance) funding with commercial investments without violating profit generation restrictions

Specific mechanisms for addressing the relationship between connectivity and energy availability, particularly in climate finance contexts

How to scale beyond typical donor funding limits (often under $15,000) to meet actual CAPEX requirements for network expansion

Balancing social accessibility of services with sustainable pricing policies for long-term viability

Developing standardized methods for community networks to demonstrate performance and social impact to financial sector

Creating appropriate legal and regulatory frameworks that support community network licensing and spectrum access across different jurisdictions

Suggested compromises

Multi-layered investor structure where grants/guarantees provide foundation, DFIs occupy middle layer, and private investors participate at top with lowest risk

Blended finance models where grant funding reduces risk perception to enable lower interest rates on refundable financing components

Portfolio approach that includes more commercially viable projects to cross-subsidize higher-risk community networks serving marginalized populations

Treating community networks as infrastructure investments rather than charity while maintaining social mission focus

Flexible financing products adapted to each community network’s specific context rather than one-size-fits-all solutions

Combining technical assistance with investment capital to address both funding and capacity building needs simultaneously

Often we create grantrepreneurs not entrepreneurs. We create organizations that are very good at moving from grant to grant and as donors and as organizations I think we train people to be good at getting grants from donors. It’s a very different skill to then transition into being a commercial business and being a sustainable business.

Speaker

Chris Locke

Reason

This comment introduces a critical paradox in development funding – that well-intentioned grant programs may inadvertently create dependency rather than sustainability. It challenges the fundamental assumption that grants naturally lead to self-sufficiency and highlights a systemic issue in how development organizations operate.

Impact

This observation reframed the entire discussion around sustainability, moving it beyond just finding more funding sources to questioning how funding mechanisms themselves shape organizational behavior. It set up the need for the blended finance solutions that subsequent speakers would elaborate on, and established the tension between social mission and commercial viability that ran throughout the session.

Community-centered connectivity initiatives are not just ordinary enterprises, but they are social enterprises… they actually offer three types of services: transactional services, social inclusion services, and transformational services.

Speaker

Marie Lisa Dacanay

Reason

This comment fundamentally redefines how community networks should be understood and evaluated. By categorizing their services into three distinct types, it provides a framework for understanding why traditional ISP metrics and investment criteria don’t apply, and why these initiatives generate value that commercial providers cannot.

Impact

This categorization became the foundation for understanding the unique value proposition of community networks throughout the rest of the discussion. It provided the theoretical framework that justified the social return on investment methodology and helped explain why traditional financing approaches are inadequate. Other speakers referenced this distinction when discussing investment criteria and policy recommendations.

We wanted to look at it from a bottom-up nature to really start with the finish line of if we looked at these organizations as potential investments as an investor, how might we underwrite it? Would we do an investment as they are right now? If not, what might be some of the gaps?

Speaker

Brian Vo

Reason

This comment represents a methodological breakthrough – applying actual investment underwriting criteria to community networks rather than theoretical assessments. It bridges the gap between the development sector’s perspective and the investment community’s requirements, providing practical insights rather than aspirational recommendations.

Impact

This approach shifted the discussion from advocacy to practical implementation. It provided concrete evidence that demand is real and technical capacity exists, while identifying specific barriers like business planning skills. This investor’s perspective validated the sector’s potential while highlighting actionable gaps, influencing how other speakers framed their recommendations around investment readiness and blended finance structures.

There is a clear need and pertinence to bring a financial mechanism that will be blended finance in order to increase the volumes that are available for the connectivity initiative… that kind of project should allow to increase the size of the projects and even if it has to pay a certain part of interest on its financing it should allow to lower the cost per user with economies of scale.

Speaker

Claude Dorion

Reason

This comment synthesizes the structural analysis of financing needs with a concrete solution pathway. It moves beyond identifying problems to proposing a specific financial architecture that addresses the unique characteristics of community networks while achieving scale efficiencies.

Impact

This proposal provided a concrete framework that subsequent speakers could build upon. Karl Elmström elaborated on the layered investment structure, and Alessandra Lustrati connected it to policy implications. It shifted the conversation from ‘whether’ blended finance could work to ‘how’ it should be structured, making the discussion more actionable and policy-relevant.

Most of these community networks are relying much more on volunteers and other initiatives and I think it’s a high time that governments and donors look at them as social good and continue to pump money you know just like they do in health and education in order to have many people you know enjoy the benefits of digital opportunities.

Speaker

Audience member (Tandanet representative)

Reason

This comment from a practitioner challenges the entire premise of moving toward commercial sustainability, arguing instead for treating connectivity as a public good requiring ongoing subsidy. It introduces tension between the academic/policy discussion and ground-level reality, highlighting the gap between theoretical models and operational challenges.

Impact

This intervention brought the discussion back to ground-level realities and challenged some of the assumptions about commercial viability. It highlighted the tension between social mission and financial sustainability that runs through community network operations, and reinforced the need for the blended finance approaches being discussed rather than purely commercial solutions.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by establishing critical frameworks and tensions that defined the entire session. Chris Locke’s ‘grantrepreneur’ observation set up the central challenge, while Marie Lisa Dacanay’s service categorization provided the theoretical foundation for understanding community networks’ unique value. Brian Vo’s investor perspective validated the sector’s potential while identifying practical gaps, and Claude Dorion’s blended finance proposal offered a concrete solution pathway. The practitioner’s intervention grounded the discussion in operational reality. Together, these comments moved the conversation from advocacy to analysis to actionable recommendations, creating a comprehensive examination of both the challenges and opportunities in financing community connectivity. The discussion evolved from identifying problems to proposing solutions to acknowledging implementation complexities, ultimately producing a nuanced understanding of how to bridge the financial divide in digital inclusion.

How to better understand the interaction of debt and equity in community network financing

Speaker

Alessandra Lustrati

Explanation

She mentioned there are different schools of thought on what would be viable regarding debt and equity structures for community networks, indicating this needs further exploration

What is the relationship between connectivity availability and energy availability, and potential humanitarian uses for available energy

Speaker

Anonymous participant (via chat)

Explanation

This question explores the intersection of connectivity infrastructure with energy infrastructure and potential climate finance opportunities

How to develop bespoke underwriting tools and benchmarks specifically for community networks

Speaker

Brian Vo

Explanation

He emphasized that copying underwriting algorithms from other industries won’t work for broadband connectivity, particularly for CCIs, requiring specialized tools

How to better align philanthropy with investment capital on a fund or portfolio basis

Speaker

Brian Vo

Explanation

This addresses the structural challenge of combining different types of funding sources effectively

How to address the relational challenges and language barriers between development cooperation/civil society culture and private investors

Speaker

Carl Elmstam

Explanation

He noted these challenges should not be underestimated and require facilitation or interpretation between different stakeholder groups

How to resolve ODA (Official Development Assistance) compliance issues when grants are combined with profit-generating activities

Speaker

Carl Elmstam

Explanation

He highlighted that ODA grants should not generate profits, creating complications when combining with commercial investments

How to address the structural challenge of community network ownership models and their impact on investor perception

Speaker

Audience member (Tandanet representative)

Explanation

Community networks are integrated into communities with shared ownership, which investors may perceive as risky due to focus on social return rather than profits

How to scale funding beyond the typical $15,000 donor limit to meet actual CAPEX and OPEX requirements

Speaker

Audience member (Tandanet representative)

Explanation

Current funding levels are insufficient for the network equipment required to expand and serve larger areas effectively

How to better integrate green energy investments with community connectivity initiatives

Speaker

Marie Lisa Dacanay

Explanation

She noted that underserved communities usually need renewable energy alongside connectivity, suggesting need for coordinated investment approaches

Summary

This roundtable discussion explored the role of science and technology diplomacy in fostering global cooperation, with particular focus on how non-traditional actors can contribute to digital governance initiatives. Moderated by Sofie Schönborn from the Technical University of Munich, the session brought together experts from government, academia, civil society, and technical communities to examine collaborative approaches beyond traditional diplomatic channels.

The discussion was framed around three dimensions of science diplomacy: science in diplomacy (using scientific knowledge to inform policy), diplomacy for science (using diplomatic tools to support scientific cooperation), and science for diplomacy (using science as soft power for international relations). Speakers emphasized that in today’s rapidly evolving technological landscape, even traditional diplomats are becoming “non-traditional” actors as they navigate new roles in technology governance.

Key themes emerged around the importance of anticipatory governance, evidence-based policymaking, and multi-stakeholder collaboration. The Global Network of Internet and Society Centers was highlighted as an example of how academic networks can serve as policy bridges, connecting experts across regions and providing evidence to inform decision-making processes. Speakers shared concrete examples of successful science diplomacy, including Colombia’s AI expert mission that brought together international academics, government officials, and development banks to create actionable AI policy frameworks.

The discussion emphasized the critical role of collaboration in addressing global challenges, with Wikipedia cited as an example of peak digital collaboration through its open-source, peer-review model. Participants stressed the need to reduce information asymmetries about emerging technologies and ensure policymakers understand the technologies they seek to regulate. The session concluded with calls to action focusing on co-creation across borders, defending trust in science, and maintaining multi-stakeholder approaches to internet governance as essential tools for navigating complex geopolitical times while building sustainable technological futures.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Defining Science and Technology Diplomacy**: The discussion explored the three dimensions of science diplomacy outlined by the Royal Society: science in diplomacy (using scientific knowledge to inform policy), diplomacy for science (using diplomatic tools to support scientific cooperation), and science for diplomacy (using science as soft power to build international relations and bridges).

– **Role of Non-Traditional Actors**: A central focus was examining how actors beyond traditional diplomats – including academic networks, civil society organizations, technical communities, and research institutions – can contribute to global digital governance and international cooperation in an era of geopolitical tensions.

– **Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration and Networks**: Speakers emphasized the importance of collaborative platforms like the Global Network of Internet and Society Centers (NOC), highlighting how academic networks can serve as “policy bridges” connecting experts across regions and providing evidence-based input to policymakers.

– **Practical Implementation and Real-World Examples**: The discussion featured concrete case studies, particularly Colombia’s AI expert mission (2018-2022) which demonstrated successful science diplomacy in action, involving academics, government, industry, and development banks to create actionable AI policy and infrastructure.

– **Challenges and Future Directions**: Speakers addressed current threats to open internet governance, the need for anticipatory governance in rapidly evolving technology landscapes, and the importance of reducing information asymmetries between technical developments and policymaking processes.

## Overall Purpose:

The roundtable aimed to explore how science and technology diplomacy can enhance global cooperation, specifically focusing on the contributions of non-traditional diplomatic actors (academia, civil society, technical communities) to digital governance initiatives. The session sought to identify practical approaches and tools for fostering international collaboration in technology policy during times of geopolitical tension.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently constructive and collaborative tone throughout. Speakers were optimistic about the potential for meaningful cooperation despite acknowledging current geopolitical challenges and fragmentation. The tone was professional yet accessible, with participants building on each other’s points and emphasizing shared goals. There was a notable sense of urgency about the need for action, but this was balanced with practical optimism about available tools and successful examples. The conversation concluded on an empowering note, with clear calls to action that reinforced the theme that meaningful change is both necessary and achievable through collaborative effort.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Sofie Schonborn** – Researcher at the Technical University of Munich and at the Technical University of Munich’s Think Tank, TUM Think Tank; Moderator of the roundtable

– **Nele Leosk** – Former ambassador-at-large for digital affairs of Estonia, now team lead at Knowledge Hub Digital for the European Commission

– **Maricela Munoz** – Director for External Affairs at Gesta, the Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator

– **Armando Guio** – Executive Director of the Global Network of Internet and Society Centers (NOC)

– **Isobel Acquah** – Africa Director of CERTA Foundation, Pan-African Legal Think Tank based in Rwanda

– **Víctor Munoz** – Engineer, Entrepreneur and former Director General of the Administration of the Presidency in Colombia

– **Jan Gerlach** – Director of Public Policy at Wikimedia Foundation

– **Lucien M. CASTEX** – Policy Representative and Advisor to the CEO of AFNIC, the French Network Information Center

**Additional speakers:**

None identified – all speakers who participated in the discussion were included in the provided speakers names list.

# Science and Technology Diplomacy: The Role of Non-Traditional Actors in Global Digital Governance

## Executive Summary

This comprehensive 60-minute roundtable discussion at IGF 2025 in Oslo, moderated by Sofie Schönborn from the Technical University of Munich Think Tank and the Global Network of Internet and Society Centres, brought together eight international experts to explore the evolving landscape of science and technology diplomacy. The session featured representatives from government, academia, civil society, and technical communities, creating a diverse multi-stakeholder dialogue that exemplified the collaborative approaches being discussed.

The conversation was initially structured around the Royal Society’s three-dimensional framework for science diplomacy: science in diplomacy, diplomacy for science, and science for diplomacy. However, the discussion quickly evolved beyond these traditional categories as speakers challenged fundamental assumptions about who constitutes “traditional” versus “non-traditional” actors in the rapidly changing technological landscape.

A central theme emerged around the recognition that even traditional diplomatic actors are becoming “non-traditional” as they navigate unfamiliar roles in technology governance, while private sector and individual players increasingly wield more power than conventional government actors. This paradigm shift set the tone for a nuanced exploration of collaborative approaches that transcend traditional diplomatic channels.

The discussion maintained a consistently constructive tone throughout, with speakers building upon each other’s contributions to create a comprehensive picture of current challenges and future opportunities. Participants shared concrete examples of successful science diplomacy initiatives, from Colombia’s AI expert mission to Wikipedia’s global collaboration model, while addressing pressing concerns about geopolitical fragmentation and threats to open internet governance.

## Key Themes and Major Discussion Points

### Redefining Traditional and Non-Traditional Actors

The conversation began with an immediate challenge to its foundational premise. Nele Leosk, former Estonian ambassador-at-large for digital affairs, fundamentally questioned the binary distinction between traditional and non-traditional actors, arguing that “governments are already traditional actors in technology diplomacy, because the role of technology is still quite new to traditional diplomacy.” She noted that “many diplomats actually find themselves in a rather new role in these current times, when private sector, and I would say even individual players, have so much power that often we see that they have more power than actually these traditional actors as governments.”

This reframing proved pivotal, shifting the entire discussion away from a simple traditional versus non-traditional dichotomy towards a more nuanced understanding of evolving roles and power dynamics in the digital age.

### Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration as Essential Infrastructure

All speakers demonstrated remarkable consensus on the fundamental importance of multi-stakeholder approaches to digital governance. Maricela Muñoz, Director for External Affairs at GESTA (Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator), emphasized that “science diplomacy has existed for centuries through collaborative platforms,” citing the Internet Governance Forum as “a perfect example of multi-stakeholder collaboration.”

Jan Gerlach from the Wikimedia Foundation described Wikipedia as representing “peak collaboration on the internet through open source peer review system across 300 languages,” noting that Wikipedia has crossed “65 million articles across roughly 300 languages” and “will celebrate its 25th anniversary next year.” Lucien M. Castex from AFNIC emphasized that the “multi-stakeholder model requires diversity of viewpoints and broader participation including local and regional processes.”

### Academic Networks as Policy Bridges

Armando Guío, Executive Director of the Global Network of Internet and Society Centers, introduced the compelling concept of academic networks functioning as “policy bridges.” He explained how the network, which has grown to “140 centers” globally, enables situations where “colleagues in Oslo are contributing to colleagues in Colombia and to policymakers in Colombia, or colleagues in Singapore are helping other colleagues in Africa.”

This bridge metaphor resonated throughout the discussion, with multiple speakers providing examples of how academic institutions can connect technical expertise with policy needs across geographical and institutional boundaries while building local capacity for digital governance.

### Anticipatory Governance and Accelerated Change

Maricela Muñoz introduced the crucial concept of anticipatory governance, arguing that “we’re living in an era of accelerated change and we need to be able to anticipate what’s coming next.” She highlighted the Open Quantum Institute, which is “incubated at GESTA and is now embedded at CERN,” as an example of anticipatory science diplomacy working to accelerate dialogue around quantum technology development before widespread deployment creates governance challenges.

### Practical Implementation: Colombia’s AI Expert Mission

Víctor Muñoz provided a detailed case study of Colombia’s AI expert mission (2018-2022), which was co-sponsored by CAF (development bank in Latin America) and the Inter-American Development Bank. The mission was led by Sandra Cortesi from Harvard Berkman Klein Center and Professor Gasser from TUM University Munich, bringing together international academics, government officials, development banks, and industry representatives.

Muñoz emphasized that “science diplomacy doesn’t remain confined to policy papers. It creates concrete tools, infrastructure, and institutional capacity.” The mission’s success is evidenced by Colombia now having “two centers for AI excellence, one in Bogota and one in Medellín,” demonstrating how science diplomacy can create lasting institutional capacity.

### Regional Perspectives and Global Challenges

Isobel Acquah, Africa Director of CERTA Foundation, provided crucial perspective on how science and technology diplomacy can address global inequalities while leveraging regional strengths. She reframed Africa’s technological challenges not as problems requiring aid, but as global opportunities requiring collaboration, noting that “when you think about the fact that the global population will be one in four African, it becomes an international obligation.”

Nele Leosk provided the perspective of smaller nations, explaining how “small countries need to collaborate closely with non-traditional actors due to complexity of following global digital processes.” She highlighted the Nordic Institute of Interoperability Solutions as a specific example of successful cross-border collaboration.

## Concrete Tools and Actionable Outcomes

### The Wikipedia Test

Jan Gerlach introduced the practical “Wikipedia test” as a decision-making framework, encouraging policymakers to “consider the impact of any actions, of policies, of regulations on Wikipedia before making decisions,” arguing that “if policies and actions are bad for Wikipedia, they harm the open internet and many digital public goods.”

### Development Banks as Science Diplomacy Actors

Víctor Muñoz uniquely positioned development banks as key science diplomacy actors, describing how they moved beyond traditional infrastructure to support AI policy development by “connecting countries with global experts beyond traditional government channels.”

### Cross-Sector Collaboration Models

Multiple speakers provided examples of successful collaboration mechanisms:

– AFNIC’s collaboration with the Centre of Internet and Society in France

– The post-quantum report collaboration between AFNIC and I3C

– The São Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines from NET Mundial plus 10

– Multi-stakeholder meetings bringing together “big tech, startups, policymakers, and regulators”

## Challenges and Future Directions

### Geopolitical Fragmentation

Multiple speakers expressed concern about threats to open internet governance from increasing geopolitical tensions. Jan Gerlach warned that “geopolitical tensions threaten open internet, making digital cooperation crucial for keeping everyone connected,” while Armando Guío noted that the world is “moving toward fragmentation and localisation.”

### Capacity Building and Representation

Isobel Acquah highlighted ongoing challenges in ensuring adequate representation and capacity building for underrepresented regions, emphasizing the need for “peer learning approaches” rather than “hierarchical knowledge transfer systems” to ensure more equitable collaboration.

### Maintaining Trust in Science

Both Maricela Muñoz and Víctor Muñoz emphasized the challenge of maintaining trust in science and evidence-based policymaking during times of polarization, which threatens the foundation of science diplomacy.

## Calls to Action

The discussion concluded with several specific calls to action:

– **Co-Creation Across Borders**: Nele Leosk’s call for “co-creation across sectors and borders” emphasizes collaborative approaches that recognize shared challenges and solutions

– **Reducing Information Asymmetries**: Armando Guío’s emphasis on “reducing information asymmetries about new technologies by bringing policymakers closer to actual technological developments”

– **Defending Trust in Science**: Maricela Muñoz’s call to “defend trust in science and democratise access to knowledge for evidence-based policymaking”

– **Working with Local Communities**: Jan Gerlach’s emphasis on “working with local volunteer communities who collect and build knowledge, including researchers and experts”

## Areas of Disagreement

Despite high consensus, some tensions emerged around definitional challenges regarding traditional versus non-traditional actors, different approaches to collaboration mechanisms, and varying perspectives on which institutions should play leading roles in science and technology diplomacy.

## Conclusion

This roundtable discussion demonstrated both the potential and challenges of science and technology diplomacy in addressing contemporary global challenges. The remarkable consensus among diverse stakeholders on the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, evidence-based policymaking, and cross-border cooperation provides a strong foundation for advancing collaborative approaches to digital governance.

The discussion’s evolution from questioning basic assumptions about traditional versus non-traditional actors to providing concrete tools and implementation strategies reflects a maturing field moving beyond theoretical frameworks towards practical application. The emphasis on anticipatory governance, academic networks as policy bridges, and practical tools like the Wikipedia test all suggest promising directions for future development.

However, significant challenges remain, particularly around maintaining collaborative approaches in an increasingly fragmented geopolitical environment and ensuring equitable participation across different regions and communities. The success of science and technology diplomacy will depend on the ability of diverse stakeholders to implement the collaborative approaches discussed while adapting to changing technological and geopolitical conditions.

Sofie Schonborn: Welcome everyone. Welcome to our roundtable on leveraging science and tech diplomacy for global cooperation. My name is Sofie Schönborn. I’m a researcher at the Technical University of Munich and at the Technical University of Munich’s Think Tank, TUM Think Tank. TUM Think Tank is a part of the Global Network of Internet and Society Centres, NOC, which is bringing all of us here together today. I’m happy to moderate today’s roundtable and kick us off into today’s session. Science and tech diplomacy have become some kind of increasingly talked about buzzwords in the past 15 to 20 years. They’re ideas that link science and tech to the world of diplomacy, international relations and global governance. But as with so many other things, of course, there are no universally agreed upon definitions for either of the two. Or even related terms. What have emerged are a couple of common concepts and I just briefly want to introduce one classification of those to frame the following discussion. The Royal Society has outlined three dimensions for science diplomacy in 2010, which are oftentimes referred to. These cover the three terms science in diplomacy, science for diplomacy and diplomacy for science. What does that mean? Science in diplomacy typically refers to activities that use scientific knowledge to inform foreign policy and policy more broadly. They could be through individual science attaches, individual scientists or technologists, but also institutions or networks of institutions. Then when we look at diplomacy for science, we recognize it’s not just a one way street. We can also use diplomatic tools and channels to support scientific and technological cooperation. Thirdly, science for diplomacy, so not in, but for, see science and technology more as soft power elements for promoting international policy goals, for promoting foreign policy. foreign policy agendas, for example by promoting open values or evidence-based decision making, but also to build bridges to improve international relations in times where diplomatic channels may erode or temporarily not function for those goals. These dimensions of course are super broad, not mutually exclusive, but I think what they show is that there can really be a range of actors involved in science and tech diplomacy, and also that this really covers a range of activities that we can engage in. Now 2025, IGF, we live in times of geopolitical tensions, we’re searching for trusted partnerships, new alliances, and of course there’s ongoing technological developments and efforts for global digital governance, be it through the IGF, WSIS 20 and so on, and we may be looking, especially with the ideas of multi-stakeholderism, for what actually the roles of different stakeholder groups are and how we individually can contribute to those. So against the spectrum, we’re coming together today to explore with our esteemed speakers, but also with the audience, what the role of non-traditional diplomatic actors or actors can be in science and technology diplomacy. Non-traditional in the sense that we’re not looking at diplomats at foreign federal agencies, but really at actors from science, civil society, and the technical communities and how they can contribute. No easy questions, and multiple at that, but that’s why I’m really happy to have with me such experts from really a range of stakeholder groups and backgrounds. I’m briefly introducing by the order of appearance with their inputs. First of all, online. I hope we can see our speakers online. Nele Liosk is joining us, former ambassador-at-large for digital affairs of Estonia, now a team lead at Knowledge Hub Digital. for the European Commission and joining us online. We’re seeing someone else then up there. I’m really sorry for that. I’ll continue with the introductions and then I hope we see also the speakers up there. Maricela Muñoz is joining us, Director for External Affairs at Gesta, the Geneva Science and Diplomacy Anticipator. Armando Guío Espanyol, the Executive Director of the Global Network of Internet and Society Centers, NOC, also joining us online. I hope you’ll see a picture of him soon. Here in person with us, Isobel Acquah, the Africa Director of CERTA Foundation, Pan-African Legal Think Tank based in Rwanda. Víctor Muñoz, Engineer, Entrepreneur and former Director General of the Administration of the Presidency in Colombia, long affiliation, Jan Gerlach, Director of Public Policy at Wikimedia Foundation and Lucien Castex, Policy Representative and Advisor to the CEO of AFNIC, the French Network Information Center. Thank you all for being with us here today. Before we get started, some very quick notes on housekeeping. We will hear brief interventions, max five minutes from each of our roundtable speakers. So please, in the audience, collect your questions. We will have time for discussion briefly at the end of the session, as this is only 60 minutes. I have to stay close to the schedule. We have an online moderator for the audience online. Please just put your questions in the chat and we will hear them here in person. So without further ado, let me start by turning to Nele Liosk online and after that Maricela Muñoz to hear from your experience, how science and tech diplomacy can contribute to digital governance initiatives and what role, well, non-traditional actors actually play and what they may look to in the future. Nele. The floor is yours.

Nele Leosk: Hello everybody, and hello from Tallinn, quite close but still remote, but happy to be here. Sofie, if you may, you actually refer to governments as traditional actors in tech diplomacy, and having been Estonia’s G20 ambassador, I’m actually wondering whether governments are already traditional actors in technology diplomacy, because the role of technology is still quite new, I would say, to traditional diplomacy, and actually quite a lot has happened in a very short time, but still a short time, and I would say that many diplomats actually find themselves in a rather new role in these current times, when private sector, and I would say even individual players, have so much power that often we see that they have more power than actually these traditional actors as governments. So I think diplomats also have quite a bit still to do to get used to this new environment, and also realise that technology is actually shaping our world, and will shape it more by every day. But maybe just to come back to your question about what is the role of diplomacy and the different actors in this, I think it depends on our starting point, so what we actually need to do. So I served as Estonia’s digital ambassador, and that means I come from a very small country, that is tech savvy, is known to be a digital leader in deploying technology, but of course is not the technology hub in terms of technological innovation per se. Technological developments still take place mainly in other countries, and I would say increasingly in very few countries and also in very few companies. So, for us, the starting point, I would say, was maybe twofold. First, of course, we have been working and will work for what we call, let’s say, the democratic development of digitalization. We want to have the virtual world be open and secure and all these nice things we are fighting for here at the IGF also. But I would say increasingly important really becomes an understanding and the work we need to do in order to make sure that everybody in our society, so everybody in Estonia, actually has these necessary skills and knowledge to continue to be able to use technology, and including for our benefit. So, when I look back perhaps my almost five years in Estonia’s government, and I put the Europe aside for today, I will focus perhaps on Estonia, then what other means that a small country really has. Of course, as you also mentioned, one line of work is really the technology governance, so how we are supposed to use technologies. We know what we do in our country. We have in Europe, we have the European Union that plays a big role in shaping, let’s say, the virtual space, and I think EU is quite known for its regulatory activity, but not only. And now we have these global developments, and I do have to admit that when I look at, for example, the process of global digital compacts, which is plus 20, and the other processes that we all know, We are all part of governments. For private sector it is actually quite complex to follow these, especially when I look, for example, at the private sector players or even academia in Estonia. So here definitely, let’s say, that traditional actors need to collaborate closely with non-traditional actors as you categorized them. So what we had said in Estonia, we had, I would say, a rather loose network of private sector players, but we also had some more institutionalized ways to share information with each other. We had a Digital Diplomacy Coordination Council also that included all the main players outside governments, that the way we would share what’s happening and they would also reflect back on their needs. But the second component, as I started, and I know that I have only four minutes, so I will close it here, it’s just an introductory remark, is really building these partnerships that support our partners. Are they in academia, in private sector, are they in NGOs? And here I would say that looking from the government perspective or let’s say the tech diplomat perspective, it’s not, of course, just a matter of just the diplomat. So I think what here was really crucial, not only for Estonia, but also for the European Union, was to take, let’s say, this holistic approach to tech diplomacy, where we would understand that technology is not just a matter of tech diplomats or science diplomats or innovation diplomats or cyber diplomats, there are so many of them, but it’s also a matter of trade and trade negotiations, it’s a matter of development cooperation, it’s a matter of security, democracy and human rights. It’s everything that we as diplomats… to and I would say that all these partnerships would need to feed into all these mechanisms that are in place or maybe that need to be still introduced within all these different policy areas and and there’s a role as a of a tech diplomat here is I would say bring this all together have this umbrella and support all these different areas but I will end from my side here and I’m happy to stay of course listen to my good colleagues and and have the discussion later

Sofie Schonborn: thank you so thank you Nele thank you Nele that turns us over to Maricela Muñoz really well you look at the future of science and diplomacy how how would you add to this

Maricela Munoz: thank you so much Sofie so I’m struggling looking at the timer there because the topic is so rich that is difficult to only talk for four or five minutes so bear with me I’ll do my best but I think that Nele was able to do a very great job of framing the the conversation so first I think that sometimes when we talk about science and diplomacy and you refer to to those incredible you know insights that were shared by the Royal Society and others a few years back we forget that science and diplomacy has been a player you know since centuries ago because we have worked in collaborative platforms as humanity for for centuries as well and I think that the IGF is the perfect example of this sort of collaboration is is not trivial that is a multi-stakeholder endeavor and that we also have the voice of underrepresented regions so as we establish that I think that my insights would like to contribute in the in the line of what is missing or what how can we may strengthen that collaborative platform and I think that anticipation is is that ingredient because we’re living in an era of accelerated Sofie Schönborn, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Nele Leosk, Lucien Muñoz, Philipp S. Mueller Sofie Schönborn, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Philipp S. Mueller Sofie Schönborn, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Philipp S. Muñoz, Mueller Sofie Schönborn, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Philipp S. Muñoz, Mueller Sofie Schönborn, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Philipp S. Muñoz, Mueller Sofie Schönborn, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Philipp S. Muñoz, Mueller Sofie Schönborn, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Philipp S. Muñoz, Mueller materialize as a way to prove that science diplomacy is also action, it’s not only discussions. And this example is the Open Quantum Institute that was incubated at JASTA and is now embedded at CERN with the collaboration also of the private sector, where we’re basically accelerating the dialogue to develop.

Sofie Schonborn: Isobel Acquah, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Philipp S. Mueller

Armando Guio: Thank you. Thank you very much, Sofie. And it’s great, of course, to see you all and to share this panel with such a great group of esteemed colleagues. I’m here in Boston, but very happy to almost feel in there in Oslo. And of course, as you mentioned, I would like to share a little bit more about the global network of Internet and society centers, the work we do, and of course, how it relates with this big question about a tech diplomacy and science diplomacy. So, the Global Network of Centers, also known as NOC, it’s a network of 130, now we are 140 centers from around the world, academic centers that are working together towards perhaps bringing ideas and trying to accelerate conversations that we need to have all over the world about the use of the Internet, about new technologies, about AI, of course, quantum computing, the metaverse, and many other emerging technologies that we have in the world, and that basically have also a global impact. And that’s perhaps one of the biggest issues that we have right now. The world is taking us towards a state of fragmentation, where it’s taking us to a state of thinking for ourselves of more national than international projects and to localize some of these ideas, and also the use of some of these infrastructure. In the Global Network of Centers, we believe that we need to continue this kind of engagement with different centers and colleagues around the world, as we believe that this is going to be essential for many of the future conversations that we should have, and of course, of the projects and ideas that should come in the next years, especially when we are talking about the impact of technologies that are not considering borders, frontiers, that are actually moving in many different ways beyond that. So in that regard, I think that the Network of Centers and the work we’re doing, and many of the colleagues here are part of this network, perhaps on the point of scientific diplomacy and science diplomacy, we have three points that I would like to highlight. The first one is that academic networks can work as policy bridges. This idea of a policy bridge in which basically we are a bridge between some academic experts and policymakers. And the interesting thing is that we have been able to connect experts with countries and with policymakers in many different countries in which sometimes they don’t even consider to be working with or to have an impact on. So it’s interesting to see, for example, how colleagues in Oslo are contributing to colleagues in Colombia and to policymakers in Colombia, such as Víctor Muñoz, that we’ll of course explain later, a little bit more of his experience, or colleagues in Singapore are helping other colleagues in Africa to perhaps think about their next steps on AI governance. And examples like this is what we have at the Network of Centres, basically these kind of collaborations, inter-regional collaborations that are so important right now. And that’s what we try to do, to become these policy bridges. At the same time, we try to become policy bridges with the evidence and basically to bring evidence to policymaking and to policy conversations. And I think that’s also something very important to consider from the science diplomacy side, how important it is to become an ambassador not only of ideas, but at the same time of evidence and good evidence and research that can inform the policymaking process. Now we’re having a lot of conversations about, again, AI governance, internal governance, the future of work, what are the next skills, what’s really working and what’s really not. And that’s what we’re trying to do here, that’s the kind of bridge that we’re trying to create and generate by connecting this audience of policy and decision makers, for example, with academia, with experts, and with this kind of work that sometimes is not that easily available as we believe it could be. And at the same time, we’re also helping to generate capacities within or members and at the same time, or NOC colleagues in the sense that we’re trying to help them to have enough knowledge about what they’re doing, what their last research trends are, what kind of research is having more impact. And that also, I believe, it’s quite important for many of our colleagues also to have an increased relevance in the national policy conversations they’re involved in. So that will be the first point. Then I would like to talk a little bit more about the collaboration and the collaboration side. I think that science diplomacy through collaboration is essential. And that’s basically one of the terms. It sounds sometimes and people say, you talk a lot about collaboration. And I say, yeah, because that’s what we do. And also, it sounds as a very basic term, sometimes collaboration, it’s not difficult to build. And it’s, I think, of the essence, especially for these kind of science diplomacy efforts. So what’s collaboration? Basically, building something meaningful, creating trust, building that trust in a way in which basically entities want to really collaborate with each other, participate on grant applications, on funding mechanisms to share knowledge data. That’s not as easy as it seems to be. And sometimes there’s not enough trust in order to have this kind of meaningful collaboration. And that’s something which we basically are trying to work more and more to increase this kind of efforts and these kind of meetings and the work we do. And of course, efforts such as the ones we’re doing to build these bridges, again, is very important in that sense, in the collaboration and in the work that we’re trying to achieve. And then finally, we have this perhaps last element that is that we’re trying to also look into these non-traditional actors as system stewards and as stewards of digital collaboration and digital cooperation in that sense. So we really believe that we cannot just fully rely, and I think the geopolitical moment in which we are is showing us that we cannot just fully rely on institutions that are traditionally seen as the and Javier López. So, I think that this is a very important topic for us to discuss. I think that we should be very open to the possibility of having conversations in institutions where these conversations should be taking place or where these diplomatic efforts should be taking place. We believe that we need to be a little bit more creative and innovative and think on non-traditional actors and non-traditional scenarios as big elements of some of the dialogues that we want to have and at the same time to become like these kind of forums for many of us to participate and be involved. And that’s why we believe in a network of centers that we really want to increase this kind of work, especially with non-traditional actors and with other stakeholders and build that kind of engagement in a very different and meaningful way. And that perhaps and becoming stewards also of that digital cooperation, of observing and monitoring how this cooperation is taking place and the kind of alliances that are being built is something that we believe is very important. And of course, we have many examples. So just as a last point, we have many examples of how this is working, but basically what I can say, it’s like this idea of panel is a big example of what we are also trying to achieve. And thank you.

Sofie Schonborn: Thank you, Armando. Thank you for these really active calls. For more of these initiatives, heading over to Isabel Acqua, maybe you can share some examples as one of those centers from the network of centers about your actions. And experiences.

Isobel Acquah: Thank you so much, Sophie. And to all my panelists. Thank you, Armando. I think he really set the tone. We joined NOC about two years ago. So we’re really one of the baby centers, a few that have joined since. And I think I’ll look at it from three perspectives. Africa’s position, the really intensive role of peer learning and then the multi-stakeholder governance. So I think when you when you look at Africa’s perspective and I’ve been walking through the IGF and there’s so much negative, you know, it’s one percent of research papers are from Africa or one percent of data center capacity. All of those things are true. But I think when you look at it from a global cooperation perspective, these challenges are really an opportunity for us to collaborate. The word that Armando used, and I think that’s the exciting thing, right? There’s a lot of challenges, but those same challenges are really truly opportunities for global cooperation, looking at ways that we can enhance research, how can we build academic partnerships so that you have people going from institutions in Rwanda, which is where we’re based, where Rwandan founded Think Tank, but we’re Pan-African focused. So how do we take young students from Rwanda who are incredibly brilliant, but don’t necessarily have all the resources, and bring them to Oslo or to Germany, et cetera. And we’re doing a lot of that cooperation already because there is really an opportunity for us to think more broadly when we have these sort of networks. As Armando said, it’s 140 people, which means you have these incredible opportunities to build knowledge and to think about things through different lenses. And I think it’s important, of course, the imperative is for the African governments and African ecosystem and African lawyers and policymakers to figure out how we’re going to deal when we’re looking at AI governance, for example. It is their imperative. However, when you think about the fact that the global population will be one in four African, it becomes an international obligation, right? So we have to think as an international body, how do we make sense of that? And how do we collaborate on that? The second thing I would say, which is really, for me, very unique about the NOC is truly peer learning. And I say that because I think you can have a lot of organizations that sort of have this tiered system. What I find is that when we are doing projects together, it really is around collaboration. It’s really about being… Sofie Schönborn, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Nele Leosk, Lucien M. CASTEX, Víctor Muñoz, Philipp S. Mueller Sofie Schönborn, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Philipp S. Mueller Sofie Schönborn, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Philipp S. Mueller Sofie Schönborn, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Philipp S. Mueller Sofie Schönborn, Armando Guío, Isobel Acquah, Maricela Muñoz, Philipp S. Mueller and the global network of centers. So, what we decided to do, and again, co-hosting this, co-convening this with the global network of centers, is to host a multi-stakeholder meeting that brought in big tech, the startup community, policy makers, we had 20 policy makers and regulators from across the continent, and also, of course, some of our NOC peers. Armando was in Kigali, and we had a meeting with the global network of centers in Kigali, and providing sort of like, not a global, this is what we’re doing, follow what we’re doing, but this is what we’re doing insights panel, and what can we learn from each other. And that was really well received, and I think that’s a format we really experimented with, this innovative governance structure, because we really are learning at the same pace. And to be honest, the startup community is who’s really leading, and we’re already falling behind. And so I really see that multi-stakeholder engagement as a really critical piece of what we’re trying to do. We’re hosting our next innovative governance multi-stakeholder meeting in Accra. So again, bringing in different players, having more of a West African feel to the conversation. So very important that we have these sort of collaborative opportunities, and recognize that these non-traditional actors are actually more nimble to make a lot of headway, and to collaborate much more seamlessly, and not think through traditional channels, but bringing together civil society, like our organization, Serta Foundation, academia, but then also pulling in government and the tech community, et cetera, and to pull together a real document. So those are my thoughts on that.

Sofie Schonborn: Thank you very much, Isabel. I think both you and Armando really underline how networked actors, Well, connections internationally can provide platforms for trying out new things, for collaborating, building together, and then also informing policy with regional and global knowledge and capacity, also outside of classical traditional ways of doing things, of funding things maybe. And that leads us to our last three speakers who are all here in person, who have a range of experiences in government and civil society institutions and the technical community. So maybe giving it to the three of you, just one after the other, what are your perspectives on what these kind of communities and other actors can contribute to the conversation? Let’s start with Víctor.

Víctor Munoz: Okay. Thank you, Sofie, and hello, everyone. It is an honor for me to be here. I just would like to mention a real case in Colombia. Basically, I would like to share how Colombia’s experience offers a real-world case of successful science diplomacy in action, or science for diplomacy, according to Sofie’s definition. Between 2018 and 2022, Colombia launched its AIX permission as a centerpiece of our national AI strategy. It is important to mention that what initiative was co-sponsored by CAF, that is a development bank in Latin America, and also the Inter-American Development Bank that are important actors in that conversation related with science diplomacy. The experiment was led by Sandra Cortesi from Harvard Berman Klein Center and Professor Gasser from TUM University in Munich, and also more than seven members from different centers of the network of centers. At that moment, we knew that we need everyone at the table, academics, government, industry, and civil society, To make the most scientific knowledge and protect our country’s interests, we even asked development banks to act like supporters of signed diplomats, helping us connect with experts around the world instead of relying only on government offices. Usually, the development banks are focused on roads and bridges, but that was the first time that basically they work in Latin America, supporting a country like Colombia, building our AI plans. At the same time, we help, we support these development banks in the process to escalate direct collaboration between international experts and regional decision makers. That was a win-win process that we have with them, an entirely new model for institutions that had previously focused almost on infrastructure. I would like to mention four big wins that we have with the expert mission because it is important to know that when you talk about signed diplomacy that you have papers. Really, we didn’t have papers. We had a real strategy and we implemented that strategy into the country. The first thing is that we had a clear technical roadmap for AI policy in Colombia. The second one was an ethical AI framework to guide the public sector in the AI pilot projects on safety, fairness, and community input. The third one was a skills roadmap to close our digital talent gap that was implemented in the last four years. Also, the recommendations. We have now two centers for AI excellence, one in Bogota and one in Medellín that we have working together. We have researchers, companies, startups, and students that are working together and they are learning and we are in the process to implement the new generation of the AI policy. It is important to mention that the expert mission recommendations are approved that the signed diplomacy doesn’t remain confined to policy papers. It creates concrete tools, infrastructure, and institutional capacity. And if we are looking ahead, I see three lessons for our countries in Latin America. The first thing is that teamwork, bringing many voices together, backed by development banks and universities, turn plans into action fast. Trust, building ethical rules with everyone’s input creates clear, fair guidelines. An ecosystem, connecting policymakers with startups, spreads good practices quickly. Our Colombian playbook is already being shared across the region. Experts that were part of our mission had advised governments like Brazil, Chile, Dominican Republic, and Uruguay in their own agendas. And these efforts and recent reports and case studies demonstrate that science diplomacy is scalable, replicable, and have an opportunity to improve really the tech and to close the gap that we have in the regions. Thank you so much.

Sofie Schonborn: Thank you, Víctor. Handing it over right to Jan.

Jan Gerlach: Yeah, hello. Thanks for having me. I’m Jan Gerlach. I’m at the Wikimedia Foundation. We are the non-profit that hosts and supports Wikipedia. And I want to quickly focus on the word collaboration, which I’m very happy to have heard a couple of times already now. And it’s an integral part of digital cooperation. Wikipedia really is, I would say, peak collaboration on the internet. It’s open source, and people from all over the world work together in a collaborative manner to add and improve content all around the world, I said, all around the clock as well. And to describe it in a way that probably resonates with a lot of people who are in the academic side here and in the scientific community, Wikipedia is a massive peer review system. It gets better the more people add to it, the more people work on it together and edit each other’s work. Wikipedia has been very successful this way. We’ve just, Wikipedia has just crossed the milestone of 65 million articles across roughly 300 languages, and it’ll celebrate its 25th anniversary next year. But it doesn’t exist in a vacuum, let’s be clear about that. It’s an integral part of an open internet, which in turn depends on digital cooperation by all these non-traditional and traditional actors in this space. Around the world, this open internet is actually under threat right now, as I probably don’t have to explain to all of you. So this is a very timely matter for stakeholders from the academic world, from the scientific community, and in tech diplomacy, to be asking themselves how to engage and asking themselves the question of digital cooperation, how to empower actors, how to empower actors in this world, and really with the goal of keeping us all connected. I think it’s really important to ask towards what goal are we actually cooperating. Cooperation should not be the means, right, the goal itself. But there is a larger goal, which is to benefit us all, to work towards the SDGs, the Sustainable Development Goals. And when we ask what these stakeholders need in order to be empowered in the conversation of digital cooperation, of course, multi-stakeholderism, multi-stakeholder approaches come to mind again. They’ve already been mentioned in the introduction here. And I think everyone here is also aware that it’s going to require a big push by everyone involved to ensure these policy spaces remain open for such approaches. So civil society, academica, the science community, and others can continue to contribute. As the Global Digital Compact is being implemented, multi-stakeholderism is key. It is crucial to making sure that digital public goods, like Wikipedia, can continue to thrive and be supported. But of course the science community through research can also represent the needs of those who may never have a voice in digital governance. Finally, and I’ll keep this short, an important part of the mix are the tools that we offer these non-traditional stakeholders for policy making, for governance, for digital cooperation. And one tool that we offer is a specific frame of thinking. We call this the Wikipedia test. Maybe you’ve already heard of it. Maybe it’s new. We ask everyone, including non-traditional actors, all stakeholders, to really consider the impact of any actions, of policies, of regulations on Wikipedia before making decisions. The point is this. If policies and actions are bad for Wikipedia, they harm the open internet and many digital public goods. In contrast, what supports Wikipedia, what’s good for Wikipedia, will be beneficial for online communities and for access to knowledge for everyone. And this in turn, of course, benefits digital cooperation as well, as we come here together in the physical space, but have remote participants on this panel as well. I think this really shows how an open internet actually is also the basis for digital cooperation itself. So this is all closely interwoven. So again, the tool that we use and that we want to offer everyone is the Wikipedia test. Think of Wikipedia before you take action, before you regulate, before you propose policies even. And talk to us if you want to learn more about this.

Sofie Schonborn: Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Handing over to Lucien directly.

Lucien M. CASTEX: Thank you, Sophie. That is a timely discussion indeed, science diplomacy, and having it framed in a global debate. on the Internet, Governance and Enhanced Cooperation, Digital Cooperation, a lot of definition and methodologies are needed. I wanted to start by highlighting that the information society and vision as a people-centered, inclusive and development-oriented is today of a renewed importance with this review coming this year. And the Internet technical community as a stakeholder group has a main role, basically, it’s to operate the core functions, the key underlying infrastructures supporting the Internet, in particular IP addresses, domain names. And one key point is one always speaks from somewhere and operating Internet, running an Internet registry like AFNIC, gives you concrete examples, actually, on the working function of the Internet. Same goes for a regional Internet registry or working with ICANN, for example. Since OSS in 2003, 2005, the Internet has evolved a lot. It’s still evolving today with new protocols discussed at the IETF, new network being created and connected to the global Internet. And in that sense, navigating the rope seas of Internet global governance has been challenging. Internet as a key underlying infrastructure, which has enabled the information society and shown its resilience and importance in supporting, actually, the development of society, is access to culture and knowledge, is key and has a key component. and others are having a global, open, secure and interoperable Internet, as Schön’s success is. In that sense, and it’s been said already, the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance, in its diversity, I mean, IGF, of course, here in Oslo today, but also ITF, ICANN, and AFNIC as well. It’s a variety of models which are multi-stakeholder, and the participation of the different kinds of factors is key to actually enabling diversity of viewpoints. Technical and academic communities can help find innovative solutions, science, diplomacy efforts, enabling collaboration between stakeholders to share knowledge from research projects to academic partnerships, but also finding concrete examples and successes of the Internet, which is of renewed importance today, of course. So broader participation also means local processes, building on cultural and linguistic diversity, bringing voices together in the diversity of languages. I’m thinking about, for example, also the local, regional Internet governance forum. It needs to be discussed here in Oslo and everywhere else as well to actually enable real collaboration. And then finally, as we approach the 20-year review of the WSIS, it’s especially important to ensure that the review is actually inclusive and open to stakeholder inputs, obviously academia and technical community. But this is not an easy question in today’s complex environment. geopolitical landscape. Wanted in that respect to highlight the work done last year in 2024 at NET Mundial plus 10 held in Sao Paulo that resulted in the Sao Paulo multi-stakeholder guidelines which offer a proposed approach to digital governance and inclusive dialogue between stakeholders. With the the element paper just released a few days ago there is a clear need of engagement to ensure that the multi-stakeholder model is properly leveraged in 2025 and beyond. Thank you.

Sofie Schonborn: Thank you very much and thank you to all of the panel and the audience. I think those statements and contributions really show how this is an ongoing project of bringing technology and science and diplomacy together and maybe we’re all non-traditional or new actors in that sense as as Nele Leosk pointed out. While we open the floor to questions in person please step to the microphones online feel free to submit your questions to the chat. I would just continue some reflections about what we just heard about technology really warranting us to engage with it across government and society to collaborate and to shape our joint futures and while times are of course complex and hard we’re not hopeless. We heard about different tools how we can shape and contribute and learn from each other be it in anticipation be it by using the Wikipedia test before issuing policies. Thinking about novel approaches that we can take for example in funding AI policy and stakeholder engagement or fostering local and regional engagement and collaboration. If there is no questions in the room, I would just take it back to all of our wonderful speakers, because we have started talking about specific methods and tools and collaborations, but if I could ask you for one call to action or action point for either your own organization or for other stakeholders, what would it be? Maybe we start with our online speakers. Nele Leosk, would you like to start?

Nele Leosk: Hello again and thank you, Sofie. I think I would call us all to co-create. Co-create across sectors but across borders, because what we have realized after the 20, 30 plus years of digitalization, or let’s say more active digitalization, is that our needs and our problems are actually quite similar and the solutions could also be. However, what we do not see that much yet is really creating our solutions together. We have some examples. I can bring, of course, from Estonia, the very famous digital identity that we have developed and use also across private and public sector, but also across border. Some of you may know there is a Nordic Institute of Interoperability Solutions, where we together with Finland, Iceland and by now also some other partners, develop digitalization components that are crucial. I would say the cornerstone of Estonia’s digitalization and this has helped us, of course, to save financial resources, but I would say what is even more important, it has really allowed us to pull together human resources, because we all lack the needed technological skills, and I’m really glad that our Finnish-Icelandic partners and contributors from different sectors have become also part of our own digital ecosystem here in Estonia. There could be other examples, but I leave it to the colleagues to add here. Thank you, Sofie.

Sofie Schonborn: Thank you very much. Armando.

Armando Guio: Yeah, well, thank you. And adding to that, I think Nele’s point, it’s quite important. I would like to emphasize that one of the things I think we should be working more on is on reducing information asymmetries, especially about the new technologies and the kind of technology that is being developed. I think that is still a big challenge and we need to do more about this. And I think this kind of networks and science diplomacy and the kind of channels that we’re creating will try to work towards reducing those asymmetries, especially about the kind of technological development that we have. And we need to take policymakers and decision makers from all over the world and show them the technology. So if we’re talking about quantum technology, what is quantum technology? Where is it? How do you try to experience more of it? If we’re talking about the most advanced AI systems, where are those? How can we bring policymakers from different parts of the world to get closer to these systems and understand more of what they’re doing? So trying to do that, working actively on doing that, bringing people together and to bring them also to the science part and to the technical developments. It’s something that I think we need to continue to work. And again, reducing those information asymmetries is of the essence if we really want to have an inclusive and sustainable future and technological future. And of course, to build policies that are also sustainable in the long term. So that will be my call to action.

Sofie Schonborn: Thank you. Turning over to our speakers in the room who have an eye on the clock. Maybe just go one by one.

Maricela Munoz: Thank you, Sophie. Well, I think that is no secret that we live in difficult times. Polarization, fragmentation, geopolitical tensions, transformation of the world order. So I think that we need to together defend the trust in science. We have been talking about evidence based policymaking, but also action. and also this anticipatory governance outlook, making sure that we prepare, that we democratize access to science and to knowledge, which has also been mentioned, so that we can all co-create the futures that we desire, respecting the values that we want to uphold. And I think that that will be my call to action, trust in science and anticipatory science, diplomacy and governance. Thank you so much.

Isobel Acquah: I think for me, you know, at the moment, I think you can look at Africa’s governance, AI adoption and governance as a ripple, but actually it’s a wave. I think it’s important that we work together to actually ride the wave and not get crushed by it. Africa is going to be not just a consumer market, but a lot of innovation is going to come from the content. A lot of data is needed from the continent when you look at things like the data we need to feed climate AI models. And so I think it’s important that we look at really innovative structures, this multi-stakeholder engagement and learning from each other. Like Armando was saying, I think you’ve got to bring the policy people to the tech people and make sure they actually understand. You cannot regulate what you don’t understand. And I think that’s a big, big gap, and that can be filled when you have true multi-stakeholder engagement.

Víctor Munoz: I would like to emphasize in the call to action that it is important to trust in science because if we are at this moment in a polarization, we are having a complex situation in terms of geopolitics. It is important to believe. It is important to believe in science. And it is important to have alternative challenge to have conversation between different regions. At this moment, for any reasons, we are having a different situations in terms of geopolitics agendas, but we can continue having the conversation through science. And that is my call to actions.

Jan Gerlach: My call to action would be think of Wikipedia before making decisions about the Internet, but more also work with your local volunteer communities who collect and build knowledge. Many of them are researchers themselves, they’re scientists, they’re experts in other fields and they know what’s needed locally.

Lucien M. CASTEX: And it’s always complicated to be last. I think having a forward-looking view beyond 2025, what do we actually want out of Internet, out of the multistakeholder governance model, what do you want to do with it? And navigating Internet governance actually requires multistakeholder dialogue. We can completely see it, but also a need to showcase concrete examples and successes of that multistakeholder collaboration. And for that, we need to actually work with each other. For example, AFNIC, we collaborate with, obviously, the Centre of Internet and Society in France, and in the Internet and Regulation Research Group to try to foster research and collaborative projects. Last example is a publicity kind of… We have a post-quantum report that we do with I3C, with its dynamic coalition at the IGF, to try to inform the global debate. That’s my two cents.

Sofie Schonborn: Thank you very much. And thank you to all of the speakers and the audience, the speakers especially, in keeping their times and sharing such valuable and interesting perspectives. This whole session leaves me with an outlook that we have lots of things to do, but actually that we can do things and can contribute to ongoing governance discourses and actually implementing actionable outcomes and projects. I look forward to the collaboration with all of you, and thank you so much for joining. And thank you, Sofie.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for effective digital governance

Speakers

– Sofie Schonborn
– Maricela Munoz
– Armando Guio
– Isobel Acquah
– Jan Gerlach
– Víctor Munoz
– Lucien M. CASTEX

Arguments

Science diplomacy has existed for centuries through collaborative platforms, with IGF as a perfect example of multi-stakeholder collaboration

Academic networks can work as policy bridges connecting experts with policymakers across different countries and regions

Non-traditional actors are more nimble and can collaborate more seamlessly than traditional channels

Civil society and technical communities must engage to ensure policy spaces remain open for multi-stakeholder approaches

Colombia’s AI expert mission demonstrated successful science diplomacy through multi-stakeholder collaboration with development banks and international experts

Multi-stakeholder model requires diversity of viewpoints and broader participation including local and regional processes

Summary

All speakers emphasized the critical importance of multi-stakeholder approaches in digital governance, highlighting various successful examples and the need for diverse participation across government, academia, civil society, and technical communities.

Topics

Interdisciplinary approaches | Capacity development | Human rights principles

Cross-border collaboration and knowledge sharing are crucial for addressing global technological challenges

Speakers

– Nele Leosk
– Armando Guio
– Isobel Acquah
– Maricela Munoz

Arguments

Co-creation across sectors and borders needed, as problems and solutions are similar globally

World is moving toward fragmentation and localization, requiring continued international engagement beyond borders

Africa’s challenges in research capacity and infrastructure represent opportunities for global collaboration and knowledge sharing

Anticipation is crucial ingredient for strengthening collaborative platforms in era of accelerated technological development

Summary

Speakers agreed that global technological challenges require international collaboration and knowledge sharing, with several emphasizing that countries face similar problems that could benefit from shared solutions.

Topics

Interdisciplinary approaches | Capacity development | Digital access

Evidence-based policymaking requires bringing policymakers closer to technological developments

Speakers

– Armando Guio
– Isobel Acquah
– Maricela Munoz

Arguments

Reducing information asymmetries about new technologies by bringing policymakers closer to actual technological developments

Multi-stakeholder meetings bring together diverse actors including big tech, startups, policymakers, and regulators

Defending trust in science and democratizing access to knowledge for evidence-based policymaking

Summary

Speakers agreed on the importance of bridging the gap between technological development and policymaking through direct engagement and evidence-based approaches.

Topics

Capacity development | Interdisciplinary approaches | Digital standards

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize that traditional diplomatic actors are still adapting to the technological landscape while emphasizing the need for continued international engagement despite global fragmentation trends.

Speakers

– Nele Leosk
– Armando Guio

Arguments

Technology diplomacy is still new to traditional diplomacy, with many diplomats finding themselves in unfamiliar roles

World is moving toward fragmentation and localization, requiring continued international engagement beyond borders

Topics

Interdisciplinary approaches | Digital standards

Both speakers advocate for peer learning and capacity building approaches that enable equal collaboration rather than hierarchical knowledge transfer, emphasizing the importance of building institutional capabilities.

Speakers

– Isobel Acquah
– Armando Guio

Arguments

Peer learning approach enables collaborative projects where institutions learn at same pace rather than hierarchical knowledge transfer

Network of centers helps generate capacities and increase relevance of members in national policy conversations

Topics

Capacity development | Online education | Interdisciplinary approaches

Both speakers emphasize the critical role of technical communities and civil society in maintaining open, diverse multi-stakeholder governance processes that include local and regional perspectives.

Speakers

– Jan Gerlach
– Lucien M. CASTEX

Arguments

Civil society and technical communities must engage to ensure policy spaces remain open for multi-stakeholder approaches

Multi-stakeholder model requires diversity of viewpoints and broader participation including local and regional processes

Topics

Interdisciplinary approaches | Cultural diversity | Human rights principles

Unexpected consensus

Development banks as science diplomacy actors

Speakers

– Víctor Munoz
– Armando Guio

Arguments

Development banks can act as supporters of science diplomats, connecting countries with global experts beyond traditional government channels

Academic networks can work as policy bridges connecting experts with policymakers across different countries and regions

Explanation

The consensus on development banks playing a role in science diplomacy is unexpected because these institutions are traditionally focused on infrastructure development rather than knowledge diplomacy. This represents an innovative expansion of their role in global cooperation.

Topics

Capacity development | Sustainable development | Interdisciplinary approaches

Non-traditional actors being more effective than traditional diplomatic channels

Speakers

– Nele Leosk
– Isobel Acquah
– Jan Gerlach

Arguments

Technology diplomacy is still new to traditional diplomacy, with many diplomats finding themselves in unfamiliar roles

Non-traditional actors are more nimble and can collaborate more seamlessly than traditional channels

Civil society and technical communities must engage to ensure policy spaces remain open for multi-stakeholder approaches

Explanation

The consensus that non-traditional actors may be more effective than traditional diplomatic channels is unexpected, especially coming from speakers with government experience. This suggests a significant shift in how diplomatic effectiveness is perceived in the digital age.

Topics

Interdisciplinary approaches | Human rights principles | Capacity development

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated remarkable consensus on the importance of multi-stakeholder collaboration, cross-border knowledge sharing, evidence-based policymaking, and the evolving role of non-traditional actors in digital governance. There was strong agreement on the need for peer learning, capacity building, and maintaining trust in science during times of geopolitical tension.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for digital governance. The agreement suggests a paradigm shift toward more inclusive, collaborative, and evidence-based approaches to technology policy. The consensus on non-traditional actors being more nimble than traditional channels indicates a fundamental change in how diplomatic effectiveness is understood in the digital age. This high level of agreement among diverse stakeholders provides a strong foundation for implementing collaborative science and technology diplomacy initiatives.

Different viewpoints

Definition of traditional vs non-traditional actors in technology diplomacy

Speakers

– Sofie Schonborn
– Nele Leosk

Arguments

Three dimensions framework: science in diplomacy, diplomacy for science, and science for diplomacy

Technology diplomacy is still new to traditional diplomacy, with many diplomats finding themselves in unfamiliar roles

Summary

Schonborn frames governments as traditional actors and others as non-traditional, while Leosk challenges this by arguing that governments themselves are still new to technology diplomacy and that private sector/individual players often have more power than traditional government actors

Topics

Interdisciplinary approaches

Unexpected differences

Role of development banks in science diplomacy

Speakers

– Víctor Munoz
– Other speakers

Arguments

Development banks can act as supporters of science diplomats, connecting countries with global experts beyond traditional government channels

Explanation

Víctor Munoz uniquely positions development banks as key actors in science diplomacy, describing how they moved beyond traditional infrastructure to support AI policy development. This perspective was not echoed by other speakers who focused more on academic networks, civil society, and technical communities as primary non-traditional actors

Topics

Capacity development | Sustainable development | Future of work

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high consensus among speakers, with most disagreements being subtle differences in emphasis or approach rather than fundamental conflicts. The main areas of difference were: 1) How to define traditional vs non-traditional actors, 2) Which specific mechanisms work best for collaboration, and 3) What institutions should play leading roles

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with high convergence on core principles. The speakers demonstrated strong alignment on the need for multi-stakeholder collaboration, evidence-based policymaking, and the importance of non-traditional actors in science and technology diplomacy. Differences were primarily tactical rather than strategic, suggesting a mature field with established consensus on fundamental approaches. This high level of agreement may reflect the self-selecting nature of the panel participants who are already committed to collaborative approaches to digital governance.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize that traditional diplomatic actors are still adapting to the technological landscape while emphasizing the need for continued international engagement despite global fragmentation trends.

Speakers

– Nele Leosk
– Armando Guio

Arguments

Technology diplomacy is still new to traditional diplomacy, with many diplomats finding themselves in unfamiliar roles

World is moving toward fragmentation and localization, requiring continued international engagement beyond borders

Topics

Interdisciplinary approaches | Digital standards

Both speakers advocate for peer learning and capacity building approaches that enable equal collaboration rather than hierarchical knowledge transfer, emphasizing the importance of building institutional capabilities.

Speakers

– Isobel Acquah
– Armando Guio

Arguments

Peer learning approach enables collaborative projects where institutions learn at same pace rather than hierarchical knowledge transfer

Network of centers helps generate capacities and increase relevance of members in national policy conversations

Topics

Capacity development | Online education | Interdisciplinary approaches

Both speakers emphasize the critical role of technical communities and civil society in maintaining open, diverse multi-stakeholder governance processes that include local and regional perspectives.

Speakers

– Jan Gerlach
– Lucien M. CASTEX

Arguments

Civil society and technical communities must engage to ensure policy spaces remain open for multi-stakeholder approaches

Multi-stakeholder model requires diversity of viewpoints and broader participation including local and regional processes

Topics

Interdisciplinary approaches | Cultural diversity | Human rights principles

Key takeaways

Science and technology diplomacy involves three key dimensions: science in diplomacy (using scientific knowledge to inform policy), diplomacy for science (using diplomatic tools to support scientific cooperation), and science for diplomacy (using science as soft power for international relations)

Non-traditional actors (academia, civil society, technical communities) are increasingly important in digital governance as they are more nimble and can collaborate more seamlessly than traditional diplomatic channels

Academic networks serve as crucial policy bridges, connecting experts with policymakers across different countries and regions while providing evidence-based research to inform policy decisions

Multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential for effective digital governance, requiring diverse viewpoints and broader participation including local and regional processes

The open internet and digital public goods like Wikipedia depend on continued international cooperation and multi-stakeholder approaches to governance

Anticipatory governance is crucial in an era of accelerated technological development to prepare for future challenges and democratize access to science and knowledge

Successful examples like Colombia’s AI expert mission demonstrate that science diplomacy can produce concrete results through multi-stakeholder collaboration involving development banks, international experts, and diverse stakeholders

Resolutions and action items

Co-create solutions across sectors and borders, recognizing that global problems require collaborative solutions

Reduce information asymmetries by bringing policymakers closer to actual technological developments and ensuring they understand what they are regulating

Defend trust in science and promote evidence-based policymaking while democratizing access to knowledge

Apply the ‘Wikipedia test’ – consider the impact of policies on Wikipedia and digital public goods before making decisions

Work with local volunteer communities who collect and build knowledge, including researchers and experts in various fields

Showcase concrete examples and successes of multi-stakeholder collaboration to demonstrate the value of the model

Ensure the WSIS+20 review process is inclusive and open to stakeholder inputs from academia and technical communities

Continue building innovative multi-stakeholder governance structures that bring together diverse actors including big tech, startups, policymakers, and regulators

Unresolved issues

How to maintain multi-stakeholder approaches in an increasingly fragmented geopolitical landscape where countries are moving toward more national rather than international projects

How to ensure adequate representation and capacity building for underrepresented regions, particularly Africa, in global digital governance processes

How to balance the need for rapid technological development with inclusive governance processes that allow all stakeholders to participate meaningfully

How to scale successful science diplomacy models like Colombia’s AI expert mission to other countries and regions

How to maintain trust in science and evidence-based policymaking in times of increasing polarization and geopolitical tensions

How to ensure that the benefits of technological development reach all populations, particularly in regions with limited research capacity and infrastructure

Suggested compromises

Using development banks as intermediaries and supporters of science diplomats to connect countries with global experts, expanding their role beyond traditional infrastructure projects

Creating loose networks and institutionalized information-sharing mechanisms that balance formal diplomatic channels with more flexible multi-stakeholder engagement

Implementing peer learning approaches rather than hierarchical knowledge transfer systems to ensure more equitable collaboration between institutions from different regions

Establishing regional and local Internet governance forums alongside global processes to enable broader participation while maintaining global coordination

Combining traditional diplomatic approaches with innovative governance structures that can adapt more quickly to technological changes

I’m actually wondering whether governments are already traditional actors in technology diplomacy, because the role of technology is still quite new, I would say, to traditional diplomacy… many diplomats actually find themselves in a rather new role in these current times, when private sector, and I would say even individual players, have so much power that often we see that they have more power than actually these traditional actors as governments.

Speaker

Nele Leosk

Reason

This comment fundamentally challenged the framing premise of the entire discussion by questioning the binary between ‘traditional’ and ‘non-traditional’ actors. It revealed that even supposedly traditional diplomatic actors are actually newcomers to tech diplomacy, and highlighted the power shift where private actors now often have more influence than governments.

Impact

This reframing set a more nuanced tone for the entire discussion, moving away from a simple traditional vs. non-traditional dichotomy to a more complex understanding of evolving roles and power dynamics in tech diplomacy. It influenced subsequent speakers to focus more on collaboration and adaptation rather than replacement of traditional structures.

We’re living in an era of accelerated change and we need to be able to anticipate what’s coming next… anticipation is that ingredient because we’re living in an era of accelerated change.

Speaker

Maricela Muñoz

Reason

This introduced the crucial concept of anticipatory governance as a missing ingredient in current science diplomacy approaches. It shifted focus from reactive to proactive governance, emphasizing the need to prepare for future technological developments rather than just respond to current ones.

Impact

This concept of anticipation became a recurring theme throughout the discussion, with multiple speakers referencing the need for forward-looking approaches. It elevated the conversation from discussing current collaboration models to thinking about future-oriented governance structures.

Academic networks can work as policy bridges… we are a bridge between some academic experts and policymakers… colleagues in Oslo are contributing to colleagues in Colombia and to policymakers in Colombia… or colleagues in Singapore are helping other colleagues in Africa.

Speaker

Armando Guío

Reason

This introduced a concrete operational model for how non-traditional actors can function in science diplomacy – as ‘policy bridges’ that create unexpected cross-regional collaborations. It provided a practical framework for understanding how academic networks can transcend traditional diplomatic channels.

Impact

This concept of academic networks as policy bridges influenced subsequent speakers to provide concrete examples of their own bridging activities. It moved the discussion from theoretical concepts to practical implementation models, with speakers like Isabel and Victor providing specific case studies.

These challenges are really an opportunity for us to collaborate… when you think about the fact that the global population will be one in four African, it becomes an international obligation, right? So we have to think as an international body, how do we make sense of that?

Speaker

Isobel Acquah

Reason

This reframed Africa’s technological challenges not as problems requiring aid, but as global opportunities requiring collaboration. The demographic projection created urgency and transformed the discussion from charity-based thinking to strategic partnership thinking.

Impact

This perspective shift influenced the tone of subsequent discussions about global cooperation, moving away from traditional donor-recipient models to more equitable partnership frameworks. It reinforced the theme of mutual benefit in international collaboration.

We ask everyone, including non-traditional actors, all stakeholders, to really consider the impact of any actions, of policies, of regulations on Wikipedia before making decisions… If policies and actions are bad for Wikipedia, they harm the open internet and many digital public goods.

Speaker

Jan Gerlach

Reason

This introduced a practical, actionable tool – the ‘Wikipedia test’ – that transforms abstract concepts about open internet governance into a concrete decision-making framework. It provided a tangible way for policymakers to evaluate the broader implications of their decisions.

Impact

This practical tool stood out among more theoretical discussions and provided a concrete takeaway for participants. It demonstrated how organizations can contribute specific methodologies to the broader science diplomacy toolkit, influencing the moderator’s final reflection on ‘actionable outcomes.’

We had a real strategy and we implemented that strategy into the country… signed diplomacy doesn’t remain confined to policy papers. It creates concrete tools, infrastructure, and institutional capacity.

Speaker

Víctor Muñoz

Reason

This emphasized the critical distinction between theoretical policy work and actual implementation, challenging the field to move beyond academic exercises to create tangible outcomes. It provided evidence that science diplomacy can produce measurable results.

Impact

This focus on implementation and concrete results influenced the final discussion toward actionable outcomes rather than just collaborative processes. It validated the practical potential of the approaches being discussed and encouraged other speakers to emphasize tangible results in their closing remarks.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by challenging initial assumptions, introducing practical frameworks, and emphasizing implementation over theory. Nele’s opening reframe moved the conversation away from a simple traditional vs. non-traditional binary toward a more nuanced understanding of evolving roles. Maricela’s emphasis on anticipation and Armando’s policy bridge concept provided concrete frameworks that subsequent speakers built upon with specific examples. Isobel’s reframing of challenges as opportunities and demographic imperatives shifted the tone toward equitable partnerships rather than aid relationships. Jan’s Wikipedia test and Victor’s emphasis on implementation grounded the theoretical discussion in practical tools and measurable outcomes. Together, these comments created a progression from conceptual reframing to practical implementation, culminating in the moderator’s final reflection on ‘actionable outcomes and projects’ rather than just collaborative processes. The discussion evolved from questioning basic assumptions to providing concrete tools and evidence for effective science diplomacy.

How can we better define and establish universally agreed upon definitions for science diplomacy and tech diplomacy?

Speaker

Sofie Schonborn

Explanation

The moderator noted that there are no universally agreed upon definitions for these terms, which creates challenges for establishing common frameworks and understanding across different stakeholders and regions.

How can governments adapt to the new environment where private sector and individual players have more power than traditional diplomatic actors?

Speaker

Nele Leosk

Explanation

This addresses the fundamental shift in power dynamics in tech diplomacy where non-state actors often have more influence than traditional government diplomats, requiring new approaches to diplomatic engagement.

How can we make global digital governance processes more accessible and less complex for private sector players and academia to follow?

Speaker

Nele Leosk

Explanation

The complexity of following processes like the Global Digital Compact and WSIS+20 creates barriers for meaningful participation by non-traditional actors who have valuable contributions to make.

How can we better integrate anticipatory governance approaches into science and tech diplomacy frameworks?

Speaker

Maricela Munoz

Explanation

In an era of accelerated technological development, there’s a need to move beyond reactive governance to anticipatory approaches that can better prepare for emerging challenges and opportunities.

How can we effectively reduce information asymmetries about new technologies between different regions and stakeholders?

Speaker

Armando Guio

Explanation

There are significant gaps in understanding of emerging technologies like quantum computing and advanced AI systems, particularly among policymakers from different parts of the world, which hinders effective governance.

How can we scale and replicate successful science diplomacy models like Colombia’s AI expert mission across different regions and contexts?

Speaker

Victor Munoz

Explanation

The Colombian case study demonstrates concrete success in implementing science diplomacy, but questions remain about how to adapt and scale such approaches to different political, economic, and cultural contexts.

How can we ensure multi-stakeholder approaches remain viable and effective in increasingly fragmented geopolitical environments?

Speaker

Jan Gerlach and Lucien Castex

Explanation

The open internet and multi-stakeholder governance models face threats from geopolitical tensions and fragmentation, requiring new strategies to maintain collaborative approaches.

How can we better prepare for Africa’s growing role as both a consumer market and innovation hub in global technology governance?

Speaker

Isobel Acquah

Explanation

With Africa’s population projected to be one in four globally, and increasing innovation coming from the continent, there’s a need to understand how to effectively integrate African perspectives and capabilities into global governance frameworks.

What concrete tools and frameworks can be developed to help policymakers better understand technologies before attempting to regulate them?

Speaker

Isobel Acquah and Armando Guio

Explanation

There’s a recognized gap between technological development and policy understanding, with calls for bringing policymakers closer to actual technologies and creating better educational frameworks.

How can we maintain trust in science and evidence-based policymaking in times of polarization and fragmentation?

Speaker

Maricela Munoz and Victor Munoz

Explanation

Current geopolitical tensions and polarization threaten the foundation of science diplomacy, requiring strategies to preserve and strengthen trust in scientific approaches to governance.

Summary

This open forum session focused on enhancing the role of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) through the upcoming World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review and Global Digital Compact (GDC) follow-up processes. The discussion featured representatives from governments, international organizations, business, and youth communities sharing their priorities and strategies for strengthening global digital governance.

Government representatives emphasized the need to secure the IGF’s long-term future through renewed mandates, improved funding mechanisms, and enhanced inclusivity. Australia presented a non-paper proposing communities of practice and stronger connections between global, regional, and national IGF initiatives. The European Union advocated for meaningful multi-stakeholder participation, appointment of an IGF director position, and the establishment of an informal multi-stakeholder sounding board to support the negotiation process.

International organizations, represented by ITU, highlighted the importance of coordinated UN system-wide approaches to avoid duplication while building on WSIS’s 20-year legacy. They emphasized that existing WSIS frameworks could effectively implement GDC objectives through established multi-stakeholder platforms like the IGF and WSIS Forum.

The business community stressed the value of the IGF as an accessible forum for policy dialogue and called for greater stability through long-term mandate renewals. Youth representatives outlined four key priorities: digital inclusion, digital skills and literacy, safety and mental health, and meaningful participation in governance processes.

All participants agreed on the critical importance of maintaining the IGF’s multi-stakeholder model while addressing funding challenges and ensuring broader participation from underrepresented communities. The discussion concluded with calls for continued collaboration and bold, positive approaches to bridge digital divides and strengthen the IGF’s role in global digital governance.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Strengthening the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) through WSIS Plus 20 and Global Digital Compact processes**: All speakers emphasized the need to secure long-term funding, extend the IGF mandate beyond the current 5-year cycle, and enhance institutional capacity through measures like appointing a director position and establishing better connections between global, regional, and national IGF initiatives.

– **Ensuring meaningful multi-stakeholder participation and inclusivity**: Participants stressed the importance of maintaining the IGF’s unique multi-stakeholder model while addressing barriers to participation, particularly for underrepresented communities, youth, and stakeholders from the Global South. This includes both financial support for attendance and structural mechanisms for inclusive decision-making.

– **Bridging digital divides and promoting digital inclusion**: Speakers highlighted persistent connectivity gaps (38% of African population lacks internet access, 189 million more men than women are online globally) and emphasized the need to move beyond coverage to focus on meaningful connectivity, digital skills, and capacity building programs.

– **Youth empowerment and intergenerational collaboration**: The discussion emphasized youth as digital natives and future leaders who need not just inclusion but co-ownership in digital governance processes, supported by mentorship, funding, and platforms that amplify youth voices in policy development.

– **Coordination and avoiding duplication across UN processes**: Participants discussed the need for streamlined approaches between WSIS Plus 20 review and Global Digital Compact implementation, with UN agencies coordinating through existing frameworks while building on 20 years of WSIS experience.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to identify priorities and strategies for strengthening the Internet Governance Forum through upcoming WSIS Plus 20 review and Global Digital Compact follow-up processes. Participants sought to align different stakeholder perspectives (government, business, international organizations, and youth) on how to enhance the IGF’s role in global digital governance while maintaining its multi-stakeholder character.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently collaborative and constructive tone throughout. Speakers demonstrated mutual respect and built upon each other’s points rather than presenting conflicting views. There was a shared sense of urgency about upcoming negotiations and processes, but this was balanced with optimism about the IGF’s proven track record and potential for growth. The tone remained professional yet accessible, with speakers acknowledging challenges while focusing on practical solutions and positive outcomes.

Speakers

– **Yoichi Iida** – Former Asset and Vice Minister at the Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (Session Moderator)

– **William Lee** – WSIS Plus 20 Policy Lead for the Australian Government’s Department of Infrastructure and Communications

– **Philipp Schulte** – Representative from the Ministry of Education, Digital Transformation and Government Modernization of Germany

– **Maarit Palovirta** – Deputy Director General at Connect Europe (Brussels-based trade association representing European telecom operators)

– **Gitanjali Sah** – Strategy and Policy Coordinator, ITU (participating online)

– **Murillo Salvador** – Representative from Youth IGF and Swiss Youth IGF

**Additional speakers:**

None identified beyond the speakers names list provided.

# Summary: Enhancing the Internet Governance Forum Through WSIS Plus 20 and Global Digital Compact Processes

## Introduction and Context

This open forum session, moderated by Yoichi Iida, former Assistant Vice Minister at the Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, brought together stakeholders to discuss strengthening the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) through the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plus 20 review and Global Digital Compact (GDC) follow-up processes.

Iida outlined the critical timeline ahead: “zero draft in August, second preparatory meeting in mid-October, first draft outcome document in November, final consensus in high-level meeting in December.” The session featured representatives from governments, international organisations, business, and youth communities sharing their priorities for enhancing global digital governance.

## Government Perspectives

### Australian Government Position

William Lee, WSIS Plus 20 Policy Lead from Australia’s Department of Infrastructure and Communications, presented Australia’s approach outlined in a non-paper, emphasising it as “a conversation starter, not necessarily the final outcome our government will support.”

Australia’s key priorities include:

– Creating “communities of practice” – collaborative groups bringing stakeholders together around specific topics to drive concrete outcomes

– Establishing systematic connections between global IGF and national/regional initiatives “so that all voices can be heard at all levels of the conversation”

– Focusing on “universal and meaningful connectivity as a critical priority,” particularly addressing the usage gap

– Prioritising youth empowerment, recognising that “youth empowerment is central as they are the future of the digital world and deliver unprecedented innovations”

### German Government Approach

Philipp Schulte from Germany’s Ministry of Education, Digital Transformation and Government Modernisation congratulated Australia on their non-paper and mentioned that Switzerland also has a non-paper. Germany’s focus centred on institutional strengthening and meaningful multi-stakeholder participation.

Key German proposals include:

– “Longer-term mandate renewal beyond the typical five-year cycle” for greater stability

– “Strengthening the IGF secretariat through appointment of a director position to improve leadership and coordination”

– Being “open-minded to have this discussion” about funding mechanisms

– Establishing an informal multi-stakeholder sounding board with “10 members of current MAG and leadership panel”

Schulte emphasised concerns that “stakeholder input might diminish as negotiations progress towards final stages” and highlighted Germany’s fellowship programme for young adults aged 18-30, achieving “little money with huge impact.”

## International Organisation Perspective

Gitanjali Sah, Strategy and Policy Coordinator for the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), participated online and positioned the Global Digital Compact as “a booster to the WSIS process, with WSIS architecture ready to implement GDC objectives through established multi-stakeholder platforms like the IGF and WSIS Forum.”

Sah provided key statistics demonstrating WSIS engagement: “WSIS Stocktaking Database has 2 million subscribers and 15,000 entries” and “WSIS prizes had record 972 submissions with 2.2 million words engagement.”

She emphasised that “digital inclusivity remains essential given that 38% of the African population lacks internet access and 189 million more men than women are online globally,” and stressed the importance of “deepening coordination through the UN Group on Information Societies to avoid duplication.”

## Business Community Perspective

Marit Palovirta, Deputy Director General at Connect Europe representing European telecom operators, highlighted the IGF’s accessibility for private sector engagement: “for private sector representatives, we come here much easier than we would go to formalised meetings at the ITU or the OECD.”

Her key points included:

– Implementation of meaningful connectivity “requires partnership between governments and private sector with clear measurement frameworks”

– Supporting “simplicity to enable meaningful stakeholder participation with limited resources”

– Advocating for “more stability at the IGF level to remove distractions” from mandate renewal uncertainties

## Youth Community Perspective

Murillo Salvador, representing both Swiss Youth IGF and “the global youth IGF network in 40+ countries,” outlined four key priorities: digital inclusion, digital skills and literacy, online safety and mental health, and meaningful participation in governance processes.

Salvador emphasised moving beyond basic inclusion, proposing “moving from guaranteeing access to enabling meaningful participation to eventual co-ownership in global arenas.” He highlighted that the Youth IGF network “already mobilises and educates youth across 40+ countries.”

Key youth priorities include:

– Ensuring “affordable, reliable, secure internet access especially for underserved regions”

– Developing “digital skills and literacy crucial for meaningful online engagement”

– Implementing “holistic digital well-being approaches”

– Creating measurable targets towards “youth-led accountability mechanisms”

## Areas of Consensus

Strong agreement emerged across stakeholder groups on several key areas:

### Multi-stakeholder Governance

All participants endorsed the multi-stakeholder approach as fundamental. Iida emphasised that “the IGF provides a unique venue for multi-stakeholder learning and equal participation across different stakeholder groups.”

### IGF Sustainability

Consensus existed on securing the IGF’s long-term future through enhanced mandates and sustainable funding, with support for longer-term mandate renewals and greater institutional stability.

### Youth Empowerment

All speakers recognised youth empowerment as essential, moving beyond traditional inclusion to acknowledge young people as current innovators deserving meaningful participation.

### Digital Divide Urgency

Participants agreed on the urgent need to address persistent digital divides, emphasising meaningful usage rather than just coverage expansion.

## Next Steps and Timeline

As outlined by the moderator, the WSIS Plus 20 process moves rapidly through 2024, with key milestones leading to the final high-level meeting in December. The discussion demonstrated strong stakeholder alignment on fundamental priorities for IGF strengthening.

## Conclusion

William Lee’s closing metaphor captured the current moment: “building a bridge” where “the hardest part is the moment before you connect the two parts, where both parts are teetering on the edge and there may be a storm.”

The session revealed remarkable consensus across diverse stakeholder groups on strengthening the IGF through enhanced mandates, sustainable funding, maintained multi-stakeholder approaches, youth empowerment, and addressing digital divides. This alignment provides a strong foundation for advancing IGF strengthening initiatives through the WSIS Plus 20 review process, building on the IGF’s 20-year track record of multi-stakeholder collaboration in global digital governance.

Yoichi Iida: Good afternoon. Thank you very much for joining us in this open forum session on enhancing the role of the Internet Governance Forum through global digital compact follow-up and WSIS Plus training review processes. So my name is Yoichi Iida, the former Asset and Vice Minister at the Japanese Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications and we have excellent five speakers on my side, four next to me and one online. So thank you very much to all the panelists for joining me in this session and let me introduce quickly five speakers. First we have Ms. Marit Palovilta, if I pronounce correctly and Deputy Director General at Connect Europe. And second we have Mr. Murillo Salvador from Youth IGF. Thank you very much. And next we have Mr. William Lee from the Australian Government working at the Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications, Sport and the Art Ministry. You have a lot of work. And then we have also the government of Germany, Mr. Philippe Schutte from the Ministry of Education. Digital Transformation and Government Modernization of Germany Ms. Gitanjali Sarr, Strategy and Policy Coordinator, ITU Online . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . We will have zero draft in August, and we will have the second preparatory meeting in mid-October. And then the UN provides information that we will have the first draft outcome document in November, which needs to be negotiated to reach the final consensus in a high-level meeting on the sideline of General Assembly in the middle of December this year. So we have a very important process to come in front of us, and today I want to discuss how we can make our IGF even stronger and more robust through this negotiation, and what would be the point, what would be the priorities for us. And in particular, from the viewpoint of different stakeholders, and then how we can achieve those priorities. That is the major point of this session. So without further ado, I would like to ask questions to individual panelists. So the first question, having looked at the progress over the last one or two years, what are your priorities or targets in the coming WSIS Plus 20 review and global digital compact follow-up process? So I would like to first invite Mr. William Lee. Your government issued a non-paper, and what are the major points in the paper, and what do you think the Australian government wants to achieve?

William Lee: Thank you and thank you very much for having me. My name is William Lee. I’m the WSIS Plus 20 Policy Lead for the Australian Government’s Department of Infrastructure and Communications and many other things. As you mentioned, Australia only recently published a non-paper on the WSIS Plus 20 process, which sets out some of our objectives and some of the ideas that we think might be worthy of consideration and conversation. What I will say at the start is that we have put this out as a conversation starter. It’s not necessarily where we think the final outcome will be and it’s not necessarily the final outcome that our government will support. But what we have tried to do is understand what different parts of the global community see as important and taken through the evidence that exists, what are some of the ideas that could come forward. I think it’s probably prudent to start on the question of the Internet Governance Forum, given we are here in Norway at the moment. And I think one of the key things for us is to secure the long-term future of the IGF, both in terms of its function, its mandate, but also the resourcing that it needs to deliver. One of the key things that we hear time and time again is the question of inclusivity and how do we bring the tens of thousands of people, the hundreds of thousands of people that are interested in digital issues together. It’s obviously not practical that everyone comes to the global IGF, but what we have seen through the WSIS process over the last 20 years is some really, really strong national and regional initiatives emerge, youth IGFs emerge, other processes emerge. And one of the things that we would like to see is a conversation about how we start a cycle of conversation between the global IGF and these national and regional initiatives So that all voices can be heard at all levels of the conversation and nothing is lost in those processes We would love to see as many people as possible at the global IGF from as many different regions and stakeholders as possible And while we have some ideas about how we may be able to raise money to better support those that need it to be able to participate in some of these conversations We also recognize that there is a need to connect those conversations together So that no matter the resources and capability of each stakeholder We make sure that those voices are not lost in the process. I think other elements That are really important for us cultural and linguistic diversity. I think really valuable. I think Dealing with the online environment that we now face Really challenging, but I think really important. How do we provide a safe online environment? How do we address the questions around digital platforms? How do we strengthen information integrity online? I think the question of youth empowerment and engagement is really central I think Youth is the future of this digital world and they are delivering things that we would never have thought possible But how do we connect their voice at every stage of that conversation? How do we innovate? How do we encourage entrepreneurs? How do we support small and medium businesses engage with their online world? Of course universal and meaningful connectivity is really really important There is still a third of the world offline That is mostly a usage gap rather than and finally one of the things that I will say in the in the non paper that we have presented is this idea of communities of practice and the purpose behind that is really that question of how do we focus energy and effort from all parts of the community into problems that we know exist, challenges that we know are being articulated and digital gaps or digital divides that need to be closed and bridged and so one of the ways we think we can do that is through bringing together stakeholders around particular topics and issues for a time limited period to really focus in on particular issues and drive outcomes forward and the IGF as a institution is a really valuable way to bring all of those conversations together. I’ll pause there, thank you very much.

Yoichi Iida: Okay, thank you very much William for this very much comprehensive comment and also the stress on the inclusivity and also diversity which are two of the most important elements the IGF is realizing in this formulation. So thank you very much for the comment and now I would like to turn to Mr. Philip Schutte to talk about the viewpoint from probably European perspective. We have the kind of agreement on the informal multi-stakeholder sounding board and maybe that concept is also very important in your comment.

Philipp Schulte: Yes, thank you Yuichi. Thank you for having me, and also congratulations to Australia for this excellent non-paper. First people already were quoting the paper to me, so I think that’s already a success here. Congratulations. And indeed, as Australia and other UN member states were thinking about the process, I mean, way ahead already, before the Elements paper, which was published last Friday, came to us, the EU, I mean, the EU will negotiate as a whole, as a bloc in the UN system, was finding common positions already in the last month, and was also trying to come up with a positive approach and bringing some ideas in it. Indeed, the founding board was a non-paper by the EU and its member states, and we are really pleased to see that the co-facilitator took up the idea, and I mean, it’s not one to run translated, but I mean, it also was only a discussion paper from us, but we are really pleased to see that they took up the idea and, yeah, have started a call for application for MAG members of the current MAG and the leadership panel, and I think 10 members of the current MAG and the leadership panel will be in the founding board, and it’s completely informal, it’s not institutionalized, so it’s not a heavy bureaucracy, but it’s one mean for the co-facilitators to test some ideas, to exchange views, since being a co-facilitator can be a heavy burden, and it’s a lot of work for the delegations in New York, so I think that might be a helpful tool to support the co-facilitators. The origin question on priorities, I mean I totally agree with what William said, that are also, a lot of them are also priorities of German government but also of the European Union. Indeed, a key priority, and that doesn’t come as a surprise to you, will be the Internet Governance Forum and the meaningful stakeholder participation at the Internet Governance Forum but also through other Internet Governance processes. And one way indeed is, well one idea how to implement that is the sounding board. But speaking about the IGF, it’s like a renewal of the mandate would be awesome, but maybe we can even, yeah, dream a bit more and not only have a new rule for five years but maybe a longer long-term renewal. And of course, I mean that’s always the topic when we talk about the IGF, it’s a financial foundation of the IGF. We have some, I mean we did some good efforts in the last year, the leadership panel helped a lot in raising funds and I think we can build on that. And I think the voluntary funding is a good, I think it’s actually an asset of the IGF and we see that in the current budget crisis that is actually an advantage of the IGF that is voluntary funding and I think we should keep voluntary funding but we might also discuss if like part of the funding can be integrated in the UN budget. We are at least open-minded to have this discussion and we are also happy to receive ideas on this. And then, I mean, it’s not only about money but it’s also about people and ideas and here one thing which in our internal analysis about the IGF and the multi-stakeholder system is that we would like to have a stronger voice of the IGF and other multilateral organizations. but also another multi-stakeholder forum, and we think that one idea the EU will promote during the business forum is to strengthen the IGF secretariat in particular through appointment of a director position. So this existed in the past, but was then kind of forgotten because of budgetary constraints, but we think that could really strengthen the IGF and could create a better leadership. It would be easier for other UN agencies also to exchange with the IGF secretariat and so on. So these are priorities. Other priorities, of course, for the business is the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. We think that we could strengthen the role in the WSIS process since human rights issues and human-centric design of technologies will become more and more important with new topics coming up, and the EU will definitely advocate for that. And then the WSIS is not only about content, but it’s very much also about the process itself. And I mean, we have the sounding board now, but we also advocate for strong and meaningful multi-stakeholder participation through the whole process to the very end, and I think that will be also a top priority for us.

Yoichi Iida: Okay, thank you very much for those very insightful comments. And actually, the common position of EU is always making a lot of impact on the negotiation, in particular between the groups of countries, and I think the EU strategy will be very important for other like-minded partners. So now we have heard from two governments, and now I would like to invite Gitanjali online to ask about a kind of perspective of international organization. So Gitanjali, the floor is yours.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Yoichi-san. Can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you loud and clear. Okay, good afternoon and apologies for not being there. In-person, I will be joining IGF on the 25th. We have our ITU council ongoing, so we have been quite busy here. So, of course, WSIS, like we heard before from Philip and William, is really digital cooperation in action. Currently, we work with more than 50 UN entities. If you would like a UN perspective, it’s really one UN in action looking at digital cooperation issues. And each one of us, based on our respective mandates, implement or co-implement different WSIS action lines. For example, ITU leads the facilitation of infrastructure, cybersecurity, capacity building and enabling environment. Similarly, WHO for e-health, ILO for e-employment. And you will see this beauty of the framework in the WSIS plus 20 action line assessments that the WSIS action line facilitators have made. And it’s available online on the WSIS forum page as well as the WSIS plus 20 review page. This is a valuable piece of document because it highlights the emerging trends challenges from the perspective of the UN agencies facilitating these action lines. So, we have taken this process, of course, very seriously, especially the key UN agencies involved. We launched a joint preparatory process in September 2022, actually, where we started designing a roadmap. So, ITU Secretary General has a WSIS plus 20 roadmap that we present to our membership. UNESCO has their WSIS plus 20 roadmap that they will present to their governing body and so does the CSTD. This preparatory process, of course, we had the annual session of the UN CSTD where the draft ECOSOC resolution was approved by member states. We had the UNESCO conference and we will soon have the ITU and other UN agencies WSIS forum and, of course, IGF with UNOTAB right now. So, we saw the commitment of ITU’s membership during the ITU Council, which is ongoing right now. We presented the WSIS documents where they actually showed the commitment towards not only what we’ve achieved in the 20 years, but also the future of the WSIS process. William, congratulations for the Australian paper and Switzerland also has a non-paper on WSIS plus 20. Very good documents and the WSIS cofacts came up with the elements paper. Also appreciate that, but of course, we will be providing our feedback also in the sense that important multi-stakeholder platform like WSIS forum is missing from the paper. So, we will be providing our feedback on it as well. So, in terms of the priorities, Yoichi Iida, we look at, of course, digital inclusivity, bridging the digital divide. It’s really unacceptable that 38% of the African population only has access to the internet. Thank you very much. Thank you. Remain with 189 million more men online than women globally. Rural populations, of course, this appropriately affected as well. And capacity building skills training with the evolution of technology, we really have to ensure that digital skills and capacity building tools and knowledge are in place for people. Of course, for our priorities, the multi-stakeholder framework, it remains one of the key successes of WSIS, where we have been working together to address the complexities of the digital world. As part of the WSIS plus 20 review, it’s also essential to highlight and strengthen the role of the Internet Governance Forum for Global Digital Governance Services Forum for grassroots development. Both have been essential in crystallizing dialogue and developing concrete outcomes. The WSIS Stocktaking Database, which has more than 2 million subscribers and 15,000 entries, really remains a vital tool for capturing real digital impact. And these are the WSIS regional and national initiatives which have been inputted by the stakeholders on their own. Every year, we have a call for action to update the projects. And the WSIS prizes, we had a record number of submissions this year, 972, with an increased global engagement of 2.2 million words. So this really shows the real enthusiasm and the commitment that the stakeholders have towards all of these processes. Of course, we would like to say, Yoichi Iida, that the WSIS framework has evolved with the evolution of technology because the action lines have provided a great framework. With respect to the GDC, we look at it as a booster to the WSIS process. And we, the UNGIS group, the United Nations group, came up with a matrix that maps the GDC objectives with the WSIS action lines and the WSIS process in general. And it really shows that we are already implementing the objectives of GDC. And we stand ready, as the CSTD ECOSOC resolution mentioned, that the WSIS architecture stands ready to implement the GDC objectives. I’ll end by saying that WSIS has focused on building adaptive governance processes and can keep pace with rapid evolution of technology. And we need to ensure that we have a very dynamic process so that we can evolve and meet the challenges and opportunities presented by new technologies. Back to you, Yoichi Iida.

Yoichi Iida: Thank you very much, Gitanjali-san, for the very insightful comment. And also, the UN negotiation and discussion process is always complicated. And even for us, government officials, your formulation and organization of the different elements and the existing resources is quite useful for us. So thank you very much. And we fully agree to the point made by Gitanjali and also Philippe, and the inclusivity and the meaningful participation of stakeholders is critically important. In particular, when we look back at the process of GDC negotiation last year. So now I would like to invite Marit, Ms. Marit Palavista, for your priorities from the business perspective.

Maarit Palovirta: Thank you very much, and thank you for the kind invitation to be part of this panel today. So, my name is Marit Palavista, I’m the Deputy Director General at Connect Europe. And for those who don’t know us, we are a Brussels-based trade association and we represent the European telecom operators. So our members invest a lot in telecoms. to telecom operators. And so you might ask what is the benefit of the multi-stakeholder model for us specifically and also of the IGF. So I think that to give you an answer, so first of all I think our members they drive really the digital transformation not only of the European continent but also beyond. So some of our largest members are present in Africa, in Asia, in Latin America and of course providing connectivity services. And connectivity services are today running on open and global IP protocols and the whole technical foundation that is still very solid and firm is very important for operators to be able to provide these interoperable and connectivity services. And of course this process is firmly backed up by the multi-stakeholder model and has been so for quite some time. So that’s a very clear benefit for us. The second benefit is more than in the area of policy and specifically the IGF. So we believe that the IGF and in general the internet governance sphere is very important for aligning common principles for different policy issues. And for us this is really more about policy shaping than about policy making. So of course laws are made in our case in Europe but this global forum really allows us to exchange with different stakeholders and also to understand and learn what’s going on in the world. And in many ways I think one of the benefits of the IGF is that it’s so inclusive and open that for a private sector representative like ourselves we come here much easier than we would perhaps go to I don’t know some of the formalized meetings at the ITU or the OECD. And just for your information we are a sector member of the ITU as well and also part of the OECD BIAC but in terms of time spent and resources the IGF seems to be an easier forum for us to engage. And just for the priorities on the WSIS plus 20. So this is of course something that governments are hands-on negotiating but we are very firmly calling for the continuation of the IGF mandate and very much for the reasons that I just mentioned. We believe that this is truly an invaluable forum to promote the multi-stakeholder engagement and to discuss the different policy issues. And then in which shape or form we know very well that there’s issue with budgeting that also the let’s say the stability or the exact form and shape is still under discussion. So we are exchanging on these and liaising at the regional level with our policymakers and also then hoping to have our voice heard in the discussions which we of course cannot really attend and also due to resourcing issues it is challenging. On the GDC priority it is very important for us that the implementation will be of course a success and we would be also supportive of including the multi-stakeholder approach or different stakeholders in the implementation phase. And I think for example for our sector so we have meaningful connectivity as part of the GDC framing and of course it is very important for us to understand then how will this be measured and what are we in the end expected to do because the implementation will happen as a partnership between governments and private sector also of course of the not-for-profit in some cases. So again there the multi-stakeholder aspect is very important. I would also agree I think it was William who mentioned that when we talk about the implementation it’s not only about the coverage it’s also about the usage. So looking at this whole what is meaningful connectivity and taking a kind of ecosystemic point of view because also in Europe we see very well that today we have more coverage than we actually have uptake of the services. So maybe those are my introductory remarks on this important topic. Thank you.

Yoichi Iida: Okay thank you very much Marit for the comment and I cannot agree more to the point that IGF is so unique place where the different stakeholders meet each other on equal basis. And actually this is a very very important venue for the government officials to learn how we can work in multi-stakeholder approach together with other stakeholders. So thank you very much for the comment and now I would like to invite the youth representative Mr. Murillo Salvador.

Murillo Salvador: Thank you. Thank you very much. Yes I’m Murillo. I’m here representing the Swiss Youth IGF but also the global youth IGF which is a network of the youth IGFs in more than 40 countries and we of course have been organizing national regional events. We have been developing capacity building programs and policy consultations to represent this youth voice that as you said is extremely important because youth brings fresh perspective. The youth are digital natives so they have this know-how sometimes that we. Director-General, IGF Youth Inclusion is not just optional, it is essential. If we focus on the future role of the IGF, we can propose four priorities, which are not just principles for us, but should be ideally measurable targets towards a youth-led accountability mechanism for these four principles. Our first principle, digital inclusion, is crucial to ensure that we have affordable, reliable, secure access of the Internet for all, especially in underserved regions. And here we can, of course, cross this notion with the global majority and youth in the global majority. Digital skills and literacy, that’s our first principle. Second principle, my apologies, and here we highlight the competencies to meaningfully engage online, so not only have access, but also have the capacity to meaningfully engage in the digital economy, to understand technology from a critical point of view, so as to develop that digital citizenship, which is essential, looking forward into the future. Our third principle, I’d like to highlight here, concerns safety and mental health, a huge issue now, of course, increasingly important now. So addressing the harms that are caused by mental health, addressing the disinformation online, and developing this holistic idea of digital well-being is crucial for an organization like the IGF, thinking into the future. And the fourth principle that I want to put forward here is the participation in the governance, which is the final step, so ensuring that these formal mechanisms to contribute and to co-create the policies that, of course, being here myself is part of that, but it’s much broader than that, and that’s our first priority. Thank you.

Yoichi Iida: Okay, thank you very much to all five speakers for your very, very insightful and also the forward-looking comments, and also the very strategic priorities. So, having heard from all of you about your priorities and the targets in the process coming, such as WSIS Review, and also GDC follow-up. How do you think those priorities and the targets can be achieved and what is your strategy? What would you recommend to governments who work in the negotiations and also what do you recommend to maybe DESA or UN people on how to ensure the meaningful participation in the process? So first on this question, let me invite Gitanjali online for your opinions on the proposals and recommendations on how to achieve those priorities.

Gitanjali Sah: Thank you, Yoichi-san. So of course from our side, you know, from the UN perspective the follow-up will require a coordinated, inclusive and action-oriented strategy and really from what we hear from all stakeholders is that we should have a lot of ambition to ensure that all those priorities can be achieved. So our approach is anchored in the WSIS legacy which puts people at the center of digital transformation, promotes multi-stakeholder cooperation and builds agile governance for the future. We do know that we have to be agile to be able to evolve with the changing technologies. So we will deepen our coordination through the United Nations Group on Information Societies, ensuring that there is no duplication and that we are working in sync based on each other’s mandates and priorities to ensure that we have a UN system-wide digital and all these actions are aligned and they’re complementary. We do know that there are a lot of restrictions in of course resources right now, so we have to be sure that we don’t duplicate and then we complement each other. Of course from our side as UN agencies we really feel that we need to continue to build on the platforms of the Internet Governance Forum and the WSIS Forum to ensure that they’re able to provide wider consultations. So we have these open consultation processes where we are able to gather views and inputs of all stakeholders so that we can build these programs, the agendas and really to shape policy as one of the speakers mentioned before me as well. And also representation of the grassroots and the under-represented stakeholders. So really the importance of these platforms to be able to provide all these inputs from different communities. Then digital transformation really was must work for everyone. So to be able to prioritize digital skills and capacity building we need to highlight the action line on capacity building. So ITU is currently leading the facilitation of it with UNDP and with many other UN agencies especially UNESCO, UNITAR and so on so forth. Also promoting local ownership and having like tailored local solutions capacity building program is really important for the success of any process like this as well. Some of you did mention for us it’s really important that we also have a measurable impact. Currently the WSIS action line complementing of course a complementary framework for WSIS and the GDC, avoid duplication and maximize synergies. The UN bodies that are involved in the WSIS implementation are already working on it and we think that we will be able to offer a tested and inclusive implementation model to deliver on the GDC commitment. So in summary, Yoichi-san, build on the 20 years of WSIS’ success, strengthen the multi-stakeholder partnerships and collaborations, mobilize digital cooperation across all levels, the UN at the national, regional and international level as well. Of course, regional commissions, we work very closely with them and to ensure that digital transformation advances equality and the internationally agreed development goals. Back to you, Yoichi-san.

Yoichi Iida: Okay, Gitanjali-san, thank you very much for the very concrete proposals and the comments and strategic viewpoints. In particular, the coordination inside the UN would be very important and that is one of the stressed points in the GDC negotiation last year. And also measurable indicators would be very important and that is something before us to do in the coming month. So having listened to these points and also representation would be very important in particular from the communities in the little bit less strong position. From that point of view, I would like to invite again Murillo on your opinion. How do you think your priorities can be achieved and what do you think the major roles of the youth community and how do you think you can materialize your priorities or how other communities or governments or other generations can help youth community take your role?

Murillo Salvador: Thank you for the great question. I’ll try to be concise. So a lot of this we’re already doing and this goes in the spirit of the GDC that refers to the WSIS outcomes as a foundation on which to build. And the youth IGF is already providing a good foundation that should be further supported, I think. So we have three points to answer your question. One is working on youth capacity, the second is working on youth voice and decision making, and third is promoting that international generation collaboration that you mentioned. So just to elaborate on each point very quickly, the first point, youth community roles here are important. So our youth community, the youth IGF in each national chapter, we are already mobilizing and educating and organizing the youth, already co-developing this policy recommendations and bringing them here and then translating back the outcomes to the local peers. So this is a work that we are already doing that we ask of continuous support as we think of the future. Second point, of course, thinking about youth voice and enabling that voice, everything goes back to funding. So funding the youth, funding us being here, of course, being able to speak here, but also more broadly our activities, we think about moving from guaranteeing access to enabling many from participation, as we have already mentioned, to a final, let’s say, ambition of having a co-ownership sort of ideal for youth in this global arenas. Now the third point, as I mentioned, generational collaboration is essential here. Mentorship, of course, providing these mentorship opportunities is something that we call for. Resource sharing from other communities to the youth communities, that’s essential too. As I mentioned, we have this financing. And then thinking about not just including us, but also being our allies and not just speaking for us, but opening the doors for us and letting us speak for ourselves. Because, as I mentioned, we already do this work of gathering input and formulating recommendations. So that’s all. Thank you.

Yoichi Iida: Okay, thank you very much. Very future-looking comments and also these are very important role of youth community. And we are discussing for the future of internet and the future of internet will be owned by the youth generation. So that is very important. And they talked about some support from other communities and also co-ownership. So having listened to these points and what is your view, Marit, from a business perspective? How do you think you can achieve your priorities and also how do you think business community can help other communities?

Maarit Palovirta: Yes, so thank you very much. On the goals of WSIS, I’m just, you know, I think I very much agreed with what also Gitanjali just said about not duplicating and being simple. So when we think about our participation, but I’m also thinking other communities. for stakeholders like ourselves to dedicate time and resources to to meaningfully contribute. So I think avoiding duplication and simplicity that would be really my number one. I also liked like the point I think Philip made it on on reinforcing the regional or the link between the regional initiatives and and the global ones. So we for example we very much work with the European Internet Governance Forum as well the EuroDIG and I think that you know for many communities who are maybe even who maybe even have less resources than ourselves you know they could use this regional event as a first kind of a base to go on and discuss an exchange and then there is a mechanism if there was somehow a clear link also to bring these messages to the global forum then that could also be very effective from from our point of view. And I think lastly and it was already mentioned and I also mentioned in myself so I think more stability at the IGF level that would you know I don’t know remove a lot of distraction. So now we every five years we’re discussing the process a lot simply because there’s a renewal of the mandate. So I think that some level of permanence and funding would really help us also then focus on the key policy issues at hand and really focus on the substance and and these important issues that we all need to exchange on. So I think those would be my three messages. Thank you.

Yoichi Iida: Okay thank you very much. We fully agree to the point in particular the simplicity or streamlining the discussion and so many emerging topics and policy items which we have to tackle for our policy for the future. So having listened to those views from different communities I would like to ask a government perspective from two speakers. So first I would like to invite probably Philip on your priorities and the understanding on how to achieve those priorities.

Philipp Schulte: Thank you. Just before to react on some of the points mentioned. First of all I actually think one of the main benefits is the engagement. The IGF and it’s even I would say it’s even for government easier to engage at the IGF level and I think that’s a huge benefit and that’s what also why we come here and present our strategies and our priorities because Here we actually get the input to make them better and to make them fit for the system and for for for the stakeholders So and then on on the second point When we talk about the IGF, we always like we need more funding and we need to extend but actually and that’s all true yeah, but Actually, it works out also pretty well. Yeah, and so the secretary is doing an amazing job. You and these are really committed and So we have this amazing conference yet last year an amazing conference in Kyoto. That was a major success So we have huge events which are always complicated to organize, but they are successful people come there There are a thousand people. They have a good time They have a great conference and I think we should value that and we should communicate that maybe better Yeah, so this is really conference if you want to discuss digital policy on an international or global level There’s no other conference such as the IGF and you really have to come here Yeah to discuss and to meet the people and I think that’s a great great value and maybe we should Be a bit better and communicated. So coming to back to our priorities I mean, I mentioned and there’s always month the money question we supporting the IGF, but we also supporting our Organization, but then it’s not on only about money. It’s also about people and ideas So what what we did in Germany as arm, so we saw that thought okay, we what can we do and what’s really low-key kind of easy thing to to to to support the community and We established a fellowship international digital policy for young young adults from 18 to 30 years and We support them to come to the IGF but also to other international and multilateral conferences such as the AI summit at the AI Action Summit and but also the CSTD. So we have 16 young people who are really eager to learn about the community and we help them to get engaged in the community. So we introduce them to people they might want to talk to. We pay the travel cost but also we explain what’s going on, how is the IGF, why should be engaged. And I think that’s compared to other government programs, little money with a huge impact and it really can help the community because these people now know how it goes, know the multi-stakeholder approach, know how the IGF was established, how the IGF works, how the community thinks and now they can find their own way in the community which is, even it’s very inclusive, is sometimes a bit difficult to approach the people who work in WSIS for 20 years, who are really experienced and you come in as a newcomer, I mean you might experience that better. But it’s sometimes a bit, even when I started my position I was a bit shy and didn’t know all the ideas before and so I think that’s really helpful and that can help not only the global, I mean not only the national IGF but also the regional IGF and also the global IGF in the end. And I will stop here since we have only four minutes left.

Yoichi Iida: Okay thank you very much and thank you very much for mentioning Kyoto IGF. Actually we learned a lot from Berlin IGF when we formulate the Kyoto IGF. So sorry for the management of time but last question, what is your strategy to achieve your priorities?

William Lee: Thanks very much. Look I’ll be very brief. I think what we are doing is building a bridge to cross those digital divides. Digital is complex. There are many, many different issues at the moment, and there are many, many experts who are really across different parts of that digital landscape. Second, I think as governments we need practical solutions. We are looking at problems, all of these problems together and looking towards the global community to show us how we can solve them. So if you have a practical idea, something that you would like the global community to consider, then that is something that we as governments want to hear. Thirdly, I think it’s really important to be bold and to be positive in what we’re thinking. The IGF is a testament to the positivity over the last 20 years, and its enduring nature regardless of what is happening outside of this conference venue is its success. And I think for it to continue to be a success, we need to continue to look at bold and positive ideas for the future. And then finally, we often talk about stakeholder groups in isolation. We talk about governments, civil society, technical community, business community, academia, youth. I actually think the IGF’s enduring value is its ability to bring all of those groups together and have conversations like this that cut across those stakeholder groups. And so I would only encourage those conversations to continue as we go forward for the next six months to continue to show the value that the IGF will bring. I said at the beginning that we’re building a bridge, and the hardest part about building a bridge is the moment before you connect the two parts, where both parts are teetering on the edge and there may be a storm or something.

Yoichi Iida: Thank you very much for the story. And so I understood, you know, this storm of WSIS Plus 20 review is coming, and our work to bridge, making the bridge has to be done. And that, in the end, the IGF will be even stronger. And the important thing is to continue our work without stopping and also learning each other. So I think time is running out, but I just want to take one question from the floor, if one of you have any questions to one or two or even more of the speakers. Do you have any questions? Is there any question online? Okay, I think the discussion was so clear that nobody has a question anymore. That makes us very happy, and thank you very much for the very active discussion. And actually, I myself learned quite a lot from the discussion from the speakers, and one of the most important learnings here is continue our work all together and keep learning from each other. And until not the end, but also connect the bridge, bridge the complete, and then we will have even more robust IGF beyond the WSIS Plus 20 review. So thank you very much for the discussion, and thank you very much for joining us to everybody on site and online. I hope this will be useful. some helpful learning for everybody and one of the things we learned here is let’s get a keep in contact and working together and the go beyond which is for us to any review so thank you very much and the session is concluded.

Agreement points

Strengthening IGF mandate and ensuring sustainable funding

Speakers

– William Lee
– Philipp Schulte
– Maarit Palovirta

Arguments

Secure long-term future of IGF with enhanced mandate, function, and sustainable resourcing

Advocate for longer-term mandate renewal beyond the typical five-year cycle

IGF provides invaluable forum for multi-stakeholder engagement and policy discussion that is more accessible than formal ITU or OECD meetings

Summary

All three speakers agree on the critical importance of securing the IGF’s long-term future through enhanced mandates and sustainable funding, with Schulte specifically advocating for longer-term renewals beyond five years

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Multi-stakeholder approach as fundamental to internet governance

Speakers

– William Lee
– Philipp Schulte
– Gitanjali Sah
– Maarit Palovirta
– Yoichi Iida

Arguments

Create cycle of conversation between global IGF and national/regional initiatives to ensure all voices are heard

Establish informal multi-stakeholder sounding board to support co-facilitators in WSIS Plus 20 process

Multi-stakeholder framework remains key success of WSIS for addressing digital world complexities

IGF provides invaluable forum for multi-stakeholder engagement and policy discussion that is more accessible than formal ITU or OECD meetings

IGF provides unique venue for multi-stakeholder learning and equal participation across different stakeholder groups

Summary

All speakers strongly support the multi-stakeholder approach as essential for effective internet governance, emphasizing its role in bringing together diverse voices and perspectives

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Youth empowerment and meaningful participation

Speakers

– William Lee
– Philipp Schulte
– Murillo Salvador
– Yoichi Iida

Arguments

Youth empowerment central as they are the future of digital world and deliver unprecedented innovations

Establish fellowship programs for young adults to learn about international digital policy and multi-stakeholder approaches

Move from guaranteeing youth access to enabling meaningful participation and eventual co-ownership in global arenas

Youth ownership of internet’s future requires their central participation in governance discussions

Summary

Strong consensus on the critical importance of youth participation in internet governance, with recognition that young people are both the future of the digital world and current innovators who deserve meaningful participation

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Human rights

Bridging digital divides and ensuring meaningful connectivity

Speakers

– William Lee
– Gitanjali Sah
– Maarit Palovirta
– Murillo Salvador

Arguments

Address universal and meaningful connectivity as critical priority, focusing on usage gap rather than just coverage

Digital inclusivity essential given 38% of African population lacks internet access and 189 million more men than women are online globally

Meaningful connectivity implementation requires partnership between governments and private sector with clear measurement frameworks

Digital inclusion must ensure affordable, reliable, secure internet access especially for underserved regions and global majority youth

Summary

All speakers agree on the urgent need to address digital divides, with emphasis on moving beyond coverage to meaningful usage and addressing geographic and demographic disparities

Topics

Infrastructure | Development | Human rights

Similar viewpoints

Both emphasize the importance of coordination within UN systems and strengthening institutional frameworks to avoid duplication and ensure human-centric approaches

Speakers

– Philipp Schulte
– Gitanjali Sah

Arguments

Deepen coordination through UN Group on Information Societies to avoid duplication and ensure complementary actions

Strengthen role of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in WSIS process for human-centric technology design

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Both emphasize the need for practical, streamlined approaches that enable effective stakeholder participation despite resource constraints

Speakers

– William Lee
– Maarit Palovirta

Arguments

Focus on practical solutions and bold, positive ideas while maintaining cross-stakeholder conversations

Avoid duplication and maintain simplicity to enable meaningful stakeholder participation with limited resources

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both stress the critical importance of capacity building and digital skills development to enable meaningful participation in the digital world

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah
– Murillo Salvador

Arguments

Strengthen capacity building and digital skills training to keep pace with technological evolution

Digital skills and literacy crucial for meaningful online engagement and critical understanding of technology

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Unexpected consensus

Private sector accessibility of IGF compared to formal international organizations

Speakers

– Maarit Palovirta
– Philipp Schulte

Arguments

IGF provides invaluable forum for multi-stakeholder engagement and policy discussion that is more accessible than formal ITU or OECD meetings

Actually think one of the main benefits is the engagement. The IGF and it’s even I would say it’s even for government easier to engage at the IGF level

Explanation

Unexpected agreement between business and government representatives that IGF is more accessible and easier to engage with than formal international organizations like ITU or OECD, suggesting IGF’s informal structure is valued across stakeholder groups

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

IGF’s current effectiveness despite resource constraints

Speakers

– Philipp Schulte
– Maarit Palovirta

Arguments

Actually, it works out also pretty well. Yeah, and so the secretary is doing an amazing job

More stability at the IGF level that would you know I don’t know remove a lot of distraction

Explanation

Unexpected consensus that despite ongoing concerns about funding and mandate renewal, the IGF is currently functioning well and delivering successful outcomes, suggesting the focus should be on stability rather than major structural changes

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists across all stakeholder groups on core principles: strengthening the IGF through enhanced mandates and sustainable funding, maintaining and enhancing multi-stakeholder approaches, prioritizing youth empowerment, and addressing digital divides through meaningful connectivity initiatives

Consensus level

High level of consensus with remarkable alignment across government, business, civil society, international organization, and youth representatives. This strong agreement suggests favorable conditions for advancing IGF strengthening initiatives through the WSIS Plus 20 review process, with shared priorities likely to facilitate successful negotiations and implementation

Different viewpoints

IGF funding approach – voluntary vs. integrated UN budget

Speakers

– Philipp Schulte
– Maarit Palovirta

Arguments

Strengthen IGF secretariat through appointment of a director position to improve leadership and coordination

IGF provides invaluable forum for multi-stakeholder engagement and policy discussion that is more accessible than formal ITU or OECD meetings

Summary

Schulte suggests integrating part of IGF funding into the UN budget while maintaining voluntary funding, whereas Palovirta emphasizes that the current voluntary funding model is actually an advantage that makes IGF more accessible than formal organizations like ITU or OECD

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Economic

Unexpected differences

Formalization vs. accessibility of IGF processes

Speakers

– Philipp Schulte
– Maarit Palovirta

Arguments

Strengthen IGF secretariat through appointment of a director position to improve leadership and coordination

IGF provides invaluable forum for multi-stakeholder engagement and policy discussion that is more accessible than formal ITU or OECD meetings

Explanation

Unexpectedly, while both support the IGF, Schulte advocates for more formalization through director positions and potential UN budget integration, while Palovirta values the current informal accessibility that distinguishes IGF from formal organizations. This represents a tension between institutionalization and accessibility

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion showed remarkably high consensus among speakers on core priorities like IGF strengthening, youth participation, digital inclusion, and multi-stakeholder engagement. The main disagreements were subtle and focused on implementation approaches rather than fundamental goals.

Disagreement level

Low level of disagreement with high implications for implementation strategy. The tension between formalization and accessibility could significantly impact how the IGF evolves, as it touches on the fundamental character of the forum. The funding approach disagreement also has practical implications for IGF’s future sustainability and independence.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both emphasize the importance of coordination within UN systems and strengthening institutional frameworks to avoid duplication and ensure human-centric approaches

Speakers

– Philipp Schulte
– Gitanjali Sah

Arguments

Deepen coordination through UN Group on Information Societies to avoid duplication and ensure complementary actions

Strengthen role of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in WSIS process for human-centric technology design

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Both emphasize the need for practical, streamlined approaches that enable effective stakeholder participation despite resource constraints

Speakers

– William Lee
– Maarit Palovirta

Arguments

Focus on practical solutions and bold, positive ideas while maintaining cross-stakeholder conversations

Avoid duplication and maintain simplicity to enable meaningful stakeholder participation with limited resources

Topics

Legal and regulatory

Both stress the critical importance of capacity building and digital skills development to enable meaningful participation in the digital world

Speakers

– Gitanjali Sah
– Murillo Salvador

Arguments

Strengthen capacity building and digital skills training to keep pace with technological evolution

Digital skills and literacy crucial for meaningful online engagement and critical understanding of technology

Topics

Development | Sociocultural

Key takeaways

The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) requires strengthened long-term sustainability through enhanced mandates, stable funding mechanisms, and institutional improvements like appointing a director position

Multi-stakeholder participation must be meaningfully enhanced through mechanisms like informal sounding boards, better coordination between global and regional IGF initiatives, and stronger youth engagement

Digital inclusion remains a critical priority with significant gaps – 38% of African population lacks internet access and 189 million more men than women are online globally

The WSIS Plus 20 review and Global Digital Compact follow-up processes should build on existing frameworks rather than duplicate efforts, with WSIS architecture ready to implement GDC objectives

Youth empowerment is essential for future digital governance, requiring capacity building, meaningful participation mechanisms, and intergenerational collaboration

Practical solutions and cross-stakeholder collaboration are needed to address complex digital challenges, with emphasis on simplicity and avoiding duplication of efforts

Regional and national IGF initiatives should be better connected to global processes to ensure all voices are heard regardless of resource constraints

Resolutions and action items

Continue supporting the informal multi-stakeholder sounding board established by co-facilitators for the WSIS Plus 20 process

Provide feedback on the WSIS Plus 20 elements paper, particularly regarding inclusion of multi-stakeholder platforms like WSIS Forum

Maintain and expand fellowship programs for young adults (18-30 years) to participate in international digital policy discussions

Strengthen coordination through UN Group on Information Societies to avoid duplication and ensure complementary actions

Build stronger linkages between regional IGF initiatives (like EuroDIG) and the global IGF process

Continue capacity building programs through Youth IGF network across 40+ countries

Develop measurable frameworks for meaningful connectivity implementation involving government-private sector partnerships

Unresolved issues

Specific funding mechanisms for IGF sustainability – whether to maintain purely voluntary funding or integrate part into UN budget

Exact structure and duration of renewed IGF mandate beyond the typical five-year cycle

Detailed implementation frameworks for Global Digital Compact objectives and how they will be measured

Specific mechanisms for ensuring meaningful youth participation moves from access to co-ownership in global governance

How to effectively balance simplicity with comprehensive coverage of emerging digital policy issues

Concrete strategies for addressing the usage gap in internet connectivity beyond just coverage expansion

Integration of human rights perspectives through UN High Commissioner for Human Rights role in WSIS process

Suggested compromises

Hybrid funding approach for IGF combining voluntary contributions with potential partial integration into UN budget

Gradual transition from youth access to meaningful participation to eventual co-ownership rather than immediate full participation

Building on existing WSIS framework as foundation for GDC implementation rather than creating entirely new structures

Using regional IGF events as stepping stones for stakeholders with limited resources to eventually participate in global forums

Balancing ambition for comprehensive digital governance with practical resource constraints through focused communities of practice

Maintaining IGF’s informal, accessible nature while adding some institutional strengthening through director position

One of the things that we would like to see is a conversation about how we start a cycle of conversation between the global IGF and these national and regional initiatives so that all voices can be heard at all levels of the conversation and nothing is lost in those processes… communities of practice… bringing together stakeholders around particular topics and issues for a time limited period to really focus in on particular issues and drive outcomes forward

Speaker

William Lee

Reason

This comment introduced a concrete structural innovation for the IGF – creating systematic linkages between global and local levels through ‘communities of practice.’ It moved beyond general calls for inclusivity to propose specific mechanisms for achieving it, addressing the practical challenge of how to include thousands of interested parties who cannot physically attend the global IGF.

Impact

This comment established a foundational framework that other speakers built upon throughout the discussion. Philipp Schulte specifically referenced and praised Australia’s non-paper, and Maarit Palovirta later reinforced the importance of regional-global linkages. It shifted the conversation from abstract principles to concrete implementation strategies.

We would like to have a stronger voice of the IGF and other multilateral organizations… strengthen the IGF secretariat in particular through appointment of a director position. So this existed in the past, but was then kind of forgotten because of budgetary constraints, but we think that could really strengthen the IGF and could create a better leadership.

Speaker

Philipp Schulte

Reason

This comment was particularly insightful because it identified a specific institutional weakness (lack of director-level leadership) and connected it to broader challenges of IGF influence and coordination with other UN agencies. It demonstrated how organizational structure directly impacts policy effectiveness.

Impact

This comment introduced the theme of institutional strengthening that complemented the funding discussions. It elevated the conversation from just securing resources to thinking about governance structure and leadership capacity, influencing later discussions about IGF’s long-term sustainability.

For a private sector representative like ourselves we come here much easier than we would perhaps go to… some of the formalized meetings at the ITU or the OECD… in terms of time spent and resources the IGF seems to be an easier forum for us to engage.

Speaker

Maarit Palovirta

Reason

This comment provided a crucial insight into why the IGF’s informal, multi-stakeholder model actually works better than traditional intergovernmental forums for meaningful engagement. It challenged assumptions about formalization being necessary for effectiveness and highlighted the IGF’s unique value proposition.

Impact

This observation reframed the entire discussion about IGF’s future. Instead of focusing solely on making IGF more formal or institutionalized, it highlighted that IGF’s accessibility and informality are key strengths that should be preserved while strengthening other aspects like funding and coordination.

Youth IGF inclusion is not just optional, it is essential… we can propose four priorities, which are not just principles for us, but should be ideally measurable targets towards a youth-led accountability mechanism… moving from guaranteeing access to enabling many from participation… to a final… ambition of having a co-ownership sort of ideal for youth in this global arenas.

Speaker

Murillo Salvador

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it articulated a progression from inclusion to co-ownership, introducing the concept of ‘youth-led accountability mechanisms.’ It moved beyond tokenistic youth participation to propose structural changes that would give youth genuine decision-making power.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion about youth engagement from a nice-to-have to a strategic imperative. It influenced other speakers to acknowledge youth perspectives more substantively and contributed to the overall theme of meaningful participation versus mere representation.

We established a fellowship international digital policy for young adults from 18 to 30 years… 16 young people who are really eager to learn… compared to other government programs, little money with a huge impact… these people now know how it works, know the multi-stakeholder approach… now they can find their own way in the community

Speaker

Philipp Schulte

Reason

This comment was insightful because it provided a concrete, scalable model for addressing the capacity-building challenge. It demonstrated how governments can support community development through targeted, low-cost interventions that have multiplier effects.

Impact

This practical example shifted the conversation from abstract discussions about youth inclusion to concrete policy tools that other governments could adopt. It provided a bridge between the youth community’s calls for support and actionable government responses.

The IGF is a testament to the positivity over the last 20 years, and its enduring nature regardless of what is happening outside of this conference venue is its success… I said at the beginning that we’re building a bridge, and the hardest part about building a bridge is the moment before you connect the two parts, where both parts are teetering on the edge and there may be a storm

Speaker

William Lee

Reason

This metaphorical framing was thought-provoking because it recontextualized the current challenges facing IGF not as existential threats but as natural parts of a construction process. It provided an optimistic yet realistic perspective on the WSIS+20 negotiations.

Impact

This comment provided a unifying conclusion that tied together the various technical discussions into a broader narrative of progress and resilience. It influenced the moderator’s closing remarks and left participants with a sense of shared purpose despite the challenges ahead.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it from abstract principles to concrete implementation strategies. William Lee’s opening framework of ‘communities of practice’ and systematic global-local linkages established a solution-oriented tone that influenced subsequent speakers to provide specific proposals rather than general aspirations. The business perspective from Maarit Palovirta was particularly impactful in reframing IGF’s informality as a strength rather than weakness, which influenced how other speakers discussed institutionalization. Murillo Salvador’s progression from inclusion to co-ownership elevated the entire conversation about meaningful participation, while Philipp Schulte’s fellowship example provided a practical model that bridged abstract goals with actionable policies. The discussion evolved from individual stakeholder priorities to a more integrated understanding of how different communities can support each other’s goals, culminating in William Lee’s bridge metaphor that reframed current challenges as part of a constructive process rather than existential threats.

How can we create a systematic cycle of conversation between the global IGF and national/regional initiatives to ensure all voices are heard at all levels?

Speaker

William Lee

Explanation

This addresses the challenge of inclusivity when not everyone can attend the global IGF, requiring mechanisms to connect different levels of governance forums

How should meaningful connectivity be measured and what specific expectations will be placed on different stakeholders in GDC implementation?

Speaker

Maarit Palovirta

Explanation

Implementation success depends on clear metrics and understanding of roles, particularly for private sector partnerships with governments

How can part of IGF funding be integrated into the UN budget while maintaining the advantages of voluntary funding?

Speaker

Philipp Schulte

Explanation

This explores sustainable financing models that could provide stability while preserving the flexibility that voluntary funding offers

What would be the specific structure and responsibilities of a renewed IGF director position to strengthen the secretariat?

Speaker

Philipp Schulte

Explanation

This position existed previously but was discontinued due to budget constraints; clarifying its role could improve IGF leadership and inter-agency coordination

How can measurable targets and accountability mechanisms be developed for youth inclusion in digital governance?

Speaker

Murillo Salvador

Explanation

Moving beyond principles to concrete, measurable outcomes would ensure meaningful youth participation rather than tokenistic inclusion

What specific mechanisms can ensure meaningful multi-stakeholder participation throughout the entire WSIS+20 negotiation process to the very end?

Speaker

Philipp Schulte

Explanation

While the informal sounding board exists, ensuring stakeholder input continues through final negotiations remains a challenge

How can the WSIS framework evolve to keep pace with rapid technological changes while maintaining its foundational principles?

Speaker

Gitanjali Sah

Explanation

Balancing stability of the framework with adaptability to emerging technologies like AI requires ongoing assessment and potential structural adjustments

What are the most effective models for communities of practice to focus stakeholder energy on specific digital challenges for time-limited periods?

Speaker

William Lee

Explanation

This operational question requires research into successful collaborative models that can drive concrete outcomes on specific issues

Summary

This discussion at the 2025 Internet Governance Forum in Oslo focused on the future of digital public infrastructure (DPI) and artificial intelligence, examining how open source AI can enhance global DPI protocols. The session was moderated by Judith Vega from the World Economic Forum and featured panelists from PayPal, Meta, and Emisi3Dear, representing perspectives from financial services, social media platforms, and African immersive technology development.

The conversation established that DPI has become fundamental to modern society through digital identity, payment systems, and data exchange, with most innovations coming from the private sector. Meta’s Melinda Claybaugh explained how their open source Llama AI models enable developers worldwide to create customized solutions for local communities, making cutting-edge technology freely accessible. She highlighted practical applications like AI-powered glasses that can translate languages and provide real-time information, demonstrating AI’s integration into daily life.

PayPal’s Larry Wade emphasized AI’s role as an optimization layer for financial services, particularly in customer onboarding, fraud prevention, and enhancing transaction security. He stressed the importance of open source protocols for attracting talent, avoiding winner-picking, and building trust with regulators through transparency. Judith Okonkwo from Nigeria discussed how open source AI enables experimentation and localized solutions, citing examples like VR applications for autism awareness and educational tools for resource-constrained environments.

Key challenges identified included the need for localized datasets, digital literacy, infrastructure development, and skills capacity building. The panelists emphasized that successful implementation requires strong public-private partnerships, with private companies taking responsibility to educate regulators about complex technologies. The discussion concluded with recognition that while AI offers tremendous potential for enhancing DPI globally, achieving trustworthy, explainable, and inclusive deployment requires continued collaboration between all stakeholders to ensure these technologies serve the public good.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Open Source AI Integration with Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI)**: The panel explored how open source AI can enhance the three core components of DPI – digital identity, digital payments, and data exchange – with emphasis on making these systems globally scalable, interoperable, and secure.

– **Private Sector Applications and Innovation**: Discussion of real-world implementations, including Meta’s Llama open source language models being used for scientific research and local language applications, PayPal’s use of AI for fraud detection and customer onboarding, and the development of AI-integrated hardware like smart glasses.

– **Public-Private Partnership Requirements**: Strong emphasis on the need for collaboration between private companies and regulators, with private sector taking responsibility to educate policymakers about complex technologies while governments provide appropriate regulatory frameworks that enable innovation.

– **Regional Barriers and Localization Challenges**: Examination of obstacles to AI adoption across different regions, particularly in Africa, including infrastructure limitations, skills gaps, need for localized datasets, and the importance of digital literacy for broader public participation.

– **Trust and Explainability in AI Systems**: Discussion of the tension between AI’s pattern recognition capabilities and the need for transparent, explainable decision-making, especially in government applications and financial services where accountability to citizens is paramount.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how open source AI can be leveraged to improve digital public infrastructure globally, examining the roles of both private and public sectors in ensuring these technologies are accessible, trustworthy, and beneficial for society while addressing implementation challenges across different regions and jurisdictions.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and optimistic tone throughout, with panelists demonstrating mutual respect and building on each other’s points. The conversation was technical yet accessible, with speakers acknowledging both the exciting possibilities and serious challenges of AI integration. The tone remained constructive even when addressing complex regulatory and ethical concerns, emphasizing shared responsibility and the need for continued cooperation between all stakeholders.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Judith Vega** – Moderator, Specialist at the World Economic Forum working on governance and policy for technologies

– **Larry Wade** – Global Head of Compliance for PayPal’s Blockchain, Crypto, and Digital Currencies, offering expertise in financial innovation and regulatory frameworks

– **Melinda Claybaugh** – Policy Privacy Director at Meta, brings experience in privacy and platform governance

– **Judith Okonkwo** – Founder of Emisi3Dear, pioneer in immersive technologies and open innovation, especially across the African continent (joined remotely)

– **Agustina Callegari** – Lead for the Global Coalition of Digital Safety at the World Economic Forum, serving as online moderator

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

**Additional speakers:**

– **Marin** – Researcher at IT4Change, an NGO that works at the intersections of digital technology and social justice

– **Haidel Alvestram** – (Role/expertise not specified)

– **Satish** – Has long background in open source, presently part of ICANN and DotAsia organization

– **Knut Vatne** – Representative from the Norwegian Tax Administration

– **Daniel Dobrowolski** – Head of governance and trust at the World Economic Forum (mentioned as being present at the table)

# Comprehensive Report: Open Source AI and Digital Public Infrastructure – Internet Governance Forum 2025

## Executive Summary

This discussion at the 2025 Internet Governance Forum in Oslo examined the intersection of open source artificial intelligence and digital public infrastructure (DPI), exploring how these technologies can enhance global digital systems whilst addressing implementation challenges across different regions and sectors. The session brought together diverse perspectives from technology companies, policy experts, and government representatives to discuss the future of AI-enabled public digital services.

The conversation established that DPI has become fundamental to modern society through three core components: digital identity, payment systems, and data exchange. The panelists discussed both opportunities and challenges in implementing open source AI solutions, with particular attention to regional barriers, public-private partnerships, and the ongoing tension between AI capabilities and accountability requirements.

## Participants and Perspectives

The discussion was moderated by **Judith Vega**, a specialist at the World Economic Forum working on governance and policy for technologies, with **Agustina Callegari** serving as online moderator. The panel featured three primary speakers:

**Flavia Alvez**, representing Meta, provided insights into how large technology platforms are approaching open source AI development. She explained Meta’s strategy with their Llama AI models, which are made available to developers worldwide to create customized solutions for local communities.

**Larry Wade**, Global Head of Compliance for PayPal’s Blockchain, Crypto, and Digital Currencies, offered a financial services perspective on AI integration. He emphasized AI’s role as an optimization layer for customer onboarding, fraud prevention, and transaction security enhancement.

**Judith Okonkwo**, Founder of Emisi3Dear and a pioneer in immersive technologies across the African continent, participated remotely to discuss regional implementation challenges and opportunities for open source AI in resource-constrained environments.

The audience included several participants who contributed to the discussion, including **Marin** from IT4Change, **Satish** from ICANN and DotAsia organisation, **Knut Vatne** from the Norwegian Tax Administration, and **Haidel Alvestram**.

## Core Discussion Themes

### Open Source AI and Accessibility

**Flavia Alvez** explained Meta’s approach to open source AI, describing how their Llama models enable developers worldwide to create customized solutions without requiring massive computational resources. She highlighted practical applications including AI-powered smart glasses that provide real-time translation services and scientific research applications where open source models are accelerating discoveries in health and education.

However, the definition of “open source AI” became a point of contention. **Marin** from IT4Change challenged whether AI is genuinely democratized when foundational models remain controlled by a few major actors, questioning the broader definitions of “open source” used by AI companies. **Satish** noted that open source AI encompasses different components—code, model weights, and datasets—each with varying levels of openness.

### Regional Implementation and Barriers

**Judith Okonkwo** provided crucial insights into practical challenges of implementing AI technologies across different regions, particularly in Africa. She identified four major barriers: skills gaps, capacity constraints, infrastructure limitations, and the critical need for localized datasets.

She shared specific examples of her work, including Autism VR initiatives and VR for Schools programs that demonstrate how open source AI can be adapted to address regional challenges despite infrastructure limitations. The need for localized datasets emerged as particularly critical, as AI models trained on datasets from one region may not perform effectively in different cultural, linguistic, or economic contexts.

### AI Integration in Financial Services

**Larry Wade** described PayPal’s approach to AI integration, positioning AI as an “optimization layer” rather than a replacement for existing systems. This approach maintains traditional controls and security measures whilst enhancing customer experience through improved pattern recognition and risk assessment.

Wade explained how AI enables financial services to reach previously underserved populations, particularly the unbanked and underbanked globally. He also discussed PayPal’s PYUSD stablecoin as an example of how blockchain technology combined with AI can create new financial infrastructure, noting the regulatory significance of having a regulated stablecoin backed by US treasuries.

He emphasized that it would be “irresponsible for private companies to create these world-changing technologies and not lean into educating those that have to regulate them,” advocating for proactive engagement between companies and regulators.

### Trust and Explainability Challenges

A significant tension emerged around AI’s pattern recognition capabilities versus the need for transparent, explainable decision-making in public sector applications. **Knut Vatne** from the Norwegian Tax Administration raised concerns about government agencies’ ability to use AI for citizen-affecting decisions when they cannot adequately explain the results.

**Haidel Alvestram** identified a “fundamental conflict in payment systems” between the need for accurate, auditable systems and AI’s typical inability to explain how it achieves its results. This represents a significant barrier to AI adoption in critical applications where accountability and transparency are regulatory requirements.

The panelists acknowledged this as an ongoing challenge requiring continued research and development, with no clear resolution offered during the discussion.

## Areas of Agreement and Disagreement

The participants showed agreement on several key points: the potential value of open source AI for democratizing access to technology, the importance of localized datasets for AI effectiveness, and the necessity of public-private partnerships for successful implementation.

However, significant disagreements emerged around the definition of “open source AI,” with traditional open source advocates questioning whether current AI company practices truly constitute openness. There were also different perspectives on the appropriate level of AI integration in government decision-making, with government representatives expressing stronger reservations than private sector participants.

## Practical Applications

The discussion was grounded in concrete examples of current AI applications. **Flavia Alvez** described Meta’s models being used for scientific discoveries and educational tools in local languages. **Judith Okonkwo** shared examples of VR applications combined with AI for autism awareness and educational support in resource-constrained environments. **Larry Wade** explained how AI enables asset provenance verification and digital identity authentication in financial services.

## Unresolved Challenges

Several significant challenges remain unresolved, including the fundamental tension between AI capabilities and explainability requirements, questions about genuine democratization of AI technology, and practical mechanisms for scaling localized implementations across diverse regions and regulatory environments.

## Conclusion

This Internet Governance Forum discussion highlighted both the potential and challenges of integrating open source AI into digital public infrastructure. While participants agreed on the importance of collaboration and localization, significant questions remain about implementation approaches, governance frameworks, and ensuring that AI benefits reach underserved communities.

The conversation emphasized that successful AI integration requires sustained collaboration between private companies, government entities, and civil society organizations, with continued attention to equity, accountability, and public interest considerations. The path forward requires ongoing dialogue and experimentation to address the technical and policy challenges identified during the session.

Judith Vega: Intro Hi, good morning everyone. Thank you so much for joining us. I’m going to give us a couple of more minutes to get settled. I’m going to invite everyone to come up and take a seat up here on this round table, just so we’re all a bit closer. Okay, great. I think we can go ahead and get started. So, good morning everyone again and thank you so much for for joining us here at the 2025 Internet Governance Forum in Oslo and a very warm welcome to everyone tuning in via the live stream. My name is Judith Vega and I’m a specialist at the World Economic Forum working on governance and policy for technologies. It is my sincere pleasure to be your moderator for today on the session focusing on the future of digital public infrastructure and artificial intelligence. As we all get settled, I want to start today by making a bold claim. So, I’m going to ask us a question here. Most of us on a daily basis interact with DPI protocols and tools. And I’ll get to prove my point in a second. By show of hands, can I ask how many of you here in this room have a smartphone with Face ID? All right. That’s not bad for people at the Internet Governance Forum. That’s pretty good. All right. How many of you have social media accounts that require login information and a password? It doesn’t have to be Facebook. It can be LinkedIn. It can be whatever your choice is. Good. That’s all right. That’s most of us again. And how many of you use digital payment systems? Ah, that’s more of us. There we go. So there’s a reason that most of us in the room raised our hands. And it’s that over the past decade, DPI has become the cornerstone that allows all of us to navigate and participate in society through its core components, which are digital identity, digital payment systems, and data exchange. And there’s a wide variety of ranges that we can do that in. And most of the innovations in those three sections have come really from the private sector in the last couple of years. So the question that we ask today is not, does DPI work? Or how does it work? But rather, how do we get it to work well? How do we get it to work in the future in a way that is globally scaled, interoperable, and secure? And we pose that perhaps the answer lies in AI, in open source AI very specifically. And if so, then what are the roles of the public and private sector? What can they both play to make sure that this comes to fruition? To answer these questions today, I’m thrilled to be joined by three outstanding panelists. To my left, to my right, excuse me, I have Larry Wade, Global Head of Compliance for PayPal’s Blockchain, Crypto, and Digital Currencies, offering a critical perspective on financial innovation and regulatory frameworks. Thank you for being here, Larry. And to his right, we have Melinda Klebau, Policy Privacy Director at Meta, who brings a wealth of experience in privacy and platform governance. And then, joining remotely, we have Judith Okonkwo. I’m not sure if you can see. She’s the founder of Emisi3Dear. She’s a pioneer in immersive technologies and open innovation, especially across the African continent. I remind you that this is an open forum, so we invite your questions, your reflections, throughout the entire session. Whether you’re here in person or joining us online, your voice is essential to this dialogue. And with that, I begin with a question from Melinda. Melinda, Meta has broken ground with their open AI source model. Can I ask you, how does Meta view AI? What does it feel like the future of AI is? What is this AI integration across regions and cross-jurisdictionally? And how do you see open source AI contributing to the development of DPI protocols globally?

Melinda Claybaugh: I think that was three questions or so, at least. Hello, everyone. Flavia Alvez from Meta. Really happy to be here. Thanks for organizing. Yeah, so just to level set for a minute about AI at Meta. We are both a developer and provider of a large language model that we call Llama. We’ve produced multiple versions of Llama at this point. And we also build services on top of our large language model. So just for a minute, our open source approach to building our large language model Llama really means that we make a very powerful large language model available for free to anyone to build on it. This is an incredible advantage to anyone who wants to have access to cutting edge technology. And it allows a really impressive level of customization for developers who want to provide bespoke solutions for their companies, their constituents, their stakeholders, their countries and regions. And so we think that open source is an incredibly powerful tool to accelerate the adoption and use and implementation of AI, but most importantly, to make it as useful as possible. for as cheap as possible to people. We also are very focused on building and incorporating AI into our existing services and developing new services based on AI. So if you’re a user of our apps, you will have seen that we’ve already added generative AI features into our apps that let you do fun things, of course, but also to ask questions and get information and answers. We’ve also recently launched a standalone app that you can have ongoing conversations with, that you can talk to, ask for recommendations, that kind of thing. And so we really see the future of AI as a personalized experience, a personalized assistant for you in your day-to-day life. And I think we are getting increasingly closer to that being a reality recently. For those of you who may have seen our booth, our meta booth has our glasses. Our meta AI assistant has been integrated with Ray-Ban Meta’s eyeglasses. So that means you can wear these glasses and walk around and talk to the glasses and ask the glasses, hey, I’m in Oslo, what am I looking at? Or what does this sign say in Norwegian? Can you translate it for me? And so these are just really concrete, easy, fun examples of the way that AI and AI powered by open source technology is really coming into our daily lives and providing a lot of value.

Judith Vega: Thank you, Melinda. I have a follow-up. You said that this is providing daily value, which I think is very, very true. In AI providing value to these technologies and these new products, where do you see these being integrated the most? Where do you find that people are using this sort of open AI source the most?

Melinda Claybaugh: yeah so I mean when you think about our open source models that are have been downloaded millions and millions of times I mean we’re tracking a lot of uses in really groundbreaking ways so our llama models are being deployed to make scientific discoveries for advances in health research they’re being deployed in small communities around the world to help kids with their homework in a local language you know they’re just being deployed in really creative interesting ways that are helping people day to day I think we tend to think about oh what’s the latest cute feature on this or that app or that app and that’s fun but I think we shouldn’t lose sight of just the really the importance of this foundational technology and the value that these models can provide and so we provide we’ve run programs where we provide impact grants to you know entities that have interesting pitches and ideas and we provide technical assistance and we’re I think we’re still learning the sky’s really the limit in terms of how AI can be leveraged to solve local problems in a really

Judith Vega: inexpensive way you thank you and I want to stay with this this topic of value and I Larry I want to turn to you PayPal as a leader in digital payment systems how does it see its value the or the transfer of financial values and sort of this next era of the internet with AI how does it see it changing with AI yeah it’s interesting it’s pretty much an optimization layer in a way so our CEO Alice Chris likes to say our goal is to revolutionize commerce that that’s what

Larry Wade: we want to do because we have this two-sided network so we get to see consumers and merchants you know almost 400 million wallets in 200 countries so it’s this very robust ecosystem that we get to see when you look at from my vantage point distributors technology So that’s blockchain, digital assets, AI is going to be essential in a few ways, right? So think about just onboarding customers. Believe it or not, depending on where you are in the world, it’s extremely challenging. So the customer identification process, KYC, KYB, so know your customer, know your business, and especially on the small business side, it can be challenging. Being able to utilize tools such as AI to be able to say, all right, there’s additional attributes that we can look at in order to gain comfort with onboarding this customer segment, which now we can facilitate providing different services that we couldn’t in the past. Sounds very simple, but again, when you’re talking about compliance or just risk management globally, that’s essential. Blocking and tackling on fraud and financial crimes. Just making sure that people, when you’re dealing with money, I like to say the internet kind of 2.0 democratized information. Beautiful. This web three is democratizing value, and when you’re democratizing value, the stakes are even higher because everyone needs to transact. So being able to enable a safer environment to enhance and improve the velocity of transactions, that’s going to be essential there. So again, fraud, BSA, AML, sanctions, etc. And then also just the overall experience. What are people doing and how? AI allows us to see patterns that we typically are unable to see. So we launched the first stablecoin by a major financial institution that is regulated, PYUSD. And a fiat-backed stablecoin, again, many benefits to it. Deploying AI right now allows us to kind of start seeing, okay, where is it being used? How is it being used? What potential use cases? How can we allow this tool that allows for faster, cheaper, programmable value transfer with instant finality? And then I’ll say lastly, I’m kind of tying the blockchain and AI as well, is this notion of asset provenance, right? So I will talk to merchants and let’s just say you’re Nike and you have the physical good and you have the digital representation as well, right? When you start getting into physical and digital, knowing what is valid is going to be extremely important. It’s kind of almost that blue check. Well, think about when you have your digital twin, when you have AI generated outputs, being able to utilize kind of NFT technology to be able to put that stamp to say this is the real one. This is that digital one of one. That’s also something that’s going to be important. So the digital identity component and also the asset provenance component, as well as optimizing the overall experience for value transfer, that’s kind of where AI is being integrated right now. And it’s actually still early days, but I do think we’re going to hit a point on the curve where we’re going to see exponential change. On that exponential change that you talk about, looking into the future, do you think that AI is going to be foundational for seamless integration between public digital wallets and then private digital wallets and services? 100%. And the reason why is, again, when you’re dealing with value transfer, trust, compliance, it’s essential and you can’t get it wrong. So when you can improve those kind of core tenets of how we’re going to integrate with these wallets, which are going to hold value, not only just fiat value or ties to the banking system, it’ll be also just their assets that hold value that you want to just keep yourself in self-custody. So I think it’ll be essential. And what they’ll do is those experiences from the onboarding to the continuous monitoring, understanding what are the preventative and detective controls around this ecosystem, it’ll enhance that. Again, it’ll also allow us to improve pattern recognition. Just being able to lower the likelihood of bad things happening, improve the experience to make sure that activities feel more seamless, that’s what AI is good for. So I can’t see it not being critical.

Judith Vega: Thank you, Larry. I want to turn to Judith now, if we can get her on the screen.

Judith Okonkwo: Hi, Judith, can you hear us? Yes, I can. Hi, thank you so much for joining us. I want to bring you in on this. We’re talking about AI enhancing across the DPI protocols and services. And you’ve done a lot of work on adoption of AI and integration. And I want to ask you, is there any particular area that you feel AI integration is particularly important? Where is it critical? And are there any barriers to integrating open source AI across different regions and across different jurisdictions? Yes, thank you very much for the question. So I’ll probably start with sort of like AI integration from an open source perspective. And what it enables for context. The work that we do at MSC3D over sort of like the last decade has been centered on ecosystem development for the immersive technology. So augmented virtual and mixed reality across Africa. And as you can imagine, there have been lots of barriers, right? From the perspective of access, infrastructure, all of that, for people to engage with these technologies. But even more importantly, to be able to build with them for society. And I think one of the exciting things about the integration of open source AI is that it allows us to. start to benefit from the convergence of these technologies, because really, I think it isn’t either or when it comes to these technologies. We can see them coming together to really create products and services that can have a real benefit for society. And so when I think about what AI is now making possible, especially open source AI, it’s driving experimentation. It’s allowing people to build, but not have to start from scratch, for example, which is really, really important. And to give you some context about what that looks like in practice for things happening at the immersive technology end of things, with our work in some of our communities, we have worked on a number of projects, which I will mention, which are now really benefiting from the availability of open source AI tools. One project is a product called Autism VR, which was designed as a voice driven virtual reality game. And the idea with this was creating something that would really start to kind of like shift the needle when it comes to the lack of awareness about neurodiversity, particularly among children. Because, of course, we’re coming from a context where mental health is severely under-resourced and where the lack of information about neurodiversity has really caused a lot of not just discrimination, but exclusion for children that should not happen. With the advances that we now have, the availability of open source AI tools, it’s now possible to say, not only are we going to integrate that voice driven component, which makes it a much more engaging tool for the general population to engage with, but that we can also leverage language capability, right? Because we’re coming from, you know, communities where. several different languages are spoken on a daily basis, and building solely for English, for example, has really limited the public ability to engage. Another example I wanted to cite, kind of related to that, is VR for Schools initiative that we have, and this is now looking at deploying this technology in really resource-constrained learning environments, so how can we go into a situation where, for example, you have a school without, you know, infrastructure for things like science experiments, right, and that kind of resource-constrained environment, can you bridge the gap with immersive tools, right, can you create a VR lab where students are then able to do simulations, and now that’s one step there, but then imagine the ability to have agents who can act as guides built on top of these, you know, open source AI tools that can then provide the support within the immersive environments for those students learning, and what that does is then make this a tool that you can deploy, not just in a classroom setting, you know, but also in much more informal contexts, and I think when we think about situations where you have, you know, children who unfortunately are out of school, you then get to the concept of almost taking the school to the child where they are, if you’re able to have this combination, but, you know, moving from that to your question about, you know, the barriers to integration of open source, I think we see much of the same constraints that we’ve seen from the immersive technology side, I think a major one to talk about is skills, the sort of like capacity gap, and what needs to be done about that, I think to be able to leverage open source AI, we need to invest significantly in educating people and making sure that we have the knowledge and skills locally to build. I’m doing this across the board, right? And I think alongside that, there’s definitely even just sort of like a link to the awareness piece, right? A lot of work that needs to be done from a digital literacy perspective. Other barriers to this integration, I would definitely talk about infrastructure. Much of the same sort of like handicaps we have with immersive also existing with open source AI, particularly when it comes to the Internet. And I think in a country like Nigeria, for example, it’s really great to see the investment that’s happening now in that space to make significant changes and get as many people online as possible. And then data, you know, we need localized data sets. We need to be able to train models so that they’re relevant for us. And I know that that’s work that’s currently ongoing. There are lots of fantastic initiatives. Masakani is one. So there are barriers, but the work has begun, although there is a lot more to be done.

Judith Vega: Thank you so much, Judith. I love when panelists also share my first name, so it’s lovely to call on you. But I want to stay with this idea of AI being useful to build upon and to get us ready for sort of this next phase of tools that are really being deployed and used for public good and good consumption. And I want to turn to Melinda now. I wonder, you know, part of critical to sort of DPI building this idea of hardware and meta has begun to produce good hardware, valuable hardware. What do you think is important to be able to scale that hardware? What is the role of AI there? So I think we want to make products that are useful to people and so part of this

Melinda Claybaugh: is we’ve we’ve launched the glasses a few years ago and we continue to roll them out to more and more countries. We continue to add more functionality from the AI perspective as the AI gets better and more useful. Part of this is an iterative process, right? Understanding, these are new concepts. These are, you know, wearing AI on your face is new and so I think what we have to do is test things out and see and how do people use them? What are the use cases? How do people find them useful? And then we bake that back into the development process for our products and so I think it’s a learning process over time. Obviously there are constraints in terms of how to actually build something that fits your face and has a battery that works and can, you know, there’s questions around processing and and all of that, but I think the the biggest challenges are really around adoption and how are people planning to use these and making them available in as many countries as possible, making the AI as useful to as many places as possible and so part of that, Judith, the prior panelists was talking about making local data available and I think that is really crucial to unlocking the power of AI and so, you know, we train our AI on a wide variety of data but we don’t have access to a lot of data that would make the models most useful to local communities and so there’s again why the open-source component is so important because local developers can build on top of our model by adding data sets that are relevant for that country community region and so I think all of this has to kind of work together to figure out, you know, what is most useful in terms of having AI available to you. Is it in your app? Is it on your face? Is it all of it? And I think it’s exciting. We’ll see a lot of different approaches from different companies in how to make AI products as relevant and as useful as possible for people’s day-to-day lives.

Judith Vega: Thank you very much. I’m going to actually open this question up now to any of our panelists. We recognize the importance of localized data and data sets and integration and harmonization of these technologies. I want to ask, this is from the private sector, we know that there’s development here. What would help, would be beneficial from the public sector to be able to achieve these goals?

Larry Wade: Yeah, I can take that one. And just before I dive in there, something Judith said, and you said it as well, kind of going, she said bring it to where the kids are. There’s a reason why there are so many unbanked or underbanked people in the world. A lot of that has to do with just the overall risk tolerance of institutions that are serving them, whether it’s their own policies, or again, restrictions placed on them from whatever kind of local regime from a regulatory perspective. So just wanted to hit on that same thing. Once you kind of can use AI to solve that more localization, additional attributes, hey, here’s additional data that can actually de-risk this customer, again, opens up things. But to answer your question, and this is something I have to deal with all the time, it’s being able to bring the regulators and governments along the journey with you. And it has to be a public-private partnership. Again, when you’re dealing with these very complex topics that impact society in such systemic ways, you have to make sure that those who are making the policies are not making them in silos, that you’re knowledge sharing. And hopefully that governing body, wherever they are, they’re kind of giving you the ability to experiment. So there’s this constant push and pull of, there’s rulemaking, here’s why, that sounds great, but it’s not feasible. We do need rules because we need to be able to ensure that we all have a kind of general set of parameters to play with. So, I think that back-and-forth relationship, the kind of minimum expectations, guiding principles, minimum requirements, and also just being comfortable with when information changes, both sides being able to kind of change with it, I think is really, really important for all of this to flourish.

Judith Vega: Thank you, Larry. On your point, I want to open this up now to the rest of the room, and also I’m joined by Agustina Callegari, who’s the lead for the Global Coalition of Digital Safety at the World Economic Forum, who’s serving as our online moderator. So please, if you have any questions for our panel, either online or in person, this is your time. Please raise your hand and join the conversation.

Agustina Callegari: Agustina, do we have anyone online? I have a question here for Judith, who is online. The question is that if there are any examples of south-to-south cooperation for open source AI sharing? Yeah, that’s the question for you, Judith, if you can listen.

Judith Vega: Thank you. Hello. Thank you very much for the question.

Judith Okonkwo: So any examples of south-to-south open source sharing? Sort of like the examples that I’m most familiar with. at the moment are around community. So one of the things that has really driven the concept of open source on the continent that I know about is the open source community, the African version, and they have collaborated across board with communities in other South-South countries. And I want to highlight this because the concept of open source has given people pause several times on the continent because it’s the idea of, you know, there’s this sort of like reaction, what you want me to make it freely available, then how are we going to make money, you know, how are we going to benefit economically, that sort of thing. And so there’s been a real need for education around open source and kind of like all the affordances that it then provides for everyone, including the people who are building in the first instance. So that’s what I would mention, but I’m not aware of any other sort of like core examples and I’ll definitely

Judith Vega: look that up. Thank you. Thank you. There is another question that is related to what Larry was saying about working with policy makers. So how do you ensure a continuous sharing of knowledge with policy makers? Yep. So I think one, it’s having a respectful, honest relationship with the regulators that you are working with for your particular business and ensuring that

Larry Wade: you’re having engagement with the actual kind of government officials, again, not only in your jurisdiction, but in those jurisdictions that you are interacting with. So a couple of things. Take the digital asset business and PayPal. So again, two-sided network. How do you integrate this technology into rails to enable faster, cheaper? more programmable, just value transfer within that ecosystem. One, I wanted, would you just mention also on open source, the reason why we chose to use open source protocols was one, how do you attract the best talent to work on protocols? Needs to be open source. Two, how do you not pick winners and losers open source? So like just for anyone who’s kind of asking that as well, we really thought about that. Two, even with PYUSD, they’re on open source blockchains. Now there’s obviously a need for private at times, but again if we’re gonna allow this, these technologies to grow, open source tends to be the best approach. But again, just making sure that you have those regular cadences. It sounds really simple, but it’s challenging. Who are those regulators? Who are those policy makers? What are the regular cadences? How are we bringing value to them? How are we kind of self-reporting when things are going right or wrong before they ask? A lot of this is about trust. There are brilliant people working on these things, right? Engineering is not really the issue right now. If you think about it, take all these amazing technologies we have right now, whether it’s AI or quantum computing or blockchain digital assets, there are brilliant minds working on them. The real gaps are around all the people who are going to help facilitate the introduction of these technologies into society. And that’s on the policy side, and again, that’s in the businesses. So having just that respectful, honest, transparent relationship and knowledge sharing on a frequent basis goes a long way. I’m gonna take the liberty to interrupt our Q&A segment for a bit. I want to follow up on this. Trust is earned, right? It’s something that requires a sustained period of time of interaction. Do you, does PayPal find that it becomes more trustworthy in using open source? I would say yes, and it’s interesting because it’s not only just trust, so take a step back. We have a stablecoin with our name on it. We work with other institutions. Being able to say, hey, yes, this is PayPal stablecoin, but it’s on an open source blockchain, allows that institution to feel like they have more skin in the game. When we’re working with regulators, and I’m fortunate that I get to speak to regulators all around the world. You know, I was in Singapore a couple weeks ago meeting with the MAS, and then in the UK meeting the FCA, I deal with the New York Department of Financial Services literally every other week, and just all the different alphabet soup. These open source protocols also allow them to have a little bit more agency on how they evaluate. So I found it to be beneficial. With that said, I do think there is the need for some walled gardens, and that’s where this whole notion of interoperability is going to come into play, because there are times where you need an intranet, or you need a closed ecosystem, but then how do you ensure that there’s an interoperability protocol to interact outside when the time is needed? I think that’s also part of that open source story and how you’ll see both of those playing out. Can I ask when those times are that you need a closed garden or an intranet? Sure. Let’s say you’re a big bank and you just did a syndicated wind farm deal in Canada, and the arranging bank now, via some smart contract, it’s determined that whatever threshold is met, now we can disperse out payments. Does everybody need to see that? No. Does everyone need to see how, you know, the Visa MasterCard Network, how participants fit? No. Right? Do you want to see, would you want people to see all of your PayPal transactions? No. So, I think that it’s fine to have a little bit of privacy. I think privacy is going to actually be really important. And it’s funny because we’re talking open source, but then now we’re going to privacy. And again, this is why this is all so complicated, but also why it’s so fun. Because we are solving new problems that I don’t think humanity has ever had to think about on this scale because these technologies are so revolutionary. So I think there definitely are times where it needs to be between us. But ultimately, you know, both are needed. Oh, I couldn’t agree more. And I certainly don’t want everyone seeing my transactions on PayPal. But with that, I open it up again to the floor once more. Yes, there’s a question in the back.

Audience: Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Please go ahead. Hi. My name is Marin. I am a researcher at IT4Change, which is an NGO that works at the intersections of digital technology and social justice. So my question, it’s a two-part question. So one is a more basic question on, I want to understand better what you think or how do you see, how do you define an open source AI? So the issue is, one issue, concern that we have is even when we talk about open source and the possibilities of innovation that it allows for it, it seems that the foundational models are still being controlled by few actors. It’s not really democratized. So what is, for me, open source AI is something that’s also equivalent to a democratized access and development of AI. So if the core foundational models are still controlled by a few actors, then how do you define open source AI? And secondly, I think… You mentioned in one of your interventions that open source, when you integrate open source AI into DPI, it also allows agency to the regulators to evaluate it. So I want to understand what are the benefits of open source when it is integrated with DPI. What are the, like, how does it allow the public actors to evaluate? Because when DPI is essentially used for various governance, core governance aspects, and it can impinge on the rights of the citizens. So how does it, how does open source allow in the regulators to have more oversight over the DPI applications that are being used for governance structures? Yeah, I’ll give you kind of my thought on it. That’s a great question, by the way. Thank you.

Larry Wade: So let’s kind of go back to, I’ll use this kind of Internet 2.0, 3.0 example again. So in Internet 2.0, you had these brilliant engineers that created this infrastructure. Who extracted value from that infrastructure layer? None of the infrastructure builders. All the value was at the application layer, pretty much. So I also think that’s why we have some of the issues we have now, right? But again, there was tons of innovation. We’re moving forward. The way I think about open source is that infrastructure layer is open where developers can work and build, and there will be times that they build applications that are open source themselves. And then there will be times where applications do need to be a little bit closed. But ultimately, if you don’t have the open source infrastructure layer, now you also just have that problem at the application layer again. And being able to have value transfer mechanisms align to the infrastructure layer is a really important idea because it incentivizes brilliant minds to work on them because they have some upside now and then also it allows for a little bit more just competition on what’s going to win because ultimately if I can extract value from various infrastructure layers what’s going to make me pick one over the other? Maybe it’s just better. So that’s kind of how I think about that and then your question on the regulator side again, you’re dealing with people who you have a lot more expertise than they do because they have such wide scopes and you’re living it every day. So if you have a starting point where there’s an understanding of what the kind of infrastructure is as you’re building more complex products on top of it the discussions are a little easier. So, I mean, it happens all the time just with what I have to do just again in the digital asset and distributed technology space, right? So if I come in and say, hey, we want to build this new product that allows for X but we’re building it on this open source blockchain that you are familiar with at a minimum there’s a little bit of comfort when we come to them with what we’re trying to pitch and then now the complication is on that actual innovation on top of that. I don’t know if that helps a little bit but it’s kind of like this beautiful dance in a way.

Judith Vega: Thank you, Larry. I know we have a question here but the gentleman was up first. So if you’d like to go ahead. Thank you.

Audience: My name is Haidel Alvestram. There’s a fundamental conflict in payment systems in that payment systems have to be accurate to the sense and they have to be auditable. Rules have to be followed. Well, AI is typical in detecting interesting patterns, coming up with surprising answers and being absolutely hopeless at explaining how they achieve them. Can you talk a little bit about how you mitigate that conflict when you embed AI in payment systems? Excellent question.

Larry Wade: This is fun. So the way I like to think about things is, let’s take payments here, 80% of what we need to do, we can leverage best practices and just tried and true, hey, we know this works. So overlaying AI, again, it’s about optimization. We wouldn’t throw out all of the policies, procedures, and controls that are already developed to make sure that we can adhere, even though, by the way, there is a lot of friction and a lot of errors, even in the existing system, right? And there’s a lot of true ups and things of that nature. But the way I see AI integrating into payments is not saying, we’re just going to rely on AI for this, it’s, we’ve been doing X, Y, Z. So PayPal, we’ve been moving money for 20 years, we’ve been doing it well. Okay, overlaying AI now can give a better customer experience, could actually now find those tail situations, and can just better refine us making sure that we meet any obligations to customers, regulators, etc. So again, optimization, rather than pure reliance. That’s kind of how I see that. So it’s a partnership. It’s a good question.

Judith Vega: Thank you, Larry. And then we have a gentleman here to the right. Thank you.

Audience: My name is Satish and I have a long background in open source. I am presently part of ICANN and DotAsia organization. I sense a little bit of uncertainty when you refer to open source AI, because open source from the last 20 plus years of working with open source usually means code. Code means the stuff that you write in C or Java or whatever. And these days, open source model of code is kind of free. I mean, most organizations, including Microsoft, release code under open source. This is nothing extraordinary. When we started out 25 years ago, it was very extraordinary. Today, it isn’t. The second part is open source model weights. Now, that is new to AI. When you take a raw model, you train it, and you come out with weights, that is what decides how the model is going to respond to questions. Open sourcing, that is not a very well-articulated concept. But the third thing is open source datasets. Now, I’d like to know what precisely you mean when you refer to open source AI.

Judith Vega: Thank you. Okay, thank you so much for the question. We can come in a bit, and I’ll give a bit of background. So, we’ve had these extensive conversations at the forum now and in the work that we do about what open source means, particularly as it pertains to digital public infrastructure. Normally and typically, when you talk about DPI, the P in public means different things to different people. What we’ve landed on is that DPI doesn’t necessarily mean public as in public-public sector, but rather public as in common, or generally available to the public. And that’s also the definition that we leverage, or the common consensus that we leverage for open source. Not that it is, again, public-public sector and public-driven, but rather that it’s ubiquitous and it can be commonly found, that it’s something that can be found and used, leveraged, adopted across various jurisdictions, across various regions, regardless of its source, and then can be built upon by different actors across different sectors. So, really grounding ourselves in that open source, whether it be a trading model or just the code itself, but that it is common, that it is open, that it is free and it can be accessible, is what we mean when we refer to sort of open source. And I think it’s what Melinda was referring to. These are just protocols that are available, right? Anyone can download them. If you have the right hardware, you can download them, you can train them, you can build upon them, you can deploy them, and you can integrate them to different models or to different technologies. So, that’s what we mean. The P for us is common, right? Not publicly available, not necessarily publicly driven.

Larry Wade: And just to add to that, that notion of common is going to be really important. I keep going back to regulation and minimum requirements, and if you can kind of start with the same ingredients, for lack of better words, how your cake comes out is going to be dependent upon how you mix those ingredients, manipulate them, and how you bake it. But ultimately, we all are kind of starting with the same ingredients. If you can kind of start with the same ingredients, it allows those that are governing to have a better starting point to have sensible, reasonable regulations and requirements. So again, that’s why I lean towards, if each model was bespoke, and those governments and regulators had to start with something net new every single time, that’d be quite challenging. But if we all kind of have minimal requirements, or there are certain known protocols that have been adopted to start with, I think it’ll be a little bit easier to manage some of this, because it’s going to be quite challenging, honestly. Because here’s something I run into. What one regulator in one part of the world, what matters to that group, can be dramatically different. I’ll give you an example. It’s very clear that when you’re doing business in the UK, consumer protection is front and center. So you have financial promotions, and consumer duty, and things like that. Yes, it matters in the US, but not as much as it matters in the UK. Are you saying that we’re unprotected in the US? I’m not saying that, but I’ve just never, like, just getting to kind of see, each kind of government and regime has their own thing. So for example, when you look at the EU and MECA, yes, it’s great. They put out a digital asset regulation. But if you kind of backdoor it, they’re saying but we really want EU denominated stable coins So everybody you’re dealing with regulators who are trying to learn and then depending on what their priorities are They’re trying to force those as well. So it’s gonna be complicated no matter what you do so the more that we can kind of have a common nomenclature and kind of common starting point to at least Negotiate with I think it’s gonna make things easier because it’s gonna be challenging regardless. This is global adoption for all of these technologies

Judith Vega: Thank you, I know we had a question online, Agustina, I’ll turn it to you

Agustina Callegari: Yeah, there is another question. It’s how do you how do we see private technology companies play a role in DPI and AI for social good landscape. Within DPI now the fundamental topics like digital ID payments have been solved What was the last part on solve? Within DPI now That’s the way it’s framed. Now the fundamental topics like digital ID payments have been solved basically Yeah, it’s asking about if they should relate it to digital ID and payment have been solved, but

Judith Okonkwo: Yeah, I’m gonna let Judith come in for for a minute Judith are you you’re still with us Yes, I am So sort of like to jump in that last bit about The digital ID and payments having been solved if that’s the question Then I think yeah, it definitely should still be a question because I would say not solved in Very many parts of the world. I’m still the question but to the first part which is Around how private technology companies can come in and I particularly want to talk about AI for social good I’m not sure if Melinda is still there with us, but One of the initiatives that META, for example, is driving on the continent, linked to its large language model, LLAMA, are these LLAMA Impact Accelerators. And the initiatives where they are incentivizing communities, developers, to build on top of their large language models and create products that will, in some positive way, impact society. The Impact Fund has been going on for a couple of years, I believe, but the current iteration, and applications are still open for that, what we are seeing is a handshake with governments. So, for example, in Nigeria, it’s in partnership with the ministry that oversees the digital economy. And I think what’s interesting about that is we’re starting to see the multi-stakeholder approach to driving AI for social good, right? I know when we talk about DPIs, we talk a lot about public-private partnerships and the role that they have in accelerating things. And I think we start to see that with initiatives like this. And there are a number of others, I mean, in country, in Nigeria, which I’ll reference for my examples, alongside things like the Impact Grant, there are other initiatives from, say, the Gates Foundation, where they’re currently investing with the government to create an AI scaling hub that will then allow more people in country to be able to do a number of things, build on models, work on data sets, all of the things that will advance a national AI strategy. So there’s, yeah, a huge role for private technology companies alongside that for all of the people that will engage with them. And I think particularly from the regulatory side of things, so government, there is a real need to determine what that engagement looks like and how it will impact people, how it will impact citizens. And of course, there’s the citizens piece where people then have to have a voice in saying how these things will affect them. And I think when we start to talk about that voice, we have to think about the digital literacy that’s required to enable that.

Larry Wade: Yeah, I totally agree with you. Digital identity and payments has not been solved. Yes, there have been enhancements and we’re moving towards, but no, it’s actually a great opportunity for people to try to tackle. And just one thing to add to what Judah said, I think it’s irresponsible for private companies to create these world-changing technologies and not lean into educating those that have to regulate them. And again, that’s just my own personal, thankfully I get to, for PayPal, kind of lean in on the regulated side. So that’s kind of how me and my team kind of go about it. But to say, hey, we’re going to create something that is complex, that can be disruptive, that can be beneficial. Here you go, you figure it out on your own. I think that’ll just cause more confusion, angst, just for everyone involved. So I think it’s building, leaning in, but then also educating, communicating, and understanding that even though frustrating, you need to bring governments and regulators along for the journey because that’s the society portion of this whole thing.

Judith Vega: Thank you so much. I want to give a final opportunity to any other guests.

Audience: Yeah, hello. Mr. Knut Vatne here from the Norwegian Tax Administration, so I’m representing a large public sector agency in Norway. We’re using a lot of basic machine learning and gen AI tools as co-pilots and for productivity, but we are rather reserved at using advanced AI like deep learning based AI and generative AI as well for decision making that affect the citizens because we basically can’t really explain the results at a satisfactory level. So I wonder, to what degree do you view open source as helping us realizing explainable AI? I mean, open weights or open source code can provide trust on a formal level, but in my view, it does little in the way of actually explaining the results and the decisions on a level that’s understandable to the citizen. Well, one, thank you for that. I would say that this is where, again, just we all take a step back and be humbled that these are very interesting and challenging questions. So having that, you know, lower level, hey, we’re kind of playing and experimenting in this, I think that would just be great. And then also leaning into those partners who you do work with on the tech side and being able to share your results and see if they can help as well. But I think that it’s going to be important to make sure that government agencies are kind of on the way mirroring the private sector. If not, that bifurcation will be so great in the long run that we could end up having problems down the road. So to your point, you have a responsibility to the citizens to make sure we get this right. And that’s what we’re doing now. But then also experimenting here to make sure that you’re kind of keeping up with the technology. That way, when it’s ready for prime time, which a lot of this is not yet, you can kind of do the cut over. That’s kind of how I see that. And Judith, I don’t know if you have or…

Judith Vega: Judith and Judith, I don’t know if you guys have anything. I will let panelist Judith come in if she can, and then we only have about a minute left, so I’ll go ahead and wrap up. No? Okay, I will go ahead and offer some thoughts on this question and also give us some reflections. We talk a lot about trust at the forum, and I’m very happy to be joined by Daniel Dobrowolski at the table, who’s the head of governance and trust at the World Economic Forum, and we talk a lot about trustworthy decision-making, and that’s centrally important to decision-makers and regulators that, as Larry will put it, have sort of an obligation to the public. And I think you’re right, when we talk about AI, we have the luxury of spending all of our days talking about AI and decisions and models and how to play with them in private-public cooperation, but there’s a large number of people or groups of people, disaggregated throughout the world, that maybe don’t have the luxury of doing that every day. And to your point, it then becomes necessary to be able to explain and communicate these things in simplified terms, so that the user is not only protected, but protected through being informed and well-informed, so that then the user can also take action and steps, and sort of better decision-making themselves, or demonstrate their preferences somehow. And that takes, again, cooperation that’s both private and public, these efforts need to be driven jointly. And I sort of want to wrap up by inviting us then, all of us, to think about the future. You know, AI isn’t this abstract thing anymore that’s being talked about every so often on large news outlets. Rather, it’s a technology that’s being deployed every single day, and it’s being used by both public and private sectors to improve and enhance DPI, and the technologies that we all use, whether we’re sending money across PayPal or Venmo or Zelle to someone. abroad or in a different country or to our friends after dinner. It’s something that we’re using to access civic participation, public life, in some countries even voting and other forms of essential civic participation. It’s the way that we express our citizenry and that we express our autonomy. So as we sort of venture into this future together, I invite all of us to think about what kind of future it is that we want and that we’re not passive users of this technology, right? We can think about these things every day, we can make decisions every day and especially the people here in this room that we all continue to be well informed and advocate for the sort of technologies that we want being deployed in the better rock of our everyday lives. So thank you again. I think our lovely panelists, our online moderator, and thank you so much for joining us. And if you have any questions, we’re here for the next 10 minutes. Please stick around. Thank you again. Have a lovely day. Austin Kim, Tate University, Engineering College Thank you for jumping in! MouseTB Like this video? Let us know in the comments. Like and Subscribe! Thanks for watching!

Agreement points

Open source AI enables broader access and customization for local solutions

Speakers

– Melinda Claybaugh
– Judith Okonkwo
– Larry Wade

Arguments

Open source AI provides free access to cutting-edge technology and enables customization for local solutions

Open source AI drives experimentation and allows building without starting from scratch, particularly beneficial for resource-constrained environments

Open source protocols attract the best talent and avoid picking winners and losers in technology development

Summary

All three main panelists agreed that open source AI democratizes access to advanced technology, allows for local customization, and enables innovation without requiring developers to start from scratch. They emphasized how this approach benefits underserved communities and attracts talent.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Economic

Localized datasets and regional customization are essential for AI effectiveness

Speakers

– Melinda Claybaugh
– Judith Okonkwo

Arguments

Local developers need access to relevant datasets to make AI models useful for their communities and regions

Major barriers include skills gaps, capacity constraints, infrastructure limitations, and need for localized datasets

Summary

Both speakers emphasized that AI models need localized datasets and regional customization to be truly useful for specific communities, highlighting this as both an opportunity and a barrier to implementation.

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Sociocultural

Public-private partnerships are crucial for successful AI implementation

Speakers

– Larry Wade
– Judith Okonkwo

Arguments

Successful AI implementation requires bringing regulators and governments along the journey through knowledge sharing and experimentation

Multi-stakeholder approaches involving government partnerships are essential for driving AI for social good initiatives

Summary

Both speakers strongly advocated for collaborative approaches between private companies and government entities, emphasizing the need for education, knowledge sharing, and joint initiatives to ensure responsible AI deployment.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Economic

Digital ID and payments have not been fully solved globally

Speakers

– Larry Wade
– Judith Okonkwo

Arguments

AI enables better pattern recognition and risk assessment, allowing services to previously underserved customer segments

Multi-stakeholder approaches involving government partnerships are essential for driving AI for social good initiatives

Summary

Both speakers agreed that despite technological advances, digital identity and payment systems still face significant challenges globally, particularly in serving underbanked populations and resource-constrained environments.

Topics

Development | Economic | Infrastructure

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized how open source AI particularly benefits underserved and resource-constrained communities by providing free access to advanced technology and enabling local innovation without requiring extensive initial investment.

Speakers

– Melinda Claybaugh
– Judith Okonkwo

Arguments

Open source AI provides free access to cutting-edge technology and enables customization for local solutions

Open source AI drives experimentation and allows building without starting from scratch, particularly beneficial for resource-constrained environments

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Sociocultural

Both speakers emphasized the responsibility of private technology companies to actively engage with and educate government entities and regulators, rather than developing technologies in isolation from policy makers.

Speakers

– Larry Wade
– Judith Okonkwo

Arguments

Private companies have a responsibility to educate regulators about complex technologies they create rather than leaving them to figure it out alone

Multi-stakeholder approaches involving government partnerships are essential for driving AI for social good initiatives

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Economic

Both speakers emphasized that trust in AI systems requires sustained, transparent relationships between private companies and regulators, with a focus on protecting and informing users through collaborative approaches.

Speakers

– Larry Wade
– Judith Vega

Arguments

Regular engagement and transparent relationships with regulators across different jurisdictions are crucial for trust-building

Trustworthy decision-making requires cooperation between private and public sectors to ensure informed user protection

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Economic

Unexpected consensus

AI should serve as optimization rather than replacement for existing systems

Speakers

– Larry Wade
– Audience

Arguments

AI integration in payments focuses on optimization rather than pure reliance, maintaining existing controls while improving customer experience

There’s a fundamental conflict between AI’s pattern detection capabilities and the need for auditable, explainable payment systems

Explanation

Despite coming from different perspectives (industry vs. government), both the PayPal representative and the Norwegian Tax Administration representative agreed that AI should enhance rather than replace existing systems, particularly in areas requiring accountability and explainability. This consensus was unexpected given their different roles but shows shared concerns about AI reliability in critical systems.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Private companies have educational responsibilities toward regulators

Speakers

– Larry Wade
– Judith Okonkwo

Arguments

Private companies have a responsibility to educate regulators about complex technologies they create rather than leaving them to figure it out alone

Multi-stakeholder approaches involving government partnerships are essential for driving AI for social good initiatives

Explanation

It was unexpected to see such strong consensus from private sector representatives about their responsibility to educate and collaborate with regulators, rather than viewing regulation as an obstacle. This suggests a mature understanding of the need for responsible innovation in AI.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrated remarkable consensus on key issues including the value of open source AI for democratizing access, the critical importance of public-private partnerships, the need for localized solutions, and the responsibility of private companies to engage constructively with regulators. There was also agreement that current DPI solutions are not yet fully adequate globally.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for AI governance and DPI development. The agreement suggests a mature understanding among stakeholders about the need for collaborative, responsible approaches to AI implementation. This consensus could facilitate more effective policy development and technology deployment, particularly in addressing global digital divides and ensuring AI benefits reach underserved communities.

Different viewpoints

Definition and true openness of open source AI

Speakers

– Audience
– Melinda Claybaugh
– Judith Vega

Arguments

Concerns exist about whether AI is truly democratized when foundational models are still controlled by few actors

Open source AI provides free access to cutting-edge technology and enables customization for local solutions

The definition of ‘public’ in DPI means common and generally available rather than government-controlled

Summary

Audience members questioned whether open source AI is truly democratized when foundational models remain controlled by few actors, while Meta’s representative emphasized the benefits of their open approach and the moderator defended a broader definition of ‘open’ as commonly available rather than fully democratized.

Topics

Economic | Legal and regulatory | Development

Appropriate level of AI integration in government decision-making

Speakers

– Audience
– Larry Wade

Arguments

Government agencies face challenges using advanced AI for citizen-affecting decisions due to inability to explain results satisfactorily

AI integration in payments focuses on optimization rather than pure reliance, maintaining existing controls while improving customer experience

Summary

Government representatives expressed strong reservations about using AI for citizen-affecting decisions due to explainability concerns, while private sector representatives advocated for AI integration as an optimization layer, suggesting different risk tolerances between public and private sectors.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybersecurity

Unexpected differences

Technical definition of open source in AI context

Speakers

– Audience
– Judith Vega
– Melinda Claybaugh

Arguments

Open source AI encompasses different components: code, model weights, and datasets, each with varying levels of openness

The definition of ‘public’ in DPI means common and generally available rather than government-controlled

Open source AI provides free access to cutting-edge technology and enables customization for local solutions

Explanation

Unexpected technical disagreement emerged about what constitutes ‘open source’ in AI, with audience members with open source expertise challenging the panelists’ broader definitions. This revealed a gap between traditional open source community understanding and how AI companies define openness.

Topics

Infrastructure | Legal and regulatory | Economic

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed moderate disagreements primarily around definitions of openness, appropriate levels of AI integration in government, and specific mechanisms for public-private cooperation. Most fundamental disagreements centered on risk tolerance and accountability standards between public and private sectors.

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications for AI governance. The definitional disputes about ‘open source’ could impact policy development, while differing risk tolerances between sectors may slow adoption of AI in critical public services. However, broad consensus on the need for cooperation provides a foundation for progress.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasized how open source AI particularly benefits underserved and resource-constrained communities by providing free access to advanced technology and enabling local innovation without requiring extensive initial investment.

Speakers

– Melinda Claybaugh
– Judith Okonkwo

Arguments

Open source AI provides free access to cutting-edge technology and enables customization for local solutions

Open source AI drives experimentation and allows building without starting from scratch, particularly beneficial for resource-constrained environments

Topics

Development | Infrastructure | Sociocultural

Both speakers emphasized the responsibility of private technology companies to actively engage with and educate government entities and regulators, rather than developing technologies in isolation from policy makers.

Speakers

– Larry Wade
– Judith Okonkwo

Arguments

Private companies have a responsibility to educate regulators about complex technologies they create rather than leaving them to figure it out alone

Multi-stakeholder approaches involving government partnerships are essential for driving AI for social good initiatives

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development | Economic

Both speakers emphasized that trust in AI systems requires sustained, transparent relationships between private companies and regulators, with a focus on protecting and informing users through collaborative approaches.

Speakers

– Larry Wade
– Judith Vega

Arguments

Regular engagement and transparent relationships with regulators across different jurisdictions are crucial for trust-building

Trustworthy decision-making requires cooperation between private and public sectors to ensure informed user protection

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Economic

Key takeaways

Open source AI is becoming foundational for Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) development, providing free access to cutting-edge technology and enabling local customization without starting from scratch

AI integration in financial services serves as an optimization layer rather than replacement, enhancing customer onboarding, fraud prevention, and transaction velocity while maintaining existing controls

Successful AI implementation requires strong public-private partnerships where private companies actively educate regulators and governments rather than leaving them to figure out complex technologies alone

Major barriers to AI adoption include skills gaps, infrastructure limitations, need for localized datasets, and digital literacy challenges, particularly in resource-constrained environments

Open source approaches attract better talent, avoid picking technology winners and losers, and provide regulators with common starting points for developing sensible regulations

AI applications are already delivering real-world value through scientific discoveries, educational support in local languages, immersive learning environments, and enhanced payment security

The definition of ‘public’ in DPI means commonly available and accessible across jurisdictions rather than government-controlled, emphasizing interoperability and widespread adoption

Resolutions and action items

Participants agreed on the need for regular engagement cadences between private companies and regulators across different jurisdictions to build trust and share knowledge

Recognition that private technology companies should take responsibility for educating regulators about world-changing technologies they create

Consensus that government agencies should experiment with AI at lower levels to keep pace with private sector developments while maintaining citizen protection standards

Agreement that multi-stakeholder approaches involving government partnerships are essential for AI for social good initiatives

Unresolved issues

How to achieve truly explainable AI that can satisfy government requirements for citizen-affecting decisions while maintaining AI’s pattern recognition capabilities

Whether AI is genuinely democratized when foundational models remain controlled by few major actors despite open source availability

The fundamental conflict between AI’s inability to explain decision-making processes and the need for auditable, transparent systems in critical applications like payments and government services

How to effectively scale localized datasets and digital literacy programs across different regions and jurisdictions

The balance between open source protocols and necessary privacy protections in financial and personal data systems

Specific mechanisms for ensuring continuous knowledge sharing between private companies and policy makers across diverse regulatory environments

Suggested compromises

Using AI as an optimization layer alongside existing proven systems rather than complete replacement, maintaining traditional controls while enhancing performance

Implementing a hybrid approach where infrastructure layers remain open source while allowing some applications to be closed when privacy or security requires it

Starting with lower-risk AI experimentation in government agencies while building toward more advanced applications as explainability improves

Developing common nomenclature and starting points for AI regulation while allowing regional customization based on local priorities and values

Balancing open source benefits with necessary walled gardens through interoperability protocols that enable secure interaction when needed

There’s a reason that most of us unbanked or underbanked people in the world. A lot of that has to do with just the overall risk tolerance of institutions that are serving them, whether it’s their own policies, or again, restrictions placed on them from whatever kind of local regime from a regulatory perspective… Once you kind of can use AI to solve that more localization, additional attributes, hey, here’s additional data that can actually de-risk this customer, again, opens up things.

Speaker

Larry Wade

Reason

This comment reframes AI not just as a technological advancement but as a tool for financial inclusion. It identifies the core problem (risk assessment limitations) and proposes AI as a solution to expand access to financial services for underserved populations.

Impact

This shifted the discussion from technical capabilities to social impact, establishing AI’s role in addressing systemic inequalities. It connected the technical discussion to real-world consequences and set up the framework for discussing public-private partnerships in solving societal challenges.

We need localized data sets. We need to be able to train models so that they’re relevant for us… Much of the same sort of like handicaps we have with immersive also existing with open source AI, particularly when it comes to the Internet.

Speaker

Judith Okonkwo

Reason

This comment exposed a critical gap in the open source AI narrative – that true democratization requires not just access to models, but relevant, localized data and infrastructure. It challenged the assumption that open source automatically equals equitable access.

Impact

This comment introduced crucial nuance to the discussion about AI democratization, leading other panelists to acknowledge the importance of local data and spurring discussion about how private companies can support localized AI development through partnerships and grants.

There’s a fundamental conflict in payment systems in that payment systems have to be accurate to the sense and they have to be auditable. Rules have to be followed. Well, AI is typical in detecting interesting patterns, coming up with surprising answers and being absolutely hopeless at explaining how they achieve them.

Speaker

Haidel Alvestram (Audience)

Reason

This comment identified a core tension between AI’s pattern recognition capabilities and the transparency requirements of financial systems. It challenged the panelists to address the ‘black box’ problem in high-stakes applications.

Impact

This question forced a more nuanced discussion about AI implementation, leading Larry Wade to clarify that AI should be used for optimization rather than replacement of existing systems. It introduced the concept of AI as a partnership tool rather than a standalone solution.

I think it’s irresponsible for private companies to create these world-changing technologies and not lean into educating those that have to regulate them… to say, hey, we’re going to create something that is complex, that can be disruptive, that can be beneficial. Here you go, you figure it out on your own. I think that’ll just cause more confusion, angst, just for everyone involved.

Speaker

Larry Wade

Reason

This comment addressed corporate responsibility in technology development and regulation, arguing that companies have an obligation to educate regulators about technologies they create. It challenged the traditional separation between innovation and regulation.

Impact

This comment elevated the discussion to questions of corporate ethics and responsibility, reinforcing the theme of public-private cooperation and establishing that successful AI integration requires active collaboration rather than passive compliance.

Even when we talk about open source and the possibilities of innovation that it allows for it, it seems that the foundational models are still being controlled by few actors. It’s not really democratized… if the core foundational models are still controlled by a few actors, then how do you define open source AI?

Speaker

Marin (Audience)

Reason

This comment challenged the fundamental premise of the discussion by questioning whether ‘open source AI’ truly democratizes access when foundational models remain controlled by major tech companies. It exposed potential contradictions in the open source narrative.

Impact

This forced the panelists to more precisely define what they meant by ‘open source’ and ‘democratization,’ leading to important clarifications about the difference between ‘public’ as government-controlled versus ‘public’ as commonly accessible. It deepened the analytical rigor of the discussion.

We basically can’t really explain the results at a satisfactory level… to what degree do you view open source as helping us realizing explainable AI? Open weights or open source code can provide trust on a formal level, but in my view, it does little in the way of actually explaining the results and the decisions on a level that’s understandable to the citizen.

Speaker

Knut Vatne (Norwegian Tax Administration)

Reason

This comment from a government official highlighted the practical challenges of implementing AI in public sector decision-making, distinguishing between technical transparency and citizen-understandable explanations.

Impact

This brought the discussion full circle to questions of public accountability and trust, forcing consideration of how technical solutions must ultimately serve democratic principles. It emphasized the gap between technical capabilities and public sector requirements.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a purely technical discussion about AI and DPI into a nuanced exploration of power, equity, and responsibility in technology deployment. The most impactful comments consistently challenged assumptions – about democratization, accessibility, and the relationship between technical capability and social benefit. They forced the panelists to move beyond promotional narratives to address fundamental tensions: between innovation and regulation, between technical transparency and public understanding, and between global solutions and local needs. The discussion evolved from describing what AI can do to grappling with how it should be deployed responsibly, ultimately emphasizing that successful AI integration requires not just technical solutions but sustained collaboration, education, and attention to equity and accountability.

Examples of south-to-south cooperation for open source AI sharing

Speaker

Agustina Callegari (relaying online question)

Explanation

This question seeks to understand how developing countries are collaborating on open source AI initiatives, which is important for understanding global cooperation patterns and knowledge sharing mechanisms outside of traditional North-South partnerships

How to ensure continuous sharing of knowledge with policy makers

Speaker

Agustina Callegari (relaying online question)

Explanation

This addresses the critical challenge of maintaining ongoing dialogue between technology companies and regulators, which is essential for effective governance of emerging technologies

How to mitigate the conflict between AI’s pattern detection capabilities and the need for accurate, auditable payment systems

Speaker

Haidel Alvestram

Explanation

This highlights a fundamental technical challenge in integrating AI into financial systems where transparency and explainability are regulatory requirements

Precise definition of ‘open source AI’ – whether it refers to code, model weights, or datasets

Speaker

Satish

Explanation

This definitional question is crucial for establishing common understanding and standards in discussions about open source AI development and deployment

How private technology companies should play a role in DPI and AI for social good landscape

Speaker

Agustina Callegari (relaying online question)

Explanation

This explores the appropriate boundaries and responsibilities of private sector involvement in public digital infrastructure, which is essential for effective public-private partnerships

To what degree open source helps realize explainable AI for government decision-making affecting citizens

Speaker

Knut Vatne (Norwegian Tax Administration)

Explanation

This addresses a critical governance challenge where public agencies need to explain AI-driven decisions to citizens while maintaining transparency and accountability standards

Need for localized datasets to train AI models for regional relevance

Speaker

Judith Okonkwo and Melinda Claybaugh

Explanation

This research area is essential for ensuring AI systems work effectively across different cultural, linguistic, and regional contexts, particularly in underserved markets

Skills and capacity gap for leveraging open source AI in developing regions

Speaker

Judith Okonkwo

Explanation

This identifies a critical barrier to AI adoption that requires targeted educational and training interventions to ensure equitable access to AI technologies

Infrastructure constraints for AI deployment, particularly internet connectivity

Speaker

Judith Okonkwo

Explanation

This highlights the foundational infrastructure requirements that must be addressed before AI technologies can be effectively deployed in many regions

Digital literacy requirements for citizen participation in AI governance decisions

Speaker

Judith Okonkwo

Explanation

This addresses the need for public education to enable meaningful citizen engagement in decisions about AI systems that affect their lives

Summary

This discussion focused on the intersection of multi-stakeholder governance and international law in cyberspace, held as part of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) with input toward the WSIS+20 review process. The panel explored how international law can facilitate and strengthen the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance, making it more efficient, inclusive, and predictable.

Maciej Groń from the Polish Cyber Security Agency emphasized that multi-stakeholder governance is essential rather than optional, noting that national laws are insufficient for addressing global cyber issues like illegal content. He highlighted successful international cooperation through organizations like INHOPE, which operates across 55 countries using common standards and classification schemas.

Anna Podgorska-Buompane discussed the Polish EU presidency’s priorities in digital diplomacy, including strengthening the IGF, promoting human-centric approaches, and defending an open, secure internet through multi-stakeholder governance. She outlined various initiatives, including high-level conferences and coordination among EU member states on WSIS+20 positions.

Elena Plexida from ICANN explained how multi-stakeholder governance operates in practice, describing it as actual decision-making rather than mere consultation. She emphasized that the global internet requires governance that transcends national borders, with technical communities, governments, and civil society participating on equal footing. Plexida noted that international law provides crucial legal frameworks that help technical communities develop sound policies.

Helen Popp from the European External Action Service presented the EU’s common declaration on international law in cyberspace, adopted in November 2024. This declaration establishes shared understanding among EU member states on key legal principles, including due diligence obligations, attribution of cyber operations, and the application of international humanitarian law.

Lukasz Kulaga advocated for more states to develop national positions on international law in cyberspace, explaining that such positions enhance transparency and contribute to legal interpretation. He also suggested alternative approaches for developing international law, including potential involvement of the International Court of Justice and the International Law Commission.

The discussion concluded with practical questions about breaking down silos between different technical communities and ensuring that law enforcement doesn’t circumvent international treaties. The panelists emphasized the need for continued collaboration and the importance of maintaining the multi-stakeholder model while strengthening its legal foundations through international law.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Multi-stakeholder governance as essential infrastructure**: The panelists emphasized that multi-stakeholder governance is not optional but fundamental for managing global internet resources, with ICANN serving as a key example of how technical communities, governments, civil society, and other stakeholders make collective decisions about internet identifiers and standards.

– **International law as a framework for cyber governance**: Discussion centered on how international law can support and legitimize multi-stakeholder processes, with particular focus on the EU’s recent declaration on applying international law to cyberspace and the need for more countries to develop national positions on cyber law.

– **Breaking down silos between technical and policy communities**: A significant portion addressed the challenge of connecting high-level international law discussions with practical technical implementation, emphasizing the need for better coordination between different internet governance organizations and stakeholders.

– **State responsibility and due diligence in cyberspace**: The conversation explored how traditional international law concepts like state sovereignty, due diligence obligations, and attribution of cyber operations apply in the digital domain, particularly in the context of malicious cyber activities.

– **WSIS+20 and the future of internet governance**: The discussion was framed around the upcoming World Summit on the Information Society review process and how international law frameworks can strengthen and legitimize the continued use of multi-stakeholder governance models.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how international law can support and enhance multi-stakeholder internet governance, particularly in preparation for the WSIS+20 review process. The panelists sought to bridge the gap between high-level international legal frameworks and practical internet governance implementation, demonstrating how legal norms can provide stability and legitimacy to bottom-up, collaborative governance models.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a consistently professional and collaborative tone throughout. Speakers demonstrated mutual respect and built upon each other’s points constructively. The tone was academic yet practical, with panelists sharing concrete examples and actionable insights. There was an underlying sense of urgency about the importance of these issues for the future of internet governance, but the conversation remained optimistic about the potential for international law to support multi-stakeholder processes. The interaction with audience questions added a more dynamic element while maintaining the scholarly and diplomatic character of the session.

Speakers

– **Viktor Skvarek**: Remote participation moderator, managing online participation for the panel

– **Helen Popp**: Cyber policy officer with the European External Action Service, focuses on UN negotiations particularly related to the Open-Ended Working Group on cyber issues

– **Elena Plexida**: Representative of ICANN, has experience in European policymaking and policy development, facilitates cooperation between governments and the broader ICANN community

– **Lukasz Kulaga**: Professor representing the foreign ministry, academic with background in developing national positions on the application of international law in cyberspace (speaking in private capacity)

– **Anna Podgorska-Buompane**: Employee of Polish Digital Affairs Ministry, seconded to Polish permanent representation to the EU as digital and cyber attaché, chairs telecom working party during Polish presidency to the European Council, representative of Poland within the ICANN community

– **Audience**: Participant identified as Wouter Natwies, represents the dynamic coalition on the internet standards security and safety within the IGF system

– **Maciej Gron**: Representative of the Polish Cyber Security Agency, speaking on behalf of research institute NASK, deals with cyber security and works for Polish hotline, attorney at law

– **Joanna Kulesza**: Assistant professor of international law at the University of Lodz in Poland, director of research center Lodz Cyber Hub, on-site moderator for the session

**Additional speakers:**

– **Luke**: Online participant who submitted a question via chat (full name and credentials not provided)

# Multi-Stakeholder Governance and International Law in Cyberspace: A Comprehensive Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This Internet Governance Forum (IGF) session, moderated by Joanna Kulesza, examined the intersection between multi-stakeholder governance and international law in cyberspace, with particular focus on preparations for the WSIS+20 review process. The panel brought together representatives from technical communities, government agencies, and cybersecurity practitioners to explore how international law can strengthen the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance.

The discussion revealed strong consensus among participants that multi-stakeholder governance represents an essential approach to managing global cyber challenges. Speakers emphasized that cyber threats and illegal content are inherently international problems requiring coordinated responses that transcend national borders, with international law frameworks providing necessary legal basis for effective multi-stakeholder decision-making.

## Key Participants and Their Contributions

### Technical Community Perspective

**Elena Plexida** from ICANN distinguished multi-stakeholder governance from consultation processes, emphasizing that “multi-stakeholder governance in the case of the global Internet is decision-making. You don’t just have stakeholders there who are being consulted. There’s actual decision-making.” She highlighted ICANN’s unique model where technical communities, governments, and civil society participate equally in decisions about internet identifiers.

Plexida explained how ICANN maintains “common technical language” that enables devices worldwide to communicate, noting that “I’m not aware of any other public resource, or public good, that is governed the way the fundamentals of the global Internet are governed.” She acknowledged the need for creative forum-building to coordinate between different technical organizations while operating within ICANN’s specific mission limitations.

### Government and Diplomatic Perspectives

**Helen Popp** from the European External Action Service presented the EU’s recent work on international law in cyberspace, including a declaration establishing shared understanding among member states on key legal principles. She noted that “the key challenge is to ensure that states interpret those rules by and large in the same manner,” while observing that the primary obstacle is that “too many states have thus far remained silent on this question.”

**Anna Podgorska-Buompane** from Poland’s Digital Affairs Ministry outlined her country’s EU presidency priorities, including strengthening the IGF and promoting multi-stakeholder governance. She emphasized that “internet governance and multi-stakeholder processes are the cornerstone of digital diplomacy” and described various initiatives including coordination among EU member states on WSIS+20 positions.

**Lukasz Kulaga**, representing academic perspectives on international law, advocated for more states to develop national positions on international law in cyberspace. He suggested exploring alternative mechanisms including potential involvement of the International Court of Justice and the International Law Commission, and highlighted gaps in current frameworks, particularly regarding protection of subsea data cables.

### Cybersecurity and Law Enforcement Perspective

**Maciej Groń** from the Polish Cyber Security Agency provided a practitioner’s perspective, stating emphatically that “the multi-stakeholder model is not a nice thing to have, it’s a must-have” because “even the best national laws are powerless if they are not required beyond borders.”

Groń highlighted successful international cooperation through INHOPE, which operates across 55 countries using common standards and universal classification schemas. He demonstrated how standardized approaches enable effective cross-border cooperation in addressing illegal content and cybersecurity threats.

## Areas of Strong Consensus

### Multi-Stakeholder Governance as Essential

All speakers agreed that multi-stakeholder governance represents a fundamental necessity for managing cyberspace. This consensus transcended traditional stakeholder boundaries, with technical community representatives, government officials, and cybersecurity practitioners all emphasizing collaborative governance as operationally essential rather than ideologically preferred.

### International Cooperation as Requirement

Participants unanimously agreed that cyber challenges require coordinated international responses beyond individual national approaches. Speakers emphasized that national laws alone are insufficient for addressing cross-border cyber threats, illegal content, and technical vulnerabilities affecting global internet infrastructure.

### International Law as Supporting Framework

Technical and legal experts agreed that international law frameworks provide essential legal basis for effective cyberspace governance. Speakers agreed that international law supports rather than replaces multi-stakeholder governance, providing legal foundation that enables technical communities to develop sound policies while ensuring accountability.

## Interactive Discussion and Key Questions

### Breaking Down Organizational Silos

Audience member **Wouter Natwies** posed a critical challenge about “how do we break the silos and come together to fundamentally rebuild the security of the internet together.” This intervention highlighted the gap between high-level governance discussions and practical security implementation across different technical layers and organizations.

Elena Plexida responded by acknowledging ICANN’s mission limitations while emphasizing the need for creative forum-building. She noted the importance of coordination between technical organizations while respecting existing mandates and structures.

### Preventing Government Circumvention

Online participant **Luke** asked about preventing governments from circumventing international treaties by pressuring private actors directly. Elena Plexida provided a detailed response using the Council of Europe Budapest Convention as an example, explaining how international frameworks can provide legal basis for cooperation while establishing proper procedures and safeguards.

This exchange highlighted practical challenges in implementing international legal frameworks and the importance of having established mechanisms for legitimate cross-border cooperation.

## Practical Examples and Case Studies

### INHOPE Network Success

Maciej Groń detailed how INHOPE operates across 55 countries using universal classification schemas that standardize content legality determinations across different jurisdictions. This example demonstrated practical multi-stakeholder cooperation in addressing illegal content through shared technical standards and coordinated responses.

### ICANN’s Governance Model

Elena Plexida explained how ICANN maintains global internet functionality through multi-stakeholder decision-making that ensures technical interoperability. She emphasized how this model enables equal participation by different stakeholder groups in making decisions about critical internet infrastructure.

### EU Common Positions

Helen Popp described the EU’s approach to developing shared positions on international law in cyberspace, noting that over 100 UN member states have now published positions on international law application in cyberspace, representing significant progress in building consensus.

## Implications for WSIS+20

### Strengthening Existing Structures

Speakers demonstrated preference for building upon existing governance mechanisms rather than creating new institutional structures. This approach reflects practical recognition that the internet governance ecosystem contains numerous organizations and processes that can be enhanced rather than replaced.

### Encouraging State Participation

The discussion emphasized the importance of encouraging more states to develop and publish positions on international law in cyberspace. This approach could help address concerns about legitimacy and representation while building broader consensus on fundamental principles.

### Integrating Legal Frameworks

The session highlighted opportunities for better integrating international law principles with multi-stakeholder governance processes, potentially providing enhanced predictability and legitimacy for collaborative governance mechanisms.

## Key Recommendations

### For States and International Organizations

– States should prepare national positions on international law application in cyberspace to increase transparency and contribute to legal development

– Regional organizations should continue developing common positions following the EU’s example

– Alternative mechanisms like ICJ advisory opinions should be explored when traditional dialogue reaches impasses

### For Technical Communities

– Technical organizations should explore creative forum-building approaches that coordinate across traditional silos

– Technical communities should continue engaging with international law development to ensure legal frameworks support effective technical governance

### For the Internet Governance Community

– The IGF should continue facilitating dialogue between international law experts and multi-stakeholder governance practitioners

– Internet governance organizations should explore better coordination mechanisms to address cross-cutting challenges

## Conclusion

This discussion demonstrated remarkable consensus among diverse stakeholders on the fundamental importance of multi-stakeholder governance for effective internet governance and cybersecurity. The strong agreement on collaborative approaches, international cooperation necessity, and international law relevance provides solid foundation for continued development of the multi-stakeholder model.

The session’s emphasis on building upon existing structures, combined with calls for increased state engagement with international law development, provides clear guidance for WSIS+20 discussions. The practical examples shared by speakers—from INHOPE’s cross-border cooperation to ICANN’s technical governance—demonstrate that multi-stakeholder approaches are not theoretical ideals but operational necessities for managing global internet resources effectively.

As the WSIS+20 review approaches, this discussion provides important evidence that the multi-stakeholder model enjoys broad support across stakeholder communities and can be strengthened through better integration with international law frameworks while maintaining its unique characteristics for governing global cyberspace.

Joanna Kulesza: Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you so much for joining us for this final session for today on multi-stakeholder governance and international law in cyberspace. My name is Joanna Kulesza. I’m an assistant professor of international law at the University of Lodz in Poland, and I have the privilege of directing a research center, the Lodz Cyber Hub, that researches how international law applies in cyberspace. It is my pleasure to be your on-site moderator today. I am joined today by our on-site moderator, the good spirits behind this panel, Mr. Viktor Skvarek, who will be managing our online participation. I welcome those of you who are joining us in the room and online. We have an excellent setup of speakers hosted here today by the Ministry of Digital Affairs, who’s the host for this session, and the Lodz Cyber Hub. For the purpose of time, I shall refrain from individual introductions, and I will ask our speakers to introduce themselves as they take the floor. And I will start by giving you the background for this panel. Why is it that it might be worth our while to discuss the application of international law in cyberspace during an IGF? As I’m certain you have noticed, there is an overarching theme of WSIS plus 20 input, and WSIS happening in a couple of days’ time will be the process where we decide if how we have governed cyberspace thus far through the multi-stakeholder model is indeed the way we wish to continue. As much as there is consensus, it will likely remain the way. There are also enhanced conversations around how international law could help us facilitate that model, make it more efficient, make it more inclusive, make it more predictable. And this is where our panel and our panellists come in. We will discuss broader issues of internet governance and international law. We will also look specifically into individual documents and processes that facilitate building a more resilient and sustainable cyberspace. For the opening remarks, I’m thrilled to share the floor with Mr. Maciej Groń, who’s representing the Polar Cyber Security Agency, and will give us a brief introduction from the governmental side on why it might matter to facilitate the multi-stakeholder model with international law. Sir, the floor is yours.

Maciej Gron: Thank you very much. I’m speaking on behalf of our research institute, NASK. I deal with the cyber security and I work for Polish hotline. Frankly speaking, I was trying to prepare something special, but discussing the topic of multi-stakeholder governance and international law in cyberspace has been discussed extensively, not only this IGF, but many IGFs before. So I can only say that the multi-stakeholder model is not a nice thing to have, it’s a must-have. And it’s not just a good idea, it’s a fundamental condition for our daily work. Even the best national laws are powerless if they are not required beyond borders. So from my perspective, as an attorney at law who’s working for the hotline, we are dealing with the illegal content, as you know. So there’s nothing like, you know, the national illegal content. The content is illegal content, especially the system is always international. So if the problem is international, we need the international solution. Absolutely any national regulation, which is only for one country, is absolutely not enough. But when we’re dealing with illegal content, we have really good examples, because we are not treating, you know, the regulation like traditional criminal codes or civil codes, because on the global level, it’s absolutely impossible. But we have, you know, very good standards, and we are working on the standards absolutely in the multi-stakeholder model. And we have, you know, the great institution which is called INHOPE, and also to this institution belongs 55 countries. So we have, you know, the good examples. And we are absolutely very optimistic that, you know, that this approach, multi-stakeholder approach, and international law, which we understand, you know, not, you know, like our national laws, because it’s… It’s impossible, we don’t have the international courts, which are the same like our national, so we have the good examples. The one example which I want to mention, this is for example the universal classification schema, which can standardize the content, where it’s legal, where it’s not legal. But you know the meaning of this content is always the same. And the cooperation is really very important, because for example the same material can be legal in one country and not legal in the others. Today we have discussed also the problem of deep fakes and deep notes. And this kind of materials are not legal in every country and not illegal in every country, so we have to cooperate somehow. So that’s why our standards which we have, they are helping us very much. And if someone thinks that good standards for one country is enough, I don’t think it’s true. And so I encourage everyone to cooperate with us, with our standards. And what is important, we have the very good examples, but as you know always, the regulation is not enough. So we need the people who will share this regulation and who will first of all respect these standards. But it’s very easy, the willingness is only important. So I think that when the focus is really concrete and the reason why we want to protect someone, in my case children, it’s enough to start and be efficient as much. Thank you very much.

Joanna Kulesza: Thank you. Thank you so much, Maciej. That’s a very important call for the bottom-up cooperation that we need to facilitate the multi-stakeholder approach to Internet governance, an important role for international law to play within that framework. For our panel, I’m pleased to welcome four speakers. We have a good hybrid setup, as you can see. We have some of our speakers joining online and some of them here in the room. The process for this panel shall be for our speakers to take the floor. I will kindly request them to speak for roughly 15 minutes. We have given them specific themes, which I will introduce as we progress. And then we would love to open the floor for your questions and or comments. We do have online participants. We encourage them to post their questions into the chat, clearly highlighting that that is the content of the question and to whom it might be directed. We will then read those questions out aloud. The remote participants are also encouraged to take the floor. And then we have remote mics available here for the participants in the room. So we would like to keep this session interactive, whereas we would kindly ask you to hold your questions and comments until after the presentations from our panelists. As already said, we have a wonderful setup of speakers representing different areas of where international law is being applied to cyberspace. It is my great pleasure to welcome our first speaker, Ms. Anna Podgorska-Buompane, who is representing Poland with the European Commission. Anna also is a representative of Poland within the ICANN community, and we’ve had fruitful conversations around how the work within the European Commission on internet governance and facilitating responsible state behavior in cyberspace could complement the WSIS 20 processes and the work done here within the IGF community. Anna has kindly agreed to offer a glimpse into the Polish presidency with that specific theme, and it is my great pleasure to hand the floor over to her with a brief, kind request for an introduction. Anna, the floor is yours.

Anna Podgorska-Buompane: Thank you very much, Joanna. Good afternoon, colleagues, panelists, and good afternoon to all attendees. First of all, I would like to kindly apologize because I was supposed to be on site, but due to the general strike here in Brussels, which affected basically all sectors, not only transport, the airports are closed and there are no planes taking off today, so that’s why unfortunately I had to join online. I am an employee of Polish Digital Affairs Ministry, but since many years I’ve been seconded to a Polish parent representation to the EU as the digital and cyber attaché, dealing mostly with cyber and digital diplomacy, and during Polish presidency to the European Council, I am chairing a telecom working party, focusing mostly on external relations. So, we thought that it would be a very good occasion to share our perspective on the external policies and multi-stakeholder approaches, including YSYS plus 20 review, since the presidency happens every 13 and a half years, so the next possibility for us would be indeed in so many years. So, just to very quickly sum up what we have introduced during our presidency, it’s to… have a clear view on the external relations of the EU and one of the Polish presidency priorities in the digital sphere was indeed a concentration on internet governance and multi-stakeholder processes which are currently taking place and which are indeed very, very important. So, we have worked within all 27 EU member states and we worked since the 1st of January being involved in elaborating different coordination positions, if I may only cite a couple of them. So, we have discussed EU and its member states together with the European Commission on the YSS plus 20 review. We have within the Council elaborated on different priorities but just to mention a couple of them. These are of course the issue related to straightening the IGF which is the cornerstone initiative on the IG, a human-centric and human rights-based approach, multi-stakeholder digital governance as the core of the UN system, of course straightening crisis to address the digital device and of course defending the open global free interoperable and secure internet through multi-stakeholder governance which is the really a key word for the EU but also for the Polish presidency. We have also provided the input to the ITU questionnaire on YSS plus 20 review and we have been also involved in the consultation of the scientific panel on AI and the global dialogue on AI governance. And just to also flag up that what of course going around the YSS and multi-stakeholder approach, we thought that the involvement of many different players not only member states would be very, very much important. That’s why we have also co-organized with the European Commission in April today a global multi-stakeholder high-level conference on governance of web 4.0 which the main panel was concentrated indeed on the internet governance and we had many distinguished speakers, also representatives of ICANN, governments outside of Europe and the discussion was indeed very good. Then also in Poland under the Polish presidency we have organized in May, the Conference on International Digital Partnerships and Projects, which we also discussed and mentioned the importance of internet and internet governance and the multi-stakeholder approach, also always within the view of the YSYS++20 review process. Our motto, our presidency was building the bridges, connecting the dots, making the and connecting the dots and so avoiding silos. So that’s why we thought that it’s very good also in the discussion to involve not only the experts but also diplomats. So that’s why under the umbrella of the EAS, European External Action Service, there is the digital diplomacy network present, which gathers 27 EU digital ambassadors. So we organized two on-site meetings of this DDN network. One of the teams which were discussed also among the digital ambassadors was also the YSYS++20 review. One meeting took place in Brussels, another back in Poland, in Szczecin, where we had also a good presence from EFTA countries representatives, where we could exchange of the joint approaches and understanding of the ongoing global processes. Last but not least, we have also involved with other stakeholders, very important, which was the ICANN, who kindly provided us with the workshop on internet governance. So we really had a very good turnout from the cyber attaches and telecom attaches. So I’m taking the possibility to thank you also, because I see among the panelists there is Elena, who is a representative of ICANN. And then we had also very good discussion under the roundtable, which we have organized with RIPE NCC back in Brussels on digital and cyber diplomacy, when also the YSYS processes and multi-stakeholderism was mentioned many times. So I would like to also mention that we are also willing to concentrate now, since the elements paper for the YSYS++20 review has been just published five days ago. So, and which address many issues, but also including cyber security being as a critical component to build confidence in the use of the ICT. So now we are analyzing this in details and of course, the discussion on that will follow in the council. And the other thing, which I would also mention and draw to your attention, last year in April, the European Council has asked the European Commission and the European External Action Service for the external strategy to the European Union, which has been published a couple of weeks ago. This is the joint communication from those two institutions. The document is available online and it’s public, so whoever is interested, it can be read through, but there is also indeed a very important component of internet governance in it and multi-stakeholderism. Indeed, it is also worth making familiar with that, apart of course from digital partnerships and cooperating with like-minded countries and other regions and states and organizations, the internet governance also has its place in this external EU digital strategy. Last but not least, I would like to mention also the focus, which we have towards the involvement of youth. So, not only as the country who has organized UN IGF also back in Poland, but also for the different processes and the technology importance, which are now taking place and the influence of the technology over the young people lives and the thinking perception. So, we also put a big and very important stress on that, that the young people who will be the legislators and the future policymakers, they are very important in this ecosystem to play a very active role. That’s why we also during the digital summit, which took place last week in Gdańsk, had the meeting of the very engaging, active and interested in the digital world young people with the high representative of the European Commission, Henna Birkunen. I have to say that the discussion with the executive vice president went very smoothly and it showed only how the young people, they are aware of what’s going on in the internet and how it can influence their life, including subject topics like disinformation, AI and others. So, with that, this was just a brief overview from my side. I’m sure that my other colleagues, they can deep dive on the more legal issues related to cyberspace. So, thank you very much and at the end, I will be open for any questions and comments you may have.

Joanna Kulesza: Thank you. Thank you so much, Anna. That was a very comprehensive overview of both the Polish presidency and its work around the multi-stakeholder model and support for the WSIS Plus20 as well as of the processes themselves. In your intervention, you mentioned ICANN and it is my pleasure to hand the floor over to our next speaker, Ms. Elena Pleksida, who is representing ICANN for the purpose of this conversation. Elena has a long-standing experience in both European policymaking, policy development and most recently, facilitating the cooperation between governments and the broader ICANN community. I have had the pleasure of working with Elena on multiple occasions before. It is my great honor today to welcome you to the panel, Elena. We have kindly asked you for the purpose of this panel to bridge that divide, perceived divide, between Internet governance and international law. It is one of our joint favorite topics and I know you have a very feasible, understandable way of explaining why international law might help with multi-stakeholder governance also from the technical community’s perspective. Thank you so much for finding the time and thank you so much for contributing to the discussion. It is my great pleasure to hand you the floor.

Elena Plexida: Thank you so much, Joanna. Hello to everyone. I hope you can hear me okay. pleasure of hearing Anna, another person which we have worked with fantastically not only during the past six months of the Polish presidency but also before and let me take the opportunity to thank the Polish presidency for setting up this discussion that we’re having today which I personally find very relevant as we’re moving towards the WSIS plus 20 review at the end of the year but also beyond that and also thank the presidency for the work they did on internet governance during the semester for the special care the presidency took to involve all stakeholders and really helping connecting the dots which is necessary I think if you ask me from my from my background both in policy making the classic way in European institutions but also the multi-stakeholder policy making it’s a it’s an actual absolute must so congratulations for the work you did in that in that space overall. Right on the topic at hand multi-stakeholder governance and international law. I think I would say to talk about multi-stakeholder governance and international law we first have to define if you will multi-stakeholder governance what it is that we’re talking about and see how this fits into or not it’s a discussion within the today’s international order within the Westphalian international order that we have today and we do things and then see how it interacts with international law. So let’s do that try to define what is it that we’re talking about what is this governance multi-stakeholder governance that we’re talking about and how it fits into the way we do things otherwise in the world. You know that I work for ICANN it’s been mentioned already it’s ICANN is one of the organizations that help maintain what we know as the global internet. It’s a family of technical organizations you have the IETF and the regional internet registries lots of organizations it’s not just one they do what we say they maintain the fundamentals the those that give you that the network layer of the internet hence you have a global internet. I’m not a technical person hence the way I describe it usually is that we maintain some sort of common technical language so all the machines and all the devices and the other three are in the middle of the screen. The devices that are on the Internet, they use the same language, which is unique. Because there is this uniqueness, and this same technical language, they can find each other, and that’s the way you have a global Internet. Otherwise, we would have different segments of it here, there, left, and right. So this is what we do. Now, how we do it. How we do it goes back to the multistakeholder governance. Let me correct it here. Internet is really a public resource. I said that it’s time to be corrected here, because at least to my knowledge, I’m not aware of any other public resource, or public good, if you will, that is governed the way the fundamentals of the global Internet are governed. Usually what you have is, let’s take the example of Spectrum. You have a global organization composed of governments, sitting there in their sovereign rights to do that, and make decisions about how to govern a public resource. In the case of the global Internet, the fundamentals, the identifiers of the Internet, it doesn’t work exactly that way. We have governments sitting there, but we have everyone else sitting there on an equal footing, so stakeholders such as the engineers, those that know how standards work, civil society, and others. They sit together and they make decisions collectively. The word decisions is quite important in what I’m trying to say. Multi-stakeholder governance in the case of the global Internet is decision-making. You don’t just have stakeholders there who are being consulted. There’s actual decision-making. In the case of ICANN, just to pick up on ICANN as an example, this decision-making that is done by the technical community changes things, can change things, like the very root of the Internet. You can imagine the gravity and the importance. The global Internet, the fundamentals of the Internet, they know no borders, and they should know no borders. otherwise we wouldn’t have a global internet. So you can say in one way that the governance that is applied on the global internet is consistent with the system we’re trying to govern, like it’s a global system. So also the governance, if you will, in a way it’s outside of sovereignty. By not having governments alone making the decisions, it operates in a very different way. It might be an exaggeration when I say outside sovereignty, but that’s the way I perceive it at least, just by the fact that there is no exercise of sovereign right as such. And another reason, to be honest with you, that I think, and that’s my personal take, that we have this special governance, this multi-stakeholder governance model that became the way it is today. I believe it has to do also with the point in time when the internet became what it is today. The internet grew at a point in time when we were moving from nation states to globalization, we liked each other, there was a collaborative atmosphere all over the place. And I think that this is reflected into the internet as an invention and also in its governance, which as I said before, it’s quite special, it’s left outside sovereignty in a way. Now, of course, the world is not the same place as it used to be. There are geopolitical tensions and that in itself is a topic of another panel discussion, so I will leave it here and now continue. I will only suffice to say that the multi-stakeholder governance, when it comes to the global internet, as Matsi said very nicely at the beginning, it’s not a nice to have, it’s a must have, because it enables and it protects the global internet. Now, going to the question of how multi-stakeholder governance affects or how it interferes, intervenes and interplays with international law. As I said, we have this multi-stakeholder governance where everyone is sitting around the table, it’s bottom-up decision-making. Again, I will say it is decision-making. So everything that has to do with the technical standards that run the internet is done through that one. And this is something we should always keep in mind, particularly if we are to design international law frameworks in the future. We have to remember this particularity of how the internet works and how the governance of the internet needs to work. That doesn’t mean that everything is happening in the vacuum and there’s nothing that has to do with international law, like it’s completely separate, no. We don’t have a vacuum, as I said, technical communities are there to, yes, create policies around the standards, which keep the internet stable and secure and global, but they’re not there to interpret or draft international law. International law has to be given by the actors that need to be given. It helps the policymaking of technical communities. Just to give you an example, there are issues that the technical communities are discussing, aside the standards as such, which have to do with registration of IP addresses, registration of domain names, how to uphold privacy when it comes to registration or other issues. how to enable cyber security, how to combat abusive use of domain names, which might be used in phishing, spam, what have you. Having a legal basis by international law is super important to be able to have sound policy also within the technical organizations, because imagine a situation where we have, I don’t know, one jurisdiction looking into an issue in one way and implementing a law, and in the other hand, another jurisdiction implementing the exact opposite. Then the technical community cannot, it will be a madness, they cannot put in place rules that will help. And the other way around, how the multi-stakeholder governance and policymaking would influence, if you will, impact or have some sort of impact on international law. I think I would say here that having international law being incorporated the way it needs to be, case by case, into technical community policymaking means that we sort of have a level setting for international law. It furthers its application globally. And I will again here quote Maciej, who said at the beginning, and I really like that, that laws are not good enough if they do not work beyond borders. And that I would say is something that the multi-stakeholder governance model with its global reach then furthers international law where it is applied in different policies, as Maciej said. I think I will stop here. I’m looking forward to the discussion. Thank you very much. Thank you. Back to you.

Joanna Kulesza: Thank you so much, Alina. That was most insightful and very comprehensive, as per usual. It’s the perfect framework for us to dive deeper into what international law actually means in this context. We have looked at policy development processes. We have looked at internet governance per se. And it is my pleasure to hand off the floor to our next two speakers who will focus on international law indeed. Our first speaker is Ms. Helen Popp, who is the cyber policy officer with the European External Action Service. Helen will focus on a document recently adopted at the end of last year, that is the and Mr. Lukasz Kulaga. Thank you. So, the first thing I want to highlight is the declaration of the application of international law in cyberspace adopted by EU member states. Now, this is a significant achievement, particularly because as much as different states have produced their own understandings, documents where they would identify how they read the application of international law in cyberspace, such a common understanding remained a challenge. Now, we do have that document, so if you’re looking for a one-stop shop for the European perspective on how international law applies in cyberspace, that just might be that document. But I’m thrilled to welcome Helen here, because I know there is so much more substance, both to the document and the context in which it was approved, elaborated, and the steps that will follow. I don’t mean to spoil the surprise, and I will kindly ask you, Helen, to take the floor and tell us as much as your mandate allows you. Thank you so much for joining us.

Helen Popp: Thank you very much, Anna. It’s a pleasure to join this workshop, and I regret that I’m unable to be there in person this time around, but there is always next time. Yes, as you said, I currently serve as a cyber police expert at the European External Action Service. Over the past four years, I have primarily focused on UN negotiations, particularly related to the Open-Ended Working Group on cyber issues, but I will come back to that a little bit later. So, yes, as you mentioned, in November 2024, the European Council approved a declaration by the EU and its member states on a common understanding of the application of international law to cyberspace. The declaration is not legally binding and does not affect the national positions of member states. However, it is the public common political understanding of the EU and its member states on several important legal topics. But most importantly, the declaration signals that international law remains fit for purpose in this digital domain and restates that the European Union states will obey certain rules and obligations when conducting activities in cyberspace. In that sense, the declaration is a political and diplomatic instrument, but carries legal implications. And when it comes to those legal aspects, then EU member states have agreed, first, that states have a legal obligation, not merely a political commitment, to ensure that their territories are not used for malicious cyber operations that violate the rights of other states. This duty prevents states from knowingly allowing actors to operate from or through their territories and instead requires states to engage in their best efforts to stop such conduct. In law, this is commonly referred to as the due diligence obligation. As well, together we have emphasized the application of international humanitarian law and human rights law. Additionally, we stated that in determining the threshold of use of force, the combined effects of several cyber operations can, when taken together, be comparable to a kinetic use of force. This is especially relevant in the cyber context as cyber operations are mostly part of a campaign. EU states have also recognized that states must bear legal responsibility for their unlawful conduct in cyberspace. Importantly, the EU Common Declaration sets out the various legal bases for attributing cyber operations to states. This is an important milestone as it demonstrates that states cannot escape legal responsibility when they, for example, outsource their cyber operations to other states. we reaffirm our commitment to the UN processes on cyberspace and the full applicability of international law to cyberspace. By putting forward this declaration we wanted to incentivize not only EU member states. By the time we started to work on the declaration around half of the EU member states had their national positions. Now there are quite a few more that have put forward their national positions but also encouraged all UN member states to develop and share their understandings of international law and signal that even though states might not agree on all aspects of applicability of international law to cyberspace it is still possible to agree on a set of key legal principles. To that end numerous states individually or collectively have put forward in the current open and effective working group their views on the relevant applicable rules as well as how these rules are to be interpreted in the cyber context. In conjunction with the EU 2024 declaration on a common understanding of the application of international law to cyberspace as well as the African Union common position on the application of international law in cyberspace over 100 UN member states have now individually or collectively published their position on the application of international law in cyberspace which makes a significant and encouraging milestone. It’s a completely different discussion what the current open-ended working group has produced in past four or five years but for me this one really stands out. And as a last point it’s also important to note that for us this declaration is not the end of the road. The declaration will likely be updated in the coming few years possibly maybe a little longer but the next years to come when we can agree on more points or when interpretations have evolved but I will leave it here at this point. Thank you.

Joanna Kulesza: Thank you so much Helen. It’s important to emphasize that this is the toolbox with which we’re trying to facilitate multi-stakeholder governance so all the norms that you kindly mentioned are there to ensure that the multi-stakeholder model the WSIS plus 20 and as you highlighted the further work built on the open-ended working group to zero draft the plan of action remain visible remain valid and they do support us in building this community and these bottom-up processes further. And this brings me to our last speaker Professor Lukasz Kulaga Kuwaga who’s representing the foreign ministry but also is a fellow experienced academic with a background in developing an actual national position on the application of international law in cyberspace. The question is quite simple. Why do states do that? And how does that help us keep the multi-stakeholder model safe and secure? Thank you so much for joining us, sir. The floor is yours.

Lukasz Kulaga: Thank you, Anna, and thank you for the possibility of participating in this panel. Let me also add that I’m speaking in my private capacity here. The question of application of international to cyberspace is intensively debated in the GGE and OEWG processes. Indeed, as I speak, the preliminary works on the report from 2021-2025 session of OEWG is ongoing. The purpose of my short presentation is, first of all, to advocate, particularly to states that have not yet done so, to prepare their national position on application of international law in cyberspace. And secondly, I would like to also mention other possibilities for developing international law in this area. Thus, my aim is to present possible modest steps that can be made to strengthen cybersecurity, which, as mentioned by Elena, is important for multi-stakeholder governance. So, first of all, on national statements. Poland has prepared its position in 2022 after two years of process prolonged due to the COVID epidemic and the aggression against Ukraine, and we have contributed also to the development of the common position of the EU just mentioned. I acknowledge that preparing such a public statement by a state is a challenging task for a different set of reasons. Firstly, the approach presented will affect not only the legal position of a state in a cyberspace, but also, or perhaps mostly, in a kinetic world. Secondly, outside of the courtroom or diplomatic negotiations, states are usually reluctant to present a very specific interpretation of fundamental rules of general international law. And thirdly, their inter-agency process, which usually is required for having a great national position, can be burdensome. It often requires from Ministry of Foreign Affairs lawyers to explain the potential legal consequence of the use of concrete wording to colleagues. and many others from other ministries. All of this is usually time-consuming and results often in a document of rather general than very specific character. Still, having such a position is beneficial for several reasons. They include fostering transparency of the conduct of states in cyberspace. They contribute to interpretation of international law, either treaty, customary or both. Finally, such a position adopted by a government can have also utility for several national procedures. As it usually concerns general international law applicable to all fields, not only to cyber, it can be important point of reference for any discussion and decision-making processes at domestic level. And on the second point, we have to be also aware of the limits of the developing international law through national position. Taking into account the collective position of the African Union member states, the European Union member states, we can identify around 100 states that have already presented their position either individually or collectively. The rather obvious result of this practice is at least to some extent cacophony of variety of interpretations of law. The existing different interpretations of international law offline influence approaches for its online application. Thus, I would like to draw your attention to some ideas discernible in international practice or academia that can also help to develop international law in this area. First, on the hardware aspect of cyberspace, existing international legal regimes do not adequately protect subsea data cables from international damage, nor do they effectively hold perpetrators of such a damage accountable. Thus, negotiating new instrument would be also… process still the new binding instrument even if not accepted by all states can contribute to crystallization of customary international law in this respect. Second, in the UN recent three years showed the advisory competence of International Court of Justice that is used more often to solidify international legal framework in the specific area. In particular currently ICJ is deliberating on question of General Assembly concerning obligation of states in respect of climate change. The resolution formulating the question was the first request for an ICJ advisory opinion to be adopted by a consensus. In the written proceedings 91 written comments have been filed mostly by states. Thus it is another proof that the general questions can be presented to the International Court of Justice for its explanation of existing law in a particular area. And third point also worth reflecting is referring the issue of application of international law in the use of ICTs to the International Law Commission. Already in 2008 International Law Commission working group considered whether to work on the topic Internet and international law. At that time the Commission has not decided to progress on this issue. Certainly the ILC would be an adequate forum to work on the application of international law in the use of ICTs as the topic concerns fundamental principles of international law. In accordance with article 16 and 18 of the ILC statute the General Assembly can refer to the Commission particular topics. The Commission conclusion, the potential Commission conclusion in this respect could contribute to strengthening legal framework. in this area. Thank you one more time for the possibility to participate in this panel and I’m happy to engage in discussion if there’s an interest.

Joanna Kulesza: Thank you. Thank you so much. This brings us to the end of our panel. We’ve heard a plethora of views with regards to the most recent developments on the application of international law and cyberspace on internet governance and this is the time for our audience to chime in. I warmly encourage our participants in the room to use the microphones that you have available. There’s also a roaming mic standing right there. I encourage our online participants to pose their questions in their chat or raise their hands and while you’re pondering on those questions please let me refer a few general points to our speakers. I will ask them to try and answer these scoping questions in the order of their presentations. I believe the questions to pose here obviously reflect around how the internet governance community gathered here in the room can further facilitate bridging this relationship between international law and cyberspace. We’ve heard a lot about how states are working on making sure that international law indeed is a tool to facilitate multi-stakeholder governance and the peaceful use of ICTs. It is therefore for us to try and question how that might be put into practice as we approach WSIS plus 20 and as Helen highlighted the work of the open-ended working group comes to a conclusion. I’m going to ask our speakers to think about this question or these issues but I also see a first question from our floor being addressed so I’m going to give the floor to our participants to kindly introduce yourselves sir and specify who you would like to address your question to. Please go ahead.

Audience: Thank you very much Johanna. Can you hear me? We can hear you. My name is Wouter Natwies and I represent the dynamic coalition on the internet standard security and safety here within the IGF system. I’ve heard the lady from ICANN and ICANN does all sort of decisions on security but they promote mostly DNS security so the domain name system. With the registries they mostly do routing systems so everybody is working in their own silo so that’s comment one. Then you hear the UN system working on high-level security and international law. But the attacks that happen on the internet usually happen through vulnerabilities that are inside of the devices, inside of services, inside of connections. And what my Dynamic Coalition is working on is how do we make sure that these flaws are being ended by the deployment of existing, sometimes decennial existing, new cybersecurity standards that have come into place of the old ones. So the question is why are we not addressing fundamental options to end flaws in our systems, which can be done by industry by using these standards, by deploying DNS security, routing security, building secure websites. But you can’t do that within your silo. So the question is to maybe all panelists, how do we break the silos and come together to fundamentally rebuild the security of the internet together? Because we have to do this together and it’s not a one silo solution. So that’s the question to maybe all of them. How do we get together and make sure that we make sure these flaws are ended? Thank you.

Joanna Kulesza: Thank you so much for that. It’s the perfect question because that’s precisely the purpose of this session. We’re trying to figure out how to bridge those very high-level conversations that aim towards ensuring stability and security of the network with those bottom-up processes that ICANN has managed in facilitating so successfully. Yes, I see Elena’s hand is up and it does feel like the question was primarily addressed to you and I’m happy to give you the floor, but I will give all of our panelists a chance to address that very vital and practical question. Thank you again for posing it. Elena, the floor is yours.

Elena Plexida: Thank you. That is indeed an excellent question and I do think that I might be able to provide an answer, but that’s from a perspective of one of the technical organizations and as the question really highlighted, it’s not one that has to provide an answer. It’s all of us. How are we going to get off our… and Mr. Lukasz Kulaga. Thank you, Mr. Kownacki. Thank you, Ms. Plexida. I would like to start with the technical layer of the Internet, which is where ICANN and the ITF and all of us are working. But when it comes to content, ICANN by its silos cannot get there. In answer to the question, I do agree. This is a very good point. How do we get out of our silos? Obviously, we need to find the space to have these discussions. I would like to give you an example that recently came out, not from the ICANN community, because as I said, ICANN has a very specific mission. So the community that gets together in ICANN, they’re there to make policies for the DNS. And that’s it. But players that are within ICANN, so domain name system operators and IP address operators, they came together in a forum that they created themselves with content providers. And to my knowledge, this is not a dialogue that happens that often. But I’m raising this as an example of what can be done and what can be done. And I would like to give you an example. And to my knowledge, this is not a dialogue that happens that often. And to my knowledge, this is not a dialogue that happens that often. But I’m raising this as an example of what can be done outside or further to think creatively about how to… Because, yeah, it takes all of us. It takes a village. It’s not one thing fits all. It fixes all. Like, for example, if just by promoting DNSSEC and fixing DNSSEC everywhere around the world, that doesn’t mean that we have solved all the problems that cybersecurity is doing. So I would like to give you an example. It takes a village. It’s not one thing fits all. It fixes all. Like, for example, if just by promoting DNSSEC and fixing DNSSEC everywhere around the world, that doesn’t mean that we have solved all the problems that cybersecurity is doing. We have to discuss. Thank you. I hope.

Joanna Kulesza: Thank you. Thank you so much, Elena. This is precisely where we’re having this conversation to make sure that these parallel dialogues I do wear an ICAN at-large hat on regulatory advancements. She has kindly led the work within ICAN, meeting regularly during the face-to-face ICAN sessions, updating us on all the regulation around the globe that might impact the way that the technical community facilitates and operates, and these meetings have, that past year, been happening monthly. So if you’re interested, I’m more than happy to answer questions and provide more details. I’m going to check if any of our other panellists might have an answer for Wout. I feel like he touched directly at the core of our purpose here. How do we bridge the silos? I’m going to check with our on-site, Lukasz Kulaga Maciek, Lukasz Kulaga, please, go right ahead.

Lukasz Kulaga: Thank you. So how do we get together? I would say that my experience of the discussion is rather of more macro level on the fundamental rules of international law than on standards, but what I tried to say is that I see the limits of the dialogue between states as these dialogues are also very politicised, and certainly on fundamental rules of international law, but I would guess that on those detailed technical standards, as you will, they could also be still functional. That is why in my last part of presentation, I tried to indicate that perhaps one way to go forward is to, at least to some extent, transfer the possible answers to other institutions, such as that I mentioned, for example, International Law Commission or International Court of Justice. Thank you.

Joanna Kulesza: Wonderful. Thank you very much. Maciek, please, go right ahead.

Maciej Gron: If I can add just a few words, Anna Podgórska-Bombaner has mentioned, you know, about, you know, the motto of the Polish presidency, let’s build the bridges and connect the spots. I think that it’s, I know it’s only the motto, but it’s not easy, you know, just for this on a general level to say much more, because, you know, the multi-stakeholder model is not about, you know, only the inclusiveness, it’s about effectiveness, and we cannot find, I don’t think that we cannot leave, you know, this multi-stakeholder model. It’s crucial, you know, to be still in this model. Of course, when we are discussing, you know, the things which are very specific, we have to work with professionals, not open, doesn’t mean that everyone can say everything, but this is the only reason how can we cooperate with.

Joanna Kulesza: Wonderful. Great answer. Thank you so much. I’m going to check with our, there you go. I see Helen’s hand is up, and I see Anna’s hand is up. Helen, please go right ahead, and I’m going to give the floor to Anna. I do note we have one question in the chat, I’m going to move to our remote participation moderator next. Helen, go right ahead.

Elena Plexida: Yes, thank you very much. Just to complement what was just said, that the key challenge with respect to the application of international law in cyberspace is the fact that the relevant rules of international law that regulate state conduct in cyberspace are inherently quite abstract, and therefore need to be interpreted in light of their object and purpose. The key challenge is to ensure that states interpret those rules by and large in the same manner. A challenge we face today is not so much that states’ interpretations vary significantly, but rather that too many states have thus far remained silent on this question, and therefore we do not know where they stand on those issues. Therefore, we need the trend of adopting national, regional positions. to continue, and the next logical step will be to streamline views and interpretations where very necessary. Thanks.

Joanna Kulesza: Thank you. Anna, go right ahead.

Anna Podgorska-Buompane: If I may only add, I subscribe under what was said by panelists, but I would like to also say that during the Polish presidency, cybersecurity was very high, if not saying highest on the agenda. So, indeed, we had a lot of discussion in the Council among the member states. And just to draw your attention to the fact that on the 6th of June, Telecom Council has adopted the EU blueprint to better manage European cyber crises and incidents. So, it is public, and it shows how important it is to have the special kind of guidelines to member states to enhance preparedness and detection capabilities and response to cybersecurity incidents. So, I encourage everyone to read it through. But also, what is also very much important that while speaking about some kind of the actions, it is important to stress that we cannot multiply the efforts and having the new structures, but rather to build on the existing and have them working together. So, this is just…

Joanna Kulesza: Thank you. Thank you, Anna. That’s a very relevant point. This is why we’re raising this at the IGF, an existing platform with decades of experience. That’s the appropriate way to do it. My job here today, unfortunately, is also one of a timekeeper. I am mindful of 10 minutes remaining. I have been warned that if we go over time, the lights will just go out. So, we don’t want to do that. What I’m going to do is I’m going to kindly ask our remote participation facilitator, Mr. Wiktor Skwarek, to address the question that is in the chat. So, if you could kindly take us through that query, and then I’m going to solicit the speaker. I’m going to try and find those of you who might wish to address it. Mr. Skwarek, the floor is yours.

Viktor Skvarek: Yes, we have a question online from Luke, and the question reads, how can we ensure that the governments, and in particular, law enforcement agencies, don’t attempt to circumvent the passing of international treaties by forcing private actors to abide by foreign laws and processes?

Joanna Kulesza: Thank you. That is a very interesting, very practical question. I feel like it’s a loaded question as well. There’s a little bit of politics in there. I’m not sure who of our… Elena, thank you so much. The technical community has much more freedom to discuss political implications. Please kindly take the floor.

Elena Plexida: I’m not sure it’s the freedom, or rather maybe speaking from experience. There you go. Maybe you will. The question Luke is bringing up is really relevant, and not that easy to answer. Not a straightforward answer, or might not even be effective. So, I would say, from one hand, you have to make sure that in the dialogue, or whatever it is there, before the policymaking, all the voices are heard. This goes back to the beauty and the relevance of the multi-stakeholder policymaking, or the multi-stakeholder model, or the multi-stakeholder discussions, even if we’re not talking about decision-making, but we’re talking about stakeholder consultation. So, the safeguards that the civil society or academics can bring around human rights, they’re absolutely essential, because imagine a discussion, a debate, leading up to policy that is dominated by law enforcement or by governments only. that you will only have one side of the story, so that’s one way to make sure that things not go in one direction or another direction. You need to maintain the balance. The other thing I would say is the role of the technical community there. There has to be involvement in the sense of technical experts are also needed to explain things, explain how things technically work, because we’ve seen that policymakers are rightfully so trying to address an issue, a problem that is an online problem at the content level by intervening at the technical level of the internet or intervening at the multi-stakeholder policies, which if you ask me, it’s actually not consistent with championing the multi-stakeholder approach. So if we are agile to those things and we give input, I think it’s one way to try to ensure that things do not go south. If I may, just for one more minute, I have an example to say here, which comes from the Council of Europe, I would say. Council of Europe at some point in time, pretty recently, you might recall, worked on the second additional protocol to the Budapest Convention. And that goes back to what I was saying that international law is useful for the multi-stakeholder policymaking. The multi-stakeholder policymaking is there to put policies and standards for the technical foundations of the internet. But we need a legal basis for things to happen beyond what is within our remit. The second additional protocol to the Budapest Convention gave a legal basis which had to do with operators, in case of cyber security problems, being able from one, sorry, law enforcement agencies in one jurisdiction, being able to ask for information relevant to a search from an operator that is in another jurisdiction. That is helpful. That is, that enables also the ICANN community to do things. But without a legal basis, you can’t do that. And why am I raising it as an example? Council of Europe did the whole consultation and the whole drafting of the second additional protocol. Of course, this is just one article that I mentioned is relevant to ICANN. in a way that was just putting in place what was needed to help, i.e. the legal basis, with taking extra care of not intruding the multi-stakeholder policymaking or not circumventing other rights. For anyone who has the time to look at the memorandum, sorry, the explanatory note, it gives the whole thing. But just a shout-out, and it can be done. That’s, I guess, what I’m trying to say with this example. Thank you.

Joanna Kulesza: Great, thank you so much. Again, mindful of the time, I’m just going to check if anyone wishes to chime in on that politically. Lukasz, please, go ahead.

Lukasz Kulaga: So, on the enforcing of domestic law and bypassing treaties, the one issue is that, as Helen mentioned, with respect to the cyberspace, we have only treaties on criminal cooperation. So, we have the Budapest Convention, and we have the just recently negotiated UN Cybercrime Convention. So, there are some treaties. Not all of them are enforced, but there are treaties on cooperation in these matters. But generally, I would say that the answer is of general nature. So, if a state makes an effort to enforce its domestic law, then it is up to the state of the national to protect him against this action of the third state. So, here I would come back with the sovereignty. The sovereignty can be, I understand, problematic for some elements of Internet governance. But with such a situation, it’s also the sovereignty that would protect this national not to be bound by the law of the third state. Thank you.

Joanna Kulesza: Great. Thank you. Wonderful. I think that’s the perfect summary to emphasize how the general links with the very specific, right? We do have the norms in place. Our timer has now gone into a red mode, which implies I should be wrapping this up, and I’m happy to do that. Thank you so much for taking the time to join us. Someone once told me that international law is boring. I refuse to believe that. I hope we’ve been able to convince you that there’s so much potential in those general norms and how they impact the everyday Internet usage of everyday Internet end users. Thank you for taking the time for being here and being here. All of our speakers, I am certain, are available for you to follow up with. Me, myself, personally, I’m more than happy to answer specific, detailed questions. This is what we do, both within the ICANN community and beyond. The Polish presidency has gone a long way, making sure that cybersecurity is relevant to European and international. and Mr. Maciej Kowalski, Mr. Rafał Kowalski, Ms. Anna Podgorska-Buompane, Mr. Lukasz Kulaga and Mr. Lukasz Kulaga. And with that I’ll turn it over to the ministry on behalf of our hosts here. I can add that we should avoid the simplest solution because it’s impossible to find one solution and it’s really not enough. Absolutely, that’s why we’re here at the IGF. Thank you so much to our speakers, please join me in giving them a hand. Thank you everyone. This session is adjourned.

Agreement points

Multi-stakeholder governance is essential, not optional, for effective internet governance

Speakers

– Maciej Gron
– Elena Plexida
– Anna Podgorska-Buompane

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder model is not nice-to-have but must-have for daily work

Multi-stakeholder governance protects and enables the global internet by operating outside traditional sovereignty constraints

Polish presidency prioritized internet governance and multi-stakeholder processes as cornerstone of digital diplomacy

Summary

All speakers agree that multi-stakeholder governance is a fundamental necessity rather than an optional approach for managing cyberspace and internet governance effectively

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Development

International cooperation is necessary because cyber issues transcend national borders

Speakers

– Maciej Gron
– Elena Plexida
– Helen Popp

Arguments

National laws are powerless if not applied beyond borders, requiring international solutions

Multi-stakeholder governance enables global reach that furthers international law application beyond borders

Over 100 UN member states have now published positions on international law application in cyberspace

Summary

Speakers unanimously agree that cyber challenges are inherently global and require coordinated international responses that go beyond individual national approaches

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

International law provides necessary framework for cyberspace governance

Speakers

– Elena Plexida
– Helen Popp
– Lukasz Kulaga

Arguments

International law provides necessary legal basis for sound technical community policymaking

EU declaration establishes common understanding that international law remains fit for purpose in digital domain

National positions on international law foster transparency and contribute to legal interpretation development

Summary

Technical and legal experts agree that international law frameworks are essential for providing legal basis and structure for effective cyberspace governance

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Building on existing structures is more effective than creating new ones

Speakers

– Anna Podgorska-Buompane
– Joanna Kulesza

Arguments

EU blueprint for cyber crisis management emphasizes building on existing structures rather than creating new ones

International law can make multi-stakeholder model more efficient, inclusive, and predictable

Summary

Speakers agree that strengthening and leveraging existing governance mechanisms is preferable to multiplying efforts through new institutional structures

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that effective governance requires genuine participation and decision-making power for all stakeholders, not merely consultation, particularly for addressing cross-border challenges

Speakers

– Maciej Gron
– Elena Plexida

Arguments

Illegal content and cybersecurity threats are inherently international problems needing global cooperation

Multi-stakeholder governance enables decision-making by all stakeholders on equal footing, not just consultation

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers are concerned about inappropriate government intervention and emphasize the need for proper boundaries between different levels of governance and expertise

Speakers

– Elena Plexida
– Lukasz Kulaga

Arguments

Technical expert involvement prevents inappropriate intervention at technical level for content-level problems

State sovereignty can protect nationals from enforcement of foreign domestic laws

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both legal experts emphasize the importance of clear state obligations and transparency in how international law applies to cyberspace

Speakers

– Helen Popp
– Lukasz Kulaga

Arguments

States have legal obligation for due diligence to prevent malicious cyber operations from their territories

National positions on international law foster transparency and contribute to legal interpretation development

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Unexpected consensus

Technical community and government representatives agreeing on sovereignty limitations

Speakers

– Elena Plexida
– Lukasz Kulaga

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder governance protects and enables the global internet by operating outside traditional sovereignty constraints

State sovereignty can protect nationals from enforcement of foreign domestic laws

Explanation

It’s unexpected that both a technical community representative and a government legal expert would agree on the limitations of traditional sovereignty in cyberspace, albeit from different perspectives – one seeing it as necessary for global internet function, the other as protection against overreach

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Agreement on the need to break down silos across different stakeholder groups

Speakers

– Elena Plexida
– Anna Podgorska-Buompane
– Audience

Arguments

Coordination between technical organizations, content providers, and other stakeholders requires creative forum-building

Polish presidency prioritized internet governance and multi-stakeholder processes as cornerstone of digital diplomacy

Technical vulnerabilities require breaking down silos between different internet governance organizations

Explanation

Unexpected consensus emerged between technical community, government, and civil society representatives on the need to overcome organizational silos, suggesting broad recognition that current fragmented approaches are insufficient

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists on the fundamental importance of multi-stakeholder governance, the necessity of international cooperation for cyber issues, the relevance of international law frameworks, and the preference for building on existing structures rather than creating new ones

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications for legitimizing and strengthening the multi-stakeholder model as the preferred approach for internet governance, particularly as the WSIS+20 review approaches. The agreement across technical, governmental, and legal communities provides strong foundation for continued development of this governance model.

Different viewpoints

Role of sovereignty in cyberspace governance

Speakers

– Elena Plexida
– Lukasz Kulaga

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder governance protects and enables the global internet by operating outside traditional sovereignty constraints

State sovereignty can protect nationals from enforcement of foreign domestic laws

Summary

Plexida argues that effective internet governance requires operating outside traditional sovereignty constraints to maintain a global internet, while Kulaga emphasizes sovereignty’s protective role against extraterritorial enforcement of laws. This represents a fundamental tension between global governance needs and state sovereignty principles.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Unexpected differences

Scope of multi-stakeholder decision-making authority

Speakers

– Elena Plexida
– Maciej Gron

Arguments

Multi-stakeholder governance enables decision-making by all stakeholders on equal footing, not just consultation

Multi-stakeholder approach with international cooperation is fundamental condition for addressing global cyber issues

Explanation

While both strongly support multi-stakeholder governance, there’s an unexpected subtle disagreement about its scope. Plexida emphasizes actual decision-making power shared equally among all stakeholders, while Gron focuses more on professional expertise and cooperation, noting that ‘not everyone can say everything’ and emphasizing the need to work with professionals. This suggests different views on how inclusive and democratic multi-stakeholder processes should be.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows remarkably high consensus among speakers on fundamental principles, with disagreements primarily emerging around implementation approaches rather than core goals. The main areas of disagreement involve the balance between global governance needs and state sovereignty, and the specific mechanisms for achieving multi-stakeholder coordination.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level. The speakers demonstrate strong alignment on the necessity of multi-stakeholder governance, international cooperation, and the application of international law in cyberspace. Disagreements are primarily tactical rather than strategic, focusing on how to implement shared goals rather than questioning the goals themselves. This high level of consensus suggests a mature field with established principles, though implementation challenges remain significant.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers emphasize that effective governance requires genuine participation and decision-making power for all stakeholders, not merely consultation, particularly for addressing cross-border challenges

Speakers

– Maciej Gron
– Elena Plexida

Arguments

Illegal content and cybersecurity threats are inherently international problems needing global cooperation

Multi-stakeholder governance enables decision-making by all stakeholders on equal footing, not just consultation

Topics

Cybersecurity | Legal and regulatory

Both speakers are concerned about inappropriate government intervention and emphasize the need for proper boundaries between different levels of governance and expertise

Speakers

– Elena Plexida
– Lukasz Kulaga

Arguments

Technical expert involvement prevents inappropriate intervention at technical level for content-level problems

State sovereignty can protect nationals from enforcement of foreign domestic laws

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure

Both legal experts emphasize the importance of clear state obligations and transparency in how international law applies to cyberspace

Speakers

– Helen Popp
– Lukasz Kulaga

Arguments

States have legal obligation for due diligence to prevent malicious cyber operations from their territories

National positions on international law foster transparency and contribute to legal interpretation development

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Cybersecurity

Key takeaways

Multi-stakeholder governance is essential (not optional) for effective internet governance and cybersecurity, enabling decision-making by all stakeholders on equal footing rather than just consultation

International law remains fit for purpose in cyberspace and provides necessary legal framework to support multi-stakeholder governance processes

Over 100 UN member states have now published positions on international law application in cyberspace, representing significant progress in building consensus

Cross-border cooperation is fundamental since cyber threats and illegal content are inherently international problems that cannot be solved by national laws alone

The EU has established a common declaration on international law in cyberspace, including due diligence obligations for states to prevent malicious operations from their territories

Technical communities require legal basis from international law to create effective policies on security, abuse prevention, and domain name management

WSIS+20 review process will determine whether the multi-stakeholder model continues as the primary framework for internet governance

Resolutions and action items

States that have not yet done so should prepare national positions on application of international law in cyberspace to increase transparency and contribute to legal interpretation

Continue trend of adopting national and regional positions on international law, with next step being to streamline views and interpretations where necessary

EU blueprint for cyber crisis management should be implemented, building on existing structures rather than creating new ones

Explore alternative mechanisms like International Court of Justice advisory opinions and International Law Commission work to advance legal framework development

Negotiate new international instruments to protect subsea data cables from intentional damage

Unresolved issues

How to effectively break down silos between different internet governance organizations to address fundamental security vulnerabilities that require coordinated response

How to prevent governments and law enforcement from circumventing international treaties by forcing private actors to comply with foreign laws and processes

How to balance state sovereignty concerns with the need for global coordination in cyberspace governance

How to ensure adequate protection of subsea data cables under existing international legal frameworks

How to address the challenge that cyber operations are mostly part of campaigns requiring combined effects analysis for use of force determinations

Suggested compromises

Use multi-stakeholder consultation processes as safeguards to prevent policy dominance by single stakeholder groups like law enforcement or governments

Build on existing structures and institutions rather than creating entirely new governance mechanisms

Maintain balance between technical expert involvement and policy-making to prevent inappropriate intervention at technical level for content-level problems

Develop creative forum-building approaches that bring together technical organizations, content providers, and other stakeholders outside traditional silos

Transfer some legal questions to established international institutions like International Court of Justice or International Law Commission when state-to-state dialogue becomes too politicized

The multi-stakeholder model is not a nice thing to have, it’s a must-have. And it’s not just a good idea, it’s a fundamental condition for our daily work. Even the best national laws are powerless if they are not required beyond borders.

Speaker

Maciej Gron

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by establishing multi-stakeholder governance not as an idealistic preference but as a practical necessity. It directly connects the abstract concept of governance models to concrete operational realities, particularly in dealing with illegal content that transcends borders.

Impact

This foundational statement set the tone for the entire panel, with multiple speakers (Elena Plexida and others) later referencing and building upon this ‘must-have’ characterization. It shifted the discussion from theoretical benefits to practical imperatives.

I’m not aware of any other public resource, or public good, if you will, that is governed the way the fundamentals of the global Internet are governed… Multi-stakeholder governance in the case of the global Internet is decision-making. You don’t just have stakeholders there who are being consulted. There’s actual decision-making.

Speaker

Elena Plexida

Reason

This observation provides a crucial distinction that challenges common misconceptions about multi-stakeholder governance. By emphasizing that it involves actual decision-making rather than mere consultation, and by noting its uniqueness among global public resources, it elevates the significance of the internet governance model.

Impact

This comment deepened the analytical level of the discussion by providing a comparative framework and clarifying what multi-stakeholder governance actually entails. It influenced subsequent speakers to be more precise about the nature of governance mechanisms they were discussing.

The attacks that happen on the internet usually happen through vulnerabilities that are inside of the devices, inside of services, inside of connections… So the question is why are we not addressing fundamental options to end flaws in our systems… But you can’t do that within your silo. So the question is to maybe all panelists, how do we break the silos and come together to fundamentally rebuild the security of the internet together?

Speaker

Wouter Natwies (Audience member)

Reason

This intervention was particularly insightful because it challenged the entire panel’s approach by pointing out a fundamental disconnect between high-level governance discussions and practical security implementation. It forced speakers to confront the limitations of their respective domains and the need for cross-sector collaboration.

Impact

This question created a pivotal moment in the discussion, shifting it from theoretical frameworks to practical implementation challenges. It prompted all panelists to respond and acknowledge the silo problem, leading Elena Plexida to provide concrete examples of cross-sector collaboration and others to reflect on the limitations of their current approaches.

The key challenge is to ensure that states interpret those rules by and large in the same manner. A challenge we face today is not so much that states’ interpretations vary significantly, but rather that too many states have thus far remained silent on this question, and therefore we do not know where they stand on those issues.

Speaker

Helen Popp

Reason

This comment reframes the international law challenge from one of disagreement to one of silence and uncertainty. It’s insightful because it identifies that the primary obstacle isn’t conflicting interpretations but rather the absence of positions, which creates unpredictability in the international system.

Impact

This observation shifted the discussion toward encouraging more states to develop and publish their positions on international law in cyberspace, rather than focusing solely on harmonizing existing positions. It provided a clearer pathway forward for international cooperation.

How can we ensure that the governments, and in particular, law enforcement agencies, don’t attempt to circumvent the passing of international treaties by forcing private actors to abide by foreign laws and processes?

Speaker

Luke (Online participant)

Reason

This question introduced a critical tension between sovereignty, law enforcement needs, and private sector autonomy that hadn’t been explicitly addressed. It highlighted the potential for governments to bypass formal international legal processes through direct pressure on private entities.

Impact

This question prompted Elena Plexida to provide a detailed example from the Council of Europe’s Budapest Convention, demonstrating how international law can provide proper legal frameworks while respecting multi-stakeholder processes. It elevated the discussion to address real-world power dynamics and potential abuses.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by moving it from abstract theoretical frameworks to concrete practical challenges. Maciej Gron’s opening established the practical necessity of multi-stakeholder governance, while Elena Plexida’s clarification about decision-making versus consultation provided analytical depth. The audience interventions, particularly from Wouter Natwies, forced the panel to confront the limitations of siloed approaches and address implementation gaps. Helen Popp’s insight about state silence rather than disagreement reframed the international law challenge, while Luke’s question about circumvention introduced critical power dynamics. Together, these comments created a progression from foundational concepts to practical implementation challenges, ultimately resulting in a more nuanced and actionable discussion about bridging international law and multi-stakeholder governance in cyberspace.

How do we break the silos and come together to fundamentally rebuild the security of the internet together?

Speaker

Wouter Natwies (Dynamic Coalition on Internet Standards Security and Safety)

Explanation

This addresses the critical challenge of coordinating cybersecurity efforts across different technical organizations (ICANN for DNS security, registries for routing systems, etc.) that currently work in isolation, while attacks exploit vulnerabilities across all these systems

How can we ensure that governments and law enforcement agencies don’t attempt to circumvent international treaties by forcing private actors to abide by foreign laws and processes?

Speaker

Luke (online participant)

Explanation

This raises concerns about jurisdictional overreach and the potential for governments to bypass established international legal frameworks by directly pressuring private entities to comply with foreign legal requirements

How can the internet governance community further facilitate bridging the relationship between international law and cyberspace as we approach WSIS Plus20?

Speaker

Joanna Kulesza (moderator)

Explanation

This seeks practical ways for the IGF community to contribute to integrating international law principles with multi-stakeholder governance processes in preparation for the upcoming WSIS Plus20 review

How to streamline views and interpretations of international law in cyberspace where necessary, given that too many states have remained silent on their positions?

Speaker

Helen Popp (European External Action Service)

Explanation

This addresses the challenge that while states’ interpretations don’t vary significantly, many states haven’t published their positions on how international law applies to cyberspace, creating uncertainty about global consensus

How to negotiate new binding instruments for protecting subsea data cables from international damage and holding perpetrators accountable?

Speaker

Lukasz Kulaga (Polish Foreign Ministry)

Explanation

Current international legal regimes inadequately protect critical internet infrastructure like subsea cables, requiring new legal frameworks even if not universally accepted

Whether to refer the issue of application of international law in ICT use to the International Law Commission or seek an ICJ advisory opinion?

Speaker

Lukasz Kulaga (Polish Foreign Ministry)

Explanation

These would be alternative mechanisms to develop international law in cyberspace beyond state-to-state negotiations, potentially providing authoritative legal clarification on fundamental principles

Summary

This discussion focused on interregional connections for information integrity, examining how both authoritarian and democratic governments worldwide are adopting practices that restrict online freedom. The session brought together human rights advocates, researchers, and journalists from Latin America, Africa, Asia, and other regions to explore four key areas where digital authoritarian practices commonly appear: censorship, surveillance, online information integrity, and internet governance.

Participants shared concrete examples of censorship from their respective countries, with Abdullah Ahmadi describing how the Taliban in Afghanistan has imposed formal restrictions on independent media and blocked access to news websites, while also conducting informal intimidation of journalists and activists. Valentina Aguana from Venezuela detailed how internet blocks have become more pervasive, with 61 independent media outlets currently blocked and social media platforms like X (formerly Twitter) permanently restricted. She emphasized that censors are becoming more sophisticated but also more reckless, sometimes blocking critical internet infrastructure that affects millions of users globally.

The discussion on surveillance revealed similar patterns across regions, with Lillian Nalwoga from Uganda highlighting how African governments collectively spent a billion dollars on digital surveillance tools in 2023, often using legally embedded interception powers to monitor activists and journalists. Martha Roldós from Ecuador described how surveillance capabilities built during authoritarian periods continued to be used by subsequent governments, with information weaponized for character assassination campaigns.

Regarding information integrity, participants noted coordinated disinformation campaigns where governments use both bots and paid human networks to spread manipulated narratives, with countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua helping amplify each other’s campaigns. The speakers emphasized that civil society organizations play a crucial role in resisting these authoritarian practices through coalition building, digital security training, and fact-checking initiatives, though they face significant sustainability challenges due to limited funding and geopolitical pressures.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Censorship and Internet Blocking**: Participants discussed various forms of digital censorship, from formal government restrictions on media and websites to informal intimidation tactics. Key examples included Afghanistan’s post-Taliban restrictions on independent media and Venezuela’s blocking of 61 independent media outlets and social media platforms like X (Twitter), Reddit, and TikTok.

– **Digital Surveillance and Monitoring**: The conversation covered how governments use sophisticated surveillance tools including phone tapping, spyware like Pegasus, and internet interception to monitor and intimidate civil society, journalists, and activists. African countries were noted as collectively spending $1 billion on surveillance tools in 2023.

– **Information Manipulation and Disinformation**: Speakers addressed coordinated disinformation campaigns, particularly in Latin America, where governments use bot networks and paid human coordinators to spread manipulated narratives and conduct smear campaigns against opponents across multiple countries.

– **Internet Governance and Legal Frameworks**: Discussion of how different countries approach digital rights governance, contrasting the U.S. model (which relies heavily on platform self-regulation) with Brazil’s more comprehensive legal framework, and highlighting the lack of adequate legal protections in many regions.

– **Civil Society Sustainability Crisis**: A critical concern raised about the funding challenges facing digital rights organizations globally, particularly in the Global South, threatening the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance due to lack of resources for essential advocacy and protection work.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to demonstrate cross-regional collaboration on information integrity issues by bringing together activists, researchers, and advocates from different continents to share experiences, identify common authoritarian digital practices, and explore resistance strategies. The session sought to build bridges between regions and stakeholders working to protect digital rights and civic space.

## Overall Tone:

The tone was serious and urgent throughout, reflecting the gravity of digital authoritarianism globally. While speakers shared concerning examples of repression and surveillance, the tone remained constructive and collaborative, emphasizing solidarity and shared solutions. The discussion maintained a professional, academic quality while being deeply personal as speakers shared experiences from their own countries. The moderator’s closing questions and positive responses from the audience suggested cautious optimism about the potential for continued collaboration despite the challenges discussed.

Speakers

– **Mariví Marín** – Venezuelan Human Rights Advocate, Director of PROVOX (a non-profit working on information integrity in Latin America), Session Moderator

– **Abdullah Ahmadi** – From Afghanistan, Human Rights Advocate focused on digital inclusion and civic space, Director of Afghanistan Democracy and Development Organization

– **Valentina Aguana** – From Venezuela, System Engineer and Researcher at Conexión Segura y Libre, works on internet censorship and digital rights

– **Lillian Nalwoga** – From Uganda, Program Manager at CIPESA, works on internet policy and digital rights in Africa

– **Martha Roldós** – From Ecuador, Investigative journalist, Director of Fundación Milojas

– **Sascha Hannig** – International relations analyst and academic, focused on authoritarian influence and the impact of science and technology on society (participated online)

– **Roberta Braga** – From Brazil and the U.S., Founder and Director of Digital Democracy Institute of the Americas (DDIA), focused on a healthier internet for Latinos across the U.S. and Latin America

– **Iria Puyosa** – From Venezuela and the U.S., Senior researcher/Senior fellow at the Atlantic Council on Tech Initiatives, expert on digital authoritarianism and governance

**Additional speakers:**

– **Participant** – Identified as speaking about disinformation patterns in Latin America, appears to be from PROVOX team (likely Estefania Da Silva based on context, though not explicitly confirmed in transcript)

# Interregional Connections for Information Integrity: Discussion Report

## Executive Summary

This session, moderated by Mariví Marín of PROVOX, brought together human rights advocates, researchers, and journalists from Latin America, Africa, and Asia to examine digital authoritarianism across four key areas: censorship, surveillance, online information integrity, and internet governance. Participants shared concrete examples from Afghanistan, Venezuela, Uganda, Ecuador, Brazil, and the United States, revealing common patterns of digital repression while exploring collaborative resistance strategies. The discussion highlighted the global nature of digital authoritarianism and the urgent need for sustained civil society collaboration to address these challenges.

## Session Structure and Participants

The session was organized around four thematic areas, with speakers presenting regional case studies followed by discussion. Participants included Abdullah Ahmadi (Afghanistan), Valentina Aguana (Venezuela), Lillian Nalwoga (Uganda/Africa), Martha Roldós (Ecuador), Estefania Da Silva (PROVOX), Sascha Hannig, Roberta Braga, and Iria Puyosa. The session concluded with audience interaction about authoritarian trends in participants’ countries.

## Censorship: Afghanistan and Venezuela

### Afghanistan Under the Taliban

Abdullah Ahmadi described Afghanistan’s comprehensive censorship system under Taliban rule, which operates through both formal restrictions and informal intimidation. The Taliban have implemented official media guidelines severely restricting independent journalism while conducting campaigns of intimidation targeting journalists and activists, with women journalists facing particularly severe restrictions.

The regime has systematically blocked access to independent news websites and imposed comprehensive restrictions on media operations. Beyond formal censorship, psychological pressure and threats create a climate of self-censorship among journalists and civil society activists, effectively dismantling Afghanistan’s previously vibrant independent media landscape.

Ahmadi emphasized technical resistance strategies including VPNs, encrypted messaging applications, and mirror sites, alongside social resistance through solidarity networks, diaspora media, and digital security training. However, he stressed these tactical responses are insufficient without broader systemic change and called for “the UN to work towards a legally binding convention on digital rights to protect freedoms like expression, privacy, access to information and encryption online.”

### Venezuela’s Evolving Censorship Tactics

Valentina Aguana reported that Venezuela has entered a new era of pervasive internet censorship, with 61 independent media outlets currently blocked and major social media platforms including X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, and Signal facing restrictions. She explained that internet blocks must be measurable, consistent, and intentional to be classified as censorship.

Aguana noted that censors are becoming both more sophisticated and reckless, moving beyond content blocking to infrastructure-level attacks. Venezuelan authorities have blocked critical internet infrastructure, including Content Delivery Networks (CDNs) like Amazon’s CloudFront and DNS servers, affecting not only Venezuelan users but potentially millions globally.

“We once thought that permanently blocking social media was a red line for censors, but unfortunately we know that that’s not the case anymore,” Aguana observed, reflecting the escalation in censorship tactics. She advocated for “censorship by design” solutions—applications built from the ground up with anti-censorship features, citing Vesinfiltro’s “Noticias Infiltra” app as an example.

## Surveillance: Uganda and Ecuador

### African Surveillance Infrastructure

Lillian Nalwoga presented striking data showing that African countries including Nigeria, Ghana, Morocco, Malawi, and Zambia collectively spent one billion US dollars in 2023 on digital surveillance tools, according to Institute of Development Studies research. These tools, supplied by the United States, United Kingdom, China, European Union nations, and Israel, include phone tapping capabilities, spyware such as Pegasus, and internet shutdown mechanisms.

Nalwoga explained that African governments have embedded legal interception powers within telecommunications frameworks, creating comprehensive surveillance ecosystems with minimal oversight. She noted that “over 21 shutdowns were documented” in 2020, with this infrastructure routinely used to monitor activists, journalists, and civil society organizations.

### Ecuador’s Weaponized Surveillance

Martha Roldós described Ecuador’s comprehensive surveillance system, including man-in-the-middle attacks, Pegasus spyware deployment, and new intelligence laws legalizing surveillance without adequate oversight. She highlighted a critical contradiction, asking “surveillance for what?” when crime has risen exponentially while surveillance mechanisms target journalists and civil society rather than criminal networks.

Roldós revealed that surveillance information has been weaponized for character assassination campaigns and compromised by non-state actors including narcotics trafficking organizations. She noted that the intelligence agency SENAIN was closed and replaced with CIES, but emphasized that surveillance systems persist across different governments, demonstrating the institutional momentum of such infrastructure.

## Information Integrity: Regional Challenges and Responses

### Latin American Disinformation Networks

Estefania Da Silva detailed sophisticated disinformation campaigns operating across Latin America, where governments employ coordinated networks of both automated bots and paid human operators. These campaigns demonstrate cross-border cooperation between countries including Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua, with each nation helping amplify others’ disinformation efforts.

She explained that these hybrid networks combining technological and human resources are more difficult to detect and counter than purely automated systems. The cross-border nature means disinformation campaigns originating in one country can trend in others, creating regional echo chambers that amplify authoritarian messaging.

### Regional Response Gaps

Sascha Hannig observed that disinformation is not taken as seriously by decision makers in Latin America compared to the European Union. She emphasized the importance of context—disasters, uncertainty, and political unrest—in disinformation campaigns and noted that while the region is behind in counter-narrative operations, there is raising awareness of these issues.

## Internet Governance: Models and Sustainability

### Contrasting Governance Approaches

Roberta Braga analyzed different governance models, contrasting the United States’ decentralized approach with Brazil’s comprehensive legal framework. She noted that community-driven content moderation initiatives like Twitter’s Community Notes show mixed results, with significant delays averaging “14 days for a note to go from submission to publication on average,” limiting effectiveness in addressing real-time harms.

Braga mentioned that her team DDIA was “the first team to publish tweets in English and Spanish dated to 2021” with findings to be shared “July 9,” highlighting ongoing research into platform governance effectiveness.

### Civil Society Sustainability Crisis

Iria Puyosa raised critical concerns about the sustainability crisis facing civil society organizations working on digital rights, particularly in the Global South. She warned that “the survival of the Internet multi-stakeholder model of governance is tied to the survival or sustainability of civil society organisations working in this space.”

Puyosa explained that severe funding shortages threaten civil society’s ability to participate effectively in internet governance processes. This crisis is particularly acute for smaller organizations in developing countries, which lack access to major international funding sources and face additional geopolitical pressures and local restrictions.

## Resistance Strategies and Collaboration

### Technical and Social Resistance

Participants identified several resistance strategies currently employed across regions. Technical approaches include VPNs, encrypted messaging applications like Signal and Telegram, mirror sites for blocked content, and development of censorship-resistant applications with privacy built into their architecture.

Social resistance strategies encompass solidarity networks, coalition building, cross-regional collaboration, diaspora media, and digital security training programs. All participants emphasized the critical importance of these approaches in creating support systems for activists and journalists while building collective capacity to challenge authoritarian practices.

### Cross-Regional Learning

The discussion revealed remarkable similarities in digital repression patterns across different regions and contexts, suggesting that coordinated international responses are both possible and necessary. Participants demonstrated strong interest in continued collaboration and information sharing among civil society organizations.

## Conclusion and Audience Engagement

Mariví Marín concluded by asking the audience about authoritarian trends in their countries and key learnings from the session. The discussion demonstrated both the global scope of digital authoritarianism and the potential for effective cross-regional collaboration in addressing these challenges.

The conversation revealed that digital authoritarianism represents a global phenomenon with shared characteristics, tactics, and impacts across different political systems. However, significant challenges remain, particularly the funding crisis facing civil society organizations and the increasing sophistication of authoritarian tactics. Addressing these challenges will require sustained commitment and coordination among civil society organizations, with particular attention to supporting organizations in the Global South that face the greatest resource constraints.

Mariví Marín: Hello everyone Thank you very much for being here This session is called Interregional Connections for Information integrity Across the world, we’re seeing both AUTHORITARIAN governments and Democratic ones with increasingly alarming tendencies adopting practices that restrict freedom online These include laws designed to silence critical voices political motivated surveillance and coordinated online operations that disturb public opinion debate or spread hate At the same time, platforms still struggle to offer consistent responses and meaningful cooperation and with civil society remains weak The people pushing back against these threats are activists, journalists, researchers, civic tech groups and these are often those most affected by this But they are also operating in environments where sustainability is very difficult, especially now What we are doing today, live It’s a demonstration that cross-sector collaboration is possible not only between countries and regions but also across different branches of civil society Whether we come from activism, academia, journalism, or other, our shared work on information integrity connects us, and in many cases, protects the civic space. In this session, we will explore four key areas where digital authoritarian practices most often appear. The first one will be censorship, blocking or controlling access to online information. The second one will be surveillance, monitoring or intimidating people online. Three will be online information integrity, spreading false or hard-found narratives. And the last one will be internet governance, that basically is linked to the policies and systems that shape digital rights. With us, we will have me as a moderator, I’m Venezuelan, I’m a Human Rights Advocate, Director of PROVOX, a non-profit working on information integrity in Latin America. Maríonne Francesco from Costa Rica, she will be online, she’s a Digital Rights Researcher from PROVOX team. Valentina Aguana from Venezuela, she’s a System Engineer and Researcher at Conexión Segura y Libre, works on internet censorship and digital rights. Abdullah Ahmadi from Afghanistan, he’s a Human Rights Advocate focused on digital inclusion and civic space, he’s the Director of Afghanistan Democracy and Development Organization. Lilian Nalwonga from Uganda, she’s Program Manager at CIPESA and she works on internet policy and digital rights in Africa. Estefania Da Silva from Venezuela, she’s a Digital Research Specialist focused on information manipulation, part of PROVOX team. Sascha Hannig, online. She is an international relations analyst and academic, focused on authoritarian influence and the impact of science and technology on society. Iria Puyosa from Venezuela and the U.S. She is senior researcher, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council on Tech Initiatives. She is an expert on digital authoritarianism and governance. Roberta Braga from Brazil and the U.S. She is founder and director of Digital Democracy Institute of the Americas, DDIA, focused on a healthier internet for Latinos across the U.S. and Latin America. And Martha Roldós from Ecuador. She is an investigative journalist, director of Fundación Milojas. And with that, I will start with the first two questions regarding censorship and this will be the following ones. What recent examples of censorship, formal or informal, have affected your country and what resistant strategies, technical, legal, social, have been affected in countering your censorship? With that, I will leave the floor to Abdullah to his first question and then to Valentina. Abdullah, the floor is yours.

Abdullah Ahmadi: Hello, everyone, and thank you for the chance to speak about the situation in Afghanistan, where digital censorship has increased in recent years, and especially the civic space is closed in Afghanistan based according to the CIVICAS report. First, about the recent examples. Since the Taliban takeover in August 2021, Afghanistan has experienced both formal and informal censorship. Formally, the Taliban have restricted independent media by imposing new guidelines that ban critical reporting. Many TV channels and radio stations have been forced to close or deeply self-censor to avoid reprisals. Online, the Taliban have ordered internet service providers to block access to certain news websites and social media pages run by exiled Afghan journalists and human rights groups. They also monitor social media for dissenting voices. Informally, intermediation is widespread. Journalists, activists, and even ordinary citizens risk detention or treat if they share information that criticizes the regime, especially on Facebook and WhatsApp, which are widely used in Afghanistan. Women’s voices are especially targeted. Female journalists face not only censorship but harassment and bans from working abroad. This silencing has had a shocking effect on the flow of reliable information inside and outside Afghanistan. Second, about the resistance strategy, about your second question, despite the Afghan citizens and civil society groups have found a way to resist. Technically, many people rely on the VPNs to access blocked websites and social media platforms. Corrupted messaging applications like Signal and Telegram have become essential for activists and journalists to communicate securely and share information without immediate detection. Some exiled Afghan media outlets maintain mirror sites and distribute news through the WhatsApp broadcast list to reach people inside the country. Legally, while there are almost no functioning legal pathway for media freedom under the Taliban rule, regional and international organizations have stepped in. Exiled Afghan journalists collaborate with international human rights bodies to document press freedom violations, and some cases have been raised at the UN Human Rights Council and other forms of pressure to protect journalists at risk. Socially, one of the most powerful strategies that have been the Solidarity Network, Afghan journalists, especially those now in exile, continue to publish news about the country through their diaspora-run media podcasts and social media channels. Inside Afghanistan, people have access to this information. We also provide training on digital security and censorship escape. This is another strategy that we are using and organizing outside the country, helping local activists and journalists to protect themselves online and find a safe channel to speak out. In closing, censorship in Afghanistan is part of the broad attack on human rights, but despite fear and strict rules, Afghan people continue to resist using technology, solidarity and international support. I believe it is our responsibility as a global community to amplify their voices, share tools and knowledge, and stand with the Afghans defending their right to speak and behave. Finally, I call for the UN to work towards a legally binding convention on digital rights to protect freedoms like expression, privacy, access to information and corruption online with strong safeguard and inclusive governance. Thank you so much.

Mariví Marín: Thank you, Abdullah. Valentina?

Valentina Aguana: Thank you, Mariví. First, thank you. It is a pleasure and a privilege to be here and thank you, Abdullah. I think there is a lot of parallelisms that we can see in Afghanistan right now to what is happening in Venezuela. I’m going to specifically talk about internet blocks and how internet blocks are being used as a mechanism for censorship. I believe it’s important to also have a clear definition of what an internet block is, and we define it as an intentional technical measure for impeding access to a specific service, website or information on the internet. The block, for us, has to be technically measurable. It has to be consistent over time across different access points within the network, and it’s also not the result of a technical problem, therefore intentional. In Vesinfiltro, we have been documenting internet blocks for over 10 years, over a decade, and we have a pretty good understanding about how the internet landscape in Venezuela and the Latin American region has been changing over the years. Just last year in Venezuela, I believe that entered what I call a new era of internet censorship, one that is more pervasive and completely changes the way that Venezuela We have documented that at least 61 independent media sites or independent media outlets in Venezuela are currently blocked. But the raw number itself doesn’t really tell you anything. What we need to understand and we would need to know is that this represents practically the whole independent news media ecosystem in the country. So also civil society organizations have also been affected by these blocks. There are not only news media sites but fact-checking sites and civil society organizations, NGOs, etc. But apart from this, I think one of the more severe things that we’ve seen is that since last year, the Venezuelan government has implemented blocks against social media platforms like Reddit, TikTok, X, formerly Twitter, which by the way is currently still blocked in the country, and even messaging apps like Signal. We once thought that permanently blocking social media was a red line for censors, but unfortunately we know that that’s not the case anymore, not only in Venezuela but in different countries. And we have seen this spreading to other countries within the region, citing disinformation and public safety as an excuse for these internet blocks. Another very serious trend that we’ve seen is the blocking of critical internet infrastructure. We’re talking about public DNS servers like Google servers or CloudSource DNS servers, and also CDNs being blocked. We documented last year the block of CloudFront, that’s the Amazon Web Services CDN, and as we can imagine, this was a disaster. Millions of sites across the globe relied on CloudFront, and we believe that the intention was not to block the CDN itself, but actually a website. This is not only happens in Latin America, right here in Europe, several ISPs in Spain are currently blocking whole IP ranges from Cloudflare, Akamai, Vercel, among other companies, trying to tackle copyright infringements during soccer match, and you can imagine how crazy it is that half of the internet is down in certain ISPs in Spain when this is happening, when a soccer match is happening. So measures to block content or platforms on the internet, this is very important, must be exceptional, proportional, and the least dramatic as possible, only doing what is necessary, and of course, through a legal process. So in summary, the censors are getting more sophisticated with the blocks, but also more reckless on what they are trying to block, and just like Abdullah said, what is happening in Afghanistan, in Venezuela, there is not a clear legal path to challenge these blocks. However, multilateral and international organizations are there for a reason, and we need to keep pressuring these, because we know that the internet is a human right. So I think that this role is very important. Finally, I think that the work of civil society organization is key. We need to keep doing advocacy, we need to keep teaching about securitization techniques. However, this is not enough. I think that other traditional solutions are not enough to fight censorship, and I think the community, we need to invest time and effort and money in new solutions, privacy by design, but also censorship by design. For example, Noticias Infiltra is an app we created as a newsreader app that has a censorship by design approach, which I think this is what we need to do going forward in the future.

Mariví Marín: Thank you very much, Valentina and Abdullah. And with that, I will leave the floor with the second topic ahead, that will be censorship by design. surveillance. And the two questions will be for Martha and for Lillian. What forms of digital surveillance have been used to monitor, intimidate, or silence civil society, journalists, or communities? And how have been affected these groups responding and what protective practices or tools have emerged? With that, I will leave the floor to Lillian first and Martha as a second.

Lillian Nalwoga: Thank you, Mariví. Pleasure to be here. I’ll try to be brief because this is a conversational session. In terms of forms of digital surveillance, what has been used, I think we’ve heard from the previous speakers, it’s no different from whatever is happening in Africa. We are seeing various forms that are being used to monitor, intimidate, or silence civil society, journalists, and most famous, like everywhere, is phone tapping or internet interception, where governments and, of course, other actors for all the other reasons are using wiretapping, interception of calls, texts, and all that. And interestingly, this is well embedded in the legislation, where we have quite a number of countries that, including where I come from, Uganda, whether it’s Tanzania or Kenya, we have interception of communication nodes. And with that, governments are mandated to intercept calls wherever they think there is some sort of harm. Also, we’ve seen deployment of surveillance tools like spyware or malware on people who are targeted, whether it’s activists. And we’ve had reports or seen reports with Citizen Lab, releasing quite a lot of research on the use of Pegasus on opposition. If it was being done for good, and again I put good in quotes, would not be an issue. But what we are seeing is that, yes, governments may want to lawfully have legitimate concerns when it comes to surveillance. But in most cases, the laws and policies that are put in otherwise say something totally different, especially when it comes to undemocratic countries or countries that are really deep down in repression. So there’s a lack of oversight or limited oversight when it comes to how far they can go with this surveillance. And again, I think that is where the issue is. I just wanted to also maybe highlight the amount of money or resources that are being put in these surveillance tools. And in 2023, there was a research by the Institute of Development Studies that documented about, I can’t mention names because the research is there, countries like Nigeria, Ghana, Morocco, Malawi and Zambia collectively spent a billion US dollars in a year on digital surveillance tools. And these tools were being supplied by countries, US, UK, China, some countries in the EU and Israel. And I mean, when you look at this vast amount of money and that state of the countries. All surveillance also in Africa, we also look at surveillance as a censorship tool, especially when it comes to, you know, content filtering, the network disruptions that we are seeing. That is also one form of, you know, surveillance. And we’ve been known like other countries in Asia or in Asia mainly, where internet shutdowns have become a pandemic of its own. And in 2020, last year, over 21 shutdowns were documented. And now you can imagine, if you’re to connect to the internet, then it will kind of prompt how are you connecting, and then that could also, you know, get into that. So in conclusion on this question is, these tactics are usually, they combine technically sophisticated tools that we’ve already had, which have been, you know, legal or extra legal measures that are usually being used to suppress dissent. And it also makes detection very difficult for the targeted individuals, because at times, by the time you get to know you’re surveilled, it’s probably when you’re being arrested, you know, and the content that is showed to you, then that’s when you get to find out what is really happening. So this is a growing concern in Africa, and I think it’s also now becoming a very global concern when it comes to, you know, rights, especially the right to privacy and freedom of expression and access to information. How are the groups being affected? How are they responding and practices? I think what we are seeing is a lot of coalition movement building, you know, within the civic space. We have, for instance, for the shutdowns, we have the Keep It On campaign by Access Now. We have associations like Dictator Resilience Network, which comprises about 10 organizations that are coming around to, you know, say no, push against this kind of, you know, surveillance. And mainly in East Africa, where I’m coming from, we are seeing there’s an organization that I can mention, TATOA, which is in Swahili means solve, brings together organizations to build shared tools, conduct capacity building and all that. And last but not least is researching and documenting and being able to show where surveillance is happening for purposes of policymaking advocacy and other indicators, you know, have the information there so that we can always push against surveillance. Thank you.

Mariví Marín: Perfect. Thank you very much. With that, I’ll leave the floor to Martha. Martha, who is online.

Martha Roldós: Sorry, sorry. I’m connecting. Sorry. Okay. Now I’m ready. Sorry. I would like to say that we have had the same experience that the previous speakers have explained in all those matters. In the case of Ecuador, we have in the matter of surveillance, the questions are surveillance for what? Because we were presented with the idea that surveillance was a tool for security against crime in a country where crime has risen exponentially while the government was applying these mechanisms of surveillance to journalists, to social, to civil society, while the narcos were thriving. So surveillance for what? What is the form of sending to the public the idea of surveillance? I explain this because in our country, it has just been approved a new intelligence law that made surveillance actually legal in every aspect of it. If it is conducted by the government intelligence unit. So that’s a huge preoccupation right now. With the new law, we are not having any kind of register of the intelligence operations for history. They are going to be destroyed. And the intelligence unit is going to oversize themselves. So that’s a step for the worst in the country right now, in the matter of privacy and digital rights. Other aspects that I would like to highlight is that in the past, that’s not just now, we have had since Korea’s government and this implementation of new systems of surveillance, every type of digital surveillance. That also was part of a more broad scheme of surveillance in general, also in the real life. So we have had man-in-the-middle attacks. We have had a pack rat. We have had all our dealings with Pegasus and all these things that are like on trend. Everything that has been trending in the world for surveillance has been used in our country also. You know, hacking team, it’s like, it goes like waves. And also, almost always, mainly journalists, but also activists have been attacked by these instruments. That’s in the things that has been done in Ecuador. Not just while during the authoritarian regime from Rafael Correa, but also the governments that came after it. It was like a built capacity of surveillance that the next government, it was very difficult to restrain themselves from using. There was a brief moment of apparently clarity. The SENAIN, which was the intelligence office, was actually closed, but a new office was opened that was called CIES that had allegedly more controls from the state and from the control organisms. But it hasn’t worked like that, actually. And the problem with surveillance-

Mariví Marín: 30 seconds.

Martha Roldós: Hello? 30 seconds. 30 seconds. Well, that was the first question. In the second question, we have had the, what was the affectation? The affectation was that the people were, not just their privacy was exposed, but the problem was that it was weaponized. The information obtained through surveillance was weaponized by the state in the government from Correa’s regime to pieces for character assassination in the media. And in the following governments, the problem is that also it didn’t obey just to the state. Some non-state actors, like Narcos, had allies in the surveillance community.

Mariví Marín: Okay. Sorry to interrupt. We’re done with that point. Thank you very much. We see more similarities, although we are far away. We see the points of encounter. Now we’re going to the third point that will be information integrity. And with that, I will leave the floor to Estefania to talk about this.

Participant: Thank you Mariví. Well, at PROVOST we have seen several patterns of disinformation and narrative manipulation on social media in Latin America that have been repeating in several countries. For example, in the case of Venezuela, government entities and members of the cabinet spread manipulated information and launch smear campaigns against their opponents by activating not only bots but also networks of coordinated users, real people like you and me, that create several accounts and replicate the same content spread or promoted by the state with little to no modification. And to incentivize the participation in these activities, individuals are paid with state funds, which is a big issue, and given the country’s severe economic situation, this incentive, the creation of these networks, because people see this as a side job, so to speak. And the same pattern has been replicated in countries like Cuba and Nicaragua, where the government initiates a disinformation or a smear campaign and coordinated users replicate the content. And it even goes as far as Venezuelan campaigns trending in Cuba or Cuban campaigns trending in Venezuela. And this happens because these governments help each other to amplify these narratives and create the appearance of widespread support or bots around them. This type of behavior aims to divert the attention from the real events happening in the country, especially given that social media platforms are often used to access unbiased information and to protest against daily occurrences. In fact, the influence and the reach of these platforms are such that there have been cases of people being arrested for social media posts that are contradict the official state narrative. And regarding the second question about the responses that have worked or failed, digital activism has played a vital role in Venezuela. For example, the teachers union is highly organized in the protest to highlight the wage declines or the breaches of contract, and they combine the digital demonstration with protests on the streets. We can say that these much-needed actions have been met with repressive counter measures, such as the implementation of laws like the so-called hate law, which criminalizes the protest and is used to justify the arrest. Another thing that is very important, and with this I’ll be done, is the independent media outlets and the formation of coalitions with fact-checking teams and initiatives and organizations like robots that have become essential and pioneering because these actions aim to analyze the digital content, educate the citizens, and on how to identify disinformation or manipulated narratives, and also to promote digital security practices, as well as tools like the use of VPNs, for example, to avoid censorship. And this work at the end ensures that even though the traditional media is mainly controlled by the state, there remains access to verified and independent information that reflects the true reality of what’s happening in the country.

Mariví Marín: Thank you very much, Stefania. With that, Sascha Hannig, I will ask you to be brief, please.

Sascha Hannig: I’m gonna stick to my time. Thank you so much for your introduction. So when we talk about information integrity, the question is what information we can

Mariví Marín: trust, right? And when we ask ourselves what types of narratives of manipulation or disinformation

Sascha Hannig: are spread in the region, that is a question we actually want to know. And in that regard, I do agree with the previous… speakers on cooperation between actors on the situations in which these campaigns are spread. I only want to add a few points upon that. So the first is concerns over this formation and narrative manipulation not being taken as seriously as they should by decision makers, state actors. Maybe civil society to one extent does care about it, but we see again and again examples that when compared to other regions, such as the European Union, in Latin America in general, this information is not seen as a security issue. It’s seen seen as a distortion of information spreading. As a result, there are many ways in which information is spread. Some of these have already been mentioned. And I would only want to add to the first question, how important is the context? Because when we have disasters, when we have uncertainty, when we have political unrest, when we have domestic controversial issue, those are the areas in which these campaigns thrive. And these are the areas with not only state actors such as Russia or China or any other authoritarian actor or any other actor with an agenda thrives, but also untraceable independent disinformation spreaders. So regarding the second question, what responses from the civil society, media and academia or institutions have worked or failed in restoring narrative integrity? I think there is a lot of work being done by civil society in the region that is obvious, that is strong. The regions, as I mentioned, is a little bit behind in counter-narrative operation. and Marta Roldós. We don’t see a lot of information or disinformation responses, but we do see a raising awareness. And this raising awareness has created a door for discussion. Which in some cases has translated into actual responses. And I just want to mention one case with the 15 seconds I have left.

Mariví Marín: So I’m going to move forward with the last two questions. The first one will be for Roberta and the second one for Iria. Please do three minutes each and we will finish with that. Thank you very much, Roberta.

Roberta Braga: Thank you, Mariví. Good morning, everybody from D.C. So the two countries I can speak most closely to are the United States and Brazil, my two home countries. And here we’re talking about models of governance that the region has been implementing. And in the United States, there really are no central governance mechanisms for things like data privacy, Internet governance. And so by default, not only do the states sort of make a lot of the laws, which can really lead to some decentralization, some difficulties for businesses in adhering to this, some inadequate enforcement, and some diversity in approaches between states. But we also see that the United States prioritizes its core tenant, freedom of speech, which by default puts governance mechanisms almost entirely in the hands of social media platforms. In the U.S. this year, we’re seeing that a lot of the social media companies have moved toward a community-driven mode of content moderation, which I think has its pros and cons and has been really hotly debated here in Washington, D.C. and in California and other places. That model has been tried by other countries, but it’s not been implemented. And so we’re seeing that a lot of the states are trying to create a community-driven mode of content moderation, which by default puts governance mechanisms entirely in the hands of social media platforms. And so we’re seeing that a lot of the states are trying to And we are actually the first team at DDIA to publish tweets in English and Spanish dated to 2021. We will share findings on July 9 if you are interested. But that motto has not met a need for addressing online harms in real time. For example it takes 14 days for a note to go from submission to publication on average. And then Brazil, my other home country, has really taken a bit of a different approach. Brazil has the Marcos de Vila Internatio which is almost our digital civil bill of rights. And it really pushes for net neutrality and privacy and freedom of expression as well as data protection really at its core. It’s something that needs to be updated and is being discussed now. And then we have our general data protection law which I think really mirrors the European GDPR, emphasizes user privacy and data protection. But there is a lot more that needs to be done I think for us to really give these types of mechanisms the teeth they need to ensure our safety online. So Maribi, I will leave it at that.

Mariví Marín: That was fantastic. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. With that, Iria.

Iria Puyosa: Thank you very much for having me. I’m going to try to be very brief. One of the issues I’m concerned about at the moment is the pressures the civil society organizations, digital rights organizations and internet governance organizations are facing given the pressures from the current geopolitical dynamics and the pressures over the multi-stakeholder internet governance model due to the change on the global digital company I’m bringing up. I’m also particularly interested in the way these dynamics are playing on Latin America, Africa and Asia organizations who are also facing a shared economy. Client funding available for the kind of work they are doing, the kind of work my colleagues in the panel have been talking about, censorship, circumvention, disinformation, content disinformation, protecting data, personal data, content surveillance, all that very important roles as well as multi-stakeholder governance role the civil society organizations play, is in danger because of the lack of sustainability in the long term for this kind of organizations, particularly for the smaller organizations in the global south who are losing critical expertise due to the lack of funding. And I think this is a conversation we should be having in the Internet Governance Forum because even though it’s not related with the core resources of the Internet infrastructure, it’s core to the Internet Governance model. So if we want to have a multi-stakeholder model of governance, it requires the presence of civil society organizations, and civil society organizations, since it exists, it’s no way for us to defend the multi-stakeholder model, and it’s going to be a model run only by states and big corporations. So the survival of the Internet multi-stakeholder model of governance is tied to the survival or sustainability of civil society organizations working in this space. That is why my team in the Atlantic Council Democracy and Tech Initiative is aiming to have a systemic assessment of the support need of these kind of organizations working in digital rights and Internet governance, and we are exploring the way to partner with philanthropic donors and right-aligned states in order to identify mechanisms for channeling resources towards civil society organizations. This is part of the mission we are focused on in the coming year, trying to understand what is to support the needs of civil society organizations in Africa, Latin America, and South Asia, developing countries working in meaningful access to Internet connectivity. Digital Public Infrastructure and Internet and Data Governance. To end, very concrete recommendations for governments and funders. It’s important for them to strengthen capabilities for prioritizing partnerships with local civil society in the countries of the Global South, Latin America, Asia and Africa, particularly those organizations working in key areas like connectivity, meaningful connectivity, artificial intelligence, linking to the achievement of the sustainable development goals, which is very, very important for the Global South, particularly for African countries, or the issues of data governance at the Internet Governance Excel. For civil society organizations, initial recommendations is to try to work together, exploring the ways we can foster South-South collaboration in order for organizations from Latin America and Africa, or Africa and Asia, get projects, joint projects, because we are seeing in this conversation that the issues are similar in our regions, but small organizations were isolated, and having coalitions working together would be helpful in order to make the most for the scarce resources we have right now. So, we need to help this organization, this kind of partnership, to collectively navigate this geopolitical shift and this change on the global Internet governance brought by the Global Digital Compact new state of play. Thank you.

Mariví Marín: Thank you very much, Iria, and everyone online and in person. I will leave just two brief questions. Do you believe, for everyone in the audience, in person and online, that there is at least one authoritarian trend in your country? Say yes with the hand. Sure. I see all of us have some, and I see from the audience that there is two. And did you learn something about a tactic, idea, or alliance that you can use today for your own country, in my case, which I did. Some from the audience, too. I’m happy to see. Thank you everyone, thanks for the ones online and in person. By listening to each other, sharing concrete experiences, and reflecting across countries’ role and challenges, we have shown that cooperation to protect information integrity is not just possible, it’s already happening. And this session, this event in general, reminds us that resisting online authoritarian practices for a healthier and safer internet for all is not just about identifying the problems, but it’s also about building these bridges that we were talking about, bridges between regions, between diverse stakeholders, and between different areas of civil society that are the ones leading this fight every day. Let’s carry these ideas forward and keep this collaboration alive. Thank you very much.

Agreement points

Technical resistance strategies using VPNs, encrypted messaging, and circumvention tools

Speakers

– Abdullah Ahmadi
– Valentina Aguana

Arguments

Social resistance involves solidarity networks, diaspora media, digital security training, and coalition building across regions

Technical resistance includes VPNs, encrypted messaging apps, mirror sites, and censorship-resistant applications designed with privacy and anti-censorship features

Summary

Both speakers emphasize the critical role of technical tools like VPNs and encrypted messaging apps (Signal, Telegram) for circumventing censorship and enabling secure communication for activists and journalists

Topics

Cybersecurity | Human rights

Lack of legal pathways to challenge authoritarian digital practices

Speakers

– Abdullah Ahmadi
– Valentina Aguana
– Martha Roldós

Arguments

Taliban have imposed formal censorship through media guidelines and informal intimidation, especially targeting women journalists and activists

Venezuela has entered a new era of pervasive internet censorship, blocking 61 independent media outlets and major social media platforms like X, TikTok, and Signal

Ecuador has implemented comprehensive surveillance systems including man-in-the-middle attacks and Pegasus, with new intelligence laws making surveillance legal without oversight

Summary

All three speakers highlight the absence of effective legal mechanisms to challenge government censorship and surveillance, with legal systems either compromised or actively enabling authoritarian practices

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Cross-border cooperation in authoritarian digital practices

Speakers

– Participant
– Abdullah Ahmadi

Arguments

Latin American governments use coordinated networks of real users and bots to spread disinformation, with cross-border cooperation between countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua

Social resistance involves solidarity networks, diaspora media, digital security training, and coalition building across regions

Summary

Both speakers recognize that authoritarian practices and resistance efforts operate across national boundaries, with governments cooperating in disinformation campaigns while civil society builds international solidarity networks

Topics

Human rights | Development

Targeting of journalists and civil society as primary victims

Speakers

– Abdullah Ahmadi
– Valentina Aguana
– Martha Roldós
– Lillian Nalwoga

Arguments

Taliban have imposed formal censorship through media guidelines and informal intimidation, especially targeting women journalists and activists

Venezuela has entered a new era of pervasive internet censorship, blocking 61 independent media outlets and major social media platforms like X, TikTok, and Signal

Ecuador has implemented comprehensive surveillance systems including man-in-the-middle attacks and Pegasus, with new intelligence laws making surveillance legal without oversight

African governments collectively spent $1 billion on surveillance tools in 2023, using phone tapping, spyware like Pegasus, and internet shutdowns as control mechanisms

Summary

All speakers identify journalists, activists, and civil society organizations as the primary targets of digital authoritarianism across different regions and contexts

Topics

Human rights | Cybersecurity

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers describe comprehensive surveillance ecosystems using similar tools (Pegasus spyware, phone tapping) with inadequate legal oversight, showing how surveillance technologies and practices are globally distributed

Speakers

– Lillian Nalwoga
– Martha Roldós

Arguments

African governments collectively spent $1 billion on surveillance tools in 2023, using phone tapping, spyware like Pegasus, and internet shutdowns as control mechanisms

Ecuador has implemented comprehensive surveillance systems including man-in-the-middle attacks and Pegasus, with new intelligence laws making surveillance legal without oversight

Topics

Human rights | Cybersecurity

Both speakers focus on governance challenges and the need for more effective multi-stakeholder approaches, though from different angles – one examining national governance models and the other focusing on civil society sustainability

Speakers

– Roberta Braga
– Iria Puyosa

Arguments

The US lacks central governance mechanisms, relying on state-level laws and platform self-regulation, with community-driven content moderation showing mixed results

Civil society organizations face critical funding shortages that threaten the multi-stakeholder internet governance model, particularly affecting smaller organizations in the Global South

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers address disinformation as a systematic problem in Latin America, with one highlighting the lack of adequate response and the other detailing the sophisticated nature of government-led disinformation campaigns

Speakers

– Sascha Hannig
– Participant

Arguments

Disinformation campaigns are not taken seriously enough as security issues in Latin America compared to other regions like the EU

Latin American governments use coordinated networks of real users and bots to spread disinformation, with cross-border cooperation between countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected consensus

Infrastructure-level censorship as a new frontier of digital authoritarianism

Speakers

– Valentina Aguana
– Lillian Nalwoga

Arguments

Internet blocks are becoming more sophisticated but also more reckless, with censors blocking critical infrastructure like CDNs and DNS servers

African governments collectively spent $1 billion on surveillance tools in 2023, using phone tapping, spyware like Pegasus, and internet shutdowns as control mechanisms

Explanation

The consensus on infrastructure-level attacks (blocking CDNs, DNS servers, internet shutdowns) represents an unexpected escalation in censorship tactics that goes beyond traditional content blocking to attacking the fundamental infrastructure of the internet itself

Topics

Infrastructure | Cybersecurity

Economic incentivization of digital authoritarianism

Speakers

– Participant
– Lillian Nalwoga

Arguments

Latin American governments use coordinated networks of real users and bots to spread disinformation, with cross-border cooperation between countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua

African governments collectively spent $1 billion on surveillance tools in 2023, using phone tapping, spyware like Pegasus, and internet shutdowns as control mechanisms

Explanation

Both speakers reveal the significant economic dimensions of digital authoritarianism – governments paying citizens to spread disinformation and spending billions on surveillance tools, showing how economic incentives drive both the supply and demand sides of authoritarian digital practices

Topics

Economic | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

Strong consensus exists on the systematic nature of digital authoritarianism globally, the targeting of civil society and journalists, the use of similar technical tools and tactics across regions, and the need for international cooperation in resistance efforts

Consensus level

High level of consensus with significant implications – the speakers demonstrate that digital authoritarianism is not isolated to specific regions but represents a global phenomenon with shared characteristics, tactics, and impacts. This consensus suggests the need for coordinated international responses and the sharing of resistance strategies across borders. The agreement also highlights the critical importance of sustaining civil society organizations as the primary defenders of digital rights and the multi-stakeholder governance model.

Different viewpoints

Governance approach – centralized vs decentralized regulation

Speakers

– Roberta Braga
– Iria Puyosa

Arguments

The US lacks central governance mechanisms, relying on state-level laws and platform self-regulation, with community-driven content moderation showing mixed results

Brazil has implemented comprehensive digital rights frameworks including Marco Civil da Internet and GDPR-style data protection laws

Summary

Roberta presents the US decentralized approach as problematic due to lack of central governance and reliance on platform self-regulation, while also highlighting Brazil’s more centralized comprehensive framework. This contrasts with Iria’s focus on strengthening multi-stakeholder governance through civil society support rather than state-led regulation.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights

Priority focus for addressing digital authoritarianism

Speakers

– Sascha Hannig
– Iria Puyosa

Arguments

Disinformation campaigns are not taken seriously enough as security issues in Latin America compared to other regions like the EU

Civil society organizations face critical funding shortages that threaten the multi-stakeholder internet governance model, particularly affecting smaller organizations in the Global South

Summary

Sascha emphasizes the need for governments to treat disinformation as a security issue requiring state-level response, while Iria focuses on the fundamental need to sustain civil society organizations as the foundation for addressing all digital rights issues.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Development

Unexpected differences

Role of international frameworks vs local solutions

Speakers

– Abdullah Ahmadi
– Valentina Aguana

Arguments

Social resistance involves solidarity networks, diaspora media, digital security training, and coalition building across regions

Technical resistance includes VPNs, encrypted messaging apps, mirror sites, and censorship-resistant applications designed with privacy and anti-censorship features

Explanation

While both speakers face similar censorship challenges, Abdullah calls for UN-led legally binding conventions on digital rights, while Valentina emphasizes that traditional solutions are not enough and advocates for building new technology solutions with censorship-resistance built in from the design phase. This represents a fundamental disagreement on whether to work within existing international legal frameworks or to build alternative technical infrastructure.

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Infrastructure | Human rights

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion shows remarkable consensus on the problems (censorship, surveillance, disinformation) but reveals subtle yet significant disagreements on solutions and priorities. Main disagreements center on governance approaches (centralized vs decentralized), the role of international frameworks vs technical solutions, and whether to prioritize state-level policy changes or civil society sustainability.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high strategic implications. While speakers largely agree on the nature of threats, their different approaches to solutions could lead to fragmented efforts. The disagreements suggest a need for more coordination between those advocating for policy/legal solutions, those building technical solutions, and those focusing on civil society capacity building.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers describe comprehensive surveillance ecosystems using similar tools (Pegasus spyware, phone tapping) with inadequate legal oversight, showing how surveillance technologies and practices are globally distributed

Speakers

– Lillian Nalwoga
– Martha Roldós

Arguments

African governments collectively spent $1 billion on surveillance tools in 2023, using phone tapping, spyware like Pegasus, and internet shutdowns as control mechanisms

Ecuador has implemented comprehensive surveillance systems including man-in-the-middle attacks and Pegasus, with new intelligence laws making surveillance legal without oversight

Topics

Human rights | Cybersecurity

Both speakers focus on governance challenges and the need for more effective multi-stakeholder approaches, though from different angles – one examining national governance models and the other focusing on civil society sustainability

Speakers

– Roberta Braga
– Iria Puyosa

Arguments

The US lacks central governance mechanisms, relying on state-level laws and platform self-regulation, with community-driven content moderation showing mixed results

Civil society organizations face critical funding shortages that threaten the multi-stakeholder internet governance model, particularly affecting smaller organizations in the Global South

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Development

Both speakers address disinformation as a systematic problem in Latin America, with one highlighting the lack of adequate response and the other detailing the sophisticated nature of government-led disinformation campaigns

Speakers

– Sascha Hannig
– Participant

Arguments

Disinformation campaigns are not taken seriously enough as security issues in Latin America compared to other regions like the EU

Latin American governments use coordinated networks of real users and bots to spread disinformation, with cross-border cooperation between countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory

Key takeaways

Digital authoritarianism is a global phenomenon affecting both authoritarian and democratic countries, with similar tactics being used across different regions including censorship, surveillance, disinformation, and restrictive internet governance

Cross-regional collaboration and information sharing among civil society organizations is not only possible but essential for combating digital authoritarian practices

Technical resistance strategies (VPNs, encrypted messaging, mirror sites) must be combined with legal advocacy and social solidarity networks to effectively counter digital repression

The sustainability crisis facing civil society organizations, particularly in the Global South, threatens the multi-stakeholder internet governance model and requires urgent attention from funders and governments

Censorship tactics are becoming more sophisticated and reckless, with governments blocking critical internet infrastructure and entire social media platforms rather than specific content

Surveillance has become a billion-dollar industry with governments weaponizing collected information for political purposes and character assassination

Disinformation campaigns often involve cross-border cooperation between authoritarian governments and are not being treated with sufficient seriousness as security threats in many regions

Resolutions and action items

Atlantic Council Democracy and Tech Initiative will conduct a systemic assessment of support needs for civil society organizations working in digital rights and internet governance

Explore partnerships with philanthropic donors and aligned states to channel resources toward civil society organizations in Africa, Latin America, and South Asia

Foster South-South collaboration between organizations from different Global South regions to work on joint projects and share scarce resources

Continue advocacy work through multilateral and international organizations to pressure governments on internet rights violations

Invest in developing new solutions with privacy-by-design and censorship-by-design approaches, following examples like the Noticias Infiltra app

Maintain documentation and research efforts to support policymaking and advocacy against surveillance and censorship

Unresolved issues

How to ensure long-term sustainable funding for civil society organizations working on digital rights in the Global South

How to effectively counter the increasing sophistication and recklessness of internet censorship tactics

How to address the lack of legal pathways to challenge surveillance and censorship in many countries

How to make policymakers take disinformation as seriously as other security threats

How to balance platform self-regulation with effective governance mechanisms for addressing online harms

How to prevent the erosion of the multi-stakeholder internet governance model due to civil society funding shortages

How to scale technical resistance solutions to match the growing sophistication of digital authoritarianism

Suggested compromises

Community-driven content moderation as an alternative to both government censorship and pure platform control, though this approach has shown mixed results

Combining technical circumvention tools with legal advocacy and social organizing rather than relying on any single approach

Balancing the need for updated governance frameworks (like Brazil’s Marco Civil da Internet) with protecting core principles like freedom of expression

Leveraging international pressure and documentation when domestic legal pathways are unavailable or ineffective

Abdullah’s call for ‘a legally binding convention on digital rights to protect freedoms like expression, privacy, access to information and corruption online with strong safeguard and inclusive governance’

Speaker

Abdullah Ahmadi

Reason

This comment elevated the discussion from tactical responses to systemic solutions, proposing a concrete international framework that could address the root causes of digital authoritarianism rather than just its symptoms. It demonstrated how extreme repression (Afghanistan under Taliban) can generate innovative thinking about global governance structures.

Impact

This comment established a framework that other speakers built upon throughout the session. It shifted the conversation from country-specific problems to the need for international coordination and legal frameworks, influencing later discussions about cross-regional collaboration and governance models.

Valentina’s observation that ‘We once thought that permanently blocking social media was a red line for censors, but unfortunately we know that that’s not the case anymore’ and her concept of ‘censorship by design’

Speaker

Valentina Aguana

Reason

This insight revealed how authoritarian tactics are evolving and becoming more sophisticated, challenging assumptions about what governments would or wouldn’t do. The ‘censorship by design’ concept introduced a proactive technical approach to resistance, moving beyond reactive measures to preventive solutions.

Impact

This comment fundamentally reframed how participants understood the evolution of censorship, moving the discussion from traditional blocking methods to more sophisticated infrastructure attacks. It influenced the technical direction of the conversation and highlighted the need for more innovative resistance strategies.

Martha’s question ‘surveillance for what?’ in discussing Ecuador’s experience where ‘surveillance was a tool for security against crime in a country where crime has risen exponentially while the government was applying these mechanisms of surveillance to journalists, to civil society, while the narcos were thriving’

Speaker

Martha Roldós

Reason

This comment exposed the fundamental contradiction in authoritarian surveillance – the gap between stated purposes (security) and actual targets (civil society). It revealed how surveillance becomes institutionalized and persists across different governments, challenging the narrative that these are temporary security measures.

Impact

This reframing influenced how other participants discussed surveillance, moving beyond technical aspects to examine the political motivations and effectiveness contradictions. It added a critical analytical layer that questioned government justifications for surveillance programs.

Iria’s warning that ‘the survival of the Internet multi-stakeholder model of governance is tied to the survival or sustainability of civil society organizations working in this space’

Speaker

Iria Puyosa

Reason

This comment connected the immediate funding crisis facing civil society organizations to the broader existential threat to internet governance models. It revealed how economic pressures and geopolitical shifts could fundamentally alter the structure of internet governance, moving from a multi-stakeholder to a state-corporate duopoly.

Impact

This observation shifted the final portion of the discussion toward systemic sustainability concerns, moving beyond tactical responses to authoritarian practices toward the meta-question of whether the current resistance infrastructure can survive. It reframed the entire conversation as not just about fighting authoritarianism, but about preserving the institutional capacity to fight it.

Lillian’s documentation that countries like ‘Nigeria, Ghana, Morocco, Malawi and Zambia collectively spent a billion US dollars in a year on digital surveillance tools’ supplied by ‘US, UK, China, some countries in the EU and Israel’

Speaker

Lillian Nalwoga

Reason

This comment revealed the global economic ecosystem that enables digital authoritarianism, showing how democratic countries profit from supplying surveillance tools to authoritarian regimes. It exposed the contradiction between stated democratic values and actual business practices, highlighting the international complicity in digital repression.

Impact

This data point added a crucial economic dimension to the discussion, showing that digital authoritarianism isn’t just about local government decisions but involves international supply chains and business relationships. It complicated the narrative of ‘democratic vs. authoritarian’ countries by showing how they’re economically interconnected in surveillance markets.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a series of isolated country reports into a sophisticated analysis of global digital authoritarianism. The discussion evolved through several phases: from documenting specific tactics (censorship, surveillance) to revealing systemic patterns (cross-border collaboration between authoritarian regimes, evolution of censorship techniques), to exposing structural contradictions (surveillance justified by security but targeting civil society), and finally to questioning the sustainability of resistance infrastructure itself. The most impactful comments were those that connected local experiences to global patterns, revealed contradictions in official narratives, or proposed systemic solutions. The conversation demonstrated remarkable convergence across different regions and contexts, with speakers building on each other’s insights to create a comprehensive picture of how digital authoritarianism operates as a global phenomenon requiring coordinated international responses.

Need for a legally binding UN convention on digital rights to protect freedoms like expression, privacy, access to information and encryption online with strong safeguards and inclusive governance

Speaker

Abdullah Ahmadi

Explanation

This represents a concrete policy recommendation that requires further development and international advocacy to establish global standards for digital rights protection

Investment in new solutions with privacy by design and censorship by design approaches, moving beyond traditional circumvention tools

Speaker

Valentina Aguana

Explanation

Current technical solutions are insufficient to combat sophisticated censorship, requiring research and development of new architectural approaches to internet infrastructure

Systemic assessment of support needs for civil society organizations working in digital rights and internet governance in the Global South

Speaker

Iria Puyosa

Explanation

The sustainability crisis of civil society organizations threatens the multi-stakeholder internet governance model, requiring comprehensive research to understand funding gaps and support mechanisms

Exploration of mechanisms for channeling resources towards civil society organizations in partnership with philanthropic donors and aligned states

Speaker

Iria Puyosa

Explanation

Addressing the funding crisis requires developing new partnership models and funding mechanisms specifically designed for digital rights organizations in developing countries

Foster South-South collaboration between organizations from Latin America, Africa, and Asia through joint projects

Speaker

Iria Puyosa

Explanation

Small organizations are isolated despite facing similar challenges, and collaborative approaches could maximize scarce resources and share expertise across regions

Research on community-driven content moderation models and their effectiveness in addressing online harms in real-time

Speaker

Roberta Braga

Explanation

Current community-driven approaches like Twitter’s Community Notes have limitations (14-day average for publication) that need to be studied and improved for better harm mitigation

Analysis of cross-border coordination in disinformation campaigns between authoritarian governments

Speaker

Estefania Da Silva

Explanation

The phenomenon of Venezuelan campaigns trending in Cuba and vice versa indicates systematic cooperation that requires deeper investigation to understand and counter

Documentation and measurement of the economic impact of internet shutdowns and infrastructure blocking

Speaker

Valentina Aguana and Lillian Nalwoga

Explanation

The blocking of critical infrastructure like CDNs affects millions globally, requiring comprehensive impact assessment to inform policy and advocacy efforts

Summary

This panel discussion at the Internet Governance Forum focused on global perspectives regarding network fees (also called “fair share” mechanisms) and their relationship to net neutrality principles. The debate centers on whether content providers and large technology companies should pay additional fees to telecommunications operators for data delivery, beyond existing interconnection arrangements.

Professor Kyung Sin Park from Korea University presented compelling evidence from South Korea’s experience with network fees implemented in 2016, demonstrating how even partial sender-pay rules led to dramatically increased transit costs, reduced competition, and the departure of services like Twitch from the Korean market. His data showed Korean internet costs became 8-10 times higher than other developed countries, stifling innovation and forcing content providers to relocate operations abroad.

Konstantinos Komaitis from the Atlantic Council emphasized that this debate has persisted for over 15 years without evidence of market failure, particularly noting that European regulators (BEREC) found the internet interconnection ecosystem functions well. He warned that network fees represent a backdoor attempt to undermine net neutrality and could lead to traffic prioritization based on commercial agreements rather than user choice.

Colombian regulator Claudia Ximena Bustamante shared insights from Latin America’s approach, describing ongoing consultations to understand traffic patterns and ecosystem dynamics before implementing any regulatory changes. She noted that traffic growth in Colombia appeared normal rather than exponential, partly due to increased local content delivery networks and compression technologies.

Tatiana Tropinem from the Internet Society argued that network fee proposals are “solutions in search of a problem,” emphasizing that internet users already pay for data access while content providers invest heavily in infrastructure like content delivery networks. Thomas Volmer from Netflix highlighted how collaborative engineering between content providers and ISPs has successfully managed traffic growth through technical solutions rather than regulatory intervention.

The discussion revealed a clear divide between telecommunications operators seeking additional revenue streams and other stakeholders who view network fees as potentially fragmenting the internet’s open architecture and undermining the fundamental principles that enabled its global success.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Network Fees vs. Net Neutrality**: The core debate centers on whether content providers (like Netflix, Google) should pay additional fees to telecom operators for network usage, with panelists arguing this would undermine net neutrality principles that ensure equal treatment of all internet traffic.

– **Evidence from South Korea’s Implementation**: Professor K.S. Park presented detailed data showing how South Korea’s partial sender-pay rule led to dramatically increased transit prices (8-10 times higher than other countries), caused services like Twitch to exit the market, and resulted in Korean content being served from outside the country to avoid costs.

– **Lack of Market Failure Evidence**: Multiple speakers emphasized that consultations in Europe, Brazil, and other regions have found no evidence of market failure justifying network fees, with BEREC concluding that internet interconnection is a “well-functioning market” where costs have actually decreased despite traffic increases.

– **Alternative Infrastructure Investment Solutions**: Panelists discussed various ways to address connectivity needs without network fees, including reducing spectrum licensing fees, adjusting tax obligations, promoting competition, targeted subsidies for underserved areas, and recognizing that content providers already invest heavily in infrastructure like CDNs and subsea cables.

– **Regulatory Separation and Governance Models**: The discussion touched on how network fees proposals challenge the traditional separation between internet infrastructure regulation and application layer governance, potentially centralizing control and moving away from multi-stakeholder internet governance models.

## Overall Purpose:

The panel aimed to provide global perspectives on network fees (also called “fair share” proposals) and their relationship to net neutrality, examining evidence from different regions and discussing policy alternatives for addressing connectivity and infrastructure investment needs.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a strongly critical tone toward network fees throughout, with all panelists opposing such proposals. The tone became somewhat tense when telecom industry representatives in the audience challenged the panel’s composition and arguments, with one noting the lack of telecom operator representation on the panel and another calling the discussion one-sided rather than a true dialogue. The moderator acknowledged this criticism but the panelists maintained their positions, creating a somewhat defensive atmosphere by the end.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Fabro Steibel** – Panel moderator/facilitator

– **Kyung Sin Park (K.S. Park)** – Professor of law at Korea University Law School, Director of Openet (digital rights organization)

– **Konstantinos Komaitis** – Resident senior fellow with the Democracy and Tech Initiative at the Atlantic Council

– **Claudia Ximena Bustamante** – Executive Director and Commissioner of the Communications Regulatory Commission (CRC) of Colombia

– **Tatiana Tropinem** – Representative from Internet Society

– **Thomas Volmer** – Head of Global Content Delivery Policy at Netflix

– **Rian Duarte** – Representative from the Brazilian Association of Internet Service Providers

– **Louvo Gray** – Representative from the South African Internet Governance Forum, runs an internet service provider in South Africa

– **Frode Kieling** – Representative from Telco (200 million customers in Asia and Nordic)

– **Pablo Barrionovo** – Representative from Telefonica

**Additional speakers:**

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

# Global Perspectives on Network Fees and Net Neutrality: Internet Governance Forum Panel Discussion

## Executive Summary

This Internet Governance Forum panel discussion examined the global debate surrounding network fees (also termed “fair share” mechanisms) and their relationship to net neutrality principles. The session featured five main panelists representing diverse perspectives, with additional input from telecommunications industry representatives during the Q&A session. Moderated by Fabro Steibel, who referenced a campaign listing “10 reasons” why network fees are problematic for the internet, the discussion revealed significant disagreement between telecommunications operators seeking additional revenue streams and other stakeholders who view network fees as fundamentally flawed policies.

The debate was anchored by evidence from South Korea’s experience with network fees implementation since 2016, which demonstrated negative consequences including increased costs and service departures. This real-world case study provided crucial context for evaluating arguments about network fees’ potential impacts.

## Key Participants and Perspectives

### Academic Analysis

**Professor Kyung Sin Park** from Korea University Law School provided detailed evidence from South Korea’s unique experience implementing partial sender-pay rules. Park presented data showing transit costs 8-10 times higher than other developed countries, services like Twitch exiting the Korean market, and Korean content being served from abroad to avoid domestic fees. Park framed network fees as fundamentally undermining democratic participation by “taxing people for speaking online.”

### Civil Society and Technical Community

**Konstantinos Komaitis** from the Atlantic Council emphasized that this debate has persisted since 2012 without evidence of market failure. He referenced European regulators (BEREC) finding the internet interconnection ecosystem well-functioning, with a recent report showing decreasing data costs. Komaitis characterized network fees as “lazy policy” and warned that dispute resolution mechanisms could serve as a “backdoor to network fees.”

**Tatiana Tropinem** from the Internet Society argued that network fees are “solutions in search of a problem,” noting that users already pay for data access while content providers invest heavily in infrastructure. She emphasized that traffic is requested by users who pay for access, not created unilaterally by online services.

### Regulatory Perspective

**Claudia Ximena Bustamante**, Executive Director of Colombia’s Communications Regulatory Commission, described ongoing consultations to understand traffic patterns before implementing regulatory changes. She reported traffic growth of 1.7 times over two years, which she characterized as normal rather than exponential, partly due to local content delivery networks and compression technologies. Bustamante mentioned a recent Constitutional Court decision against ISP-chosen differentiated service plans that may require regulatory framework updates.

### Content Provider Perspective

**Thomas Volmer** from Netflix highlighted collaborative engineering between content providers and ISPs, noting Netflix’s infrastructure investments including content delivery networks with global server locations. He explained how “cold potato routing” brings content close to users, reducing rather than increasing network burden. Volmer referenced BEREC findings that interconnection markets function well and warned that network fees would create tolls limiting user choice.

### Industry Challenges

During the Q&A session, telecommunications industry representatives challenged the panel’s composition and arguments. **Frode Kieling**, representing a telecommunications company, argued that fundamental internet principles assumed equal traffic sharing, which no longer exists with 70-80% of traffic from content delivery networks. He contended that telco revenues are declining while content provider revenues increase.

**Pablo Barrionovo** from Telefónica criticized the panel’s lack of telecommunications operator representation, arguing for more balanced multi-stakeholder dialogue. He maintained that sustainability problems exist in the current model.

**Rian Duarte** from the Brazilian Association of Internet Service Providers noted that over 20,000 small ISPs in Brazil oppose network fees, revealing divisions within the telecommunications sector.

## Evidence and Case Studies

### South Korea’s Experience

Professor Park’s analysis of South Korea’s implementation revealed several concerning outcomes:

– Transit prices 8-10 times higher than other developed countries

– Major services like Twitch exiting the Korean market

– Korean content providers serving content from outside Korea to avoid fees

– Korean esports teams moving abroad due to latency issues

– Reduced innovation and competition

### Regional Findings

**European Analysis**: BEREC studies found no evidence of market failure in internet interconnection, with recent reports showing decreasing data costs despite traffic increases.

**Brazilian Consultations**: Two separate consultations revealed large telcos supporting network fees while other stakeholders opposed them, with law proposals prohibiting the practice under consideration.

**Colombian Investigation**: Ongoing consultation examining traffic patterns and ecosystem dynamics, with Bustamante advocating evidence-based policy making.

## Technical and Economic Arguments

### Infrastructure Investment

The discussion revealed disagreement about internet infrastructure investment. Content providers like Netflix invest significantly in content delivery networks, challenging narratives that only telecommunications operators invest in internet infrastructure. Multiple speakers noted that various players including CDNs, cloud providers, and edge nodes contribute to internet infrastructure.

### Traffic Management

Several speakers explained how modern internet architecture handles traffic growth efficiently. Local CDNs and compression advances have made traffic growth manageable, while CDN architecture legitimately changes traffic patterns for technical reasons rather than creating unfair advantages.

### Economic Sustainability

Telecommunications representatives raised concerns about revenue sustainability, with declining telco revenues alongside growing content provider revenues. Other speakers argued this reflects normal market evolution rather than market failure requiring regulatory intervention.

## Net Neutrality and Democratic Implications

Multiple speakers emphasized that network fees contradict net neutrality principles by allowing ISPs to prioritize traffic based on payment rather than user choice. Park argued that net neutrality is essential for democratic participation, preventing regression to telephony-style systems that tax online communication.

Volmer compared potential network fee systems to cable TV, where ISPs control content access through special deals, directly contradicting net neutrality principles that users should control their content access.

## Alternative Approaches

Speakers proposed various alternatives to network fees:

– Reducing spectrum licensing fees

– Adjusting tax obligations and coverage requirements

– Providing regulatory flexibility

– Implementing targeted subsidies for underserved areas

– Promoting competition and technical collaboration

The discussion highlighted successful technical collaboration between content providers and ISPs through CDN deployment and traffic engineering without requiring regulatory intervention.

## Areas of Disagreement

### Historical Internet Principles

Significant disagreement emerged about internet traffic exchange foundations. Kieling claimed equal traffic sharing was a founding principle, while Park disputed this characterization. The debate revealed different interpretations of how modern CDN architecture relates to historical internet design.

### Market Failure Evidence

Sharp disagreement existed about whether current conditions justify regulatory intervention. Telecommunications representatives argued that revenue imbalances demonstrate sustainability problems, while others maintained that studies show well-functioning interconnection markets.

### Multi-Stakeholder Representation

Telecommunications representatives criticized the panel composition as one-sided, while the moderator noted that consultations consistently show most stakeholders opposing network fees except large telcos.

## Global Development Concerns

**Louvo Gray** from the South African Internet Governance Forum, who operates an ISP, raised concerns about network fees impacting efforts to connect over one billion unconnected people in Africa. He noted shifts from telco-owned to content provider-owned undersea cables and worried about new barriers for African-owned networks and content creators.

## Regulatory Separation Issues

The discussion touched on concerns about network fees challenging traditional separation between internet infrastructure regulation and application layer governance, potentially centralizing control and moving away from distributed governance models.

## Conclusion

The panel revealed fundamental disagreement between telecommunications operators seeking additional revenue and other stakeholders opposing network fees based on evidence from South Korea and various regional studies. The weight of evidence presented, particularly regarding negative outcomes in South Korea, suggests significant challenges for network fee proposals.

The discussion emphasized the importance of evidence-based policy making, with ongoing consultations in various regions examining these issues. Alternative approaches to addressing infrastructure investment concerns were proposed that would not undermine internet openness or net neutrality principles.

The debate appears likely to continue across multiple jurisdictions, with the fundamental tension between telecommunications revenue concerns and broader stakeholder opposition remaining unresolved. However, the evidence presented suggests that network fees face substantial policy and technical challenges in gaining widespread acceptance while maintaining the internet’s open architecture.

Fabro Steibel: So, hello everyone, welcome to the panel Global Perspectives on Network Fees and Net Neutrality. I really enjoy this panel because we have been talking about this for some years now. So I’ll make a short introduction. We have five speakers. Each one will have a slot of one minute to present himself, 12 minutes to address the topic and then we open for questions and comments from the audience online and on site. So if you’re unaware of network fees are, some will call them fair share, some will call them internet tools, so some will support, some will not support. The idea is that the price, the cost that you use for connectivity can or cannot vary according to the telco decision and the service provider. This has been a topic for consultation in Europe, in Brazil, in South Korea, in US and other places and in some countries they have experienced the network fees impact like South Korea. We did a campaign, we call it the Internet Tool, and we gave 10 reasons why we believe it’s against the past for the Internet. So there you have your issues of consumer rights, you’ll have issues of data costs, and others. It’s of particular interest the report from BEREC that will say that the cost for data has been decreasing the past years, which does not justify the introductions of new fee systems. That said, telcos will support that they need more proportional contribution to the networks, governments will say that they need more investments for connecting the unconnected, and it’s a topic of different size and contradictions. So I’ll give here the floor, one minute for each one to introduce. So K.S. Park. K.S. Park is professor of law at Korea University Law School, and director of Openet. Welcome.

Kyung Sin Park: Yes. I don’t think at IJF, especially at IJF, we should not be afraid of talking about not just the economic significance of net neutrality, or other norms or practices by which we have financed the data delivery around the world to make the Internet possible. I’ll get into that, and I’ll talk about how even a small departure from that golden rule, the golden practice, will cause disasters on the Internet ecosystem as seen in South Korea.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you, K.S. We move now to Konstantinos Komatis, resident fellow. with the Atlantic Council Democracy and Tech Initiative.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Hi. Hello, everyone. Good morning. So glad to see so many of you here. Interested in this topic, as Fabro said, my name is Konstantinos Komaitis. I am a resident senior fellow with the Democracy and Tech Initiative at the Atlantic Council. I have spent pretty much 20 years discussing this issue, so I can’t believe that we’re still discussing this issue, frankly. I was in Dubai when this was a thing in 2012. Then I was part of the conversations in Brussels when the open internet regulation was being discussed in 2015. And then since 2021, I believe, if I remember correctly, we have been discussing it again in Europe, and I have been engaging in those conversations as well, and also in some conversations that are happening in Brazil. So very much looking forward to this.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you, Konstantinos. So we move now online to Claudia Ximena Bustamante. She’s Executive Director, Commissioner of the Communications Regulatory Commission, CRC, of the government of Colombia. Welcome, Claudia.

Claudia Ximena Bustamante: Hello, everyone. Thank you for having me in this space. I’m Claudia Ximena Bustamante, Executive Director and Commissioner of the Communications Regulatory Commission of Colombia. We have been studying this topic since last year and working on net neutrality more than a decade. It would be a pleasure to discuss with all the panelists today.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you, Claudia. So now, we move to Tatiana Tropinem from Internet Society.

Tatiana Tropinem: Thank you very much for having me here, Tatiana Tropinem, Internet Society. In a society we have been engaged with this debate very closely, because various proposals, not only on network fees, I will speak later about how this debate has been shifting, taking different directions and different angles, but how ultimately there is no indication that there is any problem that actually needs to be solved. In fact, all these proposals on network fees are more solutions in search for a problem, and how they ultimately can fragment the Internet, disadvantage consumers and have quite a detrimental impact on Net Neutrality. Thank you.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you, Tatiana. And now we move to Thomas Volmer, Head of Global Content Delivery Policy at Netflix.

Thomas Volmer: Thank you, Fabro. And hi, everyone. It’s great to have such a nice attendance early in the day. Hopefully if we put on a good show, more people will also walk into the room. So thank you all for making it. So I’m Thomas Volmer. I represent Netflix today and the so-called private sector. But you know, it’s been 20 years in this great community of IGF. We’re all part of this multi-stakeholder process. And, you know, from event to event, sometimes we represent different organizations. And so I think I’ll bring that perspective also as a practitioner of IP interconnection. I’ve been doing this for 15 years on the telecom side and then on the hyperscale, on our content side. And yeah, I look forward to a great discussion. I’m a little bit intimidated because I see Professor Park has prepared a slide deck. So yeah, I’ll just talk through the issue.

Fabro Steibel: Park always have good decks. We should all be intimidated. So I think there is a higher issue here. So we have been discussing network fees for a few years. But directly related to that is how do we govern, how do we regulate the Internet? So in the past, we make a distinction between how we serve the Internet and how we use the Internet. two layers of the internet that we keep separate, at least in terms of regulation. In Brazil, for example, the telecom agency is allowed to rule the infrastructures of the internet but not the application layers. In other countries this happens as well, in the EU and others, and this has been questioned. And this is directly related to the idea of network fees, so it’s very good to discuss this, because beyond the idea of network fees per se, there is a discussion here on how we regulate the internet and how many people, how many agencies we have involved in that. So KS, would you like to start?

Kyung Sin Park: Yes. That’s me, that’s my contact information in case you want to take it down. So I’m a professor at the school and also directing open net digital rights organization that have been fighting for various golden digital norms, including net neutrality. Now, you all know that the sender pay rule that was proposed by telcos at ITU 2012 was roundly rejected by all stakeholders, and you already know why they were rejected, because there is this canonical relationship between net neutrality and information revolution. Under the net neutrality regime, where traffic is not discriminated for content, device, application, or whether the traffic was paid for, under that regime everyone has a chance to spread his or her message to everyone else without having to worry about the cost of data delivery. You can just put up one video revealing, say, police brutality, and one billion people can watch it. The photo that you see is the statue of democracy fighters who worked around the time of Gwangju Massacre of 1980, which was a really important event in the modern history of Korea. They are risking their lives in printing leaflets, asking people to come out for demonstration, and passing those leaflets out, they’ll have to risk their lives, otherwise risk of being caught by the police and being tortured. And these days, the protest organizers, they don’t have to go through this risk. They can just put on one video, one message, and people will come out. And that’s how you see the massive demonstrations in South Korea these past few decades. So fight for net neutrality is not just to fight to continue information revolution, but also not to regress back to the world of telephony or postage, where the sender, whoever is speaking, has to pay the cost of delivering their messages. The sender payroll exactly undercuts this pro-democratic effect of the internet by taxing people for speaking online. So the internet was built on this idea that we can all crowdsource our connections with one another for free. Because everyone pays for local connection, no one has to pay for the global delivery of data, no matter where you are. And standard payroll undercuts that. So we have had this system where everybody’s paying for local connection, but really don’t have to pay anything for actual delivery of the data. Now network fee proposer, which was revived a few years ago, is something different. It seems to apply only to the cross-border data traffic. It has nationalistic character to it. So what telcos are saying is that they’re spending money to maintain the domestic network. So whoever is sending data into the network, thereby burdening the domestic network, needs to pay the telcos who are maintaining it. But what telcos are forgetting is that the traffic route of any internet communication has the overseas segment and the domestic segment. Who is paying for the overseas segment? Big techs are investing in subsea cables and content delivery networks. Now telcos, they can charge their customers the monthly fees, exactly because the customer exactly because their customers can receive the data from overseas big techs delivered through these subsea cables and CDNs. So, telcos are benefiting from the big techs’ overseas infrastructure as much as the big techs are benefiting from the domestic infra. So, it is this mutual beneficial relationship. So, internet communication has this beneficial relationship and that’s why the early internet framers, the early framers of the internet decided not to charge one another and that decision really made the information revolution possible. Actually, telcos already know this because, you know, telcos, when they receive the traffic through the hierarchical, the normal hierarchy before the big techs began delivering the traffic at their doorstep through subsea cables, they actually paid money to the higher-tier telcos. But now, by receiving traffic directly from the big techs, they are actually saving money. Again, a mutually beneficial relationship. Now, you already know that when there is this mutual benefit, usually peering takes place on a settlement-free basis. Now, net neutrality does not require peering to be settlement-free. Peering can be paid for and net neutrality does allow that, but the problem with the network fee law, the fair sale deal or, you know, network fee law in other countries is that it mandates paid peering. Think about it. If the law And I would like to ask you, what do you think will happen if one party requires one party to pay, and the other party to get paid? What do you think will happen in that relationship? There will be abuse. The party entitled to payment will abuse the relationship to charge as much as possible, and the other side will have to succumb to whatever the demand is. Why? Because they have a legal obligation to make the payment. Now, how do I know this? You don’t need a thought experiment to do this, because the real experiment happened in South Korea in 2016. You will see that even small departure from this mutual beneficence principle causes a huge problem. So in South Korea in 2016, the government instituted a partial sender pay rule. So under this rule, only among the telcos, only among the ISPs, the sender had to pay. What happened? Telcos, you can see the image, you can see the picture above, the telcos hosting popular contents like Facebook cash server or Naver, Korea’s number one platform. By definition, because they were popular to all the users of the internet, they became the net sender of the traffic, and they had to pay other telcos. Which means hosting popular contents became a burden for the telcos, so the competition among the ISPs to host popular contents disappeared. And because the competition disappeared, Korea became the only country that the transit prices, which is really the internet access fees on the supply side or data supply side, did not fall unlike all other countries where the transit prices fell by at least 5 to 10 percent each year. Already in 2017, you can see that Korea’s transit prices is 8.3 times Paris, 6.2 times London, 4 or 5 times New York and L.A. And this trend continues to 2021 when the Korea prices became 8 times London and 10 times Frankfurt. And this, of course, makes the network environment toxic for Korean content providers. Which explains why you don’t see successful startups from Korea after Naver and Kakao. Even public interest apps like COVID-19 contact tracing apps, the operators complained to the media that network fees are restricting their ability to meet the demand. Many Korean content providers ended up leaving Korea to avoid exorbitant access fees and this affects the foreign content providers as well. It has exerted upward pressure on paid peering fees that Korean ISPs charged on foreign content providers. So Twitch, the premium game video platform, pulled out of Korea in 2022 citing, quote-unquote, network fees 10 times more expensive than other countries. 10 times Frankfurt, you see it? And, you know, when this happens, you think that, oh, okay. So, today, Naver has a domestic platform, Naver has a game platform, so they should welcome this, because now one competitor is eliminated. No, Naver also opposes this law, because they know that if this law is accepted, it will consolidate the system where the content providers always have to pay to send traffic. And Cloudflare gave up serving Korea content from Korea, instead they are serving it from Hong Kong or Tokyo, making Korea the market with the most latency among OECD countries. Now, probably there is a nagging argument that, you know, still, we should do something about big techs, because their traffic accounts for like 40% of the entire traffic volume. But the argument is really unfounded and almost childish. I mean, if NVIDIA chips cover 90% of the AI chips market, does NVIDIA have to pay something back to the customers, right? We have to think about the cost, right? Whether the traffic actually increases the cost of network maintenance. Now, okay, well, does traffic really cause congestion? No. I mean, you see, on the left side, if ISP provides 50 Mbps, then it can be distributed to five houses, but if the ISP provides only 30 Mbps, you know, it will cause problems for all the households. Now, what’s going to happen? So, this means that no matter how much each household, no matter how much a single household tries to use data, it cannot use more because the pipeline is already fixed for each household. So, the real responsibility for removing congestion comes from ISP who are laying the regional line, whether it would be 50 Mbps or 30 Mbps, whether it’s enough to supply all the households.

Fabro Steibel: Now, I like that even the dog is upset in the right hand side.

Kyung Sin Park: Yes, okay, I’m almost done. So, this is the graph showing how over the four years of the pandemic, the traffic increased five times, and yet the green bars representing not just network maintenance cost, but also capex, capital cost, has remained the same over the years. So, I’ll stop there, and then I’ll answer any questions you may have.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you, KS, and the discussion is particularly important now. I welcome you to see either in the ISOC report or KS publications the graph on the first days of implementation of the network fees in Korea. You see a spike of internet flowing outside of Korea to come back to Korea. In the current state where we need kind of AI fabrics, we need data centers, we must remember that this kind of data flow is the milk way, is the basis of how we fund data centers. If we make data be processed elsewhere, our data centers will become less cheap to process or own.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Thank you Fabro. So it’s a very hard task to follow KS because she has been literally doing this for such a long time and he has the data. I’m going to give a little bit of the European perspective here which actually is in some ways the reason we are still having this conversation globally because telcos, European telcos, and a small number of them really started this conversation. I’ll focus on predominantly four points. So one of the key arguments that we have been hearing in Europe is the fact that this idea of network phase is necessary because it is required to finance the increasing demands over infrastructure in Europe. And of course we all know that the internet infrastructure is not just limited to access networks because actually the internet is not really a monolith and it consists of many different players that are invested heavily in order to make sure that this infrastructure expands and is able to meet the demands of users. As I said in the beginning this is really not new. We have been having this conversation for 15 years at least and for 15 years we have been having reports suggesting that actually the internet model of traffic exchange is responsible for producing lower prices, promoting efficiency and innovation, and attracting investment that is necessary to keep up pace with the demand. So over the years of course and because the internet has changed and because the demands of users have also changed we have seen this increasing number of new players entering the infrastructure to facilitate the higher demands of traffic. You have content delivery networks, you have cloud providers, you even have community networks, satellite networks, data center, edge nodes and content caches are just a few of the new infrastructures that have developed to support internet communications. So the reality is that there is really not just one way to finance infrastructure and I think that it would be really naive to believe that. However, you know, telcos are fixated in just one way, direct payouts, give us money and we promise that we are going to address your infrastructure’s needs. The second point that I want to raise is really about what KS was also talking about, this idea of network neutrality and what such a system could do to this very basic yet fundamental principle that exists in the internet. So we all know that the internet is a network of interconnected networks, when data moves from point A to point B it is routed through these networks and now different companies own and manage different parts of the network. So the fact of the matter is that, you know, ISPs are really the gatekeepers to the content users to access and ISPs have a lot of power, if you think about it, at their disposal. They can mess up with traffic, they can degrade your traffic, they can change your quality, they can do a bunch of different things. So the idea of network neutrality is that they are not allowed to do that and we need to make sure that this continues to happen because if we give them any indication that the rules are a little bit flexible they will be able to mess up with the way traffic is delivered and the experience that users end up having. So imagine an environment where telecom operators are able to negotiate deals for infrastructure development. with certain companies within the Internet’s value chain. So logic dictates here that there must be some sort of a trade-off. We cannot expect money just to be handed out to telcos from Google or any other big company. So the possibility is, and that could happen, that a telco may end up prioritizing traffic or allowing content from certain companies. And that is a real issue. The other thing that needs to be pointed out, especially in the context of Europe, is that no one has ever proven that there was ever a market failure. Literally. I mean, there have been studies after studies after studies that actually say it is the contrary. There is no market failure in Europe. So when we have been asking for evidence that, you know, why do we need this change in order to be able and support a market, we have not been getting that evidence. And this now is on top of a global pandemic where we saw a massive increase in traffic. If there was ever a period in time where we could have had market failure, it would be during that one year in Europe when we were all locked up in our houses and the only thing that we were doing was accessing the Internet. So another point. Moving money from one private actor to another is really not a good idea. It’s actually a pretty lazy idea, if you think about it. So the Internet is made up of independent networks and each network joining the Internet is responsible for their own policies, their maintenance and upgrades. Any proposal now that suggests a forced subsidy from one part of the Internet’s value chain to another through undue… The European Commission should really focus more on incentivizing investment in innovation rather than trying to transform the way those networks interconnect. And the last point that I want to make, and I will just wrap up, is that I find it very ironic that in Europe we are talking a lot about competition and the fears of market concentration, and here, you know, we should be asking ourselves how sustainable really is a model where big technology companies will be paying off telcos? And I have been asking that question. I mean, how long do we think this is going to be happening if it goes through? Five years? Ten years? Fifteen years? When is going to be the point before big technology companies say, you know what, I don’t want to pay anymore, I’m just going to start providing my own, you know, become an ISP and start providing my own Internet access? And then you really talk about Internet concentration, market concentration, sorry. Before closing, right now in Europe we are at a place where we sort of phased off discussing network fees, but we are entering a place where we’re discussing dispute resolution mechanisms. So we’re not using the term network fees, but we’re really talking about other ways in order to make sure that this money flows from one private actor to another. And we’re even discussing perhaps reopening again the conversations around the open Internet regulation which has affected the network neutrality conversations. Let me make something very quick. I want to be very clear, a dispute resolution mechanism is a backdoor to network fees, it is exactly the same. The idea is again not new, it has been borrowed from the publishers and we saw it happening in the context of in Australia and in France where some deals have been made between big technology companies and publishers. Unfortunately we don’t have a lot of visibility in how that works simply because those agreements are covered by NDAs so they are not transparent and the only thing we know however is that they don’t cover smaller publishers. These are literally deals between huge publishers and technology companies. So again, we need to rethink what we want to create, if it is literally about innovation and investment and ensuring that infrastructure develops, this is really not the way to do it and happy to discuss further.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you Konstantinos and that reminds two big gaps in the network fees mechanism. The first one is, if you transfer funds from the private sector to another private sector, you cannot make sure that that funds will be used for connectivity, for connecting the unconnected or innovation. Basically you just transfer from the same sector one place to another, you don’t pass through the government, you don’t even have this and the second one is transparency. If you increase the need to have private contracts, you can have NDAs and you can have less transparency on how these costs are shared and how this is impacting the internet. So Claudia, we go online to you. Welcome.

Claudia Ximena Bustamante: Okay, regarding this discussion, I want to address first the net neutrality as a principle. In Latin America, many countries have adopted that there is no neutrality in their laws. For instance, in Colombia, since 12 years ago, neutrality is applied in Colombia. For that reason, we need to have an open internet without discrimination related to the type of traffic or company, or any sector. I think this helps to foster innovation and to continue the evolution of the ecosystem. When we talk about network fees or fair share, it’s a discussion that is brought to the table mainly by the telecom operators who control the access networks. And they indicate that there are huge investments needed in the years forward. And they need that all parts in the ecosystem contribute to the sustainability. From the regulator perspective, we need first to identify if there is a problem, if there is a market failure. For the reason in Colombia, at the end of the last year, we opened a consultation to all the stakeholders, but not focused on fair share specifically, but in the whole ecosystem to understand better… In Colombia, how is the functioning between access networks, content networks, and all of the agents of the value change of internet for mobile and for fixed telecom networks? In that council, we ask for information about traffic evolution, ARPUs, infrastructure provided by the different actors, the content access providers and the telecom, and we are gathering this information to have a real diagnosis of what’s happening here, because as we heard before, the Europe and the South Korea approaches are very different, and we cannot only bring that experience directly to the Latin region. We need to understand what is happening in Latin America, having in mind that we have multinational companies also working here. In the first analysis that the CRC has taken, we saw growth of the traffic in 1.7 times in the last two years. We think this is a normal growth. There is no exponential growth of the traffic that sometimes was mentioned by some actors, and we think this could be due to main assets. One of them is the distribution that has been made for the content. We have more CDNs and caching installed inside our country, and this helps to have the local or domestic traffic instead of overseas. And the other is the technical advances made in compression. Some content providers have been working on that, and in the LATAM region we have news about agreements between big tech companies and big ISPs in different countries like Mexico, for instance. This will help to lower the need for traffic, for networks, lower the pressure for the network that is handling that traffic. Of course, we understand that there’s a great pressure for investment and for connecting users. We have now a lot of users that have not been reached by any network at the moment. We have a connectivity gap in Colombia and in different regions, and as a strategy and as a public policy, we need to address that. In that aspect, different discussions have been taken. to have more actors, more stakeholders contributing to universal service funds, to have more resources to address this connectivity gap. This is a topic that has been discussed by many public policy government agencies around the region, and it’s a way to have more services, more reach of the services for the users. But at this moment, we don’t think there is a specific solution for this discussion that has been taken mainly in the last two years for Latin region. We know BEREC, like Konstantinos said before, has more years discussing this, and we know we have studied their experiences about the conclusions of the functioning of the IP interconnection and how the peering and the agreements are still working for the European context. We hope to have the results of our analysis related to this open consultation of the Internet ecosystem in Colombia in the next month. And also, we have a new legal aspect to review, because our constitutional court recently took a decision about our net neutrality law, and maybe as a regulator. We need to make a review of the current regulatory framework related to neoneutrality, because the Constitutional Court considers that offers differentiated plans to the users with specific applications or contents chosen by the ISP, not by the user directory. It’s against the neutrality principles. For that reason, we will have to study that decision when it’s fully published in the coming month. Maybe we have in the next year an updated regulatory framework for neoneutrality and for this discussion.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you very much, Claudia. It’s very interesting that the results of the consultations are coming in the next month. Brazil has done a consultation twice. We have evaluated all contributions and split from those supporting network fees and rejecting network fees. Basically, big telcos are one side, the others are in the others, which reinforces an Internet Society report from two years ago that I think was named Telcos versus the World. So, Tatiana, please feel free.

Tatiana Tropinem: Thank you very, very much. I just want to start with a very brief reflection that these debates are developing and there are some shifts. As Konstantinos said, there is not one way to finance the infrastructure development, and there are certainly various and very creative ways on how big telcos push this idea. Konstantinos Komaitis, Claudia Ximena Bustamante, Paula Bernardi, Thomas Volmer, Claudia Ximena We are witnessing various debates and discussions about regulating platforms through quality standards, which again is a backdoor to network fees. And what does it show? To us, it shows that it is not about these initial concerns about the lack of infrastructure investments. So far, we don’t see any indication that there is a problem that needs to be solved with the network fees or fair share. As I said at the beginning, in fact, it’s like a solution, various solutions have been proposed in search for a problem. It is my understanding, of course, we will look forward to see the outcomes of the consultation in Colombia, but various debates in Latin America found no marked failure. The consultations in the European Union also failed to provide any evidence of a problem that needs any regulatory interventions like that. And even more, the European body of regulators for electronic communication, BEREC, already mentioned here, has concluded that Internet’s interconnection ecosystem is a well-functioning market. It has very good dynamics with very balanced bargaining powers. And BEREC also said that the introduction of these cost-sharing mechanisms would, in fact, have very negative consequences on the Internet ecosystems. So, it’s basically all about the telecom operators generating revenue. And to us, the reference to content providers being traffic generators is the flawed premise that BEREC has already debunked, at least in the EU. So following these developments and following these narratives in the EU, in Latin America and also in South Korea, basically lets us witness how the big telecom operators are trying to break the net neutrality frameworks. And they are even saying it openly, that hello, hey, this is the time to review the net neutrality. And as I said already, the premise that content providers or platforms are traffic generators, that they generate the traffic, is fundamentally flawed. The traffic is not created by the online services. It is requested by internet users. It is this traffic that those very users already pay for in the internet subscription and just as online service pays for their own internet access to send it. So to put it simple, there is no service free riding on the internet because data access and fees have already been paid. There have already been factors at the cost. And in addition to telecom operators, for example, content generators have their own investments. I’m pretty sure Netflix could tell us how much they invest in this content creation. It’s also millions. So from our perspective, any solutions that would introduce network fees would first of all disadvantage the smaller players by creating much higher entry barriers. They will risk fragmenting the internet by conditioning this connectivity on prior contracting with the user’s network. And ultimately, these costs are going to be passed on the end users, which contradicts that very principle of. And this is the kind of fairness that these proposals seem to be motivated by. But more importantly to us, to our mission, these solutions can fragment the open and globally connected Internet because the current global connectivity is based on voluntary inter-networking agreements that allow network operators to optimize their connectivity to meet their customer needs. And this is basically a cornerstone for the Internet to be an efficient network, resilient network that is able to host new applications, deploy these innovative services. And this happens without prior contracting with everyone in the system. And these arrangements foster innovation, they foster development. So how these network fees solutions will break the Internet? Simply speaking, and I’m really saying it simply, they can turn the idea of the Internet into a telephone system. The same regulation. And again, talking about the development of this debate, as Fabio mentioned already, in Brazil there is a proposal to revoke the norm that clearly separates telecom services from value-added services as the Internet. And this distinction allowed Brazilian Internet to grow as a decentralized competitive ecosystem. We recently published an open letter for Brazilian lawmakers and regulators highlighting the threat that this proposal of separation creates. Centralizing Internet control, weakening market diversity, disrupting current governance model which is based on public interest and multi-stakeholder input. So to sum up, if we stop treating the Internet as technology-neutral, general-purpose network, we will just lose it. And we will rebuild it. We already witnessed the evidence, like for example when KC spoke about South Korea, and anecdotally also, but importantly for users and services, when you look at Korean markets, you see that teams playing big esports in Korea do not play from South Korea anymore. They move to other countries to avoid playing because of disadvantage in network latencies that are basically unbearable for their activity. And I know that for some regions it might be irrelevant, but in South Korea it’s a very big issue. And as I said before, the consultations in Latin America and the EU didn’t find any market failures to justify such interventions in the traffic. And just to wrap up, if we continue these debates that connect the issue of investment to telecom infrastructure, to this flawed premise of traffic generators, we will always get nowhere, we will get stuck at best, and at worst we’ll have fragmented internet. Exactly because the initial premise in this discussion is absolutely flawed. And in this context, any solution, if we think that okay, maybe the investment in the infrastructure is a problem, but any solution that connects network infrastructure investment to traffic generator is not a proper solution, because it does not solve the root of the problem. Thank you.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you, Tatiana. And I think I can bring another topic to the table, which is freedom of expression. There is a big policy framework that we need a huge sheriff in the internet, that the open and safe internet needs limits to be enforced, and then we need sheriffs. And network fees are not content neutral. They might imply on what is distributed and how. So let’s say I have Netflix, a documentary in favor of free internet. I am a believer of myself and I have a documentary against myself. If I can make a distinction on how both of them, each of them, reach the audience, there is a direct impact on freedom of expression amongst others. So, Thomas, moving to you.

Thomas Volmer: Yeah, I don’t know if the documentary is for or against you, Fabro, so I haven’t seen it yet, so maybe it will come soon. No, thanks. A lot has been said already, of course, so I’ll try not to repeat what many of you have said. Maybe just to start looking at the evidence, good policy is always grounded on evidence. The discussion, of course, has been rebooted in the past two years, but it’s not been years, it’s been decades. We have decades of perspective on Internet traffic growth. And in the past, what, let’s say 25 years, since the Internet has gone really commercial and mainstream, traffic has probably grown 500 or 1,000 times. Is this out of control? Is the Internet breaking? No, it’s thriving, it’s doing great, because that growth is absolutely sustainable. And the reason for that is that it’s managed really well in a collaborative manner by the stakeholders, many of which are in the room today. In the interconnection space, what does that mean? That means that content providers, such as Netflix and ISPs, large or small, work together to make the traffic flow in an efficient manner. It’s in both of our interests, because our joint consumers, our customers, consumers, want access to great content and are willing to pay for good quality broadband to access great content. So what does it mean in practice? Netflix has invested over a billion dollars in its own content delivery network, Open Connect. We have over 6,000 server locations around the world, which means that when you press play on Netflix, you’re actually streaming from right around the corner. It means no terabits of streaming over a long distance. and I’m here to talk about the long-distance network, no congestion of the long-distance backbone and unhappy dogs in the Korean households thanks to that. And to be clear, it’s not Netflix doing it on our own. It is working with ISPs to do it. It’s literally engineers sitting down in the same room, drinking coffee, sometimes drinking beer, and figuring out network planning together. And so it’s that joint work of the community that has achieved this important project, and we can talk about this now. We’re always competitive, sometimes, sometimes. I just wrote it down because the quote I couldn’t have written it better myself. Network use cylinder had increased, but due to technology development as well as competitive pressure, marginal network costs are observed to have declined to the point that they outweigh any increased costs associated with increasing network use. And the internet has, since it was created, managed to cope with traffic growth and more accentuated traffic peaks, all of which reflect changes in usage patterns as well as increased diffusion of internet access throughout societies. Bayreg considers that due to competition as well as technological progress, there is currently no indication that this is likely to change in the future. Okay. I think I’ve said my piece. I think it’s pretty self-explanatory. Just addressing the net neutrality point, I think if we boil it down very simply from a consumer perspective, net neutrality is about paying for one single broadband access and being able to access any content of your choice, whether it’s on Netflix, any other service. And network fees directly turn this principle upside down, because if there’s a toll at the entrance of your ISP network, then you don’t have the choice of the content. You can only access the content that has a special deal with your ISP. So, the user is not in control anymore, the gatekeeper is in control. That’s the fundamental contradiction. And by the way, in the entertainment world, we know exactly what it looks like when there’s no such neutrality. It’s called cable, and it sucks. That means that you’re buying a cable broadband and you’re subject to carriage disputes. Oh, the carriage provider don’t get along, you don’t have this channel or that channel. On the Internet, it’s simple, you pay for your broadband, you pay for your Netflix or your Disney or anything else, and you have the choice. I think it’s a much better system. So, in our engineering discussions, you know, between ISPs and content to figure out the servers and the interconnection, yes, there’s one moment at the end of the meeting, you figure the plan out, you drink all the coffee, and there’s, oh, by the way, my boss says, you need to pay for this interconnection. And maybe the other side will be, well, we think maybe you should pay for the interconnection and access the content. Is that a good model? Yeah, no, that’s not a good model. All right, let’s move on. That’s hardly a market failure. It’s just the way the business is done. Now, I wanted to address, I think Claudia mentioned a lot of interesting points, right? I don’t mean to say that everything is fine on the Internet, there’s no issue to resolve. I think, you know, we’re gathering at IGF every year because there are still very interesting questions to resolve. And I want to mention a few of them, right? Websites are still being throttled today, even including in developed nations. There’s a net neutrality case in Germany happening at the moment. We still have unconnected people, billions of people around the world that are still not connected to the Internet. And geopolitical risk is creating risk of splinternet. Those are the real issues, not the network fees, right? And so the good news is that there are existing good solutions that work for many of those problems. I’ll mention some of them. The first one is the most obvious. First, do no harm, right? I’m often asked, like, well, yeah, but isn’t there a compromise to be found in this fair share? Let me be crystal clear, if you are looking to solve a problem that does not exist, there is no compromise to be made. That’s a solution in search of a problem. Now on the supply side for connectivity, competition has been proven over and over again to be a great way to stimulate investment and stimulate affordability. Pro-competitive policies should be considered whenever they are helpful, of course. And then there’s potentially a coverage gap that can be addressed through subsidies. I think even bigger is a demand gap. We were talking about Latin America. I’m always fascinated by the figures that GSMA releases for Latin America. I may be misquoting the numbers, but directionally, I think there’s over 90% of people covered by 4G networks and I think only around 60% adoption. That means people are covered by the network. However, either they choose or they cannot afford to actually subscribe. That is the adoption gap. And that is a demand gap. Streaming services like Netflix contribute to demand, of course, to the Internet. There’s a causal link between the availability of video on demand and then broadband adoption, adoption of faster speed, willingness to pay, and consumer surplus. So that is a way to address the demand gap. Of course, that is not the only way because, as you well know, it’s not just about entertainment on the Internet. It’s also about access to information, access to public critical infrastructure, and so on and so forth. And so in terms of policies, I think if I want to quickly recap, and I know we need time for the questions as well, discard the false good ideas, do no harm, move on from the debates of the past. Pro-competitive policy to stimulate the supply side, potentially targeted subsidies, but also pro-demand policies. And the demand, again, is generated by the content, by the availability of the online services. Nobody buys a broadband connection to see the little blinking lights on their router. Well, actually, maybe I do. I like to have a super fast fiber at home in Paris and see those light blink really, really fast. But I don’t think that’s the majority of people. And so there’s often this idea of, well, shouldn’t we tax the online companies to fund the infrastructure? That’s looking at the problem exactly backwards, because you’re going to compress the demand by suppressing taxing the demand for the thing you actually want to stimulate adoption of in the first place. That’s not going to work. Thank you.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you, Thomas. Now we have 13 minutes. By the end of it, they cut my mic. So we need around 10 minutes for the table to reply to a question. So we have three minutes for collecting questions. We can start here. Please be aware of the person next to you.

Louvo Gray: Thank you very much and much appreciated for facilitating this very important discussion. My name is Louvo Gray. I am from the South African Internet Governance Forum. And I run an internet service provider in South Africa. So given Africa’s urgent need to expand affordable internet access to over 1 billion unconnected people, how do we then ensure that the global network fee models do not create new financial barriers for African-owned networks, content creators, and also users trying to participate meaningfully in the digital economy? Because I think one of the discussions we are not having is that traditionally, the undersea cables were owned by your Dacha telecoms, which are consortiums of telecommunications companies. And most of those cables have reached end of life, are now reaching end of life. And the new generation of undersea cable owners are the very same content creators we’re trying to influence. The telcos want to introduce network fees for.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you very much, we go for the next one on site.

Rian Duarte: Hello, my name is Rian Duarte, I’m from the Brazilian Association of Internet Service Providers. We have been an active voice against network fees in Brazil. We represent small ISPs and small businesses in Brazil. We have been working with the Brazilian government for a number of years. We have been working with the Brazilian government for a number of years. We represent small ISPs and small and medium operators in Brazil. As you may know, Brazil has a rich ISP system with over 20,000 small and medium companies holding over 60% of fixed broadband market share. Unfortunately, as has been shown by the panel, our regulator continues to hold debates on this topic, even though big telcos have not been able to produce concrete evidence of a problem to be solved. But on the other hand, we are happy to see a push against network fees from our parliament with law proposals prohibiting this practice and we would urge other countries to follow suit. And my question is a very simple one, what else is there to be done to overcome this debate so we can focus on actual solutions for connectivity?

Fabro Steibel: Thank you very much, we go for the last question.

Frode Kieling: Yes, I’m Frode Kieling from Telco, 200 million customers in Asia and in Nordic. I’m surprised about the panel here, we have just one side presented here, one view. So, next time I suggest to get some, we’ll talk about the challenges that the telcos and the ISPs see. Because the fundamental principle in Internet was that there was an equal share of traffic. I send as much traffic as I receive from you. And that was the founding principle. Today, it’s about maybe 70-80% of the traffic I’ve seen in some operations. It comes from a handful of big CDNs, Netflix, Google. and some others. So it’s very unbalanced. But the thing here is that the revenues for the telcos is sinking. And that is the perceived challenge that the telcos experience. And we see the revenues created on the content providers, like Netflix, is going straight up. But the infrastructure needs to be paid for. And there are three ways to do this. You can have network fees or you can break the net neutrality to get some extra revenues. And the third option is to lay all the costs on the customers. And that is an issue when you at the same time talk about the connected and unconnected. So what I hear from you, you want the customers to take all the costs.

Fabro Steibel: Yes, thank you. Sorry, we have nine minutes, so no time for new questions. Let’s go.

Pablo Barrionovo: Thank you. My name is Pablo Barrionovo from Telefonica. I think it would have been interesting to have a telecom operator seated in this table when talking about network fees. Sometimes the multi-stakeholder model is not so multi, I see. In my opinion, we may agree that we have a problem. There is a problem. And the problem is the sustainability of the model. And of course, it is always interesting to talk, to try to find solutions to the problems we have. But sincerely, I’m not sure that what has happened here today can be considered a dialogue. Thank you very much.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you. J.S., do you want to go for concluding remarks?

Kyung Sin Park: Well, I’ll answer one question. I don’t, I mean, I’ve read a lot on the principles of the Internet, but I’ve never heard about equal share of traffic. I mean, when, when, I mean, the ISPs don’t, I mean, there is no cost differential whether traffic is going one way or the other. I mean, there is no increase in cost. So, I don’t know why you think that there has to be, on any road, why should the data travel, you know, equal amount of data should travel both ways.

Thomas Volmer: I can comment on this one, the point about traffic ratios. I think it’s important to be addressed because it’s part also of the history of transit and interconnection negotiations. I think, historically, Internet traffic has been routed on a hot potato basis. That means that if you have, let’s say, a French network and an American network interconnecting on both sides of the Atlantic, if you’re the net sender, you’re dropping, let’s say the French is the net sender, you’re dropping the traffic to the American network in Paris, and the American network has to carry it long distance. And vice versa, if you’re sending from the US, the French has to carry it long distance. So, there used to be on multi-location interconnect, hot potato routing, a benefit to being a net sender and a disadvantage to being a net receiver. That’s why, oftentimes, on long distance networks, you have ratio settlements agreements, and I think that’s fine, as you said, you know, it’s okay to have those agreements. That’s why, you know, it’s a well-functioning market because you have deals that reflect the underlying economics. However, the modern Internet does not function like that, certainly not for content delivery. What we do with OpenConnect, for example, is the opposite of hot potato routing. It’s actually the equivalent of cold potato routing, meaning that we bring the traffic all the way next to the user, to those networks. 6,000 Open Connect locations around the world. And so when you’re on a cold potato routing, whether the traffic flows in and out locally to Oslo does not make a difference. And this is why for such agreements, agreements typically between CDNs and operators, there’s no ratio concerns. And they are just the bits flow freely on a settlement-free basis. But to your point, long distance, backbone network, tier one networks, they typically would enforce ratio agreements. But if it comes from a terminating ISP wanting to charge CDNs on the basis of ratio, then you almost always know that this is a fake argument and more like a network fee type of, hey, I want to exploit my termination monopoly and violate net neutrality doing it.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you. So we have Claudia online. We go to Costas and then to Claudia.

Konstantinos Komaitis: Just very quickly, and Thomas just literally talked about and KS responded to the traffic question. One of the things that really surprises me in this conversation is, especially when I hear about the traffic, is that we’re talking, yes, there is a change in traffic. But then no one continues to say, oh, but some companies have actually built data centers and content delivery networks to ensure that actually this traffic does not become burdensome for ISPs. And the other point, we are literally, both in Europe and in Brazil, we are hearing small ISPs telling large telco operators that they don’t want this, that this system is going to disadvantage them. And we continue to beat the same drum. There are five companies in Europe that continue to beat the same drum saying, oh my god, but yes, we used to be so big. And right now, we’re not as big as other companies. Well, I’m sorry. They had 20 years to invest. They had 20 years to innovate. And we have not seen that. Literally, we have not seen that, and I still cannot understand why we need to be excusing the lack of innovation and start moving money around just because we have telcos being extremely unhappy with not being as big as they used to be.

Fabro Steibel: Thank you, Kostas. Claudia, online?

Claudia Ximena Bustamante: Yes. Regarding the questions, I want to address first that the sustainability issues that the telco operator has can be addressed in different ways. In the different spaces that we share with them here in the LATAM region, they indicate that there are different ways that could help them to grow the networks and to have better solutions for the users. For instance, reducing spectrum licensing fees, reducing the taxes that they are being charged by different laws, and reducing or adjusting the obligations for specific coverage in far and difficult access regions. Those are measures that the government could take to help them grow and to have more focused services and investments in the region. For that reason, there is no one specific answer to the discussion that we are having with them. Another thing that I would like to mention is that the regulatory framework they could develop in an experimental way that need a flexibilization of some specific regulations in place. In that context, we could help them to develop new services, new process to have better quality of service and adjust and change our regulatory framework if it’s needed. For that reason, I think as a government institution, we need to have these kind of spaces and explore different approaches to help the ecosystem growth. And I think the discussion is not only for one specific solution, but have different ways. And of course, multinational, multilateral cooperation in forums like Regulatel, for instance, that is our LATAM forum for regulators, could help us to find these different approaches.

Fabro Steibel: We have five seconds. Thank you very much for your participation. Sorry, Tatiana. Thank you for the words.